Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-04-2000MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 4, 200{~} The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on April 4, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Auburn City Hall. Those in attendance were as follows: MEMBERS: Dave Peace, Bill Taylor, Dan Rollins STAFF · Paul Krauss, Jeff' Dixon, Al Hicks and Patti Zook The following members were absent: Garna Jones, Peter DiTuri, Karen Ekrem, FredHelser The meeting was called to order by Chairman Dave Peace. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: As there were only three Commissioners present at tonight's meeting, the minutes of the March 7, 2000 meeting be acted on at the May meeting. DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. Sensitive Areas Ordinance Planner II Dixon reminded the Commissioners that the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO) was introduced at the last meeting and will be reviewed over the next several meetings. He began by reviewing sections from the issue paper (distributed at the last meeting) and began by providing background information. He outlined the sensitive areas the City wants regulated by the SAO. Five of the sensitive areas are requirements of the Growth Management Act (GMA). There are policies in Chapter 9 of the Comprehensive Plan. These are general policies for direction, but no regulation standards. He described how the City reviews applications. The City wants to determine how proposals affect sensitive areas and how to avoid impacts to these sensitive areas. There are currently no fixed standards that offer certainty to property owners and there is a need for more definitive and consistent decisions to avoid piecemeal approaches. He referred to the two maps on the easels. The first map shows sensitive areas and the other is for wetlands. The 1995 Comprehensive Plan amendment produced the critical areas map as part of the GMA requirement. Auburn was one of the first cities to conduct a wetland inventory. The wetland inventory was used by other cities as an example. The consultant will assist in updating maps and reflect the City's current boundaries: This.will provide better sources of information and geological information. Maps will be developed to show vegetative resources and streams. Regulatory guidelines can then be developed. Planner II Dixon referred to page I of the issue paper dated 10-21-99. The City identified and mapped sensitive areas and developed maps and definitions for sensitive area delineation. The issue paper lays out a framework as to why the City is doing the SAO. Page 3 speaks to Federal regulations such as the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act. The City keeps its regulations consistent with Army Corps or Engineers regulations. Planning Commissioner Taylor asked if SAO is being developed because of the concern relating to salmon habitat and streams. Planning Director Krauss replied yes. The law obligates the City to try to restore biological diversity and range of species. The law obligates attempts be made to restore all natural fish runs and requires that the City avoid actions that "take" fish. Planner II Dixon referred to Section 9 of the law, which is a new requirement, but there are no regulations as to exactly how to do. The regulations are under development. The SAO is needed to anticipate these regulations and the City regulations will be consist with the Federal regulations. Planning Director Krauss spoke of the need to have the regulations so the City knows it is doing the right thing. The City will be obligated to commit large amounts of money to do things like retrofit storm water discharges. There will be changes in how development is permitted, the way stream corridors are to be protected, and to have programs to restore habitat. He cautioned that certain aspects are out of City and state control and there are questions as to who regulates. , Planning Commissioner Taylor commented that it is clear that population growth is in conflict with the Endangered Species Act. Planning Director Krauss agreed. The GMA says to maximize development within a certain line, but the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) does not recognize the GMA. The ESA has rarely been applied in a ' 1 - MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 4, 200~0 major metropolitan area so it is unclear if it is workable. There appears to be no legislative desire in Congress to change this. Planning Commissioner Rollins anticipates that the Puget Sound area housing to sky rocket because new construction is discouraged. Planning Director Krauss agreed. Constrain supply of raw lan3 as policy and contribute to cost of housing. Planner II Dixon remarked that the GMA identified critical areas and that jurisdictions are mandated to include the "best available science" in developing policies and development regulations to protect critical areas. He reviewed pages 4 and 5 which provide definitions of these critical areas. King County's requirements are already !ncorporated in the Comprehensive Plan. He spoke about the SAMP and who is involved. SAMP manages the wetlands in the Mill Creek Basin. He pointed out the survey of local jurisdictions' SAOs (page 7), which represent state of the art and wide range of standards to be applied. There are similar elements between the SAOs, as indicated in Table 2 on page 8. Planner II Dixon stressed that the issue paper is an introduction to SAO development and showed how other jurisdictions handle sensitive areas protection. The second issue paper, dated January 10, 2000, will be reviewed at a future meeting. This paper provides a range of options for regulating the sensitive areas. The City will need to decide how lenient or strict it wants to be in the regulation of sensitive areas. These regulations must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Commissioner Peace wondered if the idea is protection of sensitive areas including geologic hazard areas and landslides, how are these protected. Instead of protecting, why not do away with the hazard. Planner II Dixon commented that some cities have regulations, but these have not protected areas from landslides. The regulations recognize the susceptibility of particular areas to become a landslide. The city would determine if an area can be developed without landslide susceptibility and the city determines if development is appropriate. Planning Director Krauss mentioned some mechanisms such as percent ofgrade beyond which development does not occur, mandate development some distance