Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-08-2004 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 8. 2004 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on September 8,2004 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, Joan Mason and Judi Roland STAFF: Paul Krauss, David Osaki, Eric Hagen, Jeff Dixon and Patti Zook The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Peace. Judi Roland, new Planning Commissioner, was introduced. STUDY SESSION - 6:30 P.M. . Presentation - Auburn Way/Main Street Study Community Development Administrator Osaki mentioned that the project manager is Jennifer Dvorack. The Downtown Plan was adopted in 2001 and outlines strategies for redevelopment of downtown, emphasizes pedestrian orientation, high density development, high quality development, attractive streetscapes, safe physical environment, making downtown 'walkable', working on developing connections, making streets pedestrian orientated, getting people out of their vehicles and making it comfortable for people to move from place to place. The Downtown Plan contains 25 to 30 strategies for implementation, and three are mentioned in the handout. Auburn Way/Main Street is the focus of the study area. It is difficult for people to cross this intersection due to traffic and cars turning. This is a commercial arterial in a pedestrian oriented downtown. Staff is also looking at the east/west connection. The right of way on this portion of Auburn Way is constrained and there is not a lot of opportunity to acquire additional right of way. A challenge is how to achieve the goals of pedestrian orientation and improved streetscape. Community Development Administrator Osaki said the City held two open houses that showed the concepts. Invitations were distributed to all downtown businesses. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss commented that the Downtown Plan shied away from a pedestrian overpass because it is very expensive. Pedestrian overpasses must be handicapped accessible with ramps and elevators. Auburn Way carries approximately 40,000 vehicles per day and many of these vehicles are 'through' traffic avoiding Highway 167. The Downtown Plan said that Main Street is walkable, but it is bisected by Auburn Way. The Plan proposes to bulb the corners and install a refuge island. Staff asked City Council for funds to study Auburn Way/Main Street improvements with a pedestrian crossing. Council funded $50,000 for improvements, City received a $30,000 GMA grant received for study. Council held a special work session and was presented the concepts. In response to Commissioner Larsen's inquiry, Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said that M Street has approximately 30,000 trips per day and is slated to be upgraded. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss mentioned that the new public safety building has 140 parking spaces which will be open for general parking on weekends and evenings. This is a historic renovation of an important building and is a catalyst for development of this portion of Main Street. Commissioner Chapman believes the new public safety building may increase the number of people crossing at Auburn Way/Main Street and wonders how much foot traffic will be generated. REGULAR MEETING -7:00 P.M. APPROVAL OF MINUTES . Minutes of August 3, 2004 Meeting - 1 - MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 8. 2004 Commissioner Ward referred to page 4, sixth paragraph, sixth sentence, to keep the phrase 'Commissioner Ward said with the two Code Enforcement officers, priority should be the environment and water' and to remove her example of 'not hassling her neighbor about the height of a bush'. Commissioner Chapman referred to page 4, fourth paragraph, clarify portion about Academy Drive closure and that the road was closed down because of a land slide. He referred to page 4, second paragraph, to clarify that the 'Critical Areas Ordinance will address... Western Street and downtown areas... ' Commissioner Ward made a motion, seconded by KC to approve the minutes with corrections as noted. The motion passed. PUBLIC HEARING . Critical Areas Ordinance (continued from August 3) Chairman Peace opened the public hearing. Environmental Manager Hagen presented a brief review from the last public hearing held August 3. Testimony was heard and written comments were reviewed. Planning Commission had a work session on August 31 which centered on written comments received. Planning Commission has copies of three letters which were received this afternoon. The comment letters received originally and the City response to the letters and some revisions are noted in the packet. Chairman Peace mentioned the second to the last enclosure was responses to comments and is amended from what he saw at the study session. He can't compare word for word and needs an overview of what was changed in the amended version. Environmental Manager Hagen said that comment one regarding the inclusion of raptors is based on discussion and it was determined that raptors are not necessarily covered under State or Federal guidelines and staff has removed the term from the ordinance. Commissioner Ward thought that staff initially recommended no change on this issue and what has happened to change staff's position. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said this was discussed at the work session and concerns were raised that extending ESA to other species severely encumbers property owners beyond what was anticipated. Staff discussed and agreed to the change. Commissioner Ward said the purpose of a work session is to study issues, not make decisions. She couldn't attend the work session. The work session shouldn't have been deliberative. She is concerned about changes and not telling her and not being aware of the change in staff position. Chairman Peace was at the work session and doesn't have any objections that staff changed their recommendation. Planning Commission didn't come to an agreement. Staff changed their recommendation and they are free to do that. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said that staff has had ongoing discussion of the issues, draft language was proposed, public hearing held on the ordinance, Planning Commission has changes in staff's recommendation which is what is on the floor tonight. Commissioner Ward wants to see the information that justifies the change in staff's position. Environmental Manager Hagen pointed out comment 2; last item in the agenda packet, that says amended. Commissioner Larsen inquired that staff recommends no protection in nesting and Environmental Manager Hagen said that this is protected under Federal statute for migrating birds and that nesting is a separate issue. City's concern that this was a broad range to include. -2- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 8. 2004 Commissioner Ward suggested that the ESA preempts the ability of local jurisdictions to do planning. She wants a grid to show what the main issues are and what staff's position is, etc. She couldn't figure out why Livable Communities is still commenting. It is hard to absorb information from different packets. Environmental Manager Hagen said that at the work session the items were discussed and rationale given as to why those could be removed from exemptions. Commissioner Ward wants to know why staff is now recommending a change. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said a work session was held, comments received from staff and Planning Commission, discussion held, comment letters reviewed, and that this is workable. Commissioner Ward referred to section related to property to include wetland smaller than 2,500 square feet, and staff agreed at one point and staff recommended deleting this exemption and now staff recommends leaving as is. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said that in the context of City these areas very small and simply depressions which may not have existed prior to development. They are low functioning and by definition may not meet definition of a wetland. Commissioner Larsen said that 2,500 square feet is half a city lot in some cities and is a large space. Is there any thought to exemption to fill 1,000 square feet and if larger than 1,000 square feet you couldn't. Environmental Manager Hagen said that Planning Commission can discuss the threshold. Commissioner Ward inquired about the logic to change, what information did staff get between earlier discussions to drop exemptions and now keep? Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said this was discussed in house with Planning and Public Works, staff went back to practical experience in trying to preserve wetland this small in place. These are often isolated wet spots, not contiguous to anything, and often times a remnant of construction, or poor drainage flow or other manmade activities. Commissioner Ward referred to a quote from Department of Ecology letter 'isolated wetlands can provide habitat... ' and is staff refuting the Department of Ecology letter. Department of Ecology says that best available science doesn't support. She spoke about maximum public input and maximum time for Planning Commission to review. When people read prior comments they think the issue is resolved. She is concerned about changing the issues. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said that best available science is always moving and changing. Cities began work on their Critical Areas Ordinances before best available sciences came out. The City hired a consulting firm to use best available science and rationalize the Critical Areas Ordinance. If the State knows the best available science is, why have they told local jurisdictions they must do best available science? Each individual local jurisdiction must do its own best available science. Auburn is taking a proactive approach and has tried to restore the environmental and hydrology systems along Mill Creek and has done mitigation. Auburn expects the best available science report to be issued within one month and best available science will be an analysis of Critical Areas Ordinance in terms of their interpretation of what science says we can achieve. There is a level of discomfort felt in many jurisdictions because the State recommendation of what best available science is hasn't come done until recently. Critical Areas Ordinances must be completed by the end of the year. Many cities have asked the State to extend the timeline, but they haven't. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said the Critical Areas Ordinance applies to the valley floor, Lea Hill, Lakeland Hills, West Hill, etc. The City was developing a Sensitive Areas Ordinance and then changed gears for the Critical Areas Ordinance. Commissioner Ward wondered if the City hired someone, is there any functional or procedural way to get information before the Planning Commission in conjunction with staff recommendation. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said it makes sense to do this. December 1 is the 'drop dead' date given by the State. He is unsure what happens December 2 if the City doesn't have a Critical Areas Ordinance. There is an element of risk if you go over the December 1 deadline. - 3 - MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 8. 2004 Commissioner Ward wondered about a special session or public hearing for input after the report. Community Development Administrator Osaki said the State reacts to local jurisdictions if not adopted. If a local jurisdiction is attempting to adopt an ordinance, there may be some latitude from the State. His sense is typically as long as you are not being clearly defiant and can show you are making progress, there could be leeway in terms of the deadline. