Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-24-2003MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 24, 2003 The regular meeting of the Planning and Community Development Committee was held November 24, 2003 in Conference Room 1. Those members in attendance were as follows: MEMBERS PRESENT: Trish Borden, Sue Singer, and Stacey Brothers STAFF PRESENT: Zook Paul Krauss, Daryl Faber, David Osaki, Sean Martin, Bill Mandeville and Patti ALSO PRESENT: Mayor Lewis, Reed Shockey, Shockey- Brent The meeting was called to order by Committee Chair Borden at 5:00 p.m. DISCUSSION: 1. Permit Processing Report (presentation) Community Development Administrator Osaki gave a brief background on the process. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss spoke about applicants' frustration about going upstairs and downstairs to pay and receive permits, having a cash register upstairs is needed with credit card machine too. This will be implemented soon. The City has amended the ordinance to clarify traffic impact fees and utility charges, notifies applicants in advance about any problems early on, and improvements on the web. The City is revamping the business license process and working with the Chamber of Commerce on enhancements. There will be a customer waiting area upstairs by the Building Division counter. There will be parallel reviews of business licenses and improved permit tracking software. The survey speaks about some issues that are already resolved or in place. Mr. Shockey said this is good information from Planning and Community Development Director Krauss and Community Development Administrator Osaki. They have done studies for other communities which are usually prompted by problems. They had confidential interviews with staff and stakeholders. The City is starting from a good place and the public was high on Auburn. There is a desire of staff to do a good job. His firm came in about seven to eight months ago and did not know what happened one and one half years ago that had led to an improved perception by the public. Whether procedures or personnel changed, etc., the public perceives a marked improvement and there were suggestions about how to do things better. Stakeholders' comments were constructive. He witnessed how information is inputted into the permit tracking system which is not a bad system, but not all staff use it. There needs to be uniform participation by staff because the CRW system is a good system. There is a need for a project coordinator to keep an eye on projects as they move through the permitting system. There is the perception that SEPA review is not being used as other communities use it. It is being used to get concessions from applicants that aren't otherwise in the Code or warranted. SEPA is used as a completeness call and this is unique. When the pre-application meeting is used it is used correctly, but not participated by all staff. Staff needs to come to the meetings prepared. Stakeholders suggested that they meet quarterly to get updates. Another suggestion was to pick off the five Code provisions that are problematic, form a task force to review and discuss, and resolve the issues. If the City corrected the top five Code issues, 65% of complaints will go away. Once this is resolved there will be more satisfied customers. Councilmember Singer asked what is the toughest issue to turn around or change. Mr. Shockey said providing staff with empowerment and the ability to make field decisions because sometimes permits don't get reviewed as quickly as they could be because they have to get reviewed by upper management. Perception is that staff person may be ready to make a call, but there is hesitancy to make field decisions. They propose to allow qualified people to make decisions and the customer will feel satisfied. PAGE 1 MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 24, 2003 Planning and Community Development Director Krauss remarked that staff has made strides in various departments in working and coordinating projects back and forth. It is not in their authority to order another department staff to move or act on a project. Planner Martin commented regarding the perception of empowerment. He has been with the City for five years and empowerment was not a reality. Staff was not empowered to make decisions. With the recent reorganization, Community Development Administrator Osaki has empowered planners to move forward in acting on projects and making determinations. Councilmember Brothers wondered if the level of responsibility of lower level staff will encourage some developers to take advantage or pressure some individuals. Mr. Shockey said this could be a problem, but if staff says they will talk with another staff to get the issue resolved and the applicant is called back, the developer will know he can't play games. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss remarked that staff knows when something is a policy question versus when people play power games. Sometimes resolution is needed at higher levels. Mr. Shockey said there is the perception that Auburn is only city using SEPA as a bargaining tool. He said that Auburn is the only city he is aware of that does quality judgment of application versus quantity decision for completeness review. Other cities use SEPA to go beyond SEPA in unique situations. It appears that Auburn is almost putting the Code aside and using SEPA to mold the project. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss advised that many sister cities have design review functions and design committees that drive developers nuts and projects can get hung up for months. Auburn's process is just as quick and maybe easier. A project was never rejected because staff didn't like it. Conditions imposed may be to modulate the building, for example. Staff only sends plans back when they receive the same information time and again. The Mayor appreciates work done by Mr. Shockey, the stakeholders and staff. There has been a lot of empowerment in the last two years. Councilmember Poe is three-quarters convinced to continue with the study after the first of the year. There are issues to work on and interface between the departments on such as how to structure the pre-application meetings and how to keep the clock going. He left carte blanche with Councilmember Poe to set up as he wanted and the group has done a good job. He likes the idea of the stakeholder meetings continuing as changes are being made. Councilmember Singer commented that it sounds like Council will have work to do to revise the Codes. This is the best report from a consultant that she has seen in eight years. Chair Borden asked Planning and Community Development Director Krauss what kind of revisions would be made regarding SEPA. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss replied that from a process standpoint that wouldn't change the outcome. The completeness applications issue is one the City is working towards. The City is a long ways from rejecting SEPA four to five times staff didn't like the traffic report or traffic methodology. There were instances where this happened four times on one project. Using the completeness threshold for quality decision wasn't the intent. When an application is accepted and staff knows it meets Code, but there are inherent problems. Staff works quickly with developers to make changes and complete the review in the allotted time. There are issues on using SEPA for more than its intended use and he talked to PCDC about this before. Auburn's development review process is SEPA. Some cities have a parallel process that does more. Auburn needs to look at improving other processes and documentation. ACTION: 1. Approval of Minutes of November 10, 2003 Meeting The minutes were approved. PAGE 2 MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 24, 2003 Resolution No. xxxx - Grant from Washington State Dept. of Community, Trade and Economic Development in the amount of $30,000 Community Development Administrator Osaki spoke about the funding study. Approximately $150,000 of the downtown redevelopment funds were set aside for a corridor study of Auburn Way South from 4th Street NE to Cross Street and to construct limited Phase 1 improvements at Main Street and Auburn Way. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss spoke about the urgent need for pedestrian improvements at Auburn Way and Main with the opening of the Public Safety Building. It will take approximately one year to 14 months to get the studies and the improvements built. Councilmember Singer made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Brothers, to recommend approval and Chair Borden concurred. 3. Resolution No. 3662 - Interlocal Agreement with King County to Accept Passenger Van Parks and Recreation Director Faber said the used van will be used for teen programs and after school programs. Councilmember Singer made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Brothers, to recommend approval and Chair Borden concurred. ZOA03-0002 - Text Changes to Auburn City Code Titles 14, 16, 17 and 18 related to Public Posting Notice Requirements Planner Martin gave a background on the proposed amendments. Staff proposes to rely on public posting signs as only means of physical posting of a project and he explained what other notifications are given. Staff's position is summarized by the fifth whereas in the ordinance. The land use posting boards provide adequate public notice in addition to the other notice processes. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss remarked that previously all the city did was post the 8"xl 1" notices on utility poles. Councilmember Singer confirmed that staff is not supposed to be doing both. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said this was an oversight because when the City imposed using the large land use signs, staff forgot to eliminate the five 8"xl 1" posting notices and staff now wants to correct this. Mayor advised that the utility company said that the City cannot use its utility poles anymore. This is illegal and the City is not going to use the utility poles. Planner Martin said that the Planning Commission held two public hearings on the amendments and discussed the amendments at other meetings. Mayor instructed the Planning Commission that they could recommend yes or no on the amendments, but to move the amendments forward. Chair Borden does not think it is staff's intention to give less notice, but that it appeared that way after all the meetings and testimony. Planner Martin advised that the items brought up in public testimony were incidents prior to the land use posting boards. Left out of testimony is how the City rectified the notice of a particular project. In this example, the comment period was extended to 45 days. Chair Borden said that some of the testimony concerned her and people said that they had found out about a project from the placard and that you might not drive down that street and might not know about a project. Planner Martin said this is the assumption that you drive by where the posting board is located. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss commented that if a project has multiple frontages, the City could require signs on each frontage. Mayor said that direction given to staff is not to post signs illegally on utility poles. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said that the Commission said it was not legal to tell the City they cannot post on utility poles. The City Attorney confirmed to the Commission that the City cannot post on utility poles. PAGE 3 MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 24, 2003 Councilmember Singer made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Brothers, to recommend that Council pass the amendments as presented by staff and recommend that the City require two signs for projects having multiple frontages. Chair Borden is undecided. She thinks if the City takes away something other things need to added such as an extended mailing. Mayor commented that the large land use posting sign requirement was added to replace the 8"xl 1" posting. With Councilmember Singer suggestion, the City is now doing more for notification of projects. Mayor commended staff for their outstanding job on the amendments which should not have taken this long to get through the Planning Commission. Ordinance No. 5802 - Amending Chapter 2.06 of Auburn City Code Titled "City Council" and Approving Rules of Procedure Chair Borden has several questions on this and suggested tabling the ordinance until the next Committee meeting. There is also the upcoming Committee on Committees meeting. City Attorney Heid said the ordinance does not need to be acted on tonight. He said that Council does not have to do anything on this. It is hoped the ordinance will give Council more flexibility. He wants to keep current rules and regulations in ordinance form. He is trying to avoid using an ordinance when a resolution will suffice because of the convenience and cost savings. Chair Borden was unable to go through the entire ordinance to see what was change or if there are different procedures. City Attorney Heid said that portions of the language have been clarified and he did receive comments from when the agendas went out. Chair Borden does not have huge concerns, but the ordinance could possibly change the way Council operates. The Mayor commented that a couple changes have already been made because they were done in the State and the State language was removed. The ordinance will not change the way Auburn does business, but put it in proper form. They need comments over the next couple of weeks. Chair Borden requested a summary from staff of what was changed and why. City Attorney Heid said not a lot of intended change, he tried to pull out of the Code the rules and regulations for Council. Some of the language was preliminarily reviewed by the Municipal Services Committee which had suggestions. The ordinance is not intended to make a lot of large sweeping changes. The revised version incorporates changes from the Municipal Services Committee. The Mayor said that all Council Committees will review the ordinance. It is fine to table the ordinance for two weeks. Ordinance No. 5803 - Amending Sections of Auburn City Code relating to Boards and Commissions City Attorney Heid remarked that the Codes cover different Boards and Commissions and they are not treated identically. This is an attempt to bring unity and consistency among the Boards and Commissions in addressing removal of members. The Civil Service Commission adopted the State civil service law. The only State statue that required board/commission addressing removal of officers is the Civil Service Commission. Mayor commented that the advisory boards and commissions do not have the same level of authority as the Civil Service Commission. He commented that it is defined in the RCW for removal on all commissions. This is an action item and Committee should recommend that Municipal Services move forward on this. Councilmember Singer made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Brothers, to recommend that Municipal Services Committee move forward. PAGE 4 MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 24, 2003 7. Neighborhood Matching Grant - Pioneer Elementary School Courtyard Planner Mandeville introduced Deborah Garry, Principal of the school, who is requesting NMG to landscape a courtyard and do artwork in the courtyard as a way to celebrate the diversity of the neighborhood. Mrs. Garry said the plastic pots are deteriorating, the courtyard is barren, and mentioned their ideas for improving the area. Chair Borden likes the idea of keeping the courtyard open. Councilmember Singer made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Brothers, to recommend approval and Chair Borden concurred. Councilmember Brothers said if the group is asking for $5,000, the Committee should approve the $5,000 and not throw in an additional $1,000 if $5,000 will get the work done. Councilmember Singer and Chair Borden want the organization to receive $6,000 because the project could be enhanced more with the additional money. ADJOURNMENT With no further items to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 6:30 pm PCDC\MIN\I 1 B-2003 PAGE 5