HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-10-1998MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
AUGUST 10, 1998
The regular meeting of the Planning and Community Development Committee was held August
10, 1998 in the Council Work Area. Those members in attendance were as follows:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Trish Borden, Jeanne Barber, and Pete Lewis
STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Lynn Rued, Bob Sokol, A1 Hicks, Dick Deal, and Patti Zook
ALSO PRESENT:
Mayor Booth; Bob Poldevart, Aubum School District; Paul Reitenbach,
King County Senior Planner; Michelle Mcfadden; Pat Sumption,
representative of the Green Duamish Watershed Alliance; Annilee
Cobbitt, a land use attomey in Seattle; Bob Tidball
The meeting was called to order by Committee Chair Borden at 6:00 p.m.
ACTION ITEMS:
1. Resolution 2992 - News & Information Station Agreement
Parks and Recreation Director Dick Deal presented the staff report. The reader board is
an effective marketing tool.
Councilmember Lewis made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Barber, to
recommend approval. Chairman Borden concurred.
Resolution 2998 - Interlocal Agreement with King County Relating to Potential
Annexation Area
Principal Planner Sokol presented the staff report. At the last committee meeting, staff
was asked to prepare a resolution to state the City's concerns. Issues will be raised over
the next year regarding uses and transfer of development rights.
Planning Director Krauss provided background on discussions started with King County
seven years ago. The potential annexation area (PAA) program was adopted in 1991.
There have been a number of attempts to negotiate with King County. The City
successfully negotiated PAA agreements with surrounding cities years ago. This
agreement serves as springboard to get a service agreement worked out with King
County for Lea Hill and the entire PAA. It also permits or encourages agriculture to stay
and does nothing to County-purchased develop rights. The agreement would retains the
resource protection district. It gives property owners a means to utilize their properties
by helping to fulfill goals of the SAMP. The agreement may improve agricultural areas
because they are being hurt by floods and duration of floods have increased. The
agreement also provides the ability to effectuate what Council wants on lands in and
adjacent to the City. Council wants to manage or regulate lands that affect Auburn. The
document is a reasonable compromise and bodes well for accomplishing things in the
future. He suggested the agreement be adopted so that the City can move to the next
stage.
PAGE 1
MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
AUGUST 10, 1998
Chairman Borden asked if the Committee and staff received copies of court cases
submitted by Mr. Tidball. She expressed concern about court cases and that the City may
be inheriting a district from the County that the Growth Management Act (GMA) says it
must enhance and maintain. She is concerned that the City might inherit litigation cases.
Principal Planner Sokol advised that the area cannot be annexation until the issues are
resolved.
Councilmember Lewis wondered if the reason for changing the zoning is for flood
control. Principal Planner Sokol said it would allow some area to be used for flood
control along Mill Creek or wetland mitigation.
A discussion occurred relating to a case in another jurisdiction that proposed the
placement of a soccer field in an agricultural area. It was determined that the soccer field
was not compatible with agricultural uses.
Principal Planner Sokol advised that the wetland mitigation site for Mill Creek cannot be
located in other areas as opposed to a soccer field. Councilmember Lewis wondered if
the agreement was being presented to the Public Works Department because it is
necessary for them to understand. Principal Planner Sokol reminded the Committee that
Council directed the agreement back to this Committee.
King County Senior Planner Reitenbach supports issues raised by Planning Director
Krauss and Principal Planner Sokol. He spoke about King County Policy RL-110 which
talks about preserving agricultural land and compatible uses. Certain issues need to be
resolved and the resolution calls for them to be resolved prior to annexation. Local land
use would become the privy of Auburn. The City would be picking up the County's
responsibility to this area in the PAA. The County has a deep commitment to preserve
agricultural land. Local land use is best managed by local jurisdiction. The County is
making the switch to regional government. The other compatible uses are not well
defined now.
Chairman Borden wanted to know why it is possible to have urban pockets in rural areas,
but not rural pockets in urban areas that County manages. King County Senior Planner
Reichenback said it is permissible to have an urban growth area with islands; there is no
prohibition against an agricultural production district (APD) being in an unicoprorated
island. Chairman Borden said the APD is a regional resource that makes sense for King
County to manage.
Councilmember Barber remarked that if King County manages the land they should in
fact have the land. She does not see what Auburn would gain. The agreement should
spell out who is doing what and for how much.
Planning Director Krauss mentioned that the County has urban islands which have
agricultural use in addition to homes and arterial roads. The area does require services
PAGE 2
MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
AUGUST 10, 1998
such as police and fire, but there is a problem with delivering such services to the area.
The County does not actively manage the area.
Chairman Borden wanted to know about the cost of services to the area. King County
Senior Planner Reitenbach said the future service agreement would spell out
responsibility for the entire area.
Mr. Tidball spoke about County Policy RL-110 which say what can and cannot be done.
The regulations were deemed to be consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan.
He then mentioned a Supreme Court case and a GMHB case and read a couple of
paragraphs from the cases. He spoke with Tim Carlaw about flood control plan and what
it would look like. He believes the County is trying to impose something on the City.