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said that staff would like the Council committees to review the Critical Areas Ordinance concurrently for discussion purposes. Council will have a crunch with the budget and 2004 Comprehensive Plan amendments in December. Staff needs to advise City Council of the potential risk; if Planning Commission is comfortable with being given a little more time, staff can prepare a matrix as Planning Commission suggested, and come forward with best available science report. Commissioner Roland wondered if 2,500 square foot wetland isn't automatically filled in, does someone check to see if there is a reason to save the wetland. Environmental Manager Hagen said the City can identify wetlands it knows exists, use the wetland stream inventory, site visit, to get a good idea of where functioning wetlands are located. Bryan Meade, 820 Oravetz Road, referred to tree replacement fee, and feels it is discriminatory to small property owners. If he decides in the future to subdivide his property, he will be slapped with an ordinance and can't pay a fee to get out of. Developers could pay fee, the fee portion should be removed. Developer could clear off 160 acres and pay fee. Either you save trees or you don't. Senior Planner Dixon explained the purpose of the regulations and said the ordinance defines for protection 'woodland resources' and read the section. If you have woodland resources on property, retain 35% of the area; if you can't, the ordinance tries to accommodate flexibility either to replace these elsewhere on site or replace offsite. If you can't do either, you have the option of paying fee to the City to replant. Mr. Meade said again this is discriminatory against the small property owner who isn't going to have funds available to do. He thinks this is geared to larger developer and no one considered the small property owner. The small property owner doesn't have funds to pay for replacement trees. A developer shouldn't be able to pay a fee and replace trees elsewhere so he can clear land. The document says the Planning Director has the governing authority/decision making responsibility. He doesn't think one person should have this decision making authority. There should be group of folks with no ties to Auburn, perhaps one City representative, one landowner, one person in the tree business, one fishery person to make these decisions. One person shouldn't have the authority to determine what is a forest and what is not a forest. He wanted to know what is meant by the terms aesthetic appreciation, social values and municipal objectives. He suggested deleting the portion related to 'reconstructing'. He referred to Section 16.10.070, and asked what constitutes a qualified consultant. If the City requires that someone check the report, the City should pay for this not the applicant. Commissioner Ward said that she brought this up a couple years ago, and thought this would be reviewable to the Hearing Examiner. If the applicant has an expert and the City says it doesn't agree with the report, then let it go to Hearing Examiner. Senior Planner Dixon referred to subsection 1 and 2 and said a concern was that the language was too open and did not provide circumstances under which the City would hire an additional expert or under what circumstances the City could do so. He doesn't recall language about the Hearing Examiner making a decision. Decisions under the ordinance are appealable. Commissioner Ward said there are provisions in there based on that concern, but she doesn't understand the first sentence. Senior Planner Dixon said this means the City may have special knowledge that the -4- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 8. 2004 consultant might not have. Senior Planner Dixon said the City is not trying to make people jump through unnecessary hoops. Often times the City doesn't have an opportunity to provide initial information to the person doing the report. Commissioner Ward asked Mr. Meade if he has any suggestions related to the tree stand issue. Mr. Meade said it is a burden on the small property owner who has 1.5 acres. If you want to build home on an acre, and if you have trees close to the home you want to take the trees down for safety sake. He doesn't agree with the retainage and doesn't have a proposed solution. He doesn't agree with the significant size definition. Ron Novak, 29266 118th Avenue SE, said the comments of the previous speaker are well taken. Regarding the deadline for implementation of the Critical Areas Ordinance, he understands that cities have two-plus years to develop an ordinance to the point where it can pass scrutiny and to fully implement the best available science. He is not sympathetic to City's statement of being under the gun to get passed because of the deadline. The State has a model ordinance that they deliberately wrote for the purpose of cities not wanting to expend resources to develop their own ordinance. If the City needs more time for their version of Critical Areas Ordinance, then adopt the State model ordinance on an interim basis until such time as Auburn can fully review their Critical Areas Ordinance and end up with a good ordinance. Related to buffer distances for wetland areas, there is a range of buffer distance for wetland based on whether low impact or high impact land use. In the definition of high impact land use he sees an area of concern to him is residential development because of ambiguity. There needs to be a differential for low density residential and high density residential. Incorporate definitions into the Critical Areas Ordinance. If it has to be relied on in another ordinance then there could be inequitable application of criteria. Commissioner Roland said that monitoring is discussed in the ordinance and an annual report is done. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss stressed that monitoring is successful and Auburn has what is regarded as the best wetland mitigation site with an 11 year monitoring schedule. Reports are submitted in a timely manner and it the process has worked. Mary Roberts, 502 8th Street NE, Apt 24, wants an extension to submit written comments. Chairman Peace will take note of her request. She said the Department of Ecology offers guidance versus legal responsibility. Senior Planner Dixon said that in the GMA required elements to be addressed related to critical areas and to have regulations. Significant vegetative resources as defined by the City, but is not required by the State. These would be treated in a similar manner with other regulations that are not required by the State. Ms. Roberts referred to page 7, under item 7, environmental review and permitting of critical areas and the approval process. On top of page 6, phrase 'use adaptive management approach' and what does this mean. She can't understand its reference to item 7 on the preceding page. Senior Planner Dixon pointed out that item 7 speaks to the intent of the chapter. An intent is that the review of sensitive area regulations be rolled into the ongoing development review process and not a separate permitting process. There would not be another layer of review. Adaptive management will continue to be defined if need be based on monitoring. Environmental review is something the City is already required to do based on SEPA. SEPA is a safety net to address significant environmental impacts. If a project has significant impacts not addressed in Critical Areas Ordinance, these could be addressed in SEPA. Chairman Peace recessed the meeting at 8:45 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:55 p.m. Mark Hancock, Sealge Business Park, distributed a letter dated September 8. The original letter was prior to the first hearing, letter dated 9-2 is in the packet and now this September 8 comment letter. They have nothing new to add. Regarding the raptor nesting issue, see page 2 of their response to Environmental Manager Hagen's memorandum. They are comfortable with staff's current position on this complex issue. Mr. Hancock referred to wetland classification and said that wetlands change over time and a person should not be burdened with a previous classification. It is a complicated process to reclassify wetlands. - 5 - MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 8. 2004 They should be classified at the time the property is proposed for development. He referred to his comment letter. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss acknowledge that Auburn's critical area map is a generalization and is not based on specific site surveyor ground survey and has a large notice that the map is not to be used for planning purpose, but for information only. Person must rely on specific delineations present at the time of development application is proposed. Mr. Hancock proposes language that the City is comfortable with. Commissioner Ward wondered if the designation exists, don't people rely on that when they purchase property and isn't this risky for the buyer. Do you rely on the previous designation? How this different from what is doing now? Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said this is reflective of what the City is doing now. Auburn hasn't had a comprehensive set of wetland maps. The City reviews a professionally prepared delineation from the applicant. If the study is good, the City will accept the study. Commissioner Ward inquired if there is anything to support his recommendation? Livable Communities Coalition says the City is being too generous. What does the evidence say? Mr. Hancock will provide information on stream buffering to the Commission. Commissioner Ward said the original proposal was 2,500 square feet for an outright exemption. If 2,500 square feet of wetland is considered minor, wouldn't this be exempt? Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said an exemption would be exempt to wetland protection for anything less than 2,500 square feet if isolated and gave examples. Commissioner Ward posed a scenario of person wanting to do something with land that has 2,000 square feet of isolated wetland, under the current process does everything stop? Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said that currently, the process stops for quite a while, goes through the process to delineate, how to mitigate, where to mitigate, set up inspection regimen. If it is protected, you need to protect it all the way. Senior Planner Dixon commented that the Comprehensive Plan talks about replacement functions which he described. Commissioner Ward wondered if a low function wetland is easily mitigated versus outright exemption. What does the 10,000 square feet collective mean? Senior Planner Dixon said this refers to 10,000 square foot cumulative. The exemption level would be 10,000 square feet or totality of wetland. In response to Commissioner Larsen's comments, Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said that wetland functions as part of environmental system for wildlife... .no project anywhere in Auburn is exempt from flood storage or water quality. Whether the project has wetlands or not, it has to build storm capacity. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss commented that any time you fill any property, any filling that displaces water, has to be replaced. The exemption is from wetland protection aspect of Critical Areas Ordinance. Any project engineer has to determine the amount of storage on property so that it can handle flood conditions and the additional provision for water quality regardless if a wetland is on the property. Mr. Hancock mentioned the five year monitoring program, and said sometimes mitigation is simply enhancing a buffer and you know in three years if it will survive or not; three years is more reasonable. He appreciates the Planning Commission's hard work. John Mauro, Livable Communities Coalition, sent two letters, and described their organization as a neighborhood based coalition for sustainable communities. Critical Areas Ordinances throughout the State are important to them. The September 8 letter has changes from their first letter. The protection of woodland resources goes beyond the State requirements. The reason for Critical Areas Ordinance in - 6 - MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 8. 