HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-05-2005
·Á~Ifí®
.7"F~ WASHINGTON
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 5. 2005
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on AprilS, 2005 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. Judi Roland was excused.
STAFF: Paul Krauss, Planning and Community Development Director; David Osaki, Community
Development Administrator; Dan Heid, City Attorney; and Patricia Zook, Planning Secretary.
The meeting was called to order by Chair Peace.
STUDY SESSION - 6:30 P.M.
. Sign Code
ZOA05-0005 - Zoning Code Amendment - Sign Code (ACC Chapter 18.56)
Mr. Heid advised that the Planning Commission's questions were good and he spoke about constitutional
protection. He read the 'white papers' provided to the ad hoc sign code committee. The papers contain
legitimate information, however it is not the whole story. Real estate signs do enjoy some constitutional
protection, but that protection is not different than other constitutional protection for commercial speech. It
is protected because speech is protected. Mr. Heid spoke of the role that content plays in sign
regulations. Content based regulation is more limiting.
Mr. Heid continued by saying that if a city were to regulate permanent signs one way that that doesn't
mean you can't regulate temporary signs another way. The sign regulations must be consistent These
are issues that all cities are contending with. If you try to regulate certain types of signs, be responsible to
the level of protection it deserves. The more content based it is the more vulnerable it is. Some billboard
companies have sued cities so they can get the sign code temporarily invalidated so they can get a permit
for the billboard.
Regarding the comment in the white paper about real estate signs implicating the fair housing act, Mr.
Heid said that you don't have to guarantee the real estate market Restricting the availability of the
housing market is already protected. Political speech and religious speech are the most protected. They
are much more protected than something done for money, such as real estate.
Chair Peace commented that the proposed code doesn't deal with limiting or eliminating billboards. Mr.
Heid said if you don't address this then it is an open door for someone to come in and say that billboards
aren't prohibited. It might not be bad idea to regulate billboards not by content but by size.
Mr. Heid continued by saying that political signs are one of the most protected. If you impose restrictions
on political signs that exceeds signage that is less protective, the code will be vulnerable. Commissioner
Ward said the current code is if you want a 4'x8' or larger political sign you need a permit The language
exempts religious symbols. Political speech is First Amendment protected. Mr. Heid said that religious
speech is also First Amendment protected.
Commissioner Ward wondered if you can you force a person to get a permit for a political sign on private
property. Mr. Heid wondered if the person would have to get a permit to install a sign larger than 4'x8' on
private property. It is a question of protected versus what is regulated. If you made a distinction imposing
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 5. 2005
a greater restriction on political speech versus non political speech, it will be a problem. Someone could
use this as a basis to reject the entire sign code.
Mr. Heid cautioned that if the Planning Commission wants to regulate signs including political signs
without specifying what the words, images or messages are, it will be safer.
Mr. Heid advised that if you had the facts that were able to be incorporated into the findings that supported
the reasons for doing certain things, you could better meet constitutional test law cases. If restrictions are
more lenient for less protected speech you are vulnerable. If you want to restrict all signs, for example, by
size, zone, or temporary versus permanent, you can do this. This avoids content based criteria.
Mr. Heid advised that if you must show you have the facts, records, or testimony to demonstrate you
made the proper showing, You can do things more extreme, but you can't do unless you show the facts to
warrant it and meet constitutional standards. This is easier if the regulations are content neutral; harder to
do if they are content based or focused on speech that's most protected.
Mr. Heid said that the US Constitution includes several recognized protections including free speech and
freedom of religion. Case law has more challenges that deal with these two. Freedom of religion and
freedom of speech are among the highest forms of free speech and they are very protected. Political and
religious signs would be more protected than commercial signs.
REGULAR MEETING - 7:00 P.M.
APPROVAL OF MARCH 8, 2005 MINUTES
The minutes were approved as mailed.
PUBLIC HEARING - continued from March 8,2005
. ZOA04-0003 - Proposed text amendment to Auburn City Code (ACC) Section 18.52.060 related to the
regulation of surfacing for off-street parking areas associated with single family and duplex residential
uses.
Mr. Osaki reviewed matters from the previous meeting for those in the audience. He reviewed changes
from the last meeting. Section 18.52.060 is now divided into four sections which he reviewed. He
reviewed Section 18.52.060 (B) for non-code required parking and 18.52.060 (C) for allowable surfacing
area. The definition for boat was set at 16 feet because this is the size that must be licensed. Section
18.52.060 (D) for Planning Director approval was reviewed. Commissioner Ward said that he did a great
job of capturing Planning Commission's comments from the March meeting.
