HomeMy WebLinkAboutITEM II-A
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October.5, 2010
CiTr oF * DRAFT
PLANNING COMMISSION
` WASHINGTON October 5, 2010
MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Judi Roland called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. in the Council Chambers
located on the first floor of Auburn City Hall, 25 West Main Street, Auburn, WA.
Commission Members present were: Chair Judi Roland, Vice Chair Kevin Chapman,
Bob Baggett, Ron Copple, and Wayne Osborne, and Dave Peace. Commissioner
Member Excused: Commissioner Mason; Commissioner Hamilton and Commissioner
Copple are excused.
Staff present included: Principal Planner Jeff Dixon, Sr. Accountant Michelle Surdez,
Planner Stuart Wagner, Traffic Engineer Pablo Para, Utilities Engineer Dan Repp, and
Administrative Support Clerk Tina Kriss.
11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. September 8, 2010
Commissioner Osbom moved and Commissioner Peace seconded to approve the
minutes from the September 8, 2010 meeting as submitted.
MOTION CARRIED 5-0
III. PUBLIC COMMENT
There were no members of the public present for comments.
IV. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT
Mr. Dixon stated since extensive update in September he has nothing to add at this time.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
We refer to this as Comprehensive Plan Amendments group finro because at the
September 8, meeting the Planning Commission considered some City initiated
Comprehensive Plan amendments consisting of one map amendment, Comprehensive
Plan Map Amendment 1 and five policy and text amendments, one related to each of the
four districts and their capital facilities plan and one consisting of housekeeping changes
to chapter nine to chapter nine of the City's Comprehensive Plan, The Environment and
to appendix B, to incorporate the City's Greenhouse Gas Inventory. Tonight we are
bringing forward Comprehensive Plan amendments, all policy text amendments, no
other map amendments.
, .
Case Number CPA10-0002: City of Auburn 2010 Comprehensive Plan City
Initiated Policy/Text ~
The City of Aubum adopted amendrnents to its Comprehensive Plan in 1995 in response
to the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) requirements, as amended:
Since then the Auburn,Comprehensive Plan has been amended annually. "
Comprehensive plan amendments can be initiated bythe City ofAuburn (city-initiated)
and by private citizens (privately-initiafed), This year the city is initiating one set of map
amendmenfs and a few policy and texfi amendments. In addition, this year the city
received no privately-initiated plan map amendments and one privately-initiated policy/text amendment. The City initiated map amendments and five city initiated policy . ' and text amendrnents were considered by the Planning Commission at their September
hearing meeting: The privately initiated policy/text amendments will be reviewed under
separate agenda bills and will be heard by the Planning Commission at their October
meeting. .
This staff report and_tecommendation addresses Comprehensive Plan Policy/Tezt (P/`r)
Ainendments P!T # 6 and # 7.
Comprehensive plan amendments are initially. reyiewed during a public hearingprocess
before the City of Aubum Planning Commission, who then provides a recommendation
to the City Councif for final action. CityCouncil consideration and action on the
amendments will occur prior to tFie end of this year. . .
. CPM #6
Incorporate the City ofAuburn's 6-year Capital Facilities Plan 2011-2016, into the City
Comprehensive Plan. ,
Discussion
A Capital Facilities Plan is one of the comprehensive plan elements required by the .
Washington State Growth Management Act` (GMA) (RCW 36.70A). TFie GMA requires
that a capital facilities plan include an inventory of existing capitaf facilities (showing
, locations and ca"pacities), a forecast of fufure needs for such capital facilities, proposed
locations and capacities of new or expanded capital facilities; and a minimum of a six- .
year plan to finance capifal facilities with identified sources of funding. The. proposed
City of Aubum 67year Capital FacilitiesPlan 2011-2016 satis,fies the GMA requirements.
' for a capital facilities element as part of the Comprehensive Plan.
PR #7 ' Add new policy EN-41.A to Objective 18.6 (Within Chapter 9, The EnV'ironment) to
provide policy support for future change in development regulations in response to
House Bill 1481 adopted in April 2009, to encourage the transition to elecfric vehicle use.
Discussion ,
The Washington State Legislature approved House Bill (HB) 1481 in April 2009 with .an
effective date of July 26, 2009. This HB 1481 encourages the transition to electrical
vehicle use through the establishment of_requirements for.electric vehicle infrastructure.
Electrical vehicle infrastructure is defined as the structures, machinery; and equipment
necessary and integral to support an electric vehicle, including battery charging stations,
rapid charging stations, and battery exchange stations. HB 1481 specifes that counties,
cities and towns throughout Washington State are required to amend their development .
2
regulations to allow electric vehicle infrastructure as a permitted use in all zones except
those zoned for residential, resource or critical areas..ln these areas, the statute does
not prohibit local govemments from allowing electrical vehicle infrastructure; however,
consideration of special conditions or limitations is encouraged: The statute also
established a timeframe for local govemments to comply±with the statute. For the City of
Auburn, this means that it must update its development regulations to allow battery
,
charging stations by July 1,.2011.
A new policy EN-41.A to Objective 18.6 within Chapter 9, The Environment, is proposed -
to provide the policy basis for future development regulations to encourage the transition
to electric vehicle use. The purpose of this policy statement is in response to House Bill
1489 wliich was adopted in April, 2009. The purpose.of the house bill was to encourage
the transition to electrical vehicle use. The bill specifes counties, cities and towns
throughout Washington are required to amend their developmental regulations to allow
. electric vehicle infrastructure as a permitted use in.all zones except for those that are
zoned for residential resource or critical areas. In these particular areas the statute does,
not permit local governments from allowing the infrastructure. The statute also
establishes a time frame for local governments to comply and to adopt these
developmenf regulations and for the City of Aubum the time frame is'tiefore July 1,
2011.
Electrical vehicle infrastructure as defined in House Bill 1481 consists of struetures,
machinery and equipment necessary and iatrical to support an electrical vehicle
including battery charging stations, rapid charging:stations and battery exchange
centers.
Staff recommends adding EN-41.A to set a policy basis for future development
regulation changes that would allow the electrical vehicle infrastructure in zoning
districts. Development.regulations changes (which are not currently drafted) will be . '
brought before the Commiss'ion at a future period. _
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of
Comprehensive Plan Policy/Text (P/T) Amendments P/T # 6 and # 7.
ChairRoland opened the public hearing at 7:17 p.m. to receive comments about
Comprehensive Plan Policy/Text (P!T) Amendments P/T # 6 and # 7. _
-
There being no one present to speak regarding Comprehensive :Plan Policy/Text (P/T)
Amendments P/T # 6 and # 7;Chair Roland closed the hearing at 7:18: . .
Commissioner Peace: referred to.policy #6 page 5 of the 6-Year Capital Facilities Plan
(2011-2016) draft and asked if the route driven level of service for roads used to be "Bs,
Cs, & D's & some as F-as listed on page 21 ° whereas this is identified as the level of
service.for roads overall as "D"; is that a change or a consolidation for this executive
summary. Principal Planner Dixon answered Commission. Traffic Engineer Pablo Para
answered Commission: stating the general level of service standard is "D" and in some
cases we have Iowered that standard in orderto accommodate certain conditions.
Commissioner Peace also asked if the level of senrice listed on page 5 is driven by
population change and no plans for additional lineal parks. Senior Accountant Michelle '
Surdez answered Commissioner Peace stating it is based on population, increase.
Commissioner Chapman'asked staff if the City will receive funds for cities who
participate in providing`necessary electrical vefiicle infrastructure.or-where the money
3
would come from: Mr. Dixon stated he is not aware of anyfunding but there are efforts
underway to do things to promote the transition to electrical vehicle usage: Mr. Dixon
continued stating he believes the intent is for the market system to pro'vide some way to '
provide such facilities by private enterprises. . .
