The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutITEM VIII-A-1 AC~TY..O.F ~*.~RN:~ -,,--UBIl . .... .d:;i!' WASHINGT.oN AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: Case No. ZOA04-0003 Dllte: July 19, 2005 Department: Attachments: ProposedOrdinance No. 5913 (which reflects PCD Budget Planning and Committee recommendation). Testimonylexhibits submitted by public Impact: Community at April 5, 2005 Plannin~ Commission public hearing. Letter from Mr. Development Andrew Serr (received ay 4, 2005). Approved March 8, 2005 and April 5, 2005 Planning Commission minutes. Memorandum from Public '1r0rks D:~a~ment; Planning Commission recommendation; Photos from sta shown to Plannlnq Commission public hearinq. Administrative Recommendation: City Council introduce and adopt .ordinance No. 5913 Background Summary: This code amendment originated during the past couple of years as the Planning and Community Development (PCD) Committee discussed ways to address the public's concern regarding vehicle parking in yards, primarily involving single family residential uses. In 2004, the PCD Committ,ae reviewed other cities' ordinances related to off-street parking requirements for residential uses and directed staff to develop a proposed code amendment similar to that adopted by the City of SeaTac. The matter was then referred to the Planning Commission. On March 8, 2005 the Auburn Planning Commission opened a public hearing on a proposed code amendment to Auburn City Code (ACC) section 18.52.060 related to off-street surfacing requirements for single family and duplex residential dwelling units. One person testified at the March 8, 2005 public hearing. The Planning Commission continued the public hearing to its April 5, 2005 meeting. Five individuals testified at the Planning Commission's continued April 5, 2005 public hearing. On April 25, 2005, May 23,2005, June 27,2005 and July 25,2005 the Pianning and Community Development (PCD) Committee considered the Planning Commission recommendation on proposed Ordinance No. 5913. Proposed Ordinance No. 5913 relates to surfacing requirements for off..street parking areas for single family and duplex residential dwellings. At its July 25, 2005 meeting, the PCD Committee recommended to City Council approval of Ordinance No. 5913. The proposal was also reviewed by the Public Works Committee at its meeting on June 27,2005. L0801-5 01.2 lli!vlewea by (.;ounclI &, (.;ommlttees: ES: ~evlewea by LJepartmeQJ.s.I!<Ylvlslons: ~Art. COmm'..'," eOUNe" COMMITTE '""dl09 ~ M&O ~~'" ~FlO,"", _ Cemetery Mayor Hearing Examiner Municipal Servo Finance Parks Human Services Planniœ & CD Fire Planning Park Board Public orks Le al Police Planning Comm. Other Pu%lic Works Human Resources Information Services Action: Committee Approval: BYes BNO Council Approval: Yes No Call for Public Hearing _1_1_- Referred to Until I I Tabled Until ,-r- Councilmember: Norman I Staff: Krauss Meeting Date: August 1, 2005 I Item Number: VIII.A.1 AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED .·.----------"-----.------r-....· '-~- ..- Agenda Subject: Case No. ZOA04-0003 Date: July 19, 2005 Facts and Findinos 1. The City receives certain complaints from citizens about vehicles parked on residential pr'~perties. These complaints typically relate to the number of vehicles parked andlor that the vehicles are parked on unimproved surfaces, The City is unable to address these complaints as there is no limit on the number of vehicles (operable) that may be parked on property occupied by a single famill' or duplex. In addition to the number, the vehicles tend to be parked on unimproved surfaces such as; lawns/dirt. This creates an unattractive appearance and results in mud and dust impacts. Unless it iis off street parking "required" by the code (which is required to be on a paved surface), the City does not have regulations on the type of surface any additional (non-required) off-street parking must satisfy. 2. Auburn City Code (ACC) section 18.52.060 entitled "Development of required off-street parking spaces for single family dwellings" provides development standards for surfacing of "required" off street parking spaces for single-family dwellings and state, in part, "For parking areas serving single family dwellings, this section shall apply in lieu of ACC 18.52.050. A. Off-street parking spaces for single-family dwellings on lots located in all zones except the R-R zone shall be paved with asphalt concrete or cement concrete. Each off-street parking space shall be connected to an improved street or alley by a driveway a minimum of 11 feet in width which shall be paved with asphalt concrete or cement conc:rete." This code section establishes that required parking (typically one or two spaces for single family dwellings depending upon the number of bedrooms in the dwelling) be paved with asphalt concrete or concrete cement. This paving requirement does not, however apply to parking areas that are in excess of what the code requires. In such instances, it is possible to have several cars parked on grassllawns or other unpaved surfaces in the front (or side or rear) yard of singie-family dwellings. 3. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on a proposed code amendment on March 8, 2005. The public hearing was continued to April 5, 2005. During the course of the public hearing process, the Planning Commission received testimony from six individuals. 4. Following the public hearing the Planning Commission recommended to City Council that ACC 18.52.060 be amended and organized into four sections (ACC 18.52.060(A) though (D)) as follows: A. ACC 18.52.060 (A) retains the existing language and surfacing requirements for "required" off- street parking (as is currently in ACC 18.52.060); B. ACC 18.52.060(B) establishes the surfacing requirements for off-street parking not required under the code. In doing so, it: · Specifies that this section applies only to the front yard areas and not to parking in the side or rear yard. If approved, then, vehicles parked in the side and rear yard' would not have any surfacing requirements; · Applies the requirement to recreational vehicles, boats and trailers; · Provides for a definition of boat. For the purposes of this section, large boats are defined as being at least 16 feet in length. Boats of this size or larger are typically IicE!I1sed andlor on trailers; · Allows gravel as a surface provided that gravel areas are kept free of weeds, do not allow mud to rise to the surface and do not cause loose gravel to transport off of thE¡ property; · Allows other materials including pavers, grass crete or other permeable surfa'ces that are approved by the City and that maintain a durable uniform surface. Page 2 of 3 '---r-u Agenda Subject: Case No. ZOA04-0003 Date: July 19, 2005 · States that driveways that exclusively serve non-required