Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-06-2000 ~ NIINiJTES OF THE PLANNING GOMMISSION MEETING JUNE 6. 2000 T6e regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on June 6,2000 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Auburn.City Hall. Those in atfendance were as follows: - ' MEIVIBERS: Gacna Jones, Kazen Ekrem, Bill Taylor, Peter DiTuri, Dan Rollins, Fred Helser STAFF : Lynn Rued, David Osaki, Jeff Dixon, Sean Martin, A1 Hicks, and Patti Zook The following members were absent: Dav.e Peace - Themeeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Karen Ekrem APPROVAL OF MINUTES: It was concurred by the Planning Commission that the minutes of the May 2; 2000 meeting be approved as mailed. PUBLIC HEARING: , File No.: ZOA0008-00 - Amendments to the Citv of.Auburn ZoninQ Code Chanters 18.04, Definitions: 18.26. _ - Li~t Commercial Distric~t: 18:28. Central Business:District; and 18:30, Heaw Commercial District resardine brewuubs, restaurants. and tavems - Vice Chairman Ekrem opened the public•hearing. , ~ Econamic Development Manager Hicks presented the staff report. The amendments are to add definitions for restaurauts, brewpubs and taverns. The amendments would also eliminate tavems as an allowed use for . which a conditional u"se permit can be issued in the C-1, Light Commercial and C-2, Central Business districts. The amendments would also,include brewpubs as a use for which a conditional use permit can be issued in the G1 and C-2 districts, T6e amendments would also include brewpubs as an allowed use in the . . C-3, Heavy Commercial district: The"se changes are necessitated-by changes in the rules of the Liquor Control Boazd. He explained the definitions of brewpubs, restaurants and tavems. Taverns are an intense use. - Commissioner Rollins woadered ifthe G1 and G2 districts are in downtown only. Planning Director Krauss explained that the C-2, Central Business District, is the downtown area. Other commercial districts are located tivougtiout the City. The purpose of the amendments is to: constrain the spread of taverns. This ` would not apply to existing establisuaents which are grandfathered., The City i5 not dictating morality. ' The City wants to encourage food based establishments especially, in the downtown area. These establishments wonld have liquor as a small percentage of the floor area. Regulatory control through the LCB is very difficult and exasperating. City Council raised' concerns about three particular liquor licenses that were up for renewal. The LCB was informed of the arrests and other incidents which oceiured at these taverns; however, tt►e LCB was'dnresponsive to the. City's concems. The City needs to be proactive from a zoning stance. When a tavern shuts down; it does not have an.automatic license to reopen. Commissioner Jones wanted to confirm the Liquor Control Board (LCB) action to renew the three liquor licenses in spite of the City's. concems about the these tavems. Plaaning Directoi Krauss reiterated, what the LCB said in its correspondence. Comaiissioner Jones wanted to lnow if the business is grandfathered in and not permit use, can it still do imgrovements. Planning Director Krauss said that improvements _ would be allowed within some guidelines. Limited expansion would be allowed.' If need to renovate the building or repair, this can be done. If the property owner sells to another operation as long as it is, in continuous use, but if operation is stapped for six months, the business loses the grandfather provision. Commissioner Jones then referred to A Street Automotive, and said that when Mr. Thompson spoke about not being able to make improvements,.what was this regarding. Planning Director Krauss siated that 11rir. _ Thompson wanted to significantly expand the auto business onto. adjacent property. Commissioner Jones wanted to confum that the purpose of ttie amendments is to prevent getting any more, taverns: ..Planning _1 NIlNUTES OF THE PLANNING'COMIVIISSION MEETING JUNE 6 2000 Director Krauss replied that ttiis is essentially coaect. If the City.gets an establishment serving liquor in ~ - downtown, it will be secondary to a restaurant business. Commissioner Taylor wondered if any investors have expressed intere.st in downtown restaurants. Planning Director Krauss commented that there has been some interest. A restaurant operator has an . option on the Pastime/Truit building for a legitimate restaurant There was no public testimony; therefore, the public hearing was closed. CommissionerRollins made a motion, seconded by COMMISSIQNER HELSER, to recommend approval of the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments. The motion passed 6-0. J DISCUSSION: . Sensitive Areas Ordinance . Planner II Dixon showed an overhead which he reviewed. He recapped the SAO discussions so far. There aze six azeas the City wanted to develop regulations for: This would provide certainty in the development process. The SAO is State mandated and a requirement of.the Growth Management Act. He reviewed the firsf issue paper tfiat summarized some other sensitive area regulations used by other jurisdictions. At the . May meeting; discussion centered around the second issue. paper which described components of the SAO. Tonight, he.will concentrate on specific components and talk about applicability, exemptions and - mitigation standards. The