Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-27-1998MINUTES (revised) OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE APRIL 27, 1998 The regular meeting of the Planning and Community Development Committee was held April 27, 1998 in the Council Work Area. Those members in attendance were as follows: MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: ALSO PRESENT: Sue Singer, Pete Lewis, and Jeanne Barber Paul Krauss, Bob Sokol, A1 Hicks, Dick Deal, and Patti Zook Mayor Booth; Heath Merchen, Auburn School District attorney; Mary Urbach; Will Jalem, Dierringer School District Board Member; Chuck Henderson, Lakeland; Stephen Sheehy, Lakeland attorney; The meeting was called to order by Acting Committee Chair Singer at 7:50 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING 1. WSC0001-96 - D&E Investments Councilmember Singer opened the public hearing. ~' Senior Planner Sokol presented the staff report and reviewed the findings of fact. The proposal is consistent with Policy CE-3. The applicant was present, but did not speak. Councilmember Lewis made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Barber, to close the public hearing. Councilmember Singer concurred. Councilmember Lewis made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Barber, to recommend approval. Councilmember Singer concurred. ACTION ITEMS Contract with Miller Hull Designs - Senior Center Parks and Recreation Director Deal said this was not available. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Resolution 2939 - Auburn Youth Resources Resolution 2940 - ACAP Daycare Resolution 2941 - Auburn Food Bank Resolution 2942 - ACAP Apple Resolution 2943 - Community Health Center Resoltition 2944 - Children's Home Society Resolution 2945 - DAWN Resolution 2946 - DAWN-Community Advocate Resolution 2947 - King County Sexual Assault Resource Center Resolution 2948 - Valley Cities Counseling & Consultation Resolution 2949 - Washington Women's Employment & Education Resolution 2950 -EDC Agreement Resolution 2951 - Respite Program These resolutions were voted.on as one item. Councilmember Lewis made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Barber, to recommend approval. Councilmember Singer concurred. 15. Interlocal Agreement and Fee Schedule Relating to School Impact Fees Heath Merchen, representative for Auburn School District, expressed concern about the City's school impact fee ordinance, particularly the indemnity provision. The District is concerned about potential uninsured losses. He understands that negotiations between the parties are ongoing. He just received PAGE 1 MINUTES (revised) OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE APRIL 27, 1998 16. information which was prepared this morning. He mentioned the potential constitutionality challenges to an impact fee ordinance and believed the City should share the risk with the District. Mayor reminded the Committee that this is the first impact fee ordinance being processed, and that others are under consideration. Planning Director Krauss explained that Auburn was asked to adopt this type of ordinance by Dierringer School District and that impact fee ordinances for schools are difficult because of the State mandate. The State says that districts cannot collect their own fees, but must work through cities or counties. The City Attorney did not want the City exposed to any unnecessary risk. Ms. Urbach raised concerns about the indemnity issue. If the attack is related to the ordinance containing an incorrect formula, or misappropriation of school district funds, etc., the City's risk pool will not cover these. Planning Director Krauss said the the City should not pay for any lawsuits because the City is not benefiting from the ordinance. Mayor mentioned a few cities, such as Kent, Bothell, Redmond, Enumclaw, and Bainbridge Island, that have been doing the school impact fee ordinances for a number of years. Mary Urbach, attorney for the Dierringer School District, informed the Committee that she spoke with the City Attorney this afternoon and she understands the City's position. She talked with the City Attorney about a few minor revisions to his changes relating to the constitutionality challenge. If procedural due process challenges occur relating to proper notification, adoption, etc., the City agreed to assume some responsibility. The School District prefers not to enter into any indemnity provision, but would agree to the City Attorney's compromise language. The other school impact fee ordinances do not have this provision and other jurisdictions have not required the provision. Other jurisdictions are willing to assume their responsibility. Will Julem, Dierringer School District Board Member, said that his school district will be impacted by three times as many students as are now enrolled. Having an impact fee ordinance in place will help the District sell bonds. He agreed with some of Mr. Merchen's comments relating to the indemnity provision not being required by other jurisdictions. The District will work closely with the City on administering the ordinance. Mr. Sheehy asked if the impact fee ordinance will be in effect at the time of Lakeland's annexation. Planning Director Krauss said the 30 day clock concludes on May 15, and the whole package will become active. Councilmember Lewis made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Barber, to forward the interlocal agreement and fee schedule to the City Council, with modifications as recommended by the City Attorney. ANX0002-98 - Lakeland Annexation - Phase 2 Planning Director Krauss advised that Lakeland Phase I annexation becomes effective on May 15th. Staff is anxious to complete the annexation for all of Lakeland. Regarding