Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-25-2009 Special * * CITY OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY * 1 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE WASHINGTON AUGUST 25, 2009 SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Lynn Norman called the meeting to order at 5:45 p.m. in the Council Chambers located on the first floor of Auburn City Hall, 25 West Main Street, Auburn, WA. Committee members present were: Chair Lynn Norman, Vice Chair Nancy Backus and Member Rich Wagner. Also in attendance were Planning Commissioner members: Chair Judi Roland, Vice Chair Kevin Chapman, Bob Baggett, Ron Copple, and Dave Peace. Commissioners Michael Hamilton, Joan Mason and Peter DiTuri were excused. Staff members present included: Mayor Pete Lewis, Planning Director Cindy Baker, Assistant Director Kevin Snyder, Senior Planner Chris Andersen, Assistant City Attorney Steve King and Planning Secretary Renee Tobias. • II. JOINT STUDY SESSION WITH PLANNING COMMISSION A. Code Update Project This meeting is a continuation of the August 11, 2009 study session to discuss Tier 1 of the draft text amendment language for Phase 2 of the Code Update. Chapter 18.33 - Environmental Park District Assistant Planning Director Kevin Snyder reported that a significant amount of effort has been made by members of the City Council and staff to further develop market awareness of the Environmental Park District (EPD) through the establishment of the Auburn Scientific Center for Emergent New Technologies (ASCENT) concept. ASCENT is conceived as a facility where academics, new environmental or energy businesses and the public will come together to engage in research and development, new business incubation and public education and awareness. Staff has looked at lot coverage in relation to flexible development incentives as part of the regulation refinement. At the August 11, 2009 meeting, the group briefly reviewed the five options presented by staff (listed below). The initial interest of the Committee and Commission was to combine Option 3 and 4. Staff requested guidance on the priorities of the EPD and staff focus in drafting the amendments; Option 1: Update current regulatory structure - clarify permitted and conditional uses, modify site development standards and supplemental standards. Option 2: PerFormance zoning - Establish performance benchmarks addressing the acceptable intensity of land uses and its impact on surrounding properties and the immediate area. Option 3: Incentive zoning - Establish an incentive based approach similar to what was done in the recently adopted Chapter 18.49 (Flexible Development Alternatives) Planning and Community Development Committee Minutes August 25, 2009 and the concept of increased lot coverage flexibility discussed by staff and the Planning and Community Development Committee. Option 4: Market based zoning - This approach involves establishing the City's development expectations or "bookends" and then allowing the market decide how to best to meet the expectations. This approach is less about specifying uses and standards than it is about setting the "development bar". Option 5: Some combination of Options 1 through 4. Commissioner Chapman questioned if there was a building moratorium in the area and asked staff to speak to possible flooding in the area. Director Cindy Baker responded that the EPD is not in the FEMA flood plain. The challenge for the area would be the high ground water table which would affect building on and in the ground. It was noted by Director Baker that there are portions that have higher elevation. In response to Commissioner Peace's question regarding the interest of environmental or energy oriented companies in the Park, Councilmember Wagner related that there are a few companies interested. Councilmember Wagner noted that the City has not marketed the Park significantly up to this point in time. The Council is optimistic that once the flexible development incentives are identified, there will be plenty of companies interested. Currently, there are two biotech and one energy-related businesses in the Environmental Park District. Mayor Lewis related that these companies are talking to their counterparts about the District, who want access to laboratories, inexpensive rent and access to a hospital for sterilization of equipment One company relocated from Lake Washington and many of their employees commute to work via the Interurban Trail. The Committee and Commission discussed various green companies, such as a restaurant that recycles oil for biodiesel fuel and uses organic materials or a tow truck company that operates green and recycles their oil. It was a consensus that the standard needs to be the level of environmental operation and green conservation rather than a specific industry. Several incentives were discussed which included the following: 1) increased lot coverage, 2) reducing on-site parking requirements in exchange for design features, 3) removing parking requirement for a coordinated shuttle system to the Transit Center, 4) increasing allowable site density, and 5) public access trails and paths. The group agreed that mixed use, with no more than 50% residential, be allowed in the Park. Staff noted that the maximum height of buildings in the M-1 zone is 45 feet. The group discussed removing the maximum height restriction in the EPD. This would allow for spiral wind turbines, residential in a mixed use building and solar panels as examples. Through clear and prescriptive design standards, the integrity of the Auburn Environmental Park would be maintained and the possibility of a solid wall of buildings would be reduced In response to an inquiry about any input received from current property owners in the EPD area, Chair Norman related that in the early development of the Auburn Environmental Park, outreach to the community was made; the height of buildings Page 2 Planning and Community Development Committee Minutes August 25, 2009 was not raised. The comments received were