HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-16-2003 Item III-BMINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE JUNE 23, 2003
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
The regular meeting of the Planning and Community Development Committee was held June 9, 2003 in
Conference Room 1. Those members in attendance were as follows:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Trish Borden, Sue Singer, and Stacey Brothers
STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Dan Heid, David Osaki, Sean Martin, Brian Petty and Patti Zook
ALSO PRESENT: Mayor Lewis
The meeting was called to order by Committee Chair Borden at 5:00 p.m.
ACTION:
1. Approval of Minutes of May 27, 2003 Meeting
Councilmember Singer made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Brothers, to approve the minutes.
Chairman Borden concurred.
2. ANX03-0002 — Heer Annexation
Planning and Community Development Director Krauss presented the staff report. Mr. Heer has
requested the annexation of his three parcels to the City. Councilmember Singer made a motion,
seconded by Councilmember Brothers, to approve the minutes. Chairman Borden concurred.
3. Resolution No. 3619 — Annexation/De-annexation of Property
Planning and Community Development Director Krauss explained that the Boundary Review Board
requires councilmanic action before they can process the request. Councilmember Singer made a
motion, seconded by Councilmember Brothers, to approve the minutes. Chairman Borden concurred.
4. Code Amendment for Front Yard Parking Restrictions
Chairman Borden questioned how to prevent people from parking on front lawns without causing other
problems. Planner Martin referred to previous discussions regarding this matter and pointed out the
graphics and code language from the City of SeaTac.
Councilmember Singer does not have a problem with the setback and likes most of the SeaTac
ordinance language. She hopes that people do not want to pave over more than 50% of the yard. She
does not want any parking in setbacks areas and believes the draft changes may make a lot of properties
out of conformance. She would like to see more flexibility.
Chairman Borden does not want to see RVs parking on property lines. She likes the setback
requirements. The SeaTac ordinance says no driveways in the setbacks. Councilmember Singer
confirmed that you cannot prevent RVs from parking in driveways.
Planner Martin read paragraph 15.15.180 F from the SeaTac ordinance. Councilmember Singer has
seen people put gravel in front yard for the area to be used for parking. She sees many problems with
this. She wants flexibility to keep cars off the lawn and likes SeaTac's reference to neighbor's green
space. She sees parking in the front yard as obnoxious.
Planner Martin mentioned that if RV is parked with required screening, Zoning Ordinance says only 6'
fence which does not screen an RV. He spoke about the Type I landscaping requirements and
mentioned the types of plantings that grow quickly. Discussion occurred related to the height of RV,
height of fence, and what type of vegetative screening would conceal an RV.
PAGE 1
MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE JUNE 23, 2003
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Councilmember Singer inquired about public notice and how to find out if neighbors object. Planning and
Community Development Director Krauss said it would be easier to have requirements that must be met
and then be in a position to authorize administratively.
Councilmember Singer likes the SeaTac ordinance. Allowing 800 square feet might be too generous, but
is a good start. She believes the changes will put lots of people out of compliance. 800 square feet or
50% is very generous. She wants only a maximum of two cars to be permitted in front yard.
Planning and Community Development Director Krauss believes that the proposed changes are still too
liberal. If person parks two cars in front of the garage, this is in addition to a two car garage so now four
spaces are allowed. Councilmember Brothers suggested allow parking in driveway or 400' square foot
pad if no driveway.
Planner Martin confirmed that currently it is a `free for all' and there is nothing to prevent paving of an
entire front yard. Chairman Borden does not want to create a situation where person can park RVs there.
Councilmember Singer suggested it may be easier to pass a strict ordinance and if there is a large outcry,
revise the ordinance a bit. She is concerned about unintended consequences. She wondered about not
allowing parking anywhere except the driveway. Councilmember Brothers wants to solve the problem of
people parking on the grass. If they want to park there, then prepare a space and be in conformance.
Planning and Community Development Director Krauss spoke of allow property owners time to bring their
property into conformance.
Planner Martin spoke of the need to define what is a driveway. Discussion occurred about allowing width
of garage one car with to be accessed by the same curb cut. Councilmember Singer suggested if have a
double garage then one additional space and cannot infringe onside yard setback. Chairman Borden
suggested only adding 9' width.
Planner Martin confirmed that it is easier to be strict and mandate no parking permitted in side yard.
Planning and Community Development Director Krauss spoke about criteria for deciding if there is a
hardship. Councilmember Singer suggested driveway plus width of one car, one curb cut, maximum of
50% front yard and variance process by current code. Chairman Borden wondered about paving or
adding a pad to setback in the side yard.
Discussion occurred regarding whether to allowing parking in a backyard. Parking could be permitted in
the back yard if properly screened. Community Development Administrator Osaki mentioned that the
revisions would go to Planning Commission for public hearing and back to this Committee.
INFORMATION:
1. Comprehensive Plan Map/Zoning Map Consistency
Community Development Administrator Osaki showed a map and explained that in the past consistency
between the two maps has been an issue. The Comprehensive Plan Map is more conceptual and shows
designations in `bubbles' while the zoning map is parcel specific. This can create room for interpretation
occasionally. He then pointed out conflicts between the two maps and gave examples of what types of
problems come up occasionally. He reviewed the advantages and disadvantages as stated in his
memorandum. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss offered that there has not been
one instance during his time in Auburn where the staff interpretation was questioned by either the
property owner or neighbor.
Councilmember Singer asked about any costs when a conflict is involved and Planning and Community
Development Director Krauss said if it is nebulous, City approves without additional cost. Councilmember
PAGE 2
MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE JUNE 23, 2003
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Singer wondered in cases where property is split in the middle by zoning designations, how is this
handled? Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said it is then an interpretation of what
the Comprehensive Plan Map intended and used Les Schwab as an example. Staffs ability to interpret
avoids needing to `jump through hoops' of Comprehensive Plan amendments, but can be an unknown
element for the property owner. Community Development Administrator Osaki commented that when
property owner asks what is long range plan for the property, staff provides an interpretation.
Councilmember Singer wondered if this affects redevelopment and Planning and Community
Development Director Krauss said this is a common way to portray Comprehensive Plan Maps and issue
of rationalize map. The issue of map consistency can be discussed also with the Public Works
Committee.
Councilmember Singer speculated about the City doing one area each year. Planning and Community
Development Director Krauss commented that the whole issue could be a solution in search of a
problem. Chairman Borden likes idea of the process being flexible and there are areas of the City in
transition. The current process seems to be working. She thinks if the City makes a black/white decision
this could bring up other problems.
Mayor spoke about the cost and staff energy to change the process. Significant amount of time will be
involved if there is a change block by block, area by area. There would also be significant staff time and
public meetings and committee meetings involved. Chairman Borden agrees with the Mayor's
comments.
DISCUSSION
Ordinance No. 5765 — Low Income Fee Policy for Parks and Recreation Programs
Chairman Borden requested additional information on the changes to ensure that it would not affect the
Senior Center. Recreation Manager Petty said the changes apply to the Senior Center. They receive
few applications during the year and Cheryl Sallee said there would be little impact. He distributed a
graph showing the funding amounts.
Chairman Borden does not see any controversy over level, but how can the ordinance be written so that it
is clearly understood. She wants to see the guidelines before making a decision. For the Senior Center,
is adult limited to one program per year and Recreation Manager Petty replied yes and there is no
change there.
City Attorney Heid said the language of current ordinance indicates 10% determines funding at different
levels and gave examples. He wondered if it would be clearer to use the graph and add to code.
Recreation Manager Petty said the graph changes annually. Councilmember Brothers suggested
attaching the graph to the ordinance for clarity and refer to a schedule and adopt revisions on regular
basis. The City would review the ordinance and new numbers each year.
Chairman Borden wants to see the schedule then determine how to write the ordinance because now it is
not very clear. She wants the ordinance to be clearly understood. She requested to see the definitions
and guidelines referred to by Recreation Manager Petty. Councilmember Singer wondered since they
have not scrutinized the numbers previously, would it be a waste of staff time to review each year?
Chairman Borden confirmed that this ordinance is tabled to the next Committee meeting in order to
With no further items to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
PC DC\MIN\06A-2003
PAGE 3