HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-13-2006,,
CLTY OF
UBURN
WASHINGTON
PLANNING & COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
COMMITTEE
November 13, 2006
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER - 5:00 PM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS
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: Chair Lynn Norman, Member
Gene Cerino and Member Nancy Backus. Also present were Planning, Building
and Development Director Michael Davolio, Community Development
Administrator David Osaki, Development Services Coordinator Steve Pitcher,
Senior Planner Elizabeth Chamberlain, Planner Stacey Borland, Planning,
Building and Development Department Secretary Kirsten Reynolds, Director of
Human Resources Brenda Heineman, Police Chief Jim Kelly, Transportation
Planning and Grants Manager Tiffin Goodman, Fire Marshal Jeff Stottlemyre,
Parks, Recreation and Arts Director Daryl Faber, Parks Planning and
Development Manager Dan Scamporlina, Economic Development Manager
Dave Baron and Director of the White River Museum and Olson Farm Patricia
Cosgrove.
Audience Members included: Debbie Luce -Auburn Downtown Association.,
Brian Derdowski, Gary Venn (Utility Vault), VP of Business Development for
Stratford Economic Jim Grady, and Councilmember Sue Singer.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Member Cerino moved to approve the minutes of the October 23, 2006
meeting, as submitted. Member Backus seconded the motion.
Minutes approved unanimously 3-0.
ACTION
A. Auburn-King County Annexation Interlocal Agreement (ILA) was a
discussion item led by Brenda Heineman the Director of Human
Resources.
This ILA agreement was presented earlier to the City Council and is now being
presented to council committees. The ILA is proposed to be scheduled for the
City Council's November 20, 2006 meeting. The Committee discussed the
Page 1
Planning and Community Development Committee Minutes
November 13, 2006
condition of hiring additional staff. It was clarified that the ILA does not have
specific hiring requirements.
B. Ordinance No. 6055 proposed amendment related to Fireworks was a
discussion item led by Police Chief, Jim Kelly.
Ordinance No. 6055 relates to language pertaining to restrictions on the use of
fireworks. The proposed ordinance was already reviewed by the Municipal
Services Committee. The PCD Committee will serve as the concurrence
committee on this Ordinance.
Members discussed the current fireworks ordinance and how it is currently
enforced. Discussion focused on enforcement. Staff noted that other cities are
starting to ban fireworks and if Auburn doesn't follow that approach then
providing Police and Fire services may become more of a problem than it has
been in the past. There has been discussion about developing a community
firework display for the citizens of Auburn. Councilmember Backus raised
concern over the extent of the proposed ordinance. On November 20, 2006 this
ordinance will go back to the Municipal Services Committee and possibly to
Council that same evening.
C. Ordinance No. 6063 Park Impact Fees was an action item with some
background discussion lead by the Parks Director Daryl Faber.
Parks, Arts, and Recreation Director Faber provided a brief overview of the Park
Impact Fees ordinance. Faber indicated that legally the fees need to be based on
the percent of population growth in Auburn. Documentation of growth
percentages was reviewed as well as existing parks standards. Apre-determined
amount of these fees could be used to purchase and/or improve parkland based
on its designated use. If this ordinance is passed it would allow for future fee
adjustments to be made through the citywide fees and charges adoption process.
Committee discussion regarding new impact fee amounts ranging from
$2,211.00 to $4,617.00. The Committee felt strongly that the park acreage and
development standards need to be maintained for the community to utilize;
increased fees will help acquire and develop new and existing parks. With
increased fees developers will be adding this into the cost of new housing.
Based on the information provided, the PCD Committee recommended an impact
fee of $3,500.00 to begin January 1, 2007.
Motion was made by Member Cerino to forward Ordinance No. 6063 to
the City Council, Member Backus seconded.
Motion was approved unanimously 3-0.
Page 2
Planning and Community Development Committee Minutes
November 13, 2006
D. Ordinance No. 6061 Subdivision Code Amendments was an action
item, Development Services Coordinator Steve Pitcher reported to the
Committee.
This ordinance will require that lot addresses be included on the face of all
plat drawings prior to recording and also gives staff the authority to record
documents at the applicable county offices. These practices have been put
into effect by staff, but this will provide a clear code basis. Staff recommends
moving this ordinance forward to Council.
Motion was made by Member Cerino to forward Ordinance 6061 to the
City Council, Member Backus seconded.
Motion was approved unanimously 3-0.
E. Ordinance No. 6064 2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendments was an
action item, an extensive review was lead by Senior Planner Elizabeth
Chamberlain.
Chamberlain reviewed with PCD members the actions and discussions of the
Planning Commission from their September 6t", October 3rd and October 24tH
meetings.
