Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-03-1998MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 3, 1998 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on February 3, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Work Area of the Auburn City Hall. Those in attendance were as follows: MEMBERS: Juan Huseby, Dave Peace, Darrell Sharrard, Karen Ekrem, and Jon Evans STAFF: Lynn Rued, Bob Sokol, A1 Hicks, and Patti Zook The following members were absent: Bill Taylor and Garna Jones The meeting was called to order by Chairman Dave Peace. Assistant Planning Director Rued introduced new Planning Commission member Jon Evans. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: It was concurred by the Planning Commission that the minutes of the January 6, 1998 meeting be approved as mailed. SET WORKSESSION DATE: The Planning Commission agreed to have a worksession on Tuesday, February 24, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Work Area to discuss proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments per the Growth Management Hearings Board. The members will receive confirmation of the date and time for the worksession. CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing at their March 3, 1997 meeting on the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments per the Growth Management Hearings Board. DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. Downtown Plan Senior Planner Sokol referred to the Downtown Plan booklet, Downtown Auburn Design Master Plan, that is eight years old and mentioned that some projects were completed, grants were received, however not all projects were implemented. Some of the projects need to be re-evaluated because of new conditions in downtown because of the Burlington-Northern railroad situation. He pointed out the need for grade separations at railroad crossings and spoke about commuter rail issues. The Arai/Jackson consultant firm was hired and is developing a "downtown action plan". He spoke about the 3ra Street ramp issue. Planning Commissioner Peace sited the 3ra Street ramp project and its displacement of businesses. Senior Planner Sokol said it was originally believed that only a reconfiguration of the offramp was necessary, but there is a need now for the grade separation due to increases in rail freight traffic. Senior Planner Sokol mentioned a series of open houses held in early December that brought in 75 people and 60 people were interviewed in 1:1 meetings with the consultant to get their input for downtown. Several decisions relating to commuter rail, such as location of parking, still need to be decided. The Downtown Plan will be brought forward as part of the Comprehensive Plan amendments at the end of the year. Referring to the concept map, he pointed out various business areas in downtown, the stable residential areas in downtown, location of the commuter rail station. The commuter rail station may contribute to additional housing in the downtown area. The consultants are preparing a market study for the downtown. He pointed out the need to target more residential development in this area. Senior Planner Sokol then showed several diagrams depicting grade separations (over versus under) at 3~a Street. The trench for the underpass was originally considered desirable, however the need for pumps to keep the road dry were necessary because the water table is high at this location. Many persons thought the -1- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 3, 1998 overpass would be undesirable because it would block the view. He mentioned the difficulty of constructing the underpass because the railroad tracks cannot be blocked. An overpass with elevated intersection is the cheapest, but has the potential for the most negative impact. He then showed the loop ramp, which is the preferred alternative because of its medium cost and little visual impact relative to the other overpass alternatives. Using the loop ramp, he showed the route that would be used to access Highway 18. The traffic flow through this interchange is better than the other alternatives. He informed the Planning Commission that a presentation will be made to the City Council next Monday and staff would receive direction from the Council. He pointed out that the east bound ramp will not be 6hanged until Something develops at the railroad yard. Affordable Housing Assistant Planning Director Rued provided background on the Planning Commission's request to receive additional information on this topic. He introduced Al Hicks who is present to explain and answer questions. Senior Planner Hicks informed the Planning Commission that there are 700 subsidized King County units, 350 units by Section 8, and an unspecified number of units for special needs populations such as the mentally ill and physically challenged. He pointed out that 48.4% of the population is considered low income. He then distributed a sheet showing income information and explained the term "median" income. He explained what constitutes a low income family. He explained that the Growth Management Act (GMA) and the King County County-wide Planning Policies (CPP) drive affordable housing. Thirty-seven (37) percent of units built should be affordable housing and available to those at 80% of the median. He agreed that it is appropriate to take into consideration the amount of affordable housing in existence. Legislation is clear as to what the requirements are, and there are some Federal requirements or incentives to develop affordable housing. The City receives $400,000 in CDBG funds for preservation of housing and development of housing to meet low income needs. Planning Commissioner Peace asked if the GMA requires the 37% figure. Senior Planner Hicks said the CPP requires 37% of housing that is developed to be affordable. Senior Planner Sokol affirmed that King County determined the 