HomeMy WebLinkAboutITEM V-D11 1 0~
Memorandum
~~x~~~
To: Planning and Development Department
From: Elizabeth Chamberlain, Planning Manager
CC: Kevin Snyder, Planning and Development Director
Date: March 8, 2011
Re: Proposed Master Plan Code - New Chapterto Auburn City Code
Background
In March 2010, staff presented to the Committee for discussion the concept of a master plan
process within code for larger institutions and commercial developments to plan out phased
redevelopment efforts holistically. The Committee requested staff to research other codes and
cities experience with the master plan process, consult with Risk Management on the risk
assessment for this type of land use decision, and a recommendation on the appropriate
mechanism for approval.
At the May 24, 2010Committee meeting, staff presented the following responses to the
Committee's questions:
• Staff researched several other jurisdictions including Bellevue, Shoreline, Redmond,
Vancouver, and Bellingham. Approval authority varies between the jurisdictions from City
Council approval (Bellingham and Shoreline) to an administrative approval (Bellevue).
• Staff also met with Risk Management and Legal to look at the risk assessment of this type
of land use decision. No major concerns. Their recommendation was to have the City's
Hearing Examiner be the decision authority. The concept was also reviewed by two staff
people at WCIA; staff will provide draft code language for their review.
Next Steps
Given that it has been several months since the Committee last reviewed the master plan code
concept, staff wanted to provide a summary of the prior meetings and what direction the
Committee has provided to date. At the March 14, 2011 Committee meeting, staff would like to
begin discussing the broad framework of the proposed Master Plan Code.
1. Purpose
Page 1 of 3
T~ U I~r~1~D
(a) Recognize the valuable role played by public facilities such as educational and
religious institutions as well as large scale commercial development providing the
community with needed services.
(b) Master plan regulations provide the vehicle for large-scale, multi-phased developments
by obtaining approval of several projects at one time and coordinating future provisions
of infrastructure capacity.
(c) Provides opportunities for adjacent property owners, homeowner associations, and
businesses to evaluate the cumulative impacts associated with the full build out of
large scale public facilities and commercial developments. Also allows for public input on the design and development standards of these projects to minimize impacts to
adjacent properties and protect the character of the surrounding areas.
(d) Allows the City to plan for the extension/expansion of public infrastructure in a timely
and efficient manner and to ensure the large scale public facilities and commercial
developments are compatible with community character and values.
2. Applicability
(a) Institutional Uses such as community colleges, religious institution, public and private
schools (elementary and secondary) -minimum 5 acre site.
(b) Commercial Uses such as mall, phased development over several years -minimum
10 acre site.
3. Public Participation
(a) Recommend utilizing the neighborhood review meeting process outlined in Auburn
City Code (ACC) 18.02.130 (see attached code section).
(b) Also standard notification to adjacent property owners, notice board(s) posted on the
property, newspaper notice, and City website. Current notification radius is 300 feet;
staff recommends 500 feet similar to what is required for Administrative Use Permits.
4. Approval Timeframe/Periodic Review
(a) Initial approval of a master plan shall be a Type III review which requires approval by
the City's Hearing Examiner.
(b) Recommend a maximum of 10 years with a review by the City at year 5. At year 5,
potential of new conditions of approval if certain conditions have changed dramatically such as traffic or state/federal regulations not under the City's control.
(c) Recommend the periodic review year 5 require the applicant to conduct a
neighborhood review meeting pursuant to ACC 18.02.130.
5. Review Criteria
(a) Consistent with the comprehensive plan
(b) Complies with all applicable city codes
Page 2 of 3
A~TBUAN ~k MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED
(c) Concurrency -sufficient capacity in the transportation system to support the
development proposed in all phases
(d) Availability of public services such as water, sewer, storm, police, fire, and transit
(e) Protection of designated resources such as significant trees and critical areas if
applicable, in compliance with city code
(fl Mitigation of off-site impacts -all potential off-site impacts including, noise, glare,
traffic, will be identified and mitigated to the extent practicable
(g) Balance of benefits and impacts -public and community benefits of the proposed
public facility outweigh any impacts that cannot be mitigated after considering the alternatives
(h) Compatibility with adjacent land uses -master plan contains design, landscaping,
parking/traffic management, and multi-modal transportation elements that limit conflicts
between the proposed use and adjacent uses.
Staff would like to discuss the following questions with the Committee at the March 14, 2011
meeting:
1. Should staff consider other uses that could take advantage of a master plan process
besides the uses outlined under number 1 above?
2. Should the master plan process be voluntary or mandatory? Or should the master plan
process be voluntary for a certain level of development and mandatory for larger scale
development?
3. Is the Committee comfortable with a Hearing Examiner approval of a initial master plan
and administrative review at year 5?
4. Under Approval Timeframe/Periodic Review, does the Committee want to consider extensions beyond the ten year timeframe?
Page 3 of 3
A~TBUAN ~k MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED