HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-13-1999MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
OCTOBER 13, 1999
The rescheduled meeting of the Planning and Community Development Committee was held October 13', 1999 in
the Council Work Area. Those members in attendance .were as follows:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Trish Borden and Pete Lewis
MEMBER ABSENT:
Sue Singer
STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Lynn Rued, Dick Deal, and Patti Zook
ALSO PRESENT:
Mayor Booth, Donald Rippey
The meeting was called to order by Committee Chair Borden at 6:30 p.m.
ACTION ITEMS:
1. ANX0004-99 - Donald Rippey
Assistant Planning Director Rued informed the Committee that this item is being added to the agenda. Mr.
Rippey and his neighbors have requested to start the annex process. There are five lots involved in the
annexation and approximately 4 acres. The next step is for the Council to authorize the preparation and
circulation of a petition for annexation. The petition will state that the property when annexed will assume
its pro rata share of bonded indebtedness. The property will assume the R-l, single Family zoning
designation upon annexation.
Planning Director Krauss remarked that the City was initiating a larger annexation known as the Steelhead
annexation that requires signatures. Certain individuals in this area are trying to accelerate the annexation
process by coming into the City.
Mr. Rippey believed that the Steelhead annexation would occur in the fall, but nOw understands that it will
occur toward the first of the year.
Councilmember Lewis made a motion, seconded by and concurred by Chairman Borden, to recommend
approval.
1. Surplus Planning Department Property
Planning Director Krauss mentioned to the Committee that several years ago staff worked with Public
Works to merge the two GIS systems into one, cost effective system. The Planning GIS system was kept
going for some time in order to transfer data onto the Public Works' system based on Auto Cad, that was
selected as the City's system. This process is complete and the Arclnfo system is no longe~' necessary.
Councilmember Lewis made a motion, seconded by and concurred by Chairman Borden, to recommend
approval
Amend Auburn City Code Chapter 14.18
Assistant Planning Director Rued reminded the Committee about the regulations to follow when extending
water/sewer outside the City limits. Staff proposes clarifying amendments to make the ordinance easier for
staff and the public. A "purpose" section is being added. Section 14.18.004 is added to provide guidance
as to when a property is annexed even though it is adjacent to the City limits. A "definitions" section has
also been added. Section 14.18.060 is amended to clarify Council's role when acting upon the Committee's
recommendation. Section 14.18.074 is added to allow for conditions of approval. Section 14.18.080 B is
added to ensure the City's review of a project prior to submittal to the County. Section 14.18.094 is added
PAGE 1
MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
OCTOBER 13, 1999
to ensure compliance with Chapter 14.18. He reiterated that Subsection A and B of 14.18.060 is being
changed to clarify the role of City council.
Chairman Borden remarked that she was a bit confused regarding section A and B and requested that it be
made clearer. She wondered if the Council could only amend or reject, but not approve. Assistant
Planning Director Rued said that the Council can only amend or rejectthe Committee's decision if it holds
a closed record hearing.
Councilmember Lewis asked about the purpose of the changes in the subsection. Assistant Planning
Director Rued advised that the language in the current Subsection A and B conflicted a bit with each other
and the revised language should make it clearer. Subsection A says that three things can.be done, and
Subsection B says that more things can be done. In talking with the City Attorney, take more restrictive
interpretation which is A.
Chairman Borden asked if a project could be sent back to the Committee without a public hearing.
Assistant Planning Director Rued replied yes. Chairman Borden wondered what the Committee would do.
Assistant Planning Director Rued said if an error was made or the record was incomplete, then maybe the
Committee would be asked to reconsider the record or decision without Council holding its own hearing.
Only one case has been remanded back to the Hearing Examiner in recent memory.
· Chairman Borden asked if the Committee could amend the decision and send back. Assistant Planning
Director Rued replied yes. Councilmember Lewis is unsure why the change is being made. Assistant
Planning Director Rued said the Subsection B gives the impression that Council can amend without
holding its own hearing.
