Loading...
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