City Council and Planning Agency Joint Meeting January 29, 2002

Transcription

1 City Council and Planning Agency Joint Meeting January 29, 2002 Meeting called to order at: 5:30PM In Attendance: Mayor Bob Young Councilmember David King Councilmember James Rackley Councilmember Stephen Bricker Councilmember Dan Swatman Councilmember Neil Johnson Councilmember Maureeen Palecek Commissioner Randy McKibbin Commissioner Quinn Dahlstrom Commissioner Julia Bowen Commissioner Jim Shortt Commissioner Robert Harding Commissioner Steve Burnham (Absent) Commissioner Jerry Bradley (Absent) Staff In Attendance: John Weidenfeller, Finance Director Seth Boettcher, Public Works Director Robert Leedy, Interim Planning Director David Renaud, Assistant Planner Jeff Ganson, City Attorney Gayle Butcher, City Clerk Christy McQuillen, Planning Department Assistant Agenda Discussion: Design Commission: Mayor Young requested Mr. Leedy update Council members and Commissioners on the progress of the Design Commission. Mr. Leedy informed members that an initial advertisement ran during the holiday s which generated little applicants. The Mayor extended the deadline for application to February 8, 2002 and a second advertisement was published. To date, 6 applications and several phone calls indicating an interest have been received. Commissioner Dahlstrom requested clarification as to which body the Design Commission would report to (City Council or Planning Agency). The Planning Agency understood the Design Commission should report to the Planning Agency.

2 Council members pointed out the same impression. Mr. Leedy s perfective was such that the Design Commission, once members are appointed, would formulate their procedures and design regulations. Formal recommendation by Planning Agency would be received on those procedures and regulations and formal adoption by City Council. Mayor, Council members and Commissioners were in agreement. Planned Unit Development (PUD): Mr. Leedy addressed Council members and Commissioners, emphasizing the sensitive issue in all elements within the City. The Planning Agency does not want to vary from City Council s implementation. However, members of Planning Agency feel that the minimum lot size restriction may be worth revisiting. Councilmember Bricker clarified that the control issue constituted worthy of usable lot size and limited lot size and the density within a neighborhood. Mayor Young indicated that the initial intent of updating the PUD ordinance was to review lot size and look at passing it but, look down the road thinking it was interim. This ordinance will need to be defined a whole lot better. Councilmember Swatman asked that by allowing a duplex and/or attached dwelling units within an R2. R3 and R5 accomplishes density. Is there a recommended lot size that can be usable? Mr. Leedy pointed out that staff could research this and find out what interest is from Planning Agency and City Council. The consumer preference is a smaller lot size. Councilmember Rackley requested if staff could research this and provide something to City Council. Councilmember Bricker- Affordability and lot size shows that they are not selling right now due to the market. I think we need to put some control on this. Residents are resistant to smaller lots. Councilemember Palecek- City Council emphasized the uniqueness by having larger lots, if you can wow us with affordable housing and cost come back to us.

3 Mr. Leedy- The interest for City Council and the community is to establish open spaces and parks, etc. You can accomplish this through a PUD by increased density for usable and substantial area for other attractive useable open space. Councilmember King- What s important is to make sure that usable open space is appropriately used. Councilmember Rackley- Is there a way to map an area within the City that you can use only for PUD s and see what might develop from that? Mr. Leedy pointed out that could be done. Commissioner McKibbin informed Councilmembers that the Planning Agency and staff are willing to revisit the PUD Ordinance. However, if Planning Agency is to review the requirements, the direction would need to be specific. Conclusion and decision by City Council on the PUD Ordinance is to have Planning Agency and Staff review the requirement of what classifies a 20% density bonus Planning Agency Work Plan: Planning Agency and City Council with Mr. Leedy reviewed the list outlining the 2002 work plan. Mr. Leedy pointed out that the Planning Agency is in the process of reviewing the Wellhead Protection Ordinance and the Wetland Regulations. These are part of the overall review of the sensitive/critical areas code modifications. GMA 5 Year Comp Plan update. Mayor Young informed Councilmembers and Commissioners that a $15, Grant (GMA) and a $12, Grant (Buildable Lands) are currently in the pipeline. Mayor Young and Mr. Leedy indicated the possible filing extension exte tcouncilmember Bricker- Is there a penalty for not completing this? Mr. Leedy pointed out that there is no real penalty other than loss of grants and being out of sink with Pierce County. See notes on postponement of GMA see notes on grants. Strategic Commercial District Plan (CBD): Mr. Leedy emphasized concerns from members of the Planning Agency that the original and revised plan are too detail in orientation and site specific. 1) Need to identify the nodes and City Council, Planning Agency and Design Commission need to come into agreement on this issue. 2) Develop a set of guidelines to administer the treatment. 3) Develop some kind of connection between the nodes. The emphasis also is to create a civic center node where concentration can be placed for public services. It might be to identify a treatment of monolithic stone works etc. like a landmark, banners, sight central, architectural style, street lights, etc.

