HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-09-1998MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
NOVEMBER 9, 1998
The regular meeting of the Planning and Community Development Committee was held November 9, 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, Diane Supler, Mike Reynolds, Al
Hicks, Shirley Aird, and Patti Zook
ALSO PRESENT:
Mayor Booth; Pat Amato, Chairman of the Human Services Committee; Mike
Morrisette, Landon Gibson, and John Rader, Auburn Chamber of Commerce; A1 Keimig,
Auburn Downtown Association; Lynn Norman, Auburn Downtown Association
The meeting was called to order by Committee Chair Borden at 6:00 p.m.
1. 1998 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Planning Director Krauss asked Finance Director Supler to attend tonight's meeting in order to answer
questions related to the City's Capital Facilities Plan (CFP). She was asked to explain what changes had
been made to the CFP since last reviewed by the Council. Finance Director Supler explained that a lot of
the projects were reclassified. Some of the projects were reclassified from capacity to non-capacity. Some
minor language changes were made and some changes as discussed relating to financing were also made.
Since the Planning Commission meeting on the CFP, Councilmember Poe requested a budget workshop
related to the Airport whereby a funding mechanism developed to pay not only for the construction of new
hangars, but also repairing the balance of the existing hangar roofs. Staff will ask for an amendment on the
floor to the CFP rather than return it to the Planning Commission.
Chairman Borden asked if capacity projects for parks were modified. Finance Director Supler indicated
yes. Each department weighed their projects and based on this weight, the projects were then ranked. The
projects with lower ranking were removed from the list based upon funding limitations. Based on the
ranking system, those projects of higher value with a mechanism to fund stayed on the list. The Council is
to give direction and decide what to do with certain projects. Chairman Borden asked about the alternative
for the future if Council wants projects added in to do next year. Finance Director Supler explained that
the CFP can be amended twice a year. Her desire is in February to go through the CFP and address some
outstanding issues as part of the mid year budget adjustment for 1999. Chairman Borden acknowledged
the huge task of updating the CFP. She wants to meet early next year to review the CFP and have a
"brainstorming" meeting in 1999.
Finance Director Supler mentioned that Randy Young, with Henderson Young & Company, works
nationwide with communities and wants to work with Council and staff. He has seen many Council's put
everything on the project list and then try to work from there. Mr. Young told Finance Director Supler that
Auburn went through the process well and is about 80 percent there. Auburn is in the position with the
Growth Management Act (GMA) that it must get a CFP on the books for a foundation for future Work.
Planning Director Krauss related questions raised by Bob Poldevart, Deputy Superintendent with Auburn
School District, at the Committee's previous meeting, regarding impact fees to the City Attorney's office.
In conversations with Auburn and Deirringer School Districts, the parties expressed concern about
continuity of fees currently being collected. The City Attorney wrote to the legal counsel for the two
districts regarding the unresolved issue. Mr. Poldevart had hoped that fees applicable to Deirringer would
simply roll over to Auburn unt~ their fee structure was approved. Planning Director Krauss was informed
that the City Attorneys did not think this is correct. Deirringer District believes they would just keep
collecting until Auburn takes possession of the new territory, but this may not be a valid assumption either.
Lots of questions still remain unresolved. Mr. Poldevart has asked Planning Director Krauss if the School
District CFPs need to be adopted each year. He researched the matter and found that annual adoption is a
requirement. Their CFP will have the impact fee they would like to be collected.
PAGE 1
MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
NOVEMBER 9, 1998
Principal Planner Sokol noted that the PCDC Committee also had questions regarding freight routes as
contained in the Comprehensive Plan. The freight routes were forwarded to the Public Works Committee
which recommended changes to the maps.
Traffic Engineer Mullen described the changes that are being recommended on freight routes are intended
to recognize the routes as used today. 277th is not listed as a route, but is proposed to be listed now. The
designate routes could position Auburn for funding. Routes included to add are 277% 37th, Auburn Way
North from north City limits to Hwy. 18, 15th Street SW across SuperMall to C and north to Hwy. 18, 15th
Street NW, Harvey and M Street, and 167 to south of Auburn.
Chairman Borden mentioned that the Committee spoke about M Street and 6th at the last meeting. The
issue appeared tO be keeping 12~ and 17~' as routes. Principal Planner Sokol said that 6~ is actually an
existing route, however, the map was incorrect. Chairman Borden asked why staff is leaving 12th and 17~
on the list. Councilmember Lewis asked why these streets should be designed as routes because they are
residential in nature. Traffic Engineer Mullen explained that the streets served the Miles gravel pit which
was still being excavated at that time: The City's intent to was to designate routes that needed to be added.
He acknowledged that 6~' Street is considered a "brittle" route that may not be viable in the future.
