Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-13-2003MINUTES OF THE PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE JANUARY 13, 2003 The regular meeting of the Planning and Community Development Committee was held January 13, 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, Daryl Faber, David Osaki, Aaron Nix, Sean Martin, Shirley Aird, Bill Mandeville and Patti Zook The meeting was called to order by Committee Chair Borden at 5:00 p.m. ACTION: 1. Approval of Minutes of December 9, 2002 Meeting Councilmember Singer clarified her comments related to streetlights and block watch programs as indicated on page 4. Councilmember Brothers made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Singer to approve the minutes with the changes as discussed. Chairman Borden concurred. File No. ZOA02-5 - Amendments to Auburn City Code (ACC) Chapter 18.22 "RO Residential Office and RO-H Residential Office-Hospital District", ACC Chapter 18.46, "Temporary Uses," and Chapter 18.52 "Off-Street Parking and Case Number ZOA02- 0005 - Amendments to Auburn City Code (ACC) Chapter 18.22 "RO Residential Office and RO-H Residential Office-Hospital District", ACC Chapter 18.46, "Temporary Uses," and Chapter 18.52 "Off-Street Parking and Loading." Community Development Administrator Osaki commented that the amendments are to four sections of the Zoning Code and reviewed the amendments. The amendments are an attempt to allow the City to respond to the needs of additional parking in downtown. Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended approval of all the amendments. They proposed minor revisions to language such as that municipal parking lots should be non-commercial. Councilmember Brothers pointed out 3 c) about temporary permits for gravel parking surface and asked what form the affirmative findings take, and what are the findings based on. Community Development Administrator Osaki said there is a form set up to require approval of different departments and staff can add conditions or deny. Councilmember Brothers inquired about potential contamination to the water table. Planning Director Krauss said there have been issues with gravel lots tracking gravel onto the public right of way. Gravel lots may make it harder direct drainage, there is no catch basin, and gravel is not impermeable, but does allow some infiltration. Councilmember Brothers understood that the Council thought not to allow gravel lots because of impacts to the water table. Planning Director Krauss has never heard this raised as an issue. This might in fact be valid if there is a commercial lot with potential fuel spill and then you would need an oil skimmer for proactive protection. Concerns he has heard are mostly about gravel in the street and this can be dealt with if there is a construction-type entrance. Councilmember Singer has same opinion as Councilmember Brothers and thought there was a contamination issue. If lot is more temporary in nature, it would be a good way to handle a temporary situation. The provision does not seem unreasonable for the stated period of time. Chairman Borden thought the same thing and subsequently learned that when people wash cars in driveways the dirt goes into the storm sewer. The gravel as a barrier or infiltration seems better. She spoke about radio ads from the past and gave an example in which you could have potential for gallons of contamination leaching into the soil. The cost potential to remedy would be astronomical. There is reason why lots are blacktopped to channel the water and to prevent leaching into the soil. Page1 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE JANUARY 13, 2003 Planning Director Krauss also recalls the radio ads. The City's water comes from the deepest aquifer. Many existing storm outfalls do not have measures to keep clean and it is easier to clean up local problems in a parking lot. The problem cannot be that pervasive and gravel lot would only be used in limited circumstances and not be the normal parking lot of the future. The lot that the City put in is leased and that lot replaced cars parking illegally in the mud. The current lot is much improved. He pointed out that a lot of 'green building' concepts call for permeable pavement so there cannot be much of a pollution concern. Councilmember Singer made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Brothers, to recommend approval. Chairman Borden concurred. 3. Human Services Joint Funding Memorandum Planner Aird reviewed the staff report. Councilmember Singer made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Brothers to recommend approval. Chairman Borden concurred. 