Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-07-2004 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 7.2004 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on December 7,2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Auburn City Hall. 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, Jeff Dixon, Tiffin Goodman, Joe Welsh, Tim Carlaw, and Patricia Zook The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Peace. PUBLIC HEARING Case No. CPA04-0003 - NEAuburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan - Adopt a new special area plan, a subarea plan, that establishes policies and land use guidance for this approximately 120-acre portion of the City. -This document presents a framework of objectives and policies intended as solutions to the limitations that have previously discouraged development and redevelopment within NE Auburn and proposes actions that will both expedite development and protect against environmental impacts. The City's Comprehensive Plan recognizes the following limitations for this portion of the City: land use, transportation, storm water management, flooding and development of a wetland mitigation site by the Port of Seattle. It would be adopted as an element of the Comprehensive Plan. Case No. CPA04-0002 - Comprehensive Plan Amendments · Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment - This document consists of proposed changes to Chapter 14, Comprehensive Plan Map, to recognize that the "Heavy Commercial" comprehensive plan designation can be implemented by a new zoning district referred to as C4. The changes would also modify and update the discussion of the Special Plan Areas later in the chapter specifically related to the NE Auburn Special Plan Area. · Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment - Change the City's comprehensive land use plan. Map 14.1 would be amended to fill in the "blank" which is currently shown for the Valley 6 Drive-In site and surrounding areas to change the mapped designations within this specific portion of the City. Case No. ZOA04-0004 - Zoning Code Amendments · Zoning Code Text Amendment - Adopt a new zoning chapter referred to as C4, that allows a mixture of commercial and multiple family residential uses. This new district would be similar to the C3 district but makes some important distinctions of allowing residential uses outright in addition to commercial uses. It also would require that fuel service stations only be allowed secondary to a permitted use and it specifically authorizes "discount buying club" uses. It would also change the other sections of the zoning code, Chapter 18, such as landscaping, parking, signage, etc. to recognize the new zoning district. · Zoning Code Map Amendment - Change the City's zoning map to reflect the new C4 designation within a majority of the Auburn Gateway Project Area. For the most part it changes parcels currently zoned UNCL to C4. It also changes a few other parcels from C3 and R4 to C4. Senior Planner Dixon presented an overview of five items scheduled for public hearing tonight. The items were reviewed over the summer and the public hearing was originally scheduled for September, but two appeals of the final EIS were received. One appeal (Tullis) was withdrawn. The other appeal was heard by the Hearing Examiner. The other appeal (McKee/Brennan) related to the development of the owners' property. The appeal was heard on October 15, and the Hearing Examiner dismissed the appeal and upheld the adequacy of the City's EIS. Issues related in the appeal are not valid in that context. At the August 3 Planning Commission meeting, a presentation was given by the City's consultant, Mark Johnson with Herrera Environmental and Mike Dee, of Robertson Properties Group. - 1 - MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 7.2004 Senior Planner Dixon gave a brief overview of the special plan area and reviewed the introduction, policies and objectives. The gateway project area includes the RPG properties and three adjacent parcels. He explained that many different road configurations were studied and then showed a map of the preferred access alternative. He reviewed the implementation section. Senior Planner Dixon described the proposed new C4 zoning district which includes the same development standards as in the C3, Heavy Commercial zone. The C4 district is a mixed use to allow commercial and multi-family residential use. He explained that the special plan area was revised a bit to show a minor clarification to location descriptions, minor revisions to clarify meaning. There is a revision to Policy NE-77 in response to issues identified by an EIS appellant, Tullis, to clarify the ability to mitigate wetlands. In response to Commissioner Chapman's inquiries, Senior Planner Dixon provided information on the build-out of 277th Street. He also spoke about the location of 49th Street and its traffic patterns. In response to Commissioner Douglass's question, Senior Planner Dixon referred to Comprehensive Plan policy NE-3, which is what the City wanted for development of this particular area which was classified as 'Unclassified'. The project area has close proximity to heavily traveled arterials and affords an opportunity for additional commercially zoned land. The City didn't want the project area principally for multi-family development which is not the most compatible use adjacent to arterials and the existing commercial development on Auburn Way North. The City wanted a lih1it on what could be developed residentially. Under Policy NE-6, density is computed under R4 development standards. No more than 50 percent of the site or 30 acres in residential units is allowed. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss referred to ongoing discussion on this issue between the City and the developer. The City Council and Mayor had concerns about multi-family development here and asked the developer to stress the commercial development portion of the project. Senior Planner Dixon said that 20 units per acre is what existing density requirements are. Polices NE-3 and NE-7 provide that policy guidance. No more than 50 percent of the area in residential use is allowed or 30 acres of the 50 acre site as well as no more than 500 dwelling units. This is the dwelling unit ceiling in the plan. Commissioner Douglass commented that he will have trouble endorsing something of this density level. Commissioner Ward referred to the gas station issue and that the City won't allow a retail stand alone gas station, but will allow a gas station associated with another use like Costco. What is the policy behind banning an individual gas station versus allowing a gas station for another? Senior Planner Dixon commented that this policy goes to the overall goal of what the City is trying to achieve for the area. This policy will ensure an area of the City will provide high quality development with a significant amount of pedestrian amenities with"components of residential and commercial uses. The City looked at the C3 zoning district allowed uses as a starting point, then decided not to allow principally auto oriented uses like gas stations. The C4 district would not allow auto sales or auto service stations. Certain large retailers have onsite gas fueling facilities as a component of their primary business. The C4 district was approached this way. There will be significant design standards for those fueling facilities and subject to the conditional use permit process. In response to Commissioner Ward comments related to floodplain management, Senior Planner Dixon said there are estimates of how much compensation area will be constructed by the Port as part of their mitigation site. The Port is constructing a larger wetland mitigation in the area. As part of this, the Port is doing significant excavation and will make additional floodplain storage available. That storage area needs to have a connection and the Port has agreed to hydraulic connection. The Port's construction may compensate for 90 percent of what is needed. If there is a shortfall, the properties could use a portion of what the Port constructed and could still have to compensate for 10 percent onsite. All property located -2- · . MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 7. 2004 south of 27th Street and east of Auburn Way North will be responsible for 10 percent of the floodplain on their site. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss remarked that negotiations between the City and the Port approximately nine years ago, resulted in significant benefit for properties in the area. The City wasn't excited about the Port wetland mitigation. The Port agreed and paid the City their share of running roads and utilities past their property. This took 70 acres of land out of developable. use. The Port over. excavated their site to accept additional storage. Commissioner Ward referred to NE-46 which speaks about year 2007 and does City anticipate that development won't occur until then. Senior Planner Dixon said that 2007 is the anticipated time of the Port of Seattle construction. Earthwork began last year. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said the City can work with property owners prior to that time and they may have to do some temporary storage onsite. Commissioner Douglass commented that some uses are permitted outright and other uses are permitted with a conditional use permit and other uses are permitted when approved by the Planning Director. Senior Planner Dixon clarified that the language is provided in other code sections. It is impossible to anticipate every single use. The language gives the Planning Director the ability to interpret the uses and to make a determination if the use is a ~imilar use that could be allowed outright or allowed via a conditional use permit. The Planning Director makes a written interpretation of the use. Commissioner Douglass referred to the language about the maximum building height of 45 feet, but you can exceed the 45 feet if additional setback is provided. Senior Planner Dixon said that additional setback beyond the required setback is needed in order to gain one foot additional building height increase for each one additional foot of setback. The language is similar to language in the C3 district. Commissioner Douglass referred to page 9, 'freestanding primarily support' and in talking about the maximum height and talking about each person agreeing that other companies have access to put up antennas. It says too that you can put in a 50 foot monopole in residential area. Some monopoles have 12 antennas. Senior