HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-13-1997MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
OCTOBER 13, 1997
The regular meeting of the Planning and Community Development Committee was held October 13, 1997 in the
Council Work Area. Those members in attendance were as follows:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Trish Borden, Jeanne Barber, and Rich Wagner
STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Bob Sokol, Al Hicks, Betty Sanders, Dick Deal, and Patti Zook
ALSO PRESENT:
Mayor Booth; Diane Supler, Finance Director; Kevin Simmons, Centex Real Estate
representative
The meeting was called to order by Committee Chair Borden at 7:30 p.m.
1. Forest Ridge Drive Gate Revision
Planning Director Krauss provided background information on this situation. Kerie Swepston, 2415 Forest
Ridge Drive SE, has requested a revision to the emergency access gate. Relocation of the barricade could
strand new homes. Using an overhead, he pointed out four options that could be discussed and one
selected to help alleviate the problems now experienced by the Swepstons.
Chairman Borden is aware that the Swepston home is isolated now. The Council is sensitive to the need to
curtail traffic between the two subdivisions.
Mrs. Sweptston distributed a drawing to the Committee. She referred to correspondence submitted at the
October 6, 1997 Council meeting. She described the circular drive they wish to install and suggested the
gate be angled. The request would not undermine the spirit of the gate. She explained that her family has
lived in the house about 10 years and her parents built the house about 28 years ago. They no longer have
access to Forest Ridge Drive. The grade on the new drive is 12% which makes the driveway virtually
unusable. The current drive has been torn up since July and the front yard as a 2.5 foot drop.
Chairman Borden said the only issue is the home having access to Forest Ridge Drive as they have had for
the previous 28 years. Ms. Swepston said they are trying to control access to their home.
Mary Moon, Forest Ridge resident, said a compromise was made on installation of the gate to separate
Forest Ridge from Riverwalk. She emphasized that the location of the gate should not be changed. She
said the Swepston home was never part of the Forest Ridge development.
Kevin Simmons, Centex Real Estate and Riverwalk representative, said the gate was installed at the
direction of the City Council. Centex Real Estate met previously with the neighbors and the Swepstons.
He said that something could be worked out so that access is not compromised. He believes the Swepstons
are taking on a tremendous burden at their own expense in regard to gate maintenance and monitoring. He
agreed that the Swepstons have had historic access to Forest Ridge and that their request is not
unreasonable.
Planning Director Krauss explained that the City is not in a position to maintain a private gate. It would
not be located on public property or in the right-of-way.
Councilmember Barber believes if the house has always had historic access to Forest Ridge it should have
access again. She supports the Swepstons having access to Forest Ridge, however she did not support the
request for a circular drive.
Chairman Borden asked Mrs. Swepston if they wish to have access through Forest Ridge, and Mrs.
Swepston said yes.
PAGE 1
MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
OCTOBER 13.1997
There was an animated discussion between neighbors and the Swepstons. Several neighbors spoke and
said they do not support the Swepston's request at all. A large number of the Forest Ridge residents came
to the meeting and all were unsupportive of the Swepstons' request.
Councilmember Wagner said there is strong support to gate the community. The Council's overriding
policy is to separate the two communities. He wants to leave the gate where it is currently located.
Councilmember Barber said she agrees with Councilmember Wagner, because the ordinance was passed in
good faith by City Council:
Chairman Borden said that she would like to see the Swepstons have better access to their house, and it
would be a nice compromise to honor their request.
Consolidated Plan
Senior Planner Hicks presented the staff report. Councilmember Wagner made a motion, seconded by
Councilmember Barber, to recommend Council hold a public hearing on October 20, 1997. Chairman
Borden concurred.
Senior Wellness Project - Resolution 2875
Parks and Recreation Director Deal presented the staff report. The agreement is for providing senior
wellness programs to the elderly.
Councilmember Wagner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Barber to recommend approval.
Chairman Borden concurred.
