Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-03-2001MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 3, 2001 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on July 3, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Auburn City Hall. Those in attendance were as follows: MEMBERS: Dave Peace, Bill Taylor, Peter DiTuri, Ronald Douglas STAFF: David Osaki, Jeff DiXon, and Patti Zook The following members were absent: Karen Ekerm, Garna Jones The meeting was called to order by Chairman Dave Peace. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: It was concurred by the Planning Commission that the minutes of,the June 5, 2001 meeting be approved as mailed. DISCUSSION: Principal Planner Osaki presented a work plan for the rest of the year and then reviewed the plan schedule for each month. He spoke about the annual Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle. PC may also be acting on the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Public Works Department is working on the Comprehensive Sewer Plan, Water Plan and Storm Drainage Plan and a PC worksession may be needed again on these. He has a meeting with the City Attorney and Public Works staff next week regarding processing the Comprehensive Water Plan and Storm Drainage Plan amendments. He then spoke about the neighborhood plan and the request of the PCDC for a neighborhood plan for A Street SE. PC did not have questions on the work plan. Downtown Plan Implementation Principal Planner Osaki spoke of implementation measures and he is waiting for the final document from the consUltant. City Council had a few changes which he mentioned. He asked PC to think about items they want pursued first. Commissioner Peace asked about identifying a couple priorities in each category. Commissioner Douglass pointed out that a number of the items require stafftime and this will limit the number of items that can actually be funded or staffed. He asked if any staffwill be added. Principal Planner Osaki replied that consultants could be brought on board to help, but no new staff is likely. The Plan is based on 15-20 year period. · Commission-initiated 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Principal Planner Osaki reminded PC that it is approaching the time for the yearly amendments and he is seeking PC's comments and input on amendments that PC might want to initiate. The Capital Facilities Plans from Kent and Auburn School Districts was received. City has received a request from Fred Meyer to amend the North Auburn Special Plan Area to remove the limitation on service stations. Staff will have text amendments for review. · Sections 8-10 of the SensitiVe Areas Ordinance (SAO) Planner Dixon commented that PC was given.descriptions for Sections 8-10, not the actual draft sections. Sections 8-10 and 11-13 are substantive portions of the SAO. He then reviewed what is envisioned in these sections. The regulations are to be appropriately designed. He reviewed Section 8 and the four different categories of wetlands and said that most of Auburn's wetlands are in category IV. The stream classification also has four categories which were reviewed. -1- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 3, 2001 Commissioner Douglass inquired about different entities (the Army Corps for example) choosing different categories. Planner Dixon mentioned that the City of Bellevue had developed its own classification system. The state model ordinances are well established. The reason behind this classification was because it is well supported. Commissioner Peace wondered about the State requiring a rating system. Planner Dixon replied no. Regarding wildlife classification, the 'critical habitat designation is very important and he explained what constitutes a 'critical habitat'. Commissioner Peace wondered about the City's intent to retain areas that contain wild animals such as deer. Planner Dixon confirmed that through development some deer will be displaced. The categories will be defined. What is meant by 'ancillary habitat' was explained. Mobile species such as deer can be more easily displaced. Planner Dixon explained acquifer recharge area and said that information came from studies conducted over the last several years. Historically, most of the valley floor is considered an aquifer recharge area. Frequently flooded areas classification is established by FEMA. He explained what is meant by floodway and flood fringe. Referring to frequently flooded areas, Commissioner DiTuri asked if the FEMA delineations will remain intact or change if FEMA reassesses. He wondered what happens when Auburn changes storm sewer, and who is responsible to say an area is considered frequently flooded. Planner Dixon explained that FEMA puts out floodplain maps based on FEMA studies and the Public Works Department has these maps. Auburn has to do a formal process through FEMA to amend the maps when storm drainage affects a floodplain. Commissioner DiTuri wondered if Public Works Department proceeds on the Sewer Plan, will the FEMA maps have to be changed. Planner Dixon said that Public works is working on the sanitary sewer plan and storm plan. The storm plan is to address runoff from development and how to manage it so flood problems are not increased. The plan would not have large impacts on floodplain. They are trying to manage each development to manage its own waters. Floodways identified by FEMA are associated with Mill Creek, Green River, etc., from high water conditions after storm events. Planner Dixon explained the classification for different geologic hazard areas and that this information is based on Soil Conservation Services studies. In Section 9, he explained the purposes of buffers and setbacks. Buffer standards are in four categories. Washington does have a model ordinance, but most jurisdictions have done less than Washington DOE model. Flexibility is built in by buffer averaging. Commissioner DiTuri wanted to know who benefits from larger buffers versus smaller buffers and how to determine. Planner Dixon said to allow averaging, but minimum distance to be maintained and take into account the intensity of the adjacent land use. He explained flexibility mechanisms and long term preservation measures. Planner Dixon referred to Section 10 and explained what is meant by mitigation and what is meant by sequenced. Commissioner Peace asked who determines what is reasonable for a developer to do. Planner Dixon said that staff makes the determination and gave an example. Staff explains to the developer what is required and how to do. Commissioner Taylor inquired about the appeal process. Planner Dixon spoke about Variances from buffer standards, appeals of SAO determinations. Artificially created wetlands are not ones created for compensation and these will not be regulated. If they are created as part of mitigation, they are regulated. Planner Dixon then recapped the presentation and said that staff is working toward firming the regulations and hope to bring the draft code language for PC review in August. ADJOURNMENT: With no further items to come before the Commission the meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. PC~GND\MIN07-2001 -2-