off-street parking spaces are not subject to the surfacing requirement. C. ACC 18.52.060(C) establishes cumulative surfacing requirements for required and non-required parking as follows. . Establishes a maximum front yard surfacing area. Not more than fifty (50) percent of the front yard, or 800 square feet, whichever is smaller, can be off-street parking surf:3ce. (For the purposes of calculating the allowable area under this section, the front yard shall be the area between the right-of-way and the portion of the single-family dwelling's front façade farthest from the right-of-way. The width of the front yard shall extend to each side property line.) . In addition, to provide for flexibility for lots with small front yards, this code section (ACC 18.52.060(C)(2)) adds a provision that in no instance shall a single family dwelling be limited to less than 400 square feet of off-street parking surface in the front yard. D. ACC 18.52.060(D) provides additional flexibility for special circumstances. It allows the Planning Director to approve off-street parking surfacing alternatives in situations where a unique front yard configuration exists. Examples include, but are not limited to, panhandle lots, cul-de-'sac lots, non-conforming development situations or situations where on-street parking on the block does not exist. 5. The Planning Commission recommendation applies surfacing requirements to single-family residences only and not to duplexes. 6. .on April 25, 2005, May 23, 2005, June 27, 2005 and July 25,2005 the Planning and Community Development Committee considered the Planning Commission recommendation on proposed Ordinance No. 5913. At the meetings, the PCD Committee asked staff to revise the Planning Commission proposal to take into consideration the following items: · Delete the reference to "vegetation" from the gravel performance standard (tel allow for grass crete or other similar surfacing options); · Require that driveways in the front yard serving non-code required off-street parking areas also be subject to the surfacing requirements; · Apply the provisions to duplexes (which necessitates additional language regarding the formula/allowances). · Require that all boats be on trailers and surfaced in the front yard, regardless of boat size. · Prohibit the storage of any size boat not on a trailer in the front yard. · Incorporate language which provides the Planning Director with discretion to ensure entire front yards are not surfaced because of the minimum surfacing requirement allowed by ACC sections 18.52.060 C.1.a. and C.2.a. This subsection is intended to avoid the surfacing of the entire front yard for off-street parking purposes. · Specifically identify corner lots as a situation where planning director discretion may be appropriate. 7. Since the time of the Planning Commission recommendation, the City received (on May 4, 2005) a letter from Mr. Andrew Serr. CCIZOA04-3 L0801-5 .01.2 Page 3 of 3 KA¡'!.. 'f)ð..». ~ " ¡-'N i1'r, ~---~-'-----'-'-------"'-"-'- , .."".-----------.- - ~-----_._-_.- þ-r #,IU, /0:2.- - .,~ Cr'!L.r!)(;J//fl{Þí(/e.¿ [),'Æla~~~~~~QJis ú)--;r¿ I/e e.. ,k / 4S" . I! :5" 'die (0 A J... k, /l-1/'¡ t.. .i{"£. .~-_. ~~"---rc,~-"-- ---~:::F'Tj;)5- - _. ---'~"~+"T -- j {rlo~(t~ $~'oø~~~' .~ O? / r (!,~ \ P;' ) J ~ ¡ \~~ ¡ -';t".:"If' :. f 0~<:i I 1p~ ..ó-_(), < 13~,,! '\-,. j E' '.:>-1J. ~ I' ~f ~~ £~ I ,~~j#ß~hY~ \ il', ___ ~~'h /~~t 'Cì.'. "~'. \'1;.. ,~. u' I" ;' I. .... ""4'",.,.. "S' I ~ 'Q; I ~ f-", 'vc I ~ r 8-¡ tJ' ~ ~J~ I!'"' "- '~.'~ ~ ~JI'I\"¡'"¿ ,a~ r ~i,l"'¡"~""í "'::>~"r'"ç~ ~ ~~ . ~~~ v' kI I C I \'~ Ii' '.'j ¡ i -4' (Ii ; ¡ 'ff) //' ,- 0 !,,µe 1(- ._-~. aI' ;k!4......J<.\.....)!'i.1'''' '%' ~ -'!:.- ~ -1.' C'~/...".f"- ¡)ej_~íL ~ Co 1 \ . (?17tf 19 f e. :3 ð X %Y ! ¡ m_~._.,__.__ _~ '_'___'___ _ __ __._._n___..____________ --.----..-------.---.----..-.. ~ '" . c'i ". ; 1:.. r- ~ '. <::., "\ ~"r:: "'-, ;, .J._ "(/ ) ror i! ¡ I . Ac"TS;.z¿ /(, C,5¿) qrAUrJ-. Î " Ii i' t ê o I . /' I , J to Vi' ,.... , .-."...---.--..,.. ----.---..----- .) \,./ . If" . . ! ,." . 1 ~ :. ¡ -'.,' i '.'" . RfCS\j¡;D , '\Â¡RO 52~Q6, ¡ ., . \- l' " . PlANNiNG D~PÁRTMENT . . -,--..-. _.~_...._~-~.~ --~. ',n ~t' ~.~.. ~.....~... :~-' L- 13,/ --) \..... '1 --~._._.. .---- ~5l)6'"'1*'O qS.oS- ': : Z ð/'/L-! IN J- --- --- --- ----- ---~,-_._-~-- :5'~\~D Th \)"-""''''''"'''r c.."''''''''\~'''IOU 4./ ~ 105: ..-- sl.>\3......w'O ib t'~T <.~,s.."'-' 41.. {o.,.- ~---- ---~ .. S LJ~ I~..o 1'> ~ c.u^-,,S.)'aV 4.1'> /0'\ Auburn City Hall 25 West Main Auburn WA 98001 RECÞ!VfD MAY 04 1005 "LANNlNG . " '.'.', "EN1' Dave, I am a cwrent resident of Auburn, Washington and was unable to attend the m(~g regarding the proposition to create an ordinance regarding various restrictions to household vehicles. The following is a list of recommendations that I feel shouJld be considered for this ordinance. · All vehicles per household should be parked on either a paved or gravel driveway, not on the lawn · Any vehicle parked on a side/secondary driveway, should be placed in a manner to not obstruct any neighbors entrance/exit to their property · . Any non-running vehicle can not be stored outside of the garage for no longer than 60 days · If any vehicle is to be stored in the backyard, the yard would need to be completely enclosed by a solid fence to all surrounding neighbors. The vehicles should not be stored in the back yard for more than 30 days. · Any vehicle parked on the street sho,uId not be place behind or in tront of a neighbors driveway, this is to decrease the chance of accidents . · Any vehicle parked on the street needs to be driven on a daily basis; if the vehicle is other than an automobile than it can not be placed on the street for longe:!' than I week The term vehicle fncludes: automobiles, trailers, and watercrafts I would greatly appreciate these recommendations to be considered and thank: you very much for your time. Resident of Auburn, Washingto7 / ~ /~ 25'3- r33- C¡lq,~ B/?ór /oe¡y·w,4Þé.- ..Jc;-'. A ¿./ þú ftJ<.; CC.,A.c/ 1. 'PeP-Oo 2. .~ /- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 8. 