HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-03-1997 Special Council Mtg SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MINUTES
November 3, 1997
I. Introduction
The special City Council meeting was convened by Mayor Charles A. Booth at
5:30 PM in the Council work area located in the Mayor's Office.
Councilmembers in attendance included Trish Borden, Fred Poe, Gene Cerino,
Rich Wagner, Stacey Brothers, and Sue Singer. Councilmember Jeanne Barber
was excused. Staff members in attendance included Fire Chief Bob Johnson,
Finance Director Diane Supler, Financial Analyst Sherri Crawford, Parks and
Recreation Director Dick Deal, Planning and Community Development Director
Paul Krauss, Senior Planner Bob Sokol, Associate Planner Bea Sanders, Water
Utility Engineer Carl Every, Police Chief Dave Purdy, and Acting City Clerk
Danielle Daskam.
Senior Planner Sokol explained the purpose of this evening's meeting is to
review the 1997 Comprehensive Plan amendments. The Plan amendments
have been reviewed by the Planning Commission and, with one exception, all
are recommended for approval by the City Council. The City Council will
conduct public hearing on the proposed amendments on November 3 and
November 17, 1997. Specific amendments will be addressed on each night,
although the public will be allowed to give testimony on either night. The Parks
and Recreation Plan and the Transportation Plan will also be discussed this
evening.
II. Overall Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Mr. Sokol reviewed the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments which
attracted the most public interest and comment to date.
A. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment 4
Proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment 4 is the request to
change the Map designation for 20.8 acres located east of 'T' Street and
north of approximately 31" Street NE from high-density residential and
single family residential to moderate density residential. The proponent
requests the change in order to later request a fezone for a manufactured
home park. The property owners to the south have expressed concern
about the proposal. The Planning Commission voted to recommend
approval of the City-owned storm detention facility in the northern area,
Special City Council Meeting Minutes
November 3, 1997
Page No. 2
but recommended denial for the 20.8 acre site and recommended a
change to the Comprehensive Plan Map designation for the southern
portion of the parcel to single family residential. The multi-family
designation along "1" Street is result of a city-wide policy to have high
density residential along main arterials and to use high density residential
as a buffer for single family residential. According to Mr. Sokol, the City
Attorney has cautioned that approving the Planning Commission's
recommendation to change the Comprehensive Plan Map designation for
the southern portion of the parcel to single family residential may
constitute a "spot" Comprehensive Plan Map change. If the Council
wishes to pursue the change to single family, the City Attorney
recommends the City Council direct City staff to reserve the change until
next year. Mr. Sokol also reported that the proponent recently indicated
he might proceed with a proposal for multi-family housing which is allowed
under current zoning.
Councilmember Poe inquired regarding the property purchase for the
storm detention facility. Staff advised the City completed the purchase of
the property from Crista Ministries last May.
Mr. Sokol advised that the property owners to the south raised concerns
whether wetlands are present on the property. According to the City's
wetland maps, the property does not contain wetlands. Area residents
also raised concerns with excess traffic in the "1" Street corridor.
For any development that may occur on the property, the developer will
be required to construct half-street improvements on "l" Street.
Mr. Sokol also advised that the main concern of the residents appears to
be that the manufactured housing park will be low-income housing and
create problems for the neighborhood to the south.
Councilmember Singer questioned the residents' argument that the City
already has an inordinate amount of mobile homes in the city. Mr. Sokol
agreed that the City of Auburn has more manufactured homes than other
cities in the region.
Councilmember Wagner expressed concern with the Fire Department's
ability to serve mobile home parks with long and narrow streets. Chief
Johnson explained that it is difficult to maneuver fire trucks within the
Special City Council Meeting Minutes
November 3, 1997
Page No. 3
mobile home parks since the streets are narrow and frequently have cars
parked along them.
