Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-06-2006 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 6. 2006 The regular meeting of the Auburn Planning Commission was held on June 6, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Auburn City Hall. Those in attendance were as follows: MEMBERS: Judi Roland, Kevin Chapman, Dave Peace, Renee Larsen, Joan Mason, Darci Bidman, and Peter Di Turi. STAFF: Planning, Building and Community Director Paul Krauss, Development Services Coordinator Steve Pilcher, Community Development Administrator David Osaki, Assistant Planning Secretary Laura Pierce, and Environmental Protection Manager Aaron Nix REGULAR MEETING - 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Roland at 7:00 p.m. Chair Roland introduced new member Peter Di Turi to the public and other Commissioners. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was concurred by the Planning Commission that the minutes of the May 2, 2006 meeting be approved as submitted. PUBLIC COMMENT None. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT Community Development Administrator Osaki noted that the City is scheduling a meeting with residents and businesses along A Street SE June 20th to review land use designations and zoning on A Street SE. Community Development Administrator Osaki mentioned that the Planning and Community Development Committee, three members of City Council, seek to meet with various City committees on a regular basis to discuss issues of common interest. Two possible dates for meeting with the Planning Commission include June 26 or July 10 at 5pm. Staff will be polling Planning Commission members in the near future for the best date/time. PUBLIC HEARING · ZOA06-0004 Industrial Zoning Code Amendments - Amendments to Auburn City Code Title 18, Zoning, related to the uses and development standards in DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 6. 2006 the industrial zones. Two chapters of the Auburn City Code (ACC) are proposed for amendment including ACe Chapter 18.32 (M1 Light Industrial District) and Chapter 18.34 (M2 Heavy Industrial District). Community Development Administrator Osaki noted that there are two public hearings tonight. The first public hearing deals with a code amendment to the M1 (Light Industrial) and M2 (Heavy Industrial) zones to expand the range of uses allowed in the zones. The second public hearing deals with a zoning code amendment to add a new chapter (Environmental Park (EP) District) and to rezone certain properties from M1 (Light Industrial) and R2 (Single Family Residential) to the new EP (Environmental Park) district. Community Development Administrator Osaki provided a PowerPoint presentation summarizing the proposed code amendments to M1 and M2 zoning districts. He discussed that the intent and objectives behind the proposal is to expand the range of uses allowed in these districts. The proposal implements the comprehensive plan land use descriptions for the "Light Industrial" and "Heavy Industrial" plan designations. The proposal also allows more flexibility for commercial retail functions and simplifies the land use process by eliminating the administrative use permit process. It also responds to the changing economy. Commissioner Roland asked if the proposed code amendment would, if adopted, apply citywide to all M 1 and M2 zoned properties and not to one specific area. Community Development Administrator Osaki responded that that is correct. Staff noted M 1 and M2 zoned properties on a map to commissioners and public. Commissioner Peace asked if the M 1 and M2 zones allow outside storage? Community Development Administrator Osaki responded yes. Public Comment: Jerry Klein - Attorney for Washington Cedar Supply. Mr. Klein indicated that there is a premium for industrial land. The proposal would allow smaller non-industrial uses to move into industrial areas. Auburn provides a lot of jobs that might diminish if these uses (commercial and industrial) are mixed. Mr. Klein also raised concern with the proposed reduction in outside storage. Most businesses need outside storage. Again, mixing uses interferes with one another. Is a daycare appropriate in an industrial zone? There would also be an increase in traffic especially during commuting hours. Mixing personal vehicles with large industrial vehicles may cause other traffic problems. -2- DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 6. 2006 Commissioner Peace stated that no one is recommending daycares. It would be an allowed use, but is not being advocated. Daycares in industrial areas often support those working in the industrial areas. Commissioner Mason asked how the outside storage reduction would impact businesses in the M 1 zone. Planning Director Krauss indicated that the outside storage reduction was intended in another zone, was not intended in this amendment and will therefore be revised. Planninq Commission Discussion Commissioner Peace asked if this amendment was prompted by the streamlined sales tax initiative. Director Krauss noted that the streamlined sales tax did not get out of legislature this year and explained the history and intent behind the SST legislation. While a concern, SST is not a motivation for this particular amendment. Auburn seeks more flexibility in these zoning districts and many businesses have been turned away because the zoning does not allow the uses. Businesses change over time but the ordinance hasn't changed and has become inflexible in certain are~s. This amendment provides more opportunities for