Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-08-1999MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 8, 1999 The regular meeting of the Planning and Community Development Committee was held February 8, 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, Lynn Rued, Dick Deal, and Patti Zook ALSO PRESENT: Mayor Booth; several representatives for Funsters; Mr. Steiner, representative for Freddie's Casino The meeting was called to order by Committee Chair Borden at 6:30 p.m. 1. Little League Concession Agreement - Resolution 3060 2. Optimist Club Concession Agreement - Resolution 3061 Parks and Recreation Director Deal remarked that these two agreements are the same as in years past. Councilmember Lewis made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Singer, to recommend approval. Chairman Borden concurred. 3. Award Small Works Contract 99-03 Parks and Recreation Director Deal presented the staffmport. Councilmember Lewis referred to the estimated cost of $2,000 for inspection and administration and wanted to know what the amount covered. Parks and Recreation Director Deal advised that the process is handled by the Public Works Department. The construction inspectors will be inspecting the project and the City's Contract Administrator will be handling the paperwork. The amount is an in-house expense. Councilmember Lewis made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Singer, to recommend approval. Chairman Borden concurred. 4. Zoning Approach to Regulate Gaming Planning Director Krauss advised that the City Council is looking at a variety of measures to control the spread of gambling in the City. One way is to include land use controls which do not prohibit the activity, but provide parameters that define acceptable locations. The issue of increased taxation on gambling will be discussed in an upcoming meeting with the Finance Committee. No Council Committee is looking at prohibiting gambling, but it may be discussed at a regular Council meeting. He mentioned ACC 5.44 which allows gambling as approved by the State and which has been in effect for years before the development of casinos. Planning Director Krauss advised that the City set a precedent by adoption of its regulatory framework for adult uses. The City was obligated to provide areas where adult uses are permitted. The City created buffer zones around sensitive uses such as schools, churches, parks, and day cares and adult uses were prohibited within 1,000 feet of these uses. City Council can decide if gambling uses should be located next to single family neighborhoods, schools, churches, etc. The City's approach to adult uses could be applied to gambling. He then showed a map which depicted the adult use exclusionary zones. Councilmember Lewis asked if Auburn uses the same methodology, what is the affect of sites under discussion and woundered if they would they be grandfathered. Planning Director Krauss mentioned the Mayor's letter to the Gambling Commission in which the City determined that Funsters and No Bull are vested. PAGE 1 MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 8, 1999 Chairman Borden asked if the City of Renton was doing something similar to what Auburn is contemplating. Planning Director Krauss said yes. Renton is considering restricting gambling from some portions of town. Mr. Steiner, Freddie's Casino, said the City of Renton has restricted gambling from the downtown area. Chairman Borden referred to Planning Director Krauss's memorandum, and wondered about the percentage of income related to food served. Mr. Steiner said the requirement was recently changed. A business must have a restaurant in order to have a card room. He advised that a restaurant is important to a card room. The restaurant must be open when the card room is open. A Funsters representative said the ratio was 60% food and 40% liquor. The Liquor Control Board abolished the requirement and it is now minimal. Chairman Borden referred to Planning Director Krauss's memo which mentioned mini casinos, and she wondered if this was a legal classification in state law. Planning Director Krauss said the City can differentiate between different games and how to regulate them. The City can have a different regulatory process for pull tabs. Mr. Steiner remarked that "mini casinos" is not a legal name; however, it is part of the card room enhancement program. Planning Director Krauss said the City Can distinguish between the different types. Staff may refer back to the State statute. Chairman Borden referred to a study that was given to her. Assistant Planning Director Rued said the study was prepared by lottery representatives a few years ago. Chairman Borden wanted to know what the Legislature was doing on the matter. Mayor said that it is being used as a lead up to a decision relating to the present circumstances. Assistant Planning Director Rued advised that if the Zoning Ordinance is being changed, the matter must be referred by the PCDC to the Planning Commission. The Commission will hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council. He then mentioned a possible time frame for this. Councilmember Singer made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Lewis, to recommend preparation of an ordinance to regulate expanded gambling operations licensed by the State. The matter is being referred to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. Pierce County Annexation Update Planning Director Krauss provided some background information. Recently a meeting was held with Pierce County to discuss the interlocal. Last December, he received a phone call from Pierce County indicating that they would oppose the Lakeland Phase 2 annexation. Tom Ballard, Pierce County Engineer, and Jan Shabro, Pierce County Councilmember, spoke to the Council last year regarding the Lake Tapps Parkway. At that time, they indicated the County only sought City cooperation on allowing the County to acquire ROW and complete construction of the road. The second phase of the parkway is a bridge over East Valley Highway and the railroad tracks. Auburn was able to get the bridge included in the FAST Corridor projects for construction. He advised the City has been working with Pierce County on an interlocal agreement since last summer. The agreement has raised several issues. One issue is that the drainage system for the parkway does not meet the City's standards. He explained the City's requirement for the drainage system. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the new regulations by the EPA for water discharges were mentioned. Auburn successfully negotiated an agreement with Lakeland. The interlocal agreement with Pierce County focuses on the parkway. The other issue is that now the County wishes to have Auburn pay for a part of the parkway. He briefly mentioned some of the significant obstacles to be overcome; some of the issues could potentially be insurmountable. Councilmember Lewis wanted to know what Tom Ballard's response was to the City's concerns. Planning Director Krauss advised that Mr. Ballard said the City should not annex. Planning Director Krauss PAGE 2 MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 8, 1999 described the configuration of the new parkway, including the number of lanes, bridge, striping, etc.- Pierce County wants to mandate that Auburn build two lanes at a date certain. Councilmember Lewis wanted to know the reasons for annexing the parkway. Planning Director Krauss used a map to show what was annexed in Lakeland Phase 1 and then showed the property covered in the proposed Lakeland Phase 2 annexation. Mr. Ballard has stressed that he will oppose any further annexation without an interlocal agreement. Councilmember Lewis wondered if the interlocal requires annexing property past the parkway. Mayor advised that Pierce County will oppose the annexation no matter what unless Auburn buys into the two lanes on the parkway. He was adamant that Auburn will not construct two lanes of traffic for a roadway that is used by "background" traffic. Councilmember Singer suggested that Auburn continue with the annexation and let Pierce County appeal. Planning Director Krauss advised that the Boundary Review Board is supposed to be an independent organization, however it is staffed by Pierce County personnel. The Board regards themselves as the guardians of Pierce County policies. He remarked that the recent meeting with Pierce County was amiable. Councilmember Lewis commented that Pierce County wants someone to step up and pay for the roadway. Planning Director Krauss mentioned the possible design flaws with the storm drainage system. Councilmember Lewis wanted to know il/there is any pressure to annex now. Planning Director Krauss replied no. He mentioned the preannexation agreement that has been discussed with Terrace View. Councilmember Singer remarked that Pierce County should pay for the road and receive the impact fees. Mayor remarked that Pierce County will oppose anything until and unless Auburn agrees to funding a portion of the second phase of the parkway. Planning Director Krauss advised that the City's Finance Director has indicated that Auburn should ideally annex the property before development because of the sales tax issue. Councilmember Lewis believes that Auburn is in a good position to bargain now. The pressure to annex the property is currently dormant. Councilmember Lewis appreciates the "heads up" information from staff on the status of the annexation. He agrees with the Mayor that the City should not take on the financial responsibility for the parkway. In response to Chairman Borden's inquiry, Planning Director Krauss mentioned the scope of the problem with the storm drainage system and possible reduction in the potential problems. Planning Director Krauss remarked that the revised agreement contained in the packet was presented to Pierce County at the recent meeting. Park Impact Fees Parks and Recreation Director Deal presented overheads on cost to develop a community park, linear park and neighborhood park. The first overhead, cost to develop a 13 acre community park, was presented. He reviewed the example presented. Councilmember Lewis referred to this park and asked if the City is planning on acquiring such a park. Parks and Recreation Director Deal said development would create a need for the park which is identified in the Park Plan as a future need. Parks and Recreation Director Deal showed the next overhead, cost to develop a 5 acre neighborhood park, and reviewed the example presented. Parks and Recreation Director Deal showed the next overhead, cost to develop a linear park, and reviewed the example presented. He showed the next overhead, an example based on 300 single family units per year and 2.5 residents per unit. Councilmember Singer asked how many new homes are built each year. Parks and Recreation Director Deal was informed by Bob Sokol, Principal Planner, that about 300 homes are constructed yearly. Assistant Planning Director Rued advised that the 300 figure is on the high side. Councilmember Lewis suggested that a review of building permits fi.om last year may be in order. PAGE 3 MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 8, 1999 Assistant Planning Director Rued said that Vistara, Riverwalk, Lakeland, and scattered infill type projects throughout the City comprise the new housing stock. Planning Director Krauss said that Riverwalk had some park dedication and that none of these projects would need to pay an impact fee. He reminded the Committee that multi family projects to do not contribute to park costs. Councilmember Lewis wanted to confirm that the justification is because multi family projects do not pay; if single family project goes forward, it is already paid. Assistant Planning Director Rued stressed that projects are only "dinged" once. Councilmember Lewis wanted to confn'm that Lakeland will not be subject to an impact fee. Planning Director Krauss said this is correct because Lakeland has akeady paid into the parks. He then referred to Miles property, the Academy and I Street as potential large-scale development that would be subject to a fee. Councilmember Lewis expressed concern about equity and how much a small homeowner building a house might be assessed. Planning Director Krauss said there is a possibility of inequity in letting an individual homeowner not pay when a homeowner in Lakeland has paid into the parks system. Mayor briefly mentioned Growth Management Act (GMA) requirements. Chairman Borden believes that impact fe~s are a new way of negotiating with new developments whether they are large or small. The same calculation figures would be used. Multi family would be paying into the system which currently they do not have to do. Councilmember Lewis remarked that there is not a way to make small muti family projects pay. Assistant Planning Director Rued said that park dedication is tripped now by a project having more than 50 units. Planning Director Krauss remarked