Final Pay Estate for PR574
Parks and Recreation Director Deal presented the staff report for improvements to Mill Pond Park.
Councilmember Wagner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Barber to recommend approval.
Chairman Borden concurred.
Agreement for Artwork
Parks and Recreation Director Deal presented the staff report. He presented a design of wrought iron work
to be installed at the Pioneer Cemetery to make the area more attractive. He anticipates the art being
installed later this month. The boat business across the street is expected to relocate in the spring which
will make the parking lot available.
Councilmember Wagner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Barber to recommend approval.
Chairman Borden concurred.
Consultant Agreement with Olson Sundberg
Parks and Recreation Director Deal said this will be presented at the at the next meeting.
Comprehensive Plan
Senior Planner Sokol presented information and said the Planning Commission conducted two public
hearings on September 22 and October 7 and suggested that the City Council also hold two public
hearings. He spoke about the proposed Comp Plan amendments that were controversial at the Planning
Commission meeting. He explained that CPM #4 is broken into two parts and that the City requested a
PAGE 2
MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
OCTOBER 13. 1997
change Comp Plan map designation to allow a mobile home park on 20 acres. There was a significant
amount of testimony at the September 22 Planning Commission meeting against this project. The Planning
Commission was clear that the City does not need more mobile home parks. There is sufficient low
income housing in place to service needs of the community. The Planning Commission then went a step
further and recommended denial of the property owner's request and recommended that the Comp Plan
map designation be changed to single family residential. This was not before the Planning Commission
and this action may have exceeded their authority. The Planning Commission recommended approval of
the public and quasi-public portion of the request. The adjacent property owners were clearly against the
mobile home park. Their concerns included traffic, lower housing values, low income housing next to
their homes, storm drainage and wetlands.
Chairman Borden asked about street connectors to be completed. Senior Planner Sokol said that private
streets are there now that do not provide access. It is questionable as to how the development can take
place with the private streets. The property owner believes the site would be difficult to develop as single
family homes. Street standards for mobile home parks are much less rigorous than for single family
homes.
Councilmember Wagner mentioned the possibility about a potential lawsuit by the property owner because
he was denied being able to develop the property, but Councilmember Wagner indicated was not excited
about another mobile home park in the City.
Janice Severson, a representative for the adjacent property owners, reiterated their concerns about wetlands
and flooding in the area even after construction of the new pump station. The 30 acre to be storm basin is
really only a "pit". She wants the owner to turn property over for a park. The residents do not want a
mobile home park there. The City has more than enough duplexes, apartments, and mobile home parks.
Chairman Borden wanted to know what zoning allows for private streets. Senior Planner Sokol said that
the R-2 zoning allows private streets and the streets in the neighborhood also have speed bumps.
Ms. Severson said some of the development in the area is poor development because the units have zero lot
lines. She commented further that no side street parking is allowed in the private street area.
Chairman Borden asked if the R-2 zoning would allow for the private streets. Senior Planner Sokol said
the current zoning is R-2 and half street improvements to 'T' Street would be improved with development
of the project. He is not sure of Public Works' timeline for the detention facility.
Planning Director Krauss provided information on CMP #3 pertaining to the Terrace View development.
Staff is comfortable with the project and the developers have been cooperative in incorporating Auburn's
changes. Terrace View needs water and sewer from the City, but a complicating issue is that City policies
say that if utilities are wanted and the site is adjacent to the City, then the site must annex to receive the
utilities. Staff is working with Terrace View to develop a pre-annexation agreement, but staff does not
want to prematurely annex Terrace View because the City wants Pierce County to build the road. Terrace
View is ready to move ahead with the multi family portion of the development and Pierce County is ready
to build portions of the highway. A complication is the difficulty of the City to absorb the costs of the
roadway so staff want to be sure that Pierce County goes ahead with the construction of the roadway.
