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