that the assumption that the larger projects can be "tripped' some other way is inaccurate. Councilmember Singer wanted to know why there is not a standard for multi family projects. Planning Director Krauss remarked that he asked the City Attorney is the standard could be applied and asked about changing the park dedication to capture multi family. The City Attorney advised that the Legislature has determined that impact fees are the method of choice. " Parks and Recreation Director Deal stated that Lakeland had to develop at a certain standard. They did not give the City any money, but developed parks to City standards. Discussion occurred on the property taxes the City would receive from a $200,000 home. Chairman Borden mentioned the School District discount. Planning Director Krauss suggested that the Finance Director attend the special Council meeting. Residential development, such as Lakeland, does not pay for itself. One could argue that the equation favors the City for about 20 years. The City assumes that Lakeland will require fewer police, fu'e, and social service agency services. The cash flow is marginal in the City's favor. In the Lea Hill annexation, the City will be the financial loser. If Lakeland is used as an example, they are paying a transportation impact fee, park development, and fire impact. These are fees that the City does not have. The Lakeland settlement agreement is quite fair. Chairman Borden commented that in the past it seems that the City developed parks with grant monies. Parks and Recreation Director Deal remarked that since 1986, most parks were developed with bond issue monies. Some funds have come from King County. The Conservation Futures enabled acquisition of the Fenster property and others. A real estate representative said that he wants to look at staffmaterial and submit written comments at a later date. The City was empowered through SEPA to get mitigation on projects. Under the GMA, Auburn could use impact fees providing they were utilized on projects listed on CIP that mitigated specific impacts. He is unclear if the City has lost the ability to pursue mitigation currently under SEPA. PAGE 4 MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 8, 1999 Councilmember Singer asked what happens with SEPA if impact fees are imposed. Planning DirectOr Krauss remarked that the State is looking to phase out extraneous requirements, but not yet. If impact fees are enacted, the City would not look to SEPA for mitigation of those impacts. The real estate representative wondered if there will be a choice as to whether with SEPA or impact fee; a policy choice or constrained by law. Parks and Recreation Director Deal explained that the problem with smaller developments is that the SEPA provided facilities for special development. If smaller project, the City cannot do anything with a small park. The City would need additional facility in another part of town. He likes the idea of having the ability to use money where it is needed. Chairman Borden asked if the numbers change if less houses are developed. Parks and Recreation Director Deal replied no; the rate is slower. Councilmember Lewis commented that the Committee has discussed the topic and viewed overheads for awhile now. Staff should have an idea of the Committee's position on park impact fees. He does not want to have any more presentations. He does not believe at this point, with what is allowed to do with mitigation, that impact fees are an option the City should be limited to. Planning Director Krauss remarked that the Public Works Committee is still looking at the transportation impact fee issue. They are a bit behind schedule and will try to address this topic at their next meeting. Mayor stressed the importance of the Council being able to review the entire package. Chairman Borden asked what the impact would be of not having park impact fees. Parks and Recreation Director Deal said that projects would stay within the SEPA process. Staff could prepare some numbers to see what percentage of development has not done. Chairman Borden is unsure of what the City's negotiating ability will be in the future. Planning Director Krauss provided information on what the City Attorney said regarding this. He briefly described the Dolan case. Chairman Borden believes it might be easier to administer the impact fee rather than lower the City's standards. Assistant Planning Director Rued said that impact fees would be a benefit to the developer because it is hard to dedicate park land to the City. Their dedicated park land cannot be built on and the developer loses money. Paying an impact fee would be less than donating acerage to the City. Councilmember Lewis spoke about making payment in lieu of land. Planning Director Krauss advised what the Land Division Ordinance permits. Councilmember Lewis believes there might be some conflicting information on this. Using Lakeland as an example, Counciimember Lewis has a problem with the cash formula and converting raw land to cash land. Planning Director Krauss mentioned the negotiations under SEPA. The City is not taking money and banking the funds. Councilmember Lewis wanted more information on the third alternative discussed by Parks and Recreation Director Deal in previous presentations. Planning Director Krauss advised that the State regulates the City's ability to tax. The City Attorney could answer some of the concerns expressed by the Committee. Chairman Borden does not see a reason for not doing impact fees. Impact fees would make development more predictable for developers. Planning Director Krauss advised that the Public Works Committee still needs more time, and this could be discussed again in early March. Chairman Borden referred to a memorandum received fxom Bob Poldevart, Auburn School District, which has created some confusion. Is the District requesting $3,500 for all areas that it covers. Planning Director Krauss believes this is correct. The memorandum to Council was for clarification purposes, but may it may have made things a bit more confusing. PAGE 5 MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 8, 1999 Discussion occurred on the process of collecting the school impact fees. Discussion occurred of what Lakeland has paid in fees and what they will pay in impact fees. Councilmember Lewis remarked that he will accept and read information prior to the special Council meeting. With no further items to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. PCDC~VI1N'O.A-99 PAGE 6