HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-14-2003
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 14.2003
The continued meeting of the Planning Commission was held on October 14, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. in the
Council Chambers of the Aubum City Hall. Those in attendance were as follows:
MEMBERS: Garna Jones, Dave Peace, Karen Ekrem, Ronald Douglass, Renee Larsen, Yvonne
Ward and Kevin Chapman
STAFF:
Paul Krauss, David Osaki, Sean Martin, Lanny Petitjean, and Patti Zook
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Karen Ekrem.
PUBLIC HEARING
(continued from October 7,2003)
. CPA03-0002 - 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Chair Ekrem reminded the audience that Planning Commission will address each item individually, open
the public hearing, take staff testimony, take public testimony, close the public hearing, and take action on
each element as Planning Commission goes through the agenda. The items on the agenda are the
remaining Comprehensive Plan map and policy/text amendments and continue deliberations on CPM #2
and CPM #7.
Commissioner Jones was asked by another Planning Commission member to ask for Planning
Commission to consider including in tonighfs agenda a public comment period.
Planning and Community Development Director Krauss is aware that there is going to be a desire to open
the public hearing on an item from the October 7 meeting. The Planning Commission should vote to
reopen the item or items of particular interest.
Chair Ekrem asked for a motion to open the public comment section of the last meeting. Planning and
Community Development Director Krauss said that the specific portion of the public hearing you want to
reopen should be specified.
Commissioner Jones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Larsen, to reopen the public hearing
portion for CPM #2, Thomas Academy. Commissioner Ward wants the amendment to happen
immediately because there are folks from the museum and church who want to speak. There was no
objection and the motion passed.
Comprehensive Plan Map ICPMI Amendments
CPM#2 continued discussion from October 7. 2003 meetinQ
To amend the Comprehensive Plan Map from "PubliC/Quasi-Public' to "Light Industrial" for properties
located on the south side of 49th Street NW, west of Auburn Way North. Applicant: Thomas Academy
Chair Ekrem asked those in the audience to keep their comments brief as this item was talked about
previously and comments should present new information.
Virginia Haugen, 2503 R Street SE, stated that in 1853 people came to the Green River valley from
Tennessee and later someone named the area Slaughter. Settlers came to valley, built a community,
there were Indians in the valley, Japanese American farmers came in and planted crops. Thomas
Academy is one of the most valuable buildings that Auburn will have culturally. Some in the community
fully intend to save Thomas School. She doesn't like intimidation from the Planning Director and the
Mayor and doesn't want a particular Planning Commission member to resign as that person must speak
for the citizens.
Charles Natsuhara, 117 291h Street NW, spoke about the historical significance of Thomas Academy to
the Japanese American community and is a landmark to their first and second generations in the
Kent/Auburn area. There were a number of old towns populating the area such as Christopher, Thomas
and Meridian. The Academy is a landmark.
-1-
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 14. 2003
Stan Flewelling, 33011 18th Place South, Federal Way, will be the resident caretaker at Olson Farm soon,
is an author, and was asked to speak about the school from a historic perspective. He can vouch that the
school is a significant Japanese American landmark a presence of significance in the region and state and
represents the core of the Thomas community.
Commissioner Ward asked Mr. Flewelling, in his book Shirakawa, which speaks about Thomas School
before it was an academy and if it was attended by Japanese Americans. Mr. Flewelling replied yes by
Japanese Americans, and that the valley was a farming area with a number of farms in the 1920s and
1930s and the number dissipated after WWII and after internment.
There was no additional public testimony and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Ward spoke of dialogue with the JA community, and the Thomas Academy is a huge
concern of the community. They are respectful of Thomas Academy's financial situation, but wonder what
is the better solution? Planning and Community Development Director Krauss commented that in terms of
the process for historic designation, the City contracts with King County for historic preservation services.
As part of this King County undertakes historic designations for property designated as such by City
Council. City Council only does this where requested by a property owner. The City understands the
sensitivity of historic designation. However, that isn't the purview of the Planning Commission or before
the Planning Commission tonight and staff knows that the Planning Commission has a concern about this.
Planning Commission can vote up or down on the proposed Comprehensive Plan map change and make
a recommendation that the City Council look at the historic designation. However, Council has to vote for
this designation.
Commissioner Ward said that as a follow up, she had discussion w~h Community Development
Administrator Osaki and thought that the City could work for preservation purposes. The City doesn't
have the authority to preserve when someone wants to raze a building evidently from her conversation
yesterday with Community Development Administrator Osaki. Planning and Community Development
Director Krauss confirmed that the C~ currently has no abil~ to preserve.
Commissioner Jones had a telephone call from a person in the community who sounded interested in
getting a committee together to look at funding and/or purchase of the building. Planning Commission
could incorporate this into a motion to Council. She is concerned about the historic nature of the property
and would like to make recommendation that Council look at creating a committee to fund and/or search
for grants in King County or the State and to perhaps look at preserving the land and building.
Commissioner Ward wants to be a part of this and supports Commissioner Jones' idea.