Chairman Borden referred to the designation of 12th and 17th and their effect as designated routes. Traffic
Engineer Mullen advised that there would be no change from what is there now or has been there for the
last 20 years. He is unaware of the history of why the roads were selected as routes in the past.
Mayor wanted to know what would happen if there is an increase in truck traffic on 12~ and 17th streets.
Traffic Engineer Mullen advised that the City Engineer could put load restrictions immediately on the
roads.
Counciimember Lewis asked what kind of load restrictions would be placed if the surface of the roads
deteriorated. Traffic Engineer Mullen advised that the City could place whatever load restrictions are
necessary, but usually it is 10,000 gvw. Busses and garbage trucks would be allowed. The intent is not to
sign every truck route in the City; however, signage can be placed on undesignated routes to influence
trucks to the appropriate route. He does not expect any increase in traffic on these two routes. The
enforcement of truck routes is tenuous at best. The Public Works Committee wanted to add C Street from
Hwy. 18 to 15~ Street NW, and West Main from Union Pacific Railroad to West Valley Highway, and
remove Kersey south of Oravetz. The Committee thought it appropriate to leave 12t~ and 17th.
Chairman Borden asked what process will be used to make changes in the routes at the Council meeting.
Principal Planner Sokol advised that the recommendation from the Planning Commission is this map minus
Harvey Road/M Street. The Council can make changes from the floor. The Public Works Committee
wanted to leave Harvey Road/M Street as it is on the map, but add the routes mentioned above.
Traffic Engineer Mullen explained that part of the reason for the M Street designation is that when the City
seeks funding for grade separation at the Stampede Pass line from the freight mobility agencies, if the road
is not a designated route, the agencies would lose interest in funding this project. Chairman Borden
stressed the need for M Street to be designated a route for this reason. She indicated that she did not have a
problem with the Public Works Committee's suggestions.
Chairman Borden asked Traffic Engineer Mullen: to talk about the proposed level of service (LOS)
revisions. Traffic Engineer Mullen commented that staff looked at several intersections some of which are
at or near failing. The idea is to allow development to continue for an additional year, and allow the LOS
to be met at the intersections to allow growth. The long term solution is a mitigation fee system that would
allow the City to eliminate the isolated intersections and look at the entire corridor. The City could look at
six or seven intersections together. If the City adopts such a system, it would not have to look at each
intersection, but could look at the corridor instead. Such a fee system was discussed in workshops with
PAGE 2
MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
NOVEMBER 9, 1998
Henderson Young & Company. It would allow all development to pay a portion instead of just the last
project pushing the intersection over the capacity.
Councilmember Lewis made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Barber, to recommend approval of the
proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments. Chairman Borden concurred.
1999 CDBG Funding Recommendations
Planner I Aird distributed a letter to PCDC from Valley Cities Counseling & Consultation which stated
their arguments for funding.
Pat Amato referred to the Human Services Committee's (HSC) letter which reaffh'med their position on
funding. The HSC has concerns about any agency supplying additional information after the process has
£mished. This is unfair to the other agencies who do not have an opportunity to interject additional
information. This particular project of Valley Cities Counseling & Consultation is difficult to support.
Councilmember Lewis indicated his agreement with Mr. Amato's statements. Chairman Borden
appreciates the HSC going back and reviewing their recommendations. She reviewed the notebook again
and stated her approval of the HSC recommendations. Councilmember Lewis also agrees with HSC's
recommendations and appreciates their effort. Councilmember Barber also commended the HSC for their
hard work.
Councilmember Lewis made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Barber, to forward the HSC
recommendations to Council. Chairman Borden concurred.
Alternatives to Park Impact Fees
City Attorney Reynolds commented that Planning Director Krauss provided one alternative to park impact
fees as described in the memorandum. He recommended not too proceed with this because of a potential
fight with every developer. If the City goes to a straight impact fee system as authorized under the GMA,
there is a an amount of predictability. If the City goes with the custom route, developers will not know the
fee up front.
Chairman Borden referred to item (g) in the proposed ordinance, and wondered how large a park would be
required. Planning Director Krauss remarked that it would be whatever 10 percent of site is brought
forward. He mentioned that this procedure worked in Minnesota. The rationale for industrial parks
contribution to park dedication was that a significant amount of park users were from industrial sites using
the ball fields and trails at lunch. He is unaware of any challenges to that policy in the last five years.
City Attorney Reynolds reiterated that there could be potential fights with Planning Director Krauss' plan.
Chairman Borden believes the legislation does not support doing it Planning Director Krauss' way.
Chairman Borden remarked that a certain mount of discussion at this Committee has been generated on
park impact fees. The Committee would like to know what funds will be spent on and if the process will
have a mechanism to raise funds for parks through the impact fees. She emphasized the need for a park on
Lea Hill. Multi-family housing does not pay anything for parks usage. She would like to get all the
concerns on the table, benefits to the City, and have a thorough discussion on park impact fees.