SAO is still a general discussion and he wants to receive feedback and direction . for the City. Regarding applicability, Planner II Dixon said the GMA requires adoption of a SA0 and the definitions - come from the GMA. The City must decide which activities to regulate and decide how strict to be, and , when to be triggered. He gave exatriples of the effects. He mentioned the gap ;between the pmcess and permit requirement. He referred to the second issue paper that mentioned actions that would have potenrial to impact sensitive azeas. The City needs to decide what to consider in its approach to sensitive areas: Vice Chairman Ekrem asked when evaluating resources, is the City doing.a cost benefrt analysis. Planner II Dixon said usually not. The City. relies heavily on the SEPA process. Feasbility is a consideration, but the economic.benefit is not done under these regulations. Staff could look at if reasonable and in more detail. Vice Chairman Ekcem wondered about the cost to the City to enforce these actions as part of the . cost beneft arialysis.. The cost to the City. to implement and carry out and enforce the regulations. Planner II Dixon commented that this was nof identified as a component,yet, but will be looked at during reevaluation of code enforcement. Commissioner Taylor asked about the, gauge for the term "Yeasonable". Planner II Dixon said this is a legal " test and nexis between the `impact and what asking developer to do as mitigation. The method is not set out in case;law. Commissioner Taylor asked about arbitration: Planner II Dixon replied thaf hopefully ttiere ; will be guidance foi this. He spoke of the need to develop regulations to keep in mind that the amount of mitigation needs to be reasonably related to the project He menrioned ttie reasonable use clause. Regulations shouldnot prohibit the use of any properry. Planner II Dixon then spoke about the , Endangered Species Act (ESA). Later this month, the Federa! Naitonal Marine Fisheries will release regulations regarding the restoration and preservation to avoid eliminatioa of Chinook salmon. These regularions will prescribe things the City must do. The 3A0 regulations must consider the ESA. The - Federal regulations will come out and.proyide;guidance. Many cities are waiting until these regulations . come out to know exactly how to respond to them. As soon as ttie regulations are reteased, the City will be underpressure to have a 3A0. Planner II Dixon then spoke:abouf,exemptions and that certain activities will be exempt. He then gave ezainples of possible exemptions. He menrioned activities that;are commonly considered as exemptable. He reviewed what exemptions are in other jurisdictions' SAO. .He then spoke aboutthe implicarions of - -2- . NIINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 6 2000 these actions. He spoke about broadly defined exemptions versus narrowly defined exemptions. Planner II Dixon talked about what activities might be exempt and some sensitive areas might be considered as exempt and provided examples. He mentioned what other jurisdictions have exempted such as size of a Pro.lect Planner II Dixon commented t6at if acceptable to the Planning Commission, try to incorporate exemptions into the regularions. They could look at specific language and then comment, He spoke about how to apply the regulations and gave examples. He described mitigation sequencing and gave some examples. Using an overhead, he pointed out mitigating project impacts - avoid (use another site, reduce scope of development); minimize (reduce level of impact); rectify (restore to preimpact condition); compensate (restore lost or degraded wetlands to original condition, enhance existing wetlands by increasing functions and values, create new wetlands). It is reasonable to ask developer to consider ways to reduce impacts. He spoke about the racetrack mitigation. The City can realize more benefit by allowing flexibility. Commissioner Jones inquired if the Army Corps of Engineers has their regulations and the City has its reguladons, does the Corps direct the City as to what can be done. Planner II Dixon explained that the Corps does not direct the City. The applicant will get approval for fill from the City and the Corps. Two different permits aze required - project approval fram the City and the Corps. The SAMP program will ensure that the City process will work with the Corps process. When adopted, SAMP will expedite the permit process and promote coordination of mitigation. There are now two different, but compatible authorities. Planner II Dixon then spoke about the three aspects of City sensitive area regulations - what the City should regulate and what not to regulate and how to apply the regulations. He outlined how to approach the matter. Only general terms are being discussed tonight and specific regulations tater. The next step is to draft regulations for the Planning Commission to review and comment. They should begin commenting on the regulations and have workshop or informal session for pubtic to review and provide feedback to the Planning Commission for their consideration and recommendation to the City CounciL Commissioner Rollins referred to the enhancement ratias and believes that 11.1 ratio is too high. Planner II Dixon said the ratios available in the draft SAMP is 3: l. Assistant Planning Director Rued