Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6297ORDINANCE NO. 6 2 9 7 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, APPROVING THE REQUEST OF FIORITO BROTHERS FOR A REZONE FROM C-3 HEAVY COMMERCIAL TO BP BUSINESS PARK FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT M STREET NW AND 15T" STREET NW WHEREAS, Application No. REZ09-0003 has been submitted to the City Council by the Fiorito Brothers, Inc. requesting the rezoning of real property located at 15tn Street NW and M Street NW and designated by parcel numbers 1221049041, 1221049042, and 1221409043; and WHEREAS, the environmental impacts of the Fiorito Business Park Rezone were considered in accordance with the procedures of the State Environmental Policy Act; and WHEREAS, the Business Park zoning designation can be applied to any site within the city designated as "region serving" in the comprehensive plan, that is zoned commercial or industrial; and WHEREAS, after proper notice published in the City's official newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the date of hearing, the City of Auburn Hearing Examiner on February 17, 2010 conducted a public hearing on the proposed Fiorito Business Park Rezone; and WHEREAS, at the public hearing the City of Auburn Hearing Examiner heard public testimony and took evidence and exhibits into consideration; and Ordinance No. 6297 March 10, 2010 Page 1 WHEREAS, thereafter the City of Auburn Hearing Examiner made a recommendation to the City Council on the proposed Fiorito Business Park Rezone; and WHEREAS, on March 15, 2010, the Auburn City Council considered the proposed Fiorito Business Park Rezone as recommended by the City of Auburn Hearing Examiner; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council ("Council) adopts and approves the Fiorito Business Park rezone from C-3 Heavy Commercial to BP Business Park and directs that the rezone application and all related documents be filed along with this Ordinance with the Auburn City Clerk and be available for public inspection. Section 2. The Zoning Map amendment is herewith designated as a basis for the exercise of substantive authority under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act by the City's responsible environmental official in accordance with RCW. 43.21 C.060. Section 3. The Council adopts the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, in the Hearing Examiner's recommendation outlined below: FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: 1. Applicant. The applicants are the Fiorito Brothers, represented by Gary Volchok. 2. Hearinq. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the application at 5:30 p.m. at Auburn City Hall in the Council Chambers on February 17, 2010. Ordinance No. 6297 March 10, 2010 Page 2 Substantive: 3. Site/Proposal Description. The applicant has applied for the rezoning of an approximate 10 acre parcel from C-3 (Heavy Commercial) to BP (Business Park). The property was zoned Heavy Commercial in order to encourage retail use in an area that is proximate and visible to SR 167. The applicant has found that the area is not suitable for exclusive retail use and wishes to rezone it to BP in order to allow for a mixture of retail and other uses such as industrial. In order to acquire approval of a rezone to BP, the applicant must acquire approval of a contract rezone that incorporates a conceptual site plan. ACC 18.36.020. The planning director shall approve the final site plan. The applicant acknowledges that his conceptual site plan is based upon one proposed industrial use from several years ago and will have little relation to what will actually be developed. There was some testimony to the effect that the site plan establishes a maximum building area of 95,000 square feet, but this limitation is already included in the recommended conditions of approval. The site plan presented by the applicant appears to be completely meaningless. The applicant has agreed to enhance design requirements that would not otherwise be applicable. These are outlined in Exhibit 14. The applicant has also agreed to a limited set of uses for the property, which are outlined in Exhibit 15. 4. Characteristics of the Area. The site is adjoined by SR 167 to the west, a Costco distribution facilitYon the east, an undeveloped wetlands and floodplain area to the north and 15 h St. NW to the south. Emerald Downs is located east of the Costco facility. M Street only connects to 15th St. NW. Assessor and other maps show that M street loops into 29th Street, but 29th Street is closed. As noted by the applicant, the project site is fairly isolated from any other use. There is conflicting evidence on whether the project site is visible from SR 167; with staff stating that it is visible, in particular going southbound on SR 167 while the applicant presented photos (Ex. 19) that it is not. The photos do not show what can be seen at auto level, so they are of limited utility. Vegetation or topography may very well limit visibility from SR 167 but this is not evident from the photos. 5. Public Benefit. A critical requirement for approval of a BP designation is that it must result in a public benefit. The applicant has made a compelling argument that the property cannot be developed as a C-3 use. In addition to all the evidence presented by the applicants, there is also the common sense conclusion that if they could have sold the property as C-3, they would have done so given the value of that type of property. As a baseline, therefore, it must be acknowledged that there is a public benefit to the proposed rezone simply because it will facilitate the development of vacant land in an urban area. This Ordinance No. 6297 March 10, 2010 Page 3 promotes the creation of jobs and an increase in real property taxes. The use limitations and design standards agreed to by the applicant (Exhibits 13 and 14) further add to public benefit by enhancing the compatibility of the development with surrounding uses and enhancing the aesthetic values of that development. The one downside to the rezone is that it facilitates industrial use, which the City believes to create a demand on public services (mainly street wear and tear by industrial vehicles) with no off-setting generation of public revenue through a sales tax. The staff requirement for a mix of retait and industrial use off-sets this downside. During the hearing staff and the applicant agree upon language similar to that specified pages 13-14 of Ordinance No. 5607 where it designates a minimum amount of retail use. Although the parties came to agreement on some of this language, the portion agreed upon does not stand upon its own. The parties agreed to a minimum requirement of 20 feet of interior space from retail windows without agreeing upon how much window space is required. The Examiner will include the amount of window space specified in Ordinance No. 5607 as well. Given the lack of marketability of the property as a C-3 use and the design standards and use limitations agreed to by the applicant, the proposal creates a net public benefit. 