Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-10-2000MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE The regular meeting of the Planning and Community Development Committee was held June 10, 2000 in the Council Work Area. Those members in attendance were as follows: ' ' MEMBERS PRESENT: Trish Borden, Pete Lewis, and Fred Poe STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Dick Deal, Betty Sanders, Scan Martin, David Osaki and Carolyn Brown ALSO PRESENT: Mayor Booth, Alan Keimig The meeting was called to order by Committee Chair Borden at 6:30 p.m. Principal Planner David Osaki is sitting in for Director Paul Krauss at this meeting. Principal Planner David Osaki introduced the discussion on building heights in the C-2 zone of downtown. The Downtown Plan Task Force has completed reviewing the final Downtown Plan document in draft form, and has held their last meeting. The last two meetings focused on downtown building heights. Planner I Sanders gave a presentation on building height options. Four options were originally presented to the Task Force. · The first option was to retain the existing maximum of 45 feet or four stories. · The second option was based on work done by the Auburn Downtown Association (ADA) Design Committee. The Committee spent a considerable amount of time studying this issue, including looking at zoning codes from about a dozen other Washington cities. They also attended an Urban Design Vision public meeting conducted as part of the Downtown Plan process. At this meeting the public indicated a preference for maintaining much of the character of the existing Main Street and downtown, with building heights of 2 to 4 stories. Recognizing a need for increasing density in downtown, yet maintaining some of the small town character, the Committee suggested a strategy of four stories maximum along Main Street, five stories on the half block behind Main Street as a transition to six stories in the remainder of the C-2 zone. · The third option was based on comparing the width of the adjacent street to the height of the building. Based on environmental psychology studies, a ratio of 1:1 (street width and building heights are the same) is the maximum ratio in which most people tend to feel comfortable, the sky is at least partially visible in a normal cone of vision (that is, no,,t tilting the head up to look at the sky), and sunlight penetrates to the street. Beyond this ratio canyon effect is often experienced, VlSlblhty of the sky is reduced and shadows are more pronounced. A 2:1 ratio, with the street twice as wide as the building is tall, is the other end of the scale that is recommended to keep a comfortable sense of enclosure. Beyond this, there is less definition to the street, similar to a suburban strip shopping center. · The fourth option was to identil~ a maximum height that is applicable to the entire C-2 zone, such as 60, 75 or 90 feet. Sanders stated that staff is recommending to use maximum height in feet, rather than numbers of stories in the zoning code. In the past about 11 or 12 feet was used as an average floor height. However, to accommodate contemporary mechanical systems, and to have gracious and comfortable floor to ceiling heights in a variety of uses such as restaurants or bank lobbies, taller floors are necessary. As a result of conversations with Alan Keimig, the staff recommends that 15 feet be used as an average per floor height for discussion purposes. Obviously, for some uses such as residential, this might be scaled back several feet. PAGE 1 MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE The Task Force recommended using the ratio concept, with the front facade of a building having a _ maximum height identical to the street right-of-way width. To allow for greater heights, buildings could be "stepped back" as long as they maintained the 1:1 ratio. So for example, along Main Street, which is 60 feet wide including sidewalks, a building could be 60 feet tall at the back of the sidewalk. Depending on the height of the' floors, it could increase in height, with no specified maximum, as long as the l:1 ratio was maintained. The staff reviewed the Task Force's recommendation and felt that it had an unintended side effect. Using Main Street as an example, a building could be 60 feet at the sidewalk. Lots are 120 feet deep on Main, therefore, by using the step back technique and maintaining a 1:1 ratio, the top of the building could be stepped back multiple times, to a maximum height of 150 feet, or approximately ten stories. The staffwas surprised at the magnitude of the increase in this example. Because the Task Force had been discussing one or two stepbacks that might increase a building's height up to 30 feet, Sanders explained that the staff felt that the Task Force had also not been envisioning such a large increase. Therefore, the staff developed another set of recommendations to suggest to the Planning and Community Development Committee. In this recommendation, buildings along Main Street would be a maximum of 45 feet at the sidewalk, and could step back to a maximum of 75 feet. Off of Main Street, buildings could be 60 feet at the sidewalk, with a maximum step back to 90 feet. Discussion by committee members on the Task Force recommendation followed. Chair Borden asked if staff is recommending starting lower and reaching a maximum. Councilmember Lewis said he thought the Task Force was very clear on recommendations, per Councilmember Singer who was on the Task Force. He stated