Planner Dixon clarified that the page recites exiting code standards for wireless communication facilities, antennas on existing buildings, or primary support. The City has standards in place to ensure colocation on monopoles to reduce the number of monopoles in the City. There is no requirement for limitation on the number of antennas on a monopole; however, this is usually a limitation by operation of the system. Separation is required because of the electronics. You can now put antennas on streetlight poles. There can be small antennas on more locations due to technical improvements. The tower itself is placed a distance equal to its height from residential uses. In response to Commissioner Ward's inquiry, Senior Planner Dixon explained how the zoning code section for permitted uses evolved. Originally gas stations were subject to a conditional use permit, now it is allowed outright, no conditional use permit, but the same design standards as in the C2 district for screening and orientation. An exampfe would be similar to the Safeway gas station on Auburn Way South. As proposed for Costco, for example, it would not be subject to a conditional use permit. The presentation talked about subject to a conditional use permit; then further evaluation to utilize design standards and not require a conditional use permit. Environmental review would not be required because that review was done as part of the EIS process. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss further clarified that the City has embarked on significant economic development. The northeast Auburn area was viewed as the last major opportunity remaining in the City to achieve high quality commercial development. The City's Economic Development Manager has been coordinating meetings for higher end retailers. At this site, the City is attempting to avoid the repetition on Auburn Way which is visually challenged, an unsightly auto strip, functional, but unglamorous. With the RPG project,. the City is trying to get a higher quality project similar to the SuperMall. The ordinance shies away from free standing McDonalds and gas stations and takes into -3- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 7.2004 account that retailers now want integrated gas services such as seen at Costco, Safeway and Fred Meyer. Safeway did a good job of integrating its fuel station with building design. The EIS has covered a variety of impacts. Currently there are better building standards and better EPA standards, better City standards for review of installing gas tanks. Anything constructed must meet current standards for construction. In 1996, the EPA required new tank installations at all gas stations. These tanks are double hulled, monitored and must meet all building and health codes. Commissioner Mason commented that regarding the gas station, she is hearing inconsistent policy that if Costco wants a gas station, it is okay, but if someone else wanted a stand alone gas station it would be denied. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss explained that if a 250,000 square foot Costco has an accessory gas dispensing facility, it is architecturally designed, signage and landscaping are consistent with the principal use. This would be permitted. However, if it is for a convenience store, this is inconsistent and would be treated as an individual use based on its characteristics. A Costco would be a 15 acre unified devèlopment. Separate development could have 15 different gas stations with different logos and architecture. Commissioner Chapman asked what distinguishes high quality design versus low quality design? Senior Planner Dixon replied that the plan has policy sections and an implementation section. RPG has a shared vision of a high quality project and they developed a document that details how they will achieve this. There are a set of regulations for the project and implemented through the planned action ordinance. The application of design standards is a subsequent step of the planned action ordinance. Commissioner Ward asked why the City wants to change the McKee property if they object. Under the current zoning of C3 they can put in a gas station, but if the zoning is changed to C4, they can't. Senior Planner Dixon replied that this is being proposed not only in response to a specific development proposal, but because this is an area wide change proposed by the City. Under the C4 zoning, they cannot put in a gas station. Commissioner Ward asked about the disbursement between brew pubs and taverns. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said there is a distinction and an element of the liquor control law. City Council has an ordinance to prohibit any more taverns in downtown and made them nonconforming. Taverns have significant issues. Taverns serve little food or finger food, and now don't have to have any food and can serve hard liquor. City was fine with businesses having a full liquor license if they were restaurants. A brew pub makes its own brew with an attached restaurant. Chair Peace opened the public hearing. Terry Danysh, representative for RPG, will wait until he hears public testimony and respond after that. Janice McKee, owns three parcels of property. One is adjoining the subject site and the other two parcels are across the street. The Planning Commission has reviewed her correspondence. Originally the draft EIS, in the introduction portion, said that '120 acres owned or proposed for acquisition....' And Ms. McKee said that neither she nor Mr. Stein were approached by RPG for acquisition of their property. This paragraph is misleading. Her property is zoned C3 and she said that D Street was vacated many years ago. She spoke about a temporary easement of 30 feet on her property. The Port paid for an easement to their property and none of this is mentioned in the reports. She is a small property owner and sees this big corporation from California coming in and leasing property out for development with proposed usage that will only benefit them. Her 3.3 acres can now be used for a gas station. RPG is getting blanket approval to do anything they want. She won't want to build on her property if she has to get a conditional use permit. Across from D Street is an auto repair business, and she wondered how that will be affected. The proposal is to close D Street which is a major access to her property from Auburn Way North. If D Street is closed at Auburn Way, they will have to drive to 49th Street to get to D Street to get to their property. This is a huge inconvenience and who is benefiting? Is it benefiting Auburn to have a developer bend the rules to their advantage? She spoke about additional taxes, additional cost because of this development. Her property is not part of that project and should not absorb any of the costs. The vacated -4- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 7.2004 street is now shown as going through so how is this being addressed? She is concerned about limitations of how she can use her property. She asked Planning Commission to take her concerns under consideration. Commissioner Ward asked Ms. McKee if the proposal were to change the zoning designation to C4 only for RPG, would this address her concern? Ms. McKee said if she could keep her zoning of C3 and not have her taxes go up for sewer, water, etc., to support the RPG development. She wants to build a gas station. Senior Planner Dixon said that C3 zoning does not require a conditional use permit for a gas station; it is an outright permitted use. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss advised that no project has been submitted by Ms. McKee. Staff is working through the overall planned development. No gas station proposal was submitted by Ms. McKee. Ms. McKee appealed the EIS to the Hearing Examiner who dismissed the appeal. Regarding the issue of building utilities and infrastructure, development will pay its fair share for roads, utilities, etc. The City can levy costs if your property benefits from the improvements. City Council would get into this if it does an LID or payback agreement for building something. Joe Welsh, commented that as envisioned in the EIS a traffic signal is located at Auburn Way North and 49th Street. He spoke about the safety problem at D Street and Auburn Way with left turns. This intersection has had 27 accidents in three years with 15 injuries. The concept of the traffic signal at Auburn Way North and 49th Street is for access to the properties and to improve access to properties in the entire area. Brian Derdowski, President of Public Interest Associates, represents a number of residents in and around Auburn. This site is prime property because of the major taxpayer investment of 277th, mitigation plan for the Port enabled the floodplain to be developed, adjacent to the site is the Green River, and rural zoning. The site is unique and he suggested that in reviewing the plan that the City is selling the property short of what it could be. Staff explained the way they evolved with a specific development plan, negotiation with RPG, and then worked backwards for policies and language in the ZC. The Planning Commission was not given that and Planning Commission has not had the benefit of negotiation. He served on the King County Council for 10 years and reviewed hundreds of plans and many regulations. These regulations are the lowest standards he's ever seen and he wants an opportunity to demonstrate the many ways to gain. Mr. Derdowski then suggested that the Planning Commission recommend that staff generate alternative language to represent a range of discretionary authority. The environmental document and proposed plan says no environmental review later. There are many ways in keéping with the State legislature to preserve discretionary authority. Don't sign away discretionary authority. SEPA is a powerful tool. There should be no vesting under SEPA. . He then suggested that Planning Commission ask staff to come up with a matrix to compare development review standards in this ordinance with several other jurisdictions because they have design standards. He suggested that staff make a list of residential development standards, landscape standards, etc., because the City is giving away the fort. The City needs to compare what Auburn is with what other jurisdictions are doing. The Planning Commission should ask staff to enlighten them with what the various hypothetical developments are and then test if the regulations will address the hypothetical development's unintended consequences. Mr. Derdowski then talked about technical issues relative to