HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-03-2014 09.03.14 PC PacketCIITTYTOF
WAS11INGTON
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
September 3, 2014
AGENDA
I. CALL TO ORDER — 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers
II. ROLL CALL /ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. August 6, 2014
IV. PUBLIC COMMENT
Comment from the audience on any item not listed on the agenda for discussion or public
hearing.
V. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT
Update on Planning and Development Department activities.
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Proposed Code Amendments to Chapter 17.09 Related to Short Plats*
(Chamberlain)
Summary: Introduction of an amendment to change the short plat threshold from 4
lots to 9 lots.
B. Proposed Code Amendment to Chapter 18.29, Downtown Urban Center*
(Chamberlain)
Summary: Review a proposed code amendment to the Downtown Urban Center
related to Floor Area Ratio standards.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
The City of Auburn Planning Commission is an eight member advisory body that provides recommendations to the
Auburn City Council on the preparation of and amendments to land use plans and related codes such as zoning.
Planning Commissioners are appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council.
Actions taken by the Planning Commission are not final decisions; they are in the form of recommendations to the
City Council who must ultimately make the final decision.
ATY TOFF
WASIIINGTON
DRAFT
PLANNING COMMISSION
August 6, 2014
MINUTES
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Judi Roland called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. in the Council Chambers
located on the first floor of Auburn City Hall, 25 West Main Street, Auburn, WA.
II. ROLL CALL /ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM
Planning Commission Members present were: Chair Judi Roland, Vice -Chair Copple,
Commissioner Couture, Commissioner Mason, Commissioner Baggett, and
Commissioner Smith. Commissioner Pondelick is excused.
Staff present included: Planning and Design Services Manager Elizabeth Chamberlain,
City Attorney Dan Heid, Senior Planner David Jones, and Community Development
Secretary Tina Kriss.
Members of the public present: Suzanne Cheney, Darren and Melanie Capps, Doyle
and Gina Beckley, Glenna Smith, D.H. Woolf, Tim Edwards, Jeff Anderson, James
Blankinship, Arne Nelson, and Eric Gaston.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. July 8, 2014
Commissioner Copple moved and Commissioner Smith seconded to approve the
minutes from the July 8, 2014 meeting as written.
Motion carried. 5 -0
Commissioner Baggett did not vote due to his absence at the last meeting.
IV. PUBLIC COMMENT
There were no public comments on any item not listed on the agenda for discussion or
public hearing.
V. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT
Planning and Design Services Manager Elizabeth Chamberlain reported that the Auburn
School District will be seeking a Certificate of Occupancy on Phase 1 of the new Auburn
high School building during the week of August 25, in order to obtain occupancy August
28, 2014; the demolition of the old building has begun.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES August 6, 2014
Merrill Gardens, a senior housing facility with 127 units (the block south of the Trek
Apartment project) has submitted their plans for design review and staff expects
additional submittals to follow.
At the City Council meeting Monday, August 4, 2014, staff brought forward Ordinance
No. 6526, a traffic impact fee extension for the downtown catalyst blocks. Council
extended the exemption through December 31, 2016 by adopting Ordinance No. 6526.
In 2002 the State Legislature modified the definition of short subdivisions to allow City's
planning under the State Growth Management Act to increase their threshold from 4 to 9
or fewer lots. The City would like to bring forward a proposed amendment to increase
the City's threshold to 9 or fewer lots.
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. ZOA14 -0003 — Proposed Amendment to Auburn City Code
Chair Roland opened the public hearing on the proposed amendments to Auburn
City Code relating ZOA14 -0003, Option 1 or Option 2, at 7:06 p.m.
City Attorney Dan Heid provided background information on the proposed
amendments, ZOA14 -0003. Option 1 is a prohibition of State licensed marijuana
uses and Option 2 is a proposal that would not have the City as the permitting
agency of any marijuana activities, but would put the City in the position of enforcing
State licensed marijuana businesses.
