Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-08-2002MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE APRIL 8, 2002 Tl~e regular meeting of the Planning and Community Development Committee was held April 8, 2002 in the Council Work Area. Those members in attendance were as follows: MEMBERS PRESENT: Trish Borden, Sue Singer and Stacey Brothers STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Lynn Rued, Shirley Aird, Mitzi McMahon, Bill Mandeville, Daryl Faber, Dave Smith and Patricia Zook The meeting was called to order by Committee Chair Borden at 5:00 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING (in Council Chambers): 1. WSC02-0003 - Green River Community College Planner Aird presented the staffreport, provided background on the project and described the proposal. She reviewed the findings of fact and conclusions. The five conditions were reviewed. Staffrecommends approval and forward to April 15 Council meeting for action. Councilmember Brothers asked about the development standards for LHR 1, and if the 5.6 acres for development will preclude remaining 15 acres from development. Planner Aird replied that the standards are equivalent to the RI as it exists in Auburn and that thc 15 acrcs will not be developed. She explained how the County computes densities. Chairman Borden opened the public hearing. Kara Hefley, GRCC Foundation, introduced Richard Liu, Coughlin Porter Lundeen Architects, and commented that the project is extremely important and exciting to the College and is part of their strategic plan. Richard Liu, Coughlin Porter Lundeen Architects, gave an overview of the project which will be aesthetically pleasing. The nine buildings will be three stories in townhouse style. He submitted to the Committee a letter from King County. King County zoning allows apartments outright and then described the student housing units. The project is in conformance with King County and Auburn standards. The project was reviewed by King County in two pre-application meetings. They also met with City staffand the Auburn Fire Department. Councilmember Brothers wondered if the College envisions additional housing in the future because the College wanted flexibility about its land south of the subject parcel. Ms. Hefley said the College is focused on making this project successful, but has not ruled out the possibility of additional housing in the future. Russ Campbell, 31606 126'h Avenue SE, claimed the vicinity map is incorrect and does not show all involved parcels. He understands that they are not allowed to discuss King County zoning questions, but he wanted to know about the flow meter, increase to capacity and he believes the major flow to the system will be in the mornings. He asserted there are a number of sanitary overflows in the Aubum system. If infrastructure changes are needed to accommodate the project who will pay for them. The large complexes will not be in the tax base for years. The issues need to be taken into account and Auburn needs to realize the impact on the City. Planning Director Kranss explained that when GRCC is annexed no taxes are received since it is an institution. The developer is looking to Auburn for the required infrastructure. The requirements were reviewed and evaluated by the City's utility department and attested that capacity is available. Lea Hill is within Auburn's water/sewer service area and therefore the City is obligated to provide service. The system is designed to handle ultimate build out of the area. Hank Galmish, 12443 SE 318 in Rainier Ridge said the College's project is not good for his residential development. Eight to 10 years ago when the College developed it removed vegetation and turned an area into a gravel parking lot which changed the drainage pattern and affected their houses. He expressed concern about PAGE1 MINUTES OF PLANN1NG AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE APRIL 8, 2002 dr[~inage in the area and what happens with development of this project. He wondered about access issues for fire, position of the buildings, and that one existing structure may be too close to a proposed building and a potential fire hazard. He believes the project is a massive shil~ in density and will affect the adjacent residential pamels. Pam Roach, State Senator, related a story about Pierce County wanting to place a water tower in a residential area and surround the tower with a chain link fence. The affected residents met with Pierce County and the tower location was changed. Those residents were concerned about an issue that came about without any contact to the affected citizens. She sees the same thing happening with the GRCC project and citizens not being involved. The citizens and their concerns should be included and alternatives considered. The College should consider placing the dorms somewhere else on campus. Parking areas could be moved. The community should be maintained. She questioned the real need for the student housing. Many of students in the housing will have cars and there will not be enough parking. If the College grows they will require even more housing which could be potential damage to the community. She suggested that all parties have a discussion. Chairman Borden asked Roach if she spoke to the County about these concerns since the City is just mling on the water/sewer availability. Roach thinks the City has latitude. The issue should be looked at by the citizens because they do not like it. She spoke about empathy of property owners about