stormwater, floodwater and said that they are substantial. The City needs to compare the consistency betWeen this EIS and the EIS done by the Port. The consistency between the Port EIS for wetland and this EIS must be matched and compared because some of the language is too general. He then offered to help the Planning Commission and the City to sort out the issues. If the City gives away SEPA it will have no discretionary authority. He spoke about the ability to negotiate amenities. He spoke about concessions made by Costco for the City of Covington. He appreciates being able to speak at length about the subject. Planning Commission should ask staff for an analysis of how to preserve discretionary authority, ask staff for a matrix, ask staff to review hypothetical - 5 - MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 7. 2004 plans, and ask for more information to make sure enhanced wetland isn't undermined. He said it is very strange for an applicant to go after other testimony is made. Commissioner Ward commented to Mr. Derdowski that the sense is that the developer offered to go last because of the number of discussions on this project/issue previously. This was considerate of the developer. This is a property owner who has worked with the City over time. Is he saying the City should not allow the project to go through? Mr. Derdowski said the site is prime real estate and the taxpayers invested a lot. The site is underutilized. The Planning Commission has an opportunity to convey wealth to the developer. Public interest is defined as 'Auburn Gateway' and making it a true gateway. Commissioner Ward referred to the term 'discretionary authority', and wondered what Mr. Derdowski is asking the Planning Commission to do. Mr. Derdowski responded that everything on the site is determined by the public not the applicant. If the Planning Commission decided the site should all be open space, they could do so. The Planning'Commission has lots of discretionary authority and act in the public interest for the long haul. Planning Commission can go to the developer and say they know developer wants to make a buck, here's what the City wants. Instead, the developer is saying what they want. This is backwards negotiating. Planning Commission has the authority today to say they want certain specific consequences on this site. As soon as an ordinance is approved, the City will lose discretionary authority. Where it says the applicant won't have to do subsequent reviews, do wordsmithing so Planning Commission can preserve discretionary authority to prevent unseen consequences. Commissioner Ward asked why is he proposing this for just this site? Why this property and this proposal? Mr. Derdowski said it is a question of raising the bar in how to look at standards. This is a gateway project and ideal property for development. The public paid millions to make the property what it is. Get the public investment back out of the property. Commissioner Ward said that for the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO), the Planning Commission asked for an received a matrix. Does Mr. Derdowski have specifics of what he perceives as wrong? She is reluctant to request staff do a matrix. What evidence does he have that staff is wrong on these matters? Mr. Derdowski said that when he was on the King County Council, he asked for a matrix on design control standards related to apartments. There are lots of things that Planning Commission could do to be in the mainstream of planning thought and not be more restrictive and do a good job of preserving public investment. If staff is proposing development regulations for the site and haven't done an analysis, then there may be a deficiency there. Commissioner Ward said this request is very late in the process and she doesn't feel that he's made a case to request this information. She is reticent to impact the process further. Mr. Derdowski again encouraged Planning Commission to maintain discretionary authority. Planning Commission could recommend language to City Council that they don't give up discretionary authority. If the applicant comes in later and it is analyzed and turns out he is right, then the City has tools to address. What if the City did a matrix and determined that it is not applying'strong enough standards. He is simply asking the City to come up with documentation. In response to Commissioner Mason's inquiry, Mr. Derdowski declined to say who his clients are. Commissioner Larsen inquired, in looking at a gateway to Auburn, what is his vision? The project is a mixed use, with open space, commercial and residential. What better vision does he have? Mr. Derdowski said he was the prime sponsor of the mixed use ordinance in King County that has specific language. Auburn won't get where it wants to go. In 10 years, the City could look at the project and say it's not what we had in mind. Mr. Derdowski said the public is spending millions on salmon habitat. There is agricultural property north of the site, the 277th corridor, wetland enhancement project for the Port. RPG didn't contribute all the public money and enabled this project. Public interest needs to be reflected in the project. -6- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 7. 2004 Chair Peace recessed the meeting at 9:10 pm and reconvened the meeting at 9:30 pm. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss commented that a number of questions were raised. Regarding the Port wetland and coordinating with this project, the City was not enamored with this wetland. The City requested that the Port accommodate storm drainage and pay the City and additional requirements to make the City whole. This was not a gift of the taxpayers, but an exaction of the City of the Port's desire to operate in the City. The property is not adjacent to the river. Protection of the Green River is an obligation that the City takes seriously. He spoke about salmon restoration projects and the allegations of abrogation of ability to use SEPA for additional review. This developer had to go through an EIS and gave the City a level of detail. The environmental work was done at a level of detail that additional environmental review didn't need to be done for each and every use on the site. Each development will be reviewed in accordance with standards adopted by the City. Ronald Stein, referred to Figure 4 in the Special Plan Area booklet, regarding the I Street NE extension, which shows a gapJn his western property line. He understands that this was unintended and thinks this was sloppy engineering. Regarding the extension of 49th Street which cuts across his property, he objects to the way 49th Street is now extended on his property. He has objections to 49th Street crossing his upland. He pointed out which alternative he prefers so that the road doesn't destroy his developable land. Chair Peace asked about the change to 49th Street to eliminate going across the wetland? Transportation Planner Welsh said the development of an interior road network was difficult and had to come out at an appropriate place on Auburn Way North to serve the RPG property and connect to the Riversand property to the east. He spoke about the need to make sure the intersection on I Street is far enough from 277th. He spoke of the impact on wetlands and how to design the road for the minimum impact on the wetlands. Commissioner Ward asked why the City is cutting through his property? What is the cost to do it the way Mr. Stein proposes? Why not pass the cost on? She can't see why the City would do this to a person's property. She encouraged staff to way to find a different alternative. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said the illustration was prepared as an option. Transportation Planner Welsh indicated that the City weighed a variety of factors. The road hasn't been engineered yet it appears the best way to do at this time. There are a variety of factors to be determined. Riversand and RPG may petition the City to do an LID and the cost is then borne by the developer and public because it is an arterial street. The question is can Mr. Stein get a permit to develop his property. The wetland is large enough to require an Army Corps of Engineers permit. The first thing is to avoid disturbing the wetland, then mitigate. No one can take the property without compensation if the roadway alignment is on his property. Commissioner Ward wondered why the City is sanctioning a proposal on the Stein property without his consent. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said the alignment is the preferred one, preferred by engineering. The road must cross his property at some point. Commissioner Ward wondered why not continue the road as it is, left turn, 90 degrees, with a controlled intersection. Why the need to go from RPG to Riversand? Why not along 277th Street? Transportation Planner Welsh spoke about intersection separation. There are lots of cars turning from I Street NE to 277th Street. If you jog the road to the north, there is the ability now to store cars and room between the arterial streets. The City doesn't like to add additional intersections on roads when they don't have to. The fewer the intersections, the safer it is. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said that 277th is a limited access highway. The only place that Riversand can have a full access intersection is at I Street. Riversand will have a right in and right out at an intersection. The arterial collector street at this area requires that I Street be the primary intersection. This is the only way residents of Riversand can go west to Highway 167. There is no full service intersection off Highway 167. John Manavian, RPG, spoke of their commitment to build to standards. They are a retail developer. They take their time to develop projects. They need flexibility because there is a certain amount of uncertainty -7- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 7. 