Loading...
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