what is happening. Their lifestyle will change due to dorm life of late nights, parties, etc., which will have a huge impact on the property owners. Councilmember Brothers asked Dave Smith, Fire Marshall, about the fire access issues. Fire Marshall Smith said they reviewed the project at a pre-application meeting and the project was not in compliance with Auburn standards. The developer resubmitted plans which met the requirements. The Fire Department has sufficient access to the buildings and current plans are adequate. He is comfortable with the layout. The buildings are sprinklered. The distance between buildings is good and meets the national standard. Amy Kosterlitz, Buck and Gordon, is the attorney for the applicant, reiterated that the issues before the Committee tonight are only the provision of water/sewer, not the land use issues. The architect has addressed public service issues. The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The project meets all the standards for extension of water/sewar service. Other concerns should be related to King County. Carla lives in Rainier Ridge and believes their way of life is going to change with the addition of 300 students living a few blocks away. The area will no longer be peaceful. She likes the College, but protests this project which is not good for the neighborhood. Councilmember Singer made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Brothers, to close the public hearing and Chairman Borden concurred. Councilmembar Singer mentioned that it the issue tonight is provision of water/sewer service. She requested that staffrelate to King County the comments expressed this evening. Chairman Borden reiterated that the Committee is only addressing provision of water/sewer certificate. Planner Aird explained the posting procedures for the project. Chairman Borden commented that per King County zoning standards, GRCC could sell the property and apartments could be built. Planning Director Krauss advised that King County views density differently than the City. King County has minimum density and tries to get the most density it can. Auburn does not have a minimum density requirement. Councilmember Singer made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Brothers, to recommend approval of the development agreement to enable issuance of the water and sewer availability certificates and Chairman Borden concurred. The meeting was recessed at 5:45 and reconvened in Conference Room 1. PAGE 2 MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE APRIL 8, 2002 ACTION: 1. Approval of Minutes of March 25, 2002 Meeting Councilmember Singer made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Brothers to recommend approval. Chairman Borden concurred. 2. ZOA01-0006 - Amendments to Chapter 18.26, C-1 Light Commercial Zoning District Assistant Planning Director Rued presented the staff report and advised that the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on April 2 regarding the height limit in C-I zone. He provided a background on the reason for the proposed amendments. A few people spoke at the Planning Commission hearing~ The consensus by the Planning Commission was that no buildings taller than 45 feet outside the North Auburn Business Area Plan (NABAP). The Commission also amended Section 18.26.020 (J J) and recommended to change the phrase 'gross floor area' to 'leaseable floor area'. Assistant Planning Director Rued mentioned that this might be problematic and poses question of how to calculate. 'Gross' is much better term than 'leaseable' and there is already a definitions in Section 18.04. Councilmember Brothers likes the term 'gross floor area' versus Planning Commission recommendation of 'leaseable floor area' and Councilmembar Singer concurred. Assistant Planning Director Rued mentioned the thoughts for the north Auburn area was that it is possible to have taller buildings and be a more efficient use of the property. The proposed Multi Care building is taller than 45 feet. Councilmember Brothers confirmed that the north Auburn area is isolated from residential areas and services by roads. Chairman Borden wanted to confirm that if the Committee goes along with Planning Commission recommendation, then the only area in CI where buildings could be taller than 45 feet is the NABAP and Assistant Planning Director Rued replied yes. Councilmember Singer made a motion, to recommend approval of the amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission with the exception of Section 18.26.020 JJ. The phrase 'gross floor area' should be retained. Chairman Borden concurred. Assistant Planning Director Rued confirmed that Council will call for public hearing at their April 15 meeting with the public hearing scheduled for May 6. The C-I property owners, Concerned Citizens of Auburn, and speakers at Planning Commission meeting will be notified. 