HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-05-2010
. Pfanning Commission Meeting Minutes October 5, 2010
~ PLANNING
CITY OF COMMISSIOIV
* WASHINGTON October 5, 2010
MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Judi Rotand called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. in the Council Chambers
located on the first floor of Auburn City Hall, 25 West Main Street, Aubum, WA.
Commission Members present were: Chair Judi Roland, Vice Chair Kevin Chapman,
Bob Baggett, Ron Copple, and Wayne Osbome, Joan Mason, and Dave Peace.
Commissioner Member Excused: Commissioner Hamilton and Commissioner Copple
are excused.
Staff present included: Principal Planner Jeff Dixon, Sr. Accountant Michelle Surdez,
Planner Stuart Wagner, Traffic Engineer Pablo Para, Utilities Engineer Dan Repp, and
Administrative Support Clerk Tina Kriss.
II. APPROVAL OF IVIINUTES
A. September 8, 2010
Commissioner Osbom moved and Commissioner Peace seconded to approve the
minutes from the September 8, 2010 meeting as submitted.
MOTION CARRIED 5-0
III. PUBLIC CONlMENT .
There were no members of the public present for comments.
BV. PLANNIYVG DEPARTMENT REPORY
Mr. Dixon stated since exfensive update in Sepfember he has nothing to add at this time.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
We refer to this as Comprehensive Plan Amendments group two because at the
September 8, meeting the Planning Commission considered some City initiated
Comprehensive Plan amendments consisting of one map amendment, Comprehensive
Plan Map Amendment 1 and five policy and text amendments, one related to each of the
four districts and their capital facilities plan and orie consisting of housekeeping changes
to chapter nine to chapter nine of the City's Comprehensive Plan, The Environment and
to appendix B, to incorporate the City's Greenhouse Gas Inventory. Tonight we are
bringing forward Comprehensive Plan amendments, all policy text amendments, no
other map amendments.
' Case Number CPA10-0002: City of Auburn 2010 Comprehensive Plan City
Initiated PolicylText
The City of Aubum adopted amendments to its Comprehensive Plan in 1995 in response
to the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) requiremenfs, as amended.
Since then the Aubum Comprehensive Plan has been amended annually.
Comprehensive plan amendments can be initiafed by the City of Aubum (city-initiated)
and by private citizens (privafely-initiated). This yearthe city is initiating one set of map
amendments and a few policy and text amendments. In addition, this year the city
received no privately-initiated plan map amendments and one privately-initiated
policy/text amendment. The City initiated map amendments and five city initiated policy
and text amendments were considered by the Planning Commission at their September
hearing meeting. The privately initiated policy/text amendments will be reviewed under
separate agenda bills and will be heard by the Planning Commission at their October
meeting.
This staff report and recommendation addresses Comprehensive Plan Policy/Text (P/T)
Amendments P!T # 6 and # 7.
Comprehensive plan amendments are initially reviewed during a public hearing process
before the City of Auburn Plann"ing Commission, who then provides a recommendation
to the City Council for final action. City Council consideration and action on the
amendments will occur prior to the end of this year. `
CPM #6
Incorporate the City of Aubum's 6-year CapitaF Facilities Plan 2011-2016; into the City
Comprehensive Plan. ,
Discussion
A Capital Facilities Plan is one of the comprehensive plan elements required by the
Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) (RCW 36.70A). The.GMA requires
that a capital facilities plan include an inventory of existing capital facilities (showing
locations and capacities), a forecast of future needs for such capital facilities, proposed
locations and capacities of new or expanded capital facilities, and a minimum of a six-
year plan to finance capital facilifies with identified sources of funding. The proposed
City of Aubum 6-year Capital Facilities Plan 2011-2016 satisfies the GMA requirements
for a capital facilities element as part of the Comprehensive Plan.
P/T #7
Add new policy EN-41,A to Objective 18.6 (Within Chapter 9, The Environment) to
provide policy support for fufure change in development regulations in response to
House Bill 1481 adopted in April 2009, to encourage the transition to electric vehicle use.
Discussion
The Washington State Legislature approved House Bill (HB) 1481 in April 2009 with an
effective date of July 26, 2009. This HB 1481 encourages the transition to electrical
vehicle use through the establishment of requirements for electric vehicle infrastructure.
