Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-04-2000MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 4, 2000 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on January 4, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Auburn City Hall. Those in attendance were as follows: MEMBERS: Garna Jones, Dave Peace, Bill Taylor, Peter DiTuri, Dan Rollins STAFF: Paul Krauss, Lynn Rued, and Patti Zook The following members were absent: Karen Ekrem, Fred Helser The meeting was 'called to order by Chairman Dave Peace. PUBLIC HEARING (continued): Amendments to Title 18, Zoning, of the Auburn City Code. The amendments include the creation of a new chapter 18.45 entitled Lea Hill (LH) District that will establish the zoning districts for the potential annexation area of Lea Hill. Amendments are also proposed to chapters 18.06, 18.48, 18.50, and 18.56 that are needed to reflect the newly created Lea Hill (LH) Districts. Amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Map of the City of Auburn. The amendment includes an area wide change to the zoning map to apply the newly created Lea Hill (LH) Districts to the area generally known as the "Southwest Lea Hill annexation area". Chairman Peace informed those in attendance that tonight's meeting was a continuation of the December meeting. Assistant Planning Director Rued reminded the Commissioners that staff was asked to review lot clustering or lot averaging provisions in the Lea Hill area. A revision, chapter 18.45.090, to the proposed Lea Hill zoning district was provided in the agenda packet. The lot averaging would be applied to larger lot zoning - the LHRS zone. For example, if someone has 10 acres of property and the density is one lot per acre, he could take the 10 acres and still realize 10 lots for development even though the parcel could be partially unbuildable due to steep slopes or wetlands. The way the existing zoning in the City works, is that the RS zone needs 35,000 square foot lots regardless of the amount of buildable land. A 10 acre parcel in the City that is 75 percent unbuildable under current zoning cannot be platted because its too steep or wetlands so you may not realize the full 10 acres. King County says you can realize the 10 acres regardless of the amount of unbuildable land. If you have 10 acres under County zoning, you can realize 10 lots on 10 acres under the current proposal. The large lot areas must still maintain the character of large lot areas. At least half of the lots have to be 35,000 square feet or larger, and the other half can be 17,500 square foot foots. As part of the plat process, the developer must illustrate the buildable area for each lot. This will exclude setbacks, steep slopes, and wetlands so you can get an idea of where the house and garage will be built. In order to protect wetlands and steep slopes that are used to calculate density requires a native growth protection easement to protect the open spaces. A few small revisions were made to the farm animal provisions. Section 18.45.070C was reviewed. Commissioner Jones said it appears there are not many parcels where lot averaging will apply. Assistant Planning Director Rued said there are not many within the southwest Lea Hill annexation going on now, but in the entire Lea Hill.area there are more. The zoning adopted here will apply to all 0fthe Lea Hill area upon annexation. There is a fair amount of larger lot zoning in the Lea Hill area, but staff does not expect a lot of clustering because most is developed. Chairman Peace wanted to confirm that a developer is required to identify the unbuildable area of a lot and how is this checked. Assistant Planning Director Rued said the developer identifies which part of the area is unbuildable. According to the Zoning Ordinance, this usually means slopes steeper than 25 percent. Chairman Peace used the example of 10 acres, with 10 houses, half of the lots would be 35,000 square feet or larger and the minimum is 17,500 square feet, and what is the logic of this. Assistant -1- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 4, 2000 Planning Director Rued remarked that this depends on how the unbuildable land lays out because it could be that only the building area is 17,500 square feet. Commissioner DiTuri referred to provision B of 18.45.090, the second sentence, indicates to him that if someone had two acres they could build two lots, but if someone had 2.5 acres they could build 3 lots. Assistant Planning Director Rued said yes. Commissioner DiTuri said that if he has 2.44 acres and someone else has 2.45 acres, a difference of only 440 square feet, the difference means he can put in an extra lot on his subdivision. Potentially, could be looking at someone who might be short area trying to potentially look at acquiring adjacent property and market values going askew in these scenarios. The other thing he sees as critical is the fact that the City is using acres as one baseline against a baseline of the 35,000 square feet parameter. If he has 2.45 acres he can build 3 lots, but if he has 3.4 acres, due to the wording, he could only build 3 lots and the difference is about 43,000+ square feet and theoretically this is one potential 35,000 square feet lot. He sees an inconsistency in the base that is being computed. Someone could lose an opportunity to develop an existing lot if they fall on the downside of the rounding. Assistant Planning Director Rued remarked there is a question of where to split and all zoning is done this way by rounding up. A 35,000 square foot lot is essentially acre zoning when take you out 20 percent for streets, you end up with 35,000 square foot lot. This is the method the City has chosen. Commissioner DiTuri