Loading...
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