HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-05-2002MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
FEBRUARY 5,200~_2
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on February 5, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers of the Auburn City Hall. Those in attendance were as follows:
MEMBERS: Garna Jones, Dave Peace, Peter DiTuri, Ronald Douglass, and Yvonne Ward
STAFF :Lynn Rued, Dave Osaki, Jeff Dixon, Aaron Nix and Patti Zook
The following members were absent:
Dave Peace and Karen Ekrem
The meeting was called to order by Commissioner DiTuri on behalf of Chairman Dave Peace.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
It was concurred by the Planning Commission that the minutes of the December 4, 2001 meeting be approved as
mailed.
NEW COMMISSIONER and NEW STAFF INTRODUCTION:
Assistant Planning Director Rued introduced Yvonne Ward; new Commissioner and Aaron Nix, new
ESA/Environmental Compliance Manager. He also informed Commission that Bill Taylor submitted his
resignation.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
Commissioner Jones made a motion seconded by Commissioner Douglass to postpone the election until the March
meeting. Motion passed.
CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING:
· ZOA01-0007 - Zoning Ordinance Amendments re: Height of Wireless Communications Facilities in P-1,
Public Use Zone
Assistant Planning Director Rued presented the staff report and commented that the zoning regulations of cell
towers in P1 zones is a bit unclear. He spoke about the Qwest Wireless appeal of interpretation. City Council
established a four month moratorium to allow staff to propose changes related to height of cell towers in the P1
zone. Staff is recommending a maximum height of 45 feet which is the same height as other structures allowed
in P1 zone. He reviewed the map contained in the agenda packet. The Planning and Community Development
Committee recommended changes which are forwarded for Planning Commission review and call for public
hearing.
In response to questions from Commissioner Douglass, Assistant Planning Director Rued said the P1 zone is
designed for schools, parks or government property. Public uses are allowed in the P1 and I, Institutional
zones. However the I zone also allows other uses such as nursing homes and multi family. I zone is typically
located adjacent to residential areas. Commissioner Douglass: expressed concern about school ball fields and
that height of structures could shut down school ground activity. Assistant Planning Director Rued said that
schools do not have to lease property to carriers; however, if they wish to do this zoning rules. This also
applies if someone wants to lease park property - the zoning rules apply. Commissioner Ward wondered if this
means there is no overall height and Assistant Planning Director Rued said the tmiform height in P1 zone is
maximum of 45 height and other zoning districts will not change.
Acting Chairman DiTuri wondered about use of City property to support towers and if the City collects rental
fees to cover maintaining the towers. Assistant Planning Director Rued replied that the City would charge fees;
part of the watershed next to Evergreen Elementary School has portion of land leased to cell carrier. Acting
Chairman DiTuri expressed concern with damage and liability issues when carriers bring their equipment onto
-1-
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 5,200~2
City property for maintenance of towers. He is concerned about non-City units maintaining facilities on City
property. Assistant Planning Director Rued said the Code allows for zoning approval of this use and gave as an
example a carrier wanting to lease park property and having to get approval from Parks Director, Parks Board
and City Council as the property owner. This process allows the City to dictate what it wants from the carrier.
Acting Chairman DiTuri inquired how many providers can colocate on one pole and the City's ability to make
anyone who wants a tower to have equal access. What happens if the tower is fully loaded and cannot support
additional carriers. Assistant Planning Director Rued said that most carriers do not like to colocate. No towers
over 75 feet have been erected since the ordinance passed. There has not been a problem of towers having too
many carriers.
Commissioner Douglass asked about the difference in change from administrative use permit to conditional use
permit. Assistant Planning Director Rued remarked that administrative use permit is granted by Planning
Director administratively while conditional use permits go to public hearing before Hearing Examiner and then
to City Council for approval by ordinance.
Commissioners called for public hearing to be held at their March meeting.
DISCUSSION:
· Sensitive Areas Ordinance
Planner Dixon reminded Planning Commission that they previously reviewed and discussed Sections 1 through
17 individual. Now, the consultant has prepared and is putting all the parts together. He described specific
changes since earlier versions such as staff correcting inconsistencies and clarified, removal of floodplain
regulations which are identified because they are a required element of in Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO),
but refers to City Code section for the development regulations. Still to be changed are wellhead protection and
Public Works Department has a consultant preparing wellhead protection regulations, but the information is not
yet ready. Wellhead protection and aquifer recharge are proposed to be combined into one regulation in this
code section. He spoke of the need to address tree preservation which was discussed at the December meeting.
