Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-09-1999MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AUGUST 9, 1999 The regular meeting of the Planning and Community Development Committee was held August 9, 1999 in the Council W.ork Area. Those members in attendance were as follows: MEMBERS PRESENT: Trish Borden, Sue Singer, and Pete Lewis STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Betty Sanders, Jeff Dixon, Dick Deal, Diane Supler, and Patti Zook ALSO PRESENT: Mayor Booth; Richard Weinman, Huckell/Weinman; Nancy Krause, Auburn Downtown Association The meeting was called to order by Committee Chair Borden at 6:30 p.m. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Resolution 3109 - Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO) and Consultant Agreement Planner II Dixon reviewed this topic and introduced Richard Weinman, from Huckell Weinman, the selected consultant firm. He stated that specific regulations are needed to protect sensitive areas and to develop a more efficient review process. The City hopes to build upon the experience of other jurisdictions and the consultant, He then mentioned the selection process for the consultant in which nine fh'ms were reviewed. He then distributed revised information to the Committee. Mr. Weinman described the scope of work and how they will approach the project. The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires cities to designate and regulate sensitive areas. The proposal uses the best science available. The scope of work contains a seven step approach to accomplish which he then briefly reviewed. Councilmember Singer wondered if there is much disparity between the ordinances in the area. Mr. Weinman said the Auburn process will have some similarity to the others because the basic approach is similar. There will be different buffer standards at streams and these standards can vary between jurisdictions. There is some agreement on a common set of standards. Councilmember Lewis referred to the time frame, and wondered about starting later after the Federal information on the Endangered Species Art (ESA) is received. The consultant can do background research now. Planning Director Krauss remarked that early information released did give an indication of the direction the Federal government was going. The SAO has been in the budget for several years and needed to be done before the ESA issue surfaced. Auburn has strong policies supporting SAO issues, but has lacked ordinances and defined standards. There is also a need to incorporate current data and technologies to protect the enviornment. The ESA and Federal agency issues could go on for years and there may never be concise Federal direction on how to protect salmon. Staff wants to get started on the fundamental work. The process could be stretched out a bit farther into next year, with research gathered, and then digest the Federal information as it comes out. He stressed that the SAO is only a first step in responding to ESA issues. Councilmember Lewis remarked that the public involvement and communication should not be done before the issue papers are received by the City. Mr. Weinman referred to the standards and the other issues relating to the administration of the ordinance and if the City wants to take regulatory approach to managing or an incentive approach to managing. The City will need to decide which approach to utilize. Until the Federal government publishes the 4D rule later this year, the City will not know how big the buffers should be. It will be useful to get background information on how the ordinances work. The process will be very different from the way the City has been regulating for the past 10 years. PAGE 1 MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AUGUST 9, 1999 Councilmember Singer asked how the public will be informed about the process. Mr. Weinman disclosed that the public will be notified through a combination of notices in the newspaper, press releases, and hopefully an article in the newspaper. The City also has mailing lists of interested organizations. Written comments will also be accepted. He plans to have open house/work shop for the public as well in order to present information relating to resources and approaches. Councilmember Singer agreed with Councilmember Lewis in that the schedule seems weighted toward the end so more information can be obtained. Chairman Borden remarked that she is glad the City is getting started on the SAO. The City might have to amend the SAO, but it cannot wait for the Federal government's action. She indicated interested in seeing ordinances from other cities. Councilmember Singer referred to page 5 of the estimated budget and wondered why the City is being responsible for the printing and mailing of documents. Planning Director Krauss explained that the City often does this and the project is fully funded in the 1999 budget. Councilmember Lewis made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Singer, to recommend approval of the resolution. Chairman Borden concurred. BIA Amended Budget Planner I Sanders presented the staff report. She gave a brief background on the BIA budget reviews and adoptions. They have worked with the Finance Department to get on the same yearly system as the City. Ms. Krause, ADA Director, presented a brief annual report which was distributed. Planner I Sanders mentioned the three awards received. She then reviewed the amended budget proposal. She indicated that the primary purpose of the action was to extend the BIA budget by six months to conform to the City's budgeting schedule. Councilmember Lewis wondered if there was a finalized budget. Planner I sanders said the draft needs to be in a better form. The Board meets tomorrow and it will be finalized. Councilmember Lewis remarked that if the change is simply a change to the end of the year, to December 31, the budget could just be extended. Finance Director Supler advised that the authority to expend funds would not be in place and this change gets the process back on "track". Councilmember Singer made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Lewis, to recommend approval. Chairman Borden concurred. Contract with the Auburn Downtown Association (ADA) Planner I Sanders presented the staff report. The ADA contract