HomeMy WebLinkAboutITEM VIII-A-2A D".,-'BURN AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
WASHWGTON
Agenda Subject: Ordinance No. 6297 Fiorito Business Park Rezone;
Date: March 4, 2010
Application No. REZ09-0003
Department: Planning and
Attachments: Ordinance No. 6297,
Budget Impact: N/A
Development
Hearing Examiner Recommendation,
and Exhibit List
Administrative Recommendation:
City Council introduce and adopt Ordinance No. 6297.
Background Summary:
OWNER/APPLICANT: Applicant: Gary Volchok, CB Richard Ellis 701 Pike Street, Suite 2100,
Seattle, WA 98101
Owner: Fiorito Brothers, 1100 NW Leary Way, Seattle, WA 98107
REQUEST: Rezone approximately 10 acres from C-3, Heavy Commercial, to BP,
Business Park
LOCATION: 1050 M Street NW; Parcel Numbers: 1221049041, 1221049042, and
1221049043
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION: Heavy Commercial
SEPA STATUS: DNS issued on January 18, 2010
L0315-1
03.8 REZ09-0003
Reviewed by Council & Committees:
Reviewed by Departments & Divisions:
❑ Arts Commission COUNCIL COMMITTEES:
ED Building ❑ M&O
❑ Airport ❑ Finance
❑ Cemetery ❑ Mayor
Z Hearing Examiner ❑ Municipal Serv.
❑ Finance ❑ Parks
❑ Human Services ❑ Planning & CD
0 Fire El Planning
❑ Park Board ❑ Public Works
❑ Legal ❑ Police
❑ Planning Comm. ❑ Other
ED Public Works ❑ Human Resources
❑ Information Services
Action:
Committee Approval: ❑Yes ❑No
Council Approval: ❑Yes ❑No Call for Public Hearing
Referred to Until /
Tabled Until
Councilmember: Norman
Staff: Sn der
Meetin Date: March 15, 2010
Item Number: VIII.A.2
Av$URN *MOKE THAN YOU 1MAGINED
Agenda Subject: Ordinance No. 6297 Fiorito Business Park Rezone; Date: March 4, 2010
Application No. REZ09-0003
The Comprehensive Plan designation, zoning designation and land uses of the surrounding properties
are:
Com rehensive Plan Zonin Land Use
Project Site Heav Commercial C-3, Heav Commercial Vacant
North Heav Commercial C-3, Heav Commercial Vacant
South Light Industrial EP, Environmental Park 15`h Street NW
District
East Heavy Commercial C-3, Heavy Commercial Costco Wholesale
warehouse
West Li ht Industrial M-1, Li ht Industrial SR -167
I I F , ~1,111Y
~1v IM I ~
~
i..,. .
. ~ . ....si;
ftT
i . _ 1 .
k .
I
' Emerald , -
bje t S Downs
Auburn ~
Airport
I ~
Cl UOht Commcrc,e1 D,stnct
~C2 Centrel pusinesf D,stnCt
~C9 Msavy Commerual Distnp
CN NtiOhbOrhOOtl Sh00prip D,stnC;
n DuC Downtawn Urbsn Center
■EF Environmentei Gerk Distnc;
I InctRUUOnsI Use Cistrict `
Llkcland Hdls 5outh PUD
^LF A.rport landmp fhld D.stnG ~ -
. Ml Upht Industnal Distnrt
■M2 Meevy Industnal pistrla -
i03 Pubhc Uce OiunG
MFUD ~lenned U.,t DevtloDn+ent ' : -
RS Resdermel 1 DU/ACre
RS Res~d~Mi al S DUlAVe I
R7 ReadmGel 7 DU/ACrc ~
=R10 Res~deMnl 30 DU/ACre
R20 Res~eenaai 20 Du/acre
RC Fcidertiel Cornervancy
■FMHC Res'dlnbsl ManufaGurld/MObilt Mpme Umtt
WRO Res-dcr'"i Office Dictnct
■Ro-n Rcsidertnel plfics Distna (MUptN)
Mrv rerrsa vnw
. UNL Undsaaifild Uae DstnCt
Page 2 of 11
Agenda Subject: Ordinance No. 6297 Fiorito Business Park Rezone; Date: March 4, 2010
Application No. REZ09-0003
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. Gary Voichok, CB Richard Ellis, on behaif of Fiorito Brothers Inc., has applied for a contract
rezone for a 10 acre property located at 15th Street NW and M Street NW, approximately 1500 M
Street NW.