Commissioner Ward made a motion to recommend denial with the provision that the City aggressively
seek a partnership with the City, Thomas Academy, and others who to think about historic designation.
To this point, there has been no exploration of this option. Commissioner Ward made a motion,
recommending that the designation of the property where the building is not be changed, with a
requirement that the City aggressively pursue a partnership for other options. If this fails, then come back
next year for the Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Commissioner Jones has a problem with denying the request and knows that Thomas Academy is
economically crunched, needs answers, and needs to do something with the property this year. The
proponent has said if they have to wait a year it might be too late.
Commissioner Ward asked if the request has to go through this long process? Why such long process?
Planning and Community Development Direclor Krauss advised that State law only allows Comprehensive
Plan changes once a year. He explained that the City solicits Comprehensive Plan amendment requests
prior to July, Planning Commission has work session(s) in September, Planning Commission public
hearing in October, and to City Council for adoption in December.
-2-
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 14.2003
Commissioner Peace said this seems to be a discussion now and by changing the Comprehensive Plan it
does not change the histonc property whether it is commercial or residential. It is not right to hold the
Comprehensive Plan change hostage. He thinks this is what the amendment does - holds Thomas
Academy hostage. Commissioner Douglass wanted to second this statement.
Commissioner Jones thinks Planning Commission could have a proposal to move forward, with the idea to
ask City Council to formulate a committee to look at the Thomas Academy building and property and
Commissioner Peace agreed. Commissioner Jones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peace,
to approve the Thomas Academy Comprehensive Plan map change with idea that the recommendation to
Council include that the City formulate seriously or consider forming a committee to look into the situation
with Thomas Academy's historic aspect. The motion passed; Commissioner Larsen abstained.
Commissioner Ward commended Commissioner Jones for her positive approach and will vote for it. She
would prefer not to vote to change the map as this will exped~e transfer of the property. She wanted to
note for the record that Thomas Academy is huge monument for Japanese American community and she
found this out when she talked with the Japanese American commun~. She commended Thomas
Academy in the past for recognizing the relationship. Her opposition is not directed at Thomas Academy's
situation. This is a cultural situation and that should be an active part of any discussion. She heard
rumors that there is a buyer and moving school to Thomas Academy. This is not want she wanted given
the situation. She would like to participate in the committee.
CPM #7 (discussion continued from October 7 meetinQJ
To amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from "Moderate Density Residential" to "Heavy
Commercial" for property located on the north side of 23'" Street SE, approximately 400-500 feet east of A
Street SE. (Proposal would have the effect of clarifying the designation of the abutting parcel to the west,
under the same ownership, as "Heavy Commercial" as well). Applicant: Bill Moffet
Chair Ekrem asked for a recommendation from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Ward made a
motion, seconded by Commissioner Douglass to recommend approval.
Commissioner Jones wants to vote no. If you look at Comprehensive Plan, try to keep neighborhood and
do things right. She thinks the change is setting a precedent and doesn't want to do it. Commissioner
Peace agrees with Commissioner Jones; if change here, whafs next? Commissioner Chapman agrees
with Commissioner Jones and Commissioner Peace. The actual street is narrow. They propose to widen
the street and add sidewalks. He assumes there is no intent to sell the property after the map change
which doesn't seem like a good idea. It is not a good idea for commercial on a small arterial.
Commissioner Douglass thought from the testimony that change would be defacto. Why vote to take
away something already in existence. If it is already being used and saying no, are we taking away
something already in existence? Chair Ekrem asked if the property is already in current use? Planner
Martin was it was his understanding that property was historically used for outside storage which is a code
enforcement issue and in violation of outdoor storage. He is not aware of legitimate documentation that
City approved the site historically for outdoor storage. Understanding is code enforcement says not
legitimate use.
Chair Ekrem asked if property is currently being used for storage whether legitimate or not? Planner
Martin replied that he doesn't believe materials or equipment is being actively used. The violation was to
remove materials in order to be consistent with the code.
Commissioner Ward wants the property owner to address Commissioner Douglass's concerns.
Commissioner Douglass referred to an aerial photo he saw at the last meeting.
Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said the issue before the Planning Commission is
the Comprehensive Plan map amendment, not any remedial action through code enforcement and he
urged the Planning Commission to separate the two issues. The mere fact of existence does not mean
legitimate use. The intent of the process is not to legitimize something that sneaked in under the radar.
-3 -
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 14. 2003
Does the amendment meet intent or not? Commissioner Ward thinks it is relative because of comment
from staff that property has never been a problem, relevant to look at historic use if not problem, and
appropriate to allow the change. Be consistent with how it has been, not whether done and not gotten
away with.
Planner Martin again described the staff position. The applicant's intended use may not create any
adverse effects. However, the subsequent rezone is not a discretionary permit such as a conditional use
permit. With a rezone to heavy commercial, staff is concerned that the majority of uses permitted will
have the potential to create a significant affect.
