HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-26-2009
~
~
Cin oF ~ PLANNING & COMMUNITY
EVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
D
URN
WASHINGTON
February 26, 2009
MEETING MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Lynn Norman called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers
located on the first floor of Auburn City Hall, 25 West Main Street, Auburn, WA Committee
members present Lynn Norman, Chair; Nancy Backus and Rich Wagner.
Staff members present Cindy Baker, Director Planning, Building and Community, Kevin
Snyder, Assistant Director Planning, Building and Community; Chris Andersen, Senior
Planner; and Steven King, Assistant City Attorney. Audience members present: Consultant
Gil Cerise with Jones & Stokes Associates.
I1. DISCUSSION
A. Code Update Project
Assistant Director Kevin Snyder stated that discussion of flexible development
alternatives options would be led by Senior Planner Chris Andersen, and that he would
lead a discussion of residential zoning classification system options. He stated that at
the meeting, staff will be asking for direction and guidance from the Committee on the
two items on the agenda.
Planning, Building and Community Director Cindy Baker added that this week's meeting
is really to provide Committee members with the residential zoning "alphabeY" and to
begin working with the definitions, and then at the meeting on March 5, 2009, staff will
start applying the definitions.
Mr. Andersen presented a project rating worksheet handout that showed an example of
a tool the City could use to evaluate the eligibility of mixed-use development proposals
for the Flexible Development Alternatives process. This would be used in conjunction
with an application to determine if the project would be eligible for flexible development
alternatives. Staff and the Committee members reviewed the matrix. Staff discussed
the matrix and how it is set up as a two tier system. Eligibility criteria would be weighted
to reflect the City's priorities using a point system.
The first tier was discussed point by point. Specific zoning districts were proposed for
mixed-use flexible development alternatives, but not the Downtown Urban Center
(DUC). Mr. Andersen asked the Committee to think about whether the DUC zone
should be added.
The first tier consists of minimum requirements that must be met for mixed use
development to be eligible for flexible development alternatives and all criteria may not
be transferable to other development types.
Planning and Community Development Committee Minutes February 26, 2009
The Committee referenced green zone conversion and asked if it will fit into this tier. Mr.
Snyder stated this would not be in a non-residential area but more commercial use area
such as Auburn Way North. Committee added that the requirement for ownership and
control was a requirement that should be clarified.
Mr. Andersen led the discussion on how the next tier is used in evaluating the feature
and the possible points that can be scored. As written now, a project needs to score 100
points to qualify for use of the flexible development alternatives. Committee discussed
the use of a glossary to define acronyms and definitions such Built Green.
Committee asked if there is going to be a process to measure the carbon foot print of the
project. Director Baker said the State is ready to make it a requirement for building
under SEPA.
Mr. Snyder added a lot of the concepts are based on the City's current Comprehensive
Plan. Mr. Andersen read through the next 8 categories, which include Urban Design;
Neighborhood and Safety; Housing and it was noted there is no requirement for Special
Housing; Open Space and Recreation; Natural Resources and Protection;
Cultural/Historic features, notable or heritage could be added; and Transportation will
focus on transit agencies, pedestrians, bikes.
The Committee would like to see significant points go to a developer in the
transportation category. Committee discussed a developer making a contribution to
another area if they can't make a contribution in the area where they are building.
Committee further discussed the criteria, and how terms used in the matrix would be
defined. The Committee stated they would want to see broad benefit, not just in one
area (like wetland mitigation). Committee also would not want someone to put a public
amenity such as a park or trail in an area that is not usable. A facility to support walking
or biking would be good feature. Mr. Snyder stated the contribution should be a benefit
to the greater public. Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) is one option that can be
for the benefit of everybody and something that can be identified with.
Economic Development is Category 9. This covers the creation of new jobs or one
option would be to retain jobs rather then have them leave the community.
Mr. Andersen said ultimately the application must score over a hundred points and
points have to be drawn from different areas. Also, there could be different levels of
flexibility with each technique. Staff does not want a product that has to be explained
every time and get mired down with details. Committee concluded that staff is on the
right track with this matrix.
The Committee discussed how this process would affect the length of time for a project
review. A pre-approval process will increase the length of time to the project. However,
the matrix should make it easier for staff review of the project and should expedite the
review process.
Assis#ant City Attorney King stated that the more objective any of the criteria can be, the
more defensible it will be for the City. If the criteria can reference an outside standard, it
will take the issue of subjectivity off the table. This will not be possible in all situations.
The question was asked if it would be necessary to reference the City of Auburn's own
Page 2
,
Planning and Community Development Committee Minutes February 26, 2009
documents. Mr. King stated anything that can be pointed out by a well documented city
document will be useful.
The Committee discussed long term goals. Mr. King added at this point in the review it
is too early to determine, but the City would not like to rule out any particular
mechanism. Legal has asked to be in the review process when getting close to
specifics. Committee discussed other outside agencies and how they might have
involvement. Committee discussed if the City needs mechanisms. If written well
enough, the code will take care of any issues.
The Committee discussed examples of the flexible development alternatives that could
be granted if a project meets the eligibility requirements. Mr. Snyder stated that there
would be general flexible alternatives and criteria-specific flexible alternatives.
The Committee discussed allowing a density bonus as part of the flexible development
alternatives. Director Baker stated it would be atlowing greater density and that would
possibly mean going up in height. Staff has been working on an analysis of different
zones and a different base zoning.
Mr. Snyder presented his PowerPoint presentation on the Residential Zoning
Classifications. He indicated that the presentation tonight is a primer for next week.
Mr. Snyder said the current residential classification system is a reference system. This
system can lead to confusion. The goals of classification are be understandable, relate,
provide direction, implement goals, and clearly distinguish zones.
The Committee added the current system seems to lack continuity and is not intuitive. A
zone such as R2 with no direct association can create confusion. A density based
classification system has a more global context as to the number of dwelling units
allowed per acre. Mr. Snyder said key considerations are the zoning map will change,
there will need to be an exptanation and a period of education.
The Committee discussed Growth Management and the responsibility of the cities.
Mr. Snyder reiterated the key policy questions for the Committee: What are the
Committee's perspectives on a classification system?; What are the Committee's
feelings regarding lot square footage or density-based classification systems?; Does the
Committee concur with the staff recommendation to adopt a density-based system?; and
does the Committee have other questions or information needs before moving forward?.
The Committee discussed the CUP issue and how it will be resolved. Director Baker
stated the CUP will still be allowed but the density issue will probably not be part of a '
CUP. Mr. Snyder added the CUP could possibly not be part of the zoning code any
longer. Staff may have a small list of items that will be cover by a CUP.
Mr. Snyder said next week the Committee should be prepared to work on a draft of
density based residential classification systems and draft development standards, and to
discuss a range of potential housing types for draft permitted uses table.
Staff and Committee together will work in a timely manner to move forward.
Page 3
Planning and Community Development Committee Minutes February 26, 2009
III. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Planning and Community Development
Committee, Chair Norman adjourned the meeting at 6:24 p.m.
APPROVED THIS 9th DAY OF March 2009
L n Norman, Chair Carolyn own
Assistant Planning Secretary
Page 4