2. A Comprehensive Plan Text amendment was applied for concurrently with the rezone on June
17, 2009. However, after further review of the requested land use action and the Auburn City
Code, staff determined that a text amendment was not necessary.
3. The Business Park (BP) Zone is allowed pursuant to Auburn City Code (ACC) Chapter 18.36 and
is intended to provide a suitable area for industrial, professional office, service, and commercial
uses within a planned, well managed site with high quality development standards.
It is also the intent of this district to allow flexibility with regard to development standards and
uses if the flexibility results in an atmosphere of superior architectural, site and landscape design.
This district may be applied to any site within the city designated as "region serving" in the
comprehensive plan, which is zoned commercial or industrial. In addition, the comprehensive
plan identifies specific locations appropriate for business park development.
The subject site is within the City's "region serving area" (Exhibit 15) and has a commercial
zoning designation.
4. The C-3 (Heavy Commercial) zone allows for a variety of uses ranging from automobile sales to
professional offices (see ACC 18.30.020). The intent of the C-3 zone is,
"The intent and objective of the C-3 district classification and its application is to provide
for the location of and grouping of enterprises which may involve some on-premises retail
service but with outside activities and display or fabrication, assembling, and service
features. This zone is intended to accommodate uses which are oriented to automobiles
either as the mode or target or producing the commercial service. The uses enumerated
in this classification are considered as having common or similar performance standards
in that they are heavier in type than those uses permitted in the more restrictive
commercial classifications."
The intent of the M-1 (Light Industrial) zone is,
"The purpose of the M-1 light industrial zone is to accommodate a variety of industrial,
commercial, and limited residential uses in an industrial park environment, to preserve
land primarily for light industrial and commercial uses, to implement the economic goals
of the comprehensive plan and to provide a greater flexibility within the zoning regulations
for those uses which are non-nuisance in terms of air and water pollution, noise,
vibration, glare or odor. The light industrial/commercial character of this zone is intended
to address the way in which industrial and commercial uses are carried out rather than
the actual types of products made.
The character of this zone will limit the type of primary activities which may be conducted
outside of enclosed buildings to outdoor displays and sales. Uses which are not
customarily conducted indoors or involve hazardous materials are considered heavy
industrial uses under this title and are not appropriate for the M-1 zone.
An essential aspect of this zone is the need to maintain a quality of development that
attracts rather than discourages further investment in light industrial and commercial
development. Consequently, site activities which could distract from the visual quality of
Page 3 of 11
Agenda Subject: Ordinance No. 6297 Fiorito Business Park Rezone; Date: March 4, 2010
Application No. REZ09-0003
development of those areas, such as outdoor storage, should be strictiy regulated within
this zone."
Pursuant to ACC Section 18.36.030, uses listed as permitted, administrative, and conditional in
the M-1 zone and uses listed as permitted in the C-3 zone may be considered for a Business
Park zone. The applicant requests a variety of uses be permitted as part of the Business Park
including warehousing and manufacturing. Please see Exhibit 12 for the complete list of
recommended permitted uses by staff and Exhibit 3 for the complete list of uses proposed by the
applicant.
7. There are specific development and supplemental development standards that are applicable to a
Business Park zoned property outlined in ACC Sections 18.36.050 and 18.36.060.
8. As part of a Business Park rezone, a conceptual site plan is required. If the rezone is approved
by the City Council then a final site plan is submitted to the Planning Director for review and
approval. The conceptual site plan shows an approximate 95,250 square foot building with
associated parking, landscaping, and storm drainage facilities. As a tenant has not been
identified for this site, detailed analysis of parking, traffic, and storm drainage facilities will be
done when there is a tenant.
9. A goal of the Business Park zone, as stated above, is to provide a location for a mix of uses that
could include retail, office, or warehouse.