Bill Moffet, representative for the applicant, has current zoning maps an said that the line that the City has
in the area is not a definite line to be kept. He pointed out the Utility Vault Company. He showed a
colored map showing their site and Utility Vau~. Whafs relevant is that the mobile home park north of
Utility Vault. One lot is divided between residential and commercial and could be purchased and
converted to commercial. He spoke about access to A Street. There is a vacant lot to east of the existing
C3 parcel on 21st that is currently 100% C3 and a fence company. This vacant parcel could be
commercial too. They have been using the site for six years and in the same way since 1987. Not having
the change would impact the land owner. The City should take second look at this block as far the
Comprehensive Plan map is and see that it is inadequate for uses that could potentially happen.
Commissioner Ward asked Mr. Moffet if he would have to move his business and he replied yes. The
business has been on A Street SE since 1991.
Commissioner Peace asked if the fence company to the north is a non conforming use? Is it zoned as a
fence company? Planner Martin commented there are a number of parcels in and around the City that
have the same phenomenon. Commissioner Peace asked about seeking a zoning change? The property
Mr. Moffett referenced is already entirely zoned heavy commercial, and as he seeks to do heavy
commercial, no. Planner Martin said that as the City seeks to address and amend the Comprehensive
Plan map to conform with zoning or to amend zoning to correspond with the Comprehensive Plan. He
spoke about the major overhaul of the Comprehensive Plan in connection with the Growth Management
Act. In this instance, 21 st Street is an arterial and supports the application of the heavy commercial
designation; 23'" Street doesn't.
In response to Commissioner Larsen's inquiries, Planner Martin spoke about incrementalism and where to
draw the dividing line. The Comprehensive Plan is not parcel specific. Zoning is parcel specific and spells
out what uses, heights, etc., can go there. The Comprehensive Plan guides long term development. This
property is away from the arterial corridor, on a substandard road, and is better utilized for purposes other
than heavy commercial. The City attempted to make a transition for properties on arterials or along
intersections of arterials. 23'" Street is not an arterial. The applicant could make 23'" Street to support
heavy commercial traffic, but the question is not whether the property or street be developed to
commercial standards, but should 23'" Street be designed to support commercial traffic? Staff says it
shouldn't. If the mobile home park seeks to develop, they would have to make same the requirements as
Mr. Moffett is making.
Commissioner Ward asked how did the parcel to the north on the Comprehensive Pian be residential and
zoned commercial? Planner Martin speculated that it was zoned or developed as commercial prior to this
Comprehensive Plan designation. Commissioner Ward asked can you have a gross inconsistency? If
zoned residential, how commercial? Planning and Community Development Director Krauss advised that
the Comprehensive Plan is a statement of policy and intent, where the City wants to be in the future.
Existing zoning can occasionally conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. When doing the Comprehensive
Plan, you don't automatically say property is zoned x, and Comprehensive Plan is x. What is the best
interest of the community? There are conflicts and these are resolved over the years. Next year there
may be a recommendation to make the fence company non-conforming.
Commissioner Ward commented that if the fence company is there and it is now conforming and in a
zone that allow it, you can't come back and change the zoning because they have vested rights. Planning
-4-
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 14.2003
and Community Development Director Krauss said this approach has been upheld. The City, in the public
interest, can change the zoning. The City could do a down zone and uses on the property would be made
non-conforming. The use could remain and couldn't expand as long as in it is operation. Commissioner
Ward said the fence company is there and you can't do anything about that business. Is the fence
company there as long as it wants? Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said this is
essentially correct. Unless the City condemns, if City makes it non-conforming, City does not expect it to
be there forever. At some time in the future it will change.
Bill Moffett referred to a letter he received regarding a meeting he had with Transportation Department
that outlined what he would have to do for road improvements. Even if they get zoning and get zoning
done, and submit road plan, it could not be enlarged unless the road could be improved. He feels that the
change would serve the public.
Commissioner Larsen added that she visited the site and drove down 23'" Street which is easy to get
around. On 23'" there is a brand new residential area. On 21" there is a trailer park, she spoke about old
houses that are unkempt. The area is not a high grade area and there is no problem to have business
there which has been happening there on the property. There is a fence company nearby. Planner Martin
noted the uses were the opposite as she described. 21" has new uses and is wide and 23'" has a trailer
park.
Commissioner Douglass expressed a problem with the fact that have a small business operating in this
manner for a number of years and now the City is telling them they have to pull back or reduce capability.
Commissioner Peace commented that just because you do something wrong forever doesn't make it
okay. He does not have a problem with denying the request. Commissioner Douglass remarked that
there is not a high quality residential area nearby. No one will want to put in high quality homes nearby.
The best thing for the property is commercial.
In response to Commissioner Jones questions, Planner Martin spoke about the landscaping requirements
such as landscaping at street frontage and providing 10 feet width of landscaping along the east property
line that abuts the residential district.
Commissioner Jones wanted to make a comment that just because an area is low end it doesn't mean the
City has to accept that. The City is working to uplift areas. She can't accept a bad attitude just because
an area is considered a 'low end' area. Commissioner Larsen spoke about restoring houses. She has
respect for properties that are architecturally significant; this area is dilapidated and is not a neighborhood.
