HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-13-2000MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
MARCH 13, 2000
The regular meeting of the Planning and Community Development Committee was held March 13, 2000 in the
Council Work Area. Those members in attendance were as follows:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Trish Borden, Sue Singer, and Fred Poe
STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Betty Sanders, Bill Mandeville, Dick Deal, Christine Engler, Mike
Reynolds, Dennis Dowdy, Diane Supler, and Patti Zook
ALSO PRESENT:
Mayor Booth
The meeting was called to order by Committee Chair Borden at 6:30 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS (in Council Chambers):
1. Terrace View Pre-Annexation Agreement
Planning Director Krauss presented the staff report. The City is being asked to consider granting water and
sewer certificates which has similarities to other requests, but is different from standard ones. The project
is located in Pierce County. Staff has had ongoing discussions with Terrace View developers regarding
services to the area for condition of annexing to the City. The development agreement does not follow the
usual boilerplate agreement for water and sewer requests; it parallels the Lakeland preannexation
agreement enacted by the City several years ago. It is a detailed agreement that represents a project that
Pierce County approved zoning and comprehensive plan for. The project had zoning and SEPA approval
through Pierce County years ago. The Terrace View project has undergone numerous changes due to Lake
Tapps Parkway and Pierce County to acquire right of way for their project. The project originally had 625
units and 71,000 square foot of commercial on a 53 acre site. The number of housing units is now 425 and
retail is now 63,000 square feet so the project was reduced in size. The changes occurred because of the
need to accommodate the parkway and entrance ramps. Terrace View's developer will explain in more
detail tonight. The project will be built on benches. The parkway construction was delayed because of
Lakeland's financial problems. Construction is now due to start this year, but the parkway will open
without bridge over East Valley Highway and BNRR. The design will accommodate outletting traffic on
East Valley Highway in the interim. Construction of the bridge will help to alleviate some of the traffic
problems and the bridge project is a FAST Corridor project. He then mentioned the status of legislative
funding for road improvements, and the 8th Street bridge project is one that has a chance of being funded.
The proposed annexation agreement has taken years to negotiate. Terrace View agrees to accept
annexation to City in exchange for utilities. City Council will determine when annexation actually occurs.
The City agrees in exchange for providing utilities (water/sewer) the conditions stipulated in the
agreement. The City agrees to adopt a special Terrace View Zoning District. The Planning Commission
held a public hearing on this and recommended approval of the special zoning district. Terrace View has
not requested any deviation from zoning which was actually modified only slightly due to the height of
buildings and deletion of the requirements for recreation vehicle parking. The special zoning district was
presented to Planning Commission and water/sewer is presented to this Committee. Both matters will be
presented to Council simulanteously. There are a couple outstanding issues that will need resolution by
Council, but both are considered minor.
Planning Director Krauss remarked that the first issue is traffic. The ElS for Terrace View is over four
years old and traffic is a primary concern. Terrace View negotiated traffic mitigation with Pierce County.
East Valley Highway has degradation in LOS because of Pierce County development and failure of
Highway 167 to accommodate traffic; therefore, people use other available routes. Auburn requires
developments to pay fair share of constructing a signal at Lakeland Hills Way and "A" Street. Terrace
View should also be obligated to pay their fair share. He does not have a figure for Terrace View's
contribution. Staff worked with Lakeland consultant and determined what percentage of the traffic is
attributable to Terrace View project. This was done with other projects including the apartment complex
proposed in Lakeland. They had to contribute their fair share in the traffic signal as well as Thistle
PAGE 1
MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
MARCH 13, 2000
Development. Staff is now working with Homes by Judi on a project that will also be obligated to
contribute their share.
Planning Director Krauss commented that the second issue relates to drainage. He referred to
correspondence from Terrace View which disputes the wording in the agreement. The City Engineer and
Public Works Director have given direction on this matter. The issues do not appear to be substantial. The
language has to be resolved by City Council. Mike Reynolds, City Attorney, is present tonight because he
helped to draft the agreement. Planning Director Krauss then distributed Exhibit 9, EIS mitigation
measures, to the Committee. This should have been attached to the agenda bill.
