Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-26-1998MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MAY 26, 1998 The regular meeting of the Planning and Community Development Committee was held May 26, 1998 in the Council Work Area. Those members in attendance were as follows: MEMBERS PRESENT: Trish Borden, Sue Singer, and Pete Lewis STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Dick Deal, and Patti Zook ' ALSO PRESENT: Mayor Booth; Bob Minot, representative for First Wellington The meeting was called to order by Committee Chair Borden at 6:00 p.m. 1. ANX0007-97 - Burr W. Mosby (Mosby Brothers Farm) Assistant Planning Director Rued presented the staff report on a request to de-annex property from the City. Staffmet with Mr. Mosby and King County regarding the easy process to accomplish the request. The City will adopt a resolution and forward to King County for their approval. Staff recommends approval of Mr. Mosby's request. Councilmember Singer made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Lewis, to recommend that the parcel be de-annexed. Chairman Borden concurred. ZOA0004-97 - Zoning Ordinance Amendment - to add Chapter 18.69, "Planned Unit (PUD) Districf' Development Assistant Planning Director Rued presented the staff report and gave background information. The PUD ordinance was through a lengthy process before the Planning Commission. A presentation was made by developers before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission has now recommended approval of the ordinance with no substantive changes by Planning Commission. A concern of the Planning Commission was that the PUD could be a vehicle for low income housing and not result in a mix of housing types. After this issue was explained, they became comfortable with the PUD. The developers who testified did not want many standards in the PUD. All PUD projects will be dictated by the Comprehensive Plan density. The PUD ordinance has struck a balance with what staff recommended and what Planning Commission approved. He then referred to page 8 and changes made to the ordinance. The minimum lot sizes and minimum lot widths were revised. The developers wanted even smaller lots and taller buildings. These developers will want to do a presentation to the Committee similar to their presentation to the Planning Commission. Councilmember Lewis said the ordinance clearly makes it easier for mutli family housing to be developed and wanted to know if any of the definitions talk about quality development. Assistant Planning Director Rued referred to page 19 which has a series of findings of fact for Council to review for approving a PUD. A developer has to prove his proposal is a quality prgject or the City does not have to approve. This is somewhat subjective on the City's part. The large selling point of a PUD ordinance is that it produces a quality product by a developer. If the Council is uncomfortable with a project, findings can be used to add features or not approve project. Councilmember Lewis presented a scenario and asked if the Council can make a subjective decision that the project does not meet the criteria. Assistant Planning Director Rued mentioned the findings which are broad so that the Council can decide if the project meets the findings or not. Planning Director Krauss said that in PUDs it is hard to define what "enhanced quality" is, but staff and the Council know it when they see it. Council will have a great deal of discretion in the approval process. The Hearing Examiner will make a recommendation and Council will decide if the PUD meets the City's standards. Developers will benefit from the ordinance because more units than normally permitted can be built. During the developers' presentation, they will give the Committee an idea of what they are proposing to meet the City's goals. PAGE 1 r MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MAY 26, 1998 Chairman Borden asked about the approval process to be used. There was some question as to whether the PUD would go through the Hearing Examiner first and then to the Council. She mentioned a problem for the Council when dealing with subjective contract rezones. Planning Director Krauss said the Hearing Examiner will hold the hearing and make a recommendation to the Council. Assistant Planning Director Rued mentioned that as proposed now, staff puts together the record and brings to the Hearing Examiner. There is the opportunity for lots of public comment before the hearing. The Hearing Examiner builds upon this at the hearing. All the information is presented to Council for their final decision. As to whether Council holds a hearing or not, does not change the Council's ability to modify. Council can hold a closed record hearing and comment on record established so far. Chairman Borden is concerned that some Councilmembers think the decision making ability has been diminished by the process. Assistant Planning Director Rued acknowledged that on normal rezones not much latitude is available if the rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. If the proposal is a conditional use permit or PUD, Council has broader findings of fact to look at and see if it wants to approve or not. The Council looks at the record and staff recommends if the project should be approved or not. Council can use the record to base their decision upon. Council can change Hearing Examiner decision as long as it is within the findings of fact or based on something in the record. Councilmember Lewis presented a design standard scenario of all houses have front porches and Council says no, the front porches have to have railing around two sides, who resolves the differences. Assistant Planning Director Rued said the initial recommendation of front porches is in the record and Council can tinker with this. Planning Director Krauss advised that once the Council has the PUD, it can say front porches are not enough of an improvement, and send back to the Hearing Examiner. Assistant Planning Director Rued said if the developer says that front porches meet the test of better development, staff and Hearing Examiner could agree and the Council could still say no. Planning Director Krauss advised that rezones are open and shut cases if the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. He then mentioned a recent rezone case. A PUD project is not an entitlement of approval, where a rezone if consistent is. Councilmember LeWis said he did not have a problem with the Hearing Examiner portion