Electrical vehicle infrastructure is defined as the structures, machinery, and equipment
necessary and integral to support an electric vehicle, including battery charging stations,
rapid charging stations, and battery exchange stations. HB 1481 specifies that counties,
cities and towns throughout Washington State are required to amend their development
2
' regulations to allow electric vehicle infrastructure as a permitted use in all zones except
those zoned for residential, resource or critical areas. In these areas, the statute does
not prohibit local govemments from allowing electrical vehicle infrastructure; however,
consideration of special conditions or limitations is encouraged. The statute also
established a timeframe for local govemments to comply with the statute. Foc the City of
Aubum, this means that it must update its development regulations to allow battery
charging stations by July 1, 2011.
A new policy EN-41.A to Objective 18.6 within Chapter 9, The Environment, is proposed
to provide the policy basis for future development regulations to encourage the #ransition
to electric vehicle use. The purpose of this policy statement is in response to House Bilf
1481 which was adopted in April, 2009. The purpose of the house bill was to encourage
the transition to electrical vehicle use. The bill speeifies counties, cities and towns
throughout Washington are required to amend their developmental regulations to allow
electric vehicle infrastrucfure as a permitted use in all zones except for those that are
zoned for residential resource or critical areas. In these particular areas the statute does
not permit local governments from allowing the infrastructure. The statute also
establishes a time frame for local govemments to comply and to adopt these
development regulations and for the City of Aubum the time frame is before July 1,
2011.
Electrical vehicle infrastructure as defined in House Bill 1481 consists of structures,
machinery and equipment necessary and iatrical to support an electrical vehicle
including battery charging sfations, rapid charging stations and battery exchange
centers.
Staff recommends.adding EN-41.A to set a policy basis for future development
regulation changes that would allow the electrical vehicle infrastructure in zoning
districts. Development regulations changes (which are not currently drafted) will be
brought before the Commission at a future period.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of
Comprehensive Plan PolicylText (P!T) Amendments P!T # 6 and # 7.
Chair Roland opened the public hearing at 7:17 p.m, to receive comments about
Comprehensive Plan PolicyrTexf (P/T) Amendments P!T # 6 and # 7.
There being no one present to speak regarding Comprehensive Ptan Policy/Text (P/o
Amendments P/T # 6 and # 7 Chair Roland closed the hearing at 7:18.
Commissioner Peace refeRed to policy #6 page 5 of the 6-Year Capifal Facilities Plan
(2011-2016) draft and asked if the route driven level of service for roads used to be °Bs,
Cs, & D's & some as F as listed on page 21 ° whereas this is identified as the level of
service for roads overall as uD°, is that a change or a consolidation for this executive
summary. Principal Planoer Dixon answered Commission. Traffic Engineer Pablo Para
answered Commission stating the general level of service standard is "D° and in some
cases we have lowered that standard in order to accommodate certain conditions.
Commissioner Peace also asked if the level of service listed on page 5 is driven by
population change and no plans for additional lineal parks. Senior Accountant Michelle
Surdez answered Commissioner Peace stating it is based on population increase.
Commissioner Chapman asked sfaff if the Cify will receive funds for cities who
participate in providing necessary electrical vehicle infrastructure or where the money
3
' would come from. Mr. Dixon stated he is not aware of any funding but there are efforts
underway to do things to promote the transition to electrical vehicle usage. Mr. Dixon
continued stating he believes the intenf is for the market system to provide some way to
provide such facilities by private enterprises.
CPM #6
Commissioner Peace moved and_'Commissioner Osbome seconded to recommend
inGusion of Policy/Text Arriendments P(T #6 into the City's`Comprehensive Plan
amendments.
MOTION CARRIED 5-0 PIT #7
Commissioner Chapman moved and Commissioner Baggett seconded to recommend
inclusion of Policy/Text Amendments P/T #7 into the City's Comprehensive Plan
amendments.
MOTION CARRIED 5-0
Case Number CPA10-0001: Privatelv-initiated PolicvlText Amendments bv Mosbv
Brother Farms Inc.
Principal Planner stated the City of Auburn adopted amendments to its Comprehensive
Plan in 1995 in response to the Washington State Grovvth Management Act (GMA)
requirements, as amended. The Aubum Comprehensive Plan has been amended
annually each year since then.
Comprehensive plan amendments can be initiated by the City of Aubum (city-initiated)
and by private citizens (privately-initiated). The City received one privately initiated
policy/texf amendments by the submittal deadline of June 10, 2010 which is the Mosby
Brothers Farms Inc. Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The City did not receive any
applications for privately-initiated map amendments.
This staff report and recommendation addresses P/T #8, the Mosby Brothers Farms Inc.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment request.