Counciimember Lewis stressed the need to see the figures relating to the impact fees. Staff needs to
develop models of what kind of costs are involved, the kind of income these impacts fees would bring, and
then discuss. If staff has an idea how many units of single family and multi-family housing are being
developed, they should have an idea of the impact fees being generated. He also wanted to see the same
type of information from the School District. He wants to have an idea of what the impact fee might be
and what might be generated from those fees.
PAGE 3
MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
NOVEMBER 9, 1998
Planning Director Krauss commented that this can be accomplished fairly easily. Staff can bring back the
park impact fees. Staffcan take an average of the last three years and project out to get a starting point of
what the revenue might be. The park system currently is largely financed by King County grants or other
grants, but not much financing from the City. A number of projects related to parks fell offthe CFP list
because some of them required bond or direct City financing. Staffcan review and bring back to the
Committee in approximately four weeks.
Lea Hill Park
This item was again tabled to the next Committee meeting.
Draft Economic Development Action Plan
Planning Director Krauss provided brief information on the new position. The Mayor and Planning
Director Krauss talked about ways to enhance economic development functions. Economic Development
Manger Hicks has had his time split between economic development and human services. A new position
could not be sustained, so the City decided to work with a known commodity in Economic Development
Manger Hicks. His time has been freed up so he can devote to economic development. He spoke about the
shift in in-house responsibilities. He spoke about the development of the draft plan. The plan is a work
program for Economic Development Manger Hicks for the next year as the position is flushed out and
what avenues to follow. The plan will be reviewed with the different Council committees. If these
Committee accept the plan, then staffwill sit down with outside groups to review the plan. He stressed the
plan is a work in progress. Economic Development Manger Hicks has met with a large manufacturing firm
already located in the City and discussed their expansion.
-Economic Development Manger Hicks explained that the plan focuses on business recruitment and the
need to meet with entities to stimulate interest in the City. Tourism was briefly discussed. Auburn has a
high daytime population because of industrial businesses, but has not been able to turn this into revenue for
other businesses. He spoke of the need to bring additional daytime population to Auburn, and the need to
explore ways to do this. The City needs to look at public/private infrastructure enhancement and changes
to downtown. Initial implementation will include talking to developers and lenders.
Counciimember Lewis commented that the draft plan has some good points and he likes the idea. He likes
the idea of collaboration with other entities and stressed not reinventing the wheel. With the right
packaging, City information and Chamber and Auburn Downtown Association (ADA) information, the
City can have an impressive package for potential businesses. He likes the fact that the economic
development process has been started. Auburn needs to recognize partnerships on a regional basis because
sometimes the City fails to recognize its ties to Pierce and King County.
Mayor acknowledged that Auburn receives support from the Tacoma Port District. Economic
Development Manger Hicks is very qualified for the economic development position and he anticipates a
good working relationship with the Chamber and the ADA.
Mr. Morrisette stressed that the Chamber is keenly interested in the implementation stage of the plan. They
have extensive experience working with investors. He has heard from consultants that the plan will not
work if the City does not have the collaboration of the stakeholders. The plan's customer is the private
investor who is being sold Auburn. It takes many components to make the "sell." He stressed the need to
bring all stakeholders to the table to help market the product. There is a gap between the asking price for
land and what it would take to produce income from the property. He spoke about a pre-prepared
environmental statement for the downtown plan area. He urged creating a regulatory environment
conducive to development.
PAGE 4
MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
NOVEMBER 9, 1998
Mayor stressed that the Chamber is viewing "regulatory environment conducive to development" as
something in which the Chamber would have authority. He stressed that the control will not be taken away
from the City.
Mr. Morrisette sees the Chamber as working with investors. The Chamber wants to be part of the process
that decides how the plan will be structured. He reiterated the contributions that the Chamber can make.
Mayor emphasized that input will be from both the Chamber and the ADA who will be involved in the
process.
Mr. Morrisette pointed out that the Chamber was here in force tonight because they support having a full-
time economic development person. He reiterated the need to work with all stakeholders. He stated that
the product is Auburn. If the customer is a private investor, then the Chamber wants to be part of the
design of the product. Mayor pointed out that it is still early in the process and the City intends to move
forward.
Chairman Borden emphasized that the important customer is the resident. She is happy to see a research
component in the plan. Mr. Morrisette then mentioned a survey done approximately five years ago to
ascertain what the citizens wanted in Auburn.
Councilmember Lewis said that the Chamber needs to understand that there are different sets of customers.
The City has to provide a package for developer/company/etc., and prove to them that it is good economic
reason to do in Auburn. The people who build in Auburn are the immediate customer.