2004 State law is to protect community values over the long term. They have put together a CD of what they've collected and said there is a huge amount of documentation out there and there is not a lot of debate on the best available science. He read pages 2 and 3 of their letter. The concept of no net loss is a GMA mandate. Regarding wetland buffers, the goal is no net loss. In the interim why not adopt the State code? Look at the State's best available science, if you deviate from the best available science State says you need an explanation of why. He spoke about a wetland delineation manual which is what the State recommends. The 25 foot buffer is nothing and doesn't provide enough function. He recommends a limit to 50 feet. Mitigation often doesn't work well and he referenced studies in their letter. He said a new King County Code is coming out. King County has lots of resources and has done lots of work. He spoke about using the new lettering system. Page 5 mentions the idea of limiting impervious surfaces. He said that citizens should have a say in what they want to protect. He concurs with staff about minimum of five years for monitoring. Mr. Mauro said that raptor nesting should remain 'critical habitat' as on page 6. He cautioned against buffer averaging for streams. Commissioner Ward requested Mr. Mauro's information be provided to the Planning Commission. Chairman Peace understands the concern that a recreated wetland doesn't have great success rate; if 2,000 square feet of poor quality wetland is mitigated, and it works isn't this better? Mr. Mauro spoke about looking at enhancement mitigation rates that tend to be dismal. Commissioner Ward referred to a newspaper article that said mitigated wetlands are unsuccessful. Commissioner Larsen wondered if we go with new rules, why give up the ability to regulate something we could regulate in the past? Regulate the 2,500; square feet of wetland and wait for the King County Code and see what their regulations are before making a final decision. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said that Mr. Mauro, Livable Communities Coalition took shots at Auburn's Critical Areas Ordinance. The notion of wetland mitigation failing is incorrect. Auburn's mitigation has worked well and we have good success when doing around Mill Creek. Using King County as an example is a red herring because King County is not a city, has rural jurisdictions, has significant amount of staff, and has done a horrendous job of administering properly. The King County Critical Areas Ordinance is causing property owners problems and there is a rebellion going on. Commissioner Ward wants information from Mr. Mauro. Auburn is doing a better job on most things and well thought out proposals. She believes Planning and Community Development Director Krauss comments on mitigation and she is hoping the City is not advocating that mitigation is the best way to go. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss commented that sequencing has been used since the 1970s. Avoidances is first. He spoke about the SAMP project which was completed, but never adopted. It is significant to note that all agencies agreed on SAMP. SAMP was specific to Auburn, Kent, and Federal Way. Auburn has areas in Mill Creek with significantly high value systems where enhancements can bring back. There are also a series of low quality isolated wetlands that are not productive and the SAMP report to allows these areas to be filled and accept mitigation. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss continued by saying that the SAMP document was never approved. All wetlands have to go through the permitting process. SAMP was used as pattern document to give policy input. A couple of 2,500 square foot wetlands can ruin a 10 acre property. The way to get legitimate developable area is to take those wetlands and say to a developer can't preserve wetlands where located, but can mitigate. Commissioner Larsen wondered if the point is to enhance wetlands, is the City giving up the right to continue the process. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said if the wetland is less than 2,500 square feet, yes. Commissioner Larsen spoke about giving citizens the right to regulate wetlands. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said that a developer is obligated to go through the sequencing process. The first obligation is to leave alone. -7- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 8. 2004 Commissioner Ward asked why give up the sequencing option. The reasonable use requirement is there and protects the property owner. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said the same wetland permitting process must be followed as for a 30 acre property. He spoke about mitigation ratios. Commissioner Ward wondered how often it occurs that only one 2,500 square foot or smaller wetland. Are these isolated incidents? Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said probably not often. Commissioner Ward said she can't reconcile giving right with no net loss issue as raised. This is a legitimate concern. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said there is not a problem to keep the public hearing open for one week, but it can't be held open endlessly. Commissioner Mason requested that people submit new material prior to the date of the Planning Commission meeting. Chairman Peace suggested continuing the public hearing for written comments through September 17. Commissioner Ward has requested the best available science material. Community Development Administrator Osaki said if Planning Commission wants to hold another public hearing, it would be November 2, the regular meeting date which is also election day. Or, the Planning Commission could change the meeting to November 3. Either way, additional material will be provided to Planning Commission. Commissioner Mason also requested a matrix of issues. Commissioner Ward suggested that the City Attorney provide feedback on the comments. Community Development Administrator Osaki will repackage comments/information received into one document. Commissioner Ward said the Planning Commission needs comments in advance of the November meeting. If comment letters are waiting at the November meeting, she won't read the comments. Community Development Administrator Osaki offered that the Planning Commission could have a study session to go over the issues prior to the November meeting. ADJOURNMENT With no further items to come before the Commission the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. PC\AGND\MIN 09-2004 - 8 -