2005 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on March 8, 2005 at 7:00 p,m, in the Co,uncil Chambers of the Auburn City Hall, Those in attendance were as follows: MEMBERS: Dave Peace, Renee Larsen, Yvonne Ward, Kevin Chapman, Joan Mason and Judi Roland. Ronald Douglass was absent. STAFF: Paul Krauss, Director of Planning and Community Development, David Osaki, Communi~, Development Administrator, Tim Carlaw, Stonn Drainage Engineer and PatrICia ZOOk, Planning Sec:retary The meeting was called to order by Chair Peace. . Approval of Minutes Comm issioner Mason referred to the last page, second paragraph and said the phrase should be 'sign consistency not only in the downtown area', Commissioner Ward made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Roland, to approve the minutes as amended, Mr, Osa~ rred to the matrix showing what Council's action was related 10 the 2004 Comprehenuive Plan amendme The amendments were appealed by 1000 Friends of Washington, now called Futurewlse, They are enging the plan on not satisfying urban density requirements based on four units per acre, Mr. Krauss commented that the group is r ' Hearings Board (GMHB) that was unclear and urban density as more than four unfts per acre, F uturewise is saying that any jurisdiction with less than unfts per acre Is in violation, They have sued other jurisdictions also. The cftles of Des Moines, Kent and I ah have also had their plans appealed, Bellevue settled on its appeal, but has to accept another 600 units se of the lower density of the Bridle Trails development. City Council is aware of the appeal and Aubum Plan is consistent and defendable, Mr. Osaki providad an update on the Critical Areas Ordinance which has been in Council com ' the last couple months, There has been a fair amount of additional testimony sInce the Commission's I~ "ellri"g. The 0,0.0 must be adopted i" erdllr to 1,6 eligible for certein granb, ~ PUBLIC HEARING . ZOA04-oo03· Proposad text amendment to Auburn City Code (ACC) Section 18,52,060 related to the regulation of surfacing for off-street parking areas associatad with single family and duplex residential uses. Mr, Osaki remarkad that these are code amendments to the parking section of the Zoning Ordinance, He showed photographs representing the problems seen around the City, He distributed copies of the PowerPoint presentation, ACC 18,52,120 limits where 'required' parking can bè provided in residential zones, ACC 18,52,060 provides development standards for 'required' off·street parking spaces for 'single family dWellings, For off-street parking - suñaclng, he read the proposed language and the current language. He evaluated the fIVe issues that are addressed by the amendment, He reviewed the paving coverage of the entire lot, front yard paving coverage, front yard coverage (multiple street frontages), and front yard landscaping, ---~~---------,-----_.__...---_._--~-----_..- MINUTES .oF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING IMARCH 8, 2005 Mr. Osaki pointed out the Commission issues raised during a prior work session Including: COnSidE¡r applying to uses other than single family (duplexes); consider alternative to surfacing (gravel); cons,ider alternative landscaping; what regulatory requirements apply; how does this affect Irregular shaped 'lots, Commissioner Roland wanted to know how the City mandates a parking code for homes on R Street when the City hasn't provided on street parking for them, How do you mandate a percentage of rrc,nt yard when there is no on street parking or a very short driveway? How is the City going to deal with in oJl:ler sections of town? The City will need to provide exceptions otherwise all will have gravel in the fronl: yard, Chair Peace pointed out the portion related to landscaping and that the City is now saying outside elf parking areas, that the«ost of the front yard has to be landscaped? Where else in codes does say front yard must be landscaped? Mr, Osaki said there are landscape requirements for all but single famil~ and duplex uses, It doesn't specify the number of trees or shrubs, but the proposal is new language. The language came from the City of SeaTac because they were concerned about aesthetic issues. ThE! Planning Commission must decide whether or not this is right for Auburn. Commissioner Ward read Mr. Carlaw's memorandum, but was not sure she understood, If somaone wanted to pave up to 800 square feet or 1,200 square feet, this would need to be evaluated for storm water issues? Mr. Carlaw replied yes; you need to review the enlire parcel and structures because you are talking about adding 800 square feet on top of what is already there, Mr. Carlaw said that an impervious surface is asphalt, paving, or similar high runoff surface and the City doesn't consider gravel under that category, if considering gravel, it would come under the scrutiny of Public Works design standards, Chair Peace opened the public hearing, Dee Sanders, 3011 M Drive NE, has concerns about the requirement for landscaping, The car deaterships don't provide landscaping, How can you enforce residential landscaping when you can"t enforce landscaping on the auto dealerships and others? Chair Peace closed the public hearing, Mr, Osaki advised that new commercial businesses will have landscape requirements except in downtown buildings where no setbacks apply. Downtown parkin! area situations would have to have fIVe feet of landscaping, On Auburn Way North, there are landscape requirements for new commercial developments, Commissioner Ward suggested that staff look at developing a definition of 'boat', In response to Commissioner Ward inquiry, Mr. Osaki said that the City of SeaTac developed their code about two years ago and he Is unaware of any issues, He has spoken with SeaTac's code enforcement. Commissioner Chapman mentioned that for some houses in older neighborhoods, no on street partjng Is available. A person is required to have two off street parking spaces, but when the house was built it only had one single driveway, What are people supposed to do? Mr, Krauss advised that when you design an ordinance, you design that ordinance for 90 percent of the situations, In looking at SeaTac's ordinance, Chair Peace said that they allow gravel. The cost of paving is expensive, For a boat that is used a few times a year, gravel is appropriate, Some people do brick or pavers spaced with grass between the pavers, You don't get runoff like with paved surfaces, The Issue with gravel Is that it Is tracked out onto the street and onto the grass, Commissioner Roland said that If gravel is permitted, the City needs to require that the gravel must be maintained. Commissioner Ward likes the Idea of gravel as an option, -2- ^ -_._---~--~._-_._-_._-----_._--"~-- MINUTES .oF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 8, 2005 Commissioner Mason doesn't think the City should require asphait or concrete, Commissioner RoI'and suggested that the ordinance say gravel or similar surface, Mr, Carlaw suggested that it say 'perm'3able surface', Commissioner Ward suggested revised wording of 'parking is separate from or in addition to the required parking'. Planning Commission seems to have a consensus for allowing the additional parking, Commissioner Larsen thinks there is a difference between cars and RV parking. If you have a sm>lll boa~ you shouldn't have to have a driveway to store your boat in the back yard. Commissioner Roland talked about whatever is parked in front yard, whatever parking Is allowed, the area should be gravel and not talk about what is parked in the back yard, If an RV is parked behind a