Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-05-2001MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 5, 2001 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on June 5, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Auburn City Hall. Those in attendance were as follows: MEMBERS: Dave Peace, Karen Ekrem, Garna Jones, Bill Taylor, Peter DiTuri, Dan Rollins, Ronald Douglas STAFF: Lynn Rued, David Osaki, Sean Martin and Carolyn Brown The following members were absent: Dan Rollins The meeting was called to order by Chairman Peace APPROVAL OF MINUTES: It was concurred by the Planning Commission that the minutes of the May 2001 meeting be approved as mailed. PUBLIC HEAR1NG: File No.: ZOA01-0004 - Comprehensive zoning Map Amendments for 2001 Chairman Peace opened the public hearing. Then he went over the hearing format for staff and audience participation. Planner Sean Martin presented the staff reports on the zoning map amendments. This dictates the current use of properties and development standards. Zoning maps are enforced by the City's Comprehensive land use plan, which is approved once a year. The amendments before the Commission tonight are the maps that follow up the Comprehensive Plan changes. The City has initiated (Nine) 9 locations Citywide. This is per Auburn City Code 18.68. All the changes tonight have been initiated by the City. Planning Commission will make recommendations. Exhibit #1 - An area in transition is at West Main at D Street NW & H Street NW. The change will allow Residential office zoning in an area where there are currently residences only. There is also some existing M2, which will be changed to RO and M1. It is an area of approximately 4 3/4 acres. Chairman Peace asked if this was the area that residents agreed to the changes? Planner Martin stated yes, as there were several meetings headed by David Osaki and other staff of the Planning Department, with the. residents of this neighborhood. Chairman Peace asked Planner Martin to go through the whole presentation first then allow for public comment. Planner Martin agreed. Exhibit #2. This location is at H Street NE and 4th Street NE by Auburn High School. The change is to provide uniformity to this area. The change will align institutional zoning with the existing zoning for the Messiah Lutheran Church as the appropriate use. There were no comments from the Commission. Exhibit #3. This change represents the Park Department holdings in the eastern part of the City. The City seeks to provide a P1 or Public use for these areas. These areas are along the Green River and Auburn Black Diamond Road at locations also known as the Fenster Property and the Green River Access Property. The City's intent is to provide the appropriate zoning for the land use. There were no comments from the Commission. -1- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 5, 2001 Exhibit//4. This is 4 acres of commercially zoned property along the Auburn Way South corridor from 9th Street and Auburn Way South to the intersection with 12th Street SW. The change is from C3 to Cl. Again this is to allow for continuity. There were no comments from the Commission. Exhibit//5. This change is in the 3200-3300block of Auburn Way South along the commercial frontage in the Forest Villa area. The change is from CN to R3 in order to provide a residential designation to the property and to align with the adjacent properties. Commission member Douglas asked if there were any more CN designations in the City. Planner Martin answered that there are 5 parcels, 4 are near the QFC store and the Casino at Dogwood Street and 1 is the block on East Main and M where Peckenpaugh's is located. Exhibit//6. The next property is on the west side of Academy Drive along Lemon Tree Lane and Cameron Park. Last year in this area, there was a private rezone and plat application. Under this amendment, staff requests this rezone in order for adjacent prOperties to be consistent with the change initiated. The primary difference between R-1 and R-2 is the lot size. There were no comments from the Commission. Exhibit//7. This particular map change is a follow-up to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment in 1998. It is along the Oravetz way right-of-way by Mill Pond Drive and up Kennedy Avenue. There is apProximately 10 acres of unclassified land, which will be changed to R-1. Again the intent is to provide consistent zoning. An unclassified zone assumes the R-1 zoning by default. Chairman Peace asked Planner Martin to point out the 10 acres on the map. He asked if this area could be developed due to the apparent steepness of the terrain? Planner Martin indicated that there are some topographical problems, but not for the entire 10 acres. This could even represent additional open space. Exhibit//8. This is approximately 26 acres in size at the intersection with Lakeland Parkway to the north and 8th Street NE to the south along the East Valley Highway corridor. The City would like to change the zoning from R2 to C1 in the northern portion