Councilmember Lewis asked if the Committee has the final authority. Assistant Planning Director Rued
advised that Council reviews the record that was established by the Committee. Planning Director Krauss
remarked that the Committee is essentially acting in the same role as the Hearing Examiner and Planning
Commission by conducting the hearing and then making a recommendation to Council. Council would
have the closed record hearing based on the record from the Committee meeting.
Assistant Planning Director Rued referred to the Auburn City Code and read a section from it which related
to Council conducting its own closed record hearing in which it can afl-mn, reject, or modify the Hearing
Examiner decision.
Mayor said that the process is a fact fmding hearing at the Committee level and the Council is the next
level. There is no reason to have two separate records.
A discussion occurred relating to additional clarifying language for either Subsection A or Subsection B.
Assistant Planning Director Rued will add a sentence at the end of Subsection A to read ,"The Council may
also afl-u'm the Committee's recommendation". Councilmember Lewis indicated his understandin~ of what
the intent of the section is and does not have a problem with the wording.
Assistant Planning Director Rued reviewed ihe new section, 14.18.074 and then reviewed new Subsection
B of 14.18.080. Section 14.18.090, which is new, was reviewed next.
Councilmember Lewis made a motion, seconded by and concurred by Chairman Borden, to recommend
approval.
Chapter 1.27 - Posting Public Notices
Assistant Planning Director Rued informed the Committee that the intent is for additional public exposure
in addition to what the City currently does now. He provided information on the process as it currently
works, to include notices to adjacent property owners, posting notices near the site, publishing notice in the
PAGE 2
MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
OCTOBER 13, 1999
newspaper. Other jurisdictions do an additional step of large signage on site for the proposed land use
action. The proposed chapter still keeps the minimum legal requirements in place, but adds to that the
construction/erection ora posting board on site. Depending on the project size, additional signs may be
required. The fee is paid by the property owner who erects the sign on site. Staffwill then post notices on
the board with additional handouts for the public. This will provide additional notification to the
neighborhood of the proposed project. Assistant Planning Director Rued then distributed a revised Chapter
1.27 to the Committee and briefly reviewed changes.
Planning Director Krauss remarked that the purpose of the sign posting is to get better notice to the
' residents. Funding for this was allocated about two. years ago. Counciimember Lewis added that he has
seen these types of public notices in other jurisdictions.
Assistant Planning Director Rued mentioned that a sign deposit was being required as well; however, at the
request of the Finance Director this was changed to a replacement cost. It was determined that the deposit
process would not be cost effective to manage and process. The sign positing process will be implemented
at the first of the year because the boardsneed to be ordered and constructed.
Councilmember Lewis made a motion, seconded by and concurred by Chairman Borden, to recommend
approval.
Park Impact Fees
Chairman Borden advised that because Councilmember Singer is absent tonight, this item will be discussed
and acted upon at the October 25~ meeting.
Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Planning Director Krauss informed the Committee that the Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing on October 5*. This is the City's annual amendment process. The amendments do not have to be
acted upon tonight and can be discussed and acted on at the October 25~ meeting. The first three
policy/text amendments relate to the Auburn School District, Kent School District and Deringer School
Districts' Capital Facilities Plans (CFP). The City determines what it is willing to collect. An interlocal
. agree was signed with the Districts to collect the fees.
Chairman Borden asked if the fees are the same as requested last year. Planning Director Krauss replied
the fees are up a bit. Bob Poldervart and Fred High were at the Planning Commission meeting. There was
discussion over the muli-family fees. One citizen, Neil Kocina, expressed opposition to the Auburn CFP in
the belief that the pending Mill Pond apartments that bring additional children and children with problems
and special needs in the school system. This concern was not supported by the School District
representatives. Planning Director Krauss expects the School Districts to request that Council re-examine
the impact fees. Staff and Planning Commission recommend approval of the first three policy/text-
amendments.
Planning Director Krauss advised Sat a seri6s~ of Comprehensive Plan amendments were requested by Jeff
Oliphant, developer of the Auburn Marketplace. His requested amendments are in relation to the Auburn
North Business Area Plan (ANBAP). After several discussions with staff, Mr. Oliphant withdrew
policy/text amendment requests g4, #5 and #6.