asked if staff looked at the properties in the area to determine the approximate sizes and who might fall on the down side of this and might suffer repercussions. Assistant Planning Director ' Rued acknowledged that this was not looked at, but could happen. Commissioner DiTuri assumes the total number of acres does include the nonbuildable area. Assistant Planning Director Rued affirmed this includes everything. Commissioner Rollins, asking for clarification on Council's behalf, of what can be done with unbuildable area; does it have to remain as a wetland or can it be improved upon. Could something be done to make it more park like in the wetland area. Could this be assisted with drainage in the other portion of the property towards the wetland or it restricted so that whoever it is now it has to stay with no allowances. Planning Director Krauss replied that wetlands and steep slopes are protected by separate ordinances and policies regardless of whether they are in a subdivision or a backyard, etc. There are ways to alter those areas, but you have to go through an environmental review process which, if it comes to the conclusion that the proposal makes sense, and leaves the situation as good or better than it was found. Commissioner Rollins continued by saying that Council wondered about the possibility of doing non- construction improvements on the portion of the unbuildable lot. Planning Director Krauss used an example, if you have 10 acres and 2 acres are wetland, and you wanted to modify that by filling a portion of the wetland to expand the buildable area, you may be allowed to do this. However, you must demonstrate that you mitigated the fill at a ratio that is acceptable which is often 2:1. You may have to excavate out a wetland area somewhere else and make sure this wetland is of a high or higher quality than the wetland you started with. This is a fairly big issue, but it is done often. However, it is not something that can be accommodated in the Lea Hill ordinance. There are other mechanisms already in place. Chairman Peace opened the hearing. Doug Trussler, 31.611 108th Avenue SE, commented that his property does not have wetlands. He objects to a couple things, regarding lot averaging. 17,500 square feet seems too big because 15,000 is still a large lot. He also objected to provision E and F under 18.45.090. Provision F is already in place in the City. Provision F says that trees can never been cut down and this is too harsh a rule. If the lot is view lot, you should be able to cut trees down. VWth this rule, your property is no longer your property. Provision E is up to City staff to interpret. He did not understand E and F is unacceptable. Assistant Planning Director Rued related what was done in other plats, such as Lakeland. Steep slopes that are not buildable have native growth protection easements so the slopes stay in a natural condition. If -2- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 4, 2000 the trees pose a public safety problem, they can be cut. Removing trees just for the sake of removing trees is not a prov. ision. Commissioner Taylor wanted to confirm these are trees on the unbuildable area and Assistant Planning Director Rued replied yes. Commissioner Taylor then commented that it is not saying you cannot cut trees down on your property, just saying that the City has created this averaging so we can allow them to build lots that they would normally qualify for 10 acres for example. In the part that is unbuildable, the trees are to remain. Assistant Planning Director Rued replied yes. Chairman Peace clarified that this is relatively common in other types of nonbuildable areas. Assistant Planning Director.Rued remarked that the City has a number of polices that speak to retaining steep slopes in their natural state in order to prevent erosion, preserve aesthetics, and for pollution control. Chairman Peace asked what would happen if someone wanted to replant or make a park like setting by tearing dOwn scrub trees and planting evergreens. Assistant Planning Director Rued explained that the intent is to protect large trees. In Vistara, the developer was permitted to remove some of the understory, but the larger trees had to remain. Chairman Peace suggested that wording might be added to make clarification of what exactly is allowed, such as removal of blackberries. Commissioner Jones believes that the language is a compromise because people are allowed to put houses on the property. In order for this clustering to happen, the developer must adhere to requirements for nonbuildable areas. Chairman Peace gave an example of one-quarter acre that is unbuildable, covered in blackberries, and according to the provision he believes the blackberries cannot be touched. It could be improved by making a park like setting, or plant more trees. Commissioner Jones commented that by removing blackberries you destroy some native growth which might help in erosion control. Chairman Peace does not think the intent is not to allow anyone to touch anything. Assistant Planning Director Rued remarked that 25 percent slopes are steep and 40 percent slopes do not permit anything. During the plat process, Commissioner Rollins remarked that landscaping is required and could they specify what change they would like to make and have it reviewed by staff. Assistant Planning Director Rued said that during the plat process, specific language for the easement can be arrived at and decided by the City Council. There is room for negotiation and this provision provides parameters. Commissioner Taylor remarked that the purpose of F is maintain integrity of what is to be protected. Assistant Planning Director Rued confirmed this. Mr. Trussler said if lot