Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-06-2005 ""r · AB~ ~,' WASHINGTON MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 6. 2005 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on December 6, 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, Kevin Chapman, Joan Mason and Judi Roland. Yvonne Ward was absent. STAFF: Paul Krauss, Planning, Building & Community Development Director; David Osaki, Community Development Administrator; Steven Pilcher, Development Services Coordinator, Stacey Borland, Planner; Jeff Dixon, Senior Planner and Carolyn Brown, Planning Secretary The meeting was called to order by Chair Peace. STUDY SESSION - 6:30 pm-7:00 pm . Homeless Encampment Mr. Krauss provided a draft version of the Homeless Encampment Ordinance with revisions marked in red. Mr. Krauss said the ordinance asks for 30 days notice. The timeline is that there will be the 30 days is to be put on notice and then 14 days is for the permit. City of Bellevue has had about 3 weeks to respond. The information the city is asking for is fairly straight forward. At this time most religious institutions have some provisions for food service and the communities often support the encampment by bringing food, providing adequate parking, with minimum screening, and security is to have a verifiable identification, but not all the people have documentation. The host is to be responsible and not harboring someone with outstanding warrants. The City would rather have an ordinance rather then none. It was discussed how the City Council falls into the chain of authority and Mr. Krauss answered the Council has time constraints on the agenda. There should be a meeting out in the neighborhoods and deal with any adverse response from the neighbors. Mr. Krauss said that a notice is fine for the Council, On page 28 of the ordinance it gives the Director the administrative authority to issue a permit for the encampment. It was asked if the host and sponsor be the same. Mr. Krauss said theoretically yes, the host is the land owner, and the sponsor is the one who puts the tent city together and manages the logistics. There are two organizations of and by the homeless, that run the tent cities. They locate the next area and figure out the move. The churches offer for the space for free. Several churches in Auburn could accommodate the encampment in their parking lots. The Adventist Academy gathering was discussed as a predecessor as they have a years-old plan for their property and it is a grandfathered use. Other churches would be asked to apply for a Conditional Use of their property The security of the site and checking on individuals was discussed. Mr. Krauss said the sponsoring group should make the lists available to the APD to come through and check the lists. One reason for the check is for the safety of the people in the tent city and the community. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 6.2005 Mr. Douglass asked who determined the number of 100. Mr. Krauss said that is about the average attendance. The Commission asked why the radius of notification is 1000 feet. Mr. Krauss said that 1000 feet is a little further than normal notification. They discussed what a minimum area should be. They also discussed parking on the site, and how it should not constrict the host and should allow for adequate parking of the regular visitors or membership of the building. Parking requirements are based on the use and would require an analysis of the parking based on the needs. Chair Peace asked if line 7 page 29 could be changed regarding the parking. Mr. Krauss stated that change could be made. Mr. Douglass wondered who would handle complaint and Mr. Krauss explained that either code enforcement or APD would respond. The Commission had some minor changes to some of the wording in the document. Also, in the section about heating and and cooking, there was discussion on using a barbeque or microwave. Mr. Osaki informed the Planning Commission that as this ordinance is an amendment to the zoning code, a public hearing will need to held. The public hearing will be scheduled in February. Mr. Krauss said the City will notify the faith community and SharelWheel/ Focus group that it would be an ordinance that limits the area. The Commission discussed the use of King County property, as they have made properties available. The one King County property is under water on West Main about Lund Road. The City has actually approached the county about acquiring the land. The 15th Street NW Park and Ride is another location. In January, there will be the public hearing for the sign ordinance. Mr. Krauss will return with more information to the February 2006 meeting. REGULAR MEETING - 7:00 PM called to order by Chair Peace. . Approval of Minutes of November 9, 2005. The minutes were approved as written At this time, Laura Pierce was introduced as the new staff person for the Planning Department. PUBLIC COMMENT The public may comment on any item not scheduled for public hearing this evening. No public in attendance at this meeting. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT DISCUSSION . Homeless Encampments The discussion on the Homeless Encampment will continue at the January meeting of the Planning Commission and the Ordinance will provided at that time. Mr. Chapman stated that the public perception is that this will encourage more homeless people to congregate. Mr. Krauss said the homeless encampment does not usually include the regular street people. At this time, City staff finds homeless camps located allover the City. The City requires the property owner to clean up the site. King County, the DNR, PSE, and other groups all clean up -2- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 6. 2005 their property when necessary. The City has had problems also, especially near the airport. Ms. Roland stated there is a need to address what happens when local people stay in an area but need help. Mr. Krauss added there are some options for housing that are available. . M1 Light Industrial zone was discussed by Stacy Borland who also discussed the fact that M2 is Heavy Industrial zone. The City has realized over time the benefits and the drawbacks of the various zones. Staff has reviewed the zones and the revisions being proposed are to facilitate development. Around the Auburn Environmental Park (AEP) is the "green zone." The purpose is to restrict normal type developments and would encourage development that would compliment the park. In order to implement the changes, the City will need to make changes to the zoning code text. Key changes are: A new chapter where the green zone would fit in. Administrative use is similar to the Conditional Use. The Administrative Use permit is a burdensome process, so staff is suggesting eliminating the process and will allow the use outright. Multi-housing that have environmentally friendly structures. Also, hotels and motels. The overlay option is another way of changing the zone instead of adopting a complete new chapter. Ms. Larson asked if the green zone located right up against Highway167. Mr. Krauss provided the boundaries of the green zone, which are 167 to the west, Highway 18 to the south, UPRR to the east and 15th NW to the north. He added Puget Power has approached the City about working with developers for green design multiple housing and building