According to Mr. Sokol, the Planning Commission also raised the issue of
affordable housing. The Planning Commission concluded Auburn already
has its fair share of affordable housing within the city.
B. Comprehensive Plan MaD Amendment 7
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment 7 will amend the City's potential
annexation area (PAA) to remove those parcels contained within the King
County Agricultural Production District and amend the Comprehensive
Plan designation for the "Stewart Parcel" to light industrial.
The Planning Commission recommended two alternative amendments for
consideration for the same area. There are a number of issues regarding
the area in question which will be decided in other forums which the City
has no control over. Mr. Sokol recalled that the City approved a petition
for annexation for the Stewart property. The proposal was forwarded to
the Boundary Review Board (BRB) which denied the proposed
annexation. The Stewart's appealed the decision in King County Superior
Court. A decision from Superior Court is expected this week. If the Court
upholds the BRB, the Stewart property will be found to be within the King
County Agricultural Production District and cannot be annexed to the City
until the City has policies supporting the Agricultural Production District.
In this case, the Planning Commission and staff recommend removing the
parcels from the PAA since it represents no value to the City. The second
alternative is dependent upon the City's progress with King County. City
staff and King County have discussed a compromise regarding the PAA.
The compromise includes designating the area as a natural resource
protection area rather than an agricultural protection area and would allow
some of the areas to be used as wetland mitigation. A possible
compromise could be reached to allow the development of the Stewart
property if additional property is purchased and added to the natural
resource protection district. In this case, the property would remain in the
City's PAA, and the Stewart parcel designation would change to light
industrial.
Councilmember Wagner suggested that the light industrial designation
needs clarification on the uses, which can be administratively approved,
and those uses which must go through a conditional use process. Senior
Special City Council Meeting Minutes
November 3, 1997
Page No. 4
Planner explained that any change to the zoning code would take at least
two months. Mr. Sokol also suggested that a different designation could
be placed on the area until the Council was satisfied with the light
industrial designation.
Councilmember Borden recommended amending the Zoning Ordinance to
qualify uses under M-1 zones.
Councilmember Poe suggested the City take no action on the amendment
until the legal matters are resolved with the property.
C. Policy/Text Amendment 7
Comprehensive Plan Policy/Text Amendment 7 adopts the report of the
Lea Hill Task Force as a special area plan. The report addresses issues
concerning annexation raised by the Lea Hill Task Force.
Councilmember Cerino expressed concern with the cost of annexing the
area to the city, and the Task Force's conditions for annexation. Mr.
Sokol indicated a cost analysis of the Lea Hill annexation will be
conducted next year. The current population of the Lea Hill area is
approximately 9,000, and the estimated build-out population is 15,000.
Councilmember Wagner referred to page 8, paragraph 1 of the Lea Hill
Task Force Report. He expressed opposition to the first sentence which
states, "The City is committed to retaining the zoning and Comprehensive
Plan designations that are found in the King County Comprehensive Plan
and Zoning ordinance." Mr. Sokol suggested discussing possible
language alternatives at the next Planning and Community Development
Committee meeting.
III. PARKS AND RECREATION PLAN
Parks and Recreation Director Deal presented an overview of the Parks and
Recreation Plan. The existing Park Plan was approved in 1986. The purpose of
the Plan is to provide guidance to the City in terms of the direction of the
department, provide input to the citywide Capital Facilities Plan, maintain funding
eligibility for grants, and comply with the Growth Management Act.
The population of the City has grown 38% since 1980 to a population of 36,500.
In six years, the population is estimated to grow to 42,800 and in 20 years to
Special City Council Meeting Minutes
November 3, 1997
Page No. 5
57,500. The median household income of Auburn is below the county average,
and 48.3% of Auburn households are considered low-income by county
standards. The need for free or low-cost public recreation facilities and
programs is important.
