HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-26-2004
MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
APRIL 26. 2004
The regular meeting of the Planning and Community Development Committee was held April 26, 2004 in
Conference Room 1. Those members in attendance were as follows:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Sue Singer, Nancy Backus and Lynn Norman
STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Lynn Rued, Dave Osaki, Eric Hagen, Sean Martin, Mitzi McMahan,
Dan Heid and Patti Zook
The meeting was called to order by Committee Chair Singer at 5:00 p.m.
ACTION
1. Approval of Minutes of April 12, 2004 Meeting
Councilmember Norman made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Backus to approve the minutes;
Chair Singer concurred.
2. Resolution No. 3723 - Olson Creek Habitat Restoration Plan Professional Services Agreement
Environmental Protection Manager Hagen explained the consultant selection process, identified project
scope and cash match. He spoke about the public involvement component, what can be done this year
and its cost. He spoke about summer creek flow and the importance of identifying location for adding
structures such as logs in the channel. Volunteers will help with revegetative work. He spoke about the
funding matching requirements such as the funds from the King County Conservation Fund which has
had money set aside for Auburn since 1994 and this money can be used as a match. There will be in-
kind match such as his work on the program and permitting costs.
Councilmember Norman made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Backus to recommend approval;
Chair Singer concurred.
DISCUSSION
1 . City Hall Plaza Renovation
Facilities Administrator Rued and the Committee toured the plaza and reviewed the three concepts. The
Committee liked the idea of opening up the steps and podium and favored the third concept.
Councilmember Norman spoke about pursuing art opportunities. Chair Singer would like to see art work
moved toward the street.
2. Downtown Design Standards
This was discussed at the last meeting. Councilmember Norman attended a meeting with Mitzi
McMahan regarding the Auburn Downtown Association which sought input from them on design and
ideas. She expects to hear from the ADA regarding standards and guidelines and hope to see this in
writing soon. They visited the Massey Justice Center about potential art projects there. They are in the
process of speaking with neon artists about signage there and other opportunities in town. She spoke
about the 1950s era architecture for the building.
Planner McMahan spoke about trying to develop color guidelines which is a very time consuming
process. Councilmember Norman commented about a meeting which discussed businesses decorating
outside their downtown establishments and she is waiting for information soon on how they are going to
police themselves.
PAGE 1
MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
APRIL 26. 2004
Chair Singer wants to ensure that the sign code fits in with the downtown concept. SM offered to touch
base with Planner McMahan about regulations in the sign code. Councilmember Norman commented
that the code says to use neon on a limited basis and now the City is talking about neon as a design
feature. Chair Singer commented that the sign code committee didn't look at neon at all. She would like
the Committee to think about doing design review standards.
Councilmember Norman referred to the Ellensburg study which speaks about different shapes of tops of
buildings and how this was done on Main, but she doesn't want it all looking the same. The goal was not
to have all buildings look alike. The Truitt Building works with what going on in the immediate area and
was good design job not aimed at a particular era. She thinks there should be focus on Main Street and
within a one block radius as the area is prime for development which could come through fairly fast.
Councilmember Norman wondered about the level of success other jurisdictions have had in making
design review standards for their downtown corridors. She spoke about getting the word out what the
City is trying to do and go beyond the downtown area and see about having a site plan review process
for all of the City.
Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said if you look at the site plan review process
you would look at this for all commercial development versus special provisions that are unique to Main
Street. Design review has been discussed for a number of years now and it has been addressed only
through SEPA process. More specifity would be built in and builders/developers would know what the
specifications are.
Planning and Community Development Administrator Osaki advised the site plan review process is
relatively easy to set up. It's the guidelines themselves that can be time consuming to prepare. Chair
Singer suggested that staff look at basic type of design review and then more detail as needed. Planning
and Community Development Administrator Osaki will identify some instances where design criteria for
SEPA was used and then the Committee can see which ones worked. Chair Singer likes the idea of site
plan review because it clarifies the City's requirements.
3. ZOA03-0003 - Amendments to Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.74, Adult Uses & Ordinance No.
5835
At the last meeting, City Attorney Heid provided an overview and staff presented a summary of the
Planning Commission recommendation. SM explained how the application of nonconforming rights
would work.
City Attorney Heid mentioned that an existing business could stay as long as it doesn't increase its
nonconforming status. He explained that the concepts of grandfathering or amortization are different.
Chair Singer inquired if adult business is an outright permitted use and a day care comes in, what
happens to the adult business since they were there first. City Attorney Heid said based on this
ordinance, adult business could stay. If you want to merge grandfathering and amortization into one
ordinance this could be accomplished; however, Auburn would be the only place where this is done.
Based on this example, Councilmember Norman said that the day care would move in knowing that an
adult business is adjacent to them.
4. Ordinance No. 5829 - Dangerous Dogs
City Attorney Heid referred to information from insurance authority regarding specific breeds which was
provided to the Committee. He said that when people made comments about homeowner insurance
being cancelled or not being able to get insurance, this is not an altogether new concept. He advised
that the State law provides the same language as the City's proposed ordinance. State law says
$250,000 of liability insurance and this is the same as in the proposed ordinance. Auburn has provided a
PAGE 2
MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
APRIL 26. 2004
specific mechanism for declaration of dangerous dog. He sent a copy of the ordinance to Jim Annable,
who was involved of the meeting, but he has not responded.
Mayor stressed that the City has mirrored what the State said. Certain groups are attempting to use
Auburn to make a statement that they didn't want Auburn to adopt what is State law.
Discussion occurred related to definition of 'potentially dangerous dog' and 'dangerous dog'. Most of the
language for the definitions came from State law.
Conversation occurred related to enforcement of the ordinance. Chair Singer requested that items d, e
and f on page 3 of the ordinance be clarified.
City Attorney Heid spoke about the due process requirement built into the ordinance. He spoke about
controls built into the ordinance to prevent people from passing a dog from person to person in order to
circumvent the regulations and determination of the animal as dangerous. Councilmember Backus
suggested that the language be clarified that each dog and each owner only get one chance.
INFORMATION
1. Correspondence from 1000 Friends of Washington
No discussion on this item.
ADJOURNMENT:
With no further items to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 6:50 p.m.
PCDC\MIN\04B-2004
PAGE 3