4 Mayor Young reviewed the history of the CBD and indicated that the City could change this plan and not be in trouble. Mr. Leedy also pointed out that the zoning can remain the same, something that will tie them all together. Concerns include (see notes): Mr. Renaud pointed out the stumbling blocks the City has when it comes to the developments along SR410. That is why the Design Commission is so important. It will help to establish guidelines and create a better connection system along this vital highway. PC thoughts: see notes Conclusion was met with City Council and Planning Agency to take these issues into consideration at the February 5, 2002 Council meeting when reviewing options for a City Hall. Where should public services be, and what impact will a new City Hall have in the development of a Strategic Commercial Plan. Possible improvements 184 th revamp: Mr. Leedy and Mayor Young spoke to audience requesting what this is about. 184 th across Canning property and connect close to Myers road? 1) Check the Transportation Improvement Plan and make sure it is ongoing so that it happens. 2) Establishing it with what happens in these key node areas. Seth Boettcher reviewed the improvement issues at SR410 and Old Sumner/Buckley highway with the improvements funded with mitigation dollars. The 184 th revamp would be very expensive. City Council would like Planning Agency to look at this. Sign Code: Council member Swatman asking if this is working? Mr. Leedy pointed out that Denney Bryan, Code Enforcement Officer, is spends a lot of time enforcing this. He periodically collects real estate signs that are in violation and apparently received no cooperation. Denney is currently working with WASDOT on the offsite advertisement along the SR410 highway. It is an enforcement issue. See concerns: see notes Buffer Requirements between zones: City Council would like the Planning Agency to look at this issue. I believe our code is lacking in this area, specifically commercial developments adjacent to residential. City Council believes that Planning Commissioners should look at if the current requirements are satisfactory. Buffer

5 should not only mean feet but, possibly view screening. With all the annexations going on, let s take a look at this. Mayor Young called for a 5 minutes recess at 6:54PM Meeting resumed at 7:05PM Urban Growth Boundary Amendments: Mr. Leedy addressed Commissioners and Council on the GMA concept. It establishes growth areas, and what grows will take place within those areas. Pierce County has created a CUGA. The City has been in communication with Pierce County on potential areas that Bonney Lake could acquire as amended UGA boundaries. A map was presented, illustrating areas that are in line with Pierce County and falls within the City s UGA. The Falling Waters UGA was originally incorporated within the City of Bonney Lake. This will be coming forward during the annual update process. This could be petitioned for annexation within the City in the near future. Seth Boettcher mentioned that there is a vested Plat being proposed on septic in this area with 600 to 700 connections. The other important area is the CUGA. This area does not need to be brought into the City. The City could annex and take control of this area. This could be annexed via petition now. Seth Boettcher indicated that this area is already fully developed on septic. Pierce County is also willing to work with the City to expand the UGA boundaries along the built out areas of the shoreline on Lake Tapps. Pierce County does not want the City to consider the area east of 214 th and north of the 410 annexation area. However, city staff is interested in looking at the north end of the 410 annexation area along 96 th Avenue East to round out the border. Other areas to consider are those of annexation area 7 and 8 by Victor Falls. There is currently a strong interest to annex through petition method. The area to the northwest side of Lake Tapps has overlapping of services. Pierce County would like to see this incorporated into one of the cities interested (Sumner, Auburn or Bonney Lake). The City of Bonney Lake would propose cleaner UGA boundary lines and Pierce County would prefer this. Seth Boettcher pointed out that neither city (Sumner and Auburn) would want to maintain water and sewer on steep areas up to the plateau. It is important that

6 whomever can service this area effectively and with low-cost should control this area. Ideally a city s service area should be within their UGA. Seth recommends the City stay on top of the plateau to keep service cost low and not attempt to amend UGA boundaries down to the valley floor. Look at notes for concerns: Mr. Leedy pointed out that it is in the City s best interest to pursue this northwest Lake Tapps area. The City needs to be in control of their service areas. Population estimate will be ruff within these areas and there will be a cost associated with such an amendment proposal. UGA Amendment proposals can not be submitted prior to October 2002 but are due by December City Council members were in support of staff moving forward with this. Rezone located at th Avenue East (Perky s Espresso): City Attorney, Jeff Ganson presented City Council with the Finding and Facts report. Since City Council did not adopt this rezone, City Council is required to provide an applicant with Findings and Conclusions. The report includes a series of recitals. This report is based on the conclusion of the City Councils rational of their decision. This particular concerns were: see notes: MOTION MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER SWATMAN, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PALASAK TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION REPORT, WHICH WAS APPROVED BY ALL MEMBERS PRESENT SEE GAYLES NOTES ON THIS. Meeting was adjourned at 7:45PM END