HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-08-1998MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE JUNE 8, 1998
The regular meeting of the Planning and Community Development Committee was held June 8, 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, Lynn Rued, Betty Sanders,'Lisa Clausen, Dick Deal, and Patti Zook
ALSO PRESENT:
Mayor Booth; Jesus Moulinet, Landmark; Gary Young, Polygon Northwest; Eric
Campbell, CamPbell Development; Allan Keimig, Keimig and Associates and Auburn
Downto. wn Association President
The meeting was called to order by Committee Chair Borden at 6:00 p.m.
1. Resolution 2969 - Business Improvement Area (BIA) Budget
Associate Planner Sanders informed the Committee that she was asked to present background on the BIA.
She used overheads to show details on the BIA. BIAs were created by the State to raise funds for
reinvestment in downtown areas. The BIA is a geographic area in which funds are raised. She then
explained what the Auburn Downtown Association (ADA) is and what it does. A flow chart was shown to
explain the relationship between the BIA, ADA and City. She reviewed the budget for the two groups.
Discussion held relating to the City responsibility toward any BIA and/or ADA debts.
Councilmember Lewis referred to the ADA the information packet he received and suggested that the ADA
update the demographics in its literature. ADA President Keimig said that some of the areas are considered
a secondary market area. Their figures agree with the number used to market the downtown master plan
area. Councilmember Lewis stressed the need to justify the larger numbers and the need to obtain figures
to justify what is wanted for the downtown area. ADA President Keimig noted the need for developers to
develop space for businesses because currently there are 20 business inquiries that cannot be placed
downtown.
Associate Planner Sanders spoke about the National Main Street Program and then mentioned the ADA
work plan. ADA President Keimig reviewed the many accomplishments and on going activities of the
ADA. He provided detailed information on the organization, promotions, economic restructuring, BIA
management, and design activities of the ADA.
Councilmember Singer made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Lewis, to recommend City Council
call for a public hearing to be held July 6, 1998. Chairman Borden concurred.
2. Resolution 2970 - Contract with Auburn Downtown Association
Councilmember Singer made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Lewis, to recommend approval of the
ADA contract. Chairman Borden concurred. Resolution 2970 will be presented to City Council at their
meeting on July 6.
3. Resolution 2965 - Agreement for Artwork
Parks and Recreation Director Deal presented the staff report. The presentation to Council will be in
September, 1999 not Septemb. er, 1998 as stated in the agenda bill.
Councilmember Singer made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Lewis, to recommend approval of the
resolution. Chairman Borden concurred.
PAGE 1
MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 2UNE 8, 1998
o
ZOA0004-97 - Zoning Ordinance Amendment - to add Chapter 18.69, "Planned Unit Development
(PUD) District"
ZOA0001-98 - Land Division 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
Planning Director Krauss informed the Committee that the City Attorney was present at tonight's meeting
to address their inquiries relating to the proposed ordinance. City Attorney Reynolds informed the
Committee that the PUD ordinance gives the Council more latitude than they would have in reviewing a
conditional use permit (CUP). The PUD's guidelines are much broader. Councilmember Lewis asked
what the difference in latitude is between a CUP application and a PUD application. City Attorney
Reynolds said the PUD has set criteria in the Code that specifies what the developer can do. Planning
Director Krauss said that in the PUD there are a number of findings that must be met. Staffand the
Hearing Examiner make a recommendation and Council has some latitude.
Chairman Borden said the PUD ordinance is fairly subjective. She believes the Hearing Examiner has a lot
of latitude in reaching a decision on a PUD. She does not believe that Council has much of an opportunity
to make changes to the PUD. City Attorney Reynolds agreed that the Council does not have as much
latitude as the Hearing Examiner. A developer wants the highest density he can get on the property. The
Council's issue is to reduce the compaction or lower the density. A PUD changes the density on the
property in how that development is laid out on the property. The developer would suggest that he build on
a certain portion of the site in exchange for CC&Rs and open space.
Planning Director Krauss explained that in principal the Council is negotiating a package. The City wants
enhanced open space, better architecture, inclusion of trails, etc. In exchange for the flexibility allowed by
a PUD, the City has the expectation of higher design standards. Assistant Planning Director Rued
reminded the Committee that the density would not change; this is governed by the Comprehensive Plan.
City Attorney Reynolds said the PUD ordinance provides a mix of multi-family in singl, e family with
setbacks of zero or less. The total number of residents would remain the same. For the developer, the
site's infrastructure would be in one area versus throughout the site. The concentration of development on
a portion of the site is then offset by amenities such as open space.
