HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-25-2006
PLANNING & COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
September 25,2006
MINUTES
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Lynn Norman called the meeting 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
Mayor Pete Lewis; Interim Planning, Community and Development Director David Osaki; Parks
and Recreation Director Daryl Faber; Development Services Coordinator Steve Pilcher; Planner
Bill Mandeville; Cultural Arts Manager Laurie Rose; Recreation Special Programs and
Marketing Supervisor Julie Brewer; Economic Development Manager Dave Baron;
Intergovernmental Services Coordinator Carolyn Robertson.
Public present: Nicole Petrino-Salter; Karen L. Campbell; Susie Hauck; Rudy & Joyce
Terry.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Minutes of the September 11,2006 meeting. Member Cerino moved to
approve the minutes as read. Member Backus second.
Motion approved unanimously. 3-0
III. ACTION
A. Resolution No. 4100 (Case File ANX06-0009) Brown Annexation
Planner Bill Mandeville stated this was a request to annex approximately 12 acres to the
City of Auburn. One parcel is owned by the applicant (Mr. Charles Brown), with five parcels
being owned by King County.
The proposed annexation area is located near Lea Hill and has a total assessed
valuation of $433,000, with the Brown property representing approximately 22% of the total
assessed valuation. Staff is recommending denial of annexation petition due to on-going
analysis of the potential of annexing all of Lea Hill and discussions with King County. Planner
Mandeville added that Mr. Brown was invited to the PCD Committee meeting, but was not able
to attend.
Page 1
Planning & Community Development Committee Minutes
September 25. 2006
Planner Mandeville noted that Mr. Brown is interested in placing a single family
residence on his property and currently has a Water & Sewer Certificate issued by the City.
However, he wishes to annex as he would prefer to work with the City in obtaining building
perm it.
Interim Planning, Building and Community Director Dave Osaki noted that the Water
and Sewer Certificate was issued earlier this year for a single family residence for this property.
Member Cerino asked why the proposal includes property owned by King County.
Planner Mandeville responded that the inclusion of the King County property is necessary to
make the Brown property contiguous to the current city limits.
Member Backus asked if the annexation will require King County's concurrence.
Planner Mandeville stated he was unsure, but would find out if Council wishes to pursue the
annexation.
Member Cerino moved to recommend the PCD Committee forward Resolution No. 4100
to the full Council with the recommendation to deny the ten percent annexation petition request.
Member Backus seconded and Chair Norman concurred.
Member Cerino moved to PCD Committee forward Resolution No. 4100 to the
full Council with the recommendation to deny the ten percent annexation petition
request. Member Backus seconded.
Motion approved unanimously. 3-0
IV. DISCUSSION
A. Potential Annexation Area (PAA) Utility Provision
Interim Director Osaki noted this was a continuation of discussion from the September
11, 2006 PCD Committee meeting. Staff has provided the September 11, 2006 PCD
Committee packet materials again.
The area in question is located in the vicinity of SE 31 ih & 132nd Ave. SE. in Lea Hill. It
consists of approximately 14 acres and involves five owners wishing to receive water/sewer in
order to able to develop their properties. The staff memorandum outlines the minimum
notification requirements in effect at the time when the Comprehensive Plan text was amended
in 2004. Legal notice was published in the newspaper and notices were posted at the library
and senior center. Notices were also mailed to general mailing list for all Comprehensive Plan
amendments. Staff also prepared a 4 page memo that was sent to the Master Builders
Association (MBA), the permit stakeholders group, Chamber of Commerce, etc., plus another
140 property owners, developers, engineers, utility districts, etc. Staff also believes that all
property owners of at least 5 acres were also notified.
Chair Norman opened the meeting for brief comments
Page 2
Planning & Community Development Committee Minutes
September 25. 2006
Rudy Terry - 31011 132nd Ave SE, Auburn 90892. Mr. Terry stated that he lives on
two acres, so probably did not get notified in 2004 and is aware that developers probably did.