10. Pursuant to ACC 18.68.030 and 18.68.040, all applications for a rezone shall be reviewed by the
Planning Director prior to the scheduling of a public hearing. After review of the application, the
Director shall determine which of the following two processes should occur to properly hear the
rezone:
a. If the rezone is consistent with the comprehensive plan, then the Hearing Examiner shall
conduct a public hearing on the rezone and make a recommendation to the City Council
pursuant to ACC 18.66.170.
b. If the rezone is in conflict with the comprehensive plan, or there are no policies that relate
to the rezone, or the policies are not complete, then a comprehensive plan amendment
must be approved by the City Council prior to the rezone being scheduled for a public
hearing in front of the Hearing Examiner. The Planning Commission shall conduct a
public hearing on the comprehensive plan amendment and make a recommendation to
the City Council.
This application is consistent with the comprehensive plan, as outlined below in the conclusions
portion of the staff report and is therefore being processed pursuant to Process A specified
above.
11. The applicant filed an environmental checklist that addressed the comprehensive plan
amendment and rezone. The checklist was revised on June 23, 2009 to identify adjacent critical
areas (Exhibit 5).
12. On January 18, 2010, the SEPA Responsible Official issued a Determination of Non-Significance
(DNS) for the proposed Business Park rezone. The comment period ended February 2, 2010
with no comments received and the appeal period ends February 16, 2010 (Exhibit 6).
13. Pursuant to ACC 18.68.040, notice of a public hearing shall be given at least 10 days prior to the
public hearing and in accordance with ACC 14.07.040. The public hearing notice was published
in the Seattle Times on February 3, 2010, provided to the property owners within 300 feet of the
subject site, and posted on the subject property meeting this requirement (Exhibit 9).
Page 4 of 11
Agenda Subject: Ordinance No. 6297 Fiorito Business Park Rezone; Date: March 4, 2010
Application No. REZ09-0003
14. The City Council changed their role in quasi-judicial approvals giving that authority to Hearing
Examiner to make decisions with the adoption of Ordinance No. 6184 on October 6, 2008. Since
rezones are approved by Ordinance the Ciry Council is still the decision maker on rezones with
the Hearing Examiner making a recommendation on the proposal.
15. As part of the 2006 Annual Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, the City initiated several
land use map changes from an industrial designation to a commercial designation. The subject
property was part of those amendments with the City Councii approving a land use change from
Light Industrial to Heavy Commercial along with a subsequent rezone from M-1 to C-3. After four
years of not being able to secure a tenant for the site under the C-3 zoning, the applicant
requested a Business Park rezone in order to allow additional uses, primarily industriai.
16. M Street NW abutting the subject property to the west is a non-residential collector and this road
classification supports the rezone request. However the current roadway is not constructed to
current non-residential collector street standards. Any future development of the subject site wili
require frontage improvements at a minimum includes curb, gutter, sidewalk, street trees, street
lights, and a bike lane.
17. The subject sites access is from M Street NW which ties into 15th Street NW. This intersection is
located within approximately 350 feet to the 15th Street NW/SR-167 on/off ramps, which are
controlled by the Washington State Department of Transportation. Once a tenant has been
identified and the final site plan submitted for review, the City will further analyze the traffic
impacts of the project and identify appropriate traffic mitigation that may be warranted as a result
of the tenant.
18. A public hearing was held before the City of Auburn Hearing Examiner on February 17, 2010.
19. The City of Auburn Hearing Examiner issued a recommendation of approval on March 1, 2010.
CONCLUSIONS:
ACC Chapter 18.68 provides certain criteria for approval of a rezone and ACC Chapter 18.36 has specific
requirements that shall be met for approving a Business Park zone:
1. The rezone must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Comment
Policy LU-3 states that areas on the valley floor which are suitable to support large scale economic
development project should be reserved, for the most part, for uses which support Auburn's role as a
regional employment and commercial center (to be known as the Region Serving Area). The subject
site is within the designated Region Serving Area and proposed to be developed with a 95,000
square foot building that will support a range of commercial and industrial type uses.
Policy LU-109 states that highly visible areas (lands visible from SR-167 or SR-18) which tend to
establish the image of the city shouid not be used by heavy industrial uses. The subject site is visible
from SR-167, particularly from the southbound direction. Staff recommends several design standards
be applied to the development of this site as part of the contract rezone to insure that the project has
a high quality visual appearance.
Page 5 of 11
Agenda Subject: Ordinance No. 6297 Fiorito Business Park Rezone; Date: March 4, 2010
Application No. REZ09-0003
Policy ED-8 states that Auburn should continue to provide an economic base not only for the Auburn
area but also for the south King County and north Pierce County region. The subject site is located
centrally in Auburn and will provide a range of commercial and industrial uses that will provide jobs
and economic growth within the region.