Discussion of the November 8t" Planning Commission is tabled to a future
PCD meeting. A matrix was used to summarize the information for the
Committee. The Committee started with amendments 1 through 12. All of
these city owned properties are being proposed to change to public/quasi-
public designation and the Planning Commission recommended approval.
The remaining amendments were broken up into areas based on the general
location. The areas are categorized as follows:
Area 13 -Hospital to be changed to Downtown zone, Planning Commission
recommended approval.
Area 14 -Emerald Downs area with some existing single family residential
and the recommendation is for heavy commercial use, Planning Commission
recommended approval.
Area 15 -West of Emerald Downs (staff will be getting clarification on the
grading permit that is currently approved, with the City Attorney). Planning
Commission recommended approval to change to heavy commercial.
Area 16 -Recommended change to heavy commercial, property owner was
not present at the first meeting on October 3rd. The re-zone meeting was held
on November 8t" where the Skills property owner was present. Planning
Commission reversed their original recommendation and is reflected in the
updated matrix provided to the committee. Public comments were given at the
Planning Commission meeting and documented.
Area 17 -Recommended light industrial to light commercial. Planning
Commission did concur and there was no public comment at either meeting.
Area 18 & 19 -Distribution center area, M&0 facilities, GSA ball fields, and
Supervalu. The Planning Commission concurred with the public comment that
Page 3
Planning and Community Development Committee Minutes
November 13, 2006
this area is not viable for commercial development, denial was recommended.
Area 20 & 21 -The SEPA determination is pending, both areas were put on
hold until it is completed.
Area 22 -Danner site, no public comment on Oct. 3`d, additional letter was
sent to property owner and they came to speak at the Nov. 8t" meeting.
Recommendation was denial due to inadequate access, keeping it at a light
industrial zone.
Area 23 - "West Auburn High School Neighborhood" recommendation to
change to Downtown designation. Waste Management has a facility located
here and did comment during the October 3~d meeting; they talked about their
plans to expand in the future. Planning Commission recommended denial.
Area 23 -South of the Skills property, changed to heavy commercial.
Originally planned for a future fire station site. Planning Commission
recommended approval.
Area 25 - A block area currently heavy commercial and moderate density
single family residential, to change to light commercial. No public comment
was given, the Planning Commission recommended approval.
Staff highlighted some public comments regarding the proposed changes; A few
citizens stated that the city is changing all the industrial land. Staff pointed out
when you look at the entire city as a whole the proposed comprehensive plan
amendments encompasses approximately 450 acres, which is only 3.9%. The
Economic Development and Vision 2016 Plans were used in designing this
rezone.
Policy/text amendments #1-5 include the School District's Capital Facility Plans
and the City of Auburn's Capital Facilities Plan and were recommended approval
from the Planning Commission.
Policy/Text amendment #6 was continued by the Planning Commission from the
September 6t" and October 3~d meetings to October 24t" -Proposed
amendments to Chapters 3, 5, 14 and the North Auburn Business Plan include
text changes supporting map amendments proposed for this year and other
miscellaneous changes. The Planning Commission recommended approval of
the proposed text amendments to Chapters 3, 5, 14, and the North Auburn
Business Plan Area. The proposed Transportation Plan amendments were
recommended as a denial due to a large amount of public comments against the
proposed truck route map and the fact that A Street SE was removed during the
2005 Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle.
Discussion and wrap up of PCD recommendations to 2006 amendments:
Area 15 -Approval with follow up information on the issued grading permit
Area 16 -Planning Commission originally approved and reversed decision after
public comment on November 8t". PCD is recommending approval.
Area 17 -Approval from Planning Commission, approval from PCD
Page 4
t
Planning and Community Development Committee Minutes
November 13, 2006
Area 18 -Recommendation for approval
Area 19 -The Segale property was pulled from this area, recommended
approval as listed in the summary table.
Area 20 -Pulled due to SEPA appeal.
Area 21 -Pulled due to SEPA appeal.
Area 22 -Recommended approval
Area 23 -Recommended approval
Area 24 -Recommended approval
Area 25 -Recommended approval
Amendments 1 through 5 -Recommended approval
Amendment 6 -Recommended approval
The next part of the zoning plan will be reviewed by the PCD Committee on
November 27'" 2006.
Member Cerino motioned to move forward Ordinance 6064, the 2006
Comprehensive Plan Amendments, to the full Council as discussed.
Member Backus seconded.
Motion was approved unanimously 3-0.
IV. DISCUSSION
A. Update on the Mary Olson Farm - Director of the White River Museum and
Olson Farm Patricia Cosgrove led the Committee through a PowerPoint presentation
regarding the upcoming capital campaign for the Olson Farm to raise $1.6 million.
Anticipated funders were outlined for meeting this goal. City/Society partnership has
been in existence since 1989. The City has invested approximately $2 Million; the
Historical Society has invested approximately $900,000.
The history of the farm was reflected on an operating plan adopted in 2004. The Plan
calls for gradual increase through 2014. The Operating Plan is to be revisited.
Advocating for City support, Museum Director Cosgrove reported that this type of facility
could eventually bring in future funding with upgrades and promotion to schools and
other educational uses.
B. Downtown Sidewalk Design -Planning, Building and Community Director
Michael Davolio noted that with new development beginning to come to fruition in
downtown, interest has been expressed in developing a new sidewalk standard. The
Committee agreed there needs to be more research and directed the effort occur at a
quick pace. The Committee agreed that it would be essential to involve members of the
Chamber, the Downtown Association, the Hospital, downtown developers, and any
other citizens interested to be involved in this process. The design needs to be
comprehensive and encompass texture, width and overall look in context to the
Page 5
Planning and Community Development Committee Minutes
November 13, 2006
surroundings. It may be desirable to address other streetscape features such as
lighting, benches, awnings, allowable outdoor seating, etc.
The Committee would like to take a few field trips to other areas to see what is occurring
in other communities. This issue needs to move forward and discussions need to
happen sooner rather than later. Director Davolio indicated staff would present a
proposed work program for this effort at the next meeting.
C. Downtown Urban Center Code/Rezone -Development Services Coordinator
Steve Pilcher noted that staff was presenting a few revisions to the draft regulation to
reflect the direction of the Committee. The first change would allow for higher Floor Area
Ratios (FAR) for projects not including residential uses on the north side of Main Street
and further to the north. The standards would remain the same for the remainder of
downtown, where it would be necessary to do mixed use projects to attain higher FARs.
As currently drafted, Main St. would be the dividing line.
The Committee discussed whether Main St. should be homogenous on both sides of
the street, with the transition to not requiring residential as part of a project beginning at
the alley north of Main. It was noted that City plans for the block east of City Hall do not
include residential and there could be other primarily retail/office projects. The code
wouldn't eliminate the ability to include residential, but would provide higher FARs than
the remainder of downtown for projects not involving residential. With ground floor retail
being required, the street level activity on Main St. would be the same on each side of
the street.
Staff is also suggesting there be a minimum FAR standard to prevent a stand alone
espresso stand or 7-11 type project. Staff also suggested that a minimum building
height could also be required.
Also discussed were current and proposed signs regulations in the Downtown area. Mr.
Pilcher noted that the type and size limits for signs would need to be included in the new
zone district, with other design features addressed in the Design Standards. As
recommended by Mark Hinshaw, the proposed code would only allow monument style
signs, with no pole signs being permitted. The Committee raised some concerns of how
this would impact existing pole signs such as those at the Performing Arts Center and
Washington Elementary School. The Committee also asked staff to give them examples
of what monument signs would look like. Clarification was made that portable signs
would still be allowed on Main Street, following current guidelines.
D. Residential Uses in Industrial Zones Code Amendment -Planner Stacey
Borland updated the Committee on the Planning Commission's last Public Hearing on
allowing residential uses in industrial zones. The Planning Commission recommended
approval of the code amendment with a minor change to exclude allowing residential in
the Heavy Industrial (M2) zone. There was discussion about allowing residential in a
zone where sexually orientated businesses are also permitted. The Committee would
Page 6
Planning and Community Development Committee Minutes
November 13, 2006
like more information from Dan Heid on this aspect and have this code amendment put
on the matrix for future discussion.
E. Ordinance No. 6060 Amending ACC relating to school impact fees -Planner
Stacey Borland talked about updating impact fees collected by the City on behalf of
local schools. The schools impact fees for Auburn and Federal Way are being reduced
as reflected in their capital facilities plans. This will be an action item at the next PCD
meeting. Staff reminded the Committee that the Capital Facilities Plan must be
accepted first as part of the comprehensive plan amendments prior to updating the
school impact fees.
F. Electronic message boards -Community Development Administrator Dave
Osaki talked briefly about wanting to get more direction from the Committee on what
they would like to see. Chair Norman suggested the committee members review the
submitted memo and asked for a listing of where electronic signs are located from staff
for review at their next meeting.
V. INFORMATION
A. PCDC Status Matrix
The PCD Committee asked that Industrial Zone Code Amendments be added.
VI. OLD BUSINESS
None presented.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Planning and Community
Development Committee, Chair Norman adjourned the meeting at 7:45 p.m.
PROVED THE DAY OF ~~1i1 ~ ~Q~
~~ ~5
Lyn rman, Chair Kirsten eynolds, a etary
Page 7