Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-24-2009 CITY OF RN DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT ~J COMMITTEE WASHINGTON NOVEMBER 24, 2009 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Lynn Norman called the meeting to order at 4:03 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 Cynn Norman, Vice Chair Sue Singer, and Member Gene Cerino. Staff present included: Planning, Building & Community Director Cindy Baker, Principal ' Planner Elizabeth Chamberlain, City Engineer Dennis Selle, Assist'ant City Engineer ' Ingrid Gaub, Economic Development Manager Dave Baron, and Planning Secretary Renee Tobias. Audience Members present were: Gail Spurrell, Ed Hahn, Ronnie Roberts, Kathleen Keator, and Jack Saelid. II. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND AGENDA MODIFICATIONS Agenda modification included the addition of an action topic, Downtown Urban Center Zone Design Standards, to the agenda. III. CONSENT AGENDA A. Meeting Minutes - October 27, 2009 Member Singer moved to approve the consent agenda items as presented. Chair Norman concurred. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 3-0 IV. DISCUSSION A. Runoff Control from Awnings in Downtown City Engineer/Assistant Public Works Director Dennis Selle distributed a letter and photos of rain gutters that was received from J. Dorbritz Architecture & Planning. This letter relates to the Downtown Urban Center Zone Design Standards, Page 13, Section 2B, which states "Water run-off from canopies/awnings should be controlled by gutter or other means". Mr. Selle stated that Mr. Dorbritz is proposing a gutter that would fall under the "other means" as stated in the design standards for the One Main Building. The developer has installed a water dispersion system on the Main Street side of the building that is a self-cleaning perforated metal screen device that allows for the dispersal of rain-like droplets over a larger area at the end of each awning. Downtown Redevelopment Committee Minutes November 24. 2009 Staff asked the Committee if this type of treatment is acceptable'in the downtown area or would they prefer to see just a guttered system or some other option. Mr. Selle responded to Committee's questions regarding this system as well as the utilization of a regular gutter that is tied into an underground drain. Staff noted that the One Main Building project is vested to a code that contains the language of "or other means". Staff stated that the intent of "other means" was not clearly identified when the code was written. Theoretically an applicant could submit any kind of "other means" that they desire but the current code does not give the City any level of approval. If the Committee wanted only gutter systems in the downtown area, the code, would need to be changed for future projects. After discussion, the Committee agreed that the wording should be changed to read, 2.B. Water run-off from canopies/awnings should be controlled by gutter or other means as approved by the City Engineer and/or Planning Director. Staff will bring the proposed guideline amendments for action at the December 8, 2009 meeting. B. Auburn Junction The Alpert Design fieam submitted- a proposal to staff for the City Hall Plaza, entitled Auburn Junction Alpert Vision from 30, 000 Feet (Rev. 9-29-2009). Staff has reviewed the Auburn Junction Alpert Vision Memo and prepared a comparison matrix outlining which vision items are in the City's current code or standards, in the development agreement, and which vision items are not. Staff anticipated that the Alpert Design Team would attend the meeting to answer questions. Staff reviewed the comparison matrix and received the following comments and feedback from Committee where staff indicated that the item was not in code or the development agreement. Intersection and Gateway Elements Item 1- Plaza 1- East end of 1 St Street SE. Staff noted that this is partially in the standards but the area ends at the Main StreeUAuburn Avenue intersection not at the 1 St Street/A Street SE intersection, per page 7 of Auburn Junction Design Guidelines. Staff's analysis indicated that with the plaza ending at 1 St Street and not at Auburn Avenue, the direct line of site from historic Main Street into the Auburn Junction project is lost. Committee agreed to keep the standard and guidelines the same and requests a pedestrian connection to this corner. Committee would, like to see how the building will be designed to meet this request. Item 3- Plaza 2 SE corner of 2"d Street and A Street SE Item 4- Plaza 3- NE corner of Main Street and A Street SE Committee asked for further dialogue with the Alpert Design Team regarding the proposed plazas. Page 2 Downtown Redevelopment Committee Minutes November 24. 2009 Vehicular Streets Item 6- 68 foot right-of-way. Staff analysis indicated that the right-of-way (ROW) can be wider but that it would need to be aligned where it meets the 60 ft. ROW. Committee asked for clarification from the Alpert Design Team. Item 9- 4-foot wide bike lanes. Staff analysis indicates that this is not a standard bike lane width. Staff has stated previously that separate bike lanes may not be needed within the project as the vehicle travel speeds are low and cyclists will ride in the travel lane. Staff noted that a dedicated bike lane would require an additional right-of-way most likely from the developer. Committee asked that this item be marked to explore other alternatives and best use of space. Item 12 - Standard street trees and landscape pockets. Committee agreed that they would support a consolidated green space over multiple smaller areas scattered throughout the development. Item 14 - 72-78 foot right-of-way. Staff analysis indicates that the ROW can be wider than the standard 60 foot ROW. However, the 72-78 foot ROW would need to be aligned where it meets the 60 foot ROW. Committee agreed that further discussion with the Alpert Design Team is warranted on this item. Item 15 - Two way traffic - pattern concrete at Promenade and brick paving surface at 1 St Street SE. Staff analysis indicates that the two-way traffic is not an issue. The pattern of concrete