It is all industrial with trains nearby. No one will want to build new houses in this neighborhood. It will be a
long time before anyone will want to live in the neighborhood.
Commissioner Douglass spoke about encouraging small business and not driving them out.
Commissioner Jones thinks this is a good thought for next year when the City considers the
Comprehensive Plan major overhaul.
Chair Ekrem restated the motion. Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the change.
The motion passed 5-2.
CPM #10
To amend the Comprehensive Plan Map to "Single Family Residential" (the site is the City of Kent
watershed/impoundment reservoir and is currently undesignated on City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan
Land Use map and consists of approximately 157 acres). Property is located west of 124th Ave SE, east
of 118th Street SE, and north of SE 304 St. Applicant: City of Auburn
Planner Martin reviewed the process for those not in attendance at last week's meeting. He presented the
staff report and explained the reason that the property is undesignated. The City of Kent purchased the
property some time ago for municipal purposes and Kent no longer needs the property for water utility
purposes and wants to develop the property. Since the property won't be municipally owned or developed,
Auburn is the only jurisdiction capable of annexing the property. The property is surrounded by PM land
and Auburn is proposing application of single family designation. Single family designation is the lowest
-5 -
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 14.2003
designation for the site. The site will likely be developed under Kent. Kent would likely be the permitting
agency and it would likely be annexed to Aubum as already developed or under vesting approvals. The
single family designation of six/units per acre which is the least dense designation. There are numerous
sensitive areas on the site and management of sensitive areas is not affected by the zoning designation.
Whether under Kent or Auburn's sensitive areas ordinance, the site will be well protected. Most likely
future development will be Kent and Auburn can't speak to future development.
Commissioner Jones asked about the status of the sensitive areas. Planner Martin spoke about the
surface water corridor on site. He does not know of a development proposal for the site. Kent would be
more familiar with the sensitive areas on site. Commissioner Jones asked about the status of the
sensitive areas ordinance. Commun~ Development Administrator Osaki commented that currently the
City has sensitive areas ordinance that allows protection of wetlands which the Planning Commission has
been reviewing and Planning Commission will see the updated draft. The City needs to get the SAO
adopted by the end of 2004 to incorporate additional requirements from the GMA. The SAO review will be
docketed for Planning Commission based on their current schedule.
Commissioner Larsen asked about the advantage of changing the designation now versus later, Planner
Martin said he can't forecast when the annexation might take place. Commissioner Larsen posed what if
Kent sells the property and asks Auburn to annex? Planner Martin replied that annexation is more
complicated than that. Aubum can annex property only contiguous to the City limits and island
annexations by municipal purposes only. Kent owned the property for municipal purposes, but not
Auburn. R 1 zoning is the least dense and City couldn't impose a less intense designation.
Commissioner Larsen wanted to know when the other areas adjacent to this property are scheduled for
annex. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said the City was on track to move
forward with annexation of the rest of Lea Hill. However, voter initiatives have made it economically
unfeasible to move forward until certain issues are resolved. There is no commercial development.
Property tax is the revenue source which can't support fire or police services. The City didn't initiate this.
The City doesn't own the property, the City of Kent does. Kent said it was going ahead with the sale last
spring and Auburn anticipated this sale would have happened by now. Kent has ongoing hearings about
this and has not moved forward about a specific development. Auburn was told by Kent of the possibility
that this property would be sold to a developer before ~ is possible for it to be annexed to Auburn. One
scenario is that the property is sold and developed through Kent before it becomes part of Auburn.
Commissioner Larsen wondered after the property is sold, wouldn't it to King County? Planning and
Community Development Director Krauss said it would not defau~ to King County because of a loophole in
State law that allows island annexations through municipal purposes. Kent acquired the property 15 years
ago for municipal purposes and the property was incorporated into Kent. For whatever reasons, Kent has
determined it is not appropriate to own the property anymore, has rendered the property surplus and want
to sell. The property is part of Kent, but the law never anticipated this situation. Commissioner Larsen
wanted to confirm that Kent has the decision of what happens with the property and Aubum can plan for it
if it is annexed in the future and Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said yes.
Commissioner Douglass asked about zoning for the area surrounding the subjecl property and Planner
Martin said that it is King County zoning because adjacent land is in unincorporated King County. The
Comprehensive Plan designation for Auburn is single family designation which would support R1 zoning
district of 8,000 square foot lots.
Planning and Community Development Director Krauss commented that the Comprehensive Plan
designation in Auburn's plan is very similar to the King County plan. In preparation for annexing Lea Hill,
Auburn reviewed the Soos Creek Plan in order to minimize conflicts. No one anticipated the property
being anything but a municipally owned island.
Commissioner Ward wanted to know how this plays into the current plan of King County to divest itself
and ask cities to take over land in their PAAs by annexing the areas. Affected by this at all? Planning and
Community Development Director Krauss said this is an interesting question and the Mayor and Planning
-6-
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 14. 2003
Direclor have met with King County staff on this issue. King County has disinvested in roads and parks.
King County has not taken a proactive position on this issue and he doesn't think they will because it is not
part of the county.