from the bluff edge, and vegetation removal constraints. He spoke about the landslides in Seattle in which citizens filed class action suits against the city saying the city had to protect them. The city prevailed because approval required geotechnical studies to be done. Avoidance of liability is only one factor. Regarding the ESA, Planning Commissioner Taylor wondered if this is because the species cannot adapt to changing environment. Planning Director Krauss said there appears to be contradictory evidence because of the large salmon runs recently. Biologists say the runs are cyclical and there are indications that La Nina and El Nino have effects as well as global warming. The range of these fish is quite large. They spawn in mountain streams, swim in the oceans for years and return to the mountain streams to spawn. There are many variables and issues involved. The inappropriate use of streams has eliminated fish, but there have been instances of fish brought back. The genetic diversity of the species is to be preserved. 2. Proposed Zoning to Regulate Liquor Establishments Economic Development Manager Hicks provided background on research. The Washington State Liquor Control Board (LCB) has broad power to control liquor. The LCB is changing its requirements in part to respond to Governor's request. LCB will review to see if their regulations are applicable to current conditions. The liquor industry is taking this opportunity to endorse changes as to how liquor is sold. There was an initiative to allow spirits in sports stadiums, but this was denied. The LCB is allowing "over 21" restaurants which he described in detail. He then reviewed the other recent changes in the LCB's rules. The taverns in question position themselves as restaurants, but their primary service is as a tavern. Some taverns have applied to be restaurant due to proposed impacts. The purpose of the proposed definitions is to include definitions for restaurants, brew pubs, and taverns, it is suggested that taverns be eliminated as an allowed use in the CI and C2 districts. ,Brew pubs and taverns could be permitted outright in C3 zones. He spoke of the impact on downtown by the current taverns and the possibility of more taverns as time goes by. -2- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 4, 2000 Planning Commissioner Taylor wondered about the City not having control over the regulation of the taverns. Planning Director Krauss remarked that traditionally the City does not. The State preempts the City's ability to do much. Seattle recently asked the LCB to. deny a liquor license to a business in the Pioneer Squm-e area because'that area is already overserved and public drunkenness is a problem. The LCB denied that particular application. Staff is suggesting two fold strategy. That the existing taverns be declared non-conforming use Which would eliminhte the potential for any new ones. However, this would not constrain a restaurant from locating downtown. Policies would be developed so that City Council can make strong recommends to the LCB. Planning Commissioner Taylor asked if the City has authority to determine where liquor is sold. Planning Director Krauss stressed that Auburn has the land use authority to determine what is allowable in certain zones. Planning Commissioner Taylor then asked about eliminating the sale of liquor. Planning Director Krauss commented that Auburn could be a dry community. There used to be an ordinance that prohibited taverns downtown. A questions arises as to how the State perceives its preemption right. Many communities regulate mini casinos by zoning. However, the State Gambling Commissions says that cities do not have the right to regulate by zoning. Cities can ban, but do not have right to regulate by zoning. Staff is working with the City Attorney to make the proposed zoning changes as defensible as possible. Planning Commissioner Rollins asked if the City has jurisdiction to restrict current establishments. Planning Director Krauss remarked that the State can grant any kind of liquor license it wants, but City says license violates zoning. This will not have bearing on existing taverns which could be declared non-conforming uses. If a tavern is destroyed or closes for six months or more, for example, it loses the vested right to reopen as a tavern. The non- confirming section in the Zoning Ordinance establishes the six month time limit. Planning Director Krauss continued by saying that staff wanted to talk to the Planning Commission about this subject. A Council committee told staff to proceed forward with developing the appropriate zoning changes. Economic Development Manager Hicks will speak with the Planing and Community Development Committee about this subject on April 10t~. If the Planning Commission is comfortable with the material, the public hearing can be scheduled on the proposed amendments. Planning Commissioner Taylor asked about the purpose of the LCB. Economic Development Manager Hicks commented that the LCB is a three person regulatory board appointed by the Governor and sets rules under which liquor is sold. The LCB also supervises agents. Planning Commissioner Taylor inquired if it is the LCB's goal to satisfy those who dispense liquor or the citizens. Planning Director Krauss agreed this is a good question. The LCB was probably set up to constrain the free distribution of liquor and establishment of state liquor stores. Recent legislation has attempted to do away with the state liquor stores. However, there was concern that private liquor stores would cater to minors. They concluded that the LCB was set up to keep the process "clean". Economic Development Manager Hicks commented that changes in regulations have escalated liquor license application fees. Planning Director Krauss offered that he suggested several years ago to develop policies to regulate liquor license applications in Auburn. He was told by City Council not to do. The PCDC now requests staff to review procedure and see how to restrict especially in the downtown area. He spoke of the adverse impact taverns have on downtown. The City would not be legislating morality. The City hopes to eliminate and constrain the blight of taverns downtown. The proposed changes will be brought back in ordinance form. Discussion was held concerning the commuter rail facility, parking garage and timing of opening. Discussion occurred concerning 3'a Street crossing which is a two-three year Discussion was held concerning other development in downtown. With no further items to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. PC\AG\MIN04-2000 -3-