Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-01-2003MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 1, 2003 The regular meeting of the Planning and Community Development Committee was held November 10, 2003 in Conference Room 1. Those members in attendance were as follows: MEMBERS PRESENT: Sue Singer, Stacey Brothers, and Nancy Backus STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Daryl Faber, Shelley Coleman, David Osaki, and Patti Zook ALSO PRESENT: Jeff Oliphant and Dave Buckholz The meeting was called to order by Committee Chair Borden at 5:00 p.m. DISCUSSION: 1. Proposed Public Safety Building Lease Agreement Finance Director Coleman stated that the lease agreement was reviewed and refined by Auburn On Main, the City, Consultant and Foster Pepper. The City has the option to terminitiate or buy out the lease in five year increments and has option to purchase the building after construction in a two year window. A description of the construction is in the packet and shows clarifications and assumptions. Staff will not be involved with dealing with the contractor or project management. The City will utilize furnishings on hand to the extent possible. Staff talked to Choices NW last week and asked for ideas for ballpark cost to finish the space. Councilmember Brothers had questions about the project and claimed this is the first time he's even had an opportunity to review and wondered why this is before the Committee. The City spent $60,000 two years ago for an alternate plan. Councilmember Singer wondered about a staff report explaining how we got to this point. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss commented that about three to four years ago the City started the process to develop a public safety building which then included a jail. The first step in that process was to do a needs analysis based on the City at full development. Second phase was to do a concept plan for the block across the street from City Hall. It was ultimately concluded that the building with a new jail was too expensive at $32 million. The starting point for the current proposal was the needs study done a couple years ago. A starting point was space allocation. This was money well spent. The results were given to Jeff Oliphant who sat down with his architect and worked to fit the public safety building inside the former Family Fun Center. Councilmember Singer added that staff and the Mayor heard the building was up for sale and the City looked into a public use of the building instead of some less attractive alternatives being considered by the building owner. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said that Jeff Oliphant is a developer who has worked with the City over a number of years. He had been looking for a project in downtown and had a couple that didn't pan out. When this possibility arose, the City asked him if he wanted to look at the project and he took the bull by horns because the Family Fun Center was going out of business and he brought in an architect. Mr. Oliphant related that Planning and Community Development Director Krauss told him about one year ago of the City's desire for a new police/court building and he saw the existing facilities. He wanted something in the downtown area and had looked at development on different blocks on Main Street, but none of them panned out so far, but may in the future. He made an offer on property where Parker Paint now with the idea that this size would work for this use. The seller didn't want to sell and he learned through his broker that the Family Fun Center was under contract to a non profit organization and was told that the property wasn't available. Broker spoke to the property owner and when the contract fell through, they made an offer on the property. When he walked into the building he saw the 'dugout' area. PAGE 1 MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 1, 2003 He asked a structural engineer about making the building two stories. He understands the City's needs based on the space study. Councilmember Brothers said the project is 35,000 square feet and wondered if this was the initial square footage the initial study. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said that the City had actively looked at the Armory Building which is just under 15,000 square feet and negotiated with the owners of that building until it was clear that the City couldn't fit all the uses into that building. City was approached by another developer about building outside downtown on a site south of Hwy 18 on C Street that didn't appear to be centrally located or have the ability to be expanded. That site didn't have the merit of being a catalyst of development in downtown. This is the fourth iteration of sites looked at. There was a concept plan for the GSA site which the City is still pursuing and this has been going on for so long that the City's needs have changed. The GSA site is still valuable for a fire station and training facility. In response to Councilmember Brothers inquiry, Planning and Community Development Director Krauss explained that jail construction is phenomenally expensive and the City has been creative in finding alternatives to incarceration and using existing facilities elsewhere such as the Yakima facility. It's easier to put people on a bus and send to another jurisdiction. The jail space was the largest chunk of the cost. Mayor spoke about the contact with the City of Yakima with other King County cities where prisoners are taken to Yakima and this allows greater opportunity for teleconferencing and hearings at remote locations instead of having actual presence here. The City didn't have this ability a few years ago. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss remarked that staff put together an internal committee of users which included police and court representatives who worked with the architect and subcontractor. The plans were reviewed by the Mayor and Finance Director Coleman. Councilmember Brothers asked if the legal staff looked at the plans related to privacy and risk and Planning and Community Development Director Krauss replied yes, legal staff reviewed the plans extensively. Staff brought back DLR, the architectual firm that conducted the first study and paid them to look over Mr. Oliphant's shoulder. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss pointed out the drawings and briefly reviewed what will be on the first floor and second floor. The building will be ADA accessible and is designed for security. Public areas and office areas will be segregated. Mr. Oliphant explained the ADA access a bit more in detail by saying that in the court room the judge and witness areas are elevated, but have a ramp for access. The second entrance at the rear of the main building is at street level. He pointed out locations of the elevators. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss spoke about internal space allocation and access from point to point are complex. For example, judges aren't supposed to be next to defendants, court and police must be separate, jury rooms separate, restrooms separate, holding rooms. Staff met with Judge Burns regarding work flow. Locker rooms are sized to meet police work force requirements now and in the future. The architect is doing creative things for the building that has historic importance and is preserving 'art modern' elements. The IS manager is working with Mr. Oliphant to figure out make sure that the hearing rooms are wired so that the rooms can be multi purpose. Councilmember Brothers wondered if the figures for the building includes switches and cable access and Finance Director Coleman said the budget presentation has a component in 2004 and she expects that doing the building and looking for Council to approve funds and move forward. Video teleconference is rolling forward with $150,000 for this. $325,000 is rolling forward and will be pulled out and segregated in department 98 and the IS budget. PAGE 2 MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 1, 2003 In response to Councilmember Singer inquiry regarding signage, Mr. Oliphant said the Code required signage will be provided. He wants to bring forward suggestions for naming the building and signage for the building which has a nice marquee to be signed. He would like to sponsor that and has ideas for this. Mayor said that long term, saving the City money will make the City money. There is enhanced ability for video conferencing, off site hearings, off site meetings, ability to have off site education instead of sending staff out of state you can have meetings here. The technical aspect of the project is probably the most cost efficient part of the project. Finance Director Coleman said the largest cost is getting fiber from point to point. In response to Councilmember Singer inquiry, Mr. Oliphant said that police volunteers are at the rear of the building. He pointed out the viewing room which is separate from other court folks and separated to prevent intermingling. Mayor said at this time there are no D Street improvements planned. Mr. Oliphant said the water and sewer lines are adequate for the project. Councilmember Brothers inquired how to determine the fair market value on a building with a specific use. Mr. Oliphant said appraisers are hired, one for the City and one for Mr. Oliphant, take the average of the appraisals. Councilmember Brothers wanted to know why is this a good deal for the City. There is a need for such a building, but from a financial point of view, why not use councilmanic bonds and build building for 11 million. Mayor said the cost would be 15 million and would have to be done through a different process. There would be bids at each level and have to look at doing in a different manner because of public project. The City is not able to achieve the efficiency that a private contractor can do and then sell to us because the City must put everything out to bid at each step and this makes far less efficient process. The more the City did itself the less efficient it became. Originally project looked at $34 million if not turn key. If the City is doing then add another $10 million to that. If the City exercises its option to purchase, there will be substantial savings. Being allowed to do option in first two years to buy at cost plus contractor profit versus fair market value. Councilmember Singer commented that most of the building is going to be new and maintenance should be much less than for a building of this age. Mr. Oliphant confirmed that the City is saving lots of money by using the existing building. Underground infrastructure to be saved such as for utilities will be several million saved. Councilmember Brothers asked if the storm sewer will have to be replaced and Mr. Oliphant replied that the City tested the utility systems and they work. There are five oil tanks there also. He will be responsible for asbestos removal and oil tank removal. He is required by State law to pay prevailing wages. Councilmember Singer inquired where employees, court and police will park. Mr. Oliphant referred to the two lots across the street, an area in the rear of the building. City to decide if it wants to segregate staff parking from public parking. Mayor confirmed that there will be much more parking available than there is now. Councilmember Singer is concerned about pedestrian flow in the parking lot and there is no covered walking for heading around the building to the front door. It is natural for people to go to the closest door. She envisions people parking in one area and having to walk around the building. Mayor said that people will be walking less in the weather than they do now. Because police need to be in their cars in a certain amount of seconds, police cars need to be close to the building which is an access issue. Mr. Oliphant pointed out where the police cars park and where police park their private vehicles. Councilmember Singer wants to give the public the best parking. Mayor said that the two side lots are available