Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-23-2007. ~ CLTTYTOFRT T ~,.,.~~ ~J '':~1.V ]~~~1 ~1 -~ ~ WASHINGTOI~I PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE July 23, 2007 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 Backus and Member Wagner. Also present were Mayor Pro Tem Sue Singer, Interim Director, Planning, Building and Community Department David Osaki, Development Services Coordinator Steve Pitcher, Senior Planner Elizabeth Chamberlain, City Engineer/Assistant Public Works Director Dennis Selle, Cultural Arts Manager Laurie Rose, Assistant City Attorney Stephen King, Economic Development Manager Dave Baron, Mayor Pete Lewis and Planning Secretary Kirsten Reynolds. Audience Members included: Robert Whale APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 9, 2007 Member Backus moved to approve the minutes from the July 9, 2007 meeting as submitted, seconded by Member Wagner. Minutes approved unanimously 3-0. 111. ACTION None IV. DISCUSSION Chair Norman spoke about the "Information" portion of the agenda. This agenda section allows staff to submit items in a memo format; it allows for the Committee to decide if they need more information at a subsequent meeting. A. Public Art Funding Options -Cultural Arts Manager Laurie Rose gave the Committee a handout that reviewed three different options for funding public art. Ms. Rose stated the main goal for the Public Art Program is to become a part of the Council's 2016 growth plan; this would ensure a quality life for Auburn's citizens and continued economic development. The current funding is insufficient to cover actual costs or support the vision for the program. It is necessary to provide alternative funding options to expand the program while addressing future funding that will be necessary to operate in the future. Page 1 Planning and Community Development Committee Minutes July 23, 2007 Three Funding Program Options outlined in the staff memo were: 1. Percent of the Art with current funding maintain current funding commitment of the established program. Monies would be approved through Special Budget, or Budget Adjustment Request on aper-project basis for those artworks or exhibits not associated with capital project development (with a minimum of $30k allotted). 2. Percent for Art with Per Capita Allotment -One dollar ($1.00) Per Capita from the General Fund, allotted bi-annually (fiscal budget cycle), to replace current $30,000 annual funding program of Public Art for the purpose. 3. Percent for Art with Private Developer incentives -One percent (1 %) of construction cost. The Committee expressed that it agrees with option one, which outlines maintaining current funding commitment, instead of replacing it with the "per capita" proposal outlined in option two. The spreadsheets were reviewed and a suggestion was made to have the verbiage inserted to state "up to five percent" of the project could be put towards art. Discussion took place between the differences of municipal and private projects. Chair Norman suggested that maintenance and endowment fees on municipal projects should not be restrictive when locating the artwork. Laurie Rose was asked to come back in August with details with how the percent will be applied to municipal projects as outlined in option three and further information on the private developer incentives. B. Temporary Use Permit Fees -Development Services Coordinator Steve Pitcher explained that staff was able to identify an alternative interpretation of the Auburn City Code that includes a provision in Section 18.46.080(A) that presents a basis for exempting anon-profit organization from paying a temporary use permit fee (the particular instance under discussion was for a local church to operate a fund raising carnival). A carnival falls under the jurisdiction of ACC 5.20 (Business Licenses, Individual License Registrations). According to ACC 5.20.030, organizations must be able to show satisfactory proof of their tax exempt (501 c(3)) status to the City in order to qualify for the license fee waiver. If there is any question regarding the person or organization claiming this exemption, the City would have the right to request the applicant to file an affidavit setting forth facts sufficient to show the right to such exemption. Assistant City Attorney Steven King answered questions from Committee Members; the next steps will be for the Legal Department to review the wording a second time and bring it back to the Committee for further review. The Committee asked for section 18.64.080.A to be clarified. Member Backus asked to have the non-profit status clarified between the 501 c3 and 501 c4 classifications. Chair Norman asked for staff to enforce the uniformity of the code. Page 2 Planning and Community Development Committee Minutes July 23. 