fel1ce or gate it doesn't matter, If you move a boatltrailer In back tt would be okay, In talking about parking on the front yard grass stick to the front yard and not worry about the back yard, Commissioner Roland sa.id that the back yards should be left out of the amendment The City shouldn't regulate back yard parking at this time, The problem Is with people parking In the front yard, The City should also stay away from thE' landscape Issue, Chair Peace likes what Commissioner Roland Is saying, The emphasis should t¡,¡ on the front yard; however, he doesn't want 10 cars parked in the back yard, If this happens, tt can be dealt with later, Commissioner Roland cautioned about mandating something that requires homeowners to spend kits of money, Chair Peace believes there are requirements for placing gravel such as a certain amount, o:pread to a certain depth, etc, You can't go out there and just throw down some gravel. Commissioner WEird suggested that Planning Commission not address landscaping at this time. The alternative of pervk)us surface was brought up earlier, Planning Commission agreed, Commissioner Roland said that the City also needs to come up with something about how to deal with areas that don't have on street parking and smaller lots, If they can only use square foot of land wlt.t do they do? Discussion occurred related to the front yard parking diagram from SeaTac that is in the agenda pac:ket. Commissioner Larsen said that the City needs to consider houses built much cartier because most ()f them don't meet code, Lots of houses don't meet the proposed specifications, Commissioner Roland spoke of the need to have exceptions, Mr, Osaki wanted to summarize the Planning Commission Ideas: separate out the required and non- required parking, definition of what constitutes a 'boat', allow fresh gravel, pavers or other permeablE' surface, do not require specific surfacing for driveway areas for additional parking areas, and ellminclte landscape and focus on front and side yards, Commissioner Ward made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mason, to continue the public healring to the April 5, 2005 meeling, . Sign Mr, Osaki mentioned last Commission meeting, they met with the ad hoc sign code committee. A memorandum was sent to the C asking for research on certain issues, Two other ISSUE'S were garage sale signs and signs for real estate multi-family units. Commissioner Ward said that the message she received from the Cham merce was that the code should have flexibility. Commissioner Mason heard the issue of flexibility, but no or , UVII"løl'='I''-'Y ;11 ";1:fIICt\lt:!. - -3 - ._-------,-_..,~_._-- ----- -.-.~- MINUTES .oF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 5 2005 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on April 5, 2005 at 7:00 p,m, in the Council Chambers of the Auburn City Hall, The regular meeting was preceded by a study session that be¡18n at 6:30 p.m. Those in attendance were as follows: MEMBERS: Dave Peace, Ronald Douglass, Renee Larsen, Yvonne Ward, Kevin Chapman, and ,loan Mason, Judi Roland was excused, STAFF: Paul Krauss, Planning and Community Development Director; David Osaki, Community Development Administrator; Dan Heid, City Attorney; and Patricia Zook, Planning Secrelary. The meeting was called to order by Chair Peace, STUDY SESSION - 6:30 P.M, -0005 - Zoning Code Amendment - Sign Code (ACC Chapter 16,56) ised that the Planning Commission's questions were good and he spoke about constitutional protection. read the 'whfie papers' provided to the ad hoc sign code committee, The papers contain legitimate inform ion, however it is not the whole story. Real estate signs do enjoy some constitutional protection, but that otection is not different than other constitutional protection for commercial speech. It is protected because s ech is protected, Mr, Heid spoke of the role that content plays In sign regulations. Content bas regulation is more ßmltlng. Mr, Heid continued by saying th if a city were to regulate permanent signs one way that that doesn't mean you can't regulate temporary , ns another way, The sign regulations must be consistent. These are Issues that all cities are contendin ith, If you try to regulate certain types of signs, be respon!¡ible to the level of protection fi deserves. The m e content based It is the more vulnerable It is, Some billboard companies have sued cfiles so they can get sign code temporarily invalidated so they can get a permit for the billboard. Regarding the comment In the whfie paper about real tate signs implicating the fair housing act, Mr. Heid said that you don't have to guarantee the real estat arkel Restricting the availability of the housing market Is already protected, Political speech and r ' Ious speech are the most protected, They are much more protected than something done for money, suc s real estate. Chair Peace commented that the proposed code doesn't deal wfih Ii 'g or eliminating billboards, Mr, Held said if you don't address this then it is an open door for someone to me in and say that billboards aren't prohibited, It might not be bad idea to regulate billboards not by cont Mr, Heid continued by saying that political signs are one of the most protected, If on political signs that exceeds signage that is less protective, the code will be vuln e, Commissioner Ward said the current code Is if you want a 4'xB' or larger political sign you need a perm The language exempts religious symbols, Political speech Is First Amendment protected, Mr, Heid said speech is also First Amendment protected, Commissioner Ward wondered if you cen you force a person to get a permit for a political sign on p ~e property, Mr, Heid wondered if the person would have to get a permit to install a sign larger than 4'xll' 0iprivate propeny_ II IS CI qut!!~UUII ur J.nuttn.;u:å VtJl;:iua whi::ll ~ n:yulè.lt:d. If yuu IIlC:ldc a di~lill",l;ulI ;lIlfJ~ . MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 5, 2005 versus non oIitical speech, itwill be a problem. Someone l:auld use as a basis to reject the entire sign code, Mr, Held caul' that if the Planning Commission wants to regulate signs including poliflcal signs without specifying w e words, images or messages are, it will be safer. Mr, Held advised that If you h facts that were able to be Incorporated into the findings that supported the reasons for doing certain things, could better meet constitutional test law cases, If restrictions are more lenient for less protected speech e vulnerable, If you want to resbict all signs, for examlple, by size, zone, or temporary versus permanent, y n do this, This avoids content based criteria. Mr. Heid advised that if you must show you have the facts, cords, or testimony to demonstrate YOll made the proper showing, You can do things more extreme, b u can't do unless you show the facts to warrant