Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-07-2000MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 7, 2000 The. regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on November 7, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Auburn City Hall. Those in attendance were as follows: MEMBERS: Garna Jones, Karen Ekrem, Bill Taylor, Peter DiTuri, Dan Rollins The following members were absent: Dave Peace and Fred Helser The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Ekrem. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: STAFF: David Osaki, Dennis Dowdy, Tim Carlaw, Tim Osborne, Don Wright, and Patti Zook TF OL .Rif$ It was concurred by the Planning Commission that the minutes of the October 3, 2000 meeting be approved as mailed. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commissioner Ekrem opened the public hearing on 2000 Comprehensive Plan Policy/Text Amendments #-6 and #7. 1. P/T Amendment #-6 - Comprehensive Water Plan Principal Planner Osaki gave brief staff report. Planning Commission had public hearing in October on the other Comprehensive Plan amendments and held work session previously on PT Ct-6 and P/T #7. There will not be a detailed presentation tonight because of previous work sessions. He distributed a handout from Tim Carlaw, Storm Drainage Engineer, showing revised language to the Drainage Plan. The City Council public hearing on P/T #-6 and P/T #7 is November 20. Public Works staff are present tonight to answer questions. Raoul Ramos, Planning Director and Public Works Director for Muckleshoot Tribe, previously transmitted their comments to Tim Osborne, Water Utility Engineer, and submitted these same comments to Planning Commission for their consideration tonight during deliberations. There are extensive comments contained on 12 pages. He proceeded to give a summary on major parts of the comments and read portions of text on pages 1, 2 and 3. He spoke of an intergovernmental agreement between the City and Tribe. They could not review the Water Plan in a timely manner because of date received. He complained that Water Plan contains little reference to the Tdbe in the text and maps. He described in some detail what his department does. He then read the "summary" portion on page 2 and 3. He spoke of the City's new uniform pricing structure which he believes is inappropriate. He considers the Water Plan as flawed because it lacks a conservation program. He believes the assumptions need to be retooled. He spoke of the infrastructure improvements in the recently annexed Lea Hill area and the Academy area not receiving similar improvements. He is concerned that the Tribe's service area is not receiving the same priorities as other parts of the City. 2. P/T Amendment #7 - Comprehensive Drainaqe Plan Brent Carson, Buck and Gordon, 1011 Western Avenue in Seattle, WA, is here on behalf of client's property which is south of 277th and is known as the Bristol/Gentra property. They are making an effort to come up with a development proposal for the property. Their civil engineer reviewed the Drainage Plan which makes recommendations that can change over time. They have a concern from a land use standpoint and will be coming in for rezone and site plan approvals. He spent time talking with staff and described their conceptual plan. He reviewed Storm Drainage Engineer Carlaw's proposed language (which was distributed by Carlaw) relating to a revision to 4th paragraph on Page V/HV-17 and modifications and additional paragraph on Page V/HV-22. Mr. Carson wanted one additional sentence. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER ,7, 2000 The following language to be added as the last sentence under paragraph 2 entitled Modifications and Additional Paragraph on Page V/HV-22: Because of the extent of future development in this area, other alternatives may be acceptable if, after further studies by private development, such alternatives are shown to meet these criteria. Mr. Carson believes this would essentially meet criteria of the Comprehensive Plan. They do not want to hear later that their plan is inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan. Planning Commissioner Ekrem closed the public hearing on P/T #6 and P/T #7. Planning Commissioner Rollins asked for staff's opinion of Mr. Carson's additional sentence which seems to be a common sense type thing. Principal Planner Osaki deferred to Storm Drainage Engineer Carlaw and City Engineer Dowdy to answer the specific issues. Principal Planner Osaki mentioned the Growth Management Act (GMA) and Capital Facilities element of Comprehensive Plan which are adopted by reference. The Capital Facilities element must describe and depict existing and proposed facilities. On a broad level, the general location and depiction of facilities would be acceptable. City Engineer Dowdy acknowledged that conceptually Mr. Carson's sentence seems fine. The Plan outlines concepts and fulfills requirements of GMA. There has to be a concept before implementation can happen. There must be something on the books saying what to do for this storm