Planning Director Krauss indicated that staff are beginning discussions with Pierce County to resolve
certain issues and may need a power of attorney to annex at will. However, staff are reluctant because of
the many problems experienced with Lakeland and that pre-annexation agreement. The land use action
now before the PCDC is not controversial, but he wanted to alert PCDC that action on this is coming in the
future.
Mary Urback, representative for Terrace View, advised the City to let Pierce County put the road through
because it will serve Pierce County. The ramp on Terrace View property is an integral part of the road and
!
PAGE 3
MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
OCTOBER 13.1997
Pierce County expects to get the building contracts in early 1998. The road system is holding the Terrace
View project back. She spoke about Pierce County receiving a TIB grand for the roadway.
Ms. Urback said the water service area is considered "undesignated", but this is now resolved. Auburn is
the provider and a water service agreement is signed and approved. Terrace View will install utilities in
ground and then sign a latecomer's agreement.
John Cheetham mentioned an interlocal agreement with Auburn. He said the $40 million dollar corridor
project should not be passed onto to Auburn. Pierce County has the funding, capacity, and the ability to
construct.
Chairman Borden asked why the designation is being changed to heavy commercial. Planning Director
Krauss explained that Auburn does not have a designation that matches the Pierce County designation, but
heavy commercial would be the closest designation. Chairman Borden said that theoretically the
designation could allow other development. Planning Director Krauss explained that the topography does
not allow or lend itself to commercial except at the Terrace View site. Planning Director Krauss suggested
using the intervening time between the PCDC and City Council meetings to see ifa mixed use designation
is possible. He will talk with Mary Urback and see if this could be possible.
John Cheetham said that Pierce County's recommendation was for the upper portion of the site to be for
multi family and the lower portion for mixed use. It would be in Pierce County's best interest for one
designation on the site.
Senior Planner Sokol spoke regarding CMP #7 pertaining to the Stewart parcel and the Potential
Annexation Area (PAA) which now has a revised description. He mentioned the two alternatives. Staff
and the Planning Commission feel that City Council's direction will be dictated by King County's action.
He stressed that a lot of issues are still up in air because matters are out of the City's control. Other option
would be if King County Boundary Review Board says the property could annex to Auburn, and the rural
designation to light industrial. City Council is concerned about future development; but this depends on
the future actions by Hearing Examiner and City Council to safeguard interests of the community. King
County and staff are discussing compromises.
Chairman Borden asked why the City is processing this amendment at all. Senior Planner Sokol explained
that the City is processing the annexation because they were asked to by the property owner. Senior
Planner Sokol spoke regarding PT #7 and explained the minor changes made to this report based on
discussions. The Task Force members are happy with the report. The Planning Commission
recommended approval. He pointed out a change to page 17 and 33 pertaining to the 277th connector to
avoid a dispute with residents in the north Lea hill area.
Chairman Borden asked about the timing of the 277th corridor determination. Senior Planner Sokol
expects resolution this winter on the 277th connection. Chairman Borden asked about fire hydrants.
Senior Planner Sokol provided information on sprinkling requirements in the neighborhoods if no hydrants
are in place. Senior Planner Sokol explained that the fire district would transfer to the City a percentage of
assets.
Planning Director Krauss explained that the issue of sprinklers is a big one which will need to be discussed
in the upcoming year. An updated fire plan and station plan to address response time will also need to be
in place.
Senior Planner Sokol said that at the at next Committee meeting, before the Council public hearings, staff
could discuss the Committee's concerns on any specific item.
Senior Planner Sokol referred to PT #8 and pointed out the revised Chapter 8 and new Chapter 10 which
were in the agenda packet. The level of service issue for the parks still needs to be resolved.
PAGE 4
MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE OCTOBER 13, 1997
Parks and Recreation Director Deal then spoke regarding the Park Plan and that focus needs to be on
Chapter 10. He provided a brief overview of what the City trying to accomplish with this Park Plan, which
is the most compressive Park Plan ever developed. Needs were identified in Park Plan system. He then
presented an overhead showing 4 goals and policy statements. He then showed a map of"Existing Parks",
a map of"Proposed Parks", a map of"Analysis of Park Coverages", and a map of "Existing and Proposed
Trails". Parks and Recreation Director Deal then reviewed the overhead of the steps one through four of
park and open space, land and facilities, and an overhead of proposed improvements to existing parks.