P/T #7 deals with an issue of concern to Councilmember Lewis. The ANBAP sets out a development
pattern that creates interesting design challenges. The intent of AN 2.3 is to promote a pedestrian friendly
design and downtown feeling. He mentioned the Eagle building that is proposed as part of the Auburn
Marketplace project, and staff working on design alternations for the building's large blank wall in the back
of the building. The project will have an amalgam of street design features, wide meandering walkways,
screened walls, and no direct view of the lower portion of the Eagle building. The upper portions of the
PAGE 3
MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
OCTOBER 13, 1999
building will have roof and mansard features so the wall will not look like a blank wall. Staff has proposed
revising policy AN 2.3 to the language on page 6 of the staff report.
Councilmember Lewis commented that he has looked at other shopping centers in Woodinville and
Redmond. Using the white board, he drew and explained that one of the problems with a project on
Auburn Way in the position of the buildings in relation to the street. Woodinville has some good examples
of retail complexes that work. In that city, internal ring roads were used.
Planning Director Krauss believes the revised policy AN 2.3 achieves what Councilmember Lewis speaks
to. Councilmember Lewis commented that he believes developers are being told they have to adhere to the
Office Max "look". The City needs to modify the plan to get something closer to what Woodinville has.
He would like to see this kind of concept further developed in Auburn. He does not want to see everything
jammed together on the main arterials. He does not want to see the big box retails just disguised - the
building could be placed at an angle on the property, for example. He then gave an example of a project in
Redmond that features characteristics that he would like to see in Auburn. Planning Director Krauss
remarked that the Woodinville commercial development does have building fronting on its main street.
Councilmember Lewis remarked that the project looks nice. He thinks it is a good look for Auburn to
consider in the future.
Mayor offered that he likes what Mr. Oliphant has done with the Eagle building because it is an
improvement over initial drawings.
Councilmember Lewis advised that he does not have a problem with the language in the revised policy AN
2.3. He is concerned about where the vision of development goes after this. Planning Director Krauss said
that the City is trying to soften up massive buildings by incorporating certain design features.
Planning Director Krauss said that P/T #8 is dealt with in PT #7. Chairman Borden wanted to confu-m that
staff and Planning Commission did not recommend changes. Planning Director Krauss said that the
Comprehensive Plan amendment request is put in the "hopper" and needs to be acted on one way or the
other. A Comprehensive Plan amendment request cannot be ignored. The revised AN 2.3 should address
P/T #8.
Planning Director Krauss referred to P/T #9 and said there was an issue relating to signage restriction.
Staff has proposed amending AN 2.13 to include new language on top of page 7 of the staff report.
Planning Director Krauss said that P/T #10 relates to A Street. Policy AN 3.2 is now irrelevant and staff
and the Planning Commission recommended that this policy be deleted. Assistant Planning Director Rued
advised that when the policy was originally put in, it was the A Street that lied west of Fred Meyer. The
City did not want to extend the street through the parking lot and a residential area. There is now have
another A Street. Deletion of policy AN 3.2 is now appropriate.
Planning Director Krauss referred to P/T gl I which contains two components. The first component is Mr.
Oliphant's "Harvey criteria" as he calls it.. He,has requested lowering the LOS on all intersections in the
area of the City near his development. Staff recommended rejecting the request. Policies were prepared by
the transportation staff and there are two different Chapter 7s in the Comprehensive Plan amendments. On
chapter is for intersection LOS without impact fees, and the other chapter is corridor LOS with impact fees.
The reasons for the two Chapter 7s is because staff does not know what Council will to with transportation
impact fees. Staff needs to know the outcome of this before we can go with a version of changed Chapter
7.
Planning Director Krauss explained that impact fees are linked to corridor LOS which staff has been
recommending for years. The intersection LOS is archaic and is a difficult standard to accommodate. No
other city in the area does intersection LOS. Other cities can approve development with their type of LOS
system. A traveler's experience is through the whole corridor. The transportation staff have developed two
PAGE 4
MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
OCTOBER 13, 1999
different Chapter 7s. If Council does not approve transportation fees, need to improve some intersections.
Planning Director Krauss offered to invite Steve Mullen, Traffic Engineer, to the next Committee meeting
to answer questions.