4. Surplus-Parks Item Parks Development Manager Scamporlina reviewed the staff report. Councilmember Singer made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Brothers, to recommend approval. Chairman Borden concurred. DISCUSSION 1. Request for Proposal for Hearing Examiner Services Planning Director Krauss said this is being done at the Mayor's request. There never has been a contract renewal in memory going back over 12 years and the last fee increase was during Mayor Roegner's tenure. It is a good time to seek bids for Hearing Examiner services. Staff will interview candidates for the position and bring to Council for ratification. Chairman Borden said it makes sense for Hearing Examiner to visit the sites. Planning Director Krauss said this has not been a requirement in the past. The Hearing Examiner is a quasi-judicial role. Chairman Borden wondered if Council can restrict the duties of Hearing Examiner and Council decides what cases go to the Hearing Examiner. Discussion occurred on the appropriateness of Hearing Examiner to visit sites. Applicants could be allowed to state if they feel site visit is warranted because they are acting as a 'judge'. If applicant feels site visit is not appropriate, they should not be disqualified from consideration. Chairman Borden commented that Council sees what Hearing Examiner saw such as the minutes, staff report, testimony, etc. If a site visit is conducted, should a report be prepared? Planning Director Krauss believes that site visits was a concern of the Council. Councilmember Brothers said that the Committee does not think that site visits are essential. 2. Final Pay Estimate #4 to Contract 02-06 Parks Development Manager Scamporlina presented the staff report. In response to Councilmember Brothers' concerns, Parks Development Manager Scamporlina said the bridge's new design provides a bounce. The bridge feels safe and received approval by the engineer. Councilmember Singer made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Brothers, to recommend approval. Chairman Borden concurred. Page2 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE JANUARY 13, 2003 3. Text Amendments to Auburn City Code Planner Martin said the Committee has reviewed this previously and staff recommends moving forward with the amendments. He reviewed the proposed changes to Section 18.08.040, 18.10.040, 18.12.040, 18.14.040, 18.16.040, 18.18.040, 18.20.040, 18.22.040, 18.24.040, 18.38.250, 18.40.040, and 18.44.050 in detail. Discussion occurred related to the public notice requirements such as the legal notice, mailing to adjacent property owners and the on-site land use notice posting boards. Staff seeks to remove the requirement of posting five notices within 300 feet of a project because of the other notification requirements. He spoke about the State notification requirements. City could also post public notices on the website. Councilmember Singer asked that when notices are mailed they go to the property owners, and is there is a way to provide notice to renters. Planner Martin said that the on-site posting boards have been used since 2000 and the signs provide more notification of a project than 8xl 1 notices on poles. The size of the posting board is based on the size of the project. Councilmember Brothers understands there are other ways to distribute public information. The yellow notices on poles are a reminder that something is going on. Some neighborhoods are leery of change and do not pay attention until they see the yellow posting. Others not living in the area also become aware of the change. He does not want to burden staff, but thinks the pole posting is a valuable thing for people in the neighborhood to have the yellow notice. Chairman Borden said that the large land use posting boards are much more noticeable than flyers on poles. Planning Director Krauss said that the posting boards contain the Planning Department telephone number in very large print. Notices are placed in sheet protectors in plastic pockets on the boards. Some signs have been up for quite some time and the notices remain intact. Chairman Borden likes the idea of posting public notices on the website. Planner Martin explained how staff receives the mailing lists. He thinks GIS staff have the ability to run labels for property owners as well as the actual residents. Councilmember Singer is concerned that if you are not the property owner, that you still receive notification. Councilmember Brothers said that some people do not hear about projects in their neighborhood and anything to ensure the community is aware of what is going on is valuable. He suggested not removing the posting on poles requirement. He thinks staff is weighing aesthetics versus right to know and the right to know is more important. Planner Martin explained the reasons that staff wanted to remove the posting on pole requirement. Discussion occurred about requiring the applicant to post and then remove the notices. Planner Martin related problems that could potentially occur if the applicant were to post notices. The applicant may not make the posting deadlines which would then jeopardize the City notification requirement timeline. Timing is critical because of the sequence of events. He spoke about the comment deadlines and appeal deadlines and