The Economic Development chapter of the Comprehensive Plan discusses the impacts of
Streamlined Sales Tax on the City of Auburn. Auburn and similar cities have historicaily invested in
infrastructure to support businesses engaged in warehouse and distribution activities. With the
passage of streamlined sales tax, new warehouse and distribution facilities do not provide the sales
tax revenue to support the infrastructure needs of these types of uses. The applicant proposes that
warehouse and distribution is a permitted use as part of the business park. The Business Park zone
states that uses in the C-3 and M-1 zones may be permitted in the Business Park zone. Under
Finding 9, a goal of the Business Park zone is to provide a location for a mix of uses that could
include retail, office, or warehouse. Staff recognizes that requiring only retail at this location has not
proven successful; however, the recommendation is to permit only warehouse and distribution in the
rear portion of the proposed building and require retail in the front portion of the building that is visible
to SR-167. Under the recommended conditions of approval, staff requests that a minimum of 25% of
the building be retail.
Policy UD-9 states that the visual impact of large new developments should be a priority
consideration in their review and approval. Staff's recommendation includes design standards for the
project to develop under.
2. The rezone must be initiated by someone other than the City in order for the Hearing Examiner
to consider the request.
Comment
The rezone has been initiated by the property owner, Fiorito Brothers Inc. and applicant, Gary
Volchok.
3. Pursuant to ACC Section 18.36.020, a conceptual approval is the first step in a Business Park
rezone. The rezone shall be a contract rezone and shall include an agreement that establishes
the type, square footage, and general location of the uses; the location and size of the park;
restrictive covenants; public improvements; and the responsibilities of the owner/developer.
Comment
The proposed business park is approximately 10 acres in size which meets the required minimum
area as required under Section 18.36.050. At the conceptual site plan stage, the application
proposes a single structure that is approximately 95,250 square feet. When a final site plan is
submitted, staff is not opposed to multiple structures as long as the total square footage does not
exceed 95,252 square feet.
As stated in the application materials (Exhibit 3), the applicant proposes several uses from both the
C-3 and M-1 zoning districts. Staff concurs with the majority of the proposed permitted uses with the
exception of bingo halls and cold storage plants (Exhibit 13). As discussed under response number
1, the Business Park zone states that uses in the C-3 and M-1 zones may be permitted in the
Business Park zone. Under Finding 9, a goal of the Business Park zone is to provide a location for a
mix of uses that could include retail, office, or warehouse. Staff recognizes that requiring only retail at
this location has not proven successful; however, the recommendation is to permit only warehouse
and distribution in the rear portion of the proposed building and require retail in the front portion of the
Page 6 of 11
Agenda Subject: Ordinance No. 6297 Fiorito Business Park Rezone; Date: March 4, 2010
Application No. REZ09-0003
building that is visible to SR-167. Under the recommended conditions of approvai, staff requests that
a minimum of 25% of the building be retail.
Frontage improvements will be required when the property develops and any necessary utility
improvements depending on the tenant of the building (e.g. fire flow). As mentioned above under
Finding 16, staff will review the traffic impacts once there is a tenant and a project is submitted for
permits.
4. Pursuant to ACC Section 18.36.020, a Business Park zone shall only be approved when the
owner/developer has demonstrated that a public benefit will result and the project contains
architectural, site, and landscape design standards that are significantly superior to those
typically required in the other industrial and commercial zones.
Comment
The applicant proposes to construct a development similar to the Opus Park site, which was a
Business Park, originally approved by the City Council in 1997 (Ordinance No. 4962) and
subsequently revised in 2001 (Ordinance No. 5607), and located south of the SuperMall (See Section
D of Exhibit 3). The applicant proposes the project site will have landscaping, a master sign plan,
lighting, and architectural features similar to those constructed at the Opus Park site.
