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