6. Adverse Impacts. As noted above, the proposal will create a net public benefit. As noted during public testimony, the project area recently went through short plat review. This short plat review required full infrastructure improvements and mitigation for commercial use of the subject lot. As noted by the applicants, most of the improvements they have made satisfy all current development standards, but there will be some improvements in response to changes in stormwater standards. Staff have also noted that some street improvements may be necessary, in particular the addition of a bike lane to M Street as contemplated in the recently updated its Comprehensive Transportation Plan, which now identifies a bike lane along M Street as connecting to the Interurban Trail. All of these infrastructure improvements are minor enough to be addressed at the site plan review stage of approval. Given some of the issues associated with the connectivity of the bike lane, the bike lane requirement is also best left to the site plan review stage when there may be more information available about future connectivity. There are no adverse impacts discernable from the record given that infrastructure improvements can be adequately addressed at site plan review; that there are no environmentally sensitive areas associated with the site; and that there are no compatibility problems with adjoining land uses. Ordinance No. 6297 March 10, 2010 Page 4 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Procedural: Authority of Hearinq Examiner. ACC 18.68.030(B)(1)(a) grants the Hearing Examiner with the authority to review and make a recommendation on rezone requests to the City Council if the planning director determines that the rezone requests are consistent with the comprehensive plan. The planning director has determined that the rezone request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan land use map designation for the property is Heavy Commercial with an overlay of "region serving". Acc 18.36.010 provides that the BP zone may be established in any area designated "region serving" that is zoned commercial or industrial. Substantive: 2. Zoning Designation. The property is current zoned C-3, Heavy Commercial. 3. Case Law Review Criteria and Application. Washington appellate courts have imposed some criteria themselves, requiring that the proponents of a rezone must establish that conditions have substantially changed since the original showing and that the rezone must bear a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals or welfare. See Ahmann-Yamane, LLC v. Tabler, 105 Wn. App. 103, 111 (2001). If a rezone implements the Comprehensive Plan, a showing that a change of circumstances has occurred is not required. Id. at 112. As discussed in the staff report, there is no question that the project is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The requirement for retaining some retail use along with the industrial use helps to support Auburn's role as a regional employment and commercial center as contemplated by Policy LU-3. The design standards agreed upon by the applicant in conjunction with the frontage retail requirement is consistent with the LU-109 prohibition on placing industrial uses in highly visible areas (if the area even qualifies as highly visible - as noted previously the evidence on this issue is incomplete). The rezone facilitates the development of the vacant land into uses that will create jobs, as consistent with Policy ED-8. Although the policy may be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, it is debatable whether it "implements" the Comprehensive Plan. The current C-3 designation is also consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. It is unclear from the case law whether changing from one consistent use to another qualifies as "implementing" the plan. The courts use of the term "implemenY" the Plan instead of the standard requirement for consistency with the Plan suggests that something more is required. The only reasonably plausible "something more" is Ordinance No. 6297 March 10, 2010 Page 5 that the change is necessary for consistency with the plan. Given that a rezone is not necessary to achieve consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, a change in circumstances is necessary. The severe downturn in the commercial real estate market, as testified by Mr. Volchok, qualifies as a change in circumstances since the last rezone of the property in 2006. Since the proposal will result in a net public benefit as discussed in the Findings of Fact, it bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals or welfare as required by the case law cited above. 4. Code Requirements for Approval of a BP Rezone. Although Auburn's municipal code does not provide any review standards for rezones in general, there are specific standards that apply to rezones to the BP designation. These standards are identified in Chapter 18.36 ACC. Relevant standards are quoted below with accompanying analysis in conclusions of law. ACC 18.36.020(A)(1): Conceptual approval of a business park shall be applied by the rezone process as specified in ACC 18.68.030(B)(1)(a). The rezone shall be a contract rezone and shall include an agreement that establishes the type, square footage and general location of the uses; the location and size of the park; restrictive covenants; public improvements; and the responsibilities of the owner/developer. 5. As mentioned previously, the conceptual site plan offered by the applicant is worthless, since the applicant and staff both acknowledge that the project will probably not bear any resemblance to what is diagramed in the site plan. However, it should be recognized that no site plan is actually required by ACC 18.36.020(A)(1) at this stage of review. Exhibits 13 and 14, in conjunction with the 95,000 square foot size limitation and the boundaries of the subject parcel provide the information required by ACC 18.36.020(A)(1). It is a little puzzling why the applicant has presented any actual site plan, since all it accomplishes is confusion. It is understood that the site plan helps establish a maximum building area for the project, but if that is all it's used for its purpose must be more clearly expressed. ACC 18.36.020(A)(2): A BP district shall only be approved when the owner/developer has demonstrated that a public benefit will result and the project contains architectural, site, and landscape design standards that are significantly superior to those typically required in the other industrial and commercial zones. 6. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 5, the project creates a net public benefit. A comparison of the standards agreed upon by the applicant (Exhibit 13) to those required in other industrial and commercial zones reveals that they are significantly superior. Ordinance No. 6297 March 10, 2010 Page 6 ACC 18.36.020(A)(3): No significant impacts on the public infrastructure shall occur that cannot be effectively mitigated by the development of the business park. 7. As discussed in Finding of Fact No. 6, infrastructure improvements will be relatively minor and can be addressed during site plan review. DECISION The Hearing Examiner recommends approval of REZ09-0003, subject to the following condition: 1. A lot line elimination shall be processed concurrently with the final site plan approval. 2. The applicant shall submit a traffic impact analysis, storm drainage report, and wetland report as part of the final site plan approval process. 3. The permitted uses shall be those uses identified in Exhibit 1 to this ordinance with the exceptions previously noted. Items 26 and 35 of Exhibit 1 are revised to allow the specified uses throughout the buildings of the project except in the areas required for retail use. 4. The project shall comply with the design standards as outlined in Exhibit 2 to this ordinance. As part of the final site plan submittal and review process, the applicant shall submit building elevations demonstrating how the proposed building complies with the Fiorito Business Park Design Standards. 5. The general location of the proposed building to be devetoped on the subject site shall be consistent with the conceptual site plan dated February 5, 2010. The total area of any proposed building shall be limited to 95,000 square feet. The proposed storm drainage facility may increase depending on the outcome of the final site plan review which could impact location of parking spaces and will be reviewed as part of the final site plan review process. The project shall comply with the retail space requirements of Condition 2(B)(1) of Auburn Ordinance No. 5607 however the location of glass windows shall be at a minimum the west facing fagade. 6. A master landscape plan shall be prepared for the entire project site. A minimum ten (10) foot wide landscape area shall be constructed along the M Street NW as it rises to intersect 15th Street NW shall be designed in an innovative way and create a gateway into the project. The master landscape plan shall be prepared and submitted as part of the final site plan process. Ordinance No. 6297 March 10, 2010 Page 7 7. A master sign plan shall be prepared and approved by the City that coordinates the exterior signs of the individual tenants. The sign regulations outlined in ACC Chapter 18.56 for the C-3 zone shall apply for size, height, and number of signs permitted. Signage shall be part of the architecture of the building and not an afterthought; however, the architectural design of the tenants' logos is not intended to be altered by this condition. The master sign plan shall be prepared and submitted as part of the final site plan process. 8. All exterior lighting shall be designed and constructed such that the direct illumination does not unreasonably spill over on adjoining properties. The exterior lighting shall be coordinated for the site, including both parking lot lighting and building lighting. The exterior lighting plan shall be prepared and submitted as part of the final site plan process. 9. Pedestrian walkways shall be provided that connect the parking areas to building entrances. Pedestrian connections shall be clearly defined by textured paving, including vehicular lanes, such as unit pavers, stamped concrete, or scored concrete. These walkways shall be shown on the final site plan. 10.The concept of a recreational trail adjacent to the wetland area on Parcel 1221049041 shall be part of the final site plan review process and potential connection to the Interurban Trail explored. 11.Amendments to this Business Park rezone may occur as follows: a. The Planning Director may interpret the words and meaning of the certain conditions in order to resolve conflicts in implementation. b. If changes to the language of the rezone are required, such proposed changes shall be reviewed by the Planning and Community Development Committee of the City Council, or its successor. If the change is minor--less than 10% change--then the Committee shall make a recommendation to the City Council. If the change is major--greater than 10% modification--then the Committee shall refer the change to the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner shall conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council. c. Amendments to the rezone shall only be initiated by the property owner of the City. Ordinance No. 6297 March 10, 2010 Page 8 Section 4. Upon the passage, approval, and publication of this Ordinance as provided by law, the City Clerk of the City of Auburn shall cause this Ordinance to be recorded in the office of the King County Recorder. Section 5. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance or any of the Zoning Map amendments adopted herein, is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any Court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision, and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 6. The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directives of this legislation. Section 7. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force five days from and after its passage, approval, and publication as provided by law. INTRODUCED: MAR 15 2010 PASSED: MAR 1 5"2010 MAYOR ATTEST: Da ' Ile E. Daskam, City Clerk Ordinance No. 6297 March 10, 2010 Page 9 APPROVED: ueQ t c 7nfn APPROVED AS TO FORM: Daniel B. Heid, City Attorney Published: Ordinance No. 6297 March 10, 2010 Page 10 Exhibit 1 Staff Recommended Permitted Uses Fiorito Business Park Rezone ~ PERMITTED USES I ENTIRE BUILDING REAR PORTION BUILDING ONLY ' 1 Arcades YES YES 2 Art, music, and photography studios YES YES 3 Auction houses, excludin animals YES YES 4 Automobile re air services YES YES 5 Automobile sales, new and/or used YES YES 6 Automobile or truck rental YES YES 7 Automobile washes YES YES ! 