37% requirement. Senior Planner Hicks distributed another sheet. He explained that $150,000 house is affordable to 80% of the population and this qualifies for the 37% requirement in today's market. Planning Commissioner Ekrem wanted to know how the 37% requirement is enforced. Senior Planner Hicks explained that the CPP is an enactment of the GMA, however there is no enforcement mechanism or counting mechanism. He agreed that there are many questions on applying affordable strategies, and the counting mechanism is questionable. Planning Commissioner Ekrem said that if it is not clearly 'defined as to what is meant by the 37% requirement, it is difficult to levy penalty. Senior Planner Hicks agreed that this is a valid argument, however the City is required to adhere to the standard. Planning Commissioner Ekrem wanted to know if the GMA is standard and CPP is specific to King County, can Auburn set its own specific'criteria and make it effective from a certain date. Senior Planner Hicks said the question is whether the City did the required number of units. The City is now looking at the creation of 300 units for seniors and these will be counted for low income units. Assistant Planning Director Rued stressed that a developer can be forced to develop this type of housing. Senior Planner Hicks agreed that this cannot be done any more. Developers need subsidies to make it attractive for them to build the units. Senior Planner Hicks pointed out that the biggest factor is the interest rates. He is not aware of any new single family developments targeted to low income people. He mentioned that Federal Way is now doing a home ownership program. This is the type of program Auburn would like to do and he provided information on this proposed program. -2- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 3, 1998 Assistant Planning Director Rued pointed out that different terms are used between what Senior Planner Hicks uses for Federal purposes and the broader planning concept of making housing affordable. Senior Planner Hicks said there are a number of incongruities. He pointed out that not many single parent families will want to live in a PUD because it will be beyond their means. Other forms of housing are available. Planning Commissioner Peace suggested separating the two definitions of affordable housing. He likes the idea of a classy development with amenities for a cheaper price. He requested different wording so the connotation is taken away. Assistant Planning Director Rued pointed out that developers want to build for higher incomes and more profit. Senior Planner Hicks referred to the housing adjacent to the rail station and said this housing will most likely be used by double income families because it will provide an easier commute to Seattle for jobs. It is less likely a developer will want to put a development adjacent to the rail station because he will want a site that is less costly. Planning Commissioner Peace asked what would happen if paragraph "H" on page 3 is removed from the PUD ordinance. Assistant Planning Director Rued pointed out that the policy is in the Comprehensive Plan already. Senior Planner Sokol pointed out that the City could be asked what it has done to promote affordable housing. Planning Commissioner Ekrem asked if a reference to the GMA and CPP could be made instead of actually writing it out. She did not see the need to rewrite the requirement. Senior Planner Hicks stressed the need to diversify Auburn's population and tax base, and mentioned drivers of legislative issues. In the meantime, the City must comply with the legislation. Assistant Planning Director Rued explained that the City did not write the PUD ordinance to meet the 37% requirement. He said the wording can be taken out and the GMA and CPP referenced. Senior Planner Sokol referred to the work done recently to revise the Comprehensive Plan, and is reluctant to include a percentage because of Auburn's "fair share". Planning Commissioner Ekrem referred to the map which showed where PUDs could be located and wanted to confm-n that the area adjacent to the rail station is not suitable for a PUD. Assistant Planning Director Rued said the area adjacent to the rail area not large enough to develop as a PUD. Using the Comprehensive Plan map, he pointed out where PUDs could be such as adjacent to the drive in theaters, 'T' Street area; adjacent to Lakeland Hills on Kersey Way. There is not a lot of vacant residentially zoned land of 10 acres that would support a PUD. Planning Commissioner Ekrem wanted to confirm that applicant to develop a PUD will have to provide detailed information on the project. Assistant Planning Director Rued pointed out the detailed design requirements. Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance Planning Commissioner Ekrem asked about the procedure for bringing this item forward. Assistant Planning Director Rued said the Planning Commission should schedule a public hearing on the PUD ordinance. Planning Commissioner Peace informed the Planning Commission and staff that he is now comfortable with the document. Assistant Planning Director Rued said the Planning Commission would conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council. He suggested that the Planning Commission discuss the PUD -3- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 3, 1998 ordinance at the worksession scheduled for February 24th. The Planning Commission agreed to discuss this issue at the February 24~ worksession and have the public hearing at their regular March meeting. Planning Commissioner Ekrem thanked Assistant Planning Director Rued for his efforts at providing detailed information on the PUD ordinance and responding to the Commission's questions and concerns. ADJOURNMENT: With no further items to come before the Commission the meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. PC~VIIN2-98 -4-