Mr. Cheetham began by reconfirming what Planning Director Krauss said. Terrace View has been
working on the project 1984. The SEPA and EIS were done in Pierce County. The project is now smaller
than originally proposed. However, their mitigation fees were not reduced. Terrace View went along with
staff and the City regarding park fees which amounted to $350,000 for park fees even though the City does
not have an ordinance. The second issue related to traffic, concerns the traffic study and traffic light.
Their original traffic study and traffic analysis was through. Terrace View is willing to do another study
and reevaluate what their pro rata fair share is. He is not sure what this represents monetarily, but does not
think it would be significant. Terrace View is willing to participate in pro rata fair share. One issue that
needs to be addressed is the language in dispute. This is considered a major issue by Terrace View since
they are being asked to be held responsible for something they do not have control over, never had control
over, and never will have control over.
Mrs. Urback began by talking about the basis for the language disagreement and distributed a handout
containing their red lined version of paragraph 4.7.3. She then read this paragraph and used a drawing
showing Trillium stormwater system and described the system. It is an important point is that this system
is designed for the parkway. She pointed out a section of the system, not in Terrace View control, that will
go into the storm pond. She then mentioned the different components of the system. She referred to
another drawing and pointed out the flow. Mrs. Urback stressed that Terrace View has no responsibility
for design of Trillium system and described the flow through system. Terrace View has no responsibility
for this design and construction. When the City annexes, it takes portion of parkway and areas that feed
into the Trillium system. The City will take on the infrastructure of Trillium system. The language that
says "makes no representation and assumes no liability" is inaccurate. The City will assume liability for
the design of the system. The system substantially meets Auburn standards. Terrace View has no
involvement in this. Saying that Auburn assumes only the maintenance is incorrect and is part of the
negotiation process. She spoke about the proposed interlocal agreement with Pierce County. Language
belongs in the agreement with Pierce County not Terrace View. Terrace View is not participating in the
design of the system. The system is not Terrace View's storm pond, but is a public water system. The
system will handle water from the parkway. Auburn will eventually assume responsibility of the system.
She asked Committee for consideration and accept Terrace View's wording or eliminate the paragraph all
together.
City Attorney Reynolds explained that he was brought into the agreement process three months ago. The
developer indicated they would like to have finality on a matter that has taken some time. The project has
gone through many jurisdictions and negotiations. They hoped to do this by bringing forward an
agreement agreed to by all parties. Terrace View has been cooperative in negotiations and some
difficulties were ironed out. For the most part, the parties are in agreement except for 4.7.3. City Council
will have the ultimate power to change the wording. Terrace View provided a letter and suggested
different language and the rationale behind it. City Engineer and Public Works Director have explained
why they prefer the staff version of the paragraph. Since this is an engineering issue, they will brief the
Committee why engineering wants this particular language. City Council will ultimately make the
decision. Staffcan only recommend and say why. He is attending the meeting at the request of the Mayor.
The agreement is a contractual agreement between the City and Terrace View. It appears this one
paragraph is the only issue still in dispute. He acknowledged that the Public Works Committee may want
to discuss the issue. He suggested that the Committee public hearing be continued and a special time set
PAGE 2
MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MARCH 13, 2000
for a joint PCDC and Public Works Committee meeting prior to Council meeting. The object is to bring
both Terrace View items (agreement and zoning) simultaneously to City Council.
Councilmember Poe wondered, if this is acted on at the next meeting, if the Committee recesses to April
l0th for a joint meeting, does Legal have any recommendations. He also wondered about waiting periods.
Planning Director Krauss said there is a waiting period for the zoning code change that is 30 days from the
Planning Commission public hearing to final Council action. Final action is scheduled for the April 17th
Council meeting.