and R1 to C1 in the southern portion. Chairman Peace asked if this was an amendment initiated by the City? Planner Martin stated that it was. Exhibit//9. This area is south on East Valley Highway at the 8th Street Corridor. The intent is to change the zoning from R1 to Pl. When the parcel was annexed it was at R1, but the area is 12 acres that will be used for storm drainage ponds so the zoning designation needs to be changed. The most appropriate zoning is Pl. Some side slopes may infringe but that is on the right-of-way. Chairman Peace then called for any public testimony. He stated that staff would go back through each area individually. Commission Member Jones asked to see Exhibit//5 again and have it re-explained. She also asked again about the area around the Peckenpaugh Drug store. Amendment//1 received no comments. Amendment//2 received no comments. Amendment//3. Someone from the audience asked for an explanation of R1 zoning. She also questioned where will the new entrance to the park be. Assistant Planning Director Rued said it is the City's intent to develop these as park properties. However, there are no designs or plans at this time. Someone from the audience asked if these plans will be presented to neighbors. Commission Member Ekrem asked to have the process explained. Assistant Planning Director Rued would let the Parks Department know that people were interested in any projects. Chairman Peace then asked the woman to -2- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 5, 2001 identify herselfi She stated that she was Katy Armstrong of 2022 4th Street and is concerned that the new access road for any park would be at the end of their cul-de-sac. No further comments were presented. Amendment #4. William Henderson of 1401 'H' Street SE questioned the zoning from light commercial to heavy commercial. Asked if staff would please explain the differences. Planner Martin stated that both provide a wide range of uses. C3 provides more intensity of uses i.e. auto sales, outdoor storage, contractors yard, etc. C1 focuses on uses to be maintained inside building. Mr. Henderson asked if the City is changing the boundaries? Planner Martin stated that no the City is changing the zoning on existing parcels only. No further comments were presented. Amendment #5. Robert Beatty, president of the Winchester Heights condominiums had questions regarding this rezoning. The Winchester Heights condos were built in 1979-80. Since then there has been land movement on the southern parcel. The current RR zoned area could be considered to be in a landslide area. Part of the area has been used as commercial property and backfilled with debris. Staff discussed different properties in the area. The condo owners are requesting the City not change to R3 because of the land movement and how the slope drops off. Chairman Peace asked why would it make a difference to rezone from neighborhood commercial to R3 regarding the land erosion? Mr. Beatty stated that more roads and houses would create more run-off and would carry more water to the slope. Currently the area behind Winchester Condos is unimproved. Commission Member Taylor asked what would the change do? Mr. Beatty said they would hope to see less development within the C1 zoning except what already exists. As a footnote, Mr. Beatty said they never received any public notices regarding the public hearing. No further comments were presented. Amendment #6 received no comments. Amendment #7 received no comments. Amendment #8 received no comments. Amendment #9 received no comments. With no further comments from the public, Chairman Peace closed the public hearing at 7:40 pm. The Commission then discussed Amendment 5. The zoning was amended because extensive commercial development into that area was something the City thought was inappropriate. This change was based upon the Planning Commission recommendations to go with the adjacent zoning. Planner Martin explained that any project would probably have to go through the SEPA process and that would require a geotechnical report. Commission Member Jones asked what currently is on the R3 zoned parcels? Planner Martin answered that for the most part they are undeveloped or residential. Planner Douglass asked for the definition of RR. Planner Martin responded that RR allows for some agricultural activities and the minimum lot size is 4 acres. Commission Member Jones lives next to the Messiah Lutheran Church that is one of the properties on the agenda tonight. Assistant Planning Director Rued said as long as she declares herself as an adjacent propertY owner and not gaining financially from the rezone, she can be a part of these proceedings. Commission Member Ekrem moved to accept the Comprehensive Map Amendments for 2001. Second by Commission Member Douglass. All members then voted to approve. -3- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 5, 2001 DISCUSSION: 1. SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE Planner Jeff Dixon gave the staff presentation on the Sensitive Areas