Loading...
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