HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-07-2004
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JULY 7. 2004
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on July 7, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers of the Auburn City Hall. The regular meeting was preceded by a study session that began at
6:30 p.m. Those in attendance were as follows:
MEMBERS: Dave Peace, Renee Larsen, Yvonne Ward, Kevin Chapman
STAFF: Sean Martin, Eric Hagen, Jeff Dixon and Patti Zook
The following members were absent: Ronald Douglass and Joan Mason
The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Peace.
STUDY SESSION @ 6:30
. Critical Areas Ordinance
Economic Development Manager Hagen distributed additional information and pointed out the document's
name change from Sensitive Areas Ordinance to Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) to be more consistent
with the Growth Management Act. Two open houses with very low attendance were held. The document
was available at the open houses. Information was also provided to concerned parties, placed on the
website, and mailing to parties of interest. He expected to hear from those who attended the open house,
but hasn't. For the new Commissioners, he advised that the GMA requires that cities recognize, preserve
and protect critical areas and identify areas that need protection.
Senior Planner Dixon commented that many years ago staff made code changes to include definitions in
the zoning code to address especially sensitive areas such as geologic hazard area, landslide area, etc.
GMA is making more regulations and cities need to develop regulations to address them. The state
mandated that cities have regulations, but there are no standards to follow. Cities are free to develop
what is appropriate for their jurisdictions, but follow the best available science, with rationale of why they
are taking a certain approach. If cities develop regulations from best management practices then show
why they deviate from such as policy. The City hired a consultant to help develop the code sections. The
Commission has reviewed these chapters over a long period of time. The set of regulations will look at
the effect of development on critical areas. Some cities have made additional permit process; however,
Auburn will make it a review process as part of the development review process, not another layer of
permitting. There will be a more formalized approach to do what we do now.
Commissioner Ward arrived at 7:40 p.m.
Economic Development Manager Hagen remarked that cities in King County are required to update their
CAOs by December, 2004. There is newer, better information out there to incorporate into the
regulations. Senior Planner Dixon said the CAO will help property owners and developers to know and
understand what the regulations will be and offers more certainty to projects and greater consistency.
Economic Development Manager Hagen said the State received a copy of the draft and he spoke with
other cities about feedback they received.
Senior Planner Dixon commented that the consultant referred to guidelines from the State which is an
evolving process and the State passed the mandate without clear guidance on how to attain the goals. As
time changes and factors change, the City may revisit the CAO as it evolves.
Commissioner Ward asked if notices were sent to builders and if environmental groups received notices.
Since this is technical information she wants to hear from those groups with a real interest. She wants to
hear from environmental groups in the area. The City did an outreach to developers and needs to do an
outreach to environmental groups. If they don't respond, fine; but send them notification.
- 1 -
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JULY 7. 2004
Economic Development Manager Hagen said a mailing to the groups was not done. However, notification
regarding the CAO is on the website and an article appeared in the newspaper. He said there are not
many environmental groups active in Auburn and he only knows of the Rainier Audubon Society. The City
will target interested parties prior to the public hearing.
REGULAR MEETING @ 7:00
DISCUSSION
. Critical Areas Ordinance
Commissioner Ward referred to list of comparisons and wondered if Enumclaw's goes too far.
Senior Planner Dixon said they tried to chose comparable jurisdictions and Enumclaw is small, but not
geographically comparable. Jurisdictions are going through updating or doing the regulations now. There
is some controversy about what KC has proposed which has created concern about how Auburn will fall in
line with KC or other jurisdictions.
Vice Chair Peace said it appears there might be a big impact on property owners that have critical areas
on the property now and was there feedback from people at the open houses about this. Senior Planner
Dixon said those attending the open houses did so to ask questions and to understand how the CAO will
impact them. Developers encounter critical area regulations in other jurisdictions and believe Auburn will
have a similar process. This won't change way Auburn does business. Currently, Auburn relies heavily
on the SEPA process for dealing with buffers, etc. He said a property owner may know the property has
constraints, but not what they are. The City has an inventory of these.
Commissioner Ward referred to Section 140, procedural provisions, and raised an issue throughout the
process about the Director's power which seems to be broad authority. What types of administrative
procedures and rules are meant in this section. It seems problematic to give a Director such broad power.
Senior Planner Dixon said this section refers to having standards concerning how to get information about
conducting investigation of what critical areas might be on property. It concerns the preparation of reports
such as geotechnical reports, wetland reports, and how to get information on features of the site and how
development is managed related to these features. He thinks he remembers this being brought up
before.
Commissioner Ward thought that this was resolved; for ministerial types of actions and forms, for things
you don't need City Council for. Senior Planner Dixon said this section does not set rules through this
procedure, but is how an investigation of critical areas is done and the parameters of reports to I:>e
prepared.
Commissioner Ward spoke of complaints from citizens and the feeling is that they are told one thing and
told something else, and nothing is in writing. People need to be able to go out and find out what the rules
are and be able to follow the rules. If the Director is given the power to create rules other than ministerial,
this gives power to change rules as you go and drives citizens crazy and she knows Council hears about
this. Let people know the rules as they go and know up front before money is spent. Clarification of
language is needed. Senior Planner Dixon will research what was discussed at that meeting and see if
different language was proposed.
