Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-14-2009 Special ciTY oF PLANNING & COMMUNITY ~ - ~ DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE WASHINGTON April 14, 2009 MINUTES I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Lynn Norman called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers located on the first floor of Auburn City Hall, 25 West Main Street, Auburn, WA. Committee members present were: Chair Lynn Norman and Member Rich Wagner. Member Nancy Backus - absent. Also in attendance were Planning Commissioner members: Chair Judi Roland, Vice- Chair Kevin Chapman, Peter Di Turi, Michael Hamilton, Ron Copple, Robert Baggett, Joan Mason, and Dave Peace. Staff members present included: Planning Director Cindy Baker, Assistant Director Kevin Snyder, Senior Planner Chris Andersen, Assistant City Attorney Stephen King and Assistant Planning Secretary Carolyn Brown. Audience Members Present: Consultant Gil Cerise with Jones & Stokes Associates and Garrett Huffman, Master Builders Association II. JOINT STUDY SESSION WITH PLANNING COMMISSION A. Code Update Project Study session to discuss Code Update Project and review draft amendments to Title 17, Auburn City Code - Subdivisions. Chair Norman started by saying this is a special meeting combining the two committees. Chair Norman asked all present to introduce themselves. Assistant Planning Director Snyder provided the back ground for the Code Update Project. Staff, consultant, committee members, and the Code Revision Committee have been working through Title 17 of the Auburn City Code for several months. The first phase is close to being completed. June 1, 2009 is the scheduled date for adoption by City Council. Staff has scheduled a second special meeting of the combined group of Planning Community Development Committee and the Planning Commission for April 23, 2009 at 7:30 pm. Also, on that date there will be a briefing of the full City Council from 5:30-7:00 on proposed amendments to both Title 17 and Title 18. May 5, 2009 has been scheduled for Public Hearing at the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Snyder said Senior Planner Chris Andersen will provide a quick overview over what has been reviewed so far. Planning Director Baker and Assistant City Attorney Stephen King are also available for questions. Mr. Andersen said the City started the review of the zoning and subdivision codes in 2008 to improve readability and ease of use. The City Council subsequently directed staff to expand the effort to address additional issues including providing support for I Planning and Community Development Committee Minutes April 14, 2009 the recent transition in the City Council's role in quasi-judicial decision making, developing provisions for clustering, addressing residential infill, and evaluating conditional uses in residential zones. The City elected to accomplish the code update in two phases. Phase 1 includes the residential portions of the zoning code and the subdivision code, and phase 2 will address balance of the zoning code including non-residential uses and procedural chapters. Phase 2 adoptions are scheduled for late September. After meeting with focus groups, a Code Working Group, and gathering input at public meetings, it was determined the City needed to develop regulations that are easier to read and understand, allow a better understanding of CUP's, better address the challenges of large residential and mixed use developments, and a desire for greater flexibility in the conversion of residential structures to non-residential uses. Also, a desire to reevaluate the number of zoning districts and the reclassification of the zoning districts, which would make the code more intuitive and more compatible with the type of monitoring reports required by the state. Mr. Andersen introduced Gil Cerise from ICF Jones and Stokes. Mr. Cerise went over the table of contents and pointed out changes. • The first chapter will be a user guide. Basically a lay person's guide to the land use code. • Chapter 17.02 is a general provisions section, which will have a general application requirements section. • Ch. 17.04 provides definitions for the title. • Ch. 17.06 Boundary Line Adjustment. This chapter has been relocated and amended and includes the proposed removal of overly detailed application requirements from the code. • Ch. 17.08 Boundary Line Elimination is a new chapter which specifies the requirements for lot consolidation, which is generally less complicated than the Boundary Line Adjustment process. Many of the old plats have non-conforming lots and boundary line eliminations are processed regularly by the City. • Ch. 17.09 Short Plats has also been relocated. Proposed revisions include the removal of the detailed application requirements. Committee asked what determines the difference between a short subdivision and a plat. Staff stated that under current City code, a short subdivision involves the creation of 4 lots or less and a regular plat or long subdivision involves the creation of more than 4 lots. The Committee discussed the terms subdivision and short subdivision, and the potential for confusion between the two. Staff stated they would review and revise to ensure that the terms used provide a clear