Subsequent changes to SAO will be provided in strikeout/underline format so that Planning Commission can
readily see what changes are made. The sections were reviewed in detail previously and will be reviewed
quickly tonight. The City is not building a new permit process, but incorporating SAO into the existing permit
process.
Commissioner Ward inquired when is appropriate time to discuss inclusion of trees and questioned if tree
preservation should be included in an SAO. Planner Dixon said that while tree preservation is not required
element of GMA, it is proposed to be addressed in these regulations for public convenience so there is one code
section relating to environmental restrictions of property. Commissioner Ward wondered if citizens with
questions about trees would think SAO standards apply. Planner Dixon said another reason for inclusion was
that tree regulations would benefit from the relief mechanisms which are already part of the SAO. There may
be ways to qualify tree regulations in the SAO so it is clear what applies and differentiate between different
authorities.
Commissioner Jones asked if the Planning andCommunity Development Committee has reviewed the SAO
and Planner Dixon advised that that Committee has not reviewed it at the level of detail that Planning
Commission has reviewed. They have received brie£mgs on development of SAO, but have not looked at
proposed regulations. Open houses and additional briefings are planned prior to Planning Commission public
hearing on the SAO.
Acting Chairman DiTuri referred to page 12 and pointed out there is not a definition for 'reasonable use'. He
believes the term 'reasonable use' is subjective and wondered where to draw the line in determining what is
reasonable. Planner Dixon said staff is still reviewing what other cities use as a definition for reasonable use.
What constitutes reasonable use in part is answered by the criteria. He spoke of concept of avoiding
-2-
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 5,200?
circumstance of denying a property owner the ability to use property and the need to ensure that the regulations
do not create circumstance that prevent a property from being developed due to strict regulations. He spoke of
implementing a process by which the Hearing Examiner decides when the regulations were having this effect
and to approve relief from strict requirements. The provision of criteria within the ordinance assist in reducing
subjective ness. Acting Chairman DiTuri asked if other jurisdictions have tightened up the definition so that it
is not misinterpreted and Planner Dixon explained that reasonable use is a common feature of SAOs. There are
different approaches and he offered to look at some other examples.
Commissioner Ward asked if other jurisdictions have defined reasonable use and Planner Dixon said staff is
still looking into this which is why the definition is blank. A definition for reasonable use is important. She
requested to see examples of reasonable use definitions from other jurisdictions.
Commissioner Jones referred to Section 4, Exemptions, item 11 and asked what is meant by minor activities.
Planner Dixon explained that the City cannot always anticipate every possible circumstance that might come up
and this would be a 'catch all' to allow other minor activities. The actives would be reviewed and determined if
minor activities that do not need to be subject to regulations. An applicant would need to get prior approval
from the City so that the City can see if it is appropriate to give authorization.
Commissioner Ward asked what is meant by 14 days notice and if this could be interpreted to mean as having
to give notice of any change on your property. If changes are minor, why does the City have to be notified.
Planner Dixon explained that item 11 specifically lists these above that must be determined in advance to have
minor impact.
Commissioner Jones wondered about including examples in item 11. Planner Dixon said this item is meant to
provide an opportunity for City to look at because the City cannot anticipate all circumstances which may arise.
He indicated that providing examples can be limiting since it focuses attention on the particular examples and it
can seem that these are the only ones for minor activities.
Commissioner Ward expressed concern about SAO regulations affecting every person and as the sentence reads
now anyone removing plants would be subject to the regulations. Planner Dixon said no and referred to item 5
which speaks to 'normal maintenance' which is exempt. Commissioner Ward referred to item 5 on page 16 and
asked what is meant by 'provisions of this chapter are followed'. Planner Dixon said this speaks to fact of
doing normal maintenance while still trying to keep within the spirit of the regulations.
Planner Dixon briefly reviewed Sections 5, 6 and 7. Commissioner Ward referred to Section 7, item C, and
inquired about a list of qualified consultants. Planner Dixon remarked that the City is not preparing a list of
consultants, but an earlier section within the de£mitions speaks to their experience and qualifications. The City
cannot recommend consultants. Commissioner Ward referred to requirement that applicant pay for required
reports and thinks it is arbitrary to invoke the requirement. If applicant has a qualified consultant then City
should look at report. Planner Dixon explained that Auburn does not have a staff geologist or biologist that
could critically evaluate reports to substantiate their content. If there is circumstance that City had reason to
call a report into questions, make sure there is the opportunity to get expert information. Commissioner Ward
wondered if there was a way to specify a trigger mechanism before that cost is to be borne by application. She
spoke of the need to protect average person financially. She is concerned about the expense of required reports.