it and meet constitutional standards, This is easier if the reg ions are content neutral; harder to do If they are content based or focused on speech that's most protected, Mr, Held said that the US Constitution includes several recognized protections incJu free speech and freedom of religion, Case law has more challenges that deal with these two, Freedom 0 f eedom of speech are among the highest forms of free speech and they are very protected, religious signs wau . , REGULAR MEETING - 7:00 P,M, APPROVAL OF MARCH 8, 2005 MINUTES The minutes were approved as maiied, PUBLIC HEARING - continued flOm March 8, 2005 . Z.oA04-0003 - Proposed text amendment to Auburn City Code (ACC) Section 18,52,060 related to the regulation of surfacing for off-street parking areas associated with single family and duplex res,jentlal uses, Mr, Osaki reviewed matters from the previous meeting for those in the audience, He reviewed chanles from the last meeting, Section 18,52,060 Is now divided Into four sections which he reviewed, He reviewed Section 18,52,060 (8) for non-code required parking and 18,52.060 (C) for allowable surfa<:ing area, The definilion for boat was set at 16 feet because this is the size that must be licensed, SectiCln 18,52,060 (D) for Planning Director approval was reviewed, Commissioner Ward said that he did a ¡¡reat job of capturing Planning Commission's comments from the March meeting, Chair Peace opened the public hearing, Steve Butterfield, 2930 17'" Street SE, doesn't want any regulations at all. Gravel requires an expenl;e which is an affordability Issue. He has more than three drivers and more than three cars, The ailerrn;ltive of on-street parking exposes cars to vandalism, Parking on the grass looks better than parking In thE' street. He has a single car garage and he wants to put a garage In the back yard, Del Nelson, 2915 17" Street SE, said he is using the side area of his house for parking for fIVe or six years and he has three vehicles, He would have to cover the area with gravel or cement if he wants to conllinue parking there or he will park in the back yard, Mr, Nelson said his neighborhood is located on Indian property which the City ignored for 20 years, He spoke about cars speeding on his street and they w'~re asked 10 years ago if they wanted speed bumps. Gary Morrell, 2520 Dogwood Street SE, is against the proposal and doesn't think It will address the problem. The purpose of the ordinance is to just make lots look better, Chair Peace advised that the -2- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 5, 2005 Planning Commission reviewed a number of pictures at the last meeting, The pictures were taken 'ill over town and showed a significant number of vehicles parked in the front yard, The front yards of the Douses were mud, Mr. Morrell said there shoukJ be a better way than to require gravel or concnete which places an undue burden on homeowners and won't solve the problem, There wHI always be unused, undE,r repair or inoperable vehicles on property, He is also concerned about engineering requirements being imposed, David Grambush, 102 H Stneet NW, said he has a 17,000 sq,ft, lot with 60 ft on the side of his house, He has two drive ways one on each side of the house, He collects oars and has 12 now. He has a 30';(84' garage, He parks on the grass on the side of the house. He Street NW is paved but no curbs, ThE.re is supposed to be a sidewalk but not there now. He showed the Planning Commission a footprint of his property, Railroad tracks ane across the street. Commissioner Ward asked him if he purchased 11M! property in order to work on oars and Mr, Grembush was reluctant to answer the question, He's live~ there for 20 years. He opposes the proposal and said ij infringes on his rights, Doug Knutson, 3305 V Street SE, expressed concern about his declining property values which he thinks is going down beoause more and more oars are parked in the front yards, For example, a house two doors from his, the house has a flooring business that is being run out of the house, They park four vans in the front yard of the house which is a huge eyesore and sometimes the vehicles even block the slop sign. Mr, Knutson said an area of the subject house is paved because the previous homeowner ha<1 an RV. People park personal cars in the grass and a van in the street. Sometimes people don't licens,¡ oars and the oars parked in the front yard, In fact, he's reported people to the City, but it doesn't seem to matter. If a vehicle isn't licensed ij's not operable, Some houses have vehicles parked in between the houses, He submitted pictures to the Planning Commission, Commissioner Ward commented that the City has regulations on businesses in residential neighborhoods, There Is also a code dealing with inoperable vehicles, She asked Mr, Knutson his thoughts on limiting the proposal to just the front yard, Mr, Knutson replied 'out of sight out of mind', Lots of vehicles will be parked in the side and back yards, People are looking to buy homes In the area will see all the cars parked in the front and side yards and not want to purchase, This is a p,roblem throughout Auburn because there is always someone who wants to junk up' a yard. Mr, Krauss advised that many situations represented by Mr, Knutson seem to violate current City codes, He will Code Enforcement out tomorrow to investigate, Inoperable vehicles can be removed after a lperiod of time and the City oan have inoperable vehicles towed away from in front of homes, Mr, Knutson's pictures are evidence of the problem, The City has received a signifICant amount of complaints from people about houses that have vehicles parked In the front and side yards, The vehicles tear up lawns, Currently there isn't an ordinance to deal with this problem, Commissioner Ward suggested limiting the proposal to only the front yard, Discussion occurred relating to limiting the amendment to only the front yard, In response to Commissioner Ward's inquiry, Mr, Krauss acknowtedged, that washing cars and debris from the washed oars is a problem, He spoke about charity oar washes and that the City is purchasing car wash kits to allow collection of the debris to the sanity sewer, Mr, Krauss said that when vehicle!, park on lawns mud and debris are tracked onto the street which flows to streams, Gravel compared to bSlrk tends to stay in place, Chair Peace closed the public hearing, Commissioner Ward asked what the Planning Commission thinks about limiting the proposal to only the front yard. There was testimony about why they need to park In the side yard, She likes the idea of parking an RV on the side of the house versus in the street. Chair Peace inquired that if someone pmks a car on a regular basis on the side of the house, why not put down gravel? Why continue to park on tlhe -3- "~---_.