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