CPM #6 , . .
Commissioner Peace moved and Commissioner Osbome seconded to recommend
inclusion of Policy/Text Amendments P/T #6 into the City's Comprehensive Plan
amendments: . ~ _
MOTION CARRIED 5-0 P/T #7 .
Commissioner Chapman moved and Commissioner Baggett seconded to recommend
inclusion of PolicylText Amendments P/T #7 into the City's Comprehensive Plan
amendments.
MOTION CARRIED 5-0
Case Number.CPA10-0001: Privatelv-initiated Policv/Text Amendments bv Mosbv
Brother Farms Jnc. _
Principaf Planner.stafed the City of Auburn adopted amendments to its Comprehensive
Plan in 1995 in response to the VNashington State Growth ManagementAct.(GMA)
requirements, as amended. The Aubum Comprehensive Plan has been amended annually each year since then. -
.
Comprehensive plan amendments can be initiated by the City of Aubum (city-initiated)
and by private citizens (privately-initiated). The City received one privately'initiated
policy/text amendments by the submittal deadline of June 10, 2010 which is the Mosby
Brothers Farms Inc. Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The City did not receive any
applications for privately-initiated map amendments.
This staff report and recommendation addresses P!T #8, the Mosby Brothers Farms Inc.
Comprehensive Plan Arnendment request.
Comprehensive plan amendments are initially reviewed during a public hearing process
- before the City ofAuburn Planning Commission, who then provides a recommendation
to the City Council for final action. Cify Council consideration and action on the
amendments will occur prior to the end>of this year: -
The'applicanYs agent submitted a comprehensive plan map amendment application on June 6, 2010,.by the submittal deadline of June 10, 2010: The comprehensive plan ,
policy/text amendment request seeks to add a policy to Chapter 2, General Planning
Approach, and to modify three existing policies within Chapter 3, Land Use, of-the City's
, Comprehensive Plan. In addition to the -Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the applicant submitted an
environmental checklist application and an application . for a zoning code text
amendment. The proposal described in the applications consists of, the three phases
with phase 1 tieing brought before you for consideration tonight. 4
, 1. Phase I consists ofi finro distinct actions; policy/text amendments to the
- comprehensive plan and text changes to the use and development regulations of the
RC, Residential Conservancy zoning district. The purpose of the comprehensive
Plan. policy/text: amendment is #o provide a policy basis for the future zoning
cegulation . changes to . ensure that: the, Comprehensive plan and Zoning Ordinance
are consistent as required by city code: ;
V "ACC 14.22.050 Conformance.and,consistency.
The zoning, land division and other developmenf codes contained or referenced
' within Aubum City Code shall be consistent with and implement the intent of the
comprehensive plan. Capital budget decisions shall be made in conformity with
the comprehensive plan. °
2. The proposal under. consideration by the Planning Commission is the
Gomprehensive Plan :policy/text amendments. A future public hearing on the zoning
code text amendments will: 6e held by 'the Planning Commission as provided in
accordance with the procedures of ACC 18.68.030.
_ 3. Phase 1 of the proposal, since it affects the Comprehensive Plan policies is of
general applicability:throughout the City. ' The subsequent Phases :2 and 3, will be
addressed by future applications submitfed' to the city :and will apply to vacant site
the applicanf leasesolocated west of the interchange of Aubum-Black Diamond Road
SE and State Route 18, on the south side ofi fhe Auburn-Black Diamond.:Road SE.