averaging is not used, then you do not have to use provision F. Assistant Planning Director Rued then spoke about lot averaging in Lakeland Hills. Commissioner Rollins believes Mr. Trussler's point is' that since it is under this particular section, it only applies if you are lot averaging or someone has 10 buildable acres and he still has unbuildable portions, he has no restrictions on what he can do with the unbuildable. Assistant Planning Director Rued clarified by saying that any development in town that has steep slopes or wetlands requires a native growth protection easement. This is not a new concept. It is required across the board. Commissioner Rollins asked why it is being duplicated if it is listed somewhere else because this seems redundant. Assistant Planning Director Rued explained that it is in this section because it is part of the lot averaging provision for this zoning diStrict. Commissioner Rollins asked for clarification of provision E. Planning Director Krauss explained that the City wants to know ahead of time that thought was given to accommodate a home and garage because they do not want a substandard lot. A homeowner could come back later and want a va'riance to allow a . building that intrudes into a buffer. If the City allows a lot that does not have minimums that are commonly accepted, then the City is behind the ball and almost has an obligation to vary the standards to make the lot buildable. The City is requesting that the developer show the building envelope, that makes sense. That way if someone comes in three years later and wants to add amenities, the City can say no, the building envelope is being exceeded. -3- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 4, 2000 Commissioner DiTuri inquired that when the plat is.submitted, does this mean that service access or potentially a street has to be taken into account so that the building footprint can adhere to any potential setbacks from the service access when submitted. Planning Director Krauss responded by saying that the City might not require a street, but if there is a street right of way and this had a front yard setback, yes. This is typically what is done and required by a lot of cities. Typically you would get something that shows the outside boundaries of the lot including setbacks, wetland buffer, and the area left is the building envelope. This is not difficult to do. Commissioner Rollins understands Planning Director Krauss' explanation, but believes that provision E is still a difficult read. Commissioner Jones made a recommendation, seconded by Commissioner Taylor, to recommend approval of the proposed creation of a new Chapter 18.45 entitled Lea Hill (LH) District that will establish the zoning districts for the potential annexation area of Lea Hill. The amendment includes an area wide change to the comprehensive zoning map to apply the newly created Lea Hill (LH) Districts to the area generally known as the "Southwest Lea Hill annexation area". Commissioner DiTuri voted no. The motion passed 4-1. Planning Director Krauss informed the Commissioners that the southwest Lea Hill annexation is progressing through the King County Boundary Review Board (BRB) and he anticipates an informal discussion with the County in about one week. This will be held at the Renton office with no public testimony because it is not a hearing. No petitions for a hearing have been filed. The clock begins to tick when the BRB accepts the annexation for filing. He expects this to occur before March. DISCUSSION: 1. Land Use Impacts of Liquor Licenses Planning Director Krauss provided background and stated that downtown has a history of a large number of taverns; at present six taverns in a four block area. Many other states process liquor license applications as a Wholly local government issue. Washington State processes liquor licenses differently than other states. The State took over the responsibility of issuing licenses. He raised concerns about the number of taverns and the liquor license process about six years ago. The taverns and their clientele hinder redevelopment in downtown. There are numerous police incidents and calls to the taverns. The State sends the applications to the City to review, but the City has no firm policies. About six years ago, Planning Director Krauss went to the Planning and Community Development Committee (PCDC) with concerns and how can the City recommend approval when they have concerns. The City reviews and make recommendations to the State. At that time, the Committee told staff not to pursue developing policies on the matter. As a result, staff does not make a recommendation, but will only process, and this was the understanding. At present, the City has put in considerable effort toward downtown redevelopment with the transit center, 3r~ Street development, etc. There is a lot of public investment in downtown now. There is also private sector reinvestment in downtown. The taverns are still here and continue to be a problem. Recent developments in the Liquor Control Board (LCB) show that they are now listening to local governments and there may be potentially some zoning solutions that might limit the ability to allow taverns. A task force was set up to discuss chronic public inebriates. Planning Director Krauss went back to the PCDC and told them about the initiatives to take to get better control of the issue. This time the PCDC said "go ahead". Al Hicks, Economic Development Manager, is available tonight to provide more information. Economic Development Manager Hicks explained that the RCW gives the LCB many rights and allows them to make rules and regulations regarding the sale of liquor. They also determine the kind of stoves, etc., that