Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutITEM III-AC ~ DRAFT PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE * ~HIG~"OI SPECIAL MEETING November 9, 2010 MINUTES I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Lynn Norman called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. in Annex Conference Room 2 located on the second floor of One Main Building, 1 East Main Street, Auburn, WA. Committee members present were: Chair Lynn Norman, Vice Chair Nancy Backus and Member Rich Wagner. Staff members present included: Director Kevin Snyder, Chris Anderson, Planning Manager Elizabeth Chamberlain, and Admin Support Tina Kriss. Audience Members included: Bur Mosby, Lee A. Michaelis, Planning Commissioner Joan Mason, Mel Maertz, and Bret Jacobson. II. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND AGENDA MODIFICATIONS There were no announcements and Agenda Modifications. III. CONSENT AGENDA A. Meeting Minutes -October 26, 2010 Member Backus moved and Member Wagner seconded to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 3-0 IV. ACTION There were no action items brought forward this evening. V. DISCUSSION and INFORMATION A. 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Principal Planner Jeff Dixon provided Committee with a brief status of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Staff reviewed with the Planning and Community Development Committee (PCDC) the 2010 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments at the October 25, 2010 meeting. At that meeting staff presented the 1 proposed map amendment and the 8 proposed policy/text amendments including the 1 set of privately-imitated policyltext amendments. Mr. Dixon reviewed the two groups of amendments taken to the Planning and Community Development meeting on October 25, 2010. The two groups of amendments were included in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendments' working binder provided to Committee and include the wording changes recommended by Committee. Planning and Community Development Committee Minutes Date, 200 Items one through five of the working binder were considered by the Planning Commission on September 8, 2010 and items six through eight were considered on October 5, 2010. Committee requested Mr. Dixon provide an update on Policy/Text amendment P/T #5, Chapter 9 Appendix B regarding the Greenhouse Gas alternative fuels. Mr. Dixon stated staff would like to rework other sections of Chapter 9, the environment, to encompass other sustainability practices. Mr. Dixon clarified, the 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendments provide for policy changes for electrical vehicle infrastructure but subsequent zoning and/or regulation changes will be made next year to implement those changes to be consistent with state law. Mr. Dixon stated policy text amendment #8 by Mosby Brothers Farms Inc. consists of four policy changes and is the only privately initiated comprehensive plan amendment that the City received this year. PlT #8 Chapter 2 -General Approach • Add new Policy GP-31 to acknowledge contribution by businesses that provide educational and historical value to existing Goal 4; Community Character. Chapter 3 -Land Use • Modify Policy LU-14 to acknowledge appropriateness of agricultural uses and limited retail uses supporting agricultural uses in the Residential Conservancy zone. • Modify Policy LU-15 to acknowledge limited commercial activity is appropriate when in support of agricultural uses and when not adversely impacting residential uses in the Residential Conservancy zone. • Modify Policy LU-45 to recognize agricultural uses are appropriate as a primary use in this general policy related to neighborhood quality. Mr. Dixon stated staff intends to bring back a resolution for the 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendment changes at the November 22, 2010 meeting and ask Committee for a recommendation at that time to forward to full Council for consideration at the December 6, 2010 meeting. Committee asked for clarification on the underlined proposed changes for LU-14 "On sites where no single family residence exists, agricultural uses and limited commercial uses in support of agricultural uses in support of agricultural uses may be allowed with appropriate environmental protection". Mr. Dixon stated agricultural uses are already allowed so it is intended to say agricultural uses and separately limited commercial in support of agricultural uses and not necessarily putting the two together. Committee had some concerns with the wording in LU-14 "which represent areas that have environmental constraints "and" which promote protection of City water sources", stating "and" should be changed to "or". Staff will change the wording. Committee and staff determined the wording for LU-14 would be changed to make it similar to the wording proposed to LU-15 to clarify the intent "residential densities in areas designated "residential Conservancy" which represent areas that have environmental constraints or which promote protection of City water sources, should Page 2 Planning and Community Development Committee Minutes Date, 200 be no greaterthan 1 dwelling until per4 acres until such time publicfacilities are available where it is found through a land use approval process to be supportive of the purpose of the "residential conservancy" designation, where it does not adversely impact the surrounding residential community and demonstrates compliance to development standards specified in the zoning code, 1) agricultural uses and 2) limited commercial uses in support of agricultural uses may be allowed with appropriate environmental protection. These wording changes would bring the three tiered concept and include that in LU-14 as well. Staff will make these changes before bringing this back to Committee. Committee voiced concerns in using the words "adversely impact" in the wording changes for LU-14 & LU-15 as it may be over restricting while protecting the residential RC zone. Staff suggests changing the wording to "significantly or substantially adversely impact" since a determination of impact is made by the Planning Director while still going through the environmental process with staff recommendations as well making these uses subject to administrative or a conditional use permit as well as the zoning regulations. Mr. Dixon stated he will make the wording changes and bringing back the implementing documents along with the SEPA recommendations at the November 22, 2010 meeting. B. Key Planning Priorities from City Council Vision 2030 Retreat Director Snyder handed out a copy of the "Dots" Goal Prioritization Process Results spreadsheet from the Auburn City Council Vision 2030 Retreat for Committee to provide input and direction on these priorities, their inclusion on the matrix and key questions or issues of the Committee. The Committee began its discussion with a request by Councilmember Wagnerto review the list of goals from the "Dots" Goal Prioritization Process effort by the City Council at the retreat to determine if there were additional planning priorities to be added to the initial list staff provided. The Committee went through all of the items and identified a large numberthat the Committee is the lead committee. The Committee identified one potential addition to the five that staff had proposed, adding a potential Urban Center boundaries expansion. The Committee then proceeded to discuss the 5 different priorities staff had provided. The following is a summary of key points from the conversation: 1. 