The property is identified as tax parcel number 2124059160. . Currently, the
approximately 20.7-acre property occurs on both sides of State Route (SR) 18 and
there is a pending short plat application to divide-the property into parcels on each
side of'. the highway. The site is currently being farmed. Thfs parcel has a
comprehensive Plan . designation of "Residential Conservancy" and a zoning
- category of RC, Residential Conservancy. .4. Chapter 14, Comprehensive Plan Map, starting at page 14-1 provides the following
. purpose and description of the `Residential Conservancy' Comprehensive Plan
designation:
"Purpose: To protect and preserve natural areas with significant environmental
constraints or, values from urban levels of developrrient and, to protect the City's
water sources.. . ,
Description: This category should consist primarily of low density residential
uses (with densities not exceeding one unit per four acres) in areas with
environmental constrainfs and/or areas requiring special protection such as the
. City's watershed, which is a significant_water"resource. Examples include the
Coal Creek Springs watershed area and low-lying areas along the Green River
that are isolated from urban services:-From a practical standpoint, this watershed
area cannot be readily served by public facilities due to its physical separation
from public-facilities by an existing gravel mine operation that is expected to
continue operation years into the future. The designation wilf serve to both
protect environmental features and hold areas; for higher density development
until such time public`#acilities become available. .
The area designated "residential conservancy" allows for a_lifestyle similar to that
of rural areas since the lower density establistied protects #he critical areas such
as- the City's Coal Creek Springs watershed. A rural lifestyle generally includes
" 5 ,
\
allowance of farm animals, :streets not urban in character (e:g. no sidewalks,
street lights),, and limited agricultural type uses:
: Compatible :Uses: Low density residential uses consistent: with protecting the
City°'- wafee: resources and environmental constraints. ace appropriate. Low
intensity cottage industry appropriate for rural areas may be allowed, :subject to
review. Various public and quasi-public uses which are consistent with a rural,
character may be permitted as conditional uses. Resource extractive uses can
only be allowed if the basic environmental character of the area is preserved; :
Those areas with critical areas shall be appropriate for low density residential,
with the intent to protect environmentally critical areas from impacts associated
with more intensive development. These environmentally critical areas. area '
valued as a community resource; both for conservation purposes and public
enjoyment; provided that the environmentally critical areas area protecfed, low
density single family residential use may be appropriate. ,
Criteria for Designation: This designation should be applied to areas with
either .significant environmental values worthy of protection or to.those' areas
which may pose environmental hazards if developed; such as areas tributary fo
public water sources. It may also be appropriate; to a limited extent, as a means
of delimiting the edge of the City or to areas that are impracfical to develop to
urban levels until . a later time period due to pre-existing development pattems
and the absence of public facilities. .
Considerations Against Applying this Designation: Due to the costs of
providing City 7services to. these areas, this designation should be applied
sparingly. It should be applied . as a means of conserving -significant
environmental resources, to achieve watershed protection and/or to areas where
development served by public facilities has been made impractical due to pre- °
existing use patterns." - I 5. The City•. code prqvides certain criteria for decisions for comprehensive plan
amendments.
"ACC 14.22.1.10 Decision criteria for plan amendments.
- A. The comprehensive plan was developed and adopted after
significant study and public participation. The principles, goals, objectives and
policies contained therein shall be granted substantial weight when considering a ,
proposed amendment. Therefore; the burden of proof for justifying a proposed
amendment rests with the applicant, who musY demonstrate that the request
: complies with and/or relates to the following decision criteria:
` 1. The proposed change will further and be consistent with the goals and
: objectives of the plan and the plan will remain intemally consisfenf;
2. Whether the capacity to provide adequafe services is diminished or
increased; ,
3. Assuinptions upon which the comprehensive plan is based are found to
be invalid;
4. A determination of change or lack of change in conditions or -
circumstances has occurred sinee the adoption of the latest amendment
6
to the specific section of the comprehen'sive plan that dictates the need
for a proposed amendment;
5. If, applicable, a determination that a question of consistency exisfs '
between the comprehensive plan and Chapter 36.70A RCW, the
,-countywide planning policies for either King and/or Pierce County, as
~-appropriate, and:Vision 2040: Growth :and Transportation Strategy for the
Puget Sound Region."