commented that staff needs to get a sense from the Planning Commission as to how to approach the ordinance. How developer friendly should it be? How restrictive should it be? Planning Commission will need to provide direction on this. Commissioner Taylor spoke of the need to be reasonable in the City's approach. Commissioner Jones said this depends on the sensirive area and its impact on the environment Commissioner Rollins said the fmal discretionary judgment will be left to the Planning Deparlment. The ordinance will not be hazd and fast because there are too many variables. Assistant Planning Director Rued advised that the SAO will allow more predictabiliry in the implantation of sensitive areas than what the City has now. Commissioner Taylor again spoke about reasonableness - either reasonably by being liberal or reasonably by being conservative. Commissioner Jones suggested that the Commission have a workshop on the SAO. Planner II Dixon commented that right now discussion is on the "big picture" and general framework and need to get a sense of where to head with the City's approach to the regulations. Vice Chairman Ekrem commented that if heavy on regulations, there could be an implication of infringement on personal property and there might be a cost element to developer for mirigarion as well as a cost factor to the City for enforcing the regulations that are conservative. Reasonableness means looking at different elements of the regulations and balancing. Commissioner Jones believes this comes down to what is valued in the community. She mentioned wording relating to major tree removal. There is question of the community -3- , MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ~ JiJNE 6 2000 ' ~ wanting to spend money to liaye this kind of quality. Someone will be need to monitor and inspect. Commissioner Jones commeated that some ordinances do not get enforced unless someone complains. ' This discussion is valuable, commented Planner II Dixon. It helps staff to understand where the Planning Commission wants to go. There is a range of least strictto moststrict regulations. Planning Commission ' to provide guidance to staff. It is still a general picture now and consideration needs to be given to any other available options. Vice Chairman Ekrem would like to see other options. She wants to see if staff ' recommends a certain level, for example, because they are not covered in Zoning Ordinance or linked to ' other regulations. If so, then tliis should be taken into consideration. - ' Planner II Dixon advised that when the regulations aze brought forward, staff will present justificarion as to why this approach is recommended and proyide examples, Vice Chairman E1Qem and Commissioner Jones believe ttiis is a good approach:: Planner II Dixon menrioned the public process again. The public. will review and comment and provide. comments to the Commission'. for their consideration. _ Assistant Planning Director Rued recommended that.the Commission give some thought as to how sensitive areas have been managed in the past: Were'too many trees cut down? Were too many wetlands filled? Staff would like some ideas from the Commission as to what the SAO should say. Vice Chairman Ekrem commented that results of the regulations might be encroachment on personal property rights. They need to see wHat;results might occur from the different regulations. This would be helpful to understand the implications of the regulations: .Commissioner Jones commented that this would be interesting.to see. Planner II Dixon said that AssistantPlarining Director Rued's comments are good. ~ Staff could provide good examples and bad examples:, The second issue paper lays out pros and cons of different approaches. Vice Chairman Ekrem would also like to see the cost to the City, where the money would come from, and how the City could absorb the costs to administer the SAO. Commissioner Taylor commented thatde facto taking of property should also be considered. Planner II Dixon remarlced that the 'second issue paper speaks to tfie variance process and reasonable use.. Commissioner DiTuri spoke ofthe need for public awareness. Residents and business.owners should be represented at the public forum and seek their comments: The City.should look at market value because developers wi1L The SAO could potentially stop growth and the SA0's overall impact needs to be determined and addressed. Comprehensive Zoning Changes , Assistant Planning Director Rued provided background of previous discussions on this topic. The PC needs to decide if it wants to consider all or part of the rezone5. Gommissioner DiTuri recounted that there was discussion about difference between two of the I O.exhibits. The. fust several appeared to be simple and somewhat straightforward comparecl to the last two. These two appeared to have more intricacies involved. Also, there was a question as to how many of the rezones to take in one,sitting. Planner. I Martin confirmed that the majority of the proposed rezones are straighforward. He then showed 'a lazge map that depicted the location ofExhibits B=l.through B-10. He then briefly explained what B-1 proposal. Commissioner Jones said that exhibit B-1 appears to be a housekeeping item. Planner I Martin confirmed this is the case. ` Planner I Martin referred to Exhibit B-2. represents the, Olson Canyon Pazk and Aubwm