Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-03-2004 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 3. 2004 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on August 3,2004 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, Ronald Douglass, Renee Larsen, Yvonne Ward, Kevin Chapman and Joan Mason STAFF: David Osaki, Eric Hagen, Jeff Dixon and Patti Zook The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Peace. STUDY SESSION - 6:30 P.M. · 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Community Development Administrator Osaki informed Commissioners that staff is beginning the update process. The Planning and Community Development Committee wants to meet soon with the Commissioners. There are five proposed map amendments; one is privately initiated and four are City initiated. There are a number of policy/text amendments. He then reviewed the proposed amendments. REGULAR MEETING - 7:00 P.M. APPROVAL OF MINUTES · Minutes of June 16, 2004 Meeting Commissioner Chapman referred to pager 3, phrase 'no one should be able to do anything in M1 zone' and wanted the sentence deleted. Commissioner Ward said that she arrived at the meeting at 6:40 p.m. not 7:40 p.m. Commissioner Douglass made a motion, seconded Commissioner Larsen, to approve the minutes with the change. · Minutes of July 7, 2004 Commissioner Mason pointed out the date change of June 8 to June 16. Commissioner Ward made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Larsen, to approve the minutes with the change. PUBLIC HEARING Case No. ZOA04-0002 The City of Auburn is considering adoption of a Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) to protect and manage ecologically sensitive areas in the City. Critical areas provide a variety of valuable and beneficial biological and physical functions that benefit the City and its residents. The purpose of the CAO is to protect these areas and their functions and values, while also allowing for reasonable use of private property. Commissioner Peace opened the public hearing. Environmental Protection Manager Hagen gave a short presentation of information to date and explained why the CAO is needed. The CAO sets forth standards and methods and will be integrated with SEPA review. Regarding wetland and stream buffers, the requirements will be similar to other jurisdictions in south King County. He then showed a comparison of stream and wetland buffers. He spoke about public participation which included two open houses, newspaper articles, City's website, and mailings to interested parties and environmental groups. Comment letters were given to the Commission tonight from Mark Segale and Livable Communities were received late today. Commissioner Ward referred to page 2 of the Livable Communities letter related to exemptions for smaller wetlands and they indicate that this may be counter to GMA. Environmental Protection Manager Hagen said that small isolated wetlands provide few functional values and that the SAMP recognized this - 1 - MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 3. 2004 fact. Valley growth continues and small isolated wetlands are scattered in the valley and most have been altered. It is now recognized that these areas might be better for potential development and preserve larger wetlands that have higher value. Commissioner Ward wondered if the City went with these exemptions, is it necessary to mitigate the net loss? Environmental Protection Manager Hagen said this is done on a case by case basis depending on the circumstances. Commissioner Ward referred to page 3, a comparison of Department of Ecology recommendation versus Auburn's and why are we deviating from the DOE proposal and what is the thinking behind this? Is the City doing the right thing by not doing the DOE recommendation? Environmental Protection Manager Hagen explained that best available science is a complicated issue, and some are not applicable to Auburn. DOE has synthesized what they think is essential value and is not concerned about local issues. The intent is to build flexibility into the CAO. The DOE has a broad approach over many areas. The City can review its local conditions and apply standards for those conditions versus a blanket approach. Commissioner Larsen said that wetlands are important to migratory bird so why are they called low value. Environmental Protection Manager Hagen spoke about the way a wetland is rated according to current standards and how to apply function standards. A stop over on a migratory route may not be part of the equation. From a regulatory point of view, it is hard to give a value. The City is moving forward on a larger project to increase habit for birds and other wildlife. He spoke of the need to rate wetlands and give them a value. Commissioner Douglass referred to page 3 under exemptions, #11, significant trees, and wondered how to make a decision of when to exempt and when not exempt. Senior Planner Dixon said that in order to be consistent with the existing land clearing regulations, these are the same exemptions as those exemptions in the land clearing regulations. The purpose of the exemption is to make these two regulations agree. Commissioner Ward wondered about removing all the trees for single family homes as was done for Lakeland Hills. She was previously told this was because the project was in Pierce County. Senior Planner Dixon said the purpose is to designate areas that contain native stands of trees and meet the definition of significant trees that comprise woodland resources, areas with native trees greater than one acre subject to these regulations, retain 35% of the trees. In Lakeland Hills South, the project was approved as a mining site in Pierce County before it was annexed to Auburn. Commissioner Ward referred to the precautionary principal (section 5) cited by the Livable Communities letter which relates that it is more efficient to be proactive and preserve. Environmental Protection Manager Hagen said the letter came in late in the afternoon and he thinks this is the intent of their