for public parking. Parking at night almost doubles because the public won't be in the building after hours. PAGE 3 MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 1, 2003 Mr. Oliphant mentioned the City lot across the street and the owner of Parker Paint came to the neighborhood meeting and is pleased. Mayor confirmed that the building will have significant traffic and will be an economic stimulus for downtown. Councilmember Backus wondered if Washington Elementary had any comments on the project and the Mayor said that they like the idea of police presence close by. Councilmember Singer asked if the Arts Commission is involved and Mr. Oliphant said they have seen conceptual drawings. He described the building art work as proposed by the architect. Councilmember Singer wondered about the concept of a drop in day care area. Mayor said that with the with shopping center across the street there is possibility of a private enterprise. He is not comfortable with the idea of day care in a court/police facility. Councilmember Brothers inquired about provisions for landscaping and Mr. Oliphant said that landscaping will be focused on the front of the building and on D Street. Councilmember Backus complied staff and Mr. Oliphant on the impressive plans and great job by all. ACTION: 1. Approval of Minutes of October 27, 2003 Meeting Councilmember Backus made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Brothers, to approve the minutes and Councilmember Singer concurred. 2. Amendments to the Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies DO presented the staff report and announced that this amendment process similar to the process for King County. The PSRC says Pierce County must formally adopt urban centers in their Countywide Planning Policies. Councilmember Cerino attends the PSRC meetings and is supportive. Councilmember Singer wondered how Sumner is not considered an urban center. DO commented that Sumner did not volunteer to be an urban center and he's not heard if they intend to change that. 3. ZOA03-0006 (Ordinance No. xxxx) - Auburn City Code (ACC) Section 18.48.070 entitled "Yards" Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said that from time to time there is Code modification regarding when homes are built on steep slopes. As the lots get steeper the home is pushed to the front or back of the lot depending on where the grade is. He spoke about Lea Hill issues with homes built on a bluff and had setback issues and staff came up with a modification for these. Staff became aware of the situation where a number of new homes in Lakeland Hills didn't meet the setback requirements due to a combination of errors such as the developer of the subdivision neglecting to put corner pins in and the lot owners made educated guesses about where the corners were. The inspectors and plan reviewers also made errors and there was general confusion. Eight homes were too close to the street and in various stages of being constructed. Staff had a couple choices and chose to have the Code amended. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the amendment and recommended approval on November 5. The amendment deals with building on steep lots and makes the lots conforming. Councilmember Singer wanted to confirm that the small adjustment will cover all the lots involved and Planning and Community Development Director Krauss replied yes. DO said the change applies to the front yard only and porches could wind up being a bit closer. The change will make the homes 'legit'. The City knows where the front setback is. He mentioned the source of the original problem. PAGE 4 MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 1, 2003 Councilmember Singer asked what happens if the slope goes in the other direction with access from top and the house is on the downhill. In the graphic example given, Planning and Community Development Director Krauss pointed out the street, which portion of the site is excavated out, when the street is higher than the house, this pushes the home back further. When the street is higher than the home, you would have to build a retaining wall to bring the house up and some of this could be taken up by a daylight basement. Councilmember Singer asked about the 50 percent limit on the front of house and DO said this is more aesthetics versus modulation. If you put the porch across the front of house, then the house looks that much closer to the street. The porch on a portion of the front of the house gives an appearance that it is not as close to the street. Councilmember Singer said that she doesn't have a problem with a porch across the full length of a house. Councilmember Singer said the roof makes a difference in the visual effect and maybe the covered section could be constructed differently. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said this can be done now and the uncovered porch can already intrude. Councilmember Brothers made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Backus, to recommend approval. Councilmember Singer concurred. 4. Resolution No. 3656 - Auburn Arts Commission Grant Program Parks and Recreation Director Faber presented the staff report. Councilmember Singer asked if other schools are applying. Parks and Recreation Director Faber said the same schools are involved this year, and they will then look at what other schools to involve next year. There are different artists each year and different kids. The school art instructors are the same and the artists change each year. There is a good rapport between the Arts Commission and school instructors. Councilmember Singer wants to see the grant spread around and more schools involved and Councilmember Backus agreed. Councilmember Backus would also like to see spread around Councilmember Backus made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Brothers, to recommend approval. Councilmember Singer concurred. ADJOURNMENT With no further items to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 6:30 pm PCDC\MI\I 1A-2003 PAGE 5