Mayor agreed with Chairman Borden that the ultimate customer is the Auburn resident. The business
person or investor is a customer who will help to upgrade the community. Councilmember Lewis
remarked that in the past economic development efforts could not reach a meeting of the minds.
Chairman Borden stated that the City is saying it wants a certain type of development, but is not saying that
all development is good. It is important for the community to have good paying jobs. Economic
Development Manger Hicks commented about the need to translate those wages into a benefit to the City
because Auburn does not necessarily have a high wage population. He spoke about the ability to capture
the high wage population by having them reside in Auburn and spend money in Auburn.
Mr. Keimig, ADA, announced that the plan is a great step forward for Auburn. The ADA does not look at
economic development as bring in new business, but looks at business promotion, retention, and diversity.
They are also concerned with better development and better design in downtown. He then mentioned
commuter rail and the parking garage. The ADA is behind the plan and has positive information to
provide.
Lynn Norman, ADA, expressed her excitement about the plan. The downtown infrastructure, particularly
the condition of some buildings which are in terrible shape. She would like the small town feel of Main
Street to remain. The City needs long range planning for the downtown area. M. Keimig agreed with Ms.
Norman's statements. It is imperative to find economic vitality to give downtown building owners the
impetuous to improve their buildings.
Economic Development Manger Hicks said the plan will be taken to the Finance Committee and other
Council committees. It will then be distributed to others such as the Chamber and ADA.
Auburn North Business Area Plan
Assistant Planning Director Rued understands that the Committee had questions regarding this plan and in
particular the project at the comer of Auburn Way North and 9th Street. The Committee was provided
copies of the plan and the site plan.
PAGE 5
MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
NOVEMBER 9, 1998
Councilmember Lewis remarked that the plan is not really the focus of discussion. The concept of having
most buildings on exterior lots with parking hidden from street was considered a superior concept.
However, the project under construction at Auburn Way and 10~' Street is the reason that this concept is not
a great idea. He does not approve of the project's design. Streets can become caverns with buildings with
false windows two stories high right against the street with little landscaping next to the street. An
unbroken line of buildings on the street is not a good idea. He does not believe anyone in the City wants to
see this concept repeated.
Chairman Borden asked how the proponent complied with the plan. Planning Director Krauss explained
that the idea is to make a community that is comfortable, where the car does not dominate. The plan had
the right idea, and could be beefed up with a design ordinance that is more specific/demanding. The plan
has certain polices, but Auburn does not a have design review standards. The plan was a good attempt that
could be fleshed out. Assistant Planning Director Rued advised that staff does have a solid draft design
review standards completed, and it is almost ready for distribution for comments.
Councilmember Lewis reiterated his concerns about buildings with this concept in mind, but not stated
desire of the City. He is concerned that others might interpret this project as something the City wants to
see repeated. Planning Director Krauss remarked that the project was the first attempt at something
different. The City should be able to achieve a design that is more pleasing the next time. Staff could take
another look at the plan.
Assistant Planning Director Rued advised that staff wrestled with the desires of the tenants because they
wanted to have the front of store at the parking lot. The internal configuration means the storage is at the
back of the building. Staff could have taken a harder stand on this project, however, Office Max might not
have continued with the project. Staff tried to have a balance between what the plan required and what the
developer wanted.
Councilmember Lewis suggested that more discussion is needed on how commercial development is sited.
Large buildings on the back of a site with parking lot in front is probably not better, however, large
buildings right on the street is not best. He believes that neither of the two concepts is ideal, and
acknowledged that it has been a learning experience. The City does not have any design standards or
concepts outside the plan. The Committee needs to be involved in what the City should be looking at for
future commercial development.
Chairman Borden asked how the project complied with the plan. Assistant Planning Director Rued
remarked that the required windows are in place, the landscaping is provided, walkways are installed,
setbacks met, and meeting all criteria as in the plan. He pointed out a couple additional items that could
have been provided such as wider sidewalk between the buildings. Assistant Planning Director Rued said
the plan requires four times more landscaping and the project met the minimum requirements, but the
landscaping is not very imaginative. One of the plan's concepts was to make the area more compatible
with the downtown area and to extend the "downtown" area a bit.
Planning Director Krauss announced that when the plan was done six years ago some of the requirements
were considered radical. Councilmember Lewis does not want to see a tunnel of buildings up and down
Auburn Way. It was a good concept in theory. Mayor said the project met all standards and requirements
as in the plan.
Councilmember Lewis does not see anything wrong with corridor planning. Planning Director Krauss
remarked that a site plan review ordinance is a tool that would allow the City to look at this kind of
development. A corridor design approach could work on Auburn Way North. As property is developed, it
could be brought up to standard.
PAGE 6
MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
NOVEMBER 9, 1998
With no further items to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
PCDCWIINX 11 A-98
PAGE 7