Chairman Borden said the Hearing Examiner decides whether the benefits are enough to justify the PUD,
then the PUD is approved, and Council receives the PUD for action. What happens if the PUD,
recommended for approval, does not meet the expectations of Council. Planning Director Krauss said that
staff did not want to compromise the ability to negotiate. City Attorney Reynolds reiterated that the PUD
provides more latitude than in other processes. The Council is used to the CUP process which is much
tighter.
Councilmember Lewis wondered what would happen if Hearing Examiner and staff develop findings of
fact that they agree on and Council does not agree with those findings of fact, what kinds of facts would be
needed to change the outcome. Could the Council tell staff and Hearing Examiner to reconfigure the
project. Planning Director Krauss said if the project is in a neighborhood of traditional single family homes
and the proposal is for exotic architectural features, staff or Council could require that the project be similar
to the adjacent neighborhood. It would be appropriate to look at scale and bulk.
City Attorney Reynolds advised that Council will have more authority on a PUD. He is not supportive of
the architectural control issue. Government control should be used for the safety, health and welfare of its
citizens.
Councilmember Lewis posed a scenario and wanted to know if the Hearing Examiner says pitch roof and
front porch are needed, can the Council say no because they do not like these and want another feature.
City Attorney Reynolds replied no, but neither can the Hearing Examiner require those features. The
Hearing Examiner has the same rules to follow as the Council. Some site planning can be required by the
Hearing Examiner and Council.
PAGE 2
MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
JUNE 8, 1998
Councilmember Lewis asked if the Council can say, for example, that all garages are to be offstreet. City
Attorney Reynolds said this would be considered the alley concept. Then Council could say it would create
another impervious surface and the garages should face another way, or specific traffic conditions are sited
because of cars pulling out. He stressed that aesthetics cannot be set; the requirement has to be set on a
rational basis.
Councilmember Lewis wanted to know why in City Attorney Reynolds's opinion the PUD should go
through the Hearing Examiner and then to Council. City Attorney Reynolds mentioned the possibility of
Council being subject to more litigation. The elected positions essentially take dictates of the local
constituents and act from that. The Hearing Examiner is not subjected to local dictates and the Hearing
Examiner protects Council from the local influences and Council's own constituency. Assistant Planning
Director Rued stressed that the PUD process is quasi-judicial and that other applications could accompany
the PUD. City Attorney Reynolds pointed out that the Council's job is broad policy type. If Council wants
to wants to orchestrate every project including roads, sidewalks, houses, parks, etc., this is not the broad
policy statement that Council is supposed to do. Council is not to assemble each PUD.
Chairman Borden recognized that it sounds like Council needs to be clearer about the policy when the PUD
ordinance is passed so that when Hearing Examiner reviews she knows what to judge. City Attorney
Reynolds reiterated that staff will negotiate the standards. Councilmember Lewis affirmed the need for
staff input. Councilmember Lewis wondered about the number of guidelines to include and if they should
be stated specifically.
Councilmember Singer asked Chairman Borden and Councilmember Lewis if they see this as an advantage
to the City or something to fight over. Councilmember Lewis sees this as an advantage to the City, but
anticipates a fight with developers over them. City Attorney Reynolds advised that PUDs take advantage
of land contours and provides amenities that could not be obtained in a regular subdivision.
Chairman Borden related a concern with the subjectivity of the PUD ordinance. The Council's role is to
establish guidance for the Hearing Examiner and developer so that they know what the Council wants.
Councilmember Lewis asked Chairman Borden what kind of guidance she had in mind. Chairman Borden
expressed that the most obvious is open space. City Attorney Reynolds acknowledged Chairman Borden's
concern about the guidelines. Planning Director Krauss advised that the developer has to demonstrate how
the project meets criteria. He mentioned the findings of fact. Councilmember Lewis acknowledged that
the PUD is a trade off between the developer and the City. Planning Director Krauss advised that the City
would receive a better development with greater flexibility.
Chairman Borden referred to page 2, pedestrian oriented communities section, and wanted to know what is
meant by traffic management and design techniques. Planning Director Krauss mentioned traffic calming
techniques such as round abouts and rear loading lots. Chairman Borden suggested putting examples of
these in the ordinance. Planning Director Krauss said this could be done, but the examples would keep
changing as new ideas are developed. He did not want to shut the door on the options by excluding them
from the example list. Councilmember Lewis recognized that examples could limit instead of open the
door to new possibilities.