Staff reviewed the proposed elements to the Fiorito Business Park Rezone and provided a
comparison outlined below:
Re uired b Code
A licant Pro osal to Exceed Standard
a. Fronta e landsca in - 5 foot width T e III
a. Pro osal 10 foot width landsca in
b. Architectural elements - Comprehensive Plan
b. Applicant proposes similar architectural features
policies to address visual impact of large
as the Opus Park site.
developments however, City does not have design
standards for the C-3 zone
c. Parking lot landscaping -100 square foot
c. What shown on the conceptual site plan is code
lanter island ever 10 stalls.
minimum.
d. Signs permitted individually by tenant
d. Applicant proposes to have a master sign pian
for the business park.
e. Recreation facilities are not required as part of
e. Provide a trail along the wetland buffer that
commercial develo ment.
could otentiall connect to the Interurban Trail.
Staff concurs that the applicant's proposal exceeds the standards required by code in regards to
landscaping, a master signage plan, and providing a trail. While the architectural elements are not a
code requirement and the applicant is proposing similar project look to the Opus Park site, staff is
concerned with some of the features at the Opus Park site such as blank walls, no awnings over
business entrances, and the building scale appearance. Staff recommends design standards be
applied to the project as outlined in Exhibit 14.
5. No significant impacts on the public infrastructure shall occur that cannot be effectively
mitigated by the development of the business park.
Comment
The proposed Business Park is not anticipated to have significant impacts on the public infrastructure
that cannot be effectively mitigated. There are existing utilities available to the project site; an 8 inch
sewer main and 8 inch water main. Depending on the eventual tenant of the subject site, there could
be a need to upgrade the water main to meet fire flow requirements. Frontage improvements will be
required along M Street NW to meet the City's non-residential coliector standards. As previously
Page 7 of 11
Agenda Subject: Ordinance No. 6297 Fiorito Business Park Rezone; Date: March 4, 2010
Application No. REZ09-0003
stated, a detailed traffic analysis will be provided and reviewed by staff at the final site plan stage and
a tenant is identified.
6. If the approval of the business park requires a subdivision of the property, the preliminary plat
may be processed concurrently.
Comment
The business park does not require a subdivision of the property; however, a lot line elimination will
need to be processed concurrently with the finai site plan approval process to remove the parcel fine
going through the property building. Staff recommends a condition of approval to address this.
In addition, the Washington State Supreme Court has identified other general rules for rezone
applications (see Parkridge v. Seattle, 89 Wn.2d.454; 573 P.2d 359 (1978)):
a. Conditions in the area must have changed since the original zoning was established if not
consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Comment
The proposed business park rezone is consistent with the comprehensive plan as analyzed
above under response number 1.
b. The proposed rezone must bear a substantial relationship to the general welfare of the
community.
Comment
Also a requirement of the Business Park zone, the applicant must demonstrate a public benefit.
The proposed rezone implements the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan by providing economic
development within the Region Serving Area of the City. By meeting the conditions of approval,
the development will be constructed under design standards that would not otherwise be required
if developed under the C-3 zone as well as providing additional landscaping, and potentially
recreational facilities along the access road that could potentially connect to the Interurban Trail.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the application and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of the staff report, staff recommends
that the Hearing Examiner recommend to the City Council approval of the rezone with the following
conditions of approval:
1. A lot line elimination shall be processed concurrently with the final site plan approval.
2. The applicant shall submit a traffic impact analysis, storm drainage report, and wetland report as
part of the final site plan approval process.
3. The permitted uses shall be those uses identified in Exhibit 13 with the exceptions previously
noted.
4. The project shall comply with the design standards as outlined in Exhibit 14. As part of the final
site plan submittal and review process, the applicant shall submit building elevations
demonstrating how the proposed building complies with the Fiorito Business Park Design
Standards.
Page 8 of 11
Agenda Subject: Ordinance No. 6297 Fiorito Business Park Rezone; Date: March 4, 2010
Application No. REZ09-0003
5. The general location of the proposed building to be developed on the subject site shall be
consistent with the conceptual site plan dated February 5, 2010. The proposed storm drainage
facility may increase depending on the outcome of the final site plan review which could impact
location of parking spaces and will be reviewed as part of the final site plan review process.
6. A master landscape plan shall be prepared for the entire project site. A minimum ten (10) foot
wide landscape area shall be constructed along the M Street NW property frontage. The
expanded landscape area along the top of slope area of M Street NW as it rises to intersect 15tn
Street NW shall be designed in an innovative way and create a gateway into the project. The
master landscape plan shall be prepared and submitted as part of the final site plan process.