Councilmember Lewis wants the Public Works Committee to discuss the agreement and
he wants to hear what their vision is before the agreement goes back to Council.
Chairman Borden agrees with the resolution as written with minor amendment. She
agrees that the agreement should be signed without the APD being part of the PAA as
Councilmember Poe suggested. She suggested that the court cases be reviewed and this
item be tabled until the next Committee meeting. She does not think the agreement needs
to go to the Public Works Committee.
Annilee Cobbitt, a land use attorney in Seattle, is very active on agricultural land issues.
She distributed a sheet which had County Policy RL-304 highlighted. She spoke about
the important precedent set by the Benaroya case and read a portion thereof. The GMA
requires the area to be protected and Auburn will have to protect it and this is a serious
commitment. She referred to the Stewart annexation case which the County Boundary
Review Board (BRB) struck down because the land has to be protected. The State
Supreme Court, BRB and GMHB says the agricultural land must be preserved. She
referred to a Farmland Trust publication which says that farmland in the Puget Sound
region is threatened. Farmland does not use services and is cheap to manage. The
County is a good steward of agricultural land. The land must be preserved and enhanced.
The land should stay in the County because it is a perfect separator between Auburn and
Kent.
Pat Sumption, representative of the Green Duwamish Watershed Alliance, said the
Endangered Species Act is a big deal and the City must do its best to preserve what is
already there. It hurts to see the farmland and salmon disappearing. When talking about
using the land for wetland banking and mitigation, this use is not compatible. She
suggested the City delay making a decision on the interlocal agreement until everyone
understands its implications. There is the need to preserve agricultural lands even if it is
not being used for agricultural uses. Ms. Sumption said the City should think about the
long term implications.
Planning Director Krauss pointed out that the SAMP is designed to restore fish runs. The
idea that farming is pristine and compatible with fish is false. Mayor Booth also pointed
PAGE 3
MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
AUGUST 10, 1998
out that the City has worked very closely with the Army Corps of Engineers and the
Tribe on Mill Creek restoration. Principal Planner Sokol remarked that key goals of the
SAMP are water quality and fish habitat improvement.
Councilmember Lewis wanted to know if part of the flooding was from the hillside.
Planning Director Krauss advised that the flood is from a lot of sources. For the last 10
years developers have been obligated to have upstream detention. The great amount of
hard surface contributes to the flooding even if there is retention. Principal Planner Sokol
pointed out that a significant amount of Mill Creek flooding is due to backwash in the
Green River.
Councilmember Lewis made a motion to table the topic in order to read the additional
information relating to court cases.
Planning Director Krauss advised that the topic cannot be brought back the Committee in
two weeks because Planning Director Krauss and Principal Planner Sokol will not be at
the meeting. If the Council wants to remove, staff needs to be directed to do so. If
Council wants this to be a Comprehensive Plan amendment December to remove as
PAA;
Chairman Borden wants to review the GMA and the RCW related to agriculture.
Councilmember Barber disagreed with tabling the item. Chairman Borden seconded
Councilmember Lewis's request to table. On September 14, the item will be discussed
again.
ZOA0004-97 - Zoning Ordinance Amendment - to add Chapter 18.69, "Planned Unit
Development (PUD) District"
Assistant Planning Director Rued presented the staff report. The Council had requested
an informal review of a PUD; however, the City Attorney advised against this because of
the appearance of fairness issue. The Public Works Committee is considering new
private street standards. The private street section is mentioned to be "amended". Also
some housekeeping change relating to inconsistency of language are necessary. The
Council conducts the public hearing on August 17th.
Chairman Borden asked if the Committee had comments. Councilmember Lewis
wondered if the PUD ordinance requires a Homeowners Association. Assistant Planning
Director Rued said yes, if the PUD contains common open space or streets to be
maintained.
Chairman Borden acknowledged that the PUD is probably a better development practice,
but apparently developers can build an intense project with no park land or open space
and this needs to change. The number of units and open space is not a tremendous
burden. Planning Director Krauss remarked that is not intended to be a burden, but to
exact something. Chairman Borden remarked that developers of multi-family projects
should also have to contribute to parks.
PAGE 4
MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AUGUST 10, 1998
Planning Director Krauss said that if you apply the regulations regarding park dedication
and compare to PUD, the requirement is met. From staff opinion, there are major
loopholes that let developers out of paying fair share. DD said that on smaller
developments the City would have a park on a very small parcel and this would not meet
the needs of a park. The threshold of 50 lots does not create enough park space.
Planning Director Krauss said that land is subdivided according to the Land Division
Ordinance. Apartments and multi-family projects do not get subdivided. For a while it
appeared the recreation impact fee was coming along which would be a fair share based
ordinance.
Chairman Borden stated that she did not wmat to wait until the impact fee ordinance
passes. Planning Director Krauss then spoke about a proposed apartment complex on
Lea Hill which is provided a fee in lieu of park dedication.