5 Strategy Areas for PopulationlBusinesslEmployment Generally concurred with the 5 Strategic Areas. Have a concern with the West Valley area particularly how feasible it is to add residential uses to this based on previous land use policy making for this area and its resultant build- outfor primarily light manufacturing and distributionlwarehouse purposes. • Discussed possibly looking at adding as an additional strategy area the portion of Lea Hill around GRCC as an area for business/employment/population growth. • Discussed the issue of how to unify new and existing communities within City through planning forthe 5 areas. Discussed the idea that one approach for Page 3 Planning and Community Development Committee Minutes Date, 200 unifying may be creating identities for each of these areas that can be marketed to the greater community - e.g. similarto the identity that has emerged for Lakeland. People might begin to form attachments to areas or recognize different areas in their community through a purposeful branding effort. • Wanted refresher on how the 5 areas in the Economic Development Strategies came to be recognized. • Discussed whether the term Golden Triangle - as used in Economic Development Strategies - is a good description for the area to be planned. • Wanted to add to matrix and work towards refining the five areas in future discussions. • Specific to the Urban Center Strategy Area discussed how to establish "satellite" relationships between the Urban Center and other areas in the City - Les Gove Campus was the discussed example -without adding to the boundaries of the Urban Center. Ideas for establishing satellite relationships including signage, transportation connections and branding/marketing. • Generally agreed with the approach presented in the staff memo to work on laying policy foundations in amendments to Comprehensive Plan and developing subarea plans for each of the strategy areas. 2. Green Zone Task Force • Committee discussed the idea of inviting persons outside of the community to give input as well as community representatives -green businesses, developers, university representatives. • Discussed the idea of holding a 1-2 day summit as a starting point to get the input and involvement of outside parties and identify potential participants for a smaller working group effort. • Discussed the need to hold before WSU IDeX project effort is complete in Spring 2011 -Committee all concurred that holding the summit and any follow up Task Force effort would be beneficial to WSU's work. • Requested be added to matrix and follow up with the Committee to firm up the summit idea. 3. Green Zone Business PIanlMarketing Strategy • Consensus that this is a priority and needs to be done. Committee felt it should come after the Green Zone SummitlTask Force work. 4. MedicallHospitalZnne Overlay • Committee discussed that this was a high priority in the Dots goal setting effort by the City Council. Page 4 Planning and Community Development Committee Minutes Date, 200 • Committee discussed the need to engage with Auburn Regional Medical Center to have them work with City on this -concurred that their participation is necessary. Committee felt strongly that City needs to approach ARMC in a co-operative manner and seek to gain its agreement that working together on planning forthe area around the hospital -including the area north of 3rd - is in the best interests of both parties. • Requested be added to matrix. 5. Historic Preservation • Committee discussed that the City needs to develop strategies on how to ensure the preservation and beneficial re-use of historic buildings and properties. • Requested be added to matrix and that a future conversation on potential strategies be held in the near future. • Councilmember Wagner also requested that Lea Hill Access be added to the matrix. He advised Councilmembers Norman and Backus that he had discussed the need for the City to focus on this issue and the potential for establishing a Task Force. Councilmembers Norman and Backus concurred about the need to add it to the matrix. Director Snyder reported he would be bringing these back to the Committee for further discussion. C. Director's Report Director Snyder reported at the previous meeting we talked about the site plan review process; Committee's direction was to talk with risk management to determine the risk associated with this practice. Risk Manager Rob Rosco provided an email response to our meeting whereby he states there has not been any increase in litigation over Department's that utilize Site Plans compared to those that do not and Mr. Rosco verified the information with WCIA. He went on to state that there is an inherent risk anytime staff reviews and comments on plans it is also mitigated by having experienced and competent staff perform those functions. During the meeting, which is not reflected in the email response, is that Mr. Rosco checked on the relationship between site plan review and development agreement rises and from an insurance risk perspective they are two separate processes that are not considered in the same vein in terms of risk assessment. Development agreements have their own categorization under risk from a financial impact perspective and site plan review is considered a general land use Manager Rob Roscoe. Committee inquired if legal has any reservations on this and Mr. Snyder stated as a process they have no substantive issues or concerns but would like to review and legal comment on any ordinance writing in the future. Mr. Snyder and staff will work on the formalized process and report back with the Committee as long as Committee is supportive. Committee would like staff to return with a flow chart showing the process and if Committee at that time is supportive staff can begin constructing the code. Page 5 Planning and Community Development Committee Minutes Date, 200 D. PCDC Status Matrix Chair stated there will be changes highlighted on the matrix provided for the November 22, 2010 meeting and asks staff and Committee to look over the changes to make sure they are complete. VI. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Planning and Community Development Committee, Chair Norman adjourned the meeting at 6:21 p.m. APPROVED THIS DAY OF Lynn Norman, Chair Tina Kriss, Admin Support Page 6