City Engineer Dowdy began by presenting charts and described what is being constructed. He pointed out
the Trillium system. The project is designed and has gone through permitting process. All environmental
permits were issued by Pierce County. This is a Pierce County project, not a City of Auburn project. This
is the reason that City had meeting with Piece County and reason that staff brought up with Terrace View.
It is not Auburn's idea for Trillium pond to be for stormwater detention. It was going to be a private
facility on Terrace View property. Pierce County decided to pursue the project and Terrace View
agreement. It was decided that Trillium pond would be proxy for stormwater pretreatment and detention
and would satisfy Auburn's standards. A project constructed in Auburn has to meet Auburn's standards.
He then described the system in detail and explained background of the project. The subbasin drainage to
Terrace View is outlined in green. He described the historic drainage pattern of the property.
Evergreen/Tucci master plan assumes obligation that Lakeland had under their preannexation agreement.
He pointed out the Terrace View property and subbasin property. Evergreen/Tucci developer was
responsible for subbasin planning for the areal Evergreen/Tucci is preparing a master plan for its portion
of the area. Out of 106 acres flowing, the amount left after approved plan is about 50 acres of original
subbasin to drain through Terrace View. Staff has attempted to say in the paragraph is that Terrace View
has to realize that water flowing down and has to satisfy. Terrace View was told that they have to plan to
absorb this water. Auburn cannot require upstream development to have zero flow coming down. He then
mentioned possible overflows that could come down the ravine. City told Terrace View that adequate
planning is occurring and will go to Mill Pond north basin. The ravine is not covered by the plan.
City Engineer Dowdy remarked that the paragraph in question has two has 2 features. The first is that the
developer be aware that there will always be flow and to be mindful of it. Terrace View will have to study
how much they get from ravine and Evergreen/Tucci will not will not intercept. Terrace View has to be
aware of this and plan their own master plan which should have been done in environmental review
process in Pierce County. They have to do own stormwater plan for Terrace View. The City does not
want to be liable for any damages when storm drainage comes. City Engineer Dowdy remarked further
that Pierce County is the lead agency for Terrace View SEPA and design/permitting of the Trillium pond;
therefore, Pierce County and Terrace View are held responsible for the environmental planning for the
work. The City does not want to be responsible for this if Pierce County has to do biological assessment
and cannot build. If Terrace View uses the Trillium pond, the City does not want to be responsible for
delays. The City cannot be responsible for design if there are ESA issues because the City is not the
project's sponsor. Piece County is doing the project. A. uburn does not want to be liable for items Pierce
County has lead on.
Councilmember Poe said if the project is designed to handle capacity for flow to project, maybe the last
sentence of staff version of 4.7.3 should be deleted. Public Works Director Engler stressed that Terrace
View requested previously to have this sentence in the paragraph. Public Works Director Engler then
presented an overview. The developer is also required to design/construct facilities. The City then reviews
to make sure meets Auburn standards. The developer entered into an agreement with Pierce County which
the City has not had a chance to review. The agreement mentions that the storm water will remain private
system. The City did not have an opportunity to review what is constructed. The City storm utility does
not have jurisdiction over natural flow of the area. Language is in place because Auburn is not involved in
process that determined adequacy of flows and treatment. Staff is concerned about possible litigation due
to salmon stream destruction. The City did not have influence over what is occurring. Auburn is not party
PAGE 3
MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MARCH 13, 2000
to work being done, but is being asked to characterize the runoff. The City is being asked to be vulnerable
to damages.
Councilmember Singer commented that it seems like the time to decide if the City takes over is when we
decide to annex. The City cannot tell if the system is adequate because the City did not have input. The
City cannot tell if there is any liability. She is not in a hurry to annex the property until the issue is worked
out. Chairman Borden asked who is responsible for system after annexation. City Engineer Dowdy said
staff is negotiating with Pierce County now. The County wants Auburn to assume control and ownership
as soon as system is accepted for use - as soon as Pierce County constructs the facility. Annexation would
proceed construction and not available until project is completed.