6. The four policy : changes -proposed by, the applicant and as modified . by . staff will
further the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan and objectives of #he Comprehensive
Plan: ~ Chapter 2, 7General Approach to Planning, states that the c'rty: seeks to be -
proactive and predictive in its approach to land use regulation. The request 'is
consistent with this predictive.,approach since it recognizes and responds #o the,
growing national and local interesf of consumers to buy local produce and to know .
where the their food came from and how it was grown. Evidence 'of. this emerging
trend is evidenced by increasing number and number. of local marketing their
: produce at farmers markets, and, the increase in the number of farmers marKets:
According to the King Gounty 2009 Farms Report, King County is home to seven of
the top 4en farmers markets in Washington State. With the proposed four policy
changes.proposed by the applicant and as modified by staff the comprehensive Plan will remain internally consistenf: -
7. The second decision criterion.°is that the comprehensive plan amendment.mu~;t not
; diminish or increase the. ability to provide adequate services. The proposal,to
change the Comprehensive Plan policies to provide policy support to - allow:
agricultural uses as a principal ase; and not as a second use to single family
residences in- the RC:, . Residential Conservancy zone is not anticipated to adverse
affect the provision of services. It is anticipafed in both the future zoning, code
changes and-in the review of the site-specific development proposals will adequately,
' address the provision of ser`vices. The proposal is also requested in order to provide
a venue for the sale of`agricultural products in closer proximity to a concentration of ,
residents. ,
8. The third decision criterion is that the assumptions on which the comprehensive plan
is based are found to be invalid: While not completely invalid, the assumptions do
not . reflect ; changed..circumstances that haye occurred since the, plan was
_ comprehensiyely, updated in 1995 to comply with the Growth Management Act.
Public interest and perception in support of_loca[ agriculture have evolved since the , -
time of the last overall comprehensive plan update and there is a need to recognize.
the appropriateness of agricultural uses and associated limited commercial activities
as independent uses within limited areas ;of the City (areas with the comprehensive
plan and:zoning designation of Residential Consenrancy).
9. The fourth decision criterion is,that there~has been a change or lack of change in
- conditions or circumsfances has occurred ~ since the adoption of the latest
amendment to the comprehensive plan that dicfates the neetl for a proposed
amendment. Again, the comprehensive plan has been not yet been changed to
.
' acknowledge the increasing demand by consumers_to buy local produce and to know
where their food came from and how it was grown. The change in ciccumstances is
this emerging trend that warrants revision of the comprehensive plan policies. .
7
,
10, The fifth decision criterion is that the change must be determined to be consistent
with the Growth Management Act (RC1N 36.70A), the Gountywide Planning Policies
of the relevant county and "Vision 2040: Growth and Transportation Strategy for the
Puget Sound Region". The four policy changes proposed by the applicant and :as
° modified by sfaff will continue to be consistent with the Growth Management Acf
(RCW 36,70A), the Countywide Planning. Policies of King County and "Vision 2040:
Growth and Transportation Strategy for th.e Puget Sound Region°. The proposal is
consistent because it does not change the general nature of allowed land uses. The
new commercial uses are proposed to be managed through application ofi land use
controls such as administrative and/or conditional use permits.
11. Staff has modified the text amendments to keep the same intent and spirit as
proposed by the applicant but to ensure appropriate policy statement format. The •
changes have generally been made to ensure consistent terminology, ease of
, understanding and clarity. -
Commissioner Chapman referred to chapfer 3, land use page 3 of 13 and asked what the
amounfi of commercial space that can be on site verses the _amount ofi property that can be
eonsidered "limited commercial uses° is. ' Commissioner Chapman is concemed that if every
propeity owner came along that did not have a single family residence on if and put limited
commercial uses it might take away from the "residential conservancy".. Commission then
asked for the definition for "limited commercial uses". - Mr. Dixon explained this is a policy document only, with broad overarching goals with the intent that those be implemented by the
subsequent zoning regulations. The specificafion about the size limits, or the specific definitions
would come with the zoning code changes. This provides for the general direction or policy
guidance within this documenf. Staff Recommendation-
Planning Commission recommends to City Gouncil approval of`the Mosby_Brothers Farrris Inc.
Comprehensive Plan Policy/Text Amendment, as modified by staff.
Chair Roland opened the public hearing at 7:38 p.m. to receive comments about Case Number
CPA10-0001, P/T #8, and Chapter 2& 3'Privately-initiated Policy/Text Amendments by Mosby
Brother Farms Inc: •
Gwynllyn Vukich, local resident at 12747 SE Green Valley Road, Auburn; WA
Ms: Vokich stafed Aubum Green Valley Road has been an agriculturaF district and Mosby
Brothers Farms Inc would be part of this district which was initiated in King County after the
' farmlands were bought and the development rights were bought back in the 70s. Speaking on _
behalf ofithe local farmers in the area they will be happy to have Mosby Farms come into the '
valley. ,
Ms. Vukich stated Mosby Farms provitled improvements to the farm.which enriched the valley
"beyond believe". Had Mosby Farms not provided these improvemenfs the farm and buildings
would have continued to dilapidate. The Mosby's have opened up a farm stand after cleaning
up part ofthe site. -
Neighbors hopethe proposal.with the.City moves forward so Mosby's can educatethe youth of
the Aubum Community. Ms. Vukieh stated she works at an area elementary school and is
.
8
excited with fhe prospects of local students gaining an understanding and appreciation-abouf
local farming and food production as Mosby Brothers Farms initiates a child development:food
education ptogram. . ,
Bur Mosby, Mosby Brothers Farms owner,12747 SE Green Valley Road, Auburn WA
. ,
My family has been farming for the past 20 years. We have had the same pumpkin, patch for 19
years. "One goal Mosby Brothers Farms'has is to education children of the communify through
a food education program focusing.~on 4th through 6t' graders°; Washi:ngton state history can be
. integratedwith this program. Mosby Brother Farms wants to bring more service and educafion
into the community and open a farm stand for the hometown people. Our hope is to educate
the youfh of tomorrow where the food on their plate came from today. Libby and Del Monte
were once located in the valley and we want to push #he local commanity to buy local, support
local.
Mosby Brofhers Farms grows and produces and sells approximately 250 acres of food to Food Services of America. It is our goal to be as well represented as the otherfood growers in the
area. Mosby Brothers Farm produces 4 million pounds of food per year.
Lee A. Michaelis, AICP of R.W. Thorpe and Associates Inc, 7438 SE 2r Street, Mercer
Island, WA
As fhe agent for Mosby Brothers Farms we are currently working with staff to limit the use of this
amendment.
There being no additional parties to speak on Case Number CPA10-0001, P/T #8, Chapter 2
3 Privately-initiated Policy/Text Amendments by Mosby Brother Farms Inc., Chair Roland closed
the public hearing at 7:46 p.m.
Gommissioner Chapman stated he is appreciative that Mosby Brothers Farms broughtthese
amendments forward; it is a great opportunity fo bring people info the City and enhancethe
farming agriculturaf area of the fertile green river valley. .
Commissioners requested Mr. Dixon clarify the term "limited use° at a later time. Mr. Dixon
informed Commissioners the term is used as a broad term within the amendments but will be
detailed within the zoning regulations.
P/T #8
Chapter 2 - General Approach
Commissioner Peace moved and Commissioner Chapm'an seconded to recommend inclusion
of Policy/Text Amendments P/T #8 Chapfer 2 and Chapter 3 into the City's ComprehensiVe Plan
amend'ments.
MOTION CARRIED 5-0
,
9
VL OTHER BUSINESS_ .
Chair Roland statetl the next meeting will be held Tuesday;. Novembet 3,,2040 due to
the'November 2, elections.
VII. ADJOURNMENT . .
There being no further business to eome before the Planning Commission, Chair Rotand
adjourned the meeting at 8:22 p:m.
, 10