HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-07-2002MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MAY 7, 2092
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on May 7, 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, Karen Ekrem, Ronald Douglass, Renee Larsen and Yvonne Ward
STAFF: David Osaki, JeffDixon, Scan Martin, Aaron Nix, Chris Thorn and Patti Zook
The following member was absent: Peter DiTuri
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Karen Ekrem.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
It was concurred by the Planning Commission that the minutes of the April 2, 2002 meeting be approved as mailed.
DISCUSSION
· ZOA02-0001 - Year 2002 Comprehensive Zoning Map Amendments
Planner Martin informed Commission that there are four proposed zoning map amendments for this annual cycle.
He would like feedback from the Commission on the changes and then call for a public hearing for the hearing to be
on June 4. He spoke about other Commission projects such as the Sensitive Areas Ordinance and the annual
Comprehensive Plan amendment coming in July and August. Planner Martin presented Exhibit 1 which is
appropriate for the property to be rezoned to P-1. The amendment brings the existing zoning in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan. The rezone also implements the long term objectives of the interlocal agreement. The Port is
in favor of the rezone. There is slight chance that the Port may withdraw the rezone. The Port has long term plans
for the property and staffhas had discussions with their land use attorney. The P1 designation sets their long term
use' of the property as a wetland mitigation site.
Planner Martin presented Exhibit 2 which is actually three individual amendments in the same area. There are
islands of residential R1 zoning which is the default zoning upon annexation to the City. Council directed staffto
revisit removing the R1 islands and make zoning consistent.
Planner Martin presented Exhibit 3 which is for a subdivision platted in the mid 1990s. It was developed under the
R4 zoning standards and the Comprehensive Plan was amended last year. This rezone adjusts the zoning to R2 to
be consistent with surrounding zoning. The property is 19 single family subdivision called Velvet Square.
Planner Martin presented Exhibit 4 for property owned by Valley Pontiac. They acquired the additional land and
recently completed a lot line adjustment. The rezone is necessary for Valley Pontiac to conduct their business
operations. The rezone would make the land use and zoning consistent. He mentioned the landscape requirements
between the zoning designations. Valley Pontiac plans an expansion of their business. Planner Dixon offered that
Valley Pontiac wants to expand their business to the northeast corner of Auburn Way North with a new building and
car sales lot on the corner.
After a brief discussion, Planning Commission consented to the public hearing in June. Commissioner Jones made
a motion, seconded by Vice Chairman Peace, to call for a public hearing to be held on June 4.
· Sensitive Areas Ordinance
Planner DixOn distributed "Outline of Proposed Woodland Regulations Organized by Existing Sections of the
SAO" to Commission. He indicated that he will speak about new proposed tree protection measures and
modification of language related to groundwater protection. Chris Thorn, of the Public Works Department, is
overseeing the development of groundwater protection measures and will speak later. The City wanted tree
preservation regulations to be part of the SAO. He wants Planning Commission to see if the document is in keeping
with their wishes and the information could be incorporated in the draft SAO. The term 'woodland resources' is
-1-
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MAY 7, 200~.~2
being used. Staff is looking at amending description of intent and purpose. He reviewed Section 1. He reviewed
the definitions in Section 2 and gave overview of what the City wants to accomplish. Section 4 identifies what is
exempt from the regulations. The regulations should work with the land clearing regulations. He spoke about the
35 percent tree retention requirement. Section 11 describes the tree replacement ratio. He spoke about prescribing
standards to retain trees, standards on how to accomplish this, and retention guidelines. Developers need to become
sensitive to retaining trees and be aware of the increased priority of retaining trees. Trees to be retained are healthy
trees, tree stands, trees that provide screening, have habitat value if adjacent to stream or wetland, and trees located
in required setbacks and trees adjacent to public spaces.
Planner Dixon then spoke about what happens if the 35 percent tree retention requirement cannot be met and trees
need to be replaced. He indicated the regulations have been structured based on the Commission's previous
comments. The regulation first, ensure retainage of as many trees as possible and if replacement is allowed, refer to
replacement requirements. Vice Chairman Peace asked if person has to measure trees being removed and Planner
Dixon said yes, for those trees that are considered significant. Most jurisdictions have requirements for tree
surveys. The City's size standard is four inches for deciduous and six inches for evergreen.
Commissioner Jones wanted to know who is in charge of visiting the sites and doing following up. Planner Dixon
said the groundwater protection measures will be discussed tonight and the enforcement section will be reviewed.
Planner Dixon then spoke about requirements on how rePlacement is allowed and about significant discount for
undesirable trees such as black cottonwood and alder. Undesirable trees are usually classified as fast growing, soft
wood trees.
Commissioner Ward expressed concern with the language leaving too much room for interpretation because the
language could be considered arbitrary. Planner Dixon spoke about avoiding an attempt at an extensive list because
it is hard to anticipate every circumstance. He spoke of characterizing what undesirable trees are - fast growing,
short lived, weak wood.
