Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-25-2009 cir~r oF__~ DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT ~B COMMITTEE f~-===r"`~ ~ WAS H I N G TO N AUGUST 25, 2009 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Lynn Norman called the meeting to order at 4:01 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, Vice Chair Sue Singer and Member Gene Cerino. Staff present included: Mayor Pete Lewis, Planning, Building & Community Director Cindy Baker, Assistant Planning Director Kevin Snyder, Public Works Director Dennis Dowdy, City Engineer Dennis Selle, Assistant City Engineer Ingrid Gaub, Economic Development Manager Dave Baron, Cultural Arts Manager Laurie Rose, Visual/Public Arts Coordinator Maija McKnight, Parks Planning & Development Manager Bob Wuotilla, Transportation Planner Joe Welsh, Traffic Engineer Pablo Para, Assistant City Attorney Steve Gross, Human Resources/Risk & Property Management Director Brenda Heineman, Finance Director Shelley Coleman, Information Services Director Lorie Rempher, and Planning Secretary Renee Tobias. Audience Members present were: Spencer Alpert, Mel Maertz, Greg Brower, Kathleen Keator, Helen Lakeru, Gail Spurrell, Ed Hahn and Ronnie Roberts. II. CONSENT AGENDA A. Meeting Minutes - July 14, 2009 Member Singer moved to approve the consent agenda items as presented; Chair Norman concurred. The minutes were approved as submitted unanimously 3-0. III. DISCUSSION A. Status of Downtown Auburn Redevelopment 1) Economic Development Administration (EDA) Grant Application. Economic Development Manager Dave Baron reported that the final application will be delivered this Thursday, August 27, 2009. The local Economic Development Administration office will'review the application, which should be completed fairly shortly, prior to sending to the Washington, D.C. headquarters for their review. The Seattle EDA staff has indicated that the City would receive the award in approximately March 2010. Mayor Lewis reported that the EDA grant application procedure has been a 3-year process. The preliminary application was submitted after the City was awarded approval by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) as one of two projects going Page 1 Downtown Redevelopment Committee Minutes Auctust 25, 2009 forward to the EDA. After the preliminary approval, which took approximately 18 months, the City moved forward with what was termed a"final application". This final application is what will be submitted to Congress. The application has passed all the approval processes and the federal government would sign the check in March 2009. Promenade Project Assistant City Engineer Ingrid Gaub reported that staff reviewed all utilities within the Promenade corridor and the downtown redevelopment area, identifying those that would need to be upsized or relocated to allow for the vacation of alleys when Division Street is rebuilt. , The existing sanitary sewers run through the alleyways in the 4-block area adjacent to the Promenade. In order to vacate the alleyways and allow redevelopment over the alley areas, relocation of the sewers would be required. Staff has identified the proposed relocation to run north on Division Street to Main Street, then along Main to A Street SW/NW. The existing water line within Division Street is a 6 inch diameter and staff is proposing to replace this line and upsize to a 12-inch linehas looked at upsizing to meet future fire flow requirements for the downtown redevelopment area. The storm drainage improvements currently included in the project will be needed to address the modifications of the roadway and to address specific needs of the future redevelopment. The need to upsize or extend any existing storm lines will depend on where each block in the redevelopment area connects to the existing storm system. There is currently one storm line in the area may be undersized, which is located on 1 St Street SW between A Street SW and S Division Street. Private utilities, such as gas and power, currently run in most of the alleyways. The power would need to be relocated from the alleyways and placed underground into the new road way as well as the gas system in order to free up the alleys for redevelopment. In response to Committee's question, the costs associated with the above changes are included in the $8 million estimate for the Promenade project and • also includes the City's required share of undergrounding the power. Federal grants do not allow the agency to reimburse any expenditure until the grant is awarded and the expenditure is authorized, including the design work. To be reimbursed under federal grants, design cannot begin before the grant is awarded. Public Works staff is prepared for this but the City cannot move forward until the grant is awarded. Ms. Gaub reported that under the EDA process, the City will complete the consultant selection process once the award of the grant is made. The EDA require that they review and approve the consultant agreement before it can be brought forward to Committee for approval. Spencer Alpert, Alpert International, asked if a time table has been established with a set of criteria. Chair Lynn Norman responded that the Committee anticipates having a firm idea of everything that needs to be in place above ground so that when the underground infrastructure is ready, the Committee isn't making decisions at that point. Mayor Lewis stated that establishing