the Lake Tapps Parkway, Pierce County is not seeking money from the City, but only cooperation. Staff is working with Pierce County to resolve certain issues. Phase 2 annexation includes all of Lakeland not involved in Phase 1, including the Terrace View properties. Terrace View has applied for water and sewer certificate review and the annexation petition will be coming forward to the Committee. Referring to a map, he pointed out the properties involved in the Phase 2 annexation. If the Phase 2 annexation does not suffer an appeal at the Pierce County Boundary Review Board, the annexation could be f'mished at the end of the summer. He noted that the Boundary Review Board might be obligated to approve the annexation anyway. PAGE 2 MINUTES (revised) OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE APRIL 27, 1998 Councilmember Lewis advised that he did not want the annexation to proceed if the City is required to expend funds for the Parkway. Planning Director Krauss advised the City and Pierce County were working to have an interlocal agreement approved and adopted before this Phase 2 annexation is completed. The interlocal agreement would limit Auburn's support to right.-of-way acquisition. If the City is unable to complete the agreement, it can pull back to the north side of the right-of-way to eliminate the roadway issues. Chuck Henderson, Lakeland Company, said he is confused about the issue of the City's commitment relating to the cost of the Lake Tapps Parkway. The Parkway as defined by Henderson is the first phase of a multi-phase project. He is not clear on the understanding between all parties relating to the funding of lanes. Mayor said this is not an issue now. The parties can jointly search for funds through ISTEA. The additional lanes when required are-not to Auburn's benefit. They should be funded by regional and State sources much the same as the 277th Street project. Mr. Henderson referred to the settlement agreement and there being some ambiguity relating to the City having no further obligation to pay for the road. He said that if the road is located in the City, then it is the City's road. Planning Director Krauss mentioned discussions with Pierce County. Henderson Company and Pierce County have assumed responsibility for the project. It is unclear when the additional two lanes are to be built. Mr. Henderson wants to insure that no one will come back to Henderson Company later and say they must "ante up". They did not have any idea that the City was proceeding with the Phase 2 annexation. This has major implications to negotiations about the road right-of-way and other issues. He cautioned the City not to rush forward with the Phase 2 annexation with thinking about the timing issues. Ms. Urbach referred to Planning Director Krauss' comments about moving the annexation boundary back, and her concern that part of Terrace View is being left in Pierce County while the majority of Terrace View would be in Auburn. Planning Director Krauss advised that he has been in contact with Pierce County and they now have a draft inerlocal agreement for review. Councilmember Lewis made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Barber, to recommend Council authorize an annexation petition for Phase 2. Councilmember Singer concurred. DISCUSSION ITEM 1. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board - Statement of Compliance No discussion was held on this item. INFORMATION ITEMS I. Livable Communities Conference Senior Planner Hicks briefly reviewed the memorandum and attachments. Metro-King County Councilmembers Fimia and Vance support this fair. It is an effort for the government to "reach out" to the citizen and develop communication relating to the issues of concern. Mayor confn'med that this is a very serious issue before the local governments. Senior Planner Hicks mentioned some ways for the City support this idea. Councilmember Lewis asked if the ideas were an extension of the Growth Management Act. Senior Planner Hicks said yes and then it moves into some other issues. The conference organizers are looking at PAGE 3 MINUTES (revised) OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE APRIL 27, 1998 a professional firm to manage the fair. It would be an opportunity for Auburn to interact with other jurisdictions. Councilmember Singer asked if an outcome is for the activists to go back to work with the community. Senior Planner Hicks said they are taking about people gqing back into the community and acting on what was learned at the conference. They are talking about taking ideas that worked elsewhere and replicating them in the communities. Councilmember Lewis emphasized the need for Auburn to be represented at the fair. It would be in the City's best interest to be a participant. Mayor suggested that the service clubs, Chamber of Commerce, and Auburn Downtown Association be made aware of the conference. Councilmember Lewis reiterated that it is in Auburn's best interest to be present at the conference. Councilmember Lewis referred to the draft motion and wondered what else might be contained in the motion that would impact Auburn. Mayor will get more information and present to the Committee. 2. Chronic Public Inebriates (CPI) Mayor spoke about the increased police presence in downtown area to deal with CPIs. He has met and spoken to the tavern owners and the Liquor Control Board representatives. Senior Planner Hicks gave a brief background on the task force. A consulting firm has been retained for the process. A concern for the jurisdictions is the ability to challenge the issuance or reissuance of liquor licenses. With no further items to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. PCDCWIINX4B-9~ PAGE 4