Loading...
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-