basin. The Capital Facilities improvements from the Plan are used to come up with five year financing plan. Conceptually he did not see any problem with Mr. Carson's language and particulars will be reviewed with the proposal. Planning Commissioner Jones referred to Mr. Ramos' testimony and needs hear from City Engineer Dowdy regarding the testimony and concerns. It bothers her that Mr. Ramos commented that the Water Plan is more a tool and directed towards economic development rather than emphasizes people and conservation. City Engineer Dowdy said the Water Plan attempts to draw conclusions from objective data. The population data was reviewed by the consultant and he believes that data is reliable. The Puget Sound Regional Council is the source for the data. In GMA we strive to plan for future growth in responsible manner. There are a number of requirements that must be met in the Water Plan. Planning Commissioner Jones said that Mr. Ramos has stated that the Tribe does not see enough conservation efforts in the Water Plan and he says the City can do more than what is written in Water Plan in order to have better conservation. She asked about backup measures. City Engineer Dowdy acknowledged that City can always do better and strives to do better and compares services to other jurisdictions and how to implement conservation measures. Conservation as been on the agenda for a number of years. The rate structure is adjusted already to encourage conservation and future rate schedule will be more aggressive. This does not have to be addressed in Comprehensive Plan. Rates are always under review by City Council. Auburn recognizes the need to continue conservation efforts. Planning Commissioner Jones then asked about Mr.. Ramos' comment that Tribe should be recognized in Water Plan as a neighboring governing body. City Engineer Dowdy said they attempted to recognize any jurisdiction in the Water Plan that has interconnects with Auburn. Don Wright, Contract Engineer, offered that reservation land was identified, and land use plan estimates future water use on Tribe land. The issue of whose judgment of use is not issue for Water Plan, but an issue of government to government talks. The Academy area has been evaluated the same as other areas and consistent criteria was used in the evaluation. The conservation program in Water Plan is targeting 10 percent savings which is more aggressive than City of Seattle. Planning Commissioner Rollins mentioned that Mr. Ramos also spoke about the City's lack of a backup system in Academy area. Contract Engineer Wright said there are two separate pump stations at Academy/reservation. The individual stations provide back up reliability. -2- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 7, 2000 Planning Commissioner Taylor remarked that the Tribe has a considerable number of points in their letter. City Engineer Dowdy said Public Works staff is not in a position to give response to each item in Tribe letter which is under review now. Planning Commissioner Taylor believes that the Planning Commission cannot make judgment on the Water Plan in light of the Tribe's comments. He suggested that Planning Commission delay action on Water Plan pending outcome of City review of the Tribe's comments. Planning Commissioner Rollins confirmed that his uncomfortable in acting on the Water Plan tonight. Planning Commissioner Ekrem wanted to know if the Water Plan is not acted on tonight, what happens to Comprehensive Plan adoption schedule. Principal Planner Osaki commented that Water Plan is scheduled for November 20th City Council public hearing. Tonight's Planning Commission public hearing on Water Plan could be continued to time next week for Planning Commission to consider staff comments to Tribe's letter. Tonight's meeting could be continued to a time and date certain. Mr. Ramos stressed that he will want to respond to staff comments. Planning Commissioner Taylor made a motion, seconded by Planning Commissioner Rollins, to recommend approval of P/T #7 with revised language as proposed by Storm Drainage Engineer Carlaw and additional sentence proposed by Mr. Carson. Planning Commissioner Ekrem wanted to clarify there is a motion on the table to recommend approve of PFF #7 with additional language as proposed by Carlaw and Carson. Planning Commissioner Rollins stated the motion again, which PD seconded. The motien passed. Planning Commissioner Ekrem wanted to reiterate that PFF #7 is being fop, yarded to City Council. DISCUSSION: 1. Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO) Planner II Dixon directed the Commissioners attention to the draft ordinance sections which were distributed at the workshop on October 17% He explained that this was a "rough" draft and pointed out that some refinement is needed to make the document closer to what the City wants to put in place. Planning Commissioner Jones requested that a workshop be scheduled on this subject, requested Commission member input on the refinements, and she wants to be actively involved in development of the SAO. She said the SAO is a critical tool for the City and issues need to be looked at carefully. She wants Planning CommissiQn to be part of the process. She does not want to receive the final version and be asked to make a recommendation on it. Planner II Dixon mentioned that is why Auburn has received information on what other jurisdictions have done in adopting their SAO. That is why the issue papers presented to date show there are different proposed options and alternatives. Planning Commissioner Jones reiterated the need for a workshop. Planner II Dixon wanted Planning Commission feedback tonight on the draft sections previously provided to them. The Planning Commission has received a lot of material to read on the Water Plan and Drainage Plan. Planning Commissioner Ekrem is concerned because Planning Commission has received piecemeal information on the SAO. Planning Commissioner Jones wants to make sure that Planning Commission has all the information so they can underStand how it all fits together. Planner II Dixon acknowledged Planning Commissioner Jones' comments and indicated Planning Commission will spend more time reviewing the SAO before they receive the final version to act on. Planning Commission has been given the backbone of SAO already. Staff is at a point where they can accept Planning Commission's input on how SAO looks so far and ideas on how to address issues. -3- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 7, 2000 Planning Commissioner Jones expressed some frustration because the last Planning Commission meeting adjourned at midnight. Throwing the SAO on Planning Commission is ridiculous and reiterated that she wants a workshop. She is not prepared tonight to discuss the SAO. Planner II Dixon advised that he is merely trying to gauge Planning Commission's impressions on what has been distributed to them so far. Material transmitted to date has been fairly general in nature, but with this draft he is hoping to get some specifics from the Planning Commission. Planning Commissioner Jones asked for an opportunity for Planning Commission to look at other jurisdictions' SAO documents to see what SAO is supposed to look like. She believes this would be very helpful. Planner II Dixon offered that he can provide SAOs from other areas to the Planning Commission. He indicated a summary of information contained in other jurisdictions' SAOs was presented in a previous issue paper. For example, the second issue paper contained a table with summaries and showed features of the City of Kent SAO. He can provide other examples to the Planning Commission. Planning Commissioner Ekrem commented it would be helpful for Planning Commission to have a table of contents showing what portions of the SAO Planning Commission is supposed to have. She wants to make sure that Planning Commission has the entire documents package. Planner II Dixon remarked that he will prepare a list of what documents have been distributed to Planning Commission to date so that Planning Commission and review and see what they are missing. If Planning Commission wants more time to spend on the SAO issue, a workshop can be arranged. He understands that it may be helpful for Planning Commission to have a workshop on SAO. He would like to have more refined information before the workshop. Planning Commissioner Jones reiterated that the Planning Commission needs to have an opportunity to have input on the priorities for SAO. The Planning Commission should be working on the priorities. Planner II Dixon then referred to previous issue papers that described what a SAO should look like and which mentioned different options. A SAO binder was previously transmitted to Planning Commission for organization of SAO-related materials. He will prepare a table of contents so that Planning Commission can make sure they have all the documentation distributed so far. Planning Commissioner Jones asked if there is a City deadline for adoption of the SAO. She wondered if there is a GMA requirement for the SAO to be adopted by a certain date. Planner II Dixon advised that Auburn adoption of a SAO is long overdue, but he did not give a specific deadline date. Planning Commissioner Jones then asked if the consultants are on board for as long as they are needed. Planner II Dixon mentioned that he is receiving information from them quickly and the SAO is moving forward. Planning Commissioner Ekrem wanted to confirm that Planning Commission will receive a list of what they should have in their SAO binders and will call Planning staff if they are missing sections; contact Planner II Jeff Dixon (804-5033) if they have questions about information received; and a workshop to be scheduled to understand linkage of the different SAO elements. Planning Commissioner Rollins believes a workshop is a good idea, but stressed that he does not want to micro-manage staff. Planning Commissioner Jones commented that she wants the Planning Commission involved in setting priorities, information on direction of City, and an overall view of the issues for Planning Commission to look at. Planning Commissioner Ekrem inquired about