City Attorney Heid explained the State law is currently opposite to the Federal law. A
discussion was held regarding various legal cases that have been and may be
brought for those jurisdictions prohibiting the use of recreational marijuana. The
Commission and staff discussed the voters' choice to support the initiative, potential
future legal issues, and the City not receiving any direct tax dollars from the State
collection of taxes on 1 -502 sales.
Senior Planner David Jones asked the Commission if they had any questions
regarding ZOA14 -0003, a proposed code amendment to Auburn City Code (ACC).
Option 1 (amending ACC 9.22.010) and Option 2 (amending ACC 1.04.060,
5.10.040, 9.22.010, 18.02.020 and 18.07.010). No questions were asked at this time.
Chair Roland invited anyone for or against the proposed options to come forward for
testimony:
Eric Gaston, 4423 193rd Ave. SE, Issaquah
Mr. Gaston explained that he and his partners are stakeholders who hold an 1 -502
retail license in Auburn. Mr. Gaston emphasized that the citizens of the State voted
in favor of recreational marijuana. Mr. Gaston provided background information on
his family, the 1 -502 industry, and his desire to bring marijuana
"out of the shadows ". He believes as businesses move forward to provide
recreational marijuana through sales, cities will benefit from the taxes, and more jobs
will be created. Mr. Gaston emphasized that he is in favor of Option 2.
Page 2
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES August 6, 2014
James Blankinship, 39307 Auburn - Enumclaw Road SE, Auburn
Mr. Blankinship stated that he is an 1 -502 retail lottery winner to do business in
Auburn. He emphasized that he believes the City will receive benefits through the
25% excise tax collected on marijuana sales. These benefits may come indirectly
through the State Basic Health Plan, the Department of Social and Health Services
Community Block Grant program, and the allocations to the State's general fund
which provides funding to local schools. He is excited to provide employment
opportunities to Auburn and feels extra property tax revenue will be generated by
allowing 1 -502 growers and processors to operate within the City. Mr. Blankenship
provided statistics on the reduction of Colorado crime due to the legalization of
recreational marijuana. Mr. Blankinship is in favor of Option 2.
Darren Capps, 35220 172nd Ave. SE, Auburn
Mr. Capps explained that he has been an aerospace business owner for 17 years in
Auburn. He reminded the Commission that the State and City voters said "yes" to
recreational marijuana and other states are approving the use of medical marijuana.
He believes recreational marijuana is soon to follow. Mr. Capps emphasized that
there will be a large amount of money generated for the State, City, and others. He
would like the City to approve Option 2 as the state holds struck regulations and
would be carrying the majority of the burden.
Suzanne Cheney, 20914 SE 358th Street, Auburn
Ms. Cheney told the Commission that she is a retired postal worker who lives on land
zoned as agriculture. She would like to take part in a marijuana growing operation
since she has been unable to grow other types of agriculture on her property. Her
experience working with the State Liquor Control Board has been positive; she would
like to begin a marijuana growing operation and would like the City to select Option
2.
Arnie Nelson, 4423 193rd Ave. SE, Issaquah
Mr. Nelson stated that he drew the second retail lottery license in the City of Auburn.
Mr. Nelson emphasized that prohibition has been a massive failure and asked the
City to side with the voters and select Option 2 which will bring jobs, tourism, and
more people into the community.
Doyle Beekley, 16018 SE 267th Ct., Covington
Mr. Beekley stated that he and Mr. Capps are partners in a business called Hydro
Empire Pharmaceuticals which focuses on the medical benefits. He stated that
approximately 30 states currently are allowing medical marijuana and that
recreational marijuana should not be far behind. He is in favor of Option 2.
Jeff Andersen, 1816 James Busis Rd. NW, Issaquah
Mr. Andersen explained that the company he and his partners will operate will be
providing good compliance and cooperation with the City Police Department. He
states that they will be proving good paying jobs that are respectful which will benefit
the City. He would like the City to select Option 2.