Commissioner Ward wondered about the downside on wa~ing if Auburn has to annex. Planner Martin
said there is a slight downside. The Comprehensive Plan amendments are done one time per year, but
Aubum could do by emergency, but he is not sure if this would qualify as an emergency. If there is no
Comprehensive Plan designation, you can't exert zoning because zoning is applied based on the
Comprehensive Plan designation. Potentially, it could be regulated as unclassified which would default to
R1 which is consistent with Comprehensive Plan of the area. Other than schools or parks, Lea Hill is
single family all around.
Susan Sander, 29415 118th Avenue SE, gave a handout to the Planning Commission dated October 14,
2003. She said the property contains a class 2 wetland and is an important water collector for Olson
Creek basin and the Green River. The handout contained a copy of her e-mail to Mayor Lewis that talks
about the growth of the undevelopable land on the Kent property, page 2 of that e-mail has a graph that
shows the increase in undevelopable acres, page 3 of the e-mail shows a wetland survey in 1990. The
second letter is from Dennis Clark of WRIA9 in response to her letter asking him about the property. She
asked Planning Commission to designate the property as open space, park or natural preserve or
protection site all of which are better suited for the property than single family residential.
Deitrich Reiner, 12221 SE 304lh Street, is a professional engineer, east hill resident for over 30 years. He
showed a picture of 124th and 284th Streets near John's Lake. He spoke about the increase in population
and its effect on the environment. He is concerned about the future, and the attractiveness of the area will
decrease. When going up 124th Street you see a slope by the lake, contour lines of the area, water runs
down in there, area would to block runoff by a dam by 124th and 2841h Streets. The owner of the adjacent
property decided to get Corps to block runoff and make a lake which has developed over the last 20
years. Someone had the foresight to do a dam to form a lake and the lake raises and lowers levels by
four feet. Another picture showed the contour lines adjacent to the Kent reservoir site and all water runs
come into the reserve area and would collect at the lake, but for a hole the way water runoff is. When you
have property in the area real estate agents pointed to area and said wouldn't be developed and told
home buyers it would be an open area and a reservoir. Regarding environmental impact, he spoke about
stormwater and its effect on 112th Avenue that caused a fatality on the road when the road collapsed
because water pressure destroyed the road. One of six options that Kent has is to use as a park. Auburn
wants to override this by residential zoning. Don't make zoning decisions lightly. Turning the property into
a park preserves and improves the character of Lea Hill. He gave a copy of his written comments dated
October 14, 2003 to Chair Ekrem.
Catherine Hunter, 12045 SE 284th Street, said the area included in Comprehensive Plan map
encompasses Class 2 wetlands and is near an area for migratory birds. John Lake is home to birds,
geese, and ducks, is adjacent to an urban separator. Development of 300 single family residences would
have too great an effect on the unique watershed area. No amount of mitigation would protect this vital
area. Help protect the quality of life for ongoing generations. Be careful about planning for this area. The
configuration is unique, many areas will be effected which will spill into other areas.
Planning and Community Development Director Krauss is hearing comments and is not in a position to
disagree. Aubum never intended to get in front of Kent on this. When the City began the map
amendment process about four to five months ago, Kent was on track to act on this already. Kent
purports to have a series of options. He recommend that this Comprehensive Plan amendment be pulled
from consideration so that Auburn can wait and see what Kent does. Auburn is not driving this process
and does not own or have jurisdiction control.
Commissioner Ward wanted to what designation is Kent considering? What designation would preserve
the area? Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said that Kent could come up with a
public purpose. Most of the people have been before Kent Planning Commission which is still considering
the issue. However, the issue of whether to sell the property or not is not before the Kent Planning
-7 -
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 14.2003
Commission. Auburn staff introduced the amendment and now prefers to withdraw and see the outcome
with the City of Kent.
Commissioner Ward asked about a formal process to withdraw the amendment and the Mayor said this is
all it takes to withdraw the amendment. This was coming to Auburn because Kent was supposed to have
acted by now and now Auburn doesn't have to go forward.
Chair Ekrem recognizes that Auburn is not in the driver seat and wondered about a significant statement
to identify in Comprehensive Plan to designate the site as open space or quasi public. Planning and
Community Development Director Krauss said this designation would be presumptuous for the same
reason as you can't take a person's land and designate it public. This is an issue of taking and Auburn
doesn't own the property. The C~'s residents don't have a stake in this and Auburn isn't buying the
property. The significance of Olson Canyon/Creek is sited in many documents. The Olson Creek farm
was acquired by Aubum to preserve the historic farmstead and creek. WRIA 9 is clarified and Kent and
Auburn are major players and electeds sit on the board. The preservation of Olson Creek for the benefit
of salmon is something that Auburn has advocated for years.
Commissioner Jones asked doesn't the City have interest in the property? It will affect the watershed and
Olson Creek. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said the property is not part of the
municipality of Auburn, but of Kent. Auburn has no recreation plans to acquire and there is nothing in the
Capital Facilities Plan to invest funds in this property.