7. A master sign plan shall be prepared and approved by the City that coordinates the exterior signs
of the individual tenants. The sign regulations outlined in ACC Chapter 18.56 for the C-3 zone
shall apply for size, height, and number of signs permitted. Signage shall be part of the
architecture of the building and not an afterthought; however, the architectural design of the
tenants' logos is not intended to be altered by this condition. The master sign plan shall be
prepared and submitted as part of the final site plan process.
8. All exterior lighting shall be designed and constructed such that the direct illumination does not
unreasonably spill over on adjoining properties. The exterior lighting shall be coordinated for the
site; including both parking lot lighting and buitding lighting. The exterior lighting plan shall be
prepared and submitted as part of the final site plan process.
9. Pedestrian walkways shall be provided that connect the parking areas to building entrances.
Pedestrian connections shall be clearly defined by textured paving, including vehicular lanes,
such as unit pavers, stamped concrete, or scored concrete. These walkways shall be shown on
the final site plan.
10. The concept of a recreational trail adjacent to the wetland area on Parcel 1221049041 shall be
part of the final site plan review process and potential connection to the Interurban Trail explored.
11. Amendments to this Business Park rezone may occur as follows:
a. The Planning Director may interpret the words and meaning of certain conditions in order
to resolve conflicts in implementation.
b. If changes to the language of the rezone are required, such proposed changes shall be
reviewed by the Planning and Community Development Committee of the City Council, or
its successor. If the change is minor, less than 10% change, then the Committee shall
make a recommendation to the City Council. If the change is major, greater than 10%
modification, then the Committee shall refer the change to the Hearing Examiner. The
Hearing Examiner shall conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to the City
Council.
c. Amendments to the rezone shall only be initiated by the property owner of the City.
HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION
After conducting a duly advertised public hearing, the Hearing Examiner issued his recommendation of
approval on March 4, 2010 with 11 conditions of approval:
1. A lot line elimination shall be processed concurrently with the final site pian approval.
2. The applicant shall submit a traffic impact analysis, storm drainage report, and wetland report as
part of the final site plan approval process.
Page 9 of 11
Agenda Subject: Ordinance No. 6297 Fiorito Business Park Rezone; Date: March 4, 2010
Application No. REZ09-0003
3. The permitted uses shall be those uses identified in Exhibit 13 with the exceptions previously
noted. Items 26 and 35 of Exhibit 13 are revised to allow the specified uses throughout the
buildings of the project except in the areas required for retail use.
4. The project shall comply with the design standards as outlined in Exhibit 14. As part of the final
site plan submittal and review process, the applicant shall submit building elevations
demonstrating how the proposed building complies with the Fiorito Business Park Design
Standards.
The general location of the proposed building to be developed on the subject site shall be
consistent with the conceptual site plan dated February 5, 2010. The total area of any proposed
building shall be limited to 95,000 square feet. The proposed storm drainage facility may
increase depending on the outcome of the final site plan review which could impact location of
parking spaces and will be reviewed as part of the finai site plan review process. The project
shall comply with the retail space requirements of Condition 2(B)(1) of Auburn Ordinance No.
5607.
6. A master landscape plan shall be prepared for the entire project site. A minimum ten (10) foot
wide landscape area shall be constructed along the M Street NW as it rises to intersect 15th
Street NW shall be designed in an innovative way and create a gateway into the project. The
master landscape plan shall be prepared and submitted as part of the final site plan process.
A master sign plan shall be prepared and approved by the City that coordinates the exterior signs
of the individual tenants. The sign regulations outlined in ACC Chapter 18.56 for the C-3 zone
shall apply for size, height, and number of signs permitted. Signage shall be part of the
architecture of the building and not an afterthought; however, the architectural design of the
tenants' logos is not intended to be altered by this condition. The master sign plan shall be
prepared and submitted as part of the final site plan process.
8. All exterior lighting shall be designed and constructed such that the direct illumination does not
unreasonably spill over on adjoining properties. The exterior lighting shall be coordinated for the
site, including both parking lot lighting and building lighting. The exterior lighting plan shall be
prepared and submitted as part of the final site plan process.
9. Pedestrian walkways shall be provided that connect the parking areas to building entrances.
Pedestrian connections shall be clearly defined by textured paving, including vehicular lanes,
such as unit pavers, stamped concrete, or scored concrete. These walkways shall be shown on
the final site plan.
