HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-09-2006
PLANNING & COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
COMMITTEE
JANUARY 9, 2006
MINUTES
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Lynn Norman called the regular meeting of the Planning and
Community Development Committee to order at 5:00 p.m. in the
Council Chambers located on the first floor of Auburn City Hall, 25
West Main Street, Auburn, WA. Committee members present were:
Member Gene Cerino, Member Nancy Backus; Also present were
Planning and Community Development Director Paul Krauss,
Community Development Administrator David Osaki, Development
Services Coordinator Steve Pilcher, City Attorney Dan Heid,
Environmental Protection Manager Aaron Nix, Planner Bill
Mandeville, and Planning Secretary Carolyn Brown.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. December 12, 2005 Meeting
Mr. Cerino moved to accept the minutes as presented. Ms.
Backus seconded.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3-0
III. ACTION
A. Ordinance No. 5986 ANX05-0003 for Community of Christ
Church.
Mr. Mandeville provided a brief background on the annexation of the
Community of Christ Church. A February 1, 2006 effective date for
the annexation is proposed to allow the property to be on the City's
tax rolls for 2006.
Page 1
Plannina and Community Development Committee Aaenda
January 9. 2006
Mr. Cerino moved to approve Ordinance 5986 and forward to
City Council. Ms. Backus seconded.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3-0
B. Ordinance No. 5987 ANX05-0002 for the Stipp Annexation
The PCD Committee asked if there had been an update in the
proposed number of lots or on the road access for the Stipp or
Nichols annexations. Chair Norman wanted to be certain that the
information the City has is the most current. Mayor Lewis stated he
had received one email about the gate on the road. Mr. Mandeville
and Mr. Osaki said to their knowledge there have been no changes
but that this is because the City does not have a specific
development application to process and review and would not have
one until the property is annexed into the City. Mr. Mandeville will
follow up with Mr. Coppler and let him know about the annexation
process and when the Stipp and Nichols annexations would be
considered by the City Council and also to make certain Mr. Coppler
is clear about the process by which subdivision applications are
reviewed and opportunities to comment.
Mr. Cerino moved to approve Ordinance 5987 and forward to
City Council. Ms. Backus seconded.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3-0
C. Ordinance No. 5988 for ANX05-0004 the Nichols Annexation
Mr. Cerino moved to approve Ordinance 5988 and forward to
City Council. Ms. Backus seconded.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3-0
D. Ordinance No. 5979 - Annexation of an existing City owned
storm drainage facility on A Street SE at 358th SE.
E. Ordinance No. 5980 - Annexation of City owned parcels located
south of the BPA power lines between 116th and 118th Avenues
SE.
F. Ordinance No. 5981 - Annexation of a City owned parcel
located on the south side of the Mountain View Cemetery.
Page 2
Plannina and Community Development Committee Aaenda
January 9. 2006
G. Ordinance No. 5982 - Annexation of a City owned parcel on the
west side of 132nd Avenue SE in the 29400 block (the Jacobsen
Tree Farm)
H. Ordinance No. 5983 - Annexation of a City owned park at the
intersection of SE 320th Street and 124th Avenue SE.
There was a brief discussion on the annexations. Mr. Osaki stated
that these are all for city owned parcels.
Mr. Cerino moved to approve Ordinance 5979 through 5983
and forward to City Council. Ms. Backus seconded.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3-0
I. Resolution No. XXXX for the East of SE Main Street Action
Plan.
Mr. Mandeville said the action plan was developed by staff based on
feedback from the neighborhood meetings. No action is necessary
tonight so it can be a discussion item.
Amended sections of the action plan include comments on
sidewalks, historic preservation, and playgrounds just to name a
few. For the most part, the problems that were discussed are items
the City could resolve. Mr. Krauss added that the process worked
well and was gratifying.
Mr. Mandeville said at this time the main question for the Planning
and Community Development Committee is if it would like to
schedule a public hearing on the plan or whether individuals should
comment under audience participation at a future meeting. The
Committee noted that it wants the public to have an opportunity to
comment and ensure everyone has a chance to see the plan and
make comments. It has taken staff and the community a lot of time
and effort to get to this point. Citizens should specifically be invited
to attend the Council meeting both to provide comment and to
accept the thanks of the City Council for the work they put into the
document.
Page 3
Plannina and Community Development Committee Aaenda
January 9. 2006
Rather than hold a public hearing, the PCD Committee noted that the
next step would be to invite people to the City' Council meeting to
speak under audience participation if they wished. Ms. Norman
stated it would be a good idea to let people know how the City plans
to prioritize the action plan.