- MINUTES .oF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 5 2005 dirt and grass and chew it up? It is visually more attract active to park on the side, but the issues are the same. Perhaps an RV thafs not moved often won't tear up grass too much. Gravel isn't cost prohibitive, Mr. Krauss said that staff didn't define engineering standards for the gravel. Ideally a border keeps the gravel contained and is neater, but this Isn't specified. Commissioner Chapman spoke about people wanting to maximize their actual living space on the property, If you look at older homes there may be enough room to park in the side yard, However, newer neighborhoods have smaller side lots and smaller front yards. These developments maximize the house on the lot and have smaller yards, Commissioner Chapman mentioned that if you are talking about an RV, placing grave! strips where the tires go would be sufficient because an RV Isn't moved that often, However, if you are using a car every day it would definitely make sense to remove the grass and place gravel down on a hard packed surface, This makes sense on the frequently traveled areas, A good surface under the gravel will make the gravel last longer, Commissioner Ward expressed concern about some older parts of the City that might have a higheIC percent of seniors on limited Income, She sees the merits of the regulations on the side yard, She ;also sees the need for aesthetic control, Chair Peace used for an example, an RV that sits in one spot for years with grass and weeds growing under the vehicle and the area Isn't mowed and it becomes an eyesore, If the RV Is on a pad or gravel it would be better maintained and would prevent weeds from growing, If a person has a car or RV palked on the side and he puts up a fence that visually blocks a portion of it, the problem kind of goes away, Mr, Krauss commented that issues in the rear yards tend to have more to do wllh junk or inoperable vehicles. Issues with the front yards tend to be neighbors complaining. The Planning Commission has pictures of cars parked in mud ruts In the front yard, vehicles parked every which way, mulliple vehicles, etc. The City has tried to work with the issues, but because thera Isn't a current ordinance, this has been problematic, Discussion occurred related to a memorandum from Mike Dunbar, Code Enforcement Officer, ralated to semi truck parking, Commissioner Douglass wanted to discuss exceptions and how they come to pass. How easy is It t'J get an exception if you have a good case? As an example, a parked vehicle that is parked there for years. Mr, Osaki mentioned that when he talked with the City of SeaTac, they said a difficulty is applying thll code to previously existing situations, Exceptions proposed by this ordinance deal with the placement of ti~e house on the lot and whether that creates a difficulty to meet the code requlremenl Not for someon" using the front yard or side yard for parking lot. Commissioner Ward made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Larsen, to recommend approval o,r ZOA04-0003 and limit the amendments to front yards only, The motion passed 5-1 with Commissioner Mason voting no, Chair Peace recessed the meeting at 8:30 pm and reconvened at 8:45 pm, . Sign ZOA05-0005 - Zoning C ent - Sign Code (ACC Chapter 18,56) Mr, Held advised that he focused mainly on the Plann n slon's questions and has a few concerns about the proposed sign code. He said that political signs tend to be and if you regulate them I enti II would be t e safer wa to o. Unless you have reason to deviate, do a 'nlly a" possible. =- -4 - .------------".--... .---..,--..---------------- * CITYOF ~ . Interoffice Memorandum Engineerin~. Division WASHINGTON To: David Osaki, Community Development Administrato~ Tim Carlaw, Storm Drainage Utility Engineer)/ February 16, 2005 From: Date: Re: Public Works Requirements for Paving on Single-Family Dwelling lots It is my understanding that the Planning Commission is currently consid,ering a proposed ordinance that would require all areas used for off-street parking spaces on single'family lots to be paved. In discussing this proposed code amendment, the Planning Commission was interested in what, if any Public Works related! requirements would be applied to property owners that paved additional ¡)ortions of their property for off-street parking. All development creating new impervious s\U'Íaces shall meet all applicab]!e general and design requirements in accordance with the city of Auburn design and! construction standards (ACC13.48.225). From a storm runoff standpoint, in considering this code amendment, there are two scenarios under which storm drainage standards would be applied. The first would be for new residential construction, while the other would be for existing residences required to meet the proposed code amendment. Accordingly, there are applicable requirement:~ within Auburn City Code (ACC) and the City of Auburn Design Standards and that would govern design and construction of appropriate facilities. ACC 13.48.225 Drainage Standards - Review and Approval All development creating new impervious surfaces shall meet all applicablE! general . and design requirements in accordance with the City of Auburn design and construction standards. 1. 2004 Citv of Auburn Desilffi Standards Manual (6.0IA): 'The peak discharge from a property shall not be increased by the proposed development. For new single-family plats, a storm pond is typically constructed to mee,t this requirement. The additional paved surface from this proposed code amendment Page 1 of 3 -----.- AuBllRN * ~ORE THAN yº~ IMAGINED ---7- would simply result in a larger public storm pond, and could be designed into the project at the onset. 2004 Citv of Auburn Desire Standards Manual (6.0IP): Single-fåmi~y home sites shall provÏde a means for collection and discharge of water from roof, foundation drains, and driveway. For new residential construction on a vacant lot not draining into a public storm pond as described above, an on-site infiltration system is required to manage runoff from the residence if soil conditions allow. Such a system couldl be designed to include the additional paved surfaces. If soil conditions do not allow an on-site infiltration system, then discharge to the public drainage system at a catch basin is allowed. 2. 