the city and for land owners. Commissioner Bidman asked what are the negative impacts of the proposal? Director Krauss noted commercial uses can bring in a lot of people in a heavy industrial setting. But City development standards are fairly well designed and building occupancy cannot be changed without meeting building stanc;iards. Commissioner Di Turi noted that roadways dictate what we can do in an area. These industrial areas do have roadways that seem to support the uses proposed to be added. Commissioner Peace moved to recommend that City Council accept the proposed amendments with the stipulation that the outside storage percentage does not change. Commissioner Chapman seconded the motion. Commissioner Larsen expressed concern that this amendment could allow lower paying retail positions with the loss of higher paying positions. Commissioner Peace agreed, but noted that many industrial/manufacturing businesses and jobs are leaving the country. Motion passed unanimously. · ZOA06-0005 and REZ06-0003 Environmental Park Zoning Code Amendments - Amendments to Auburn eity eode Title 18, Zoning, to create a new Chapter (eh.) 18.33 (Environmental Park District) and related minor reference changes -3- DHAFT MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 6. 2006 to Ch. 18.04 (Definitions), eh. 18.06 (Districts and Map), eh. 18.48 (Supplemental Development Standards), Ch. 18.50 (Landscaping and Screening) and eh. 18.56 (Signs) AND amendments to the eity's zoning map to change the zoning of certain properties from M1 "Light Industrial District" and R2 "Single Family Residential District" to EP "Environmental Park District" . Community Development Administrator Osaki noted there are two components to this proposal: 1. Creation of new chapter of the zoning code entitled "Environmental Park" (EP) district with other miscellaneous supporting amendments; and, 2. Amendment to the zoning map to rezone certain properties "Environmental Park". Community Development Administrator Osaki mentioned that the City held an open house for the public on this topic last week. Several comments have since been submitted to the City and provided to the Planning Commission. Community Development Administrator Osaki reviewed the letters. Community Development Administrator Osaki showed a PowerPoint presentation summarizing the proposal. A moratorium was established by the City Council for industrial uses within the proposed rezone area as well as for an adjacent surrounding area. The purpose of moratorium was to provide the City time to review land uses in the area and develop regulations that are compatible with the Auburn Environmental Park (AEP). He also mentioned the Economic Development Strategies document that includes specific recommendations for the City to promote development to take advantage of AEP. Community Development Administrator Osaki noted the proposed Environmental Park (EP) District identifies allowable uses and development standards. It encourages green building practices and environmental preservation in the area. It promotes a businesslindustrial park-like setting in the area with specific guidelines. Community Development Administrator Osaki identified the boundaries of the rezone proposal. The proposed rezone area is mostly currently zoned M1, with some R2 zoning within the area. If approved, some uses in the rezone area will become non- conforming. Commissioner Larsen asked where the 50 percent maximum figure for warehousing/storage came from. Community Development Administrator Osaki noted up to 50 percent of a building square footage may be used for warehousing under the proposal. This percentage is used frequently to define the principal use of a building/land use. If a use comprises more than 50 percent of a building, then it becomes a primary use. In this case, without -4- gRAFT MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 6. 2006 the limitation, warehousing could become the primary use of a building and it is the intent not to allow such warehousing/distribution facilities. Director Krauss mentioned that with respect to nonconforming uses, changes in zoning and land use are to make changes happen over a long period of time. The nonconforming use section of the zoning code allows existing uses to remain for a long period of time. Buildings can be sold and leased with continuing uses. Nonconforming provisions allows change over time but does not require immediate changes. Commissioner Larsen asked what if a new mayor and new council think differently and want to make immediate changes? Director Krauss noted that any code changes would require a public hearings but that the nonconforming provisions would still apply. Commissioner Di Turi noted that some new proposed definitions seem to be based on federal standards. These can change over time. How will city adapt to changing standards? Director Krauss said the City will encourage use of newer design techniques and will seek to develop a list of incentives to do so. Also, the International Building Code (IBC) is regularly updated. Buildings must be built to the standards of the time, but are not typically required to be continually upgraded. Commissioner Di Turi asked about what type of incentives might be available. Director Krauss responded that the City Council has requested that incentives be developed and staff is still working on this. The City is looking at other existing incentives used by the City to encourage certain types of uses. Public Comment Jerry Klein, Attorney for Washington Cedar, indicated that his