there should be restricted heights downtown and unrestricted heights outside downtown. He asked don't we want downtown to be uniform. Alan Keimig brought up the issue of alleys and the higher building heights that would be possible on this side of the building. Mr. Keimig stated that a builder could only get three floors with a 45 foot building height, so that three floors would be the maximum possible along the front of Main Street. Keimig stated that it takes five floors to build · something economically viable or to realize the acquisition price of the land. Unless you are the current owner or want to redevelop, the basis is too high. He would like to see a limit of 60 feet at the alley. Councilmember Lewis stated that setting a height limit does not make sense if no one will use it. Also, a building has to be financially feasible. General discussion on the height requirements followed. Planner I Sanders stated that there were other things to consider than the height. The community has expressed a desire to maintain some of the existing small town character. Councilmember Poe asked if the City is at 45 feet in the downtown area. Assistant Planning Director Rued said there are some higher buildings, i.e., the Hospital. Councilmember Poe said he believes that the heights need to be raised. He asked about the large area in the C2 zone that is west of the BNSF Railroad tracks. He cannot visualize tall buildings there. Rued said the C2 zone extends only to C Street. Discussion continued on what adds to the height and how different heights will add a lot of character to downtown. Councilmember Lewis stated that he does not see a need for minimums. He would prefer to see a one-story building if it adds to downtown. Chair Borden asked why staff made a new recommendation after the Task Force recommendation. Planner I Sanders said that the staffwas concerned with the possibility of very tall buildings along Main Street, due to the unlimited stepbacks. Borden asked if that question never came up during the Task Force. Sanders said that the Task Force recommendation was produced at the very end of the last meeting, and there wasn't time to thoroughly analyze it. Assistant Planning Director Rued discussed size of lots and depth. He explained the remaining process for adoption of the Downtown Plan, which will include discussion of this topic. It will be reviewed by the Planning Commission, have Public Hearings, and then be returned to the full Council. There may be additional changes to the C2 zone. Chair Borden would like to see the alley question addressed. Councilmember Lewis felt there should be some kind of break, that the City doesn't need 90-foot walls. Mr. Keimig stated that the sale of the Pastime Tavern has been finalized and the new buyer would like to go forward. PAGE 2 MINUTES OF PLAN~ING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 2. Parks Director Deal discussed the old library hazardous materials abatement. Pacific Rim Environmental identified hazardous materials and prepared documentation. Original estimate was to be no more then $I0,000. However a written bill came through at $12,000 and now it has gone up to approximately $~5,000. Parks Director Deal will adjust the agenda bill. The project will be less then $20,000 for all. The engineering costs will be in house using some of the contract staff. Chairman Borden asked if questions. As there were no questions it was moved by Councilmember Poe, and seconded by Councilmember Lewis to approve. Chairman Borden concurred. 3. The Brannan Park re-lighting project was actually budgeted for last year. But, per Parks Director Deal, staff was not able to get project underway. There are several companies that do this specific work. They take the quality of lighting needed and will meet the requests. Councilmember Lewis asked about the pre-qualifications of bidders. Parks Director Deal said would be using a list already established. The project is actually coming in at less money. The Mayor asked if it is know what the low bid. Parks Director Deal is comfortable that the budget can be met. Parks Director Deal discussed a company that is in the area. Councilmember Poe moved to approve and Councilmember Lewis seconded. Chairman Borden concurred. 4. Discussion on a community center, per Chairman Borden. This is something she is resurrecting from about 10 years ago. Parks Director Deal said he will commented now and will come back in two weeks with more detail. He has talked to other jurisdictions with similar projects. He has received information and is scheduled to tour some of the facilities in the area that are similar. Parks Director Deal attended a one-week seminar in the late 80's in the Denver area. There most every community has a very nice community center. They am funded from state lottery for the most part. He has slides available on some of the facilities. He stated that also, some make money to cover costs. Governing Magazine talks about community centers and some of the various comments indicate that some are burdens to the community and some are an asset. Per the Mayor, like the library here in Auburn. It is used as a place to meet. Parks Director Deal will come back in two weeks with a slide presentation. Councilmember Poe asked if there were grant potentials. Parks Director Deal said that occasionally grants are available. Them is a fund financed by Paul Allen, might apply for that. The Mayor stated that the operational costs have to come out. Some areas have come up with problems, as