Commissioner Ward wanted clarification - if it is presumptuous to preserve the property to public, why is it
not presumptuous to want to designate as single family? Planning and Community Development Director
Krauss replied that the City of Kent was to have acted before now in front of their Planning Commission
and then Auburn would have replicated what Kent did.
Commissioner Larsen pointed out that there are other amendments later on in the agenda to change
watersheds to public and Planning and Community Development Director Krauss replied that Auburn
owns those properties which were purchased by the City and now asks for the map amendment to reflect
the City ownership.
Chair Ekrem wanted to confirm that the City wishes to withdrawn CPM #10 from consideration and
Planning and Community Development Director Krauss replied yes.
Commissioner Ward wants clarification as lots of people came to speak on this tonight. She wants to be
respectful of those who came last week and tonight. Planning and Community Development Director
Krauss said the question comes about where is the appropriate place for people to have a voice. The
property is part of Kent, owned by Kent, and subject to actions by Kent. The property belongs in Kent.
Commissioner Ward wants to hear from people in the audience. Chair Ekrem commented that the City is
withdrawing CPM #10 and Planning Commission has heard some excellent testimony from people about
the value of property from those adjacent to the property. Planning Commission is not going to take action
on this and the amendment is now withdrawn. The recommendation from the Planning Director is to take
the valuable information and comments to Kent. With respect to Commissioner Ward comment, is there
anything new to add or share? If you are reiterating what said previously, it is more valuable to share with
Kent. If you have new information, come forward and give testimony.
Mary Roberts, 502 8'" Street NE #24, referred to an executive summary document entitled Compensating
for Wetland Losses under the Clean Water Act by the National Academy Press in 2001 which she
submitted to Commissioner Ward. Commissioner Ward has read articles that sometimes mitigating
wetlands does not work.
Ron Novak, 29226 118th Avenue SE, said that options on Kent's list of options is to leave the property as
is which is not an option provided by Planning staff prior to the first workshop and was made addition after
the workshop. He talked with Kent staff frequently and told him that Auburn was as much a driver of
- 8-
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 14.2003
density zoning considerations they were looking at as was Kent. It is disingenuous to say Auburn isn't
having much of hand in the process.
Duane Heier, 29513 118th Avenue SE, said his paper is a rebuttal to the DNS. He read the first two
paragraphs which highlight previous testimony.
Russ Jones, 11018 SE 322"" Street, waited two weeks to talk about this amendment. He urged Auburn to
be at Kent and be involved in the future proposal of the property. If the property defaults to R1 then there
will be 952 residents on a lake which is not proper planning on anyone's part. The density on East Hill/Lea
Hill is skyrocketing out of control. To the east is high density residential and the infrastructure is not
supporting this development. The City is hearing from future residents of Auburn and hearing about their
concerns. Do not repeat past history on adjacent area.
Brenda Hradecky, 1025 West Main, referred to a 1960s act of dairy land and voted for this already and
voted for over and over in Seattle. She is not too disgusted with City Council compared to Seattle.
Todd Howe, 29312 118th Avenue SE, wanted to know how is it that Kent has an area to be annexed in the
future by Auburn is owned by Kent. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said that
State law allows land acquisition for municipal purposes outside city limits such as island annexations.
Kent did this 15 years ago and Auburn has done on few occasions such as on Lea Hill for a water pump
station. State law gives cities the ability to do this when physically owned by city such as Kent.
Commissioner Ward wanted to clarify the process and it is her understanding that because Auburn has
withdrawn CPM #10, if citizens wanted to initiate their own Comprehensive Plan map amendment to
designate a certain designation. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss advised that the
amendment process for 2003 closed in July and it has taken this long to get to this hearing. Amendments
are done once a year. Commissioner Ward asked if Kent is considering quasi public use? If citizens want
a Comprehensive Plan map amendment, power to recommend yes or no to Council for next year?
Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said that Kent is in position, might not care; next
year; whether or not Kent acted to sell property or not.
Commissioner Peace wondered isn't the property owner the only one who can initiate the change or the
city? Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said that people can institute changes on
another property and if the City wishes to move forward and if Planning Commission felt strongly, Planning
Commission could initiate action next year. The Comprehensive Plan amendment process begins in
June.
Mayor Lewis said this needs to go to the Council Committees and if for quasi public use decide if looking
at purchase. If quasi public use the purchase price is in the double digit millions and will require long and
serious City Council talks prior to the time of any suggestion of any kind of purchase taking place.
Betsy Howe, 19312 118th Avenue SE, said Kent is continuing to consider the issue. A statement to Kent
of what the Planning Commission wants would be appropriate so that buyers know what kind of
development the City of Aubum wants.
Virginia Haugen stated that if the City wants the future to include a supply of clean water then make
certain this parcel is preserved as watershed only.
CPM #11
Amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to designate certain city-owned properties from various
land use plan map designations to "Public& Quasi-Public". (These properties are related to the City
Cemetery, Parks and Recreation sites, Storm Utility sites, Water Utility sites, Mitigation sites (wetlands),
and Municipal Purpose sites and are located throughout city). Applicant: City of Auburn
Planner Martin said that 11 m was withdrawn. The proposal concems several different parcels in different
locations and are all City owned properties to be used for public purposes in perpetuity. 11 a is the
-9-
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 14.2003
Cemetery, 11 b-€, g, hand k are for Parks, 11f, I-j and I are for storm utility, 11 n-p2 are for water utility,
11 q-t are for wetland mitigation sites and 11 u is for municipal purposes.
Frank Rice, 1811 F Street SE, referred to 11 q and 111 and is interested in property adjacent to Western
and Clay Streets. The property is essential for the future development of any drainage in the area. Any
plans to enhance the drainage in the area through use of this property? Planning and Community
Development Director Krauss said the answer is no, not yet. The City is looking to develop something and
has talked to a few consultants to do feasibility studies of the area. The City acquired the property
because it assumed the Emerald Downs wetland ownership, one property is the outcome of a legal
proceeding, and one property was bought (Campbell). The City had a moratorium one year ago due to
drainage concerns and is looking at creative way to resolve the situation. There is no answer yet on how
to deal with the drainage.
Commissioner Douglass made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to close the public hearing.
The motion passed. Commissioner Peace made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ward to
recommend approval. The motion passed.
CPM#12
To amend the Potential Annexation Area (PM) boundary to reflect annexation/deannexation of property
with the City of Pacific in the vicinity of A Street SE and Lakeland Hills Way. Applicant: City of Auburn
Planner Martin announced that earlier this month the annexation became effective. This was an
annexation/deannexation with the City of Pacific. The annexation is already in place. He pointed out the
current boundary. The map amendment moves the boundary of the Comprehensive Plan designation.
Commissioner Ward wondered what the C~ of Pacific got in retum. Planner Martin explained that the
City of Pacific received a portion of Cool's Café. The rest of the area is located in Auburn. He spoke
about the intersection of Lakeland Hills Way and A Street SE, which will now have a traffic signal. Pacific
could not signalize this intersection due to grant money received. Ilwaco Elementary is now in Auburn.
The amendment is moving the City limits to reflect ~s current location.
There was no public testimony. Commissioner Jones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peace,
to close the public hearing. The motion passed. Commissioner Jones made a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Ward, to recommend approval. The motion passed.
Commissioner Ward complimented the City about getting the traffic light at Lakeland. This will be a huge
relief to the south part of Auburn.
Comprehensive Plan PolicvlText ¡PIT) Amendments
Community Development Administrator Osaki explained that three of these amendments relate to Capital
Facilities Plans from the Auburn, Kent and Dieringer School Districts. The CFPs are adopted on an
annual basis and incorporated into Comprehensive Plan on an annual basis. The CFPs serve as the
basis for collection of school impact fees.
PIT #1
Incorporate the Auburn School District Updated 2003 to 2009 Capital Facilities Plan as part of Auburn
Comprehensive Plan. (Adopted by the Auburn School District Board of Directors May 2003).
Chair Ekrem opened the public hearing. Commissioner Ward referred to the letter from Auburn School
District regarding increasing school impact fees and asked if Planning Commission was going to address
this. Community Development Administrator Osaki replied that this is not an item that Planning
Commission addresses directly. CFP is basis for how much in impact fees the City can collect. The letter
is for information purposes. Auburn School District as asked for an increase in school impact fees and
City Council will ultimately decide and not part of Planning Commission decision.
- 10-
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 14. 2003
Mike Newman, Associate Superintendent, remarked that they annually prepare the plan and the School
Board reviews for future planning of schools in Auburn, unincorporated King County, AlgonalPacific and
part of unincorporated Pierce County. Growth in the school district continues and spoke about impacts of
Lakeland and Lea Hill on their planning. They use the school impact fees to do planning to allow the
district to have facilities come on line after voter approval such as the new high school project.
They are collecting impact fees for design with construction this summer and the school on line in the fall
of 2005. In the plan there is a 131h elementary school to come on line with a with bond yes vote in 2006,
then a 14th elementary school. The district sees a future need for a new middle school and acquisition of
a site is one portion of the CFP. The board has not yet determined where the 13th and 14th schools will
go.
There was no public testimony. Commissioner Douglass made a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Peace, to close the public hearing. The motion passed. Commissioner Ward made a motion, seconded
by Commissioner Peace, to recommend approval. The motion passed.
PfT #2
Incorporate the Kent School District Updated 2003-04 to 2008-2009 Capital Facilities Plan as part of
Auburn Comprehensive Plan. (Adopted by the Kent School District Board of Directors June 2003.)
Chair Ekrem opened the public hearing. Community Development Administrator Osaki said the City has
an interlocal with Kent School District for CFP. Auburn has not yet collected fees on their behalf yet
because there is no residential development in Auburn that is in Kent School District, but will be in future.
There was no public testimony. Commissioner Larsen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Jones, to close the public hearing. The motion passed. Commissioner Peace doesn't see the need to
formally close the public hearing. Commissioner Jones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Ward, to recommend approval of PfT #2. The motion passed.
PfT#3
Incorporate updated Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan information into the Auburn
Comprehensive Plan.