Golf Course. The change would provide a public u.s.e designation on both properties. Exhibit B-3 is the storm urility pmperty , whose Comprehensive Plan designation'was changed in 1998. Commissioner Jones asked if Exhibit B-3 ' will be controversial. Assistant Plannirig Director Rued replied no. Adjacent properiy owners are aware of the project, know the City.owns the property, and purpose of the facility. The facility will not be an open. ditch, but will have amenities. - -4- - • MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 6 2000. Planner I Martin then referred to Exhibit B-4 which is a Parks Department holding. Exhbit B-5 is a ' , remnant unclassified,sliver of land which was zoned this way pending the alignment of Lakeland Hills Way. He explained the location of the area to be rezoned. This changes is considered' a housekeeping item. Commissioner Jones commented that it seems stracige to have land zoned as unclassified: Was the property left unclassified in the "past while if.waited for development Planner I Martin showed the parcel . ' on a colored map and explained that the majority of unclassified property is developed: He pointed out adjacent parcels to the west was rezaned in.1988. "The change would align the zoning with the parcel line: The unclassified designation.is assigned pending a developer coming forward with a proposal or the City decides the most appropriate designarion. . Planner I Ivlartin referred to Exhibit. B-6. and pointed out its location on a colored map. The change will make the property consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation and the zoning on adjacent parcels. . . Planner I Martin referied to Exhibit B-7 which is Airport holds. The change will make ttie property consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation and adjacent Airport property. " ' Planner I Martin_referred to Exhibit,S=B. Exhi6it B-8 represents annexations adjacent'to Thomas Academy. He used a colored map to point out the zoning changes. The R-1 zoning is the current zoning and is the default zoning assigned upon annexation. Commissioner Rollins inquired why the Academy . does not want the Institutional designation. Planner I Martin explained that staff met with the Academy and it is their intent to remove this property from the'v holdings and see about an opportunity to zone other than institutional for development purposes. They would also have to do a Comprefiensive Plan amendment. Assistant Planning Director Rued affirmed that it is the Academy's desiie to sell to the. highest bidder and this depends on what is developing around them. Commissioner Taylor inquired about the most reasonable use for the property. Planner I Martin explained , that the property is not lazge enough to support development in commercial or industrial zoning. The question is where the property will "tag" onto - properry to the east or west. Development'of the ' individual lots will require coordination. Commissioner Rollins wondered what is in the Academy's best interest Planner I Martin commented that it depends on which way it goes. The best benefit for the Academy would be to amend the Comprehensive Plan. . . Assistant Planning D'uector Rued explained further that the biggest benefit to the Academy would be to - have the parcel as a transition parcet and this would give them two options. One would be to change the Comprehensive Plan map to show the property as appropriate for either light industrial or heavy . commercial depending on the property comingto properties on either side. The question is whether to put zoning on.the property now or waituntil the Comprehensive Plan map change. Properfy could remain as zoned now and wait for their request.to change the Comprehensive Plan or could zone to M-1 consistent with the Gomprehensive Plan map. The Comprehensive Plan map would be changed this fall and provide a transition. The zoning could be in place if want the property as M-1. There needs to be a transirion area on the Plan map. Planner I Martin referred to Exhibit B-9,.which would rezone the Neighborhood Commercial to C-1 consistent with the Comprehens'ive Plan designation. The existing residentiallyzoned pazcels would be changed to R4 and adjusting the C-1 zoning district. The R-1 zoning does not have provisions for multi- family housing. The R4 wning designation provides for a variety of housing options and has provisions also for professional office uses with'a conditional use permit.' Commissioner Jones said that she has a problem with designating more property as R-4 and wondered if C- 1 would be more appropriate. ' Planner I Martin explained that staff does want to break, up the commercial comdor. He pointed out what is on the different parcels: Commissioner Rollins believes the R-4 is'broken up now. For the tiny piece with frontage on Auburn Way South, it should be kept as C-1. Commissioner Jones feels that there aze a lot of traffic problems here and she does not want ariy more multi-family. There is also the safety factor on the street'because of the slope of the mad. Commissioner Rollins does not`want any residential driveway access on Aubiun Way South. . -5- • MINiJTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING . JUNE 6. 