2007 C. Downtown Plaza Sidewalk Design -Steve Pilcher and City Engineer/Assistant Public Works Director Dennis Selle joined the Committee to discuss outstanding issues with the design standards for new sidewalks downtown. Chair Norman had prepared and distributed a document that outlined Committee concerns regarding the plaza, the boulevard/promenade, new sidewalks and how to transition to existing sidewalks. Mr. Pilcher and Mr. Selle talked about the different types of treatments and widths that could be used for transition areas, sidewalks and the plaza. Mayor Pro Tem Sue Singer came to the table and shared a concept drawing with the Committee displaying how the plaza area and promenade could integrate. She also suggested the use of a "trellis" type shelter for pedestrians at Main Street and Auburn Avenue/ A Street. Also, Mayor Pro Tem Singer indicated there was more "greenscape" vs. hardscape built in to the promenade area. Pavers could be used as accents on the sidewalks as an entrance to downtown. The bricks could be more extensively used in the plaza. There was discussion and agreement regarding the proposed design, but the use of materials is yet to be defined. Mr. Pilcher and Mr. Selle had prepared a chart outlining staff's need for clarification and direction from the Committee in specific areas. The Committee asked for the on-going maintenance costs of different materials (i.e., brick pavers vs. stamped concrete) to be quantified. Mr. Selle commented that pavers can be a high maintenance material as it tends to allow moss and other vegetation to grow in the spaces between individual pavers, given our environment. The concept of using un-mortared, thicker pavers was discussed as a design aspect for the Plaza and around City Hall. Staff was asked to quantify the on-going maintenance costs of mortared vs. sand-set pavers and to inquire with Redmond Town Center on any liability issues they may/may not have experienced with the use of these materials, in light of special needs people, specifically those who use walkers (not wheelchairs). The Committee discussed use of the Duratherm product; staff is planning to check with other jurisdictions how the material holds up. The Committee had concems of potential discoloring over time because of wear from motor vehicle tires. Chair Norman mentioned the past concept of using a four way "scramble" stop on Auburn Way North; she inquired why it was never accomplished. Mr. Osaki replied that the amount of pedestrian traffic did not warrant stopping traffic in all four directions at one time. Mayor Lewis suggested staff take another look at locating a four way scramble at "A" and Main Streets and research how other cities have implement this traffic mitigation. Street lighting was discussed and defined in two categories, one as street lighting and the other as uplighting. Uplighting was categorized as a convenience but encouraged as an enhancement; while the street lighting is a requirement. The height standard needs to be established for the pedestrian lighting. Currently the lights are 18 feet tall; the Committee would like to see only 16 feet tall light. The lights need to be bright but also have a nice ambiance feeling to them. Most importantly pedestrians need to feel safe night. Some Page 3 Planning and Community Development Committee Minutes July 23, 2007 specific items staff was asked to follow up on and bring back to PCD include: ^ Street lighting and up lighting to be itemized as separate items. ^ List out design standards for height and spacing of the light poles. ^ Poles need to have outlets so people have access to hang lights. ^ Set up a test area (west side of City Hall) with different types of lights in existing poles to see variations. ^ Ensure street lighting has good illumination without shadows. There was further discussion regarding how to transition from the current sidewalks to the new standards. Staff will need to identify all areas of potential upgrading in preparation of future development; developers will have to conform to this new set of guidelines. These guidelines will need to identify what and where the materials will be allowed (starting and stopping points for the new design standard). The materials used in the transitions need to flow and the widths between old and new sidewalks need to match. The transition areas can be temporary or permanent, but they should not contain gravel. Dennis Selle recommended having the transition area extend into the front of the next adjacent property. Staff will provide some examples of various types of transitions for the Committee to review. D. A Street SE Corridor Rezone -Senior Planner Elizabeth Chamberlain reviewed the public planning process that took place starting back in June 2006 for the proposed rezone of A Street S.E. with the comprehensive plan and subsequent rezones. The Planning Commission asked for staff to hold an open house to provide an opportunity for property owners to comment on the Heavy Commercial designation. The Planning Commission, at the June 5, 2007 public hearing, recommended torezone the properties zoned R-3 (Two-Family