Economic Development Manager Hagen advised comments from the State are due in mid-August and
you could have the public hearing prior to receiving the comment. CAO wouldn't be adopted before
hearing from the State. Vice Chair Peace wondered if you have the public hearing and substantive
comments are received from the State, do you have to do the process over again. Commissioner Ward
suggested waiting until the State comments are received and is there a need for the public hearing right
away. Economic Development Manager Hagen said the CAO needs to be adopted by the fall. The State
could take the full 60 days for comment and they would only be recommendations.
-2-
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JULY 7. 2004
Senior Planner Dixon offered that the State comments, if any, can be reflected in revisions to the
ordinance and bring back to the Commission. Staff feels the City can go ahead with the public hearing
with the CAO draft as it now reads.
. Sign Code
Development Services Coordinator Martin distributed additional information and explained that some
elements will remain the same and other elements have significant changes. The SCC and staff has
been working on this for some time. The mayor appointed representatives from the community such as
business owners, Chamber, Council and Commission representatives, sign manufacturer, and
developers, etc. They tried to make tried to make changes consistent with goals of the Committee at the
start of process. Some of the provisions come forward with staff recommendations. Staffs role was not
to rewrite the code, their role was to reorganize the code consistent with what the Committee sought for
the vision of Auburn. This document represents the SCC's thoughts. He will focus on individual sections
brought forward tonight. PC will eventually hold a public hearing and make recommendations to Council.
Commissioner Ward asked if the code incorporates the recent Federal Court ruling on content based
signing regarding the bagel guy in either Kent or Bellevue. How to justify how to allow real estate signs
versus other communication signs. Development Services Coordinator Martin said that the City hasn't
made changes based on other court rulings recently issued. Development Services Coordinator Martin
said the City Attorney reviewed this section and the language proposed under political signage is per his
review. The political sign change was because they tend to be in the peripheral of right of way and
placement location is important so they don't create traffic safety hazard.
Commissioner Ward said that political signs aren't intended to aid communication. Political speech is
protected under the First Amendment. She believes this would be regulating content based speech. She
is concerned that didn't require a permit for 4x8 political sign and with the new provisions you have to get
a permit. Commissioner Ward commented that the new code says for a private lot, you are putting in a
new regulation in and if Joe Schmoe wants a 4x8 sign for George Bush on his private property the new
code says he would need a permit which is different from the old code. She finds this problematic. She
believes this is limiting free speech and believes this is restricting free speech. She said that political
speech is the highest form of protected speech. Businesses are often self regulating and do not receive
as much protection as political signs.
Development Services Coordinator Martin said the City Attorney has already reviewed the code.
Commissioner Ward asked if there are any problems with large political signs on private property and
Development Services Coordinator Martin replied that the SCC was not aware of problems. Development
Services Coordinator Martin remarked that the SCC though if sign is larger than 32 square feet, a permit
should be obtained. Currently, nothing prevents a property owner from installing 50 31 square foot signs.
Commissioner Ward said the section is poorly writing and suggested 'more than 32 square feet..'
Development Services Coordinator Martin appreciates Commissioner Ward's comments and will take
notes on this discussion. Commissioner Larsen asked what have other cities done regarding political
signs. Development Services Coordinator Martin will have Dan Heid provide information. He agrees with
Commissioner Ward that the section could be written more clearly. He believes this is not restricting free
speech, just restricting size of one sign. Someone could put up as many 32 signs, but only one political
sign greater than 32 square feet.
Commissioner Ward will e-mail the City Attorney and see about room for improvement on the language
which she has construed as restrictive. Is there a summary available so she can compare the new
language with the old?
- 3 -
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JULY 7. 2004
Development Services Coordinator Martin commented that historically businesses have come to Council
and complained that they didn't think the sign code was fair and was not reflective of how Auburn wanted
to do business. The Mayor formed the SCC to see if regulations were acceptable or changes could be
made. In the process, they reviewed the code section by section line by line. The major codes are
somewhat outdated and the sign code is one longest and most difficult to read and apply.
Discussion occurred that SCC did not contain a representative from political faction who could discuss
political signs. PC was concerned that the SCC made special allowances for certain types of businesses,
but not for political speech.
Vice Chair Peace offered that the SCC discussed Federal Way signage requirements and the Committee
liked what Federal Way did. They reached a tough compromise. Contributions from a member, Mike
Harbin, of Harbin Signs, was most helpful. Sam Pace represented the real estate faction and got into the
minutia of signage. The Committee had a great deal of work to do. SCC representatives will have to
stand behind their code.
Development Services Coordinator Martin said the SCC made recommendations, but did not send the
sign code to political representatives for review. Commissioner Ward said that individuals will want to
express their political wants and this is free speech at its core.
Commissioner Ward referred to the exemptions section, and pointed out the content based problem
again. If you exempt religious signs, but not political, you are protecting religious rights more than political
free speech. She spoke of the need to look at this closely, look at the inconsistencies, and warned this
can be problematic. She spoke of the need to protect free speech. Commissioner Ward commented that
if you exempt religious speech you should exempt political as well which receives the same amount of
scrutiny. There is a problem with distinction between political and religious.
Development Services Coordinator Martin spoke about other proposed changes to the sign code such as
proposed reduction in overall area and height of signs.
ADJOURNMENT
With no further items to come before the Commission the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
PC\AGND\MIN
-4-