Commissioner Larsen said that cottonwoods soak up water which would be beneficial. Planner Dixon said all trees
do that, hut cottonwoods are fast growing and short lived trees. Cottonwoods grow quickly on vacant land or
disturbed sites. They should not be assigned as much importance as maples, for example. The exception would be
if the tree falls into another sensitive areas designation such as erosion or wetland buffer, then it is protected under
that resource.
Commissioner Ward spoke about public having the expectation of knowing what the rules are. Planner Dixon
suggested identifying characteristics of undesirable trees, but not an exhaustive list of species. Commissioner Jones
believes a list of basic or most common undesirable trees is helpful.
Planner Dixon referred to flexibility and try to recognize that you cannot always achieve replacement. Other
variables such as protecting stand of trees or group of small trees. He explained how replacement would be
allowed. He spoke about mitigation sequence for replacement. Emphasis fu'st is on retention of trees, then on-site
replacement, then in lieu of fees. The Commission previously talked about tree replacement fees.
Planner Dixon reviewed Section 12, about how to ensure trees are protected during construction. Commissioner
Larsen wondered what happens if trees still die after doing all the requirements in this section. Someone could say
they did everything the City required, but the trees still died. Would the City have to pay to replace the trees?
Planner Dixon said the City would not be liable. He is not sure you can plan for every contingency that might
happen. He spoke about trench requirements mentioned appropriate provisions. The requirements need to be
balanced with reasonableness.
Vice Chairman Peace reviewed definition of woodland resource on page 2 and wondered if it could still be resource
if under an acre in size. A pastoral site is not a forest site, where is the line drawn? Planner Dixon said there was
question of what size to regulate and an acre was chosen to be the threshold. The outline of property is checked; if
the canopy of the forest area comprises an acre, or more it would be regulated.
-2-
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 7, 200.~2
Commissioner Ward asked about meadows and who decides if it is forested. The City has aerial photographs,
Planner Dixon advised, and the site is evaluated by looking at the extent of the tree canopy coverage on the
property.
In response to questions from Commissioner Douglas, Planner Dixon spoke about the scales used for the aerial
photographs. The GIS division can manipulate the scales and print at different scales. The standard scale is 1 to
100 or 1 to 200. Planner Martin offered that there are a variety of benchmarks in aerial photos; City knows the
bearings and specific distances between them. The City can set manipulate the scale of the map. The photos are
digitized into data base at definite scale and can be reproduced at any level. He offered to bring examples to show
the Commission.
Chris Thorn, Water Quality Program Coordinator, Utilities Division of Public Works, is presenting the groundwater
protection portion of the SAO. The section presents requirements of safe drinking water for public utilities. He
distributed a handout "Outline of Proposed Groundwater Protection Area Regulation Changes Organized by
Existing Sections of the SAO". Section 2 contains terms used terms used elsewhere in SAO and clarifies the
meaning. He reviewed the hazardous materials section which provides a clear defmition of what is considered to be
hazardous.
Section 12 has revised language to make consistent because it is handled in the design manual. New language is on
page 4 and states what items are to be included in the requirement for a mitigation plan. In response to questions
from Vice Chairman Peace regarding page 4 item 6, Water Quality Program Coordinator Thorn said that the
developer needs to state in their submitted plan that the plan will be updated when changes occur.
Planner Dixon stated this is similar to other sensitive area designations. It is the developer's responsibility to
provide the City with a sensitive area report to review and evaluate the resource and how it is managed related to
development with the water quality provisions which are proposed. The approach is to have certain types of
activities not allowed in the most critical water qt~ality zones. In the other water quality zones, the sensitive areas
report (mitigation plan) explains how pollutants will be managed on site.
Vice Chairman Peace wondered if the idea is for people to update their mitigation plan and how the City can ensure
the plan is actually monitored. He suggested that the City use wording stronger than 'should occur'. Water Quality
Program Coordinator Thorn said that business have a plan in place that outlines material used and have it
documented. The inspector reviewing the plan can see and tell if the plan is up to date.
Commissioner Jones commented that the text contained in item 5 of Section 12 is unnerving and asked if DOE
regulates this. She wanted to know why hazardous treatment storage disposal is under groundwater protection in
zones 1, 2 and 3. Could this occur in other zones? She feels there are certain areas that are probably better suited to
accepting and doing this than areas on the valley floor. Water Quality Program Coordinator Thom said the
Department of Health regulates public water systems.
Planner Dixon said the effect is to say that hazardous waste treatment is prohibited in zones 1, 2 and 3 which are the
most sensitive groundwater protection areas. He said it is also prohibited in the M1 and M2 districts by zoning
regulations. These are overlapping requirements that work together. SAO is intended to be an overlay regulation to
the City. Chairman Ekrem referred to comments about wording 'shall' versus what someone is 'required' to do.