needs to be extend for six months through December 31, 1999 to run concurrently with the revised budget fiscal year. The contract itself is not being changed. Councilmembe} Singer made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Lewis, to recommend approval. Chairman Borden Concurred. Consideration of a Resolution for First United Methodist Church's "Zone of Peace" Mayor remarked that the Church wishes to affiliate with a world wide organization and they have to have the concurrence of a governmental agency. The request was referred to the City Attorney who had issues relating to the request bordering on the separation of church and state. The City Attorney prepared a resolution, different from the Church's, which is in the packet. Chairman Borden wondered if any church can request this. Mayor replied yes. Chairman Borden likes the concept of the "zone of peace". Councilmember Lewis wondered why the Church is doing this. Mayor PAGE 2 MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AUGUST 9, 1999 said it requires the concurrency of the City government and the resolution must be noninclusive of religion. H.e acknowledged some concerns about-the request. He made it clear that he is not sponsoring the request. Councilmember Singer requested to see the Church's Cersion ofthe resolution. Councilmember Lewis wondered how may of these resolutions the City is going to be asked to sign. He does Support the Church's efforts. Councilmember Lewis then suggested a change of wording in the resolution relating to the City encouraging the prevention of violence, encouraging the mediation of conflict, and recognizing the efforts of individuals. The resolution wording should be made more general versus specific to the Church. Mayor pointed out the resolution heading also needs to be changed. He will speak to the City Attorney again regarding the matter. Councilmember Lewis agreed with Councilmember Singer's request to see the Church's original resolution. Chairman Borden mentioned that she did not understand why it might be a problem with separation of church and state. It might be prudent for the City Attorney to come to the next PCDC meeting and talk about the issue. Councilmember Lewis made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Singer, to table to the next PCDC meeting. Chairman Borden concurred. Councilmember Singer suggested that it might be a good idea for a Church representative to attend the meeting. DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. Year 2000 Briefing Finance Director Supler pointed out that staff is working on the year 2000 budget and Initiate 695. The budget is being submitted to departments to begin the next year budget process. Staff are preparing to work on long range planning relating to the possible passage of 1-695. She briefly described 1-695 and its potential ramifications. It will limit how cities can raise their fees on anything that the City charges. She wanted to advise the Committees on what the City is doing. Auburn is in a better financial position as compared to other new or small cities that do not have a strong economic base. Finance Director Supler remarked that components of the law, including its constitutionality, will be worked out in the court system. Regarding tax collection and tax increases, there are many legal questions that need to be answered. Staff are continuing to work on how to position the City in order to respond to the initiative. Staff are continuing to work on the best recommendation to present to City Council. Mayor reported that different law firms are recommending different things. Councilmember Singer asked how traffic projects will be impacted. Finance Director Supler mentioned two large projects, the 277~ Street and 3ra Street projects and both projects are on hold because of the way matching funds work. She mentioned that 1-695 will invalidate Referendum 49. Finance Director Supler continued by explaining the time frame of October versus November versus December and its repercussions and challenges. The City's priority, according to the Finance Department, should be water utility° Chairman Borden wondered about the effect of 1-695 on property tax increase. Finance Director Supler advised that in talking with the City's outside counsel, there are questions about when it becomes effective, the City's date or King County's date. No one seems to know when the action.date is officially determined and the initiative will affect this. She briefly mentioned cities being required to do more with less. She mentioned the State of Oregon's modeling. The City must have minimum contingency plans in place. Chairman Borden requested that Finance Director Supler obtain information on Oregon's modeling. Finance Director Supler advised that if 1-695 passes, she expects its proponents to try for property tax cuts next year. PAGE 3 MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AUGUST 9, 1999 Park Impact Fee Ordinance P~rks & Recreation Director Deal briefly reviewed sections contained in this chapter. On page 3, "project improvements" are any improvements not contained in the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP), and '!system improvements" are any improvements contained in the CFP. Chairman Borden pointed out that the chapter does not contain any figures for the fees. Parks & Recreation Director Deal reminded the PCDC that the fees are actually contained in the rate study that was previously distributed to the Committee. Councilmember Singer wanted to know who did the editorial changes. Planning Director Krauss advised that Randy Young, Henderson Young and Company, generated the ordinance, and the City formatted it to be consistent with the Auburn City Code. Councilmember Singer wanted to know how much the park impact fees will slow the permit process. Parks & Recreation Director Deal stressed that the park impact fees will actually speed the permit review process up because the City would not have to spend time negotiating with developers over park land. Mayor remarked that if the impact fees are passed, then they become part of the overall permit review process. Planning Director Krauss agreed that the impact fees will indeed hasten the permit review process. Considerable staff time is expended in negotiating with developers. The