Planning Director Krauss reviewed the basics. When area is annexed, City assumes benefits,
responsibilities and burdens of jurisdiction it is replacing. Pierce County is going to plan, build and operate
facilities until annexed. Final language for interlocal agreement are underway now. The City will
eventually own the facility and the timing is in question. If County proceeds with parkway have to have
this facility in operation. It will take six to 10 months to complete the annexation in Pierce County.
Councilmember Poe wanted to know what difference does it make. Not build Terrace View until adequate
storm facilities whether Terrace View is in Auburn or not. If Pierce County is as responsible as Auburn in
meeting requirements for storm drainage, think gets into area of agreement with Pierce County beyond
Terrace View.
Discussion occurred of where the annexation line is and Lakeland properties. City Engineer Dowdy
pointed out that portion of 102 acres is in Auburn. Evergreen/Tucci master plan will be contiguous and
boundary line was pointed out. When Evergreen/Tucci finishes their master plan, have to tell City what
100 year flow will be; however, they are not responsible for estimating maximum flood.
Councilmember Poe read the last sentence from staff version of 4.7.3 and does not see the need for this
sentence. He believes the City is in a good position. Public Works Director Engler expressed many
concerns that the City not go on record as characterizing the drainage. Councilmember Poe does not see
this as different from any project up stream. If it overflows, the City will not get sued.
Mr. Cheetham said one issue is the upgradient property and the other issue is the Trillium pond. Terrace
View is saying it wants to be treated the same as other developers. They have a canyon and Terrace View
planned for water to flow down canyon which has historically been there. There should be no liability for
however much might come down there. He is unwilling to sign away Terrace View's rights for upgradiant
for unlimited amount of water.
Chairman Borden wondered about additional wording to describe what the Terrace View responsibility is.
Mr. Cheetham said it is Terrace View's idea is leave out because everybody has responsibility from
upgradiant from them. He does not see the reason to even have the language in the paragraph because it
takes away Terrace View's rights. Auburn is upgradient from Terrace View, and Terrace View has
planned for all water that has historically gone through Terrace View. They are only asking to be treated
the same as others regarding storm water. Regarding the Trillium pond, the negotiations were between the
City and Pierce County. Pierce County would not allow the annexation without taking over the
infrastructure. For Terrace View to be held harmless regarding the pond is not appropriate. Chairman
Borden thinks that Terrace View has made some good points regarding the word. The paragraph will not
be written tonight. Mr. Cheetham again referred to the wording. If Terrace View has no control or
authority, why is Terrace View being held liable. If there is unlimited liability on Terrace View, they
cannot build the project. They cannot have unlimited liability hanging over their head.
Mrs. Urback distributed color renderings of their project. Mr. Cheetham is One of the Terrace View
owners along with Greg O'Farrell. He thanked the Planning Commission for allowing Terrace View to
present their project. He considers himself an Auburn resident. The project began in 1984 and the history
given. They have gone through many hoops over the years in Pierce County's processes. Three cities
PAGE 4
MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MARCH 13, 2000
were vying for this area when the project began. The EIS stated that two cities could provide services and
Terrace View worked with the cities to resolve that Auburn will service water and sewer. He is excited
about their aesthetically pleasing project which will be an upper end project. Terrace View has done a
through job of analyzing all the impacts. Alleviation of traffic problems will occur when the parkway is
constructed. It is expensive to develop the land so the apartments will be high end.
Councilmember Singer wondered about sidewalks on East Valley Highway. Mr. Cheetham said that Pierce
County is obligated to do East Valley improvements including sidewalks and lane improvements. Terrace
View has agreed to construct other frontage improvements.
Carol Simpson, architect for the Terrace View project, mentioned that the multi-family now contains 430
units and fits in well with the site's topography. She described in detail the appearance of the apartments.
She described the parking and clubhouse. The retail center, for neighborhood service, was described. Mr.
Cheetham then distributed a letter addressed to Planning Director Krauss from Pierce County.
