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