Comprehensive plan amendments are initially reviewed during a public hearing process
before the City of Aubum Planning Commission, who then provides a recommendation
to the City Council for final action. City Council consideration and action on the
amendments will occur prior to the end of this year.
The applicant°s agent submitted a comprehensiv,e plan map amendment application on
June 6, 2010 by the submittal deadline of June 10, 2010. The comprehensive plan
policy/text amendment request seeks to add a policy to Chapter 2, General Planning
Approach, and to modify three existing policies within Chapter 3, Land Use, of the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
In addition to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment; the applicant submitted an
environmental checklist application and an application for a zoning code text
amendment. The proposal described in the applications consists of the three phases
with phase 1 being brought before you for consideration tonight.
4
' 1. Phase I consists of two distinct actions; policy/text amendments to the
comprehensive plan and text changes to the use and development regulations of the
RC, Residential Conservancy zoning district. The purpose of the comprehensive
Plan policy/text amendment is to provide a policy basis for the future zoning
regulation changes to ensure that the Comprehensive plan and Zoning Ordinance
are consistent as required by city code:
"ACC 14.22.050 Conformance and consistency.
The zoning, land division and other development codes contained or referenced
within Aubum City Code shall be consistent with and implemenf the intent of the
comprehensive plan. Capifal budget decisions shall be made in conformity with
the comprehensive plan. "
2. The proposal under consideration by the Planning Commission is the
Comprehensive Plan po(icy/text amendments. A future public hearing on the zoning
code text amendments will be held by the Planning Commission as provided in
accordance with the procedures of ACC 18.68.030.
3. Phase 1 of the proposal, since it affects the Comprehensive Plan policies is of
general applicability throughout the City. The subsequent Phases 2 and 3, will be
addressed by future applications submitted to the city and wilF apply to vacant site
the applicant leases located west of the interchange of Aubum-Black Diamond Road
SE and State Route 18, on the south side of the Aubum-Black Diamond Road SE.
The property is identified as tax parcel number 2121059160. Currently, the
approximately 20.7-acre property occurs on both sides of State Route (SR) 18 and
there is a pending short plat application to divide ;the property into parcels on each
side of the highway. The site is currently being farmed. This parcel has a
comprehensive Plan designation of "Residential Conservancy" and a zoning
category of RC, Residential Conservancy.
4. Chapter 14, Comprehensive Ptan Map, starting at page 14-1 provides the following
purpose and description of fhe 'Residential Conservancy' Comprehensive Plan
designation:
"Purpose: To protect and preserve natural areas with significant environmental
constraints or values ftom urban levels of development and to protect the City's
water sources.
Description: This category should consist primarily of low density residential
uses (with densifies not exceeding one unit per four acres) in areas with
environmental constraints and/or areas requiring special protection such as the
City's watershed, which is a significant water resource. Examples include the
Coal Creek Springs watershed area and low-lying areas along the Green River
that are isolated .from urban services. From a practical standpoint, this watershed
area cannot be readily.served by public facilities due to its physical separation
from public facilities by an existing gravel mine operation that is expected to
continue operation years into the future. The designation will serve to both
protect environmental features and hold areas for higher density development
until such time public facilities become available.
The area designated "residential conservancy" allows for a lifestyle similar to that
of rural areas since the lower density established protects the critical areas such
as the City's Coal Creek Springs watershed. A rural lifestyle generally includes
5
' allowance of farm animals, streets not urban in character (e.g. no sidewalks,
street lights), and limited agricultural type uses.
Compatible Uses: Low density residential uses consistent with protecting the
City's water resources and environmentaf constraints are appropriate. Low
intensity cottage industry appropriate for rural areas may be allowed, subject to
review. Various public and quasi-public uses which are consistent with a rural
charactec may be permitted as conditional uses. Resource extractive uses can
only be allowed if the basic environmental character of the area is preserved.
Those areas with critical areas shall be appropriate for low density residential,
with the intent to protect environmentally critical areas from impacts associated
with more intensive development. These environmerrtally critical areas area
valued as a community resource, both for conservation purposes and public
enjoyment; provided that the environmentally critical areas area protected, low
density single family residential use may be appropriate.
Criteria for Designation: This designation should be applied to areas with
either signficant environmental values'worthy of protection or to those areas
which may pose environmental hazards if developed, sucli"as areas tributary to
public water sources. It may also be appropriate, to a limited extent, as a means
of delimiting #he edge of the City or to,areas that are impractical to develop to
urban levels until a later time period due to pre-existing development pattems
and the absence of public facilities.