2004 Citv of Auburn Desire Standards Manual (6.01H): No indivÏduallot or development shall be allowed to drain uncontrolled storm drainage from more than six hundred square feet (600 SF) of impervious surface area acrol~s driveways into the public right-of way. If an existing residence were required to meet this proposed code reqUirement,' then a review of the impervious surface for the property would be required. If the combination of uncontrolled storm drainage from existing and new impervious surfaces were to be less than 600 square feet, then there would be no storm drainage facilities required. However, if the combination exceed,ed 600 square feet discharging off-site, then the new paving would be subject to City of Auburn design standards. The property owner would then be required to construct new drainage facilities to manage the storm water from the site. If the soil conditions permit, the property would be required to construct an o:n-site infiltration system. If as described above, the soil conditions do not allow an on- site infiltration system, then discharge to the public drainage system at a catch basin is allowed. The property owner would be required to obtain an infiltration rate analysis by a licensed engineer or licensed geologist to make this determination. 2004 City of Auburn Desire Standards Manual (6.0IEt Deœntion or rE'tention systems shall be designed so that site drainage overflow, for the storm events in excess of the maximum design storm, can sheetDow across driveways ÍLrto adjacent public streets or be discharged to a public storm drainage facility prior to impacting on-site or atijacent properties, unless cross-drainage agTeeLrJents have been secured This design standard is intended to prevent the uncontrolled discharge of stormwater from one property to another. If not properly designed and constructed, the additional paved surface from this proposed code amendment would result in flooding to adjacent properties. Page 2 of 3 ---._------ AuBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED_ ,,-.--- I If the requirements above are determined to be too onerous, then the City does have an established process for considering deviation from the design standards. In these instances, a design deviation from the City standards may be requested from the City Engineer. Page 3 of 3 AuBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED ---------- , ..._~.--....-'--~---~ PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION APRIL 5, 2005 "18.S2.060 Development of requir.ed off-street parking spaces for single-family dlwellings. For parking areas serving single-family dwellings, this section shall apply in lieu of ACC 18,5;!,050 A, For those off street parkina spaces reauired pursuant to ACC section 18.S2.020(A)(1), the followina standards shall applY: A. 1. .off-street parking spaces for single-family dwellings on lots located in all zones 'except the R-R zone shall be paved with asphalt concrete or cement concrete. Each off-street parking space shall be connected to an improved street or alley by a driveway a minimum of 11 feet in width which shall be paved with asphalt concrete or cement concrete. S, 2, .off-street parking spaces for single-family dwellings on separate lots in the R-R zone may have an all weather surface, Each off-street parking space shall be connected to an improved street by a driveway which may have an all weather surface, The construction of the all weather surface shall be determined by the city engineer, The driveway approach, to a paved street, shall be paved and be at least 11 feet wide and 30 feet in length. Go 3. The pavement width of a driveway to serve a single-family parking area shall be a minimum of 11 feet. If the driveway is a designated lire lane, the pavement width shall be at least 20 feet and have an unobstructed yertical clearance of at least 13 feet six inches (UFC 902,2,2,1), B. Off street yehicle parkina spaces. includina those for trailers, recreational vehicles. and for boats (provided that the boat is 16 feet in lenath or areater). that are provided In additIon to those reaulred pursuant to ACC section 18.S2.020IA)(1) shall meet the followina standards: 1 ,Off-street parkina spaces located In the front vard of lots located In all zones except the R-R zone shall haye one of the followina surfaces: a. Asphalt concrete or cement concrete payement: or b. Gravel. provided that veaetation (such as weeds), mud or other fine lIIIaterial do not work their way to the surface of the rock and provided that loose aravel is contained on the subect property: or. c, Any other confiauration or materials includlnQ pavers or pennable surfaces includina arasscrete that are approved bv the City and that maintain a durable uniform surface. 2. Driveways that exclusivelY serve non-reauired off-street parklna spaces are not subiect to the surfacina reauirement. C. Off-street parkina. whether reauired or not reauired bY the code. shall be subiect to Ihe fOllowlna 1. Not more than fifty (SO) percent of the front yard. or 800 SQuare feet. whlchevltr is smaller. can be off-street parkina surface. In no Instance. however, shall a slnale familY dwellina be limited to less than 400 sauare feet of off-street parklnQ surface In the front yard. For the pUrDoses of calculatina the allowable area under this: section. the front yard shall be the area between the rlaht-of-way and the portion of the sinale family dwellina's front facade farthest from the rlaht-of-wav. The width of thE¡ front yard shall extend to each side property line. -----~_.,..._. --_._-----~. 2. On properties facina on two or more public riahts-of-wav. the total off-street parkina surfaces for all front yards shall not be areater than 800 sauare feet. D. Allowances for off-street parkina for other uniaue front yard confiaurations may be allowed subiect to approval bv the Plannina Director. Examples include. but are not Iimited!2. panhandle lots. cul-de sac lots. non-confonnina development situations or situations where on-street Darkina on the block does not exist. 2 ~- ? \-bias 0.lü \:A)\ì::I) I'D \)~,u'0~ C<.::ŸV\I'vll'SS<"sN i3 '( SI7>- çy I "- "" ~ " .- ~.. ,,..' ----.~--_.._-_..-.- ~...- .._--_.._.~~- ~ .. '~ d'Þ".. 't% ~ .. , , , æ r ! '. r I t i 1 ! ¡ ..._-~~-~~--_._-- ORDINANCE NO.5 9 1 3 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, RELATED TO ZONING AND LAND USE, AMENDING AUBURN CITY CODE SECTION 18,52.060 RELATED TO OFF-STREET PARKING FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES AND DUPLEXES WHEREAS, from time to time amendments to the City of Auburn zoning code are appropriate to update and better reflect the current development needs of the City; and WHEREAS, the City receives complaints from the public concerning the number of vehicles parked in front yards of residential dwellings and the parking of such vehicles on unimproved surfaces; and WHEREAS, on March 8, 2005 the City of Auburn Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on proposed code amendments to Auburn City Code Section 18,52,060 addressing surfacing requirements for certain res;jdential dwellings; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission continued the public heming to April 5, 2005; and WHEREAS, after carefully considering testimony the Planning Commission on April 5, 2005 made a recommendation to City Council; and WHEREAS, on August 1, 2005 the City Council of the City of Auburn considered the Auburn Planning Commission recommendation; and WHEREAS, environmental review on the proposal in accordance with the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) has been completed with a final determination of non-significance (DNS) issued March 1, 2005; and ----------- Ordinance No, 5913 July 26, 2005 Page 1 of 5 __......