The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04-11-2005 c ClTY OF * - ~ PLANNING & COMMUNITY ~ - DEVELOPMEIVT COMMITTEE * , WASHINGTON - APRIL 11, 2005 MINUTES I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Lynn Norman calied the meeting to order. at 5:00 p.m. in Room 2 located, on -the second floor of Auburn City Hall, 25 West Main Streef, Auburn, WA. Committee members present were: Member Gene Cerino, Member Naney. Backus. Also present were Community Development Administratoc David Osaki, EnvironmentaF Protection Managec; Aaron Nix, Senior Planner, Jeff Dixon, Mayor Pete Lewis and Planning Assistant Secretary Carolyn Brown. Others present.are, Garrett Huffman, Snohomish/King County Master , Builders; Chris Wright, Raedke Association; and fVlark Hancock; Segale ( Corporation. I1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. March 28, 2005 Meeting , The minutes stand approved as read. Member Backus moved to accept the minutes. Member Cerino seconded. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3-0 III. ACTION A. Critical Areas Ordinance #5894 Mr. Osaki gave a brief review of the discussion from the March 28, 2005 PCD meeting and a brief overview of the discussion from the Public Works meeting of April 41, 2005. The ordinance will be going to City Council. on May 2, 2005. Member Cerino asked to review .#he. issue of buffer zones on hydrologically.isolated class IIF and class IV wetlands and if filling woufd be allowed with adequate mitigation. Discussion occurred on the different Page 1 : Planninq & Communifir Development Committee Minutes possibilities that would require buffers and mitigation. Category IV could be wetland with no values or functions and if so, no mitigation would be required. If a Category IV wetland was found to have a function or values then those would need to be mitigated. Mr. Dixon added that the Army Corps of Engineers has a specific - definition of a wetland. The Corps has a different permit review process with certain wetlands under 5000 sf. Mr. Nix stated that a Class III or Class IV wetland could have some functions. Member Cerino asked to have buffer zone excluded for wetlands land under 1000 sf. Mr. Osaki answered that the proposed ordinance would allow for the City to exempt Category IV wetlands that are less than1000 sf if it is found not fo have any functions or values. A discussion ensued regarding the roll and purpose of buffers. Mr. Wright discussed functions of wetlands and the point scoring system , used by the Department of Ecology (DOE). The DOE uses habitat, water quality, and hydrology as their criteria. `There was a lengthy discussion regarding a DOE letter to the City of , Olympia dated January 14, 2005. Staff noted that the exemption identified . in that letter for wetlands less than 1,000 square feet, is nof a blanket exemption, but is tied to the applicant's ability to demonstrate certain criteria are met. There was extensive discussion regarding Class l, Class II, and Class III streams and the buffer widths for each classification. The Committee would like clarification of the phrase "significant potential for use of salmonidsA in connection with a Class II stream. For Class III streams the Committee also wanted'to reduce the minimum buffer width to 25 feet and " allow the director to increase the buffer width up to 100% of that amount. Member Norman asked to have the discussion summarized. Mr. Osaki stated that the PW Committee recommended that the word "sensitive" be taken out of the ordinance in reference to sensitive species and would , also like stronger language on "nonconforming developments. The Committee concurred with the PW committee recommendation on these matters. The PCD Committee also wants to see a provision that might allow for a limited expahsion of buildings (primarily residential) in a buffer, subject to mitigation; a reduction in the class III, strea,m minimum buffer width to 25 feet and allow an increase up to 100%~ per director's discretion; and, Page 2 ~ Planninq_& Communitv Develoament Committee Minutes clarification of the phrase "significant potential for use by salmonids" in the definition of a class II stream. Member Norman asked `sfaff to come back to the next PCD meeting with the changes. IV. DISCUSSION A. A continuation of a previous discussion on Home Occupations was . presented by. Mr.; Osaki. At the Februa,ry 14, 2005 PCD meeting, staff presented the Committee with a discussion paper, including regulations from other cities.. Additional materials were provided to the Committee at their February 28, 2005 meeting . The Committee discussed each point and had additional comments and suggestions for staff. Staff will retum to a future PCD meeting. V. 1NFORMATION A.. Chair Norman briefly discussed the school zone ordinance. It is currently with the Legal Department and lieing reworked. B. Chair. Norman asked to have Art Work in the Urban Center on a May agenda.. Also, add Art Work to the PCD Work Plan. VI. OLD BUSINESS A. The PCD Work Plan had no changes. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Planning and Community Development Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 7:40 - P-m• APPROVED THE DAY OF } Lyn Norman, Chair Caroly rown; Secretary ~ Page 3 ~