Loading...
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