Residential) that front A Street S.E. to C-3 (Heavy Commercial) and the remaining properties to 6 Street SE zoned from R-3 to C-1 (Light Commercial). Discussion took place on the maps, which displayed both staff's and Planning Commission's recommendations on the proposed rezone. The Committee also asked what the difference were between C-3 and C-1 and why Planning Commission decided on a C-1 zone. The primary reason was the auto dependent uses such as drive-thru restaurants require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in the C-1 zone, which would allow review of impacts to the adjacent residential zones by council. The Committee was in agreement to have this topic come back to the next meeting as an action item. V. INFORMATION This new section format of the meeting was represented by informational memos prepared by various staff members. The Committee reviewed the memos, asked a few questions and determined if they needed more follow up information. Page 4 Planning and Community Development Committee Minutes July 23, 2007 A. Traffic Calming Devices -There was discussion regarding traffic issues such as speeding and congestion. There are no models in the area that staff can measure the effectiveness of the traffic calming devices yet. Chair Norman asked for results in these areas to be tracked once the pre-approved devices are installed. The Committee decided that six months after instillation staff should present to the Committee again. B. International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) vs. Uniform Housing Code (UHC) Implementation is currently underway and staff is allowed to site visual items on the spot. There is a better feeling now because there are other options for the public to resolve visual code enforcement issues. The Committee decided there does not need to be any further presentation on this matter. C. Neighborhood Grant Program -This is a two-step process. People can fill out the application form then come in to discuss a project with staff. The Committee made a couple of suggestions to improve the formatting of the application such as revise the project location requirement to be inside the City limits, the neighbors must have buy in, and take out the requirement to provide a State tax ID number. Keep it open and optional as to whether or not they need to submit the more detailed application form. Decisions will be made within 30 days of initial application received. The Committee decided these revisions should be made and brought back for review. D. Off-Street Parking Standards -The Committee requested to see the current requirements and specifics between the senior housing and regular housing parking requirements. Member Wagner wants to do all three types of housing. His suggestion was there should be 1:1 for senior housing, 1:2 for assisted living and 1:4 for nursing homes plus one space per employee shift. The assisted living needs to be a transition definition between the nursing home and senior housing. The Committee decided this topic should be reviewed with more changes at the next PCD meeting in efforts to get it back to the Planning Commission in a timely manor. E. Electronic Message Boards -The sign committee is still submitting comments from a recent meeting that took place. It was suggested that some of the flashing items of concern could possibly be regulated by slowing the display speed. The "aspect ratio of change" was discussed. PCD reviewed all the comments made on the matrix by the sign committee to date. PCD comments will be transmitted to the Sign Committee. A further requirement was discussed to allow these types of signs only on arterial streets. There was a strong feeling that the signs should not be allowed in the Downtown Urban Center (DUC) zone. The Committee decided to have staff list all comments to date and review it at a later date. F. WayFinding Update -The Committee would like to know the dates for installation and an estimated time for the grant to be expended. Their specific questions for staff were: ^ Estimate of time for first sign, ^ Estimate of time for use of all grant funds, ^ Estimate of time for completion of the entire project. Page 5 Planning and Community Development Committee Minutes July 23, 2007 G. Joint Meeting with Planning Commission -The joint meeting agenda was discussed. Mr. Osaki talked about the importance of having an open discussion between the two committees. The goal of this meeting is to have a little staff as possible and to have general open discussion time. The meeting ending time was established for 8:00 p.m. H. PCDC Status Matrix -The Committee talked about the memo approach as a good way to save extra staff from being present at every meeting. Each item was reviewed and dates were updated as needed. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Planning and Community Development Committee, Chair Norman adjourned the meeting at 8:04 p•m. APPROVED THE _~ DAY OF Lynn Norman, Chair Page 6