The City utilized a consultant to help develop the Park Plan. The consultant
conducted a survey of residents to determine the needs and interests of the
people. The survey revealed that 37% of the residents participate in park and
recreation programs. The facilities most desired by those surveyed include a
community center, additional trails, and softball and baseball fields. Interest was
also expressed in cultural activities. The public was surveyed for their
participation in athletic programs, leisure and education programs, specialized
recreation program, cultural program, and senior programs.
Each park was inventorled for location, size, park type (community,
neighborhood, and linear), park facilities available, and unique features. Each
park was evaluated to determine its needs to improve the park.
A recommended goal for specialized recreation facilities was developed using
the National Recreation and Park Association standards. Mr. Deal reported
that the City uses school district gyms for its indoor recreation programs.
However, the school district gyms are not available during the day and there is
considerable demand for the gyms in the evening for school district programs. It
is estimated that school district gyms are available to the City only 25% of the
time. In response to a question from Councilmember Wagner regarding the
historical data to determine the facilities needs, Associate Planner Bea Sanders
reported that the demand for gym facilities has remained constant even as a new
gym is added. Councilmember Wagner requested that staff compile more
detailed data over the next year on the need for a community center.
Councilmember Poe inquired whether the City could assist in improving the
school district facilities to make them more suitable to City programs. Mr. Deal
advised that the City of Bellevue is attempting to budget funds to improve 19
school fields.
Mr. Deal reviewed the park inventory by park type. There are 12 neighborhood
parks and most are less than four acres in size. Qf the 32 acres of
neighborhood parks, 29.9 acres are developed. Community parks are the larger
parks such as Game Farm Park. There are a total of 204 acres of which 164
acres are developed. Linear parks are parks such as the Interurban Trail and
Special City Council Meeting Minutes
November 3, 1997
Page No. 6
White River Trail. Most of the linear park acreage is developed. There are 199
acres in open space which will remain undeveloped. Special use areas such as
the golf course consists of 150 acres and the remaining four acres is comprised
of small beautification areas in the city.
The City's goal for park coverage is to have a neighborhood park within a quarter
mile and a community park within a mile of every residence. Nearly all the city is
covered. There are a few gaps in park coverage and include the west hill area
of Auburn, the south end of Auburn in the vicinity of the White River and Hidden
Valley, and in the area of the Seventh-day Adventist Academy.
Mr. Deal summarized the purpose of the Plan. The six-year Park Plan will serve
as a guide in developing existing park land and recreation facility needs, guide
the development of raw land under City ownership, identify projects, provide a
plan to develop new park land to meet the future growth needs, continue
development of multi-use facilities, and improve recreational, athletic and cultural
programs.
Mr. Deal introduced Mr. Randy Young of Henderson Young and Associates, the
consultant who has been working with staff to develop impact fee information.
Mr. Young provided a review of previous discussions regarding development of
impact fees. Mr. Young began with a chart that illustrated how the City's
standards lead to and create the costs and funds that are needed; and how the
City can work backwards from the amount of funding that is available to achieve
other alternatives through reduction of level of service standards or other
strategies for producing the facilities.
Mr. Young discussed the revenue sources available under the Growth
Management Act. Cities can use the one-quarter percent real estate excise tax
and an optional second one-quarter percent real estate excise tax for
infrastructure needs of the city. Cities were also given the authority to adopt
impact fees for four areas: parks, roads, fire protection, and schools. Other
revenue sources include grants, debt, contributions from the General Fund, gifts
and dedications, and user fees.
Impact fees are not only limited to type of facility, but also by type of
improvement. Impact fees can be collected for a system improvement but not a
project improvement. In other words, a project improvement is on the
development site and not paid for by impact fees. A system development, such
Special City Council Meeting Minutes
November 3, 1997
Page No. 7
as a large road, a community park, or a fire station, benefits the community as a
whole.
Councilmember Brothers inquired regarding the City's role in collection of impact
fees. Mr. Young explained that school district administrations do not have the
authority to approve or disapprove development. A school district can pursue a
formal agreement with a city whereby the city can levy the impact fee on behalf
of the school district and turn the impact fees over to the school district.