of the ordinance. Chairman Borden mentioned the concern of Council being able to add conditions to a project. Planning Director Krauss advised that he will asked the City Attorney to speak with the Committee and provide information. Councilmember Lewis would like to review the PUD ordinance further. Chairman Borden has read the PUD ordinance previously and noticed some changes made since she last read it. She has trouble knowing exactly what the City is getting from a PUD. Assistant Planning Director Rued referred to page 2 and the findings listed there. Pla ~nning Director Krauss pointed out that the ordinance is much more specific regarding open space, and the formula, and there are a couple places where the ordinance could be expanded a bit. Councilmember Singer stressed the need for the ordinance to have room for innovative ideas. Chairman Borden asked what is meant by pedestrian oriented communities. Planning Director Krauss said this could be expanded a bit and examples mentioned. She referred page 2, enchanted design features, asked why a phrase was deleted. Assistant Planning Director Rued pointed out that the phrase was a late change by the Planning Commission. The argument was if housing more affordable, it cannot always be made the highest quality. The PUD ordinance will have guidelines for design. For example, when a preliminary plat application comes in, staff and Council cannot tinker with the project's aesthetics. Chairman Borden asked what is quality landscaping, building or architecture. Assistant Planning Director Rued said these are hard to put into words, but their quality is known when it is seen. The applicant will be required to show these features. PAGE 2 MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MAY 26, 1998 o Councilmember Singer referred to item H on page 3, and asked about the mention of affordable housing. Assistant Planning Director Rued acknowledged that the Planning Commission had a hard time with the PUD ordinance because they thought it would provide a tool for low income housing. The intent of the ordinance is to make housing more affordable, but not for low income housing. They requested that this definition be revised. Chairman Borden asked about the definition for affordable. Assistant Planning Director Rued referred to the Comprehensive Plan and the King County Planning Policies. Chairman Borden wanted to know if staff would approve a project because the developer said it would create affordable housing. Planning Director Krauss mentioned the housing component in the Comprehensive Plan and the project would be reviewed in relation to the component. Planning Director Krauss said that "affordable" is a defining term. The Planning Commission was concerned that Auburn did more than its fair share of providing this type of housing. Councilmember Lewis is uncomfortable about defining affordable. Section H on page 3 is worded appropriatelY. Councilmember Lewis pointed out the developer needs the ability to deliver to the market. Planning Director Krauss said that with the goals as said in section H, if a developer came in and said he wanted to plat 50 acres into $300,000 homes, Council could say that the developer is not meeting section H. Councilmember Lewis pointed out that the developer could say that if the housing were not in PUD, it would be $450,000. Planning Director Krauss advised that the developer would not be meeting the options of the King County Planning Policies. Section H would put staff and Council in the position of saying the project was not appropriate. Councilmember Lewis suggested that the language in section H remain as it now reads. Chairman Borden wondered if the PUD ordinance encouraged developers to make proposals in certain ways or provided guidelines. She is concerned that the developers are not being given enough guidelines as to what the City wants. Planning Director Krauss remarked that he has seen developers use PUDs to get densities increased, but did not provide a good design or amenities. He then saw the project denied by Council because they did not provide a public benefit. They were told by Council to develop a plat instead of a PUD. Councilmember Lewis remarked that if everything is del'reed then the City cannot deny a project. It would be difficult to retum the project to the developer for further work. If standards allow some flexibility, then the project can be retumed for further discussions. Chairman Borden referred to item 1 on page 9, open space, and wondered if the open space is the primary benefit of a PUD, what is considered an amenity. Planning Director Krauss explained that the developers met with the Planning Commission and they wanted to increase the amount of non-buildable area and revise the open space percentage requirement. Assistant Planning Director Rued affirmed that the developers wanted all non-buildable areas to count in the density calculations. Planning Director Krauss explained that the open space standard that staff started with was used in the past in other areas. Staff could live with the 20 percent'and not change 25 percent. The 25 percent was used for many years where the average lot size was larger. Assistant Planning Director Rued suggested that the PUD ordinance be discussed again at the next Committee meeting. He then suggested that the developers be invited to the meeting to do a presentation similar to the one conducted at the Planning Commission meeting. The Committee agreed to discussing the PUD ordinance at their next meeting. ZOA0001-98 - Land Divisioh Ordinance Amendment - amend Sections 17.06.020 and 17.06.070 of the Land Division Ordinance in order to implement the Planned Unit Development (PUD) ordinance Discussion on this agenda item is tabled to the next Committee meeting. PAGE 3 MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MAY 26, 1998 Resolution No. 2963 - FAST Corridor Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Planning Director Krauss informed the Committee that Auburn helped to create the FAST. Funds are beginning to flow for improvements. Significant sums of money are to be received from the Federal government toward construction. Staffhas been working ~vith the FAST Committee for some time. The MOU would legitimize the framework for continued progress, would help in distribution of funds, and establish a funding percentage. Staff recommends approval of the resOlution and agreement. Chairman Borden said the 25 percent contribution from the railroad and Ports seems too