Planner Dixon confirmed that the reports could be expensive and do vary by project, issue, etc. He suggested
that this could be de£med under what circumstances a consultant on behalf of the City is required to review a
report and be paid for by an applicant.
Planner Dixon reviewed Section 8, Classification, and need to make sure that regulations and buffer
requirements are commensurate with the sensitive area characteristics. The categories come from State
guidance or State model ordinances which City must utilize to be compliant with Best Available Science
(BSA). There is category for artificially created wetland which is defined but will not be regulated. The
classification is based on what is now known, representing BSAs, and is continually evolving. The State could
come out with new information.
-3-
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 5, 2002
Planner Dixon reviewed Section 9, Buffers, and said there are different requirements for different types of
sensitive areas. He spoke of provisions for variance from buffer width requirements, buffer enhancement and
averaging, and flexibility.
Commissioner Jones asked about existing storm setback requirements. In response to questions from her,
Planner Dixon spoke about the shorelines management program process which is in place for development
adjacent to the White and Green Rivers. The shorelines program and the SAO are designed to be compatible.
Mill Creek does not have a standard setback. Buffer requirements are being put forth now because the City
does not have setbacks and instead relies on the SEPA process and on a case by case basis depending on the
development proposal. Commissioner Jones asked about cleaning out Mill Creek. Planner Dixon spoke about
the flood control plan for flooding/conveyance issues for Mill Creek. There has been difficulty with
implementation due to various Federal and State approvals that are necessary. Recently the City has been
looking at the Clay Street and Western Street area flooding and its causes and how to alleviate.
Planner Dixon reviewed Section 10, Alteration, and spoke about under what circumstances the City will allow
work to be performed in sensitive areas. Commissioner Ward referred to an article she read in the paper about
a study that raised questions relating to artificial wetlands and how this will affect SAO. Planner Dixon said the
study was looking at success rates of wetland mitigation to compensate for impacts on wetland. The report was
siting low success rates of creating/enhancing wetlands. The City monitors and requires applicants to monitor
and maintain wetland mitigation projects for a period of time. There is more intensive maintenance during
initial phase, but then less maintenance or no maintenance after this. Bonds are also required to ensure
compliance.
Section 11, Mitigation Standards was reviewed.
describes how mitigation should be approached.
13, Monitoring, was then reviewed.
If a person is allowed to impact sensitive areas, this section
Section 12, Performance Standards, was reviewed. Section
Environmental Compliance Manager Nix commented that City is in the process of developing a wetland
mitigation monitoring and contingency program. Auburn has had good success with many examples. Planner
Dixon spoke about the Thormond mitigation site and how it is maintained and monitored. A report on its
performance is regularly prepared and sent to State agencies. Planner Dixon: City gets fmancial security to
make sure there is monitoring and maintenance. The race track has to maintain Thormond for 11 years and it is
now year 4 or 5 and by demonstrating success, the security is released. The Corps is lead inspector of this site
and the City hopes to inspect sites in future as allowed by Section 13.
Commissioner Douglass referred to aquifer recharge area and underground storage areas and asked why not use
word 'prohibit' instead of 'dangerous'. Planner Dixon reminded the Commission this was discussed previously
regarding the regulation of gas stations because gas storage falls under categories of hazardous and dangerous.
Discussion occurred regarding rewording from 'discourage' to 'prohibit'.
Commissioner Ward asked about other types of businesses in town include hazardous storage and Planner
Dixon said that industrial businesses could have chemicals but these are usually within the buildings and meet
Fire Code requirements. She then suggested wording phrase as 'except for gas associated with gas station ..... '
to make clear these types of storage is prohibited. Planner Dixon to revise wording in this sentence.
Commissioner Jones wanted to ensure that there is no underground storage of chemicals in downtown and
stressed use of strong language. The City should also discourage attracting these types of businesses. The soil
types and seismic conditions should also be taken into consideration related to businesses coming into town.
Planner Dixon referred to Section 13 again and spoke about requirements associated with monitoring program
and bonding requirements. Commissioner Ward suggested moving the first sentence from item B into item A
so that it reads more clearly.
-4-
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 5, 2009,
Commissioner Jones asked how much monitoring is being done with limited staff and funds. She asked
Environmental Compliance Manager Nix if he is doing the monitoring and Environmental Compliance
Manager Nix replied that the monitoring will be a function of the new Code Compliance Officer.
Planner Dixon reviewed Section 14, Procedural Provisions which talks about how to handle interpretations or
conflicts. Commissioner Ward expressed a concern with item A in Section 14 regarding the unchecked power
of the Planning Director and this item gives that person too much decision making power. Planner Dixon said
the paragraph provides flexibility because you cannot address every circumstance that might come up.