distinction between the two processes. Also, the State allows cities to go up to 9 lots for short subdivision, but any changes to this provision in City code would be at the discretion of the City Council. • Ch 17.10 addresses the Preliminary Plat process. Preliminary plats are quasi-judicial reviews that go to the Hearing Examiner and on to Final Plat which is now Chapter 17.12. The short plat process is administrative. • Ch.17.12 Final Plat is a relocated chapter related to requirements for final plat submittal. Page 2 Planning and Community Development Committee Minutes April 14, 2009 • Ch.17.14 addresses improvement methods for subdivisions. • Ch.17.16 is a new chapter related to the requirement for a neighborhood circulation plan for formal subdivisions. • Ch.17.18 provides for modifications of standards and specifications for formal and short subdivisions. • Ch.17.20 Subdivision Alterations. This existing chapter has been relocated; it addresses the requirements for making changes to a subdivision after it has been approved. • Ch.17.22 addresses procedures for vacations of streets, roads, and alleys. • Ch.17.24 is a new chapter that provides for a binding site plan approval process. • Ch.17.26 is a new chapter that provides requirements for cluster subdivision. This allows division of land in a non-traditional manner, which requires additional open space. These regulations have two sets of requirements, one that pertains to designated urban separator areas and one for lands outside the urban separator. Mr. Snyder stated most of the surrounding jurisdictions already use binding site plans and cluster subdivisions. The group discussed cluster subdivisions as being zone specific and if critical areas are impacted. Basically cluster subdivision will be in single family zones. Individual condos classified using this technique were also discussed as an option. Mr. Chapman asked if critical areas can be used to account for part of the 50% requirement of the usable lands. Mr. Snyder stated one of the opportunities when cluster subdivisions are used is to protect critical areas. The common open space must be non-constrained space to satisfy the 50% requirement. Mr. Snyder said the cluster subdivisions could be used to provide an open space, and for protecting critical areas both inside and outside of the urban separator area. The group discussed what defines the 50%. Last sentence of Ch.17.26.030.C section 8 states critical areas would not be part of the 50%. Committee discussed the intent of the 50%. In other housing areas the requirement is more less stringent. Councilmember Wagner asked staff to more clearly define constrained and non- constrained. Mr. Snyder stated staff will make the changes in the urban separator section. Planning Commission Chair Roland asked what could be used to make a decision regarding an owner's decision to go with cluster housing and who is the decision maker. Mr. Snyder stated staff will define what would be required and what would be voluntary and will clarify intent and make sure the language and the process is clear. Commissioner Hamilton asked for a definition of the minimum lot size on the short subdivision that could go as cluster housing. Mr. Cerise stated that the City could define a minimum lot size. Director Baker added that visually people will see greater density. Mr. Hamilton asked if setbacks will change for cluster housing. Mr. Cerise said all existing setbacks will apply, but staff wilt review and determine that existing setbacks as pertain to cluster housing will apply. Page 3 Planning and Community Development Committee Minutes April 14, 2009 Chair Roland asked if cottage houses fit into cluster housing. Mr. Snyder said cottage housing could be a vehicle for cluster subdivision. Chair Roland asked if compact development or zero lot line building would be considered. Mr. Snyder said if the underlying zone allowed for zero lot line, cluster housing would be allowed. Chair Norman indicated that from previous Committee meetings the intent with cluster housing was to never allow zero lot lines. Chair Norman stated the City is looking for a new term for cottage housing. Mr. Andersen added other jurisdictions have used the term innovative single family housing. The group discussed the neighborhood circulation plan as it applies to a subdivision. The group discussed when terms should be defined. Mr. Cerise stated Ch. 17.04 is the definition chapter. The City will not presume that someone reviewing the code will know all the definitions. The user guide is a guide to the concepts and code in layman's language. Mr. Di Turi would like to see a guideline as to how documents are accessed, such as hyperlinks. Mr. Snyder stated that can be added to the user guide. The group stated that using bold or highlights are a good tool for people. Mr. Andersen said staff will work with the City Clerk when it is time for publication and the Clerk will ask the publisher of the City Code to use the different conventions to locate information. As soon as a final draft is ready, the draft will be reviewed by legal, then the City Clerk for another check. Mr. Chapman asked that a clearer definition of the counties and whether it is Pierce or King. The group discussed availability of City sewer and water