low. Planning Director Krauss advised that the matter of the railroad contribution is in front of the Ninth Circuit for discussion. The percentage is better than they are obligated to do. The Ports have agreed to significant percentage that fulfills obligation promised to Auburn. Councilmember Lewis made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Singer, to recommend approval. Chairman Borden concurred. Municipal Facility and Space Needs Study Senior Planner Sokol reviewed his memorandum to the Committee. It is recommended that the City conduct a space needs study and for the design of a City campus. The cost for the Downtown Plan is approximately $340,00 which has been paid for by grants. The City has not put in any money to date. The space needs study was allocated and staff is now asking Council to allocate funds for completion of the study. Planning Director Krauss understood that the request had to be taken up by Council in the mid year budget cycle. The study can be funded out of other available funds as long as staff knows that Council approves the funding. Chairman Borden believes it is an appropriate idea. Councilmember Singer mentioned that she has been working on the downtown master plan as a participant in the task force and the needs study is crucial for the plan. She stressed the need for the City to be proactive and to identify needs and areas to set be aside. The Downtown Plan will encourage new business to come to the area. The City needs to determine how much space is needed for the City. Councilmember Lewis agreed that the study fits in with the vision process as discussed. The City needs to know upcoming needs before the available space is used. Senior Planner Sokol said the study was in the scope of work, but was unfunded for this portion and now the City needs to fund this portion. Chairman Borden said it appears that staff has the Committee's consensus and now needs to figure out the legal and budgetary way to proceed. Mayor said the funding needs the Council's authority.: Planning Director Krauss said that a reappropriation in the budget cycle could be done. Mayor said the ~request will be presented to Diane Supler, Finance Director, but he does not anticipate a problem with the request. Contractual Agreement for Curator at White River Valley Historical Museum Parks and Recreation Director Deal presented the staff report and explained why this was being done. Councilmember Lewis made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Singer to recommend approval. Chairman Borden concurred. Contractual Agreement for Custodial Services at Senior Center Parks and Recreation Director Deal presented the staff report and explained why this was being done. Councilmember Lewis made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Singer to recommend approval. Chairman Borden concurred. PAGE 4 MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MAY 26, 1998 9. 10. 12. Letter to State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development Letter to King County Resource Lands and Open Space Section EDC First Quarter Progress Report AmeriCorps Newsletter No discussion was held on items 8, 9, 10 and 11. First Wellington - Park Requirements Senior Planner Sokol provided information on this development on Lea Hill. The issue identified is park dedication which needs to be resolved before water/sewer certificates are issued. Parks and Recreation Director Deal said that the Park Plan calls for neighborhood parks to be three to five acres in size. The Village Square condo project is one acre. Wellington is adjacent to and smaller than Village Square's park. The City does not want small park projects because of the maintenance challenge they pose. The City needs to come up with a fee in lieu of to develop parks in the Potential Annexation Area (PAA). Staff has talked with King County Parks Director about the need for this. He mentioned the Christmas tree farm and its future as a major park. The Planning and Parks Departments have worked on a seven acre park dedication from Finkbeiner Development. The City does not need another half-acre park in this area. The City needs to develop a fee for developers to pay for parks planning for the entire area. Senior Planner Sokol provided information on the size, description, and location of the Wellington project. Councilmember Lewis asked if staffhad a dollar figure in mind. Parks and Recreation Director Deal said the amount still needs to be discussed. Village Square was developed as a one acre park to City design standards. Senior Planner Sokol wanted to approach the Committee and see if the fee in lieu of is a matter of interest. Planning Director Krauss advised that staff would come back to the Committee with additional information. Parks and Recreation Director Deal advised that when park impact fee is established, the City would take fee in lieu of. Councilmember Lewis asked about the different standard parks for Lea Hill parks as opposed to parks in current City limits. Parks and Recreation Director Deal said that in Lea Hill and the PAA there are less than two acres of parks per 1,000 people and this does not meet the City's quarter-mile standard. The City has missed some opportunities in the past. Councilmember Singer asked if the City would then do fee in lieu of land. Senior Planner Sokol advised that staff still needs to do some research on this. Chairman Borden asked how much of the Park Plan is contingent on Council passing the impact fee ordinance for parks. Parks and Recreation Director Deal said they were not tied together. Senior Planner Sokol advised the impact fee ordinance is just for property within-the City limits. Senior Planner Sokol reminded the Committee that staffwas asked by the Council to get an idea of the long term costs of annexation, and parks is one of the items. Parks and Recreation Director Deal said the tree farm is a large site which is expected to be developed, but it would be approximately five years before funds are received. Councilmember Singer asked Parks and Recreation Director Deal if he had any idea of the cost of developing the property for park. Parks and Recreation Director Deal said the City could expend lots of money; therefore a well thought out plan for the area needs to be developed. Bob Minot, representative for. Wellington was present, but did not have anything substantive to add to the discussion. With no further items to cOme before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. PCDC~IIN~5B-98 PAGE 5