Mr. Young discussed the proportionate share rule for impact fees. The amount
of the impact fees must relate to the impact that is created. Research and
calculations must be performed in order to determine the appropriate and legal
amount that can be charged for impact fees. Specific capital projects must be
identified. For example, the Parks Plan must have a list of specific parks that will
be improved, and the Transportation Plan must have specific road projects that
will be improved. The projects must relate to growth. A rate study containing
formulas and credits must be completed. The City must acknowledge its policy
on exemptions, which are limited under the law. Service areas must be defined.
A mechanism for spending the money in six years or refunding it must be in
place. Impact fees do not pay for: existing deficiencies, the costs paid for by
other sources, project improvements, various public facilities such as a transit
system or sidewalks, or non-capacity costs such as pavement preservation
programs or refurbishment programs.
Mr. Young compared ratios of residents to total park acreage and residents to
developed park acreage. The Park Plan proposes a standard of 6.0 park acres
per 1,000 population. He compared the calculation of impact fees based on 7.5
acres per 1,000 population and 6.0 park acres per 1,000 population. Under the
7.5 park acre option, the impact for a single family home would be $2,200 and
for a multi-family unit would be $1,890. The fee is for new construction
regardless of the value of the home. If the standard is reduced to 6.0 acres per
1,000 population, the impact for a single family home is $1,837 and $1,575 per
multi-family unit. He explained the difference in the single-family home impact
fee and the multi-family unit impact fee is based on the average number of
persons per household. Mr. Young then showed the effect of additional revenue,
either generated by a bond issue, grants, or general fund contribution, on the
calculation of the impact fees.
Mr. Young reviewed his view of the City's options regarding impact fees. He
proposed the City could adopt the park impact fees and transportation impact
Special City Council Meeting Minutes
November 3, 1997
Page No. 8
fees at the full rates proposed--S2,200 for parks and approximately $1,300 for a
total of $4,500 in impact fees per single family home. After adopting the impact
fees, the City could revise the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) and complete a fire
impact fee. In the end the City could adjust the parks fee and transportation fee
if necessary. The City could also opt to charge a percentage of the impact fee.
He stressed that impact fees cannot be charged retroactively. Adopting the
reduced impact fee would be pending the outcome of a fire impact fee study and
the revision of the Capital Facilities Plan. He suggested another option to first
revise the Capital Facilities Plan before adopting any impact fees. Another
option is to first review impact fees charged by cities in the surrounding areas.
He reported that development occurs regardless of the small differences in
development costs. However, factors that can drive development include the
availability of land, the cost of land, quality of school systems, and others.
Councilmember Borden questioned the option to wait to adopt impact fees until
after revisions to the Capital Facilities Plan are complete, since the impact fees
can be adjusted afterwards. Mr. Young explained that City Councils must gauge
their communities and come to consensus on whether or not impact fees will be
adopted.
Councilmember Wagner questioned the impact of commercial development and
church development on park systems. Mr. Young explained that state law, under
the "proportionate share" law, and federal case law requires a linkage between
impacts created and the costs charged. At this point, it is impossible to
document the benefits derived from park systems in measurable and objective
terms for commercial and industrial development.
Mr. Young explained that he and City staff are looking for a general direction
from the City Council regarding impact fees to facilitate the development of
impact fee ordinances.
Senior Planner Sokol pointed out that adopting the Parks Plan and
Transportation Plan does not commit the City to impact fees but does establish
park and transportation standards.
There was insufficient time to discuss the proposed Transportation Plan.
The meeting adjourned at 7:10 PM.
Special City Council Meeting Minutes
November 3, 1997
Page No. 9
Approved this 15th day of December, 1997.
Charles A. Booth, Mayor Danielle ~E. Daskam, City Clerk
97M11-3A