Chairman Borden asked Parks and Recreation Director Deal if the text of the agreement talks about the
possibility of Pierce County taking park impact fees. Parks and Recreation Director Deal offered that
Pierce County does charge impact fees and he spoke with Pierce County about getting funds committed.
The County has identified seven projects that the fees are dedicated to. None of the projects will benefit
the Terrace View project area.
Chairman Borden: suggestion made to continue public hearing to April 10th and consult with Public Works
Committee chairman about a joint meeting. Councilmember Poe suggested a joint meeting begin at 6:00
p.m. Councilmember Poe made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Singer, to continue the hearing to
April 10th.
WSC0001-00 - Dennis Johnson
Chairman Borden advised that she received a memorandum from Mr. Johnson regarding the layout of the
development. Planner I Sanders presented staff the report. The lot layout does not meet City standards and
staff spoke with the applicant and engineer today. She described a layout that was distributed to the
Committee. This drawing replaced tracts A and B by extending the property lines to meet the street which
is what Auburn require. This allows two properties to share a drive. The application has requested a
modification to City standards.
Mr. Johnson received a revised site plan. He was told by City that he would not able to have access tracts.
He has to apply for requirement for modification for access tracts and objected to this. Other developers
did not have to request modifications to allow access tracts. He reviewed the Auburn City Code that allows
modifications and read this. Other projects are under construction and it is reasonable for him to request
the City to allow access tracts. He referred to page 2 of the agenda bill. Adjacent properties have access
tracts just like the ones he wants.
Councilmember Poe asked if Mr. Johnson has submitted preliminary plat to King County. Mr. Johnson
said no. He went for a pre-application meeting with the County and wanted modifications relating to
detention pond. He has tentative approval of the plat. Councilmember Poe inquired if the project is
required to have water and sewer prior to County approval. It seems the Committee had this same
discussion two weeks ago. It seems like this is premature the Committee follows the same format as two
weeks ago to make recommendation relative to this development until it is actually in King County system.
Planning Director Krauss was not at the meeting two weeks ago, but the issue was concentrated around the
proposed land use and external traffic issues that will be relayed to King County regarding that particular
project (senior manufactured housing). In this case, regarding the plat, the City has a simple requirement on
Lea Hill. If you want City water and sewer, you have to build to City standards. Deviations are allowed
only under certain conditions that do not apply in Mr. Johnson's case. The project can be developed to
PAGE 5
MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
MARCH 13, 2000
City standards, they have the required amount of frontage on the right of way, access can be provided to
the detention area. It is easy for this project to meet City standards. Mr. Johnson's statement that others
were allow to do access tracts does not hold water. The process for reviewing and granting certificates of
water/sewer was refined a lot. It is not a valid argument to say that neighbors were not required. He read
the ordinance which Mr. Johnson read out of context. The project can meet City development standards.
These standards are not cross-wise to any King County requirement. There are no land use issues or off
site traffic issues.
Councilmember Singer commended staff for going the extra mile and coming up with an alternative. Mr.
Johnson said he had not seen the staff drawing until this afternoon and has not seen it long enough to study
the drawing. He knows that King County will not allow access to the detention pond as shown. He does
not want to have a 130 foot driveway.
Planning Director Krauss explained that the process of granting water/sewer availability certificates has
been refined. The agreement revised was revised by the City Attorney. An issue with Finkbiner
Development was the width of streets and the City required row .larger than County required. Staff had
conversation with Mr. Johnson and his engineer and staff are convinced that can work project out to meet
City standards. Committee might want to pass out of Committee "as is" and leave the opportunity for staff
to meet with Mr. Johnson and his engineer before the Council meeting.
Mr. Johnson remarked that he worked with Finkbiner years ago and brought this property from his estate.
He was assured by Finkbiner that access tracts never came up as an issue. He was told by Finkbiner that he
will be required to provide City curb, gutter, road, trees, and street lights which he did. He is requesting
the same treatment as other developers got from the City. This is a reasonable request. The City has
allowed access tracts in the past.