3. Resolution No. 3454 - Neighborhood Matching Grants Planner Mandeville informed the Committee that he filed permits for the Lakeland landscape project today. The only unresolved issue is contractor insurance. Discussion occurred regarding the insurance, such as what type of insurance, cost of the insurance, coverage of the insurance, and performance bonds. Discussion occurred regarding if the contractor or homeowners would do the work and hiring of vendors. Conversation occurred regarding the amount of work to be done by the contractor, amount of work to be done by the Lakeland homeowners, sweat equity and the extent of the City's involvement, overseeing volunteers.. Councilmember Singer wondered if the landscape program really fits the Neighborhood Matching Grant (NMG) criteria; maybe the homeowners association should be doing the landscaping themselves. Councihnember Brothers is not sure exactly what is going on with the project and is concerned that they will tap City for more money. The project is a significant expenditure. It seems that the homeowners association should be committing a portion of the PAGE3 MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE APRIL 8, 2002 dues for the project. Chairman Borden asked about the sweat equity and Planner Mandeville said the proposal says all cash. Sweat equity was mentioned related to watering and maintaining the landscaping. Mayor said the Lakeland landscape project is a legitimate request. The homeowners association is very active and the site will be well maintained. Chairman Borden commented that the project is much larger than what she envisioned as meeting NMG criteria. Maybe more than one contractor should be looked at and the project put out to bid and proposals submitted. The Mayor advised Planner Mandeville to contact landscape services currently servicing the area and ask them to submit proposals. Planner Mandeville referred to the decorative streetlight request and expressed concern about the public's ability to approach City for streetlights. There are concerns about different kinds of lights in different parts of the City. There is no way for residents to beautify neighborhoods via streetlights. Transportation Engineer said they could devise a process for inclusion in TIP if Council wants. Residents could tax themselves via LID. Councitmember Singer stressed that she likes the process the way it is now and is not excited about the idea of decorative streetlights. Residents can come to Council or Public Works and request lights. Councilmember Brothers said that if neighborhood wants a LID to fund lights it might not be a bad idea. There is a process by which these can be installed. The City should not be involved in funding decorative lights. Chairman Borden cautioned that the Human Services Committee recommendations regarding the NMG proposals do not overrule the Committee. Councilmember Brothers wants to see more smaller projects with more sweat equity involved in the project. Councilmember Singer made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Brothers, that the City will administer the Lakeland landscape project and Chairman Borden concurred. Chairman Borden wanted information on the phrase 'neighborhood attachment' referred to in the management memorandum. Planner Mandeville said the 'attachment' can refer to number of parents attending school events, number of block watches, number of people who vote. Planning Director Krauss said other measurements include maintenance of property such as mowed lawns, clean yards and renovation of property. Councilmember Brothers asked how to quantify neighborhood attachment because it appears there is not a lot of attachment in Auburn due to many new citizens. Planning Director Krauss commented that some tracking is done for grant purposes and key is using variables to recommend if a project should be funded. Discussion occurred related to volunteer hours on projects which should be part of the match, such as volunteer hours at the start of project and maintaining the project. This should be part of the judging criteria of an application. Planner Mandeville gave example of 'fiduciary volunteers'. 4. Resolution No. 3,~51 - Agreement with Imagio J. Walter Thompson Planner McMahon provided an update on the project and reviewed the scope of services. The interview panel was very pleased with Imagio and they have a high level of confidence with the firm. lmagio is excited about the project. In response to questions fi.om Councilmember Brothers, Planner McMahon explained the funding. Councilmember Brothers believes the amount is large. Imagio is internationally recognized and Auburn is a small project for them. He does not see value in the expenditure and is not supportive of the gateway project at all. The City has grown without a marketing plan and will continue to do so. The $90,000 could be used better for subsidized day care, for example. The project is not high on his priority list. Councilmember Singer and Chairman Borden expressed support for the gateway program. The City will be getting first rate service from Imagio. The program speaks to the City's vision and gives the City focus. The gateways need considerable improvement. PAGE4 MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE APRIL 8, 2002 Councilmember Singer made a motion to approve the resolution Councilmember Brothers voted no. Chairman Borden concurred approval. OTHER BUSINES: 1. Tom Holz - Presentation at Upcoming Meeting Chairman Borden spoke with him and he is very interested in storm issues. He has unique idea about storm drainage and wants to come to a Committee meeting. Councilmember Singer suggested a joint meeting with Public Works Committee. Chairman Borden said the Public Works Committee Chairman was not interested in the issue and said it is a Planning issue, not a Public Works issue. Planning staff will contact Mr. Holz and invite him to an upcoming Committee meeting. ADJOURNMENT: With no further items to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Submitted by Patricia Zook, Planning Secretary. Approved by the Planning and Community Development Committee on PCDC~MrN04A.2002 PAGE5