letter. Commissioner Ward wondered if the City is considering this principal as we go along as part of the municipal code or CAO as it seems to make sense as presented here, and would it be adopted as part of the CAO? Environmental Protection Manager Hagen said this is the general philosophy of Livable Communities. This is a laudable principal and goals, and he believes this was considered during the CAO development process. Senior Planner Dixon said they are in part expressing their opinion of the precautionary principle. As additional science becomes available, the City has the ability to refine regulations to best available science and the CAO addresses this. Lon Novack, 29226 118th Avenue SE, in unincorporated King County, an area the City is thinking of annexing in the future, and located near the new high school on Lea Hill, complimented the Commission on seeking input. He knows he is going to be affected by City ordinances and he cares about the environment and protecting wetlands and salmon habit. The Green River is a national showcase watershed and we need to do everything possible to make the watershed a successful project. He lives in the Olson Creek watershed which is a jewel of an environmental asset. He followed King County's CAO and Kent's CAO and said the best available science isn't the same in each jurisdiction. CAOs don't place enough emphasis on avoidance and wetlands need not be filled in. It's too easy to allow the transition -2- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 3. 2004 from avoidance to mitigation. He mentioned the Port of Seattle's wetland mitigation site that has not been improved. Regarding the annexation issue, properties being protected by the CAO in the future should be addressed in the ordinance and apply for planning for annexation. Lack of planning for annexation affects what happens. King County has no incentive to bend their regulations. He spoke about migrating birds on the Kent watershed site. Auburn should think about these issues when deciding about exemptions because enforcement will be hard. Less flexibility should be built into the regulations. David Jensen 3645 148th Avenue SE, is a builder, and wants to recommend that the Commission move as slowly as possible. He is disappointed that citizens are not aware this is going on; folks are ignorant. This is the first time he has seen the agenda. Regarding the tree issue, trees are already put under an existing ordinance. He spoke about trees on property and the trouble with having a house next to these trees because trees will go down on the house and one has already collapsed on a fence. Wetlands are nothing but low spots due to development in the area and are now classified as a wetland. Travesty to not think birds will adapt. Critical wetlands can be identified in science. He again recommended that the Commission move slowly. He spoke about moving yards of dirt and City regulations are not balanced. He spoke about moving dirt onto his property in Lakeland. Common sense should be the rule. Commissioner Ward spoke about disparity in treatment and understands his frustration. She inquired about provisions to allow a builder to take down at risk trees. Senior Planner Dixon said there was a geotechnical investigation at the preliminary plat approval stage for Valley View Estates. Recommendation from the report was to be 25 foot native growth protection area along the top of the hills; outside the 25 feet be limited tree removal. A lot by lot landscape plan identified trees to be retained and trees to be removed; unhealthy trees could be removed. Mr. Jensen said the geotechnical report was only a recommendation and there is no good reason not to build on the bank. There has not been a slough of homes there in over 40 years. Regarding Lakeland, the greatest thing they did was when they tore out every tree and planted trees there that will encourage birds. Lakeland will be a healthy environment and taking down trees there wasn't wrong. Commissioner Mason said her house is over 40 years old and is located on the subject bluff. Every time there is a heavy rain, water loosens a portion of their property. Commissioner Chapman offered that Academy Drive has been closed down for some time and that is on the same ridge. Mark Hancock, Segale, referred to their comment letter on letterhead, which has four comments which he read. They support flexibility in order to solve problems and believe the ordinance is fairly balanced and reflects staffs hard work. In response to Commissioner Ward inquiries about what prompts designation, Senior Planner Dixon explained how the process works, how wetlands are inventoried, which is not the official recognition, but an attempt to identify where resources are located. Designation occurs when a proponent proposes a development and hires a biologist to delineate the wetlands and see if criteria are met and meet the definition of a wetland. They provide information to the City about where the resources exist and the City reviews. By City review recognize appropriate and where wetlands exist and when their report is accepted by the City. The designation is valid for a limited number of years. If development doesn't occur on the site and it lies dormant for 10 years, for example, the designation would have to be reconfirmed. Dynamic systems change over time. Mr. Hancock gave personal examples of flexibility at the SuperMall development and the man-made wetland is one of the highest functioning. The developer and the City worked together to cluster trees in the lot, for example. The City and developer worked together to achieve better results. Joe Schuler, 277th and 167, has been on his property since 1931, spoke about water dumping on his property. Senior Planner Dixon advised the Commission that Mr. Schuler has had numerous conversations with City staff and they have considerable knowledge of his concerns related to drainage. -3- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 3. 