Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-23-1996MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMM[ INITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 23.1996 The regular meeting of the Planning and Community Development Committee was held September 23, 1996 in the Council Work Area. Those members in attendance were as follows: MEMBERS PRESENT: Trish Borden, Rich Wagner and Sue Singer STAFF PRESENT: ALSO PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Bob Sokol, Lynn Rued, Betty Sanders, Bill Mandeville, Diane Supler, Dick Deal, Andy Waters and Patti Zook Mayor Booth; John Rader, Chamber of Commerce; A[Keimig, Keimig Associates; Ron Olson, Garrett Enumclaw Company The meeting was called to order by Committee Chair Borden at 7:30 p.m. 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendments Mr. Sokol distributed a sheet which showed changes resulting from the September 17th Planning Commission meeting. These recommendations are marked with an asterisk (*). At the last PCDC meeting, staff reviewed the draft Comp Plan amendments. Eric Laschever, attorney for Burlington Northem Sante Fe Railroad, was present at the Planning Commission meeting and submitted a letter which contained their changes to the amendments. Mr. Sokol reviewed the highlighted changes. Mr. Sokol explained that Policy CF-62 contains major changes regarding the siting policy. This policy now contains two processes to reflect the difference between large or small essential public facility. He reviewed the new Policy CF-63 which incorporates comments made by Mr. Laschever. He provided information on Planning Director determinations. Councilmember Wagner asked if Policy CF-62 would take away City controls on SEPA review. Mr. Rued replied that the City has to do SEPA review because it is mandated by the State. NEPA review can still be done. Mr. Sokol pointed out the wording change to Policy CF-66. Councilmember Wagner asked about the wording on page 7. Mr. Sokol said this paragraph clarifies what process BNSF will need to go through developing the intermodal facility. He also provided information on the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB) decision on language relating to this paragrph. He explained that Policy CF- 62 should address concerns with determinations regarding if the project is a significant change or not. Councilmember Singer asked about the City's resposne to Mr. Laschever's letter. Mr. Sokol pointed out changes made to Policy CF-62 regarding the siting process for essential public facilities. A distinction is now being made between the large and small developments. Mr. Krauss said there is a need to develop a process to define essential public facilities (EPFs) in King County as well as the state. Mr. Sokol briefly reviewed other issues raised by the railroad such as the required Plan amendment regardless of the type of development scale. This should now be addressed. Mr. Krauss spoke about the railroad's emphasis on tax revenues and their belief that they were being singled out. He explained that EPFs such as prisons or airports ave a unique impact on the city in which placed. The land is taken out of productive use. The ability to get tax revue is reduced because of the public facility. The need citys to define a package of mitigation to go with the project. The idea is that if the state or region benefits from the project in a city, then that state or regional entity should shoulder the burden of the project. PAGE 1 MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 23.1996 Councilmember Wagner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Singer, to recommend approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments, with the changes from the September 17th Planning Commission, to City Council. Chairman Borden concurred. 2. ZOA0002-96 - Zoning Ordinance Amendment to C-2 Section LR presented the staff report. He explained that the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed Zoining Ordinance amendments and recommended approval. Mr. Sokolanders presented information on the proposed amendments. She also presented background information on how the proposed amendments were brought forward. She presented eight overheads which depicted one square foot of pedestrian amenities per one linear foot frontage on a street; minium of 25 square feet pedestrian amenities for each frontage; types of amenities, infill buildings, and comer entrances to buildings. She also spoke about window frontages on street side of buildings. Councilmember Wagner asked about pedestrian amenities such as artwork and benches and how they would be counted. He aslso asked how murals would be counted. He did not think the information was very clear. Mr. Sokolanders said that the amenities have to be on private property. Councilmember Wagner said that he likes the proposed amendments. Chairman Borden said that she also likes the proposed amendments. She said that it was unclear if more setbacks would be allowed. Chairman Borden asked how the 25% figure had been chosen. Mr. Sokolanders said that staff researched what other cities had done, and that 25% seemed to work best Councilmember Singer made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wagner, to recommend approval of the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments. Chairman Borden concurred. 