Page 3
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES August 6, 2014
Del Woolf, Bonney Lake
Mr. Woolf is in favor of Option 2, and believes this issue is time sensitive for the
stakeholders. He stated Option 2 would suite the stakeholders the best while being
the safest route with the least liability for the City.
Chair Roland invited the Commission to ask questions of staff, no additional
questions were asked. The Commission and staff discussed indirect benefits the
City may receive from the tax the State would receive on 1 -502. City Attorney Dan
Heid emphasized that no direct tax dollars would be provided to the City under the
current 1 -502 provisions the State would receive.
With no further questions from the public, Chair Roland closed the public hearing at
7:54 p.m. on ZOA14 -0003. The Commission deliberated.
Commissioner Copple moved and Commissioner Mason seconded to recommend
moving Option 2, Ordinance No. 6525, forward to City Council for approval.
Vice -Chair Copple moved and Commissioner Mason seconded to recommend City
Council adopt Option 2, to include the Proposed Planning Commission Findings and
Conclusions and Recommendation — Option 2.
Motion approved. 5 -1
Staff confirmed that the next Planning Commission meeting will be held Wednesday,
September 3, 2014.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chair Roland
adjourned the meeting at 7:58 p.m.
Page 4
CITY OF -
Auiui&
WASHINGTON
MEMORANDUM
TO: Judi Roland, Chair, Planning Commission
Ron Copple, Vice - Chair, Planning Commission
Planning Commission Members
FROM: Jeff Tate, Assistant Director of Community Development
Elizabeth Chamberlain, AICP, Planning Services Manager
DATE: August 29, 2014
RE: Short Plat Thresholds — City of Auburn Compared to Washington State
Background
Chapter 58.17 of the Revised Code of Washington establishes the legal foundation and
framework for subdividing land in Washington State. This statute uses the terms "subdivision"
and "short subdivision" to describe the two primary types of land division. A subdivision is
defined as a division or redivision of land into 5 or more lots, tracts, parcels or sites. A short
subdivision is defined as a division or redivision of land into 4 or fewer lots, tracts, parcels or
sites
RCW 58.17.033 requires that jurisdictions establish land division procedures within their local
city code. The City of Auburn has adopted Title 17 which sets forth the City's land division
procedures. Currently, Title 17 of the Auburn City Code provides a definition for subdivision and
short subdivision that is consistent with that established in Chapter 58.17 RCW.
Discussion
In 2002, the State Legislature modified the definition of short subdivision to allow City's planning
under the State Growth Management Act to increase the short subdivision threshold from 4 or
fewer lots to 9 or fewer lots. While state law allows for this modification of the threshold the City
of Auburn has not amended City Code. As a result, land divisions in Auburn are processed as
short subdivisions only for proposals that are for 4 or fewer lots.
The primary differences between a short subdivision and a subdivision are as follows:
1. Short subdivisions are administrative decisions that do not necessitate a public hearing.
2. Subdivisions are quasi - judicial decisions that are made by the Hearing Examiner after a
public hearing.
3. Subdivisions are substantially more expensive because they incur the cost of the
Hearing Examiner's services, greater permit fees, and costs of public notice. The fee for
a Preliminary Subdivision application is $3,000.00 plus $120.00 per lot while the
Preliminary Short Subdivision application fee is $1,449.00 plus $60.00 per lot. The fee
for a Final Subdivision application is $1,533.00 plus $52.00 per lot while the fee for a
Final Short Subdivision is $750.00 plus $25.00 per lot. In addition to the permit fees, the
applicant is required to pay for the public notification sign and for the Hearing Examiner's
costs to review the file, staff recommendation, conduct a hearing, and write a decision.