Planning Director Krauss mentioned that there are several Compreh6nsive Plan map amendments. The
first, CPM #1, is for the northeast corner of the intersection of Auburn Way and 30t~ Street NE. The site is
zoned for industrial. He provided a background on the site. The request for the map amendment change
was received last year, but after the deadline. Staff and the Planning Commission recommend the change.
Planning Director Krauss referred to CMA #2, located north of 21't Street between C and F Streets. This is
a straight forward request by Public Works Department. Staff and the Planning Commission recommend
the change.
CPM #3 was withdrawn by its proponent.
Planning Director Krauss referred to CPM #4 for the Lakeland Hills area. This request was accepted very
late in the process. He provided information on the proposed Mill Pond apartment complex. This is
controversy over the proposed apartments. The environmental review was completed. Staff received
many phone calls and letters. A special meeting between staff, the proponent and the residents was held
and lasted for three hours. Staff is convinced the SEPA analysis was done properly and that all issues were
dealt with in a manner based on City, State and Federal law. A determination was issued and the decision
was appealed. The appeal will be forwarded to the Hearing Examiner. The Lakeland residents requested
that the City look at the issue of multi-family housing in the area. They expressed concerns about multi-
family housing promoting crime, that it is not maintained because it is not privately owned, traffic, etc. The
residents asked how the map designations could be changed. There is the issue of property being vested.
The four parcels in question are zoned unclassified. The residents have the idea was that they could head
off additional multi-family housing in this area. Staff gave them the courtesy of adding their request (CPM
#4) to the process. Of the four areas zoned unclassified, the two southern most are already guided for
single family development.
Chairman Borden asked if Judy Roland is owner of parcel 3. Planning Director Krauss said that parcel 3 is
located on top of the hill. Assistant Planning Director Rued pointed out where parcels 1, 2, 3 and 4 are on
a map and explained what is currently there. Planning Director Krauss believes the residents are concerned
with parcels I and 2.
Chairman Borden wanted to know how this issue is different from what Council did in the past. Planning
Director Krauss explained that when the 1995 Comp Plan was done, there was an overall picture of where
single family neighborhoods should be. The R-4 zoned parcel was the parcel Council denied to rezone, but
the rezone had to be approved because it was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan map designation of
multi-family.
Planning Director Krauss advised that staff has not received a vested request to rezone, but recommends
keeping both intact. These sites have everything necessary when looking to site multi-family areas. The
Planning Commission's rationale was that the site behind Mill Pond should remain high density and the
Oravetz Road site be changed from high density to single family.
Assistant Planning Director Rued remarked that about the need to be cautious because the City cannot
arbitrarily change a Comprehensive Plan map designation. He mentioned a recent court case in Seattle.
There needs to be changes to the area that warrant the change. Whenever there is a change in zoning and
Comprehensive Plan, you have to make f'mdings thal~there is an actual change in the area that precipitates
the change.
PAGE 5
MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
OCTOBER 13, 1999
Councilmember Lewis remarked that the area is surrounded by R-1. Assistant Planning Director Rued
advised that there was the same situation 12 years ago and the City needs to reflect the change that
necessitates the land use change.
Chairman Borden asked about rezoning the part not vested. Planning' Director Krauss said that Council
may wish to; however, staff" bent" the rules to bring this CPM #4 forward. Property owners and adjacent
property owners must be notified. He then used the map and asked about the rational basis for changing to
single family. The change would need to be defensible against any challenges to the City Council decision.
Chairman Borden requested to see a better map of what parcels are vested and what parcels are not vested
in order to see more details of the area. She also wanted to see exactly where the proposed apartments are
going. Councilmember Lewis agreed with her request.
CONSENT ITEM:
1. Liquor License Application for Special Occasion
The Committee consented to the request.
INFORMATION ITEMS:
Article, Downtown ~luburn Stages an Economic Comeback
Article, An-2s For Sale by the Bunch
Article, Municipal Skateparks -/1 Balancing ~lct
No'discussion Occurred on these items.
OTHER BUSINESS:
With no
Mayor informed Committee that he asked Planning Director Krauss to bring forward a revised process for
handling liquor license applications.
further items to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
PC~IOA-99
PAGE 6