8 Banking and related financial institutions YES YES 9 Building contractor services, includin stora e ards, if screened YES YES 10 Civic, social, and fraternal associations YES YES 11 Delicatessens YES YES 12 D cleanin and laund services YES YES , 13 I I, Equipment rental and leasing, does not include heavy construction e ui ment YES YES ' 14 Hotels YES YES 15 Laund , self-service YES YES I 16 Lumber ards YES YES 17 Mini-stora e warehouses YES YES 18 Motorc cle sales and service YES YES , 19 Personal service sho s YES YES ' 20 Printin and ublishin YES YES 21 ProfessionalOffices YES YES 22 Recreational vehicle sales lots YES YES ' 23 Restaurants YES YES 24 Retail stores and shops, including department and variety stores as listed in ACC Section 18.30.020 WW 1-32 . YES YES 25 Re-u holste and furniture re air YES YES I 26 ~ Storage warehousing, limited to being incidental to principal ermitted use on ro ert YES, EXCEPT WHERE RETAIL REQUIRED PER CONDITION 5 YES 27 Truck sales with re air as YES YES Ordinance No. 6297 March 10, 2010 Page 11 Exhibit 1 i seconda use 28 Health and h sical fitness clubs YES YES 29 Household movers and stora e YES YES 30 Janitorial Services YES YES 31 Manufacturing, assembling and YES YES packaging of articles, products and merchandise when conducted entirely within an enclosed building I and if 1 job per 1,000 square feet is created. 32 Printing, publishing, and allied YES YES i industries including such processes as lithography, etching, engraving, binding, blueprinting, photocopying, and film rocessin 33 Research, develo ment and testin YES YES ; 34 Small a liance re air YES YES , 35 Warehousing and distribution YES, EXCEPT WHERE YES facilities, to include wholesale trade RETAIL REQUIRED not open to the general public. This PER CONDITION 5 ~ includes motor freight transportation as an incidental use but specifically excludes motor freight transportation as the rinci al use of the ro ert 36 Other uses may be permitted by YES YES the Planning Director if the use is ~ determined to be consistent with the intent of the Fiorito Business Park Zone and is of the same general character of the uses ' ermitted in this list Ordinance No. 6297 March 10, 2010 Page 12 Exhibit 2 DESIGN STANDARDS FIORITO BUSINESS PARK REZONE 1. STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO SITE DESIGN A. Parking Lots 1. Surface lots shall have a planter bed that includes at least one tree, a minimum of two inch caliper at the time of planting, shrubs, and groundcover. B. Pedestrian Walkways 1. Pedestrian connections not less than five (5) feet wide shall be provided through parking lots to building entrances and sidewalks. 2. Pedestrian connections shall be clearly defined by textured paving, including across vehicular lanes, such as scored concrete, stamped concrete, or unit pavers. C. Lighting 1. Only City approved standard fixtures shall be uses for public sidewalk lighting. 2. All site lighting shall be shielded from producing off-site glare and so that the direction of the light is downward. 3. The maximum height allowed for parking lot lighting is 24 feet. 4. Site lighting should be appropriate to create adequate visibility at night, evenly distributed to increase security, and coordinated with adjacent landscaping to avoid casting long shadows. D. Screening of Trash and Service Areas 1. Trash and service areas shall be placed away from streets. 2. All service, loading, and trash collection areas shall be screened by a masonry fence and planting, with similar character to the design of the building it serves. II. STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO BUILDING DESIGN A. Entrances 1. Main entrances should be oriented so they are visible to the public right-of- way. 2. Building entrances shall have awnings a minimum of four (4) feet deep and cover the entire door width. B. Landscaping adjacent to Building(s) 1. To provide visual transition of the joining of a building to the site, a minimum four (4) foot landscape space between the exterior wall and the horizontal paved surfaces, except at entrances/exits, loading docks, and service entries Ordinance No. 6297 March 10, 2010 Page 13 Exhibit 2 shall be provided. A mix of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be included. C. Building(s) Facades 1. All new buildings shall include on the fagade visible from the public street, public recreational facilities, or the freeway shatl the following: a. Varied courses or panel of material b. Articulated wall panels with accentuated joints, edges, or reveals visible from the street. c. Windows, doors, or other openings over at least 20 percent of the building. d. Articulated roofline or building base. D. If concrete blocks (concrete masonry units or "cinder blocks") are used for walls that are visible from a public street/freeway, public recreational facility, or pedestrian route, then the concrete block construction must be architecturally treated in one or more of the following ways: 1. Use of textured blocks with surfaces such as split-face or grooved. 2. Use of colored mortar. 3. Use of other masonry types, such as brick, glass block, or tile, in conjunction with concrete blocks. 4. Use of decorative coursing to break up blank wall areas. E. If concrete tilt-up structures are used for walls that are visible from a public street/freeway, public recreational facility, or pedestrian route, then the concrete wall must be architecturally treated in one or more of the following ways: 1. Provided a textured scale to be visually perceptible at the distance viewed by the public 2. Provide a pattern or composition created by casting relief in the exposed face of the concrete. 3. Create compositions with horizontal profile; a repetitive pattern applied to multiple panels is acceptable. Ordinance No. 6297 March 10, 2010 Page 14 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF AUBURN 2 3 4 5 6' 7 SI 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner RE: Fiorito Business Park FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS Rezone OF LAW AND RECOMMENDATION. REZ09-0003 INTRODUCTION The applicant has requested a rezone of an approximateIy 10-acre parcel fi•om C-3 (Heavy Commercial) to BP (Business Park). The Examiner x•ecommends approval of the request with conditians. ORAL TESTIMONY Ms. Chamberlain noted that the SEPA comment period had ended the day before and no coniments were supplied. Gary Volchok, applicant's representative; testified on the histoiy of the property. He noted that the Fiorito brothers used to own the adjosning Costco property. He noted that as part of the short plat to create the Castco property, the Fiorito brothers instalied all utilities including stormwater, but that due ta a change in stormwater regulations additianal stormwater facilities will have to be installed. He noted that he was in general agreement with the staff recommendation and appreciates the work of the staff in the past year and a half in pr•ocessing the application. He noted that originally in 2005 and 2006 when the City did some major rezoning of the area, the planning department approved maintaining the property as M-1 but the Council changed the designatian to commercial in order to generate sales taxes. Subsequently the owners have tried to seil the property to several users without any success. When the property was zoned M-1 in 2004, the applicant acquired SEPA and grading permit approval for a boat-manufacturing operation, which is shown on the conceptuai site plan. The conceptual site plan will probably not reflect wliat is actually built, but the planning director wili have final au#liority on the site plan. Property to the north of the property is all wetlands. Fotlunately, the floodplain is also confined noz•th of tha proparty, Mr. Volchok noted that only 0.3% of City land is vacant industrial land. There are 2861 gross acres of M-1 land. In reality, if you remave wetlands, railroad property and nonindustrial uses, there is only 35 acres left to be developed. There is 1432 acres of C-3 zoning. He noted that driving along SR 167 from SR 18 to 277`1' he couirted 22 x•ealtor signs for avaiiable C-3 propei•ties, Tliese were empty lots with excellent exposure, easy access, and excellent synergy with surrounding uses. (PA0768723.DOC;1100083.960000\ ) Rezone p. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Mr. Volchok noted that originally the staff recorainended a text aniendment to allow BP uses in the C-3 zone. A significant amount of work went in to preparing for a Iiearing on this amendment and then it was discovered that the text amendment would affect all C-3 property. The soiutioji was to rezoiie the property to BP as proposed. Mr. Volchok noted that the only BP property in the City is the 18-acre Opus propei-ty located on SW 15"' near the Supermall. It is 100% daveloped. Consequently, rezoning the applicant's property as requested would be a public benefit because there is no BP zoning and there is very Iittle M-1 propeity. Part of this shartfall in M-1 praperty was due to adoptiozi of the City's wetlands ordinance. For a viable C-3 parcel you need gaod visibility, good access, and synergy with like users. The applicant's propet-ty has none of the tlu-ee. Mr. Volchok took pictures gaing east, west, north, and south aloiig adjoining roads, SR 167 and 15 NW. Usitig the photos Mr. Volchok denianstrated tliat you can only see the applicant's property tintil yott get to M Street from 15ti' NW. The Opus property has excellent visibility fi•om adjoining roads. On access, the only way in and out of tlie property is M Street. Mr. Volchok noted that there is a very high volume af traffic alang 15`11, making it very difficult to tum onto M Street. He noted that the City of Auburn and WSDOT have advised that a traffic lig}rt at the M Street/15"' NW intersection would not be permitted due to its proximity to the on ramp to SR 167. On synergy, the OPUS property has the Supermall, offzce space, etc.,.for excellent synergy. Mr. Volchok noted that there is no synergy at the applicant's propeily. The property is surrounded by wetlands and a creek and 29"` NW is closed. Mr. Volchok stated that the access road to the praperty is fully improved and that he does nat understand why staff wan#s to recommend additional improvements. Mr. Volchok noted that the applicant has tried for four or five years to sell the property for a C-3 use and that even in the heiglat of tlie real estate boom in 2007, no one would want to use it for that purpose because of the problems he described. Mr. Volchok referred to the letters from James Hamm and Patrick Gemma in Exhibit 19, both experts on real estate development, who both conclude in their letters that the property is not fit for commercial use. In response to questions from the Examiner on the accuracy of the conceptual si#e plan, Mr. Volchak respanded that it was not possible at this tinie to pxovide anything more concrete. Mr. Volchok noted that the actual building will be considerably smallec• than that characterized in the concephial site plan, because the commercial uses will generate mare parking. Mr. Volchok aisa pointed out that the proposal does involve a designation of a set of uses. Mr. Volchok also noted that the proposai also included a higher standard of cons#ruction in order to ensure a resuIting public benefit. {PA0768723.DOC;1100083.900000\ } Rezone p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 2 3 4 S b 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Paul Cyr, auother applicant representative, iioted that the site plan is recommended by staff and lias soine uses attached to it. The proposal includes a maximum square footage of 92,000 square feet. The proposal aiso identifies development standards that will be exceeded as part of the proposal, including design standards. Design standards otherwise do not apply to tlie G3 zone. Mr. Cyr nated that finding of Fact No. 16 of the staff report requix•es frontage improvements. He noted that the road is nlready fully developed and met tlie standards vested under the Costco short plat. The pz•imary difference between what was built and what is x•equired hy staff is a bike lane. Mr. Cyr also noted that if a bike lane were included it would be isolated and not part of any bike lane network. Mr. Seek also noted that there was iiisufficient right-of-way (paved portion of the road) for a bike lane. The Interurban Trail does run along the back side of Costco. Ms. Cliamberlaiai commented that one way to conriect to the Intec•urban Trail would be to ru» tlie bike lane along M Street to the Trail. Mr. Cyr also took issue with the staff recommendation that at least 25% of the building be retail. Mr. Cyr noted that this recommendation was located at Page 6 of the staff report but it was not incorporated into the recommended conditions of approval. Mr. Cyr recommended that the flexibility for retail should be retained and that any retail should be located in the front, birt that there should be no mininnim retail requirement, Mr. Cyr also noted that in Exhibit 13, item 26 and item 35 limit storage and warehousing to the rear portion of the building atid that this was not consistent with everyone's understanding that warehousing was generally allowed tliroughout the building. Randy Fiorito, president of Fiorito Brothers. He testified that Fiorito Brothers has owned the praperty since the late 1960s. They were involved in building in SR 167 wliicli is how they acquired the property. Fiorito Brothers completely rebuilt M street when they sold the Costco propei-ty. Fiorito Brothers owns 35% of fhe property and his mother owns the rest. They have desperately been trying to sell the property for severat years. Considerable money was spent on the Costco propeety and they are in the process now of instaliing drainage facilities and fill material. Mr. Volchok clarified that the property was last rezoned in 2006. He also confrmed that the commercial retail market has plummeted since that rezone. Ms. Chamberlain noted that curb and gutter for M Street would not be necessary, but that bike lanes and street trees may still be required undex current street standards. Ms. Chamberlain noted that the City