Mr. Mandeville added that the City of Vancouver has a similar matrix
and once a year updates presents the matrix to the City Council. Mr.
Mandeville said also the matrix would be published on the City's web
site. Mr. Mandeville said the format was developed for that site.
There will also be copies available at the Senior Center and City Hall.
The Committee liked the format as it was concise and readable.
Committee member Backus asked about the phrase "encourage
retention of office zones". Mr. Mandeville said this was inresponse
to a comment from one of the meetings. It appears that the
neighborhood doesn't want a change in the current "residential
office" zoning.
Ms. Backus asked about "open spaces and recreation" and what the
City's involvement might be. Mr. Krauss said that this could be
something for the parks board to research. The PCD Committee
discussed a setting like Evergreen Heights Elementary School which
a.cts as a park in a neighborhood setting.
Mr. Krauss stated that once the plan is adopted then staff can work
on the specific direction implementing the plan should take.
Mr. Mandeville will bring the resolution back to the 2nd PCD meeting
in February so that it can be placed on a City Council agenda in
March. The draft plan will also be presented to the Public Works
Committee at a future meeting.
Mr. Heid noted that the City might wish to consider whether or not
approval by ordinance is more appropriate.. He explained that an
ordinance addresses items that are more permanent in nature. The
PCD Committee agreed that it would be acceptable if it comes back
in the form of an ordinance rather than as a resolution.
IV. DISCUSSION
A. Rental Housing New Section 5.22.055 was presented by Mr.
Krauss and Mr. Heid. Mr. Heid stated that this proposal was
Page 4
Plannina and Community Development Committee Aaenda
January 9. 2006
developed in response to a recent court case that upheld an
inspection scheme. The case was approved by the Court of Appeals,
but the Supreme Court has been asked to review the case. At this
time this is an approach that the law will uphold. The City can tie it
into the rental business license and will be more assured that
inspections will be a tool to use. Chair Norman asked if not having
something before, gives the City more access if there are legal
concerns.
Mr. Heid answered that Code Enforcement can be called in if illegal
activity is suspected. This increases the City's ability to secure civil
warrants for access. The City can also require the landlord to
address problems on rental property. Mr. Heid said, also the landlord
can use whatever tools or devices necessary to enter the property.
The City can notify the landlord that there is a problem and the
property needs to be inspected. This will be the landlord's
inspection, and not the City's. The City can use this process to
revoke the rental business license. Mr. Heid stated this ties into the
original ordinance that set up the business license process. Mr.
Heid added that he has not heard from the Rental Housing
Association.
The PCD Committee indicated that it would like more time to review
the draft ordinance.
B. Sign Code Update was provided by Mr. Osaki.
He stated the Planning Commission public hearing on the sign code
was held January 4, 2006 .
Mr. Osaki has provided the Committee with the strike out and
underline version of the sign code. He has attached a memo that
identifies four additional changes that came from the public hearing.
The Planning Commission was not comfortable making the
recommendations on Real Estate signs. The City received a
significant number of similar comment letters from realtors before
the public hearing and these were reviewed by the Planning
Commission. After the public hearing the Planning Commission
decided to keep the real estate sign regulations the same as the
regulations in effect right now. This would therefore maintain the
status quo with respect to real estate signs.
Page 5
Plannina and Community Development Committee Aaenda
January 9. 2006
The PCD Committee discussed the Master Sign Plan provision on
page 10 of the draft code. Also, discussion occurred regarding the
Ad Hoc Sign Committee's recommendation of a 25% administrative
deviation on of the size or height of a sign rather than requiring the
Hearing Examiner process. Chair Norman said there were some
concerns expressed by another council member regarding the size
of signs addressed on pages 13 and 16 of the sign code.
Mr. Osaki said he will reformat the sign code and return to PCD
Committee.
Mr. Cerino asked why the special off-premise real estate sign has to
go thru Hearing Examiner process (page 6 #F). Mr. Osaki replied that
this is existing code language. The PCD Committee discussed the
downtown core area and Main Street area. Mr. Pilcher, added this
area is being reviewed through the Downtown Design Guidelines
process with Mark Hinshaw and that changes to the sign code
relative to the downtown area might best await the outcome of that
process.
Chair Norman asked Mr. Osaki to make the changes and return the
sign code to the PCD Committee. Mr. Osaki stated it may be ready to
come back to the next meeting in January.
C. An update on the Auburn Environmental Park was presented
by Aaron Nix.