energy efficient housing. Ms. Larson asked about the highway pollutants. Mr. Krauss added the buildings would probably be some distance away from any highway. He added that any proposed housing would probably be near Clay Street and Western and north of Main Street. Mr. Douglas asked about the R-2 district. Mr. Krauss said R-2 is the one to be rezoned. Ms. Mason asked about a possible Phase 2. Mr. Kraussl said that Phase 2 would be east of the Rail Road tracks by the high school - if the area would expand. Mr. Krauss said the area is near the AEP and staff is trying to get that off the ground, by working with the property owners near there The Commission discussed the new permitted uses. They also discussed the difference between M-1 and the Green zone. Mr. Krauss said there are two separate ordinances. One is for the regular M-1 and the other for the green zone M-1. The existing ordinance always required screening of an area. Mr. Krauss also provided guidance on what could and couldn't be put into an ordinance. The way the code reads now is that if it can't fit into the zone it is not permitted. Mr. Krauss said it increases the flexibility of what can be allowed - such as commercial-retail in an industrial environment. Mr. Peace remembered that zoning used to have the buffered layers. The Commission discussed the mixed uses of development within the City. Staff has been discussing the M-1 zoning for a long time. Obviously, there are some businesses that don't fit in a zone such as gymnastics schools, or a repair center with a retail outlet. Mr. Krauss said there are relatively isolated areas where M-2 butts up against M-1. He sited Utility Vault, on A Street SE, as a manufacturing plant that abuts a residential area. He also mentioned a warehouse building on West Valley Highway that is converting to a furniture store. How the ordinance is structured is that if it fits in the structure and looks good, it would be allowed. The Commission was concerned that neighbors should be alerted to these - 3 - MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 6. 2005 changes. Mr. Krauss said the changes would be in the City code and available for public viewing. It was asked if this is the only intended green zone being considered in the City. Mr. Krauss answered there is nothing planned in any other area. This area was started because of the AEP and the green zone was so developed. Right now the City is working on design standards in order to divide the City into different zones. The downtown could easily expand into the west Auburn area. There is also a potential to redevelop the site of the West Auburn High School, Mr. Osaki this is in the queue for review as the Code amendments have backed this up. Staff is planning to have neighborhood meetings for prior notification. . Off-street commercial vehicle parking ordinance Ms. Borland provided background. Staff introduced the topic back in November. Ms. Borland stated that because of discussion at the previous meeting. The definition of tractor trailers has been tightened. Another change is that the PUD zone has been added to the commercial vehicle parking ordinance as this zone has the smaller lot sizes. Parking constrictions would not exist be in the RR or RS zones as they have the larger lot sizes. Ms. Borland said naming commercial vehicles opens the door for more vehicles. There is room to expand the ordinance to smaller type vehicles, with an option to add vans. Also, the City receives complaints about vehicles parking whether or not they are illegal and might be a home business. Ms. Borland provided the Commission with various illustrations of truck sizes. The Commission discussed the various sizes and weights of trucks and vans. Also, discussed the types of people and the vehicles they drive home from work. The Commission discussed the fact that people bought the property with the right to park a vehicle, as they choose, in the driveway. Discussed the parking of different size vehicles on residential property. Mr. Krauss said the City does not have to be obligated to provide parking areas if some one cannot park at home. The Commission discussed the pros and cons of various diesel vehicles and the difference between semi-tractors and motor homes. Discussed the property rights and pros and cons of the land owners Mr. Krauss said the City Council has asked staff to put together the ordinance on this and the Planning Commission can put together their recommendations. Mr. Chapman asked if it would specify a vehicle of a certain size, height and weight. Mr. Krauss said it should read large commercial vehicle. Chair Peace moved to forward to City Council for a Public Hearing. . Sign Code Mr.Osaki provided a presentation on the sign code review. He reiterated that an ad hoc committee worked on the sign code and established some guidelines as to what they wanted to do. The bulk of the committee's work is still intact. He provided the Commission a handout of the code in a strike out and underline version. At the next meeting staff will provide an old - 4- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 6. 2005 code, a strikeout version, and a new versions of the code. Mr. Osaki then reviewed the changes in the packet. At this time the City needs to move forward to a content neutral sign code. Mr. Douglass asked for examples of non-commercial and Mr. Osaki answered anything that is associated with churches, schools, non-profits (per the Legal Department). Staff is also thinking of adding a line that has an intent statement that affords non-commercial the same as commercial, The Planning Commission wanted a definition of a billboard and then adds billboards to the list of prohibited signs. Mr. Osaki also noted that the Real Estate provision is gone, the temporary sign section has been expanded and the length of time the signs can stay up. The time limits are established and what a temporary sign is, especially for real estate signs. Mr. Osaki said there will be no permits required for a Type 1 sign. If the time limit is removed then real estate signs are not considered temporary signs. Mr. Osaki said the ordinance will have no wording to define the sign. He added that the next draft will be more site specific The Commission discussed the type of signs and what is or is not allowed. Also, discussed the key sign code sections that were relatively unchanged. They found that the real estate sign issues are the ones driving the need for change, and to some extent the political sign age. A court case is being heard regarding content based. On the issue of political signs, Mr. Osaki said the Commission could go so far as exempting political signs. Mr. Osaki said he will work to have the final draft out late next week and will send out to the Commission members. The next Planning Commission meeting will be January 4 and will be a Public Hearing. Legal staff will be at the Hearing along with other staff. Mr. Krauss mentioned the Super Wal-Mart at the SuperMall has been approved by the City Council, The Commission briefly discussed what will happen to the old Wal-Mart building. Could be sold to Glimcher, could be torn down and rebuilt or put in another anchor store. Environmental issued have been resolved and also the community partnership. ADJOURNMENT With no further items to come before the Commission the meeting was adjourned at 8: 50 p.m. - 5 -