restaurants have, set a minimum square foot of area that restaurant serving liquor must have which is only 15 percent of the area. There is some leeway for cities to exert police powers, but not in the area of liquor licenses or fees. The City has zoning powers in a certain zone, but does not have the ability to control the sale of liquor or how it is dispensed. The LCB wants regulations to let taverns act as restaurants. The City has many concerns about this. Restaurants that serve liquor are required to have -4- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 4, 2000 five entrees, a cook on site, certain hours for meals, certain hours for minimum food service such as sandwiches. They also have to have certain equipment such as grill, refrigerator, oven, etc., The LCB now proposes that only equipment required would be for minimum food service which means a tavern could have a refrigerator and a microwave and buy TV dinners and prepare and serve on site. There has also been discussions about eliminating the separation between the bar and seating area/dining area. This all gives more latitude to a tavern to be a restaurant which presents many questions for the cities. The City could say that taverns are not an acceptable use in downtown because of their implications. It is fair to say that the City wants restaurants in downtown. Of the six taverns downtown, most are classified by the LCB as restaurants, but this is quite a stretch. For example, the Mecca Tavern is considered a restaurant by the LCB. Commissioner Rollins asked if, by being classified as a restaurant, does this give taverns the ability to modify their liquor license to a class H and serve hard alcohol. Economic Development Manager Hicks replied yes. The taverns can be a beer and wine restaurant or a spirits beer and wine restaurant. He spoke about the vacant Mandarin Restaurant across the street and what happens when one of the businesses, whose primary activity was the consumption of alcohol, closes. The City wants to take a look at uses in downtown and the am.ount of square foot dedicated to restaurant activities. The definition of restaurant is very broad. Planning Director. Krauss explained that the goal is not to dry up downtown, but to have the dispensing of beer and alcohol only as part of legitimate, restaurant operations. Economic Development Manager Hicks advised that the intent is more broadly construed. Commissioner Jones is somewhat confused by staff comments. She stressed that people want taverns out of downtown because these taverns cause a lot of problems. She asked where the Mayor and City Council are on the iSsue. It appears that they.have been silent on the matter. Planning Director Krauss said the proposal is to differentiate, to say that liquor service in real restaurants where 60 percent.of the floor area is devoted to food service is okay. Free standing taverns, that do not have food service and their only goal is to serve beer are not appropriate in downtown. The LCB is going wrong way by loosening the obligations to serve liquor. In Pioneer Square, the Seattle told the LCB, which was processing an application for another tavern, said that approval of another tavern is inappropriate and stated the problems with these businesses. The LCB actually listened to their concerns and actually turned down the liquor license application. He spoke about a meeting that he and Economic Development Manager Hicks had with someone who wanted to reopen the Mandarin and claimed it would be family oriented. The proponent came in and talked with staff. While the proponent stated his establishment would be a "family restaurant", staff did not believe this would be the case. Staff indicated they would recommend that the City petition for denial of the license. The applicant ultimately dropped his request. Commissioner Taylor asked if the object is to close taverns, turn taverns into family restaurants or all of the above. Planning Director Krauss replied yes, all of the above. Some of the taverns are better than others in taking responsibility for their customers; however, there are constant police calls, safety issues, etc. It is in the long'term best interests of downtown to get legitimate restaurants instead of the taverns. Commissioner Jones expressed continued confusion. About one year ago a study was done and the · Auburn Downtown Association (ADA) and other people were adamant about doing something about the problem of the taverns and to find ways to get rid of the taverns or the tavern problem. She asked why the ADA is not doing something. She asked if the downtown task force discussed the problem of taverns. Planning Director Krauss advised that the taverns are a major impediment to redevelopment in downtown. Commissioner DiTuri remarked that it is extremely expensive to try to buy out or relocate the businesses. It would be a large financial commitment for the City. The businesses in the downtown area are very interested in wanting to pick up the revenue, especially if you are dealing with the train station as being a catalyst for having a tie in with downtown. The idea is to make it pedestrian oriented and downtown is not -5- MINUTES OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 4, 2000 pedestrian oriented after sunset. The downtown task force did touch on the subject of liquor licenses in the downtown area specifically. They talked about this being a zoning issue. They contemplated the idea of another area being the place to have a congregation of these types of businesses. The downtown plan was to improve fa'cades and make the area more attractive and less intimidating. Their focus was on downtown and they felt that the liquor issue was more of a