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