3. Ordinance No. 4911 Mr. Krauss presented the staff report. He showed a site plan and pointed out various locations on the site plan. He explained that Mr. Garrett wants to make use of the property, the Airport is scarce on available land. The City is currently working on a fill permit with Mr. Garrett. He explained that the time issue is critical because Mr. Garrett must have the fill completed by August. He provided background information on this site. Mr. Krauss provided information regarding the possibility of an FAA grant. He explained that the 20 acres of land is worth it to the Airport because of the problem with the trees on the property interfering with the wind tees. He explained that the transfer of property could be done concurrent with the grading approval. Councilmember Wagner asked about the delineation of wetlands on the 20 acres. Mr. Krauss said that it was about one-half. The upland areas are delineated. A discussion occurred pertaining to the FAA grant. Councilmember Singer asked what SAMP shows for the area. Mr. Krauss: explained that the property is a potential annexation area for the Airport to allow additional hangars, taxiways, and aviation related busineses. He explained that once the City received FAA money, the City could acquire land owned by others. Councilmember Wagner asked what the $50,000 would be used for. Mr. Krauss explained that the wildlife habit is a three year commitment. The amount is his estimate of cost to go to sewer utility to say the City needs five acres for enhancement, to mitigate wildlife habitat not wetland. He explained that the points must equal. PAGE 2 MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 23.1996 Councilmember Wagner asked about the chance of getting the fill permit. Mr. Krauss said that whether or not SAMP, if SAMP does not go through, the area is an isolated disconnected body of water that is a hazard to the Airport. The value is better served as ecosystem restoration. Councilmember Wagner asked about the site's history. Mr. Krauss replied that the land has been farmland. Councilmember Singer asked how sewer lagoons got there. Mr. Krauss explained that they were built by the City in late 1960s because there was no metropolitan service. The communities could build their own plants. The lagoons have not bee used since about 1973. Chairman Borden said she was okay with the proposal as presented. She thought it was a good alternative. Councilmember Wagner said it was appropriate for City Council and staffto go into executive session on this matter. He proposed that the the matter be postponed until the Council meets in executive session. Then the matter could be brought back to the PCDC. He expressed concerned about possible litigation. Councilmember Wagner said that he is not against the general notion of the land donation. Mr. Krauss said that staff will proceed on SEPA. Councilmember Wagner wonder about the cost of filling on the property. He also wanted exact language for Mr. Garret. 4. Amend 1996-97 CDBG Budget BM: presented staffreport. He presented information on the Neeley property, and explained that the appropriation was no longer needed. He presented information on the ACAP kitchen remodel project, and the AYR building improvements. Councilmember Singer said that she considers the Late Night program a priority for the City. She thought the ACAP and AYR projects were unimportant. Mr. Krauss explained that CDBG funds are to be used for construction type projects versus funding programs. Chairman Borden asked about the transfer of $5,000, earmarked for for HUD travel, to personnel costs. Mr. Krauss said that staff had not done any HUD-related travel, and this money could be reallocated. Chairman Borden how the transfer increases costs. Mr. Krauss replied the City pays for most 0fthe stafftime related to CDBG projects with general fund money, and increasing the appropriation for personnel costs would absorb more of this staff time. Chairman Borden asked about putting the $5000 into programs not personnel. Mr. Krauss explained that a capital project is needed for this money. The CDBG program is only charged 5%, which is not up to the limit. Mr. Krauss explained the need to find an eligible project. Chairman Borden asked about the time frame for these amendments. Mr. Krauss said that the amendments should done fairly quickly. Mayor said that the City Council is facing some hard budget decisions. Chairman Borden asked about the choices, and if the money could be put into the Late Night program. Mr. Krauss explained that CDBG funds are to be used for construction type projects versus funding programs. PAGE 3 MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 23. 1996 BM mentioned that the $100,000 has been allocated to the City for a while; and HUD may look at the length of time and decide that the City does not need this amount. Mr. Krauss said that staff can review the projects and fund amounts and see if any worthy projects are lacking in funding. Mayor asked if the funds would cover an upgrade to the senior center. BM replied yes, but it would be ideal if we could approroate to existing projects. If the City funds non-City entities then public announcement is required. He suggested doing nothing for now and reapproprite for next year. BM suggested keeping the $5,000 in HUD travel, and then reappropriate for next year. Chairman Borden said that should be done. BM said the figure will be left "as is." Councilmember Wagner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Singer, to recommend approval of the CDBG amendments, except for the transfer of $5,000, to City Council. Chairman Borden concurred. 