Loading...
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-