Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-27-1998sp CITY OF AUBURN SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION JULY 27, 1998 6:00 PM Minutes The Auburn City Council met in special session on July 27, 1998 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Work Area located in the Mayor's Office of City Hall. Mayor Booth called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., and the following Councilmembers were present: Jeanne Barber, Sue Singer, Fred Poe, Rich Wagner, Trish Borden, and Gene Cerino. Councilmember Pete Lewis was excused. Staff members present included: Planning Director Paul Krauss, Assistant Planning Director Lynn Rued, Fire Chief Bob Johnson, Utility Engineer Dwight Holobaugh, Finance Director Diane L. Supler, Senior Planner Bob Sokol, and City Clerk Danielle Daskam. Mayor Booth announced the purpose of the special meeting is to discuss the proposed Plan Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance, which has been reviewed by the Planning and Community Development Committee. Mayor Booth stated that no action is contemplated for this meeting and introduced Planning Director Paul Krauss Mr. Krauss reviewed the history of the Plan Unit Development Ordinance. Mr. Krauss stated that standard zoning and subdivision regulations have been viewed as an obstacle to creativity in urban design for many years. The regulations were developed to control land usage in specific areas and to create standards for acceptable housing units. Mr. Krauss noted that standard sub- divisions contained only single family residences in prior years. The approach to standard sub-divisions has evolved over time to preserve the environment iwith regards to land use, grading, creation of parks, and preservation of trees and wetlands. Special Meeting of the City Council July 27, 1998 Page 3 Councilmember Wagner expressed concern in not having enough detail to make the decision on a rezone. Mr. Rued responded that at this time the option to bring forth a detailed proposal is now with the property owner. A typical rezone implements the Comprehensive Plan and it is not required to disclose proposed use for approval of the rezone. Approval or denial is based upon the existing record as presented to the Hearing Examiner. Councilmember Poe stated that the City has comprehensive requirements of the developer under the rezone. Councilmember Poe expressed a desire to have the proposed PUD come to the Council under preliminary review and would like to see Section 18.69.160 modified to come directly to the Council for review rather than the Hearing Examiner. Councilmember Poe expressed concern that the City may be requiring too much to get through the rezone. In response to questions from Councilmembers, Mr. Rued stated that the criteria for approval or to deny modification of the PUD remain the same whether the Hearing Examiner or the City Council holds the hearing. Liabilities that may arise should the Council hold the hearing could be in the appeal process. The Hearing Examiner presently hears appeals. Councilmember Wagner asked for clarification of Section 18.69.160 regarding modification of findings of fact. Mr. Rued responded that an example might be in the interpretation of the findings of fact in Section 18.69.150 as presented by staff to the Hearing Examiner. A particular paragraph not sited by the Hearing Examiner may be interpreted differently by the Council and could be brought forward for discussion under the PUD. Mr. Krauss pointed out that Section 18.69.160 allows for independent review by the City Council. Councilmember Borden suggested that the concept of independent review should be reviewed by legal. Mr. Rued stated that, with the exception of the rural designations, residential PUD designations must have a minimum often acres to qualify. Mr. Krauss stated that a PUD designation allows a mix of construction on ten acres that could not be done on standard zoning. If a developer does not achieve the goals it does not have to be approved. Councilmember Singer stated that it is more desirable to have a PUD, and the City should not discourage developers by adding more regulations and complications. Developers should be encouraged to be more creative and bring more desirable housing standards to the City. Special Meeting of the City Council July 27, 1998 Page 2 Mr. Krauss stated that the PUD provides for more freedom for developers to construct a mix of housing types, which could include neighborhood and shopping services within walking distance. The idea of cluster housing could be introduced which reduces the "per lot" development costs. This results in less street and sewer and water lines to serve the same number of homes and provides for more open space for residents of the community. The amount of land used and the number of units remains the same but they occupy a smaller percentage of the site, allowing for more open space and more land left to be used for recreation or environmental protection. Mr. Krauss emphasized that the PUD provides a better chance for the developer to meet the comprehensive plan densities and allows them to maximize their profit. At the same time it contributes toward a mix of housing styles and price ranges to appeal to a wide variety of age and income requirements. It allows for flexibility in marketing programs and housing design changes as the PUD may span a time period of over a decade. Mr. Krauss summarized that benefits to the City may include increased common and open space, design flexibility, improved standards, better environmental protection, and a mix of housing types and non-residential facilities. The greatest benefit is that it creates planned communities whereas standard platting creates a more scattered type of development. Mr. Krauss stated that the proposed PUD Ordinance concept has been discussed in the Planning and Community Development Committee and with the City Council. Numerous changes have been made over time to articulate the City's expectations from the developers to obtain the desired quality. Constructive changes have been made concerning the approval process. Assistant Planning Director Lynn Rued stated that the ordinance provides for a PUD zone. Areas could be rezoned to PUD designation much like a contract rezone. In a PUD the decision making process begins at the initial stage, outlining land usage and developer requirements. In response to questions from Councilmember Wagner, Mr. Rued stated that the developer requirements would be to comply with the conditions of the PUD such as street improvements and development of open space. A PUD might not be a preliminary plat but might be a multi-family development. The first step would include design issues. The fabric of the PUD would be decided within the first phase. This eliminates asking too much from the developer in the first phase in the event that the City opposes the PUD. Special