The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04-27-2009 ~ CITYOF_-~a~/ * AUBU PLANNING COMMISSION April 27, 2009 WASHINGTON MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:12 p.m. in the Council Chambers located on the first floor of Auburn City Hall, 25 West Main Street, Auburn, WA. Commission Members present were: Chair Judi Roland, Vice Chair Kevin Chapman, Bob Baggett, Joan Mason and Peter DiTuri. Commissioners Ron Copple and Michael Hamilton were excused. Also present were: Deputy Mayor Sue Singer, PCDC Vice Chair Nancy Backus, PCDC Member Rich Wagner, Assistant Planning Director Kevin Snyder, Principal Planner Jeff Dixon, Senior Planner Chris Andersen, Assistant City Attorney Steven Gross, Project Consultant Gil Cerise, ICF Jones & Stokes, and Planning Secretary Renee Tobias. II. Code Update Project • Senior Planner Chris Anderson distributed Title 17 and Title 18 comments received after the April 14, 2009 Joint Planning Commission and Planning & Community Development (PCD) meeting. Chapter 11.28, Exotic Animals, from King County was distributed at the groups' request at the April 23, 2009 joint meeting. Chapter 18.20 - R-MHP Residential Manufactured Home Park District Project Consultant Gil Cerise from ICF Jones & Stokes stated that existing Chapter 18.20, R-MHP Residential Manufactured Home Park District, has been renumbered and renamed to Chapter 18.08, R-MHC Manufactured/Mobile Home Community Zone. The changes made to terminology were to be consistent with State law updates. Staff will change reference of "park" to "community" throughout the chapter. It was confirmed that existing code has a minimum lot area per dwelling unit as 5,200 square feet. Staff will review existing manufactured home parks to determine their minimum lot area per dwelling and bring this back to the Commissioners. Chapter 18.25 - Infill Residential Development Standards Mr. Cerise provided an overview of this new chapter. The purpose of this proposed chapter is to encourage the development of underutilized parcels in zones which, through Auburn Comprehensive Plan goals and policies, have been identified as areas where infill residential development should be encouraged. The requirements are designed to ensure that infill development is compatible with the character of nearby existing residential structures. The group discussed this chapter in detail. Group discussed current standard setbacks and proposed alternative setbacks listed in Section 18.25.040.C.4. Current regulations require not less than 5 feet for setbacks with one exception (non-standard lots). At the request of the Planning & Community Development Committee, staff met with the Valley Regional Fire Authority (VRFA) Fire PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 27, 2009 Marshal regarding their opinion on setback issues. The Fire Marshal stated that there are two primary issues - potential of fire spread between structures and adequate room for ladders. If the setbacks are less than five feet, the structure would have fire retardant materials beyond what the current building code requires. Staff will remove the zero lot line reference in Section 18.25.040.C.4. The group suggested that staff align this chapter with Public Works' infill street requirements, focusing on number of units rather than size of property. Staff will update height with feet instead of stories The differences between 18.25.040.C.2 and 18.25.040.C.3 were discussed along with the height and number of stories proposed. Staff will review these sections and bring options back for consideration. Staff was asked to reference streets and storm drainage code in the design standards. The group reviewed and discussed the items that may project from a building into a required yard setback as stated in Section 18.31.070. Staff will change the distance for eaves to 18 inches. A question of applying in-fill design standards to one house versus to two or more houses on one lot was posed to the group. It was recommended that the requirements match the Public Works standard and staff will review. Further discussion ensued about requirements for developing the last lot in an established neighborhood. Staff stated that if a project proponent did not take advantage of the more flexible in-fill design standards, then current zone standards would apply. Councilmember Wagner felt that it would be difficult to be prescriptive and mandatory with the different situations that could occur with in-fill development. Councilmember Wagner suggested adding this chapter as a voluntary option and reviewing after one year if needed. Staff reviewed circumstances where a lesser setback is allowed in Chapter 18.31, Supplemental Development Standards. The proposed side yard setback calculation applies to building on existing substandard lots; staff will add language to indicate this would apply to lots created prior to effective date of the amendment. Cottage Housing Development Standards, Section 18.31.170, was discussed. Staff will change building height from "single story or single story plus a loft" to "single or two story" Staff will also add additional language for parking, i.e., one per unit, compact spaces. Assistant City Attorney Steve Gross will research the legalities of limiting the Cottage Housing to the first applicant experienced with Cottage Housing as a pilot program. Staff will provide copies of photos of the cottage housing tour that the PCD Committee took on April 9, 2009. Chapter 18.49, Flexible Development Alternatives Mr. Cerise stated that Chapter 18.49, Flexible Development Alternatives, is new and describes standards and requirements to determine whether a development proposal meets the City's minimum requirements for review. In exchange for the enhanced flexibility offered by these alternative standards, the City requires that the proposed development result in a significantly higher quality of design, generate more public benefit and be more environmentally sensitive than required by standard zoning or subdivision procedures. Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 27, 2009 Concern was expressed that the proposed wording regarding eligible deviation from the Engineering Design Standards in Section 18.49.050.A.4 is not consistent with Public Works' code update wording. Staff will add that the applicant is responsible for providing sufficient data that allows the City Engineer to determine that the proposed design meets or exceeds the technical requirements and reference the engineering review process code. Staff reported that the Code Working Group felt there should be recognition for projects that bring in more public benefit and score over 100 points. They suggested a possible opportunity to be able to "pay in" to a public benefit mitigation fund for future projects or be allowed more density. Staff asked for direction. Consensus was that additional incentives would be given to projects that achieve 150 or more points in at least three areas, with a maximum of 40 points per section. Chapter 18.51 - Density Recognition Mr. Cerise introduced Chapter 18.51 - Density Recognition, stating this is a new chapter that describes the general methods of providing for density recognition and residential density incentives in exchange for provision of public benefits in eligible locations. It was suggested changing the title to Density Calculation. Density incentives for historic preservation and critical areas were discussed. It was a consensus that Section 18.51.040.4 be removed. However, it was suggested including some of the calculations in Chapter 18.49, Flexible Development Alternatives. III. Adjournment There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. Page 3