Chair Peace opened the public hearing.
Steve Butterfield, 2930 17'h Street SE, doesn't want any regulations at all. Gravel requires an expense
which is an affordability issue. He has more than three drivers and more than three cars. The alternative
of on-street parking exposes cars to vandalism. Parking on the grass looks better than parking in the
street He has a single car garage and he wants to put a garage in the back yard.
Del Nelson, 2915 17th Street SE, said he is using the side area of his house for parking for five or six years
and he has three vehicles. He would have to cover the area with gravel or cement if he wants to continue
parking there or he will park in the back yard. Mr. Nelson said his neighborhood is located on Indian
property which the City ignored for 20 years. He spoke about cars speeding on his street and they were
asked 10 years ago if they wanted speed bumps.
Gary Morrell, 2520 Dogwood Street SE, is against the proposal and doesn't think it will address the
problem. The purpose of the ordinance is to just make lots look better. Chair Peace advised that the
-2 -
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 5. 2005
Planning Commission reviewed a number of pictures at the last meeting. The pictures were taken all over
town and showed a significant number of vehicles parked in the front yard. The front yards of the houses
were mud. Mr. Morrell said there should be a better way than to require gravel or concrete which places
an undue burden on homeowners and won't solve the problem. There will always be unused, under
repair or inoperable vehicles on property. He is also concerned about engineering requirements being
imposed.
David Grambush, 102 H Street NW, said he has a 17,000 sq.ft. lot with 60 ft on the side of his house. He
has two drive ways one on each side of the house. He collects cars and has 12 now. He has a 30'x84'
garage. He parks on the grass on the side of the house. He Street NW is paved but no curbs. There is
supposed to be a sidewalk but not there now. He showed the Planning Commission a footprint of his
property. Railroad tracks are across the street Commissioner Ward asked him if he purchased the
property in order to work on cars and Mr. Grambush was reluctant to answer the question. He's lived
there for 20 years. He opposes the proposal and said it infringes on his rights.
Doug Knutson, 3305 V Street SE, expressed concern about his declining property values which he thinks
is going down because more and more cars are parked in the front yards. For example, a house two
doors from his, the house has a flooring business that is being run out of the house. They park four vans
in the front yard of the house which is a huge eyesore and sometimes the vehicles even block the stop
sign. Mr. Knutson said an area of the subject house is paved because the previous homeowner had an
RV. People park personal cars in the grass and a van in the street Sometimes people don't license cars
and the cars parked in the front yard. In fact, he's reported people to the City, but it doesn't seem to
matter. If a vehicle isn't licensed it's not operable. Some houses have vehicles parked in between the
houses. He submitted pictures to the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Ward commented that the City has regulations on businesses in residential
neighborhoods. There is also a code dealing with inoperable vehicles. She asked Mr. Knutson his
thoughts on limiting the proposal to just the front yard. Mr. Knutson replied 'out of sight out of mind'. Lots
of vehicles will be parked in the side and back yards. People are looking to buy homes in the area will see
all the cars parked in the front and side yards and not want to purchase. This is a problem throughout
Auburn because there is always someone who wants to junk up a yard.
Mr. Krauss advised that many situations represented by Mr. Knutson seem to violate current City codes.
He will Code Enforcement out tomorrow to investigate. Inoperable vehicles can be removed after a period
of time and the City can have inoperable vehicles towed away from in front of homes. Mr. Knutson's
pictures are evidence of the problem. The City has received a significant amount of complaints from
people about houses that have vehicles parked in the front and side yards. The vehicles tear up lawns.
Currently there isn't an ordinance to deal with this problem.
Commissioner Ward suggested limiting the proposal to only the front yard. Discussion occurred relating
to limiting the amendment to only the front yard.
In response to Commissioner Ward's inquiry, Mr. Krauss acknowledged that washing cars and debris
from the washed cars is a problem. He spoke about charity car washes and that the City is purchasing
car wash kits to allow collection of the debris to the sanity sewer. Mr. Krauss said that when vehicles park
on lawns mud and debris are tracked onto the street which flows to streams. Gravel compared to bark
tends to stay in place.