more of land use and development limitations. Commissioner Chapman inquired if a north/south traffic corridor would go through the Environmental Park District. Staff responded that it is not in the City's transportation plan and the federal government would not allow it. At Director Baker's request, Mayor Lewis reported on a recent meeting with the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) and local trucking businesses regarding PSRC's Metropolitan Transportation Plan (Transportation 2040). The Plan represents the efforts of government agencies serving the region to coordinate planning of diverse transportation systems to support the region's anticipated growth and meet its economic and environmental goals through the year 2040. PSRC handles the approval of federal transportation funds for new capacity roads; there are no funds for preservation of roads. City has stated that if Auburn is to continue as an industrial area, the City must have an on-going source of regular maintenance money. PSRC has indicated that the City's main arterials, including previously identified freight corridors, no longer qualify as freight corridors. Signs will be installed indicating that any vehicle over 30,000 pounds will be prohibited on city roads. Chapter 18.32 - M-1 Liqht Industrial District As a result of the passage of Streamlined Sales Tax (SST) destination-based sales tax by the Washington State legislature, staff explored expansion of non-industrial uses in the M-1 Light Industrial zones. It was felt that this would assist in creating additional jobs and revenue generation for property owners, businesses and the City. Chair Norman explained that the City does not receive the sales tax on goods that are manufactured inside the City limits, but sold outside of the area. The trucking portion of manufacturing is taking a toll on the City's roads and road repair budget. Due to the passage of the SST, Mayor Lewis stated that the City lost $2.4 million per year in sales tax. The City receives mitigated funds for a portion of this loss, but one of the specific exclusions of the law states that the City would not be mitigated for any new manufacturing businesses. As the retail sales tax volume increase, the mitigation funds for the manufacturing/warehouse distribution would automatically decrease. When the retail sales tax reaches $12 million per year, the mitigation funds would stop. Staff looked at uses that are currently allowed in M-1 such as multi-family residential dwellings (upper building floors), retail sales of all types, hotel and motels. Staff felt that there were sufficient uses identified in current code. Staff may want to look at ways to promote industries or those uses that create a higher job ratio per foot/acre. Staff presented four options for the Committee and Commission's review and discussion. O tp ion 1: Prescriptive Approach - Update the current M-1 District use and development standards of Chapter 18.32 ACC to: a) Expand the range of allowed uses, b) Restrict or eliminate one or more existing allowed uses; and/or c) Require certain uses to be combined versus "stand alone". Page 3 Planning and Community Development Committee Minutes August 25, 2009 Option 2: Incentive Approach - Revise the M-1 District use and development standards to encourage or discourage selected uses, and/or to only allow certain uses as Flexible Development Alternatives for qualifying applications. Option 3: Implementation and timing - Revise use regulations to: a) apply to future uses only (no time limit or abatement requirement on resulting non-conforming uses), or b) apply to current and future uses in zone, with resulting non-conforming uses subject to a time limit and abatement. Option 4: Some combination of Options 1 through 3. Councilmember Backus asked what legal issues might be raised if current permitted uses are phased out as indicated in Option3b. Assistant City Attorney Steve King responded that there can be issues when a sunset window is set on existing uses that were legal at the time they were created. Factors that may impact this depend on whether the business has had a chance to amortize expenses incurred for the pre-existing uses and if sufficient time has passed for the business to recoup their expenses. If a business has been in place for a considerable amount of time and recent amortizable expenses have not been incurred, the general rule is that the permitted use could be phased out. Mr. King noted that most case laws in the State have pertained to adult entertainment uses, but that the doctrine is generally applicable. Amortization can be done with some limitations. The Committee and Commission discussed questions posed by staff memo: 1) should the City expand the range of non-industrial uses in the M-1 District; 2) should the City use a prescriptive approach, i.e. requiring or prohibiting certain uses, or encourage such uses through the use of development standards, and/or other incentives, and 3) some combination of prescriptive and incentive approach. The Committee and Commission agreed that the goal of expanding uses in the M-1 zone would be to increase the City's tax base and create jobs. fter further discussion, the Committee and the Commission asked staff to come back with proposals for types of businesses that should be added to the existing M-1 uses, identify which uses have the most value for jobs and sales tax income, and finally, how incentives could be applied that the M-1 zone would be changed by the market. Staff will collaborate with Public Works staff to rank businesses by truck and automobile impact on the City's infrastructure. The group concurred that this item would be moved to Tier 2 of the Phase 2 Code Update in order to give staff adequate time to prepare. III. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Planning and Community Development Committee, Chair Norman adjourned the meeting at 7:09 p.m. APPROVED THIS DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2009. , Ly man, Chair nee S. Tobias, Planning Secretary Page 4