He understands that the City wants to work with King County on development standards and
annexation issues. He asked why the County won't work with City to meet City standards?
Mayor Lewis stated that issues began years ago with on-going King County
development using rural standards/infrastructure for urban density housing. The City asked the
County to include city standards for new development. When negotiations quit, the City decided
to stop issuing Water and Sewer availability Certificates. Only one property in the area has
involved a commitment from King County to used City standards. When the City annexed a
small part of Lea Hill earlier this decade, the City found inadequate infrastructure and the
potential cost of future fixes. The City realized that future annexation of this area was going to
need some financial support.
Mr. Terry stated that staff has raised the concern of needing to treat all areas of Lea Hill
equally, but feels their area is unique in being totally surrounded by development. He
questioned whether there is another area with same characteristics. He did his own
investigation and could not find another area similarly situated. People in his area only want to
be able to build like other surrounding properties. He feels they haven't been given a good
reason why they can't be served.
Mayor Lewis noted that all areas are unique.
Councilmember Cerino pointed out there are other situations where others want to be
able to develop. The City is trying to figure out how to combine Lea Hill and West Hill into one
annexation area that will allow the City to receive additional sales tax revenues from the State
to help pay for infrastructure costs. This could amount to over $1 M per year for ten years.
Karen Campbell - 31049 129th PI SE, Auburn 98092. Ms. Campbell asked what it would
take to get the moratorium lifted.
Councilmember Backus clarified this is not a moratorium. It is a policy of the City to not
provide utilities at this time, until better standards come into effect.
Kelly Petrino-Salter, 31021 132nd Way SE, Auburn 98092, stated that residents had no
say in that policy decision and stated they pay Auburn sales taxes and pay taxes for the
Auburn School District.
Mayor Lewis noted the school district is a separate governmental agency and not a part
of City government. The City is looking to obtain enough funding to pay for immediate
needs/repairs upon annexation, Le., functioning storm systems, adequate street lighting,
resurfaced streets, police, fire, etc. The City is immediately responsible for the area upon
annexation.
Ms. Campbell asked what it would take to be able to develop.
Page 3
Planning & Community Development Committee Minutes
September 25. 2006
Mayor Lewis replied that they either need to annex or enter into a separate contract
between themselves, King County and City that applies to your area. This was done recently
between the two jurisdictions and a developer. Chair Norman noted that process took some
time and is not sure the County would be interested in doing it again.
Susie Hauck, 31110 129th Ave. SE, Auburn 98092, asked if Polygon and Quadrant were
on the 2004 mailing list?
Interim Director Osaki replied that Polygon probably was, but Quadrant most likely was
not.
Ms. Hauck referenced a development project near 124th Avenue SE & SE 31ih that has
potential for commercial development.
Mayor Lewis noted the problem has been some King Coounty permitting issues (Le.,
critical areas, etc.). Citizens should contact Peter Von Reichbauer with their issues.
Chair Norman also noted that property taxes and mitigation fees collected from an area
aren't necessarily spent in that area.
Councilmember Cerino stated that the City inherited Lakeland Hills from Pierce County;
the project was approved to Pierce County standards, which are less than City's.
Council members have heard complaints from residents about these lesser standards. GMA
limits what the City can do and also imposes obligations. The City must be good stewards for its
citizens.
B. Theater Plan RFP
Parks, Arts and Recreation Director Daryl Faber noted staff is distributing a draft RFQ/P
before it is made public next week. The goal is to issue the RFQ/P next week and then have it
in circulation for about one month. Work must be completed on a time/hour basis, not to exceed
$10K. The idea is to put together a business plan for use of the theater before analyzing what
type of physical work will need to occur at the facility.
Director Faber noted that the scope of work has remained the same. Staff would like to
take a look at the storefront space with more detail. He noted that since the contract will be for
less than $1 OK, it won't require full council action. Chair Norman stated she feels the proposal
covers the specifics.
Director Faber noted that membership of the review committee has yet to be set; he is
open to recommendations from PCD.
Economic Development Manager Dave Baron asked if the consultant will make some
comments on the economic impact ("ripple effect") of this proposal.
Chair Norman stated she wanted to leave open the possibility of using the building for
other activities in addition to the performing arts. Cultural Arts Manager Rose stated the
Page 4
Planning & Community Development Committee Minutes
September 25. 2006
proposal is written to allow additional activities. Councilmember Cerino mentioned that there is
a real need for daytime meeting venues.
Chair Norman stressed need for a good fee schedule for allowing use of the building.
C. Veterans Day Parade
Director Faber brought this issue to the attention of Mayor. Staff is looking for methods
to maintain the dignity of the parade, but still allow for fun activities.
Julie Brewer, Recreation Special Programs and Marketing Manager, noted that staff has
been approached by Auburn Downtown Association (ADA) to help monitor street vendors. ADA
currently hands out flags, etc. at the parade. ADA has expressed a willingness to take over
management of street vendors for the parade, including the collection of fees. ADA could use
the funds to help pay for the 1,000 flags they distribute during the parade.
Director Faber indicated that staff will work with ADA on developing criteria for vendors,
but will leave enforcement up to ADA.
The PCD Committee concurred with moving forward with this plan.
D. Downtown Urban Center (DUC) zone and rezone
Development Services Coordinator Steve Pilcher provided the PCD Committee with a
summary of the Downtown Urban Center zone. He noted that the Planning Commission has
completed its review of the Downtown Urban Center zoning code amendments and rezone that
included an open house and public hearing. Only one person testified at the public hearing.
Development Services Coordinator Pilcher noted that the Planning Commission
recommended approval, but had some comments on parking. The Commission thought certain
parking requirements were too high, especially for restaurants.
Development Services Coordinator Pilcher also noted that comments were received
from Mr. Jeff Oliphant and that staff had asked Mark Hinshaw to review Mr. Oliphant's
comments. Staff passed out a handout summarizing the comments and responses. The While
the Planning Commission commented that there should be a reduction in some parking
requirements, Mr. Oliphant sought more parking. Mr. Pilcher noted that these are contrary
perspectives for the council to consider.
Councilmember Norman asked for staff input on the contrasting comments.
Mayor Lewis said staff needs to get together to provide some additional information to
Council and what the implications of these choices are.
Councilmember Norman said parking is a big issue for how we make the community
look, so she would like more study.
Mayor Lewis stated staff is to come back at a future meeting and have a couple of
examples of an individual land use. Staff can also take a whole block and see how it is
Page 5
Planning & Community Development Committee Minutes
September 25. 2006
impacted. That way the Council can see what the impact is associated with an individual use
as well as what happens if a whole block redevelops. Mayor Lewis asked to provide a lunchtime
example as well, given that Kent has parking difficulties around its transit station at lunchtime.
The analysis will show how much parking is needed, what may result from that and how it is to
be addressed. This will provide a baseline for decision-making.
Council member Norman noted that the PCD committee wants more clarification on
parking. It is a big decision and we want to make sure we are going the right way.
Councilmember Norman was surprised by the FAR discussion and Mr. Oliphant's
concerns. Chair Norman was under the impression, given discussion with Mark Hinshaw, that
the FAR was pretty standard across urban cores and that most developers are comfortable with
this.
Development Services Coordinator Pilcher noted that staff can take another look at this.
He noted that Mr. Hinshaw had mentioned that certain building features are exempt from the
FAR provision and he (Hinshaw) wasn't sure if Mr. Oliphant had seen this.
Development Services Coordinator Pilcher also noted the senior housing parking ratio
and mentioned that it seemed low. The City may wish to increase that off-street parking
requirement amount.
Chair Norman says this is a serious issue and wants more information so the council
can get it right. Councilmember Backus asked if the PCD Committee could view the "fly-by"
created by Mr. Hinshaw again. Economic Development Manager Baron provided copies to
each committee member.
