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(}.