The fee for a sign is $130.00 and the Hearing Examiner's fees are approximately
$1,500.00. The following table provides a comparison of the costs of an 8 lot land
division processed under the current rules as a subdivision and the costs if it were
classified as a short subdivision:
4. A subdivision adds significant additional time to the project review timeframe. Specific
expanded timeframes are set forth in city code for public notification, public comment,
public hearing, issuance of a decision and appeals. At a minimum, a subdivision will add
approximately 90 days to the processing timeframes.
While there are a number of procedural and cost differences between subdivisions and short
subdivisions, there are no differences in the development standards that must be adhered to in
order to obtain approval or the manner in which land may be used once the land division is
complete. Both types of land divisions are required to comply with all of the same requirements
for density, provision of public improvements (e.g. sidewalks, streets, utilities, etc.), land use,
building, protection of environmental features, etc.
On May 12, 2014 the City Council Planning & Community Development Committee (PCDC) was
briefed on the above information. PCDC expressed interest in pursuing a development
regulation amendment to change the short plat threshold from 4 lots to 9 lots provided that the
amendment focused on simplifying the process but did not compromise or weaken any of the
development standards. PCDC requested staff review the development regulations and the
engineering design standards to ensure that there would not be an unintended consequence of
weakening the development standards.
On July 28, 2014 staff reported back to PCDC that after an extensive review of all development
regulations and engineering design standards that there was only one engineering design
standard that would need to be modified in order to avoid an unintended weakening of
development standards. The reason that the engineering design standard would need to be
modified is because the language linked a requirement to the process instead of the number of
lots. In other words, the standard indicated that a requirement is triggered based on whether a
land division was classified as a "short plat" or a "plat ". As such, if the short plat threshold was
increased from 4 lots to 9 lots there would be a subsequent change to the corresponding
development standard. PCD requested that staff prepare an amendment to this design
8 Lot Land Division
"Subdivision"
8 Lot Land Division
"Short Subdivision"
Preliminary Application Fee (Base)
$3,000.00
$1,449.00
Preliminary Application Fee (Per Lot)
$ 960.00
$ 480.00
Final Application Fee (Base)
$1,533.00
$ 750.00
Final Application Fee (Per Lot)
$ 416.00
$ 200.00
Public Notice Sign
$ 130.00
N/A
Hearing Examiner Costs
$ 1,500.00
N/A
Total
$7,539.00
$2,879.00
Difference
+4,660.00
- 4,660.00
4. A subdivision adds significant additional time to the project review timeframe. Specific
expanded timeframes are set forth in city code for public notification, public comment,
public hearing, issuance of a decision and appeals. At a minimum, a subdivision will add
approximately 90 days to the processing timeframes.
While there are a number of procedural and cost differences between subdivisions and short
subdivisions, there are no differences in the development standards that must be adhered to in
order to obtain approval or the manner in which land may be used once the land division is
complete. Both types of land divisions are required to comply with all of the same requirements
for density, provision of public improvements (e.g. sidewalks, streets, utilities, etc.), land use,
building, protection of environmental features, etc.
On May 12, 2014 the City Council Planning & Community Development Committee (PCDC) was
briefed on the above information. PCDC expressed interest in pursuing a development
regulation amendment to change the short plat threshold from 4 lots to 9 lots provided that the
amendment focused on simplifying the process but did not compromise or weaken any of the
development standards. PCDC requested staff review the development regulations and the
engineering design standards to ensure that there would not be an unintended consequence of
weakening the development standards.
On July 28, 2014 staff reported back to PCDC that after an extensive review of all development
regulations and engineering design standards that there was only one engineering design
standard that would need to be modified in order to avoid an unintended weakening of
development standards. The reason that the engineering design standard would need to be
modified is because the language linked a requirement to the process instead of the number of
lots. In other words, the standard indicated that a requirement is triggered based on whether a
land division was classified as a "short plat" or a "plat ". As such, if the short plat threshold was
increased from 4 lots to 9 lots there would be a subsequent change to the corresponding
development standard. PCD requested that staff prepare an amendment to this design
standard and bring it forward to the City Council Public Works Committee for consideration.