Commissioner Ward asked for an example of a situation that would not be covered; a situation where a person
could not wait for a decision through Planning Commission or HE.. What situation would give PD such
power? Planner Dixon pointed out Auburn City Code Section 18.70.050, a subsequent provision which allows
for appealing the Director's decision which is similar to and what is allowed in this chapter. Commissioner
Ward is concerned about PD waiving magic wand and making decision. Planner Dixon referred to next
subsection which speaks about appealing PD decision. Commissioner Ward believes there is question of
promulgation of procedures/rules of PD without checks and balances. Why is there a need to allow such power
without going through the process? Planner Dixon said he will look at modifying the use of the terms
'promulgate process and roles' here to see about making it more specific.
Commissioner Jones wanted to know what role the Army Corps of Engineers plays in wetland mitigation.
Planner Dixon explained that each agency has its own roles; for example, the Corps does not regulate impacts
to small wetlands, and may only require that they be notified about small projects. There are different rules if
the Corps needs to issue a decision. Some developments go through City and Corps review concurrently which
is encouraged.
Planner Dixon reviewed Section 15, Reasonable Use which was touched on earlier. Section 16, Variances, was
also reviewed. This section is for the purpose of realizing relief from strict application of the dimensional
standards.
Acting Chairman DiTuri posed an example if property receives variance on a stream, but the impacts may be
downstream from the property, will the property owner downstream get variance because of impacts from
upstream development. Downstream property owner could say they are entitled to variance because of impacts
from upstream project. Planner Dixon wanted to know if Acting Chairman DiTuri's concern has regarding the
setting of a precedent or impact concern. He pointed out the criteria which must be met for a variance
specifying that it needs to be related to a physical or unique feature of site. The unique feature may not always
exist from location to location. Regarding impact on another location downstream, another criteria specifies
that it must minimize environmental impacts on adjacent property.
Planner Dixon mentioned that a couple other revisions are coming and Planning Commission will have
additional opportunity for review. He expects to have public workshops and review by the PCDC and there
may be revisions arising from these meetings.
In questions from Acting Chairman DiTuri regarding attachments, Planner Dixon said that attachments will
consist of administrative guidelines for preparation of reports.
Commissioner Jones inquired where hillsides are discussed and Planner Dixon said in the section on erosion
and landslide areas. The Comprehensive Plan speaks to discouraging development on slopes greater than 25
percent. The SAO regulations indicate 15 percent due to different regulatory framework. The Comprehensive
Plan policy will require revision.
For the March meeting Planner Dixon will have Planning Commission revisions that include vegetation
information and if available the wellhead information. If the wellhead information is still unavailable, may
have to decide how to deal with wellhead because work on SAO will not wait for the wellhead information.
-5-
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
FEBRUARY 5, 200~2
· 2002 Comprehensive Plan Update
Principal Planner Osaki remarked that the Sensitive Areas Ordinance is a very high priority project.
Commission will begin to receive Comprehensive Plan updates. Commissioner Jones commented that
Commission is receiving a lot of information and asked for additional meetings to review the material.
Principal Planner Osaki will look into her request and may set up a study session.
Principal Planner Osaki will provide a matrix of that shows what Planning Commission recommended and what
City Council approved. The process may be a bit different this year. Growth Management Language says that
by jurisdictions must update plans by September 1, 2002. The Comprehensive Plan must be in compliance with
GMA and the City's Plan is in good shape and the process may not have to be accelerated this year. He warned
Commission about controversy surrounding siting of residential facilities for sexual offenders as per legislation.
All local plans will need to provisions for this. There is the possibility that the September 1 deadline could be
revised to July 2004 to incorporate new census figures.
· Terminal Park Neighborhood Plan Update
Principal Planner Osaki briefly described the plan which will eventually come to the Planning Commission.
The volunteers are extremely interested in helping to improve the neighborhood. Items of importance are more
pedestrian orientation, more sidewalks, developed pedestrian pathways, reduction in amount of speeding cars,
and code enforcement. A meeting summary is being prepared and will be distributed to the Commission.
Commissioner Jones thinks the plan is an amazing idea and wondered who came up with the idea. Principal
Planner Osaki said that City Council approved funding for this the last couple years. The Downtown Plan took
longer than anticipated to finalize, so this neighborhood plan is now underway.
Information:
· Article entitled Report Focuses on Reinventing Suburban Business Districts
No discussion on this occurred.
ADJOURNMENT:
With no further items to come before the Commission the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
PC~AGND~VIIN02-2002
-6-