Draft Ordinance (SA). He will ask for questions and comments as he goes through sections 2-7 and 14-17. For the most part the changes are administrative in nature and the end result will be what an applicant can expect when he comes to the City with a planned project. Sections 8-13 are more substantive and will specify what is required of an applicant. This section will be discussed at future meetings. Staff and Commission members will come back to discuss the entire ordinance after the sections are reviewed. Chairman Peace asked what is the time line? Planner Dixon said the intent is to finish by year-end. Commission Member Ekrem asked if there is a model for setting the standards and if the State provides the guidelines. Planner Dixon stated the Growth Management Act (GMA) has the required definitions of each area, but does not set forth any particular classifications and buffers. Previously information was from other jurisdictions. The City is using a summary table from other jurisdictions. Commission Member Ekrem asked if we have to follow what is reasonable? Planner Dixon said that there are no standards and to use "the best available science" is a state term. It is meant to be used as a thought process. Commission Member Ekrem asked if there will be public meetings? Planner Dixon stated that once the. Commission is at a level of comfort with the regulations, then the public will be notified of the proposal through open houses, newsletters, etc. Chairman Peace noted that it would be cumbersome to invite individual property owners and it should be an overall education process. Planner Dixon went on to say that these regulations are in existence in other jurisdictions, especially in flood plains and land clearing activities. Right now the City manages sensitive areas thru the SEPA process. The intent is to have a set of regulations so people will know what restraints are on their property. It will also provide the City with consistency. For example some areas are SEPA exempt now, such as a project that is small and doesn't trigger SEPA. Sections 2-7 of the Sensitive Areas Draft Ordinance: Section 2 is the definitions.and key terms used in sensitive areas ordinances used by state authorities and other jurisdictions. Chairman Peace said he would rather not take the time to go through the definitions. Planner Dixon asked that Commission members call him if they have any questions. Section 3 - Covers applicability and specifies what types of activities and uses are subject to a set of regulations. This is typical of most SA regulations such as destroying, demolishing, and dumping. The ordinance will make distinctions between actions that will affect the SA, where usually repairs, remodeling, and maintenance are exempt. In Section 9 will be a map that shows these areas. The process should then coincide with the permitting of activities. Section 4 - Exemptions. Some areas are of a minor nature and these would be exempt because of no affect on the area or impractical to police or administer. An example of this would be on going agricultural activities. Also, normal maintenance and repair not likely to affect these areas. Committee Member Taylor said that reconstruction is mentioned as being permitted if it is infrastructure and/or a utility or if the City was building a roadway, pump-stations, or utilities. Committee Member DiTuri asked about emergency regulations to cover landslide, sinkhole, logjam, etc. Would the -4- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 5,2001 ordinance allow the property owner to mitigate due to potential damage? SA ordinance is for review and planning not for property that is in eminent danger of damage. Planner Dixon stated that the property owner needs to approach the City. Committee Member DiTuri asked if someone takes the necessary steps to mitigate property, is there a point where that circumstance is resolved by bulldozing, but does nothing to prevent something adverse from happening nearby? Planner Dixon said that if the work was done and future erosion was a problem, then other City authority would address that. The City could specify that only the action to stabilize was exempt, but any subsequent actions will be part of the same provisions or part of the City process. Chairman Peace commented that we don't want the temporary measure to be permanent. Section 5 refers to SA maps. Section 6 discusses how the SA issues are to act as an overlay, and not intended to be a permit layer, but part of the review process with existing City permits. If there is a conflict between SA regulations and other City regulations, the City would use the one that would provide the greatest protection for the site. Section 7 covers the review process. The City would try to avoid duplication and most often the SA would be run concurrent with the SEPA application, unless it is a small action and is SEPA exempt. Also, the ordinance would identify that a Pre-Application meeting is recommended to identify the problems. The ordinance should clearly identify the location