recently updated its Comprehensive Transportation Plan to identify a bike lane along M Street to connect to the Interurban Trail. She noted that the bike laiie connection woLtld be along M Street through 29`t' to the Interurban Trail. She noted that although 29"' street is currently closed, it will eventuaIly be opened again. {PA0768723.DOC;1\00083.906000\ } Rezone p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 2 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1'1 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Ms. Cliamberlain noted that the total square feet of the project may not exceed 95,000 square feet. She noted that the 25% Iimitation on retail space was intended to be in the conditions of approvat and should be added. Ms. Chamberlain said that the need for the retail is a balaiicing of the goals and policies of the City. She noted that the City caruiot continue to have warehousing due to the impacts on the City's arterial network with no off-setting tax beiiefit. She stated that staff was willing to negotiate an the 25% number. She said that replacing the 25% of the building with a reguirement for the first 20 interior feet of the building from the front of the Uuilding be retail, as required for Opus in pages 13-14 of Ordinance No. 5607, would be acceptable. Ms, Chamberlain explained that there is only one BP use in the City currently because tlie BP designation is a conti•act rezone process that only works in specific locations and the rezone must be initiated by the propex•ty owner. Ms. Cliamberlain noted that about 18% of the City is industriat and that a substantial part of it is developed, but there is potential for redeveiopment. She stated that the City has determined that the City is balanced in its proportion of industrial ta commercial land. Ms. Cliamberlain stated that staff would be agreeable to modifying Exhibit 13 to allow warehousing and storage throughout the buiIding except the front, instead of limiting it to the rear of the building. Ms. Cliamberlain also said staff would be agreeable to having the conditions require fi•ontage "according to code" as opposed to specifying specific bike lanes, etc. Mr. Cyr noted that he served for eight years as a Pierce County Council member from 1997 to 2004 during which time a comprehensive plan was adopted. He stated that the Auburn City Council passed a resohition addressing the streamlined sales tax and lie suspects that the adoption of this resolution prompted the City Council to look for ways to attract iaiore tax revenue. He noted that the resolution does not have the force of law and is just an expression of intent and is not binding on the applicant's proposal. Ms. Chamberlain noted that the resolution has been embedded into the City's comprehensive plan and tluough the plan daes have regulatory authority over development projects. Mr. Volchok noted that Auburn lost a tremendous amount of development potential when it adopted its wetlands regulation in 1987. He noted that it took him 10 years to get an Army Corp wetlands permit for another Fiorito project. He also noted that he does not believe in his lifetime that funding will ever ba found to open 29"" given the creek and railroad crossing that would be involved. EXHIBITS All exhibits listed in the Exhibit List at Page 9-10 of the staff report on this application, dated 2/3/10, are admitted. In the addition, the following exliibits were admitted during the hearing on this matter: Exhibit 16 Affidavit of Publication (on published notice of hearing). Exhibit 17 Auburn Ordinance No. 4962 (PA0768723.DOC;1100083.900000\ ) Rezone p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 2 3 4 Exhibit 18 Auburii Ordinance No. 5607 Exhibit 19 Hamm/Gemma Correspondence, Applicant Photas. ExhiUit 20 Volchok written comments. FINDTNGS OF FACT Procedurat: Auplicant. The applicants are the Fiorito Brothers, represented by Gary 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Volchok. 2. Hearing. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the application at 5:30 p.m. at Auburn City Hall in the Council Chambers on February 17, 2010. Substantive: 3. Site/Propasal Description. The applicant has applied for the rezoning of an approximate 10-acre parcel from C-3 (Heavy Commercial) to BP (Business Park). The property was zaned Heavy Comrnercial in ox•der to encourage retail use in an area that is proximate and visible to SR 167. Tlie applicant has faund that the area is not suitable for exclusive retail use and wishes to rezone it to BP in order to allow foz• a mixture of retail and other uses such as industrial. , In order to acquire approval of a rezone to BP, the applicant must acquire approval of a contract rezone that incorporates a conceptual site plan. ACC 18.36.020. The planning director shall approve the final site plan. The applicant acknowledges tliat liis conceptual site plan is based upon one proposed industrial use from several years ago and will have little relation to what will actually be developed. There was some testimony to the effect that the site plan establishes a maximum building area of 95,004 square feet, but this Iimitation is already included in the xecammended conditions of approval. The site plan presented by the applicant appears to be completely meaningless. The applicant has agreed to eiihanced design requirements that would nat otherwise be applicable. These are outiined in Exhibit 14. The applicant has also agreed to a limited set of uses for the property, which are autlined in Exhibit 15. 4. Characteristics of the Area. The site is adjoined by SR 167 to the west, a Castco distribution facility on the east, an undeveloped wetlands and floodplain area to the north, and 15"' St. NW to the south, Emerald Downs is located east of the Costco facility. M Street only connects to 15th St. NW. Assessor and other maps show that M street loops into 29'h Street, hut 291h Street is closed. As noted by the applicant, the project site is fairly isolated from any other use. There is conflicting evidence on whether the project site is visible from SR 167, with staff stating tliat it is visible, in paiticular going southbound on SR 167 while the applicant presented photos (Ex. 19) that it is not. The photos do not show what can be seen at auto level, {PA0768723.DOC;1160083.990400\ } Rezone p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision so they are of limited utility. Vegetation or topography may very well Iimit visibility from SR 167 but this is not evident from tlie photos. 