City-wide issue. Commissioner Jones wanted to confirm that about six years ago when Planning Director Krauss brought up the subject of liquor licenses, the PCDC wanted to leave the issue of downtown taverns as is. Planning Director Krauss said essentially yes; but the issue has come up again. Economic Development Manager Hicks commented again that the LCB is supreme in the area of liquor licenses and they.decide who has liquor licenses. When businesses apply for licenses, the LCB does not care how many times police are called. Only the LCB can decide that a tavern is such a problem that it can no longer stay in business. The LCB is not sensitive to the desires or concerns of citizens relating to taverns. Commissioner Taylor commented that the LCB does not control the City's zoning. Planning Director Krauss commented that City zoning used to prohibit taverns downtown. Assistant Planning Director Rued advised that the ordinance was changed in 1987 and taverns were not prohibited from downtown. Planning Director Krauss spoke about the gaming issue in which the State also has full control over issuing licenses. The City developed an approach to zone gaming that was based somewhat on Renton's approach. Auburn initially thought to treat gaming like adult uses; however, this was considered a moral judgment and therefore could be unconstitutional. Staff said that gaming institutions have high turnover, long hours, can be loud, should not be in neighborhood settings, and only areas with good accessibility to roads, and therefore limited to areas along 15th Street by Freddies. So far this has not been challenged. · Liquor licenses are issued the same way. Staff thinks the City has latitude because the LCB seems to be open to the idea that local government should have input and can say enough is enough. There is the possibility that zoning may provide limitations to liquor licenses. Council instructed staff to develop policies and come back. There are a number of initiatives in the works for downtown and the City would like to reassure those making investments in downtown that the issue is being worked on. Planning Director Krauss said that City Council receives notice from the LCB for each tavern. The LCB asks for comments. The City on occasion has provided input which was limited primarily to establishments behind on various taxes. If there are some bad apples, Chairman Peace inquired when these licenses come up for renewal, is there documentation about the number of police calls, etc. Planning Director Krauss remarked that the application request is forwarded to the Police Department and City Attorney. The LCB does not close a place down for 30 days (worst case scenario) or merely provide education program to the tavern. Commissioner Rollins offered that the Gaming Commission might shut a business down, but it really takes something serious for the LCB to shut a business. Planning Director Krauss then commented that the LCB is coming under fire and scrutiny. Commissioner Jones wondered if a tavern is for beer and wine, what is a pub. Planning Director Krauss said there is not an actual definition for a pub. Commissioner Jones wondered about the pubs in Bellevue. Planning Director Krauss referred to a brew pub that was located in Renton, had a separate room for brewing, 70 percent of the space was for dining or kitchen, had a complete menu, and was an attractive place. Their full kitchen and size separated them from a tavern. However, food service establishments have a high mortality rate and this one failed. Planning Director Krauss remarked that staff will come back to the Commission after they figure out what kind of legal avenues are open, and develop proposed zoning amendments and policies for regulating taverns. The tavern issue becomes a land use issue because the taverns affect the downtown areas. -6- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 4,~ 2000 Commissioner Jones asked about the use of nuisance laws. Planning Director Krauss replied that a nuisance law does not deal with all the nuisances. Commissioner Jones wondered about a lawsuit against the taverns because they are ruining downtown and limiting how other businesses operate. Planning Director Krauss cautioned that a problem with this is that you must find malfeasance, document the history, etc. Chairman Peace commented that most of the tavern owners are not residents of Auburn and do not have community involvement or interest. Staff will return with proposals for discussion with the Planning Commission. 2. Update on the Design of the Sound Transit Parkinq Garage Planning Director Krauss remarked that this topic will be discussed at the February meeting. He is.waiting for materials from the consultant. Commissioner Taylor asked about the status of the JC Penneys building. Planning Director Krauss provided a brief update on the building and mentioned that staff is working on several ideas. A hindrance to redevelopment of the building is the lack of parking. The B Street parking area is not large. Staff has been talking with adjacent property owners about joi.nt parking ventures. He provided information on the parking garage for the transit center which will have 80 surplus parking spaces that can be resold to businesses that need parking. 3. Other Business Commissioner Jones suggested that the election of officers occur tonight. Commissioner Taylor made a motion, seconded by'Commissioner Jones, to keep the same officers as in 1999. The motion passed 5-0. Dave Peace was re-elected as Chairman and Karen Ekrem was re-elected as Vice Chairman. ADJOURNMENT: With no further items to come before the Commission the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. PC~AGND\MIN01-2000 -7-