of the sensitive area onsite, require what reports are needed and if a mitigation plan is necessary. Or could set aside a buffer, not disturb the area, or mitigate offsite or on site. The ordinance is also asking that qualified consultants prepare the repons and there is a definition of what 'qualified' means. The process will not be much different than what the City does now. The standards will be known in advance by the applicant. Section 14 is the procedural provisions. This section will try to cover any questions on interpretations / enforcement and will be patterned after other City Codes. Commission Member DiTuri referenced the state and federal GMA and Endangered Species Act and asked if it is appropriate to have it in this location and Planner Dixon agreed that it is. The Planning Director has the ultimate authority to make interpretations and anyone can appeal that interpretation. The City wants to avoid making this an all encompassing ordinance. Section 15 is the reasonable use provision that would provide the regulations that allow a property owner to use his property. To deprive a property owner of the right to use the property is considered a 'Taking'. This section would allow for the Hearing Examiner to hear these types of cases and if it meets certain criteria exceptions would be allowed. It is intended to be a relive mechanism. Chairman Peace asked what if the whole property is in a sensitive area, would the City make sure that the use of that property is reasonable? Planner Dixon stated that it would be up to the Hearing Examiner to approve that. Section 16 is the section that discusses the relive mechanism thru variance process. Usually applicable to buffer requirements or setbacks and also, due to the shape of property or a physical constraint on property. Section 17 contains the Legal and Severabilty information. If one section is determined to be invalid, then the rest of ordinance to be in use. -5- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 5, 2001 Planner Dixon finished by saying the goal of staff is to present more of the sections next Planning Commission meeting and also, to have it all together at that time. Chairman Peace would like to see the suggestion about emergencies included in the ordinance. 2. DOWNTOWN PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Planner David Osaki that he wanted to make a couple of announcements before discussing the Downtown Plan. Staff is not expecting to have as many Comp Plan changes this year as last year. The City still needs to work through the water, storm and sewer plans. Planning staffwiil meet with Public Works to coordinate the process. This year the deadline is July 6, 2001 for Comp Plan amendments. David also announced that Staff will go to the Planning and Community Development (PCDC) meeting and bring forward ideas on neighborhood planning. The areas being considered are the Les Gove Park area, the 'M' Street/Highway 18/Auburn Way South triangle, and West Auburn on the north side of West Main. Staff will be working with neighbors and to bring forth a plan. Commission Member Ekrem asked if it would be OK if she attended a PCDC meeting. Commission Member Jones asked how the areas were picked? Planner Osaki stated that the areas picked were ones that could benefit from neighborhood revitalization. On May 21st, 2001 the City Council adopted the Downtown Plan. Staffhopes to have the Plan printed later this month. In the Downtown Plan there are different policies and regulations. Beginning with the 2002 budget process, many of the programs will need funding. Staffwould like to know which ones the Planning Commission would like to pursue next year, then staff can request money in the budget. There are street improvement projects and staff would like to ask for funding for design. If there is a design in place then staff could apply for grant money. All of the projects need design work first. There are a series of implementation measures and so Planning Commission needs to think about what they would like to initiate. Commission Member Taylor asked about the cost of some of the measures. Planner Osaki stated that in the Downtown Plan there are estimated costs. Staff would like to partnerships with other groups. Chairman Peace inquired if the City Council made any major changes to the Downtown Plan? Assistant Director Rued answered that the Council changed the policy to limit impact fees and also took out the minimum building height requirement. Commission Member Ekrem had a question on the workload for the Planning Commission and is staff projecting a schedule for any Workshops. Assistant Planning Director Rued answered yes, in the July meeting, staff will have a more definite schedule for the Sensitive Areas ordinance. Commission and staff discussed the July date of the Planning Commission meeting and agreed to stay with the set date of July 3. The Commission members would also like to see the Planning Commission meetings end by 9:00 pm. ADJOURNMENT: Chairman Peace adjourned the meeting AT 8:56 pm. -6-