Chair Ekrem opened the public hearing. Community Development Administrator Osaki made a brief
comment. There was no public testimony. Chair Ekrem closed the public hearing. Commissioner Peace
made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Douglass, to recommend approval. The motion passed.
PfT#4
Amendments to Chapter 9 - Environment Element to:
A. Provide greater clarity and focus on the value and role of native plantings and vegetation;
B. Support enhancement of Mill Creek wetlands; and,
C. Support low impact development techniques.
Chair Ekrem opened the public hearing. Community Development Administrator Osaki reminded
Planning Commission that this was discussed in their study session. These three points were developed
by direction of the Planning and Community Development Committee. They asked staff to incorporate
policy statements to support the use of low impact development techniques which he described. Staff
received direction to put language in the policies to support the City's efforts to enhance the existing
wetland system. The Committee wanted more focus on native plants and more clarity in the policies that
the use of native plants is encouraged and emphasizes the benefits of native vegetation. Objective 18.5
and Policy EN-33 are proposed for amendment and new Policy EN-33A and EN-17 A are proposed.
Commissioner Ward asked how the changes interplay with the landscape requirements and are integrated
into this? Do they provide more flexibility? The code doesn't have level of clarity or specificity. The City
wants to make it more user friendly to use native plants and also to educate the public. There will be a
- 11 -
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 14. 2003
menu of selections to encourage their use. The policies say encourage and it will be up to Council to
make final determination about wording.
Commissioner Jones referred to Objective 18.5 and suggested changing the word 'should' to 'will'
because of its stronger connotation. Commissionèr Peace said the developer should give consideration
and whether they will is something else.
VH said that to put native plants in landscapes that developers are required to do is not a good idea.
Some plants need lots of water and there should be talk about using drought resident plants. Parks people
say will have to go to drought resistant plants in order to conserve water. Is Aubum or King County
involved in plant sewage type that take water and place back in aquifer?
Commissioner Ward wondered for small business, proponent of encouraging small business are there
any cost considerations? Is native vegetation cheaper? Does this factor in on water usage? Planner
Martin said for cost of native vegetation, the cost is based on availability. Some native plants might not be
as available as others. Some non-native aren't available either. He was working on this issue today in
pricing Douglas firs. There is no financial difference between native and non-native consistent with
availability. There is plethora of native vegetation. In terms of drought resistance, this is certainiy valid
point. The City is not going to encourage plants that require significant amounts of water. In talking about
native plants, have to survive drought of season. The majority of native vegetation once established can
survive in drought conditions. Some plants are higher in moisture content than others. Commissioner
Ward had a suggestion to add that when doing the list that the developer have a professional landscape
architect. For small business to help overall water goals and encourage water retention.
Chair Ekrem closed the public hearing. Commissioner Jones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Ward, to recommend to change the word to 'will' to 'should' under Objective 18.5 so it says 'consideration
will' recommend to approve with the suggested change. Commissioner Ward suggested a friendly
amendment of the wording 'consideration shall' because shall is mandatory and shall is directive. The
motion passed.
prr#5
Replace Figure 7.3 in Transportation Element (2003-2008 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP)
summary) with an updated Figure 7.3 containing 2004-2009 TIP summary.
Chair Ekrem opened the public hearing. Community Development Administrator Osaki said this figure is
amended every year. The table is in the transportation element from the TIP adopted by Council in
September 2003. This does not change any transportation projects adopted by Council. Commissioner
Ward asked about Hwy 164 bypass update and Mayor said this issue is still in discussion.
There was no public testimony and Chair Ekrem closed the public hearing. Commissioner Douglass
made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peace, to recommend approval. The motion passed.
prr#6
Update of the City of Auburn Six-Year Capital Faciiities Plan (CFP) to address the time period of 2004-
2009. The Aubum CFP identifies intended capital facilities projects and funding sources programmed for
over a six-year time period.
Chair Ekrem opened the public hearing. Community Development Administrator Osaki said this updates
the previous plan to year 2009 time frame. The Plan is put together by a variety of City departments.
There was no public testimony and Chair Ekrem closed the public hearing. Commissioner Larsen made a
motion, seconded by Commissioner Peace, to recommend approval. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Chair Ekrem announced that the next Pianning Commission meeting is November 4 which is Election Day
and suggested the meeting be held on November 5.
-12 -
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 14.2003
Planner Martin referred to public hearing on CPM #8a whose property is in Pierce County. The applicant
was requested to provide map exhibits of the affected parcels and the map exhibits did not match the
parcels in question. City would have to be readvertise and process separately and send out new notices.
Commissioner Jones said that Planning and Community Development Director Krauss told the Planning
Commission it too late in late the process for any further considerations. Planning and Community
Development Director Krauss said this is correct and he is unsure how to bring to City Council before the
second November meeting. Commissioner Ward countered that the Planning Commission took action
based that there is no more time left and looked at on a very important issue. It was decided that a public
hearing on this item could not be held.
ADJOURNMENT
With no further items to come before the Commission the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
PCIAGNDIMIN 10-2003
- 13-