Considerations Against Applying this Designation: Due to the costs of
providing City services to these areas, this designation should be applied
sparingly. It should be applied as a means of conserving signifcant
environmental resources, to achieve watershed protection and/or to areas where
development serVed by public facilities has been made impractical due to pre-
existing use patterns.°
5. The City code provides certain criteria for decisions for comprehensive plan
amendments.
"ACC 14.22.110 Decision criteria for plan amendments.
A. The comprehensive plan was developed and adopted after
significant study and public participation. The principles, goals, objectives and
policies contained therein shall be granted substantiaf weight when considering a
proposed amendment. Therefore, the burden of proof for jusfifying a proposed
amendment rests with the applicant, who must demonstrate that the request
complies with and/or relates to the following decision criteria:
1. The proposed change will further and be consistent with the goals and
objectives of the plan and the plan will remain intemally consistent;
2. Whether the capacity to provide adequate services is diminished or
increased;
3. Assurnptions upon which the comprehensive plan is based are found to
be invalid;
6
s .
. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 5, 2010
4, A determination of change or lack of change in conditions or
circumsfances has occurred since the adoption of the latest amendment
to the specific section of the comprehensive plan that dictates the need
for a proposed amendment;
5. If applicable, a determination that a question of consistency exists
between the _comprehensive plan and Chapter 36.70A RCW, the
countywide planning policies for either. King and/or Pierce County,. as
appropriate, and V sion 2040: Growth and Transportation Strategy for the
Puget Sound Region."
6. The four policy changes proposed by the applicant and as modified by staff will
further the purpose ofthe Comprehensive Plan and objectives of the Comprehensive
Plan. Chapter 2; General Approach to Planning; states that the city seeks to be
proactive and predictive in its approach to land use regulation. The : request is
consistent with this predictive approach since it recognizes .and responds to the
growing national and local inferest of consumers to buy local produce and to know
where the their food came from and how it was grown. Evidence of this emerging
trend is evidenced by increasing number and, number 'of local marketing their
produce at farmers markefs and' fhe increase irfi the number of farmers markets.
According to the King County 2009 Farms Report, King County is home to seven of
the top ten farmers markets in Washington State. With the proposed four policy
changes proposed by the applicant and as modified by staff the comprehensive Plan
will remain intemally consistent.
7. The second decision criterion is that the comprehensive plan amendment must not
diminish or increase the ability to provide adequate services. The proposal to
change the Comprehensive Plan policies to provide policy support to allow
agricultural uses as a principal use; and not as a second use to single family
residences in the RC, Residential Conservancy zone is not anticipated to adverse
affect the provision of services. It is anticipated in both the future zoning code
changes and in the review of the site-specific devefopment proposals will adequately
address the provision of services. The proposal is also requested in order to provide
a venue for the sale of agricultural products in closer proximity to a concentration of
residents.
8. The third decision criterion is that the assumptions on which the comprehensive plan
is based are found to be invalid. While not completely invalid, the assumptions do
not reflect changed circumstances that have occurred since the plan was
comprehensively updated in 1995 to comply with the Growth Managemenf Act.
Public interest and perception in support of local agriculture have evolved since the
time ofi the last overall comprehensive plan updafe and there is a need to recognize
the appropriateness of agricultural uses and associated limited commercial activities
as independent uses within limited areas of the City (areas with the comprehensive
plan and zoning designation of Residential Conservancy).
The fourth decision criterion is that. there has been a change or lack of change in
conditions or circumstances has occurred since the adoption of the latest amendment to
the comprehensive plan that dictates the need for a proposed amendment. Again, the
comprehensive plan has been not yet been changed to acknowledge the increasing
7
' demand by consumers to buy local produce and to know where their food came from
and how it was grown. The change in .circumstances is this emerging trend that
warrants revision of the comp"rehensive plan policies.-
9. The ffth decision criterion is that the change must be determined to be consistent
with the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the Countywide Planning Policies
ofi the relevant county and "Vision 2040: Growth and Transportation. Strategy for the
Puget Sound Region". The four policy changes proposed by the applicant and as
modified by staff will continue to be consistent with the Growth Management Act
(RCW 36.70A), the Countywide Planning Policies of King County and "Vision 2040:
Growth and Transportation Strategy for the Puget Sound Region". The proposal is
consistent because it does not change the general nature of allowed land uses. The
new commercial uses are proposed to be managed through application of land use
controls such as administrative and/or conditional use permits.
