Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-25-1999MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE JANUARY 25, 1999 The regular meeting of the Planning and Community Development Committee was held January 25, 1999 in-~he Council Work Area. Those members in attendance were as follows: MEMBERS PRESENT: Trish Borden, Sue Singer, and Pete Lewis STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Bob Sokol, Dick Deal, and Patti Zook ALSO PRESENT: Mayor Booth The meeting was called to order by Committee Chair Borden at 6:30 p.m. 1. Asset Removal - Cellular Phone Parks and Recreation Director Deal presented the staff report which requests the removal of a broken and unusable portable cellular phone from the fixed asset master list. Councilmember Lewis made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Singer, to recommend approval. Chairman Borden concurred. Social Serve Agencies Resolutions and Agreements: 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Resolution 3034 Resolution 3035 Resolution 3036 Resolution 3037 Resolution 3038 Resolution 3039 Resolution 3040 Resolution 3041 - ACAP Apple Parenting - ACAP Early Childhood -Aubum Community Suppers - Auburn Youth Resources - Catholic Community Services-CHORE - Children's Home Society - Community Health Centers - Crisis Clinic Resolution 3042 - DAWN - Advocate Resolution 3043 - DAWN - General Resolution 3044 - Auburn Food Bank Resolution 3045 - King County Sexual Assault Resource Center Resolution 3046 - Valley Cities Counseling & Consultation Resolution 3047 - Washington Women's Employment & Education (WWEE) Chairman Borden asked about the logic model in the contract. Principal Planner Sokol explained the purpose of the logic model was to be used to measure performance. Chairman Borden expressed concern that the logic model does not appear to be related to the outcome of services. Principal Planner Sokol presented an example for better clarification. Chairman Borden is concerned that this seems like extra work for the service providers. She referred to the Food Bank, whose outcome of services is the distribution of food. Planning Department Director Krauss referred to the Washington Womens Employment and Education, and said that the City not only wants to know the number of persons served, but also wants to know if the outcomes were successful such as in women who return to the work force and provide for their children. Chairman Borden requested to see a copy of the service reports that agencies provide to the City. Principal Planner Sokol advised that the 1999 reports will not be available until sometime in February after the submission of the first invoice statements. The above Resolutions were taken as one item. Councilmember Lewis made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Singer, to recommend approval of the resolutions and agreements. Chairman Borden concurred. PAGE 1 MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE JANUARY 25, 1999 16. Park Impact Fees Parks and Recreation Director Deal remarked that he spoke recently with Randy Young, Henderson Young & Company, and received some clarification on this topic. He distributed the Rate Study for Impact Fees for Parks and Recreation Facilities, review draft dated January 15, 1999 to the Committee. He began to present a series of overheads fi.om this study. The next overhead sheet entitled Executive Summary was reviewed and then the next overhead, Who Pays Impact Fees, was presented. Planning Department Director Krauss remarked that a developer may put in a tennis court or tot lot which does not meet requirement to mitigate the impacts. The two amenities would be for use of his development. The development would still have impacts on trails, baseball courts, etc., that are City owned. The Rate Plan does not include trails. The City should look at fees that include trails and this may be higher than fee in the study. If a developer builds trail and dedicates it to the City, this would absolve him of trail fees, but not community park fees. Principal Planner Sokol said that if a trail goes through development and connects with another trail, and is more than they would pay for trail development, the developer could possibly receive a credit toward the community park. Mayor cautioned that the developer should only get credit for a trail identified in the Park Plan, not any trail they wanted to develop. Parks and Recreation Director Deal explained that the developer could put in a six acre trail if it met City standards and if met with City al~proval. This would be the City's choice and he could get credit for the improvements. Parks and Recreation Director Deal showed the next overhead, Expenditure Requirements for Impact Fees, and reviewed. The next overhead, Chapter 1, Statutory Basis and Methodology, was briefly explained. A discussion occurred of using funds collected for community park versus neighborhood park if a community park is adjacent to development that has already fully developed. The collected money would be used for the community park. Parks and Recreation Director Deal reminded the Committee that the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) can be changed each six year period to expend funds. Planning Department Director Krauss wanted to clarify Parks and Recreation Director Deal's statement. When a facility, such as a street or park, is on the CFP, the developer is not free to develop the property as it wants. He gave an example of a possible negotiation between the City and developer. If the City has impact fees, all must be treated equal. Parks and Recreation Director Deal advised that several areas needing parks have been identified. Planning Department Director Krauss advised that the Lakeland development cannot be used as an example because of the special negotiations. Parks and Recreation Director Deal said that Lakeland had 72 acres to be developed as a park which would have been a huge expenditure for the City to develop. The City opted to accept less property, but take a percentage of property developed to City's standards. Councilmember Lewis wanted to know why it is better to have an impact fee. Parks and Recreation Director Deal stated that in Lakeland, the City was getting neighborhood parks and community parks. The Rate Study addresses items in the CFP only. Parks and Recreation Director Deal reviewed the next overhead, Capital Facilities Plans, (page 6 of Study). Next overhead, Need for Additional Parks and Recreation Facilities, was reviewed. Another overhead, Determining the Benefit to Development, was presented. He reviewed items 1, 2, 3 under this heading. An overhead entitled Methodology and Relationship to Capital Facilities Plan was presented. He reviewed the five different formulas. He presented an example of a two acre park using the five formulas showing how the cost is calculated. Parks and Recreation Director Deal showed the next overhead, Chapter 2, Capital Project Capacity Costs, and briefly reviewed. Formula 1 and Formula 2 were reviewed. PAGE 2 MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE JANUARY 25, 1999 Planning Department Director Krauss reminded the Committee of the CFP process and projects presented fo~- ' funding