The Public Works Committee is responsible for oversight of the engineering design standards
and has the authority to modify the standards. On September 2, 2014 the Public Works
Committee is considering the engineering design standard modification.
Conclusion
Staff anticipates bringing forward to Planning Commission a code amendment that would mofidy
Title 17 of the Auburn City Code by increasing the short plat threshold from 4 lots to 9 lots. The
purpose of this memo is to provide an advance briefing for amendments that will be before the
Planning Commission no later than October 2014.
CITY OF * ��
U
WASHINGTON
MEMORANDUM
TO: Judi Roland, Chair, Planning Commission
Ron Copple, Vice - Chair, Planning Commission
Planning Commission Members
CC: Jeff Tate, Assistant Director, Community Development Services
FROM: Elizabeth Chamberlain, AICP, Planning and Design Services Manager
DATE: August 28, 2014
RE: Proposed Code Amendment — Downtown Urban Center Zone Related to Floor Area
Ratio
Overview
The Downtown Urban Center Zone was adopted by the City Council February 2007. The shift
in zoning took an approach of density through floor are ratio (FAR) standards versus a units per
acre density approach. Included in the FAR standard is a different ratio for various uses
depending on if the project is located south of Main Street or north of Main Street. The Planning
and Community Development Committee has requested that store explore with the Planning
Commission an amendment to the FAR section of the Downtown Urban Center Zone.
Floor Area Ratio. Floor area ratio is the cumulative amount of floor area within a building as a
multiple of the lot area.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
For properties abutting the south side of Main Street and to the south:
Basic Allowable "As of Right"
Maximum Allowable with Bonuses
Nonresidential2
Residential2
Nonresidential
Residential3
Combined4
1.0
2.0
1.5
3.5
5.0
Properties abutting the north side of Main Street and to the north:
Basic Allowable "As of Right"
Maximum Allowable with Bonuses
Eonresidentil
Residential2
Nonresidential
Residential3
Combined4
2.0
4.0
3.5
5.0
Page 1
Staff is proposing to amend this section of code to not have a difference between north and
south of Main Street. Let the market decide what is the best location of residential standalone,
mixed -use, and non - residential standalone projects should be located. Our design standards
will govern what the structures look like, the pedestrian amenities, parking locations, etc.
Auburn's regulations should not stand in the way of market demands. Mixed -use will still have
the highest achievable FAR to promote residential development with commercial but open the
market up on the south side of Main Street to standalone non - residential projects.
The proximity of the Auburn Transit Station is desirable to not only residents but also
businesses so their employees can utility transit.
The proposed code amendment would be the following:
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
For properties abutting the south side of Main Street and to the south:
Basic Allowable "As of Right"
Maximum Allowable Bonuses
Nonresidential2
Residential2
with
Nonresidential2
Residential
Nonresidential
Residential;
Combi+ned4
441
241
4,5
3-5
aG
Properties abutting the north side of Main Street and to the north:
Basic Allowable "As of Right"
Maximum Allowable with Bonuses
Nonresidential2
Residential2
Nonresidential
Residential3
Combined4
3.0
2.0
4.0
3.5
5.0
Next Steps
Staff will move forward with preparing the draft code amendment for public hearing before the
Planning Commission at the October regular meeting.
Attachments:
Examples of FAR Downtown
Page 2
les of FAR Downtown
a)
a)
E
c
7
In' '�
as
w92
c o
Oz
FAR = 1.92
D
.o
a0) O)
9-
L
0 0 E
U) N
a0 O 0
� CB
a).NU
u-
Q
0)
,� N
a) D
O g 0 O L
•5
am0 0
FAR = 3.35
a)
a)
CU 0
0
O i=
N r
O pp
O •C
CY) (NI •>
C� J
Qj N a)
(n (n to
0)
�cuTi
CL 00 1-
c
a)
CB
0
0
a)