client is located in the affected rezone area. He explained to the Planning Commission where the business is located using the map and noted that industrial property is at a premium. Klein testified that the Comprehensive Plan is a guideline and is used when land is purchased. The Comprehensive Plan says the City is to promote high quality industrial development, but this proposal contradicts that by eliminating a major area of warehouses. The restriction on outside storage limits uses such as Washington Cedar. The 50 percent limit on warehouse space is also too restrictive. Klein mentioned that the Comprehensive Plan states that the intrusion of residential uses in industrial areas is not allowed. The intrusion of commercial uses should be limited. Industrial uses and jobs will be eliminated by this proposed amendment. The proposed rezone area is part of a "region serving area" defined in the Comprehensive Plan - it is part of Puget Sound economy. -5- gRAFT MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 6. 2006 Mr. Klein noted that the environmental park would be better in residential area. It is not appropriate in an industrial area. He is requesting that the area where Washington Cedar is located (south side of West Main Street) be removed from the proposal (leaving the area to the north of Main Street inside). Mr. Klein also noted that the text amendments refer to bio-tech use. That type of use needs to be close to a facility such as a hospital. They tend to have unique uses such as air filtering that wouldn't comply with the proposed EP district design standards. * Paul TeGantvoort indicated that he is a business owner in Auburn (Seattle Automotive Distribution) located in the area identified for continued moratorium, but not in the proposed rezone area. He bought the property based upon the zoning of the property. He is concerned about being rezoned and the impact on his business. He expressed concern over devalued property due to the potential rezone. Commissioner Peace asked if staff could address property value impacts? Director Krauss noted that staff is working on a memorandum to address that impact. Generally, property value is created by the cities and the facilities and services that are provided by the City. Zoning and comprehensive plans do change over time and can have an impact on value. But ordinances and codes are designed so that buildings can be amortized over time. It is difficult to determine effects on specific properties. But as an example the Renton Boeing property was changed from industrial to commercial and the land value increased. Chair Roland verified that Mr. TeGantvoort's property is in the area identified as a continued moratorium area subject to the 2006 comprehensive plan amendment process, but is not in the EP rezone area. Staff responded that is the case. * Rick Poler. Mr. Poler indicated that he resides on Clay Street and that his house is within the rezone area. His concern is that he wants to stay there and not get moved out. He also doesn't want to pay extra unforeseen fees associated with development in the area that he doesn't know about now. Mr. Poler mentioned it is a good place to put the park. *Derrick Butcher. Mr. Butcher indicated that his parents operate an industrial distribution company at the end of Clay Street. Warehousing/distribution does not seem to be on the list of acceptable businesses that will be allowed in the proposed EP zone. His use is less intrusive (environmental impact) than other allowable uses. There seems to be a disconnect in allowable uses. Director Krauss noted that he met with Mr. Butcher's parents at the open house and had worked with them years ago and helped them relocate to the area. It was agreed that for all outward appearances, nothing was wrong with the building. The City could develop new wording to the code that would allow them to stay conforming. -6- .QRAFT MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 6. 2006 * Kate Mcelure. Ms McClure indicated that she lives in area but is not directly affected by the proposal. She is concerned about the area being overbuilt. She is concerned about flooding, but is supportive of the proposal. * Roger eampbell. Mr. Campbell indicated that he used to live in area but moved because of water problems. He expressed concern that the area is going to be filled with water and will become a huge swamp. The water doesn't flow properly. The park will just create another swamp. He doesn't think any good will come from the park - the water will go in, but it won't come out. Environmental Protection Manager Aaron Nix stated that the City is actively pursuing drainage solutions along this corridor. The culverts placed under SR 167 were not intended to aid in drainage, they were placed there to help place utility conduits. They are now having a reverse effect on the drainage. The City is working to correct the problems. Director Krauss noted that Aaron Nix has been successful at getting a grant to design culverts that will help the water flow properly. Once this occurs it is expected that the Mill Creek channel will be re-established. Planninq Commission Discussion Commissioner Roland asked staff to speak to the issue of multi-family dwellings in the proposed zone. Director Krauss explained that the City has had requests from potential investors to allow multi-family dwellings. The proposed ordinance is crafted based on the such inquiries and based on the direction of the City Council. Commissioner Larsen asked that if multi-family dwellings are allowed, why