Language should be straightforward.
Commissioner Jones asked if the DOE reports to the City because the City should know what is going on.
Environmental Compliance Manager Nix commented that DOE is more concerned as resources for the City. The
City relies upon DOE with larger issues such as spills. DOE has its own set of required elements. DOE will make
its information known to the City. DOE answers only to themselves. Planner Dixon said the City is not asking the
State to do anything. If there is a release or containment, City wants to also be notified in addition to DOE.
Commissioner Ward referred to item 5 about the five-day time period and if something could happen
environmentally if notification is delayed. Water Quality Program Coordinator Thorn used an example of a gas
-3-
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MAY 7, 20~2
spill and notification to Fire Inspector, storm water engineer, DOE, etc. The owner has 48 hours to report to DOE
and then report to the City. The City wants to know if it is impacted. If it is a major spill to groundwater, it could
get into City wells. The City needs to know in advance and take appropriate measures. He advised that DOE
publishes a site register and lists all reports of spills, soil contamination, cleanups, etc., which is published He
reviews the reports to see if any of the sites are in Auburn. It could be months after a leak has occurred that you
finally learn about it.
Commissioner Douglas asked about status of the second code enforcement officer. If a citizen has concern or
compliant, who responds? Who in the City responds to concerns about groundwater. Who responds to concerns
about a business or activity. Planner Dixon commented that these concerns were raised at the last meeting also.
The City has a water quality compliance officer who looks at storm drainage features such as bioswales and
wetponds to ensure that private property owners maintains for water quality. That person could also review
compliance of these SAO groundwater requirements. With the upcoming City budget cycle, staffneeds will be
reviewed. The City will be looking at manpower and resources. The City has advertised for second code
enforcement officer. The SAO refers to enforcement issues in Auburn City Code. The enforcement provisions of
Auburn City Code are also being changed and reviewed by the City Attorney. The City is looking at civil penalties
as strong enforcement tool.
Environmental Compliance Manager Nix advised that Auburn has been doing its best with its limited resources.
The City is identifying problem areas related to natural resources. New regulations such as NPDES which are based
on clean water act will also require improved enforcement.
Commissioner Jones spoke of the need for additional code enforcement officers. Commissioner Ward spoke about
her business being hassled by code enforcement officer. The City must decide on priorities.
Principal Planner Osaki commented that second code enforcement officer is budgeted. The Building Division is
now under the Planning Department. Code enforcement effort rests in responsibility of the Planning Department.
The second code enforcement officer position may be taking a different direction with new person with an emphasis
on environmental compliance and protecting water quality. The current code enforcement officer deals with a broad
array of issues including overgrown weeds, etc.
Environmental Compliance Manager Nix said he is that surface water issues have been taken on by Bill Scheder,
Water Resources Technician. Water Quality Program Coordinator Thorn said he investigates complaints and spills,
works toward getting corrections and clean up. He deals with what leaves properties and impacts City water. The
storm drainage ordinance is weak. DOE enforces storm water regulations.
Environmental Compliance Manager Nix: tasked with looking to potential problem areas related to environment;
another way to approach is to identify areas and redistribute responsibilities to existing staff; gear to areas lacking;
PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT
Principal Planner Osaki wanted to update Commission on a few items.
1. City Council held public hearing on amendments to the C1, Light Commercial zoning district. Council did
not make a decision and remanded back to PCDC for more discussion.
2. He informed Commission about upcoming City Department moves and reorganizations.
3. City Council placed a one year moratorium on adult uses. He distributed Resolution 32436 and a
memorandum from the City Attorney. He pointed out the work plan on page 4. A special study session may be set
up to review issues.
4. The deadline for the annual Comprehensive Plan amendment process is July 3. The State said that update
must reflect GMA amendments over the last few years. This deadline was extended to December 2004. The City
-4-
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MAY 7, 20,07
needs to be a major rewrite of the Comprehensive Plan and update text and census information. There may be a
couple emergency Comprehensive Plan amendments related to storm drainage plan and secure transitional facilities.
Commissioner Jones asked if all communities have to deal with siting secure transitional facilities. Principal
Planner Osaki said that not every City is making changes to allow siting of the facilities. However, all cities are
supposed to have siting criteria. The siting of these facilities is based on Federal court order. Under the law,
communities need to plan to provide for siting of these facilities in their communities. City regulations could be
pre-empted by DSHS.
Chairman Ekrem requested that the Commission be provided a schedule showing upcoming work tasks.
INFORMATION:
· Terminal Park Neighborhood Plan Meeting
There was no discussion on this item.
ADJOURNMENT:
With no further items to come before the Commission the meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
PC~4,GNDLMIN05 -2002
-5-