Assistant Planning Director Rued pointed that the Committee will need to consider
appropriate filing fees for the PUD applications. At subsequent meetings, staff will
propose a fee schedule for review.
Councilmember Lewis made a motion, seconded by J, to recommend approval.
Chairman Borden concurred.
Chairman Borden remarked that she would like to discuss park dedication fees at an
upcoming meeting. Planning Director Krauss reminded the Committee that the City's fee
structure is too far out of line compared to the amount of work required on each
application. The fee does not cover even cover a small portion of the cost. Staff may
propose that the entire fee structure be amended. Councilmember Lewis said that it is
reasonable to adjust the fee structure and suggested that staff look at the fee schedules of
other jurisdictions.
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
Councilmember Lewis made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Barber, to
recommend approval. Chairman Borden concurred.
INFORMATION ITEMS:
1. Port of Seattle's State Water Quality Certification
Planning Director Krauss advised that the Port has received approval from the
Department of Ecology for the wetland mitigation site. The Port is behind schedule, their
Corps permits are pending, and it appears the project will be a year late.
2. AmeriCorps Progress Report for 1997-98
PAGE 5
MINUTES OF PLANNiNG AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
AUGUST 10, 1998
No discussion was held on this item.
3. Impact Fees
Superintendent Poldevart, Auburn School District, submitted the Capital Facilities Plan to
the City. This is the first time the District has addressed in a legislative fashion the topic
of impact fees. The District needs to seek an additional source of revenue. A group of
citizens in Auburn and Dieringer School Districts formed a joint committee to study the
problem of what happens to students from Lakeland Hills South over the next 10 years.
They met last year and came to the conclusion that part of the area in Dieringer should
move to Auburn. They talked about five different options to cope with growth. They
anticipate enrollment of to 3,000 to 3,500 over the 10 years. A joint report was presented
to the two school boards and joint decision made. The change will go to a regulatory
committee to review and make recommendation to a State board which will make the
ultimate decision. The Plan is now escalated because of the need for a third high school.
Previously, it was anticipated the third high school would be necessary in the year 2006,
but now it will be 2003. The Lakeland growth will generate a need for two elementary
schools and in the near future a middle school. A source of revenue is needed to offset
the cost of building the additional facilities. He then distributed an impact fee
comparison sheet to the Committee.
Chairman Borden asked if the County collects impact fees countywide. Superintendent
Poldevart said no. The formula and factors to be considered have been universally
adopted in Washington. They are then translated by each jurisdiction to make its own
determination.
Councilmember Lewis asked about the cost of improvements caused by new
development. Superintendent Poldevart said the cost of improvements is not segregated
in the formula. The formula is from growth of school district in entirety to take place in
six years. The high school will cost about 45 million. The percentage of funding of the
facilities will depend on what the mix is of single family to multi-family because there is
now more multi-family in Lakeland than originally planned.
Councilmember Lewis asked what happens to the Dieringer agreement. Planning
Director Krauss remarked that the interlocal is with Dieringer and Lakeland. Lakeland
allows for increase or to change formulas, Lakeland reserves right to protest, and
Lakeland agreed not to contest. If the school districts change, the interlocal with
Dieringer is voided. Auburn School District is asking the City of Auburn to adopt their
capital facilities plan. There would be an interlocal with the City to collect the impact
fee. The School District would suggest a fee, Council can accept the fee, decline to
collect, or ask to be modified. The City is not obligated to collect an impact fee.
Michelle Mcfadden, King County, wrote the formula. She spoke regarding Issaquah
issues.
PAGE 6
MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AUGUST 10, 1998
Councilmember Lewis asked Superintendent Poldevart to receive a copy of the previous
year's capital facilities plan. Superintendent Poldevart said the Plan has never been in
this format. Councilmember Lewis said the figure seems to be higher than expected.
The impact fee was adopted and it now appears more than doubled. Planning Director
Krauss advised that Pierce County adopted the uniform across the board impact fee and.
Dieringer believes this does not cover their costs. Chairman Borden understood the
ordinance enabled the City to collect fees on behalf of school. She requested a fresh copy
of the impact fee ordinance.
Superintendent Poldevart said the current estimate for year 2003 for high school is 45
million. Estimated need is 15,000 homes at $3,200 per home for high school. The
impact fee is very small part of overall financing plan for school construction. The bonds
are approved by local voters. He then spoke about State matching funds and if the
School District is eligible.
Planning Director Krauss said the capital facility plan process would be connected to mid
year budget. This is part of the annual Comprehensive Plan process.
Councilmember Lewis asked about the urgency. Superintendent Poldevart believes the
transfer of property will occur quickly, population pressures will be in effect to soon
provide school facilities.
Councilmember Barber remarked that she supports the School District position.
Superintendent Poldevart remarked that if Auburn has room in its elementary school for
the students, the school cannot deny the students entrance.
4. JCPenney Building
Planning Director Krauss provided an update to the Committee on the status of plans for
the JC Penney building.
A discussion occurred about possible plans for the building.
With no further items to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
G/PATFI/SA-98
PAGE 7