Development Services Coordinator Pilcher mentioned that he would ask Mr. Hinshaw to
attend the next meeting. The consensus was that Mr. Hinshaw, along with additional
information and examples, would be helpful.
E. Park Impact Fees
Director Faber noted that the City has contracted with SCS Group to do a study on
parks impact fees for the City of Auburn. The information will go to the City of Auburn Parks
Board on October 3,2006. The study will be compared with other valley cities and what they
are collecting.
Impact fees are based on a 6 year schedule/CFP. Fees can only fund need generated
by new growth, not existing deficiencies. The study estimates a 22% deficiency over next 6
years. Page 4 of the materials demonstrates how deficient the city is under currently adopted
goals and standards. For example, City is very deficient in soccer fields.
On page 5, the study demonstrates impact fees could pay for approximately 2/3'rds the
cost of a new community center. "Unit costs" are based upon actual costs from other
communities in Puget Sound. The City's current numbers are 8 years old and need to be
updated. This chart includes new information. Household projections are based upon
Page 6
Planning & Community Development Committee Minutes
September 25. 2006
information provided by Bill Mandeville. The PCD Committee noted that not many new single
family developments have substantial yards and these areas are therefore in need of parks.
The PCD Committee discussed the issue of on-street parking at Terminal Park in
response to a citizen complaint regarding being told to move her vehicle by City enforcement
staff. Mr. Faber noted Terminal Park is considered a neighborhood park, where parking
typically is not provided. However, the park does have a nice big toy, which tends to draw
people from other areas of the city. The Committee discussed various means to address the
parking situation at Terminal Park, including the concept of drop-off zone.
The impact fee study also includes information on anticipated population and household
size. The maximum household impact fee could be $4,400. A lot of communities choose a 50%
funding level. If $2,000 was the impact fee amount, the City could obtain about $1.6 million
annually. Chair Norman would like to see the cumulative cost of various impact fees, including
school impact fees.
Mayor Lewis noted this needs to be compared to other jurisdictions in the area. We
need to be sure we're comparing apples to apples. The study could also note all those that are
contemplating raising their traffic impact fees. Director Faber stated he will ensure the
consultant has a complete presentation that addresses all their concerns put together.
The item will be back on October 9, 2006 PCD agenda.
F. 2007 Action Plan
Planner Mandeville provided staff presentation on the 2007 Action Plan scheduled for
public hearing before the City Council on October 2, 2006. Mr. Mandeville noted the 30 day
public review period began September 20, 2006 and the deadline for written comments is
October 20, 2006. Mr. Mandeville added that the Action Plan will come back to the PCD
Committee for discussion on October 23, 2006, but this meeting provides an opportunity for
committee input in advance of the October 2,2006 public hearing.
The PCD Committee had no questions at this point in time.
V. INFORMATION
A. PC DC Status Matrix
Chair Norman asked members to contact her with any questions regarding the matrix. She
noted she will be gone for October 16, 2006 City Council meeting and October 23, 2006 PCD
Committee meeting.
B. MISCELLANEOUS
Chair Norman presented an issue near Hazelwood Elementary School regarding access to
roads/width of roads, resulting from a proposed development west of the school site. These
concerns were raised about one year ago. There are now semi-trucks parked in the
neighborhood on the narrow streets. Chair Norman indicated she has been contacted from a
member of the public regarding this issue. She pointed out this is a good example where the
City believes it is addressing all issues when it approves a Water and Sewer Certificate, but
Page 7
Planning & Community Development Committee Minutes
September 25. 2006
may find out later that new issues arise over which it has no control since the sites are not
within the city limits.
VI. OLD BUSINESS
VII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Planning and Community
Development Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 6:49 p.m.
7k DAY OF ((Jt:/r'~--t.-. C;ZL~f() b
// .. ;1
(4 ('.~~jl t'j.; L !5it-t.:. 1 "-
Carolyn Brow.n( Secretary
Page 8