2004 , and they want to be able to say the property is not unclassified, and is now commercial with restrictions. There is the possibility that there won't be residential. They submitted offers to Ms. McKee and are absolutely not against her having a gas station. It is a mistake to take large C4 site and carve out a section of C3 for Ms. McKee. This issue came up in the last 60 days in the appeal process. Commissioner Ward commented that it is to RPG's advantage to acquire the property. Mr. Manavian said they have spent millions to this point. They are not interested in doing strip development and want integrated development. A large retailer could need ancillary fuel station as an accessory use. Regarding 49th Street, this is a major arterial issue with $7-$8-million cost for improvements. They are taking a risk and everyone will enjoy the improvements they put in. Commissioner Ward said she is supportive of the project, but being the devil's advocate, it could be perceived that this big corporation is changing property zoning to get an advantageous hand. What is the problem if the City kept Ms. McKee's property at C3 zoning and if at some point RPG buys that property, then they could cOll1e back to the City and request a rezone. Mr. Manavian said it has taken 2.5 years to get to this point and he supports what staff is doing. The D Street closing is a traffic issue and doesn't affect his property. The revision to 49th Street location has nothing to do with his property. He will cooperate with staff in dedicating the road. He is not pushing for the road to be in his property. Senior Planner Dixon said that what is shown on the map as a gap is the existing right of way of G Street. Figure 4 is a representation of the preferred street network based on evaluating six alternatives in the EIS. I Street NE may follow a general alignment. Commissioner Mason asked Mr. Manavian is RPG has another other projects in the state? She saw attractive pictures in the past of what they envision for the project. Mr. Manavian said most of their projects are in California and Hawaii. The Foreman family started in Seattle. They have built urban centers and lifestyle centers. Terry Danysh, attorney for RPG, appreciates the time of the Planning Commission and the hard work of staff. RPG is in this for the long haul. They are not a turn key developer. They have a strong interest in their commitment to Auburn. This project is the largest property in their holdings. They have a strong interest in a high quality development. State SEPA and GMA integration laws permit this kind of process to govern large pieces of property. The environmental review process is completed and will guide the future environmental review on the site. RPG is not proposing to do anything more intense or beyond what is permitted. There is a difference of position with respect to some conditions. They are willing to abide by the conditions imposed. He commented that Ms. McKee didn't show up for any of the public meetings and then she filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Hearing Examiner. She should have been involved three years ago and not at the last minute. She should have objected early on in the process to address the issues. Commissioner Ward feels differently and pointed out that Ms. McKee was unrepresented and unsophisticated. There should be a different standard for local residents. A couple issues came up tonight; what his time line? Mr. Danysh said they want to move as quickly as possible. They expected to be in front of the Planning Commission back in September. The issues raised by Ms. McKee are the same issues raised in the appeal. Hearing Examiner dismissed the appeal. Commissioner Ward commented that she would not like to have the McKee property rezoned to C4 tonight because keeping that property zoned C3 won't impede RPG's project. Mr. Danysh remarked that keeping the McKee property zoned C3 might undermine the integrity of project design and the idea of making the area integrated. The issue is that the City would be carving out a peninsula in what is an integrated project, with the potential of that site being developed as a gas station. During the appeal, Ms. McKee's broker indicated gas station interest for the site. They won't be on the same hook for design - 8- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 7. 2004 standards and no connection to the RPG project. In response to Commissioner Ward comments, Mr. Danaysh wondered why the McKee property can't be C4 and conform to the same guidelines. RPG has no interest in developing gas stations unless it is ancillary to another permitted use. Ms. Mckee said she is not aware of any offer received from RPG. Regarding the C3 zone, she doesn't know for certain that her parcel is going to be a gas station. She wants the ability to have the her property developed the way it is zoned now. She doesn't want her property limited by usage as it would be if it were zoned C4. Chair Peace believes there are additional options in the C4 zone that are not available with a conditional use permit and he wants to make sure that she has reviewed all the options. Commissioner Ward wondered for property zoned C3 versus the proposed C4, what could Ms. McKee do in the C4 zone she can't in the C3 zone. What would she lose if her property were zoned C4? Senior Planner Dixon briefly reviewed the uses in the C3 and C4 zones. The starting point for uses in the C4 zone were the uses in tHe C3 zoning district. The uses are very similar and both zoning districts allow many of the same uses. Uses eliminated from C4 are auto related uses like auto sales, auto repair, and service stations. As an additive the C4 zone includes some uses not permitted in C3 such as coffee/espresso stands, wholesale buying clubs such as a Costco. The C4 zoning also has multi-family residential which isn't an outright permitted use in the C3 zone. This is an added value because of flexibility. Commissioner Ward referred to