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 5. Public Benefit. A critical requirement for approval of a BP designation is that it must result in a public benefit. The applicant has made a compelling argunient that the property caimot be developed as a C-3 use. In addition to all the evidence presented by the applicants, there is also the comman sense conclusion that if they could have sold the property as C-3, they would have done sa given the value of that type af property. As a baseline, therefore, it must be acknowledged that there is a public beziefit to the proposed rezone simpiy because it will facilitate the development of vacant land in an urban area. This promotes the creation of jobs and an increase in real propeFly taxes. The use limita#ions and design staudards agreed to by the applicant (Exhibits 13 and 14) further add to public benefit by enhancing the coznpatibility of the deveiopment witli surrounding uses and enhancing the aesthe#ic values of that development. The one downside to the xezone is that it facilitates industrial use, which the Cify believes to create a demand on public seivices (mainly street wear and tear by industrial vehicles) with no off setting generation of public revenue through a sales tax. The staff requirement for a mix of retail and industrial use off-sets this downside. During the hearing staff and the applicant agreed upon language similar to that specified pages 13-14 of Ordiiiance No. 5607 where it designates a minimum an'iount of z•etail use. Although the parties came to agreement on some of this language, the portion agreed upon does not stand upon its own. The parties agreed to a minimum require;nent of 20 feet of interior space from retaii windows without agreeing upon how much window space is required. The Examiner will include the amount of window space specified in Ordinance No. 5607 as well. Given the lack of marketability of the property as a C-3 use and the design standards and use limitations agreed to by the applicant, the proposal creates a net public benefit. 6. Adverse Impacts. As nated above, the proposal will create a net public benefi#. As noted during public testimony, the project area recently wen# thraugh sliort plat review. This shoit plat review required fitll infrastructure improvements and mitigation for comniercial use of the subject lot. As nated by the applicants, most of the improvements they have made satisfy all current development standards, btit there wili be some improvements in response to changes in stormwater standards. Staff have also noted that some street improvements may be necessary, in particular the addition of a bike Iane to M Street as contemplated in the recently updated its Comprehensive Transportation Plan, which now identifies a bike lane along M Street as connecting to the Interurban Trail. All of these infrastructure improvements are minor enough to be addressed at the site plan review stage of approval. Given some of the issues associated with the connectivity of the bike lane, the bike lane requiz•ement is also best left ta the site plan review stage when there may be inore information available a6out firture connectivity. {PA0768723.DOC;1\60083.9000001 } Rezone p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 211 22 23 24 25 There are no adveise impacts discernable from the record given that infrastructure improvernents can be adeqttately addressed at site plan review, that there are na environmentally sensitive areas associated with the site, and that there are no compatibility problems with adjoining land uses. CONCLUSI4NS OF LAVV Procedural: 1. Authoritv of Hearing Examiner. ACC 18.68.030(B)(1)(a) grants the Hearing Examiner with the authority to review and make a recommendation on rezone requests to the City Council if the planning director determines that the rezone requests are consistent with the comprehensive plan. The planning director has determined that the rezone request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan land use map designation for the property is Heavy Commercial with an overlay of "z•egion serving." ACC 18.36.010 provides that the BP zone may be established in any area designated "region serving" that is zoned commercial or industrial. Substantive: 2. Zoning Designation. The property is curz•ent zoned C-3 (Neavy Commercial). h 3. Case Law Review Criteria and Application. Washington appellate courts have imposed some criteria themselves, reqtiiring that the proponents of a rezone must establish tliat conditions have substantially changed since the original showing and that the rezone must bear a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals or weffare. See Ahmann-Yamwme, LLC v. Tabler, 145 Wn. App. 103, 111 (2001). If a rezone implements the Comprehensive Pian, a shawing tha# a change of eircumstances has occurred is not required. Id. at 112. As discussed in the staff repozt, there is no question that the project is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The requirement for retaining some retail use along with the industrial use helps to support Auburn's role as a regional employtnen# and commercial center as contemplated by Policy LU-3. The design standards agreed upon by the applicant in conjunction with the frontage retail requirement is consistent with the LU-1 Q9 prohibition on placing industrial usas in highly visible areas (if the area even qualifies as highly visible - as noted previoiisly the evidence an this issue is incomplete). The rezone facilitates the development of the vacant land into uses that will create jobs, as consistent with Policy ED-8. Attliough the policy may be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, it is debatable whether it "implements" the Comprehensive Plan. The current C-3 designation is also consistent witlx the Comprehensive Plan. It is unclear from the case law whether changing fronl one consistent use to another qualifies as "implementing" the plan. {PA0768723.DOC; 1\00083.9000001 } Rezone p. 7 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 2 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The courts use of the terin "iinplement" the Plan instead of the standard requirement for consistency with the Plan suggests that something moi•e is required. The only reasonably plausible "something more" is that the change is necessary for consistency witlz the plan. Given that a rezone is not necessary to achieve consistency witli the Comprehensive Plan, a change in circumstances is necessary. The severe downturn iix the comniercial real estate market, as testif ed by Mr. Volchok, qualifies as a change in circumstances since the last rezone af the property in 2006. Since the proposal will result in a net public benefit as discussed in the Fitxdings of Fact, it bears a substantial relationship ta the public health, safety, niorals or welfare as required by the case law cited abave, 4. Code Requirements for Approval of a BP Rezone. Although Auburn's inunicipal code does not provide any review standards for rezones in general, there are specific standards that apply to i•ezones to the BP designafion. These standards are identified in Chapter 18.36 ACC. Relevant standards are quoted below with accompanying analysis in conclusions af law. ACC 18.36.020(A)(1): Conceptual approval of a business park shall be applied by fhs rezone process as specified in ACC 18.68.030(B)(1)(a). The rezone shall be a confract rezone and shall include an agreement fhat esfablishes fhe type, square footage and general location of the uses the location and size af the park, restrictive covenants; public improvements; and the responsibilities of the 'owner/developer. 