in the Plan. With the impact fee process, it may now be possible to bring some projects back into the CFP. Mr. Young, Henderson Young & Company, indicated that that projects in addition to four cited could be funded. Parks and Recreation Director Deal continued reviewing Table 1, Community Parks Capacity Project Costs 1999- 2004, followed by Table 2, Community Parks Unfunded Capacity Costs 1999-2004. Principal Planner Sokol advised that the land costs were not figured and this could be figured in and charged back. However, the City could not charge impact fees at the current market. Parks and Recreation Director Deal remarked that Mr. Young can answer some of the questions that the Committee might have I more detail. Chairman Borden wondered about funding for Game Farm Park. Parks and Recreation Director Deal mentioned that this park is not yet fully developed. Parks and Recreation Director Deal showed the next overhead, Calculation of Unfunded Cost Per Park Facility, and Table 3, Community Parks Unfunded Cost Per Acre 1999-2004. He reviewed the next overhead, Chapter 3, Unfunded Cost Per Capita and Formula 4. He reviewed Table 4, Parks Facilities Unfunded Costs Per Capita. He referred to the Rate Study distributed to Committee earlier in the evening, and said it is a good model to look at, but the numbers are not accurate and need to have them be more truly reflective. Planning Department Director Krauss advised that'City Council needs to determine its goals for the impact fees. Chairman Borden remembered seeing additional projects listed for funding that were not in the final CFP. Planning Department Director Krauss remarked that the Council had determined which were the most important projects. Council considered the available resources and projects did not correlate. The Finance Director prepared what f'mancial resources should be and Mr. Young helped to prioritize the list. The CFP was a melding of this information. Parks and Recreation Director Deal stressed that there is no dedicated funding for parks; only utilities and streets have dedicated funds. Principal Planner Sokol pointed out that over the last few years 350 units/year total times $500 equals $175,000 or $200,000 that Council can allocate to other parks projects. Parks and Recreation Director Deal is working with the Finance Department to provide numbers for Mr. Young to "crunch". The City has the ability to put in the Plan whatever Council feels the traffic will bear. Parks and Recreation Director Deal said the advantage of the CFP is the ability to update it each years; however, the City has only six years to spend the funds. Chairman Borden is concerned that multi-family development does not contribute to the park system; only large developments are paying for the parks. Councilmember Singer wondered about the Lakeland multi-family housing. Planning Department Director Krauss said the Lakeland multi-family is townhomes, quads, etc., and the proposed I Street project will have a portion that is multi-family. Councilmember Lewis remarked that the I Street project could be set up such that it could be mitigated in different ways; for example, land or cash in lieu of land. The I Street project will pay into the system. The City cannot at present collect mitigation from a multi-family projects. Councilmember Lewis remarked that excluding Lakeland, what other new multi-family development is in the City. Planning Department Director Krauss mentioned that there are new townhomes by Chinook School and a project by Doug Trussler on M Street. As the City annexes more land, it is getting a variety of styles. There is some infill single family development which is under the threshold and does not pay. Chairman Borden stressed the need to negotiate for some parks with the bigger developers on Lea Hill. Mayor said the City can only negotiate in the area because of the Potential Annexation Area (PAA). Parks and Recreation Director Deal remarked that for some of the development the City has negotiated, and for other development the City has not. In some cases, the problem is the City's ability to negotiate on this matter. A one acre park is too costly to maintain and is more trouble than it is Worth. The City did receive from Finkbeiner Development approximately six acres toward a park. Planning Department Director Krauss pointed out that Finkbeiner gave land under a power line and met the King County requirements. PAGE 3 MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE JANUA.RY 25, 1999 Chairman Borden asked if park property in the PAA has to be developed to City's standards. Planning Department Director Krauss advised that the City can attempt to require that park land be developed to City's standards, but this probably cannot be mandated. Chairman Borden wondered if having an impact fee could correct this. Principal Planner Sokol advised that the impact fee could not be applied to property outside Auburn's City limits. Chairman Borden declared her support for the direction toward park impact fees. She requested to see a list of projects that were previously on the CFP list. Planning Department Director Krauss reminded the Committee that a special Council meeting will be held on impact fees. Councilmember Singer would like to see what the total impact fees for park, school and traffic will be. She recognized the need to have an open discussion on this topic. Planning Department Director Krauss reminded the Committee that Mr. Young had to do an education process of sorts with the Council some time ago. Mr. Young was used to help rationalize numbers and come up with a program that is defensible. The impact fees that the Committee has talked about are virtually ready to go to the Council work shop. However, the transportation impact fee is not yet ready for discussion. This is still going through the Public Works Committee. Chairman Borden indicated her willingness to vote on parks and schools impact fees. She wondered if the transportation impact fees will ever get through the Public Works Committee. Planning Department Director Krauss provided some input on the reason for the !ength of time that the transportation fees have been in this Committee. Planning Department Director Krauss explained why the fire impact fees will not be brought forward for Council approval. For the next Committee meeting, staff will come back with Parks and Recreation Director Deal's project list and survey for comparison. He will talk with the Public Works Director and fred out the status of the transportation impact fees. 17. BIA Press Release on Impact Fees No discussion was held on this item. Other Matters: 18. Annexation into the City of Auburn Planning Department Director Krauss distributed a copy of a letter sent to those living in a King County "island" adjacent to the City. He explained that Auburn can annex the properties if the City surrounds the islands. Councilmember Lewis strongly supports the City's annexation of these islands. 19. Correspondence from the Washing State Liquor Control Board No Bull Casino Saloon & Restaurant has withdrawn their liquor license application. With no further items to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. PCDCLMIN~ 1 B-99 PAGE 4