the design standards, and if the property were zoned C4 and Ms. McKee wanted to do coffee house. Senior Planner Dixon said the area comes under a special area plan design with intended policy guidance in this plan area. Through the zoning change, there would be design standards related to the gas station as specified in C4. The design standards would be implemented through the planned action ordinance. This is as subsequent step for the project and would be specifically applied to the RPG ownership. Mr. Danysh said a component of the project is to enhance pedestrian connectivity. If C3 zoned property is nearby, it will not be conducive to the pedestrian connectivity that is required of the special plan area. This was lengthy discussion in the past on how to make the project pedestrian friendly. C3 auto related uses are not conducive to this. He spoke of the benefits of limiting the McKee property to C4 and its design standards. Chair Peace closed the public hearing. Commissioner Ward requested more information related to 49th Street cutting across Mr. Stein's property. She wants more information to make a decision and wants to know if 49th Street really has to go through Mr. Stein's property. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said that 49th Street will still need to be designed and engineered. Transportation Planner Welsh commented that you could consider carrying the road on southern portion of Mr. Stein's property; however there are implications on the back end for wetland impacts. From engineering standpoint, you couldn't have the road on the northern portion of Stein's property. Commissioner Ward wondered about deferring issues to the next meeting or have a discussion later and if this would impede anything. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said this would be the same as if the whole issue were held over and not able to go to the City Council. Staff honestly doesn't know what the final alignment of 49th Street will be. There are wetlands on the Stein property which have not been delineated in detail. Staff can't say for certain where 49th Street will go. He suggested wording that the 'City strive to minimize the amount of right of way on the Stein property'. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss remarked that the proposed plan is based on the best knowledge the City currently has. -9- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 7. 2004 Mr. Danysh stated that anything the Planning Commission recommends to City Council would be in the context of a conceptual plan because development will occur over 10 years. An analysis still needs to be done of where 49th Street can be located. There is no guarantee that Mr. Stein or the Corps will resolve questions in a way that everyone can live with. Just saying that construct the proposed alignment in a way to avoid impacts to the wetland because City Council won't have any more say in the road alignment than the Planning Commission tonight. Commissioner Ward suggested that Planning Commission could do a recommendation on the special area plan and say there is insufficient information where 49th Street should go. Transportation Planner Welsh said the City could find out that it is more expense to mitigate the wetland versus buying the Stein property. This will be determined through the engineerinD·process. She suggested that Planning Commission could way they are not proposing where 49 Street goes or how to deal with D Street. Transportation Planner Welsh said it would be appropriate to say that the City doesn't know the exact alignment of the roads. The EIS looked at six different options. Commissioner Ward made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mason, that Planning Commission recommend approval of CPA04-0003,CPA04-0002, and ZOA04-0004 with a notation that Planning Commission is not approving or disapproving where 49th Street will ~o or how to manage the D Street intersection. Planning Commission further recommends to keep 49 Street east of I Street from bisecting the Stein property. The motion passed. Commissioner Douglass made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ward, to recommend another condition to deal with the fact of five residential units on X acre. Planning Commission has an issue with this zoning density and doesn't like the idea. The motion passed. Commissioner Roland commented that staff has already said this density exists in the City. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss advised that the master development agreement has yet to be negotiated with City Council. A motion may be Planning Commission asking City Council to negotiate the development cap at a lower density than what is proposed at the current time. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss advised that the Mayor and City Council have expressed the desire to limit the amount of residential in favor of other uses. The master development agreement is still to be negotiated. Commissioner Douglass made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ward, to recommend consideration of less than half of the property being the maximum density allowed by the City. The motion passed. ADJOURNMENT With no further items to come before the Commission the meeting was adjourned at 11: 1 0 p.m. PC\AGND\MIN 12-2004 - 10-