Councilmember Wagner asked why the skateboard park is being deleted. Finance Director Supler said this
park is programmed for a program improvement for next year and funding for $125,000 for site acquisition
and construction. This was a Council goal and priority and staffare taking steps to accomplish.
Councilmember Wagner said that a location for the park should be decided upon and get into public
domain for comment. Parks and Recreation Director Deal explained that a consultant must be retained, but
a preliminary study was already done.
Mayor explained that the park must be accessible for the police because some local jurisdictions have been
having problems in the parks. Parks and Recreation Director Deal said the location of such a facility is
very important and it must be a very visible location. Parks and Recreation Director Deal then showed an
overhead of improvements to undeveloped park land and explained that neighborhood parks are driven by
growth in the community. He then showed an overhead of approximate value of existing park system. He
then did a quick overview of Chapter 10.
Randy Young, Henderson and Young Company, the consultant working on impact fees, spoke previously
to the Committee and Council on impact fees periodically over the last five months. He explained that now
is the end of the briefing stage, that Council must make choices soon, and Council will need to narrow the
field to decide which option is palatable and which option has the greatest support, and decide preferences
for financing. He spoke about paying for capital improvements for parks. He presented an overhead of 5
options for financing for future capital improvements and how these might be funded. The options were:
1) city funding; 2) grants and countywide initiatives; 3) developer fees and dedications (impact fees); 4)
girls/dedications/donations; 5) program fees. He then presented an overhead on standards for different
types of parks and the existing ratio versus existing standards, and the recommended standard. Mr. Young
said that the citizens need to have a clear understanding of what the words developed park mean. He then
reviewed an overhead of the park level of service and reviewed options one through five. These options
are: 1) maintain current level of service; 2) reduce level of service to developed parks level and impact
fees to be charged to accomplish option 2; 3) bond issue or general fund contribution; 4) bond issue and
impact fees to be charged to accomplish option 4; 5) land in City ownership and impact fees to accomplish
option 4.
A discussion occurred about the different options and what might happen if that particular option were
supported. A discussion occurred about the different scenarios and what their impact might be. Mr.
Young explained that the Council will have to decide what their "appetite" for impact fees is, what is
reasonable for new comers to pay even if an increase in home prices occurs.
Planning Director Krauss explained that Council will need to determine what are common fees for a
community like Auburn to charge. He advised that the builders association will oppose the implementation
of any impact fees. Mr. Young explained that the two percent rule of thumb is a safe figure. Planning
Director Krauss said that the Auburn School District does not impose an impact fee, but the Deriegner
School District does have impact fees and the Kent Schools have an impact fees. Mr. Young explained that
there is not a current data base of what community is doing what regarding impact fees. The AWC study
contains old data and is not useful. Another factor to consider is that every fee is charged to a house, not
every fee charged to a development will pay for road impact and fire fee; also, development will not pay
park fee or school fee because of federal court case decisions.
PAGE 5
MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
OCTOBER 13.1997
A discussion occurred about lowering the park level of service to five acres because the City has purchased
a surplus of park acres that the City now owns and has developed for residents not yet in the area. A
discussion occurred about the two choices to be made, whether to give away or charge for the land under
Washington law as a latecomer type fee or reimbursement fee.
Chairman Borden wondered about lowering the standard to five acres. Mr. Young said that the Council
would need to declare that system is excessive and that Council must make this interpretation.
Mayor spoke about the need to correct the imbalance of people outside the City using the parks because
this has a tremendous impact on the parks. Mr. Young said there have been unsuccessful attempts by other
cities to impose user fees on these people and have the parks patrolled by park "police" to determine who
are City residents and who are not. He explained that early annexation is the solution and mentioned the
failure of King County to keep up the national standards, and that the City will inherit a bigger deficiency.