10. The concept of a recreational trail adjacent to the wetland area on Parcel 1221049041 shall be
part of the final site plan review process and potential connection to the Interurban Trail explored.
11. Amendments to this Business Park rezone may occur as follows:
a. The Planning Director may interpret the words and meaning of the certain conditions in order
to resolve conflicts in implementation.
b. If changes to the language of the rezone are required, such proposed changes shall be
reviewed by the Planning and Community Development Committee of the City Council, or its
successor. If the change is minor--less than 10% change--then the Committee shall make a
recommendation to the City Council. If the change is major--greater than 10% modification--
then the Committee shall refer the change to the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner
shall conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council.
Page 10 of 11
Agenda Subject: Ordinance No. 6297 Fiorito Business Park Rezone; Date: March 4, 2010
Application No. REZ09-0003
c. Amendments to the rezone shall only be initiated by the property owner of the City.
EXHIBIT LIST
Exhibit 1
Staff Report
Exhibit 2
Vicinity Map
Exhibit 3
Application
Exhibit 4
Conceptual Site Plan
Exhibit 5*"
Environmental Checklist
Exhibit 6*"
Combined Notice of Application (NOA) and SEPA Determination
Exhibit 7*''
Affidavit of Posting NOA and SEPA Determination
Exhibit 8'"*
Affidavit of Mailing NOA and SEPA Determination
Exhibit 9"*
Notice of Public Hearing
Exhibit 10""
Affidavit of Posting Public Hearing Notice
Exhibit 11
Affidavit of Mailing Pubic Hearing Notice
Exhibit 12
Aerial Photograph
Exhibit 13
Staff Recommended Permitted Uses for Fiorito Business Park
Exhibit 14
Design Standards for the Fiorito Business Park
Exhibit 15
Map 3.2, Urban Form, Auburn Comprehensive Plan
Exhibit 16""`
Ordinance No. 4962, Opus Business Park Rezone
Exhibit 17*"
Ordinance No. 5607, Opus Business Park Revised Rezone
Submitted at Hearing:
Exhibit 18*" Affidavit of public hearing notice from Seattle Times
Exhibit 19 Hamm/Gemma Correspondence
Exhibit 20 Photos submitted by applicant Gary Volchok
**Exhibits with an asterisk are nof included in the packet but are
available upon request.
Page 11 of 11
ORDINANCE NO. 6 2 9 7
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
AUBURN, WASHINGTON, APPROVING THE REQUEST OF
FIORITO BROTHERS FOR A REZONE FROM C-3 HEAVY
COMMERCIAL TO BP BUSINESS PARK FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT M STREET NW AND 15T" STREET NW
WHEREAS, Application No. REZ09-0003 has been submitted to the City Council
by the Fiorito Brothers, Inc. requesting the rezoning of real property located at 15tn
Street NW and M Street NW and designated by parcel numbers 1221049041,
1221049042, and 1221409043; and
WHEREAS, the environmental impacts of the Fiorito Business Park Rezone
were considered in accordance with the procedures of the State Environmental Policy
Act; and
WHEREAS, the Business Park zoning designation can be applied to any site
within the city designated as "region serving" in the comprehensive plan, that is zoned
commercial or industrial; and
WHEREAS, after proper notice published in the City's official newspaper at least
ten (10) days prior to the date of hearing, the City of Auburn Hearing Examiner on
February 17, 2010 conducted a public hearing on the proposed Fiorito Business Park
Rezone; and
WHEREAS, at the public hearing the City of Auburn Hearing Examiner heard
public testimony and took evidence and exhibits into consideration; and
Ordinance No. 6297
March 10, 2010
Page 1
WHEREAS, thereafter the City of Auburn Hearing Examiner made a
recommendation to the City Council on the proposed Fiorito Business Park Rezone;
and
WHEREAS, on March 15, 2010, the Auburn City Council considered the
proposed Fiorito Business Park Rezone as recommended by the City of Auburn
Hearing Examiner; and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council ("Council) adopts and approves the Fiorito
Business Park rezone from C-3 Heavy Commercial to BP Business Park and directs
that the rezone application and all related documents be filed along with this Ordinance
with the Auburn City Clerk and be available for public inspection.