and brick paving has not been decided upon as yet. Staff will review and comment when the actual plans are submitted. Staff noted that the plans will have to integrate and match that of the Promenade. Item 20 - 1 St Street no curb and gutter - pedestrian areas separated by bollards. Staff analysis indicates no issue from staff's perspective but this has not been ' decided upon by the Committee. Committee agreed with this concept in this area. Item 21 - Brick parking and travel lanes 1 S` Street SE. Staff analysis indicates a preference for colored concrete rather than brick from a maintenance standpoint. Committee agreed that brick would be all right if it is maintained by the property owners. Should the property owners not agree to maintain the brick; the Committee would like something different for 1S` Street, such as stained and patterned concrete. Item 22 - Pattern concrete sidewalk 1St Street SE. Staff analysis indicates that the sidewalk standards of 2x2 square patterns are not on the site plan. From staff perspective, any pattern has to be reviewed by the Committee; the developer hasn't proposed one beyond the conceptual design. Committee stated that whatever pattern is decided on for the street will need to blend with the pattern chosen for the sidewalk. Committee will review the remaining items from the memo at the December 8, 2009 Committee meeting. Page 3 Downtown Redevelopment Committee Minutes November 24. 2009 C. City Hall Plaza Staff met with the City's consultant, John Nelson, to review the Alpert design. Mr. Nelson originally created a phased approach to the City Hall Plaza design and worked from the existing infrastructure of the plaza (e.g. terraces) as he was directed to do. The Downtown Redevelopment Committee approved the site plan in March 2009. While there has been discussion that the 3-D rendering captures the concept desired of the plaza, that drawing was only created to give conceptual perspective not exact elements/features/amenities for the plaza. Chair Norman clarified that the Committee was reviewing a new plan submitted by the Alpert Design Team and expressed thanks to them for volunteering to do this drawing. Staff noted that the updated rendering prepared by Mr. Nelson corresponds to the first site plan dated March 10, 2009 as designed by Maul, Foster and Alongi. The Committee has already received input from the public on the City Hall Plaza, reviewed the March 10, 2009 plan item by item and identified the phases. One of the criteria for the plan was to construct it in the most economical manner possible and have the design be compatible with the redevelopment of the downtown area. Committee agreed that they were not reconsidering the direction they were going and are continuing with the decisions previously made. Director Baker reported that she and Deputy Mayor Sue Singer met with John Nelson of Maul, Foster, and Alongi that morning. Director Baker distributed a 3-D color rendering that was the outcome from this meeting. Mr. Nelson incorporated the ideas from the committee and added in a little more of a northwest slant to the design. It was noted that the design for the-tall light fixtures could potentially become a public art piece from an RFP through the Arts Commission. Another suggestion from Mr. Nelson was to have an artistic feature underneath the umbrellas, such as a wrought iron design that would show a Native American or NW Japanese or railroad influence. Director Baker stated that the rendering is a basic concept that would allow Engineering to start the design work with an architect. Mr. Nelson highly recommended building the espresso stand and leasing it to a retailer. This would bring people into the downtown area and would be a revenue source for the City. Committee asked that some part of the espresso/kiosk be allocated for event and area information and directory. Committee confirmed that the paving pattern, as shown on the site plan dated March 10, 2009 designed by Maul Foster Alongi; was the Committee's choice. V. ACTION A. DUC Zone Design Standards - Pedestrian Streets Land use Principal Planner Elizabeth Chamberlain distributed page 13 from the DUC Zone Design Standards that addresses land use on particular streets in the downtown area, a map indicating which streets are considered pedestrian streets, and , definitions from the Auburn City Code (18.29.070-Design Standards and 18.04.710- Personal service shop). Ms. Chamberlain read the Land use 1.A. to the Committee: "Along Pedestrian 1 Streets, ground floor uses that face the sidewalk shall be retail, Page 4 ~ Downtown Redevelopment Committee Minutes November 24, 2009 ~ restaurant or personal service uses." Ms. Chamberlain noted that having the word "shall" makes it a requirement. Staff reported that the City has received a Tenant Improvement Permit application for a medical use on the first floor of One Main Building. The medical office is located near other medical offices (the new women's clinic and the hospital); however, the tenant space and entrance are off of Division Street which is classified as Pedestrian I Street. Therefore, this use would not be permitted as it does not meet the definition of Personal service shop (ACC 18.04.710). Staff asked the Committee if they wished to entertain writing some flexibility into the Design Standards that would permit this type of use. Committee felt that making changes due to the current economic times would set precedence for future projects. Since the major portion of the medical office rooms would face 1St Street, the Committee would accept modifying the pedestrian status of Division Street. Member Singer moved and Member Cerino seconded to change the designation of Division Street from a Pedestrian 1 Street to Pedestrian Street II on the north half block of Division Street and keep a Pedestrian Street I designation on the south half block of Division Street. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 3-0 VI. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Downtown Redevelopment Committee, Chair Norman adjourned the meeting at 5:35 p.m. PPROVED THIS ~ DAY OF " , ~ Ly n rman, Chair R nee S. Tobias, Planning Secretary Page 5