they did not project operational costs. Councilmember Lewis suggested partnerships often help with the operation. The Mayor liked Chairman Borden's idea of unifying programs and that will take care of operations. If the cost of the facility can be calculated then operationally will need to manage the program. Councilmember Poe said he would like to address the use of grant funds. Parks Director Deal stated that with the Boys & Girls clubs, YMCA, and others, sometimes the city participates financially. Councilmember Lewis said that often could set up for a grant by structuring a fee schedule for allowing scholarships for the community. Parks Director Deal the City often uses format that in the Parks. Chairman Borden stated the YMCA uses a scholarship drive to fund low income. Also, the YMCA has done a marketing study to do an expansion in Auburn. Discussed the Puyallup Y facility, the Seattle Y facility and the fact that seven communities are competing for the Y money. The Puyallup Y had an enrollment that exceeded 9,000, two weeks after opening. Discussed funding for something similar. Principal Planner Osaki said that Associate Planner Shirley Aird stated that the Human Services Committee has completed work on the grants and their recommendations are going out tomorrow for grants to be issued in 2001. 5. King County Council Planning Policies. The CPP's amendments have been submitted to local governments for ratification. Basically the amendments address King County countywide housing targets, and buildable areas. Initially approved in 1992 and more work was done in 1994, the CPP's assigned local governments housing targets up to the year 2012. All local Coniprehensive Plans need to be consistent with CPP's. Principal Planner Osaki distributed housing target tables created by King County. These are based on incorporated and annexed areas and the numbers are reassigned if an area is PAGE 3 MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE annexed. A work group came up with a formula to assign housing to annexed areas and it is based on land area. Secondly, in unincorporated King County or a PAA, if the city annexes the PAA'the housing unit target goes up (reassigned from the county to the city). A countywide Task Force originally calculated land capacity, and the amendments reflect that effort under the GMA buildable lands program. The Planning commission, at their July 6 meeting, recommended ratification. Per Principal Planner Osaki the policies can be approved by resolution or ordinance or if nothing is done it will be as a yes vote. Councilmember Lewis questioned the use of these policies. Principal Planner Osaki said that the state assigns population growth to counties, which are then assigned to local jurisdictions. The Mayor added that certain groups are now trying to push thru state legislation to meet targets. If a jurisdiction didn't meet targets, it would be punished by lack of bus routes, as an example. Councilmember Lewis stated that the original plan was set up as being enforced. Discussion on what the program entailed. The Mayor and Assistant Planning Director Rued said they thought CPP's had gone to Council as a resolution in the past. Counciimember Lewis discussed just doing nothing and Councilmember Poe agreed. Chairman Borden concurred. 6. Comprehensive Zoning changes. Assistant Planning Director Rued said staff has been working to make zoning map consistent with comprehensive Plan. The City has changed the zoning map and the comp Plan. These changes being discussed tonight are mainly a housekeeping change. Staff is asking for approval to go forward to City Council. Planner I Martin presented the changes for the Committee's review. Exhibit B 1-LeaHill reservoir; Exhibit B2 - Olson Canyon; Exhibit B-3- a future regional storm water detention facility at 'I' street and the Green River; Exhibit B-4 - The Lakeland Hills Park; Exhibit B5 - in Lakeland Hills a change from unclassified to R2 to the east of Lakeland Hills Way and R4 to the west of the street; Exhibit B-6 -an area in Lakeland Hills which was zoned unclassified in 1968, unclassified zoning can assume the same development standards as R-1, so this will be an administrative change; Exhibit B-7 - the Airport area, to rezone a parcel near the landing field to LF- landing field, whatever the use is now, it will stay the same; Exhibit B-8 - is the Thomas Academy area which will be rezoned to I- Institution. In that zone, ifa use is permitted in the R1 it is permitted in I. Parcels that front on or are close to Auburn Way North will become C3. Councilmember Lewis asked what does this action do to the neighborhoods and the immediate area around Thomas Academy? Planner I Martin said there are some existing homes in that area. The unincorporated island is still unincorporated. Exhibit -B9- Is Auburn Way South from Hemlock to Noble Street. The rezone is from Cn to C1, which will align the existing parcel lines, and to match with the Comprehensive Plan map. Under the proposal the uses wouldn't be as intense. Exhibit-B-10 - West Main Street between 'G' Street and 'F' Street. Staff is rezoning to be consistent with the Comprehensi~,e Plan. Councilmember Lewis discussed the area and stated it acts as a division between commercial and residential. The Planning Commission would like to see that the property along 'H' street is not rezoned, due to the location close to the railroad. The properties on 'H'~ Street would experience severe development constraints if zoned under M2. Committee