Mr. Nix said the City is getting very close to actual construction. He
said he has spent time with the consultant and an interesting
preliminary design has been selected. It will include birding towers,
a trail system and other items that were desirable. It has been
suggested to process the park through a Master Plan and have it
connect with the Green Zone. The design is moving forward and
staff is now just waiting for construction plans.
Mr. Nix stated he is working with the group at Green River
Community College. A section will probably be set aside just for the
students to work in. They are working on innovative new ways to
deal with wetlands enhancement.
Mr. Nix also discussed the drainage issues. One problem is that
there is a blockage of Mill Creek at 15th Street NW. Mr. Krauss said
Page 6
Plannina and Community Development Committee Aaenda
January 9. 2006
staff conducted a flow test and there is no flow in Mill Creek,
because Mill Creek can't establish a creek corridor. Mr. Nix related
that the oxygen levels and temperatures are not what they should be.
If it were opened up it would allow the creek to function as it should.
Chair Norman asked about the timing. Mr. Nix answered that the
Federal Government would like to have something done as soon as
possible. The City has applied for a grant to change the area and
enhance the wetlands. Ecology is also considering putting money
into the parks. Another group that has contacted the City is the
Eagle Scouts. Mr. Nix said he hopes meet in two months with the
engineers for a preliminary site plan. The project will also include all
the wish list.
Chair Norman asked about the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). Mr.
Nix said when the City contracted with Landau and Associates, they
met in mid- November with the ACOE and agreed with the City on the
wetland delineation map. The City has also contacted the
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe and they have planted a lot of coho fry in
the creek.
The Committee discussed various issues. Mr. Nix said the
consultant will provide maps in layers for the next meeting.
D. Steve Pilcher said staff has been looking at ways to address the
City Council concerns regarding the PUD Ordinance and have been
discussing opportunities to establish a better process. The thought
is to abolish the PUD process and replace it with the opportunity for
a developer to enter into a development agreement with the City.
The PCD Committee discussed the PUD and what it allows in a
development.
Mr. Pilcher said that process-wise, staff is looking at the broad
aspect. There would be negotiations with the applicant rather then
certain standards.
Mr. Pilcher said the proposal will be taken to the Public Works
Committee next for input and then will still need to go to the
Planning Commission since it involves a zoning code amendment.
Page 7
Plannina and Community Development Committee Aaenda
January 9. 2006
E. Sex Offender Town Hall Meeting Update was provided by Steve
Pilcher.
Mr. Pilcher stated that he attended the January 5, 2006 Town Hall
meeting on sex offenders and provided PCD Committee members
with a State joint task force report. He said about 30-35 people were
in attendance at the town hall meeting. Also present was Jim Hine, a
citizen advocate for tougher laws against sex offenders.
The meeting discussed community protection zones. If the City is
going to do this, it would be good to do this uniformly state wide.
The major concern is that registered sex offenders live close to
schools. Now, sex offenders can be homeless and not be registered.
It would be best to find out what direction the legislature is taking
before the City acts or puts together an ordinance.
The PCD Committee discussed the difference in the sex offender
designations. Chair Norman stated the City needs to be very clear
on definitions. There needs to be some balance, but would rather err
on the side of caution.
Mr. Krauss said that by the time an ordinance could be crafted and
put in the process, the state could come down with its own version
so waiting would be appropriate.
F. PAA Pilot Program - Update
Mr. Krauss said before Christmas that he, Mr. Osaki and others went
to Seattle and had a wrap up meeting with King County and Federal
Way. Karen Reed, with King County, said this agreement would likely
only good for 18 months and if the City hasn't annexed the PAA
areas by that time, King County wants the agreement to expire.
Mr. Krauss will write a letter as soon as he hears from the City of
Federal Way about its reaction to the King County timeline on the
agreement, to County Executive Sims. He will propose a 5-year
renewable agreement instead.
v. INFORMATION
A. PCDC Status Matrix
Page 8
Plannina and Community Development Committee Aaenda
January 9. 2006
SE Main Street neighborhood plan would be brought back sometime
in February.
Jan 23 - Downtown design standards - update.
Jan 23. - Home occupations
Jan 23 - Game Farm Park tree trimming.
Jan 23 - Meeting with the Tree Board
VI. OLD BUSINESS
None.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Planning and
Community Development Committee, the meeting was adjourned at
6:45 p.m.
11
;) 3 r5 DAY OF ~"lA.U-+Ij d66 b
~~~
Carolyn Bro , Secretary
APPROVED THE
Page 9