Chairman Borden asked if the PUD ordinance addresses the impact of the project on adjacent
neighborhoods. Assistant Planning Director Rued referred to page 19, Findings of Fact paragraph E and
summarized the paragraph. If it is determined that adverse impacts are possible, staff has to develop
findings to support this claim. Chairman Borden informed Planning Director Krauss and Assistant
Planning Director Rued that she would telephone them to review her other highlighted concerns.
Councilmember Singer referred to page 5, section G, and suggested that this paragraph be made clearer.
Assistant Planning Director Rued indicated that this paragraph could be reworded for the purposes of
clarification.
PAGE 3
MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
JUNE 8, 1998
Chairman Borden to page 6 and said the ordinance relies on the underlying zoning and Comprehensive
Plan to set density. There are a number of areas in the City that have special planning area designations.
Planning Director Krauss advised that the process is to complete the special planning area and def'me
before the PUD. He then provided information on an upcoming special planning area process for the north
Auburn area.
Chairman Borden asked about other Comprehensive Plan areas that do not have underlying zoning.
Assistant Planning Director Rued stated that all the areas have underlying zoning. The special plan areas
are a legislative action which gives greater latitude to Council for design and open space, and could drive
the decision making on a PUD.
Chairman Borden remarked that Council could make different decision if it is known the area is going to be
a PUD versus a single family area because of the PUD benefits to Auburn. She wondered how to think
about planning for an area without thinking about this possibility. Planning Director Krauss asked that
when doing a land use plan the Council should be looking at what is in the City's best interest. They need
to consider what kinds of infrastructure are needed such as streets, drainage, trails, or parks; does it meet
other City goals; does it meet housing goals of the Comprehensive Plan; were any environmental issues
identified.
Jesus Moulinet, Landmark, said the PUD ordinance will allow development of property to meet market
needs such as smaller lots and cluster. He introduced Gary Young, with Polygon Northwest and Eric
Campbell, with Campbell Development.
Eric Campbell, Campbell Development, showed slides of his company's projects in Kirkland and
Mountlake Terrace. He company primarily develops projects as infill development and the PUD ordinance
would give more flexibility to the design of housing.
Gary Young, Polygon Northwest, distributed brochures describing the Lakes development in Kent. He
then presented slides showing different aspects of the project such as open space and parking. The density
in that development is 17 units/per which is actually below the master plan density. The project contains a
mix of four different housing types to reach different segments of the market simultaneously. He
recommended that the PUD ordinance be approved. The ordinance would not compromise the City's
ability to ensure quality development is achieved.
Chairman Borden remarked that at the Planning Commission meeting the developers wanted the open
space requirement reduced. Mr. Campbell said the higher requirement would have made it necessary to go
down to smaller lots. They wanted the lot size reduced to keep the open space size up. Chairman Borden
asked Mr. Campbell if he presented any data on this. Mr. Campbell advised that a little more detail was
presented the Planning Commission meeting. Chairman Borden commented that she would be interested in
any documentation he has on this.
Skate Park Site Location
Parks and Recreation Director Deal distributed a site evaluation sheet to those in attendance and then
briefly reviewed the criteria. Brannan Park appears to be the best site for a skate park and it is identified as
the preference. He mentioned an upcoming public meeting on the skate park which will be designed to
accommodate both inline skaters and skate boarders.
Chairman Borden asked why'is Brannan Park easier to patrol than the other parks. Parks and Recreation
Director Deal explained that at Game Farm Park the site is already full of activities such as the ball fields
and shelters adjacent to the parking area. An open area is available, but it is behind a berm which makes
the area hard to patrol. The site at Brannan Park is on the street by ball field and basketball court and
provides great visibility for patrol. Les Gove Park is too dark and the visibility there is poor. Brannan Park
has the best visibility of the parks and the Police Department has agreed with the assessment. The skate
park will close at dusk and be closed in the winter.
PAGE 4
MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE JUNE 8, 1998
With no
Councilmember Singer asked if any of the neighboring residents expressed concems about a skate park.
Parks and Recreation Director Deal advised that most of the residents are renters and are not as concerned
as homeowners might be.
Suburban Cities Association (SCA) Questionnaire on Reglonal Finance and Governance
Intergovermental Affairs Manager Clausen distributed a draft of the questionnaire and briefly reviewed the
comments contained therein.
Very brief comments were made on a couple of the items contained in the document. The Mayor requested
that the Committee members look over the draft document tonight and call
Mayor: look over tonight and call Intergovermental Affairs Manager on Tuesday if they had concerns. She
will then prepare the final and distributed it to the appropriate people.
further items to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
PCDC'uMIN~6A-98
PAGE 5