for new development. Staff said it would be handled on a case by case basis. Water and sewer would have to be available for a parcel/lot to be developed. It was noted that wells and septic are only allowed for single family housing and not cluster housing. Mr. Chapman asked staff to clarify Ch. 17.27.07 line 27. Mr. Snyder concluded this part of the discussion by reminding the group to feel free to contact staff at any time if there are questions about Phase 1 or other issues. The next item on the agenda was staff-prepared discussion questions. Mr. Snyder stated the binding site plan approval is a new regulatory approach for the City. The binding site plan process is an administrative process with no public hearing process. However, there is the provision to notify the adjacent property owners located within 300 feet of the parcel. Mr. Snyder provided a quick overview of the process for a binding site plan. Basically after applicant submits an application, a planner will be assigned for review and will possibly be the contact through the process. After approval there will be a public notice of application, whether or not the application triggers the SEPA process, the adjacent property owners will be notified and a notice will be placed in the newspaper. The review process will include zoning requirements, water, sewer, streets, and it is an appealable decision. Also, there is a certification process and the lots have to be recorded, with the appropriate county jurisdiction, once the decision has been issued. This type of application will not go Page 4 Planning and Community Development Committee Minutes April 14, 2009 through the City Council for approval. Mr. Di Turi asked if there were any local examples. Mr. Snyder provided information on a site in SW Washington. Member Wagner asked if manufactured homes were included on the binding site plan process. Mr. Snyder stated they would acquire appropriate zoning. The City already has certain area where manufactured home parks are allowed. Chair Norman suggested a binding site plan be at some level for a mixed use development. Member Wagner agreed and would like to see the binding site plan also cover residential. The group discussed condo housing. Mr. Andersen added the condominium process is outside the City jurisdiction and through the county jurisdiction. Member Wagner asked to take the mixed use portion back to the PCD Committee. Mr. Snyder added staff will table the residential part and add in the element of mixed use and bring back to the PCD Committee. The next question for discussion is the cluster subdivisions. Chair Norman asked that this be reviewed in conjunction with open space taxation, which will at least give someone, who has part of their property impacted, a process they can use. Mr. Snyder added this is the discussion process and there will be a public hearing and will see modified versions as we go through the process. The group discussed lot size and house square footage. Jurisdictions that were researched did not have requirements for minimum house size. Neighborhood Circulation Plan. There is nothing in the code right now about how traffic and neighborhood circulation works. Especially in neighborhoods that are built out. the Committee suggested that the title of this chapter be changed to Neighborhood Circulation Plan. Mr. Snyder asked any other questions regarding the proposed amendments. Mr. Cerise asked the group to consider if the proposal to put application requirements up front to minimize the need for detailed submittal requirements to be in the city code. More detail would be in the administrative guidelines. The group approved the concept of the user guide. Chair Norman noted there appears to be a tot of deadlines and wants to be sure the City is not setting self up for confrontation or lawsuits by being so strict on the number of days for a project to be complete. State code dictates deadlines in many cases. Director Baker said most jurisdictions have a procedure that deadlines can be changed administratively. Mr. King added from the legal perspective, any time frames stated in the code, should be realistic and able to be met. In state law, the time waiting for information stops the time clock. Chair Norman wants to make sure the City is promising something that can be delivered. Mr. Snyder said the marketplace needs a reasonable timeline and staff will need to meet these deadlines. Mr. Hamilton would like to thank staff for the information. Chair Norman appreciates the fact that staff has provided sections to be reviewed in segments, which has made it a manageable process. Page 5 Planning and Community Development Committee Minutes April 14, 2009 The next joint meeting of the Committee and the Commission will be on April 23, 2009 and will focus on a review of Title 18. Member Wagner stated that staff does not need to provide clean copies of the amendments as most reviewers only used the edit marks version provided in the meeting packets. The Committee and the Commission agreed. III. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Planning and Community Development Committee, Chair Norman adjourned the meeting at 7:39 p.m. APPROVED THIS.J-714' DAY OF APRIL 2009. Lynn Nor tv, Chair ~Brown, Assistant Planning Secretary Page 6