5. Liquor License Application Rio Blanco Family Mexican Restaurant has applied for a Class H liquor license for property located at 3830-A "A" Street SE, Suite 201. The Committee concurred with the request. 6. Planning Department Budget Mr. Krauss stated that the budget is preliminary only. The GIS position was left unfilled after that person left. He said that the Airport budget is identical to last year. The Airport Advisory Board is raising rents on the hangars. He will distribute copies of the Airport budget at the next meeting. Chairman Borden asked about the legislative bills being available to staff through the internet. She wondered if the City was going to be "on line." Mr. Krauss said that he believes the Finance Department is reviewing the matter. He agreed that it would be beneficial for staff to access bills put on the internet by the Association of Washington Cities. Staff would also then have access to documents from HUD. Ms. Supler said that the City is considering placing one stand alone computer for certain individuals to access the internet. There is the need to build a firewall to protect the City's nextwork, but this cannot be funded now. Her department struggling with protocol and policy right now. Councilmember Wagner said that the Tribe should be mentioned as another entity the City works with. Mr. Krauss agreed that it should be listed. Mr. Krauss presented information on a Program Improvement for Nonmotorized Plan. He reviewed the Cost Center descriptions and explained there is a slight increase from last year. He mentioned that the outside legal services request is new; and why it is needed. Mayor agreed that this funding is necessary because the City does not have the in-house expertise needed for presentations before the Growth Management Hearings Board. He also mentioned the need for expertise in railroad law, and someone in Washington D.C. to oversee the City's interests. Councilmember Wagner asked why the funds are in Planning Department's budget versus the general fund. Mayor Booth explained that the funds are directly related to land use issues and this is the correct location. This enables the Planning Director tohave discretion in their use. The use of the funds would cleared through the City Attorney's office and the Mayor's office. PAGE 4 MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 23. 1996 Mr. Krauss reviewed the Cost Center descriptions for human services agencies and the new funding policy. He mentioned funds proposed for the new founter. 7. Parks and Recreation Department Budget Mr. Deal distributed additional information to the Committee regarding that department's budget. He said their budget is approximately 4.5% over 1996 budget. He explained that the Arts Commission budget increase is related to professional services. Councilmember Wagner asked if the Bravo series was paying Rs way. Mr. Deal provided information on this. Councilmember Wagner asked for additional information outlining this in more detail. Mr. Deal said that staff will provide information relating to the total cost for administering the programs. Mr. Deal said that the estimated income for the Arts Commission programs is $89,000 for 1997. Councilmember Wagner said that he does not want the City to spend a lot of out of pocket money for the programs when the City is cutting other programs. Mr. Deal reviewed the Parks Administration budget which included developing a master plan for the Olson and Fenster properties for grant and funding sources. He reviewed the Senior Center budget and the need for new fixtures. He reviewed the Recreation Services Administration budget. Councilmember Wagner asked Mr. Deal if they had done any benchmarking comparisons with adjacent cities. Mr. Deal replied that it has not been done for many years because the expenses do not reflect actual costs. He said that it could be done, but it it would be very timeconsuming. Councilmember Wagner asked about funding levels for the different programs. Ms. Supler said this is hard because it is like comparing apples to oranges. Mr. Deal mentioned that the White River Historical Museum is in the midst of their capital campaign. He mentioned that the trail is under design this fall. He spoke about the need for new mowing equipment, tractor upgrade, upgrade to various play areas and new play equipment because of safety issues. Mr. Deal reviewed the four Program Improvements which include one part maintenance employee, one part-time registration clerk, wheelchair accessible vehicle, and 3/4 time recretion specialist. Mr. Deal provided information regarding the Cemetary such as development of the next section, and severe drainage problems on the next developable acres. He mentioned the need to improve the existing entrance, and the need for a new backhoe with turf tires. He spoke about the needs of the golf course. He briefly mentioned the needs of the library, but these may be revised depending on the outcome of the annexation with King County Library System, and interlocal agreements. With no further Rems to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. PCDC\MIN~9B-96 PAGE 5