scheduling the Planning Commission workshop on SAO. Principal Planner Osaki mentioned the downtown plan and a possible public hearing on this in December. Planning Commissioner Jones stressed that she wants to have a workshop on the downtown plan before the public hearing on the downtown plan. A consensus was reached for the December 5t~ meeting to be a workshop meeting on either the SAO or the downtown plan. The meeting will begin at 6:00 p.m. instead of 7:00 p.m. -4- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 7, 200¢) Principal Planner Osaki referred to the continued meeting on November 14th to discuss PFF #6, and expressed concern that Public Works staff will be able to respond in sufficient detail to the Tribe's 66 concerns by this date. He believes the November 14th date will not provide sufficient time for staff. A point by point response is not possible by next week. He wondered about Planning Commission's main concerns in Tribe letter that might be addressed within a week. Planning Commissioner Ekrem advised that Planning Commission has not reviewed all the points in Tribe letter because Planning Commission just saw the Tribe letter tonight. Planning Commissioner Rollins believes that some points in the Tribe's letter can be easily addressed. City Engineer Dowdy said that depending on what items Planning Commission wants to have staff responses for, or staff can completely evaluate and respond to all points in the Tribe letter. City staff may have to consult City Attorney and consultant and SEPA official regarding what GMA and CTED requires because a number of the entities require different things. Some of the Tribe comments may not even be relevant. Contract Engineer Wright commented that some of the Tribe points may not be substantive or are comments on policies that the City Council can best respond to. Most of the technical materials and policies are exactly the same as previously adopted in 1995 which sailed through other regulatory agencies. The letter contains some misstatements. Planning Commissioner Taylor suggested that maybe comments should be divided - what is relevant to the Water Plan and what is not relevant to the Water Plan. City Engineer Dowd.y indicated that he asked Public Works staff to review Tribe comments and determine which ones by WAC regulations have to be responded to in the Water Plan. The Tribe does not have a Comp Plan showing their future needs and the City cannot make them prepare a Comp Plan. Therefore, it is very hard to determine their future needs based on no information received from them. Staff can review and see which of their comments are relevant to approval of the Water Plan. He requested two weeks time to prepare Public Works staff responses to the Tribe letter. He acknowledged there may have to be a special Council meeting for action on the Planning Commission recommendation. Planning Commissioner Ekrem is sensitive to timing issue of adoption of Water Plan and Comprehensive Plan. She suggested that staff identify the relevancy of issues in the Tribe letter and let Planning Commission know which points are relevant to the Water Plan. Planning Commissioner Rollins acknowledged that some Tribe comments are not going to be relevant to adoption of Water Plan. Planning Commissioner Ekrem requested that staff prepare a matrix showing relevancy of the different points in Tribe's letter. Planning Commissioner Jones believes the City should make a statement about its conservation efforts. Tribe spoke of conservation a couple times and Tribe says there is not enough information in plan to address conservation. Contract Engineer Wright advised that City Council must make decisions to implement the various elements. Public Works Committee held workshops. Alternative rate structures were reviewed and Council will make decision of ordinance to implement the program. The conservation program is fully described in Chapter 8. Of course, some people will always say that the City is not doing enough conservation. Planning Commissioner Jones wants to make sure City is looking at conservation measures and is careful about what it is doing. The Tribe says the City is not doing enough or not making enough of an effort. Contract Engineer Wright referred to Chapter 8 which he believes addresses all points. Planning Commissioner Taylor said that Chapter 8 contains 19 pages which seems to go into detail. Planning -5- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 7, 2000 Commissioner Rollins believes there is a difference of opinion and City Council will make the judgment call. Principal Planner Osaki reiterated that the Planning Commission meeting is continued to Tuesday, November 21 at 6:30 p.m. This will enable Public Works staff to respond to issues raised in the · Muckleshoot letter dated October 27th. City Engineer Dowdy said the Tribe can then respond to staff comments. CONTINUATION: It was moved and seconded at 8:30 p.m. to continue the Planning Commission meeting to Tuesday, November 21, 2000 at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Motion passed. PCV~GND\MIN11-2000 -6-