Meeting of the City Council July 27, 1998 Page 4 Using overhead displays, Mr. Rued described permitted land uses and development standards allowed under the PUD. In response to a question by Councilmember Wagner, Mr. Krauss pointed out that we still have the Comprehensive Plan that limits the maximum number of units that can be built. Higher density styles would create more open space. Mr. Rued displayed an example PUD consisting of a ten acre site with a one acre wetland, giving nine net acres with a single family designated area. The PUD would allow six units per acre density for a total of fifty-four units or lots. Twenty percent of the ten acres is required as open space. The City can allow up to half of that amount to be non-buildable. In response to a question from Councilmember Borden, Mr. Rued confirmed that the smallest buildable lot, in this case an R-2 zone, is 2700 square feet but not any more than six units per square acre regardless of lot size. Approximately 25% of land is designated for street improvements. Any unutilized land creates additional open space. Councilmember Wagner expressed concern that cluster housing and the additional people it creates will further strain the infrastructure system, such as parks and roads. Senior Planner Bob Sokol affirmed that our infrastructure plans are based upon the Comprehensive Plan density assuming that approximately 25% of that is for streets. Our growth management target takes into account that large portions of land are not going to be buildable as infrastructure. Mr. Sokol stated that we are very close to our growth management target regarding dwelling units. Mr. Rued gave an overview of the different types on lots recommended under the PUD. All dwelling units are detached, semi-detached, or attached, including the multi-family units. A four-plex would be considered attached housing with a zero lot line. Mr. Krauss explained that zero lot lines allow for more usable outdoor space on a narrower lot and only occur when there is a homeowners association that cares for the building exterior. In response to a question from Councilmember Poe, Mr. Krauss stated that to do a zero lot line, the side of the lot that is going to be zero must be designated ahead of time. Mr. Rued stated that each designation has its own development standards with regard to lot size, lot coverage, and setbacks. The requirements for a Multi- Special Meeting of the City Council July 27, 1998 Page 5 family zone are an area that needs to be reassessed with regards to lot density and size regardless of the PUD ordinance outcome. Multi-family units are currently treated as an apartment building. Current requirements do not allow smaller individual lots with the same density as an apartment building. This would encourage owner occupied residences within the multi-family units. In response to questions by Councilmember Wagner, Mr. Rued explained that the height of construction on the perimeter of a PUD must be constructed as other districts adjacent to the PUD area. By taking at least twenty percent in open space we can allow flexibility in construction types for more high density units in the multi-family area. Mr. Krauss stated that one of the findings of fact is consistency of the PUD with its surroundings. Intrusive construction is grounds for denial of the PUD. Lakeland Hills is a good example of the variations in housing styles. Mr. Rued continued with the design guidelines for the PUD. The guidelines will address issues such as building orientation, pedestrian use, architectural design treatments, colors and building materials, signage, landscaping, and lighting. The plan is to have continuity of design. Mr. Rued stated that all streets within the PUD will be built to City standards with allowance for a variation process in the event a full width street is not needed. This may be due to topography or design features. Private streets may be allowed under limited circumstances. Minimal functional requirements may not be less than the requirements for public safety. In response to concerns expressed by Councilmembers Wagner and Poe, Mr. Rued discussed street standards for public and private streets. The arterial street plan requirements would still apply. Mr. Krauss stated that the PUD ordinance requires that if you have a street in a PUD that is designed to carry traffic in and out of the PUD or serves adjacent properties, it must be a public street. Councilmember Cerino stated that some public streets located in the City of Sumner do not allow street parking and have been designed narrower and with a different concept requiring alleys and rear garages for example. These streets are gridtied out to a collector arterial and the design is "people friendly" versus "car friendly". This creates a very attractive community. Councilmember Borden pointed out that designing narrower streets allows flexibility for future amenities. In response to questions from Councilmember Borden, Mr. Rued stated that thirty-foot streets were proposed to accommodate Special Meeting of the City Council July 27, '1998 Page 6 two lanes of travel. Anything added to that to serve the needs of the community, such as sidewalks or off street parking, would require additional width. Councilmember Poe expressed concern regarding the traffic increase in moderate and high-density areas. Discussion followed regarding private and public streets. Mr. Rued stated that under review of the PUD, staff might make a recommendation to the Examiner by presenting findings as to the outline of the PUD. The record of the PUD begins when application is made. Mr. Rued discussed the Hearing Examiner review process. Councilmember Wagner questioned the location of the language regarding homeowners rather than homeowner's association rights to control preservation of open space. Mr. Rued referred Councilmember Wagner to page 27 of the PUD. Discussion followed regarding the control of open space by the homeowners. Councilmember Borden asked for clarification on lot size, density, and open space requirements. Mr. Rued stated that the control vehicle is the Comprehensive Plan. Land use within a PUD must be designated at the time of application. Discussion followed regarding the open space calculations and the sample PUD's displayed by Mr. Rued. Mr. Rued gave an example of a typical ten-acre PUD and explained that the more open space and non-buildable area required, the less area you have to put those units and lots on. Mr. Rued covered the examples given and the opti0nsavailable regarding the use of open space. Mr. Krauss stated that the PUD ordinance is scheduled for review at the Planning and Community Development Committeemeeting to discuss whether the concept review is in an acceptable format. Discussion concluded and the meeting adjourned at 7:27 p.m. Approved on the f2 f4j.. day of ~ ,1998. Charles A. Booth, Mayor Danielle Daskam, City Clerk 98M7-27.DOC