the 120 day timeline. If the applicant does not post correctly, this throws the whole process off and could delay project going to public hearing. It is not staff's intent to provide inadequate notification, staff wanted the Committee's feedback. Councilmember Brothers inquired how long the City has been doing public notification this way. Planning Director Krauss said that the process predates him. Most cities did away with pole notices and went with land use posting signs. Auburn has had land use posting boards since 2000 and this has greatly improved public notice versus colored paper on poles. Page 3 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE JANUARY 13, 2003 Chairman Borden said it appears there is not much support to remove the pole posting requirement. She would like to see public notification on the website. Councilmember Singer would like a larger mailing of notices. Chairman Borden commented that pole posting methodology is reminiscent of days gone by. Notices cannot be read from a car driving by at 30 mph. The issue of staff time is a concern. Planner Martin spoke about the parking requirement to be calculated on the principal land use of the business. The intent of a drive through is to reduce the need for on-site parking. Staff recommends striking this provision. Planner Martin reviewed the changes to the sign provisions related to Institutional zones. Planner Martin pointed out that staff is amending definitions that chickens are not considered a pet. Discussion occurred of the meaning of living within 'confines of residence' and what constitutes a pet, and how pets are treated elsewhere in the Zoning Code. Councilmember Brothers: don't delay if need to proceed; make sure neighborhood has access to as much information as necessary. As long as placard is on the property and other means of notification, such as mailing and the web to make information known, do not necessarily need the pole posting. He felt it was important for the neighborhood to be information of changes and for those passing through the neighborhood to know of changes. Councilmember Singer suggested going ahead with staff's proposals. Planner Martin said this was the initial discussion. Staff has not contacted Planning Commission yet about the amendments. Staff wanted feedback from the Committee. 4. Revisions to Neighborhood Program Councilmember Singer referred to page 2, Nuisance Abatement, and wants to h:)ld off on this grant and she thinks that neighborhood clean-up campaign is a better title. Planner Mandeville said that staff has information about the campaign and is looking at ways to disseminate the information. Regarding the Streetlight Grant, Councilmember Singer asked how the residents demonstrate or provide proof of the number of property crimes and Planner Mandeville said this is done by police incident reports. Councilmember Singer wants to make it as easy as possible for residents to receive copies of the police incident reports. He described in detail the reports that he receives twice a year from the Police Department. They are statistical reports by neighborhoods. Chairman Borden suggested dropping the sentence referencing 'demonstrate' and make it more general. Planner Mandeville said this grant has lots of issues, he talked with Public Works Department, concern about everyone wanting to upgrade lights and the impact on City's general fund, and how to determine when light is necessary and when not necessary. Councilmember Singer referred to Tree Grant, and asked about Tree City USA designation. Planning Director Krauss said that the Parks Department will have to provide an update on the designation. Councilmember Singer pointed out that that Mayor must be involved in the selection process described on page 8. Chairman Borden wondered if the Mayor will have veto power. Planner Mandeville spoke about the ongoing submission of grants and wants to avoid having to go to Council for approval of small projects. As grants come in, present to Committee, Committee to recommend to Mayor and Mayor has two choices - to accept Committee recommendation or Mayor to veto because of a problem. Chairman Borden wants staff and Mayor to work out any details and then to Council. Page4 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE JANUARY 13, 2003 Discussion occurred regarding use of grants to buy items that are not 'tagable' assets and reluctance to call such equipment as tools. Chairman Borden said as part of the matching requirements is the use of personal equipment at rental rate. INFORMATION: 1. Request for $60,000 EPA Brownfields Grant Councilmember Singer inquired whose comment is it that this is a 'low priority site' and Planning Director Krauss clarified that this not a City comment, but a comment from King County staff. Their staff feels that this site has a good chance of receiving the grant. ADJOURNMENT: With no further items to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. PCDC\M IN\01A-2003 Page 5