Chairman Borden has been chairing the Committee for four years and does not recall the matter of access
tracts coming up before. Mr. Johnson commented this is the first time. Chairman Borden stressed that the
project should meet City code. She suggested that Mr. Johnson take a look at what staff came up with to
see if a compromise is possible. Mr. Johnson asserted that it is not fair for him to redesign the project and
then present back and forth between the County and City. He again requested the modification.
Councilmember Poe asked if it is legally defensible to deny water and sewer if the project does not meet
City design standards. Planning Director Krauss remarked that the City has been doing this process since
1991 on a consistent basis. There have been questions about the process in the past by King County and
other developers. The process for issuing certificates as well as the agreement were reviewed by the City
Attorney and refined a bit. The process is managed with the clear intent of not putting a developer in a
position that the City requires something would be a fatal flaw with gaining approval from the County. It
is required that developers visit Auburn first to see if water/sewer will be granted and if the project meets
City standards. If necessary, changes can be introduced into plats early on. Councilmember Poe believes
concerns in the past were directed to street width and street lighting. Planning Director Krauss stated that
the ordinance speaks to City standards and the. process has improved over the years. Staff's proposal
tonight is consistent with ordinance mandate. Staff had a productive discussion today via telephone with
Mr. Johnson. Councilmember Poe inquired if the interlocal with King County relating to processing of
permits was finalized. Planning Director Krauss replied yes. King County has acknowledged that Auburn
will annex all of Lea Hill. King County now formally recognizes City standards which they never
acknowledged before.
Councilmember Singer wondered if Mr. Johnson is correct in saying that the City requirement pertaining to
access tracts is the first instance of the requirement. Planning Director Krauss is unsure because large
number of plats with access tracts, or the issue did not come up before. He referred to site plan and
surrounding plats do not have access tracts has street frontage. If the City did not establish this
requirement in the past, staff was incorrect.
PAGE 6
MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
MARCH 13, 2000
Chairman Borden suggested that this matter be passed out of Committee and that Mr. Johnson discuss with
staff. Staff needs to see if the City was not enforcing the requirement or doing it arbitrarily. Generally, the
City requires that projects meet City standards.
Chairman Borden commented that the plat should meet City codes. She is a bit concerned that Mr.
Johnson declared that other projects containing access tracts were approved. Could the City have been
inconsistent in this requirement. She advised Mr. Johnson to work with staff. Mr. Johnson commented
that the County will not allow access to the detention pond. He is opposed to having a 100 foot driveway.
His proposed access tracts are more reasonable than the City proposal.
Councilmember Singer wondered about a variance for the access tracts. Planning Director Krauss said the
tracts might be possible by a deviation allowed under the ordinance; however, the variance process does
not apply. The request would be granted based on findings in Committee process.
Chairman Borden closed the public hearing. Councilmember Singer made a motion, seconded by
Councilmember Poe, to pass this on to the City Council. Chairman Borden concurred. The project must
comply with City codes unless staff finds the project will not be approved by County or finds that other
projects slipped by.
Mayor asked about the reason for this requirement. Planning Director Krauss explained this is a historic
requirement that project meets minimum amount of frontage for consistency of development. Access tracts
and private drives can cause problems.
ACTION ITEM:
1. Resolution 3195 - Neighborhood Matching Grants
BM presented the staff report and offered that the packet contains a detailed explanation of each project.
Councilmember Singer agreed the information is self-explanatory and wondered if the Human Services
Committee (HSC) had a discussion. BM commented that the HSC had considerable discussion regarding
the Gildo Rey reader board sign and sidewalk project. It will be a challenge for them to come up with a
practical sign.
Cmmcilmember Singer then referred to the summer youth projects for beautification and asked who
decides which projects. BM remarked that the idea is for staff to send out a request for ideas to the schools
and non-profits. The HSC will be involved and ideas presented to youth council who will adopt a project.
Chairman Borden acknowledged that the HSC has done a good job of reviewing the projects in the past.
BM remarked that there may be a better way to look at the grant program process.