ordinance spells out exactly what must be done and the ordinance is predictable. Councilmember Singer referred to page 2, item G, asked which Director the section reefers to. Parks & Recreation Director Deal explained that it could be the Planning, Parks or Finance Director depending on the section of the chapter. Planning Director Krauss remarked that it should be specific as to who is administering the ordinance. Parks & Recreation Director Deal said that he will check with Randy regarding intent and get some clarification. A discussion occurred relating to page 3, 19.03.030, item A and the word "remodeling". Planning Director Krauss used an example and advised that this would apply if a large house was made into four apartments, or a house was turned into a duplex. It generally refers to apartments that are rented out. Staffwas directed to come to the Committee with language to amend this paragraph and delete the word "remodeling". Councilmember Singer referred to page 4, item F and wondered why this was included. Parks & Recreation Director Deal said the developers try to give property that is within the right-of-way and they will not get credit for doing this. Planning Director Krauss related that developers try to get double credit and used as an example setting aside green space next to a highway. Councilmember Singer referred to page 6, items C and D, and asked why the owners must request a refund. Planning Director Krauss stated that the City is obligated to return the funds. Mayor said the intent is to identify all claims for refunds. Parks & Recreation Director Deal added that the refunds go back to the property owner, not the developer. Parks & Recreation Director Deal redistributed the rate study. The fees are based on information contained in the CFP. Some items identified in the CFP have been done. There will always be something in the CFP that may be done or is in process. Councilmember Lewis wanted to express his strong desire to bring the park impact fees and traffic impact fees forward concurrently. He believes that acting on them separately will seriously decrease the possibility of passing them without the other piece of the puzzle. The City needs to wait for the Public Works Depamnent and Public Works Committee to get around to acting on the traffic impact fees. Planning Director Krauss then advised that the Public Works Committee will not be able to bring traffic impact fees forward until the end of the year. However, the park impact fees could be brought back in three to four weeks. Mayor stated his support of Councilmember Lewis' position on bringing both impact fees forward together. Councilmember Lewis stressed that he wants to see the traffic impact fees and PAGE 4 MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE , AUGUST 9, 1999 wants to know what is being proposed. He wants to see what kind of burden this places on the community an.d single family homes. Planning Director Krauss advised that if the referendum passes, the issue of impact fees in Auburn may be "dead" for two years. Councilmember Singer remarked that the perception exists that citizens want new growth to pay for itself. The park impact fees can be finalized and then wait for the traffic impact fee ordinance. Chairman Borden said that she does not need to see the traffic impact fees and believes that adjustments can be made. She is comfortable with the park impact fees and believe they would be approved by the City Council. Parks & Recreation Director Deal confirmed that the park impact fee ordinance will be cleaned up a bit and returned to the PCDC for review. 3. Concurrency Ordinance Planning Director Krauss advised that this concurrency ordinance goes along with the park impact fee ordinance. Chairman Borden agreed that it probably does not make sense to the review the concurrency ordinance at this point in time. Planning Director Krauss remarked that the City adopted a concurrency theory for the school impact fees. Staff is working on a generic ordinance for traffic impact fees and possibly for fire impact fees. If the park and traffic impact fee ordinances are on "hold", then this concurrency ordinance should also be on hold. He added that staffwill fine tune portions of the park impact fee ordinance as discussed tonight. He briefly explained the SEPA process in relation to the LOS. Sometimes projects are approved, but do not get built for two or three years. In some situations, the transportation staffhas said that a project reviewed and approved three years ago, but now the the circumstances have changed, and the proponent need to the analysis again. The concurrency certificate is considered "good as gold" and the proponent has met the test and paid the fee. Chairman Borden wanted to confirm that this would add predictability for the developer. Planning Director Krauss replied that it does contribute to the predictability. A short discussion occurred regarding the corridor level of service. Planning Director Krauss advised PCDC that he is working on the Comprehensive Plan amendments and one of these is more language which defines corridor level of service. The City does not need impact fees to do a corridor LOS because there is a difference in the process. INFORMATION ITEM: 1. Correspondence concerning Water/Sewer Certificate - WSC0006-99 No discussion occurred on this item. OTHER BUSINESS: Councilmember Lewis referred to the Auburn North Business Plan (ANBP) and its standards in relation to the standards for I Street development. Planning Director Krauss advised that there are no specific standards for I Street currently in place. The ANBP has been in effect for several years. He acknowledge that a certain developer wants to change several of the ANBP standards in order to better facilitate his particular development proposal. PAGE 5 MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AUGUST 9, 1999 Councilmember Lewis said that the ANBP, once perceived as a good idea, may in reality not be. He believes the City needs to state what it and the community wants to see in the way of development. He then suggested that Council members take a tour of Auburn. He also suggested that the ANBP be discussed at a future PCDC meeting. With no further items to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. PCDC\MIN~gA-99 PAGE 6