Mr. Young said that Council needs to decide if the City is heading in the right direction. Should the park
level of service be lowered, or proceed with developing impact fees.
Chairman Borden suggested lowering the standard to 6 acres instead of 6.03. Councilmember Wagner said
this lowering would be reasonable. He suggested that Council review the methodology of fees and decide
if necessary to charge large impact fee.
Councilmember Barber has heard citizens talk about the parks and the comments heard relating to the
parks were all good. The comments were very complimentary, and she is worried about high impact fees.
Mayor said it is helpful took at total for transportation and fire impact fees. Planning Director Krauss said
that fire fee is a year off.
Senior Planner Sokol wanted to reiterate that it is important to note when decisions need to be made before
the Comp Plan amendments are adopted, and special meeting of full CC to decide LOS
Councilmember Wagner does not see the need for a workshop on the Park Plan as suggested by
Councilmember Singer. Chairman Borden said that if one Councilmember has questions, that person could
contact Parks and Recreation Director Deal to get answers.
Councilmember Wagner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Barber, to recommend City Council
call for a public hearing and conduct the public hearings on November 3 and November 17. Chairman
Borden concurred.
Planning and Communi .ty Development Department Budget
Planning Director Krauss spoke about two requested program improvements which would involve outside
help. Most of the numbers are similar to years past. He mentioned a policy to enable Human Services
Committee (HSC) to start funding, but the erratic situation in State Legislation to reduce taxes makes it
difficult to forecast.
Diane Supler, Finance Director, spoke about problems with the 1% figure to be used by the HSC because it
is based on general funds. She spoke briefly about restricted revenues. The City is looking at changing the
percentage based on undesignated revenue and may go up to 1.2%. However, the figure does not appear to
be a good number because it is based on restricted revenues. She then suggested a base of $260,000 given
revenues, determine what equates to undesignated revenues, and then work with this percentage.
Planning Director Krauss pointed out a new line item for legal services because there is not a designated
source of funds to draw on to pay the invoices.
PAGE 6
MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
OCTOBER 13. 1997
10.
11.
12.
13.
With no
Councilmember Wagner wondered why a figure was not projected for automation/technical forecasting.
Planning Director Krauss explained that Public Works is expanding their GIS capability. Finance Director
Supler mentioned that the Finance Department budgets for all computers, phones and office supplies. The
Planning Department has reduced this line item, but Public Works has increased.
Planning Director Krauss further explained that the Planning Department cut its GIS position. The
Department was going to budget for a workstation, but now just updates as the City is moving away from
stand-alone GIS.
Councilmember Wagner asked Finance Director Supler if she was concerned that the Planning Department
may get short shrift in GIS services. Finance Director Supler said that J.R. Smith, GIS Coordinator in
Public Works, has three full time staff people to update the information and offer assistance to other
offices.
Parks and Recreation Department Budget
Parks and Recreation Director Deal distributed information on golf course budget. They will back off on
capital expenditures to compensate for the reduction in revenues. He briefly mentioned proposed
improvements at the golf course. He then distributed information on the cemetery and spoke of
improvements. He then distributed information on the Parks Department budget and mentioned
construction of a new library. He mentioned a program improvement pertaining to a skatepark.
Councilmember Wagner asked about fund for the skate park. Mayor said that a local group is trying to
obtain funding for a park. Councilmember Wagner believes this is a good idea because the users would
then feel some ownership of the park.
Correspondence to Federal Aviation Administration
Correspondence to Chuck Mize, King Coun _ty. regarding Potential Annexation Area
Memorandum regarding Ci.ty of Kent-Lea Hill Water Supply Impoundment Project
AmeriCom_ s Team Update
The above listed information items were transmitted to the Committee. No discussion of the items
occurred.
further items to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
PCDCLMINM 0A-97
PAGE 7