Loading...
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