discussed the setbacks, parking, lot size under M2 and the uses associated with that zoning, also what buildings would be allowed. Councilmember Lewis said that this has been an ongoing discussion. This is an isolated area and it is subject to train vibrations. Councilmember Lewis doesn't see the reasoning to the rezone for the parcels along 'H' Street. He said he wouldn't like to see multi family use in that area. He can see no economic reason for R4 zoning. Chairman Borden asked about the possibility ora business on louver floor and apartments on the upper. Councilmember Lewis would like to keep it at M2 zoning. Chairman Borden said it is too small of an area to rezone. Planner I Martin explained that staffwas making zoning consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. There are 14 lots are developed, with homes, and all (but I) are currently inhabited. Most homes are owner occupied. Planner I Martin said the intent is not for redevelopment but to maintain the status quo of the neighborhood. Another similar area is around Clay Street and Western Avenue. Councilmember Lewis discussed the railroad and the truck traffic. Chairman Borden would like to see it kept residential. Councilmember Lewis discussed the neighborhood in general and the zoning around the neighborhood. Chairman Borden said the change would have to be made to the Comprehensive Plan or change the zoning. Councilmember Lewis thinks the zoning should be M1 along 'H' street as it is residential now. Discussion on what could be built on PAGE 4 MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE the vacant lot. According to Assistant Planning Director Rued only a 3-unit apartment. Chairman Borden asked how the vacant lot owner wanted to be rezoned? Assistant Planning DirectorRued s~id owner wants it to stay as currently zoned. Planner I Martin reiterated the size of the lots. M2 zone allows for outdoor storage outright per Assistant Planning Directo~ Rued. Chairman Borden advised all to go out and look at the neighborhood.' The rezone will be scheduled for August 7 City Council meeting. 7. Chairman Borden what about the discussion on the changing area around the library? Assistant Planning Director Rued asked what kind of zoning would they like to see there? At the present everything on the east of Auburn Way South is C 1 and on the west side is C3. Parks Director Deal stated that some businesses are closing along the north side of Auburn Way South, as their leases are not being renewed. The property is owned by the United Rentals/40 Rentals business. There could be a possible expansion of the rentals property. Councilmember Poe stated it was originally a fuel station. 8. A discussion of panhandle lots was requested by Chairman Borden to be placed on the agenda. Council has questioned the reasoning for this ordinance. Councilmember Poe stated that staff should have more flexibility in dealing with a situation that deals with these types of lots. Councilmember Poe talked to Dave Smith of the Fire Department regarding turnarounds and the area they need. They req.uire 65 feet for the turnaround. Councilmember Poe thinks the Planning Director should have more flexibility in allowing the use of odd shaped lots. He also thinks the City should accommodate property owners in allowing them the use of their property. Chairman Borden asked'what is the reason for the current ordinance? Assistant Planning Director Rued reviewed the definitions and rules for panhandle lots. The ordinance was adopted in 1991. Assistant Planning Director Rued demonstrated map examples that the King County standards allow more access tracts then the Auburn code. Such as a private, jointly owned tract that allows lots to be developed that do not abut a street. Auburn standards require frontage on City streets. Chairman Borden said there seems to be two issues; one is the length of the panhandle; and two is do we want to have access tracts. Assistant Planning Director Rued said that for larger lots, the panhandle length could be longer. He is suggesting that the Committee members drive out to the neighbor hoods and look at the lots. Chairman Borden asked if staff can find out more about King County access tracts and how they are allowed. Assistant Planning Director Rued stated that he looked for such information and couldn't find limitations. Chairman Borden would want to limit the number of houses on a tract. Councilmembe'r Lewis would like to look at this in more depth and find better ways to come up with solutions. Discussion on what can be done with. parcels that have some type of restricted access. Councilmember Lewis said that it needs to fit into public safety policies. Chairman Borden also said if it is due to some sort of geographical feature. Chairman Borden asked how many houses could be accessed off a private street. Planner I Martin answered 4 homes can be accessed from a private street. Councilmember Lewis would like to see the City add flexibility in policy to existing properties. Councilmember Poe would like to see staffhelp property owners come up with a solution. The Committee then discussed a lot size, setbacks and orientation of houses and gave direction to staff to propose revisions to existing codes to provide additional flexibility for access to short plats and larger non-platted properties. The standards for panhandles and private access tracts would not change for formal subdivisions. With no further items to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 pm PCDC\^MINF PAGE 5