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