2000 Vice Chairman ElQem wondered about the process to bring this Exhibit forward. Assistant Planning Director Rued acknowledged that staff received the Commission's thouglits on this which will be forwarded as a Comprehensive Plan amendment and will be deleted from the zoning chaage. _ Planner I Martin referred to Exliibit B-10 and pointed out its location on the map. This area is identified as. a transition azea from commercial to hesyy industrial. The area is suited to remain as a transifion:area ' , without the intrusion ofindustrial uses.;; The Commission was asked to look at the area and do a site visit. , Fifteen lots are developed as single family homes now. Commissioner Rollins would much rather see the ' azea remain as M-2. Commissioner DiTuri believes it is more -consistent to have the azea zoned as M-2. " Using the overhead, Planner I Martin gave a possible scenario for development of property in this area. In the M=2 area, he gave the setbacks and requirements regaiding street dedication.and landscaping widths, the required setback adjacent to residenrial area, requirement for packing, and size the building envelope . would Have to be. There are no provisions to altow this building to be a distribution use because of the parcel's size. AssistantPlanning Director Rued explained.that the reason this azea is planned for multi-family is to ' primarily give a chance for the single family neighbor to get better because the existing homes are nonconforming uses. People do not want to buy a single faznily home, and upgrade it, and then have a neighbor who could build an industrial pse in the M-2 right next door. The R-4 does allow single family homes and the residential nonconforming uses would become coaforming uses. It is hoped this would help to strengthen the neighborhoods. The lot areas are small and a duplex would be possible. The housing stock here could be increased: He then . provided a development scenario. He cautioned that the M-1 . zoning allows any kind of outdoor use and storage. The hou5es could have a 45 foot high building right next door.' This would not be good for the neighborhood. He told of the rationale of why this should be planned for multi-family. Commissioner Jones believes there is already too much multi-family housing which causes traffic ' problems. However, in this case, she would support the multi-family zoning. The downtown plan calls for housing in downtown because of the rail station. This would allow more people to live in downtown and make use of the rail station. Mu16-family housing here would probably be a good thing. Referring to the large wazehouse and recycling yard, Commissioner Taylor wondered,how attractive the area would be for a developer of mulri faznily housing. Commissioner Rollins spoke of the truck traffic on. H Street and active businesses adjacent fo it. This is a commercial area and H Street is not residential even though there are houses on it. Planner I Martin remarked that if the industrial zoning is retained, no residential uses would.be on anZgf ttie property. The homes wo.uld remain nonconforming. There would be no provisions foradditional;residential uses. Commissioner DiTwi inquiroed if the City has approached the'property owners along H Street regazding this proposed action. Assistant Ptanning Director Rued said not yet becaase they will be notified of the public hearing: Staff is°asking the Planning Commission.to decide if should move forwazd to make the zoning consistent with the Compreliensive Plan or is the Comprehensive Plaa out of adjustment and needs to move forward to be changed this fall. The City must decide what to do with ttthe neighborhood. The zoning is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and need to decide what to do with the neighborhood. , Commissioner Jones commented that by go.ing forward with.public hearing, this will give the Planning Commission an indication of what the neighbors want.for themselves. She proposed that Commission move forward with the public hearing for a. zone change here. - Planner I Martin explained that a public hearing for each zoning change is required. The Commission can go out and view exhbit B-10 area. -6- . . MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JiJNE 6 2000 cHARLES A. sooTH„MAYOR AUBURN CITY CLERK . Danielle Daskam,cirycierkCommissioner Rollins referr t E oective puMh*bWVOA*A &hW7k)M 98001 Cathy Richazdson, Depury l 9 Tamie Bothell, R~o~ir.ic ~ er I Martin menti pl of t~~,~~~~~- ow 253) 288-3132 tilL Comprehensive Plan designation and Vice Chairman EIQem wondered about when to schedule the public hearing. Planner I Martin indicated , that staff hoped to conduct the public hearing in July. Assistant Planning Director Rued advised that the public hearing would have to be in July or wait until December. If this is not acted on in July, the changes would have to wait until the fall and after the annual Comprehensive Plan amendment process. He reminded the Commission about the numerous matters coining before them in the next months. The consensus was to conduct the public heazing in July. . INFORMATION: Comtrehensive Plan Year 2000 Amendments Brochure Principal Planner Osaki remarked that thebrochure was made available to the public to solicit applications during the amendment cycle. An advertisement will.appear in the South County Joumal. ADJOURNMENT: With no furtheritems to come before the Commission the meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. PCWGUVIIN06-2000 -7-