2004 Commissioner Peace closed the public hearing. Commissioner Ward inquired how to determine what the best available science is and are there guidelines to help. Environmental Protection Manager Hagen said that best available science is a continually evolving science and we will know more as the future goes on. It is difficult to translate into regulations. Best available science tells us about function and protecting larger areas. Buffer widths can vary considerably. Commissioner Peace said this was talked about in previous sessions, and although not necessarily the smartest, it is an approved scientific approach and a method approved by governing bodies. Commissioner Ward referred to preventive or mitigation and flexibility and if the City went with principle of WAC Department of Ecology and easer to prevent. The way the ordinance is crafted to incorporate local policies and issues it looks like the ordinance is drafted on the side of flexibility and mitigate later versus preventive, and maybe we should go more preventive and flexible. Environmental Protection Manager Hagen commented that avoidance is the first step and avoidance is preferred. Where development is allowed to occur, minimize, review project based on its merits, and seek additional information from the property owner. Flexibility to allow variance for buffer averaging to improve buffer by enhancement or mitigation on a case by case basis to maximum protection of the site. Senior Planner Dixon referred to Section 16.10.110 A, mitigation standards which provides preferred sequence for impacts. Commissioner Ward wondered about the issue of enforcement as mentioned by David Jensen and monitoring program and contingency plan, does a project have to propose a monitoring plan and who pays for this? Is money placed into a fund for the City to enforce? How to avoid problems and how to make sure it will be followed through on? Senior Planner Dixon said that when Planning Commission first reviewed the ordinance the City didn't have Code Enforcement Officers. The City now has two officers and Environmental Protection Manager Hagen to do field work. We have the resources to pay attention. The section has provisions for experts to define the monitoring program to be approved by the City. The length of the monitoring period varies by project. Performance/maintenance security will be held. Commissioner Ward said with the two Code Enforcement officers, priority should be the environment and water and not hassling her neighbor about the height of a bush. Commissioner Peace commented about the man-made wetlands at the SuperMall site, and the wetlands at Thurmond site that are considered state of the art and people come from across the State to view the high functioning wetlands. Senior Planner Dixon remarked that the mall wetlands are ponds for stormwater detention function and were planted with native vegetation for habitat values not direct compensation for wetland loss. They serve many functions and provide the only open water on the valley floor. Thurmond site was constructed wetlands for compensation of filling wetlands on track site. This was replanted with native vegetation and has an 11 year monitoring program. Environmental Protection Manager Hagen spoke about the Auburn Environmental Park and Mill Pond. Commissioner Chapman inquired how the CAO will address Mr. Schuler's concerns and Western Street that has a problem with rising water. Environmental Protection Manager Hagen said the City is looking at these situations and the site has changed considerably over time because of Highway 167 construction which created significant changes over time. Mr. Schuler was dealing with these issues when the roads were constructed. This is a complex issue. The CAO applies to development as it occurs to ensure impacts are minimized or avoided. Highway 167 is a large regional issue as is development on the West Hill that produces significant runoff and these issues are largely out of Auburn's control. Commissioner Douglass referred to variances, Section 16.10, page 45, that Planning Director or Hearing Examiner may grant variances under certain conditions? Are applications for variances and granting of variances published? What sort of record is kept? How is this made known to the public? Senior Planner -4- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 3. 2004 Dixon said that variances up to 10% can be granted through administrative approval, grater than 10% goes to the Hearing Examiner. There are two different processes. Administrative approval is similar to other administrative approvals that the Planning Director can grant. Notices to properties within 300 feet would see a public notice posting board. For the Hearing Examiner decision, a public hearing is held with notice of the hearing, mailing to adjacent property owners, on site posting, website, and public notice in the paper. Commissioner Chapman posed a scenario on best available science and someone has critical areas and gets geotech study submitted to the City, City looks at the study and has the ability to say yes, good, or no the City doesn't believe the geotech engineer knows what he is saying. Does the City have that much leverage? The geotech engineer is putting their name on information and leaning to the conserve side so something doesn't go wrong. Does the City have the right to say they don't believe the study? Environmental Protection Manager Hagen remarked that professional geotech engineers has credentials and their determination is a recommendation and base their decision on what they feel is the best information available. Commissioner Larsen said proponent could hire a geotech firm that is pro-builder or pro-environment. How will a proponent make the best decision? Could the City deny a project if the City doesn't agree with the geotech study? Environmental Protection Manager Hagen remarked that the City doesn't have to accept the professional recommendation if it is contrary to what we have. Commissioner Ward said the City is developing the CAO ordinance because of impacts that could filter out and could affect projects more than 300 feet away. Notice mailings