10. Staff has modified the text amendments to keep the same intent and spirit as
proposed by the applicant but to ensure appropriate policy statement format. The
changes have generally been made to ensure consistent terminology, ease of
understanding and clarity.
Commissioner Chapman referred to chapter 3, land use page 3 of 13 and asked whaf the
amount of commercial space that can be on site verses the amount of property that can be
considered "limited commercial uses" is. Commissioner Chapman is concemed that if every
property owner came along that did not have a single family residence on it and put limited
commercial uses it might take away from the °residential conservancy". Commission then
asked for the definition for "limited commercial uses". Mr. Dixon explained this is a policy
document only, with broad overarching goals with the intent that those be implemented by the
subsequent zoning regulations. The specification about the size limits, or the specific definitions
would come with the zoning code changes. This provides for the general direction or policy
guidance within this document.
Staff Recommendation
Planning Commission recommends to Cify Council approval of the Mosby Brothers Farms Inc.
Comprehensive Plan Policy/Text Amendment, as modffied by staff.
Chair Roland opened the public hearing at 7:38 p.m. to receive comments about Case Number
CPA10-0001, P!T #8, and Chapter 2& 3 Privately-initiated Policy/Text Amendments by Mosby
Brother Farms Inc.
Gwynllyn Vukich, local resident at 12747 SE Green Valley Road, Auburn, WA
Ms. Vokich stated Aubum Green. Valley Road has been an agricultural district and Mosby
Brothers Farms Inc would be part of this district which was initiated in King County after the
farmlands were bought and the development rights were bought back in the 70s. Speaking on
behalf of the local farmers in the area they will be happy to have Mosby Farms come into the
valley.
Ms. Vukich stated Mosby Farms provided improvements to the farm which enriched the valley
°beyond believe". Had Mosby Farms not provided these improvements the farm and buildings
would have continued to dilapidate. The Mosby's have opened up a farm stand after cleaning
up part of the site.
. I
8
Neighbors hope the proposal with the City moves forward so Mosby's can educate the youth of
the Aubum Community. Ms. Vukich stated she works at an area elementary school and
isexcited with the prospects of local students gaining an understanding and appreciation about
local farming and food production as Mosby Brothers Farms initiates a child development food
education program.
Bur Mosby, Mosby Brothers Farms owner,12747 SE Green Valley Road, Auburn WA
My family has been farming forthe past.20 years. We have had the same pumpkin patch for 19
years. "One goal Mosby Brothers Farms has is to educatibn children of the community through
a food education program focusing on 0 through 6th graders°; Washington state history can be
integrated with this program. Mosby Brother Fanns wants to bring more secvice and education
into the community and open a farm 5tand for the hometown people. Our hope is to educate
the youth of tomorrow where the food on their plate came from today. Libby and Del Monte
were once located in the valley and we want to push the local community to buy local, support
local.
Mosby Brothers Farms grows and produces and sells approximafely 250 acres of food fo Food
Services of America. It is ou'r goal to be, as well represented as the other food growers in the
area. Mosby Brothers Farm produces 4 million pounds of food per year.
Lee A. Michaelis, AICP of R.W. Thorpe and Associates Inc, 7438 SE 27t' Street, Mercer
Island, WA
As the agent for Mosby Brothers Farms we are currently working with staff to limit the use of this
amendment.
There being no additional parties to speak on Case Number CPA10-0001, P/T #8, Chapter 2 &
3 Privately-initiated Policy/Text Amendments by Mosby Brother Farms Inc., Chair Roland closed
the public hearing at 7:46 p.m.
Commissioner Chapman stafed he is appreciative that Mosby Brothers Farms brought these
amendments forward; it is a g[reat opportunity to bring people into the City and enhance the
farming agricultural area of the fertile green river valley.
Commissioners requested Mr. Dixon clarify the term "limited use° at a later time. Mr. Dixon
informed Commissioners the term is used as a broad term within the amendments but will be
detailed within the zoning regulations.
PIT #8
Chapter 2 - General Approach
Commissioner Peace moved and Commissioner Chapman seconded to recommend inclusion
of Policy/Text Amendments P!T #8 Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 into the City's Comprehensive Plan
amendments.
MOTION CARRIED 5-0
9
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
Chair Roland stated the next meeting will be held Tuesday, November 3, 2010 due to
the November 2, elections:
VII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chair Roland
adjoumed the meeting at 8:22 p.m.
10