Chair Peace closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Ward asked what the Planning Commission thinks about limiting the proposal to only the
front yard. There was testimony about why they need to park in the side yard. She likes the idea of
parking an RV on the side of the house versus in the street Chair Peace inquired that if someone parks a
car on a regular basis on the side of the house, why not put down gravel? Why continue to park on the
- 3-
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 5. 2005
dirt and grass and chew it up? It is visually more attract active to park on the side, but the issues are the
same. Perhaps an RV that's not moved often won't tear up grass too much. Gravel isn't cost prohibitive.
Mr. Krauss said that staff didn't define engineering standards for the gravel. Ideally a border keeps the
gravel contained and is neater, but this isn't specified.
Commissioner Chapman spoke about people wanting to maximize their actual living space on the
property. If you look at older homes there may be enough room to park in the side yard. However, newer
neighborhoods have smaller side lots and smaller front yards. These developments maximize the house
on the lot and have smaller yards. Commissioner Chapman mentioned that if you are talking about an
RV, placing gravel strips where the tires go would be sufficient because an RV isn't moved that often.
However, if you are using a car every day it would definitely make sense to remove the grass and place
gravel down on a hard packed surface. This makes sense on the frequently traveled areas. A good
surface under the gravel will make the gravel last longer.
Commissioner Ward expressed concern about some older parts of the City that might have a higher
percent of seniors on limited income. She sees the merits of the regulations on the side yard. She also
sees the need for aesthetic control.
Chair Peace used for an example, an RV that sits in one spot for years with grass and weeds growing
under the vehicle and the area isn't mowed and it becomes an eyesore. If the RV is on a pad or gravel it
would be better maintained and would prevent weeds from growing. If a person has a car or RV parked
on the side and he puts up a fence that visually blocks a portion of it, the problem kind of goes away.
Mr. Krauss commented that issues in the rear yards tend to have more to do with junk or inoperable
vehicles. Issues with the front yards tend to be neighbors complaining. The Planning Commission has
pictures of cars parked in mud ruts in the front yard, vehicles parked every which way, multiple vehicles,
etc. The City has tried to work with the issues, but because there isn't a current ordinance, this has been
problematic.
Discussion occurred related to a memorandum from Mike Dunbar, Code Enforcement Officer, related to
semi truck parking.
Commissioner Douglass wanted to discuss exceptions and how they come to pass. How easy is it to get
an exception if you have a good case? As an example, a parked vehicle that is parked there for years.
Mr. Osaki mentioned that when he talked with the City of SeaTac, they said a difficulty is applying the code
to previously existing situations. Exceptions proposed by this ordinance deal with the placement of the
house on the lot and whether that creates a difficulty to meet the code requirement Not for someone
using the front yard or side yard for parking lot.
Commissioner Ward made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Larsen, to recommend approval of
ZOA04-0003 and limit the amendments to front yards only. The motion passed 5-1 with Commissioner
Mason voting no. Chair Peace recessed the meeting at 8:30 pm and reconvened at 8:45 pm.
DISCUSSION
. Sign Code
ZOA05-0005 - Zoning Code Amendment - Sign Code (ACC Chapter 18.56)
Mr. Heid advised that he focused mainly on the Planning Commission's questions and has a few concerns
about the proposed sign code He said that political signs tend to be temporary and if you regulate them
consistently it would be the safer way to go. Unless you have reason to deviate, do as consistently as
possible.
-4 -
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 5. 2005
Mr. Krauss commented that the reason for requiring a permit for a 4'x8' sign is to make sure that the sign
is erected correctly and that the sign meets code, then you have a record of the sign and can enforce the
cod es.
Commissioner Ward agrees with Mr. Heid about avoiding content based signs. What about keeping the
old political sign section? She doesn't think that political signs were a focus of the sign code committee.
In looking at the temporary sign section, she noticed that small churches use A-board signs every Sunday
and she is worried about that When looking at temporary signs, you could run into a problem if you
prohibit or limit temporary signs for churches for a certain number days or months or years.
Mr. Krauss said that when the sign code review started two years ago the sign code committee felt
strongly about real estate signs and political signs. We owe the ad hoc sign committee the chance of
sitting down with Mr. Heid and discussing issues related to case law, explain the issues, and then come
back to the Planning Commission with an amended ordinance.
PLANNING DEPT REPORT
Mr. Osaki informed Planning Commission that the SEPA appeal of Project Ace was withdrawn. He spoke
about the recent request for proposals for the lease of 'air rights' of municipal parking lots and he will give
updates over time on the project.
ADJOURNMENT
With no further items to come before the Commission the meeting was adjourned at 9:05 pm.
PC\AGND\MIN 04-2005
- 5 -