the time table and decision points would not interfere with the grant process. Mayor Lewis asked staff to prepare a timeline Page 2 Downtown Redevelopment Committee Minutes Auqust 25, 2009 for the project process. Staff will create the timeline for request for proposals, signed consultant agreement and other major project steps/milestones, using March 15, 2010, as the receipt date for the grant funds. Staff will present this timeline at the next Committee meeting on September 9, 2009. In response to Committee's question on costs, Ms. Gaub stated that based on the _ current scope, approximately $2.5 million of the $8 million will be spent on the design and underground improvements in the Promenade project. Mr. Alpert- asked if the features discussed at previous meetings will be included. Mayor Lewis responded that the Committee will make decisions on items from the 30,000 foot level and down, then move to the smaller items. At the Mayor's request, staff prepared a decision-making matrix in a specific sequential order to assist the Committee in their discussion. This matrix was distributed to the Committee. Chair Norman asked Information Services Director Lorrie Rempher to report on Wi-Fi in the downtown area. Director Rempher stated that currently various fiber are in various places in the downtown area. The plan is to install more conduit and additional fiber while the sidewalk improvements are being made. Currently, the only Wi-Fi is inside buildings; there is some external Wi-Fi which is a secure network for Public Safety. 2) Boulder, Colorado Photos - Discussion of streets and plans for Auburn Junction Director Cindy Baker reviewed the features in the photos from the Pearl Street Mall in Boulder, Colorado, such as various sitting area types, one-way vehicular and bicycle lanes, pedestrian ways, lighting, etc. Director Baker suggested that the photos and the decision-making matrix can be used as tools to assist the Committee in making final policy direction and decisions regarding traffic circulation, bike lanes and other details. Once the Committee makes these decisions, staff will then work- out the details of the layout and design of Auburn Junction with the developer. Staff will also research additional grant funding for the bicycle and pedestrian amentities for the Urban Center and Auburn trails. Decision-Making Matrix - Traffic, Vehicular, Pedestrian and Bicvcle Circulation Quesfion A: Any desire for streets in Auburn Junction as pedestrian only? City Engineer Dennis Selle reiterated the question, asking if the Committee wants to consider blocking off 1 st Street between A Street SW and A Street SE, or one block of that segment to accommodate features seen in the Pearl Street Mall slide show to give extra width and flexibility. Mr. Selle said from a traffic circulation point, 1 st Street is the easiest street in the downtown core that could be closed to vehicular traffic and used for non-motorized traffic only traffic. Mr. Selle offered another option for the Committee to consider. Vacate a street by building over it and add the 60 feet of ROW to another existing street so that the block area for development is not reduced by the area for public amenities along one street is increased. Access issues to the Junction area would still be met through the other streets. Page 3 Downtown Redevelopment Committee Minutes Auaust 25, 2009 Mr. Alpert agreed that streets should not be closed in the downtown area and noted that three streets in Boulder are closed with the remaining area open for traffic circulation. Mr. Alpert would like some of the Boulder features incorporated into the Auburn Junction project. Mr. Alpert announced that if the Committee made the decision to leave the streets open, the Alpert Development Team will take on the challenge of adding the ambience from Boulder to the Auburn Junction project providing the pedestrian amenities within the private development. Besides being a destination area for citizens living on the hills in the City, Mr. Alpert's vision is that the downtown area would be a draw for South King County and North Pierce County. The amenities would be achieved with building set backs without having to use the street space to do so. Committee discussed the impacts of closing streets and parking within the downtown area. Committee agreed that the focus is not just on the citizens living in the downtown area but drawing people from other areas and having them stay. Parking will be needed for this. Question A response: Committee agreed that no streets would be closed in the Auburn Junction area. Question A 1: Do you want outside restaurants located on street-side with cars? Question A1 response: Committee concurred positively. Question A2: Do you want large amenities which won't fit on typical street sidewalk. Question A2 response: Committee concurred positively, but that the larger amenities would require additional space to be provided by the private development in addition to the existing ROW as discussed previously. Director Baker asked the Committee if they wanted a street design that would accommodate pedestrian activities and that could be closed for events and in the future if desired. Mr. Mel Maertz confirmed that in Alpert site plan, 1St Street SW/SE is designed flush with no curbs. Committee agreed with this plan. Question B: Do you want to slow traffic on Auburn Avenue%4 Street SE? If so what options would you prefer? Mr. Selle stated traffic analysis indicates that the impacts of one-way streets result in increased vehicular speed and other serious traffic capacity issues in the downtown area. Mayor Lewis asked for Engineering staff's best solution to slow traffic on A Street SE to have the main consideration be pedestrians, rather than efficiency and movement of vehicular traffic. Mr. Selle responded with placing a pedestrian signal at 1 St Street SE would fit into the pedestrian corridor from the Transit Center. Question B response: Committee concurred with installing a pedestrian/traffic signal at 1St Street SE and A Street SE. 