not single family. Director Krauss replied that that area is close to downtown and encouraging more density is desired as opposed to single family dwellings. Commissioner Larsen asked if single-family home is destroyed, can it be rebuilt? Community Development Administrator Osaki said yes. Commissioner Roland recessed the commission for ten minutes to allow it (Commission) time to review letters it had received. Commissioner Roland called the meeting back to session. Commissioner Peace asked questions regarding some of the comments raised in the comment letters. Can property be subdivided? Community Development Administrator Osaki said yes, but keep in mind if the proposal passes then the uses allowed would be those identified in the permitted use list of the Environmental Park (EP) zone. Single family dwellings is not one of them. -7- DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 6. 2006 Commissioner Peace asked about costs for sidewalks and sewers? Director Krauss noted that unless an LID process is used, Auburn obligates development to pay its own way, including street and sidewalk installation and improvements. Commissioner Peace inquired about property taxes on existing residences. Would the property values go up; will taxes go up? Director Krauss noted that property values are set by the county assessor and that he would not want to speculate as to what the assessor's office would do. Commissioner Larsen asked if residents can remodel or construct additions to existing homes. Director Krauss responded yes. *Marilyn Dollinger. Ms. Dollinger spoke of the need to keep in mind pest control issues (Le. mosquitoes). She is picturing a lot of standing water and is concerned about health issues. There being no more public testimony the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Larsen asked that if the Commission deletes part of the area from the proposed rezone, how would that affect the proposal - would we have to start over? Director Krauss mentioned that the Commission's recommendation would be taken to the City Council and the City Council could go with recommendation or keep the proposal. Commissioner Larsen noted that the intersection of Highway 18 & SR 167 is very loud. We wouldn't want a park there. Commissioner Peace noted that area is part of the developed green zone, and not the actual park. Commissioner Chapman noted the AEP will bring more people and awareness to the area and help determine how to get the water flowing properly. It also benefits revitalization of downtown. Commissioner Peace asked about pests - is there currently a problem due to standing water? Does the city currently do anything for this? Environmental Protection Manager Nix said the City currently treats for mosquitoes. The AEP proposal would actually promote a properly functioning wetland system. The park will only improve any pest problems. The habitatleco-system will be enhanced and a more balanced system created. Commissioner Peace asked if the Thormod property is City owned. Environmental Protection Manager Nix said for all intents and purposes it is. -8- . . . . . DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 6. 2006 Commissioner Larsen asked how will the pond and park be developed? Environmental Protection Manager Nix described the proposal and said he will come to the Planning Commission in the near future to explain what will be done in more detail. Commissioner Roland asked that when the new zoning district is created, is it only for a specific area? Can it be implemented in another area of the City in the future as well? Community Development Administrator Osaki noted that the boundaries of the proposed rezone being considered tonight are defined on the map in the agenda materials. In the future, though, it is possible that this new zoning designation could be applied to other parts of the City. Commissioner Larsen asked that if the Planning Commission makes its recommendation tonight, then is the Commission out of this with no further say. Community Development Administrator Osaki said that is correct, but that is the same as any other zoning code amendments brought before the Commission. The Planning Commission role is to make a recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Di Turi asked if the proposal goes through to include the area south of West Main Street, what percentage of the uses would be non-conforming? Director Krauss indicated that he was uncertain as the City would have to survey each individual property and individual tenants with multi-tenant buildings. Commissioner Chapman moved to pass ZOA06-0005 as proposed. Director Krauss noted that if acceptable to the Planning Commission the motion would also include directing staff to look into allowing existing uses where all activities are inside the building not to be classified as non-conforming Commissioner Bidman seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Chair Roland noted the Commission needs to vote on REZ06-0003. Commissioner Peace move to recommend approval of REZ06-0003. Commissioner Di Turi seconded the motion. Commissioner Larsen stated that she still thinks the area south of Main Street is problematic to include in the proposal and wants the City Council to look at the industrial area to determine whether it should be included. Motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS -9- . < . DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 6. 2006 None. ADJOURNMENT With no further items to come before the Commission the meeting was adjourned at 9:44 p.m. ,l(}.