BM remarked that staff provides technical assistance and HSC is the advisory board. Councilmember
Singer made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poe, to recommend approval. Chairman Borden
concurred.
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1. Workshop Planning
Mayor commented that last December interest was expressed by Council to review capital projects,
outcome of 1-695, etc. Finance Director Supler is working on ideas for a workshop. Finance Director
Supler stressed that it takes considerable staff time to do research for each hour of presentation. Energy
should be focused on areas of concern as expressed by Council A workshop is scheduled for April 3ra with
Alan Granburg to discuss bond market, councilmanic bonds, bond market in light of 1-695, etc.
PAGE 7
MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
MARCH 13, 2000
Councilmember Singer offered that she circulated a memo to Council for concensus of what to discuss and
hopes for a list of discussion topics that will be prioritized. Chairman Borden asked if there was an
impression that Council wanted staff presentation. Councilmember Singer said it is unclear if a
presentation is wanted, or if question/answer session. There is a desire to discuss public safety building an
update of capital facilities plan. The list from Council will be narrowed, prioritized and then submitted to
Finance Director Supler and Mayor.
Councilmember Poe commented that Public Works Committee wants to discuss capital projects and
receive staff input on what is required and needed. Chairman Borden does not think a lot of staff
presentation is necessary, but it is good to have staff present. There has not been any general Council
discussion on the public safety building. Some general discussion is needed before staffbegins research.
Finance Director Supler then spoke about the biennial budget that might be done in the future and this
process is very different what has occurred in the past. She spoke about an upcoming class she will attend
at University of Washington.
Chairman Borden suggested that workshop begin with discussions, department heads present, determine
what priorities are, and if further information is needed, then have another session. There is also the option
of mini workshops before Council meetings. Councilmember Poe referred to Councilmember Singer's list
and commented that Council spends zero time in general discussion.
2. Senior Center Financing
Finance Director Supler distributed a handout entitled, Senior Center Financing Alternatives. This sheet
was given to the Finance Committee at their last meeting. It contains the Mayor's recommendation and
summary for financing of remodel of existing library to a senior center. She reviewed items 1-4, then
reviewed project costs and financing, explained use of CDBG funds for project, and capital campaign, then
she reviewed timing of project. Finance Director Supler then reviewed the financing alternatives 1-3,
project revenues and costs to date, and reviewed the capital projects fund. The Finance Committee
recommended Alternative 2. City Engineer Dowdy mentioned that the design development is completed.
City Engineer Dowdy commented the project appears to be on budget, and they have done a good job of
identifying the type of equipment necessary for the facility. A couple items could affect budget:
Approximately 25 percent of the roof structure is being replaced because of rot and it is unclear how
extensive the rot might be. Regarding asbestos, a study cannot be done until the building is empty. A
contingency is built into the budget. He is comfortable that the structure can be built for the amount
budgeted.
Finance Director Supler expressed concern if the project is delayed for six to nine months and stressed the
need to keep the project moving forward. Chairlnan Borden commented that the Committee is very
supportive of moving forward on this project. Councilmember Poe is in agreement with the Finance
Committee recommendation.
INFORMATION ITEM:
1. Terrace View Zoning (ZOA0003-00)
Planning Director Krauss advised that there is no report on this; it is information purposes only. The
zoning will be presented to City Council on April 17th.
Chairman Borden wondered why the zoning district is patterned after C-3. Planning Director Krauss said
this because the C-3 zoning district is much more flexible regarding the Terrace View plan than a straight
R-4 designation. Since the Terrace View development is largely approved before they apply for City
zoning, the referenced zoning designation is the easiest fit for the City code. The site is not practical to
PAGE 8
MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
MARCH 13, 2000
develop as C-3 because the only commercial portion of site is adjacent to Valley Highway. The ElS
approved by Pierce County limits the commercial to 70,000 square feet.
Mrs. Urback commented that the Terrace View zoning district has a binding site plan.
With no further items to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
PCDC\MIN\03A-2000
PAGE 9