are made to those within 300 feet away, and she suggested broadening the notification from 300 feet to perhaps 500 feet and possibly the additional cost could be passed on to the developer. If it is a critical area, expand the notification. Senior Planner Dixon said this would be feasible. There could be different notice provisions in this ordinance. Discussion occurred regarding categorizing raptors as referenced in the letter from Segale. Senior Planner Dixon commented that jurisdictions know wetland dynamics. Wetland reports have a disclaimer on them, appropriate methodology is used, and is an investigation and jurisdiction will agree if the report is appropriate. This sent is to acknowledge that the City authority for accepting; best available science as is what the City uses to come up with regulations; not applicable at ea sl delineation report; not using best available science for each individual project; best available science is concept to reach this set of regulations. Commissioner Chapman inquired about stream buffers and that streams change course and how will this affect the buffers? What will the affect be on existing structures? Senior Planner Dixon said that streams usually don't change radically over short periods of time. Considerable discussion occurred related to stream buffers and the affect on the buffers if a stream meanders. In response to Commissioner Chapman's inquiry, Environmental Protection Manager Hagen remarked that there are provisions in the CAO related to flood hazard areas. Environmental Protection Manager Hagen appreciates the hard work the Commission has done on review of the CAO. Discussion occurred about what form the maps will be available. Commissioner Ward suggested having a study session in August. Community Development Administrator Osaki acknowledged that the correspondence was received very late. The Planning Commission postponed action until its September meeting so that it could review written and verbal comments provided during the public hearing process. -5- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 3. 2004 DISCUSSION . Northeast Auburn Special Area Plan/Zoning/Planned Action Ordinance Senior Planner Dixon mentioned previous briefings to the Commission held on this project and the EIS. Mike Dee, Director of Development, Robertson Properties Group, showed slides depicting the types of development they do. He said they are not a 'Speculative developer. Senior Planner Dixon introduced Mark Johnson, Herrera Environmental Consultants, the City's consultant. Commissioner Peace inquired during the EIS review, three different alternatives were identified and is there any inclination of what will be developed or what the market demands? Mr. Dee said their decision on the type of retail development is market driven. Mr. Johnson explained that he was hired by Auburn to put the EIS and special area plan documents together which has been a three year process. He reviewed slides showing the study/plan area, policies and objectives, overall vision, traffic and circulation, stormwater management, etc. He pointed out urban design elements and public amenities. City's policies and guidelines spell out building modulation, materials, streetscape, entries, signage, natural amenities, etc. He credited City staff with recognizing the many opportunities at this site. Commissioner Ward believes that from a public standpoint there will be a lot of attention to drainage from the site and spoke of the need for valid science to address the issue. Mr. Johnson briefly spoke about the proposed new C-4 zoning district to cover the site. The C-4 district is making use of development standards in various zoning districts already in the City principally the C3 district. In response to Commissioner Ward's comment, drive-through restaurants would be arranged on site so they wouldn't be an eyesore and contained within the property and arranged to connect with the pedestrian network. He spoke about design requirements being emphasized. Commissioner Ward said the applicant and City are proposing a plan for major change to the area, changes to the code, and creating a new C-4 zone. Is this zone only for the project area or could it be applied elsewhere in the City or is it tailored only for this project? Senior Planner Dixon said the proposed C-4 zone is only for this project area at present. Similarly, Terrace View has its own zoning designation. In response to Commissioner Douglass's inquiry, Mr. Johnson said that the a change to the transportation level of service standard is not proposed at this time. It is recognized in the policy that some impacts could happen years from now and that the City may look at changing the LOS in a different way. Commissioner Chapman wondered what the other property owners saying, particularly Mr. Stein. Do they have any objections to Robertson Properties Group vision? Mr. Johnson said they are not objecting to the vision put forth by RPG. The project opens possibilities for him as infrastructure is planned and gives him an impetuous for development. Other adjacent property owners have not been vocal in the process. All of the area is to be developed with the same type of design standards. All have been notified and were made aware of the EIS and special area plan process all along. In response to Commissioner Chapman's inquiry, Mr. Johnson said that the extension of 49th Street NE will impact wetlands on Mr. Stein's property and the current configuration of 49th Street NE was chosen to lessen impacts on the wetland. Some of Mr. Stine's wetlands will go away, however, these are not high quality wetlands. Senior Planner Dixon spoke about the several opportunities for public comment including an article in the newspaper, posting on site, mailings to all adjacent property owners, scoping notices, draft EIS and final EIS mailings. -6- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNMENT With no further items to come before the Commission the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 pm. PC\AGND\MIN 08-2004 - 7 - AUGUST 3. 2004