_.___.__,._...._____._ _ __ __n___ ___ __._.__"..____...__.~_.-_ WHEREAS, the proposal was received by State agencies for the 60-day review period on January 24,2005 in accordance with RCW 36,70A.10Ei with no comments from State agencies having been received during that period/, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCil OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOllOWS: Section 1. Adoption. Auburn City Code (ACC) Chapter 18,5.2,060 is hereby amended as follows: "18,52,060 Development of required off-street parking spslces for single-family dwellings and duplexes. For parking areas serving single-family dwellings and duplexes, this section shall apply in lieu of ACC 18,52,050 A. For those off street parkina spaces reauired pursuant Ito ACC section 18.52.020IAH1}, the followina standards shall apply; A., 1. Off-street parking spaces for single-family dwellings and duplexes on lots located in all zones except the R-R zone shall be paved with asphalt concrete or cement concrete, Each off-street parking space shall be connected to an improved street or alley by a driveway a minimum of 11 feet in width which shall be paved with asphalt concrete or cement concrete, ß., 2. Off-street parking spaces for single-family dwellings on separate lots in the R-R zone may have an all weather isurface, Each off-street parking space shall be connected to an improved street by a driveway which may have an all weather surfa,ce, The construction of the all weather surface shall be determined by the city engineer, The driveway approach, to a paved street, shall be paved and be at least 11 feet wide and 30 feet in length, G., 3. The pavement width of a driveway to serve a single-fslmily 2!: duplex parking area shall be a minimum of 11 feet. If the driveway is a designated fire lane, the pavement width shall be at 113ast 20 feet and have an unobstructed vertical clearance of at least 13 feet six inches (UFC 902,2,2,1), ---..-----.-- Ordinance No, 5913 July 26, 2005 Page 2 of 5 ,.._._--~--~-----_..__._------,---_...._---- B. Off street vehicle parking soaces. includina those for trailers. recreational vehicles. and boats on trailers. that are provided in addition to those reauired pursuant to ACC section 18.S2.(]I201AIl1) shall meet the following standards: 1. Off-street oarkina soaces located in the front vard of lots located in all zones exceot the RR lRural Residential! zone shall have one of the following surfaces: a. Asohalt concrete or cement concrete pavement: or b. Gravel. orovided that weeds. mud or other fine material do not work their wav to the surface of the gravel and orovided that loose aravel is conulined on the subect orooertv: or. c. Anv other materials including pavers or oelrmeable surfaces including grasscrete that are aoomved bv the City and that maintain a durable uniform !Iurface. 2. Drivewavs that exclusivelv serve non-reauired off-street oarking soaces are also subject to the surfacing reauirement. 3. Boats not on trailers shall not be stored in the front vard. C. Off-street oarkina. whether reauired or not reauired bv the code. shall be subiect to the followina: 1. Single Familv Dwellinas a. Not more than fiftv lSO) percent of the front vard, or 800 sauare feet. whichever is smaller. can be off-street parkina surface. However. except as orovided for in ACC Section 18.S2.0601DI(2) below. in no instance shall a singlEt familv dwellina be limited to less than 400 sauare feet of olrt-street oarkina surface in the front vard. For the ourOI)ses of calculatina the allowable area under this section. the front yard shall be the area between the right-of-wav ¡lnd the portion of the sinale family dwelling's front facade Ifarthest from the right-of-way. The width of the front val'd shall extend to each side orooerty line. b. On properties facing on two or more public riahts.of-way. the total off-street oarking surfaces for all front yards shall not be greater than 800 sauare feet. Exceptions !may be considered pursuant to ACC 18.S2.0601DIl11. ------ Ordinance No, 5913 July 26, 2005 Page 3 015 2. Duplexes a. Not more than fifty (§Q) percent of the front yard, or 1,600 sauare feet. whichever is smaller. can be off-street parkina surface. However. except as provided for in ACC Section 18.52.060{D)(2) below. in no instance shall a dUlplex be limited to less than 800 sauare feet of off-street parkina surface in the front yard. For the purposes of calc~ulatina the allowable area under this section. the front valrd shall be the area between the riaht-of-wav and the portioln of the duplexes front facade farthest from the riaht-of-wav. The width of the front vard shall extend to each side IJlropertv line. b. On properties facina on two or more public riahts·,of-way. the total off-street parkina surfaces for all front yards shall not be areater than 1.600 sauare feet. Exceptions mav be considered pursuant to ACC 18.52.060(D)(1). D. The Plannina Director mav administrativelv review and c,onsider approvina alternative off-street parkina surfacina lavcÞuts to address the followina: 1., Uniaue front yard confiaurations includina. but not limited to. panhandle lots. cui-de sac lots. corner lou¡. non- conformina development situations or situations where on- street parkina on the block does not exist. 2. Situations where the minimum allowable sauare 1footaae identified in ACC sections 18.52.060 (C)(1)(a) and (C}(2)(a) eauals or exceeds the allowable area for off-street IJlarkina. In such instances. the Plannina Director shall revilæw and consider approvina an alternative proposal to avoid surfacina of the entire front vard for off-street .,arkina purposes. Section 2. Constitutionality or Invalidity. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance adopted herein, is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any Court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision, and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof; -------- Ordinance No. 5913 July 26, 2005 Page 4 of 5 '-'--~-'--'-'-~-----'- - --- -_._.._----~--,---_._--_.- ,. -----r---- Section 3. ImDlementation. The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the direction of this legislation, Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force five days from and after its passage, approval, and publication as provided by law, INTRODUCED: PASSED: APPROVED: PETER B, LEWIS MAYOR ATTEST: Danielle E. Daskam City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ---------- Ordinance No, 5913 July 26, 2005 Page 5 of 5 .-_._.._._-------_._-------,._---~~._-~-----_.-