'Committee further agreed that A Street SE would be one lane each way from Main Street to 3rd Street SE/Cross Street. This would Page 4 Downtown Redevelopment Committee Minutes Auqust 25, 2009 allow the development of more amenities and bicycle safe lanes to draw people into the area. Committee asked staff to present at the September 9, 2009 Committee meeting how , these two options would work best. Question C: Do you want other traffic slowing or pedestrian crossings? Mr. Selle stated that with the completion of the A/B Corridor there would be volume on the A Street SW corridor with bus access into the Transi4 Center and vehicles into the parking garage. Staff suggested installing a pedestrian signal at the current bus entrance, which is at 1 St Street SW on A Street SW. Staff confirmed that buses would be re-routed and would not use 1 S` Street SW/SE. Staff will bring additional bus information back to the Committee. Staff were asked to analyze the traffic signal operation on 2"d and A Street SE to make it more pedestrian-friendly. Question C response: Committee agreed with installing a pedestrian signal at the bus entrance on A Street SW at 1 St Street SW. Staff were asked to analyze the traffic signal operation on 2"d Street between A Street SW/SE to make it more pedestrian-friendly. Question D: What accommodations do you want for bicycle routes? One option presented was acquiring more right-of-way to widen streets for installation of bike lanes. Mr. Selle noted that acquiring the necessary right-of-way would be costly and reduce the developable areas. A second option would be installing a bike couplet which would be a one-way bike route on one route with a return one-way route on another route. The advantage of this option would be that parking would remain on one side of each street rather than removing parking on both sides of a street. Question D response: Committee agreed that the second option, installing a bike couplet, should be considered. Question E: Turn right on Main Street going north and partially or fully closing Auburn Avenue going north of Main Street? ' Question E response: Committee disagreed with this question. Decision-Makinq Matrix - Amenities Question A: Does the Committee desire a range of different sitting areas - similar to those shown in the Boulder Photos? Director Baker talked about the different sitting areas (large round planter type, benches, etc.) and the variety of amenities shown in the Boulder photos and asked the Committee if these are similar to what the Committee would like to see at Auburn Junction. Page 5 Downtown Redevelopment Committee Minutes Auqust 25, 2009 Question A response: Committee likes the look and feel of the Boulder photos and desires to have a variety of different types of sitting areas and amenities. The Committee does not want each block to match. Question B: Does the Committee desire to have a wide range of Art Work that incorporates some of historic Auburn and is similar to that found in the Boulder photos? Director Baker discussed the types of art work provided in the Boulder pictures, such as large sand areas with bronze climbing "figures," rock amenities, decorative columns, etc. Arts Manager Laurie Rose attended the meeting and will collaborate with staff and developer during the development process. Question 8 response: Committee agreed that the City's Cultural Arts staff would work with Planning staff to be responsible for these decisions. Committee further agreed that there should be "art surprises" throughout the development. Question C: Buildings: Does the Committee wish to have building facades with varying store frontages, first and second story theme carried through, and varying canopy types as indicated in the Boulder photos and in the Downtown Design Guidelines? Question C response: Committee concurred with questions, i.e., store frontages, streetscapes and canopy types should be varied. Question D: Does the Committee like the Kiosks shown in the Boulder photos? Question D response: Committee agreed that they like the various styles of kiosks and that kiosks should be installed at major entrances, City Hall and Transit Center. Auburn Junction A. Is the council satisfied with the general layout and function of the proposed ~ Auburn Junction? • Committee is satisfied. • Council's preference is more residential without losing retail base. . Chair Norman would like to see an entertainment entity included in the plan. Due to time constraints, Chair Norman stated that at the September 9, 2009 meeting, the Committee would discuss street lighting, bike racks, be prepared to make a decision on pedestrian area materials, and Public Works would talk about particulars on ways to achieve the decisions made. Auburn Downtown Association (ADA) Director Kathleen Keator introduced herself to the Committee at Chair Norman's request. Ms. Keator commented that she comes to Auburn from the Renton Chamber of Commerce. Ms. Keator has met with potential partners for revitalization of the ADA, which included Mayor Lewis, former ADA Director Debbie Luce, business owners and the Chamber of Commerce board. Ms. Keator looks forward to working with everyone to re-establish the respect and trust of downtown business owners. Page 6 Downtown Redevelopment Committee Minutes Auqust 25, 2009 IV. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Downtown Redevelopment Committee, Chair Norman adjourned the meeting at 5:33 p.m. APPROVED THIS ~ DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2009. Lynn Nor , Chair ee S. Tobias, Planning Secretary Page 7 The following are questions that need policy direction and decision. Questions for the Committee Yes No Comments Traffic, Vehicular, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Circulation: What feel and look do you want? a. Any desire for streets in Auburn Junction as X pedestrian only? If so, • 1 st Street (entire 2 blocks; 60 ft wide) X Committee agreed that no • 1 st Street (one block (60 ft wide) X streets would be closed in the • Promenade (entire 2 blocks; 60 ft wide) X Auburn Junction area. • Promenade (one or portion of block; 60 feet X wide • Related Issue: Designate 1st Street SW/SE o Do you want outside restaurants located "Flat" with different pavement on street-side with cars? X amenities, no curb for future pedestrian or intermittent activities. o Do you want large amenities (see below), Committee concurred positively, if so, won't fit on typical street sidewalk). but that the larger amenities would require additional space to X be provided by the private development in addition to the existing ROW as discussed reviousl . b. Do you want to slow traffic on Auburn Avenue/A Committee concurred with Street SE, if so, what options would you prefer? installing a pedestrian/traffic • One-way street from Auburn Way N to Cross X signal at 1 St Street SE and A Street? Street SE. Committee further • Partiall one-wa street? X agreed that A Street SE would • Vegetated center median (in the downtown be one lane each way from Main lan Street to 3~d Street SE/Cross ; • Traffic signal that accommod~tes possible Street. This would allow the X development of more amenities arkin ara e at "Safewa • Other traffic calming? X and bicycle safe lanes to draw eo le into the area. c. Do you want other traffic slowing or pedestrian X Committee agreed with installing crossin s? a pedestrian signal at the bus • Traffic signal along A Street SW by Transit X entrance on A Street SW at 1St Center after A/B corridor is finished? Street SW. Staff were asked to • Traffic signal at the analyze the traffic signal , operation on 2"d Street between A Street SW/SE to make it more edestrian-friendl . d. What accommodations do you want for bicycle routes? X • Ac uire more ri ht-of-wa and widen streets? Committee agreed that the • Remove on-street arkin ? - second option, installing a bike ' couplet, should be considered. • Bike couplets to minimize removal of on-street X arkin ? • Shared bike and travel X X Committee disa reed with this Page 8 Downtown Redevelopment Committee Minutes Auqust 25, 2009 e. Other ldeas question • Turn right on Main Street going north and partially or fully close Auburn Avenue going north of Main Street Amenities (use Boulder Pictures) a. Ran e of different sittin areas • Benches X Committee asked for variety of • Large round planter with seats surrounding - X amenities and did not want to size 6 ft in diameter have each block match in • Large, square-ish elevated planters; 5'x5' or X amenities. u to 20' x 20' • Curb like area around amenities X b. Art Work Committee agreed that the City's • Brass figures Cultural Arts staff would work • Rock walk-through with Planning staff to be • Decorative columns X responsible for these decisions. Committee further agreed that there should be "art surprises" throu hout the develo ment. c. Buildings Committee concurred with • Varying small, store fro ntages/streetsca pe X questions, i.e., store frontages, • First story continued to second story streetscapes and canopy types • Var in cano t es should be varied. d. Kiosks Committee agreed that they like • Size - where to place if larger the various styles of kiosks and X those they should be installed at major entrances, City Hall and Transit Center. e. OK with t es of bic cle racks as seen in hotos f. Hanging baskets • Poles on top of pedestal • Street lights • Additional poles • Store fronta es g. Interactive areas • Sand/gravel with climbing features • Water feature • Brid es h. Materials - pedestrian areas • Brick • Concrete - stamped • Concrete - not stamped • Brick and concrete • Asphalt • Other i. Use Boulder pictures as example in the Downtown Desi n Standards? Page 9 Downtown Redevelopment Committee Minutes Auctust 25, 2009 Auburn Junction a. Is the Council satisfied with the general layout X • Committee is satisfied. and function of the ro osed Auburn Junction? • Council's preference is more b. Does it meet the intent of our vision? X residential without losing c. Does it meet the goals of the Comprehensive retail base. Plan, Downtown Plan, and Auburn Junction X • Chair Norman would like to Standards? see an entertainment entity Desi n d. Does the mix of uses fit with your intent? included in the plan. X Commercial, Office, Residential s Page 10