5. As mentioned previously, the conceptual site plan offered by the applicant is worthless, since the applicant and staff both acknowledge that the project will probably not bear any resemblance to what is diagramed in the site plan. However, it should be recognized that no site plan is actually required by ACC 18.36.020(A)(1) at this stage of review. Exhibits 13 and 14, in conjunction witli the 95,000-square-foot size limitation and the boundai•ies of the, subject parcel provide the information requi;•ed by ACC 18.36.020(A)(1). It is a little puzzling why the applicant has presented any actual site plan, since all it accomplishes is coi;fusion. It is understood that the site plan helps establish a maximuin building area for the project, but if that is all it is used for, its purpose inust he more clearly expressed. ACC 18.36A20(A)(2): A BP disfrict shall only be approved when the owner/developer has demonstrafed that a public benefit will result and the project contains architectural, site, and landscape design standards that are significantly superior to those typically required in the other industrial and commercial zones. b. As noted in Finding af Fact No. 5, the project creates a net public benefit. A comparison of the standards agreed upon by the applicant (Exhibit 13) to those required in other industrial and commercial zones reveals that they are significantly superior. { PA0768723.DOC;1100083.9000001 } Rezone p. 8 Findings, Conclusions and Decision ACC 18.36.020(A)(3): No significant impacts on the public infrasfrucfure shall occur that cannat be effecfively mitigated by the developmenf of the business park. 2 3 4 'S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Za 25 7. As discussed in Finding of Fact No. G, infrastz•ucture impzovements will be relatively minor and can be addressed duriug site plan review. DECISION The Hearing Examiner recommends approval of REZ09-0003, subject to the following condition: 1. A lot line eliinination shall be processed concurreixtly with the final site plan approval. 2, The applicant shall submit a traffic impact aualysis, storm drainage report, and wetland report as part af tlie final site plan approval process. 3. The permitted uses shall be those uses identifed in Exhibit 13 with the exceptions previously noted. Items 26 and 35 of Exhibit 13 are revised to allow the specified uses throughout the buildings of the project except in the areas required for retail use. 4. The project shall comply with the design standards as outlined in Exhibit 14. As part of the final site plan submittal and review process, the applicaiit shall submit building elevations demonstrating how the proposed building complies with the Fiorito Business Park Design Standards. 5. The general location of the proposed building to be developed on the subject site shall be cansistent with the conceptual site pian dated Febiuary 5, 2010. The total area of any proposed building shall be limited to 95,000 square feet. The proposed storm drainage facility may increase depending on the outcome of the final site plan review which could impact locatian of parking spaces and will be reviewed as pact of the final site plan review process. The project shall comply with the retail space requirements of Condition 2(B)(1) of Auburn Ordinance No. 5607. 6. A master landscape plan shall be prepared for the entire project site. A minimum ten-(10)-foot-wide landscape area shall be constructed along the M Street NW as it rises to intersect lSth Street NW and shall be designed in an innovative way to create a gateway into the project. The mastex• landscape plan shall be prepared and submitted as part of the final site plan process. 7. A master sign plan shall be prepared and approved by the City that coordinates the exterior signs of tlie individual tenants. The sign regulations outlined in ACC Chaptea• 18.56 for the C-3 zone shall apply for szze, heiglrt, and number of signs permitted, Signage shall he part of tlie architecture of the building and not an afterthought; however, the architectural design of the tenants' logos is not intended to {PA0768723.UOC;1100083.964600\ } Rezone p. 9 Findings, Conclusions and Decision be altered by this conditioti. The master sign plan shall be prepared and submitteci as part of the final site plan process. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 12 13 14 15 lb 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 8. All exterior lighting shall be designeci and eonstructed sueh that the direct illumination does not uiireasonably spill over on adjoining properties. The exterior ligliting sliall be coordinated for the site, including both parking lot lighting aud building lighting. The exterior lighting plan sliall be prepared and submitted as pall of the final site plan process. 9. Pedestrian walkways shall be provided that coruiect the parking areas to btiilciing entrailces. Pedestrian connections shall be clearly clefined by textured paving, including vehicular lanes, sucli as unit pavers, stamped concrete, or scored concrete. These walkways shall be shown on the final site plan. 10. The concept of a recreational trail adjaeent to tlie wetland area an Parcel 1221049041 shall be part of ttie final site plan review process and potential coniiection to the Iziterurban Trail exploreci, 11. Anienclments to this Business Park rezone rnay occur as follows: a. The Plannirig Director may intez•pret the words and meaning of the certain conditions in orcier to resolve coriflicts iii implementation. b. If changes to the Ianguage of the rezone are required, such proposed changes sliall be rev'rewed by the PlaTUning ancl Community Development Committee of the City Council, or its suceessor. If the change is minor---less than 10% change-tlien the ComYnittee shail niake a recanimendation to the City Council. If the cliange is major-greater than IQ% modification-tlien the Cointnittee shall refer the change to tlie Hearing EYaminer. The Hearizig Examiner shall conduct a public heariiig and inake a reconitnendation to the City Council. c. Amendments to the rezone shall oniy be initiated by the proper-ty owner of the City. Dated this lst day of March, 2010. P ilOlbrechts Czty of Auburn Hearing Examiner (PA0768723.DOC;1100083.900000\ } Rezone p. 10 Fiiidings, Caiiclusions and Decision