Section 2. The Zoning Map amendment is herewith designated as a basis for
the exercise of substantive authority under the Washington State Environmental Policy
Act by the City's responsible environmental official in accordance with RCW.
43.21 C.060.
Section 3. The Council adopts the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, in
the Hearing Examiner's recommendation outlined below:
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
1. Applicant. The applicants are the Fiorito Brothers, represented by Gary Volchok.
2. Hearinq. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the application at 5:30
p.m. at Auburn City Hall in the Council Chambers on February 17, 2010.
Ordinance No. 6297
March 10, 2010
Page 2
Substantive:
3. Site/Proposal Description. The applicant has applied for the rezoning of an
approximate 10 acre parcel from C-3 (Heavy Commercial) to BP (Business
Park). The property was zoned Heavy Commercial in order to encourage retail
use in an area that is proximate and visible to SR 167. The applicant has found
that the area is not suitable for exclusive retail use and wishes to rezone it to BP
in order to allow for a mixture of retail and other uses such as industrial.
In order to acquire approval of a rezone to BP, the applicant must acquire
approval of a contract rezone that incorporates a conceptual site plan. ACC
18.36.020. The planning director shall approve the final site plan. The applicant
acknowledges that his conceptual site plan is based upon one proposed
industrial use from several years ago and will have little relation to what will
actually be developed. There was some testimony to the effect that the site plan
establishes a maximum building area of 95,000 square feet, but this limitation is
already included in the recommended conditions of approval. The site plan
presented by the applicant appears to be completely meaningless. The
applicant has agreed to enhance design requirements that would not otherwise
be applicable. These are outlined in Exhibit 14. The applicant has atso agreed
to a limited set of uses for the property, which are outlined in Exhibit 15.
4. Characteristics of the Area. The site is adjoined by SR 167 to the west, a Costco
distribution facilitYon the east, an undeveloped wetlands and floodplain area to
the north and 15 h St. NW to the south. Emerald Downs is located east of the
Costco facility. M Street only connects to 15th St. NW. Assessor and other
maps show that M street loops into 29th Street, but 29th Street is closed. As
noted by the applicant, the project site is fairly isolated from any other use.
There is conflicting evidence on whether the project site is visible from SR 167;
with staff stating that it is visible, in particular going southbound on SR 167 while
the applicant presented photos (Ex. 19) that it is not. The photos do not show
what can be seen at auto level, so they are of limited utility. Vegetation or
topography may very well limit visibility from SR 167 but this is not evident from
the photos.
5. Public Benefit. A critical requirement for approval of a BP designation is that it
must result in a public benefit. The applicant has made a compelling argument
that the property cannot be developed as a C-3 use. In addition to all the
evidence presented by the applicants, there is also the common sense
conclusion that if they could have sold the property as C-3, they would have
done so given the value of that type of property. As a baseline, therefore, it must
be acknowledged that there is a public benefit to the proposed rezone simply
because it will facilitate the development of vacant land in an urban area. This
Ordinance No. 6297
March 10, 2010
Page 3
promotes the creation of jobs and an increase in real property taxes. The use
limitations and design standards agreed to by the applicant (Exhibits 13 and 14)
further add to public benefit by enhancing the compatibility of the development
with surrounding uses and enhancing the aesthetic values of that development.
The one downside to the rezone is that it facilitates industrial use, which the City
believes to create a demand on public services (mainly street wear and tear by
industrial vehicles) with no off-setting generation of public revenue through a
sales tax. The staff requirement for a mix of retail and industrial use off-sets this
downside. During the hearing staff and the applicant agree upon language
similar to that specified pages 13-14 of Ordinance No. 5607 where it designates
a minimum amount of retail use. Although the parties came to agreement on
some of this language, the portion agreed upon does not stand upon its own.
The parties agreed to a minimum requirement of 20 feet of interior space from
retail windows without agreeing upon how much window space is required. The
Examiner will include the amount of window space specified in Ordinance No.
5607 as well.
Given the lack of marketability of the property as a C-3 use and the design
standards and use limitations agreed to by the applicant, the proposal creates a
net public benefit.
6. Adverse Impacts. As noted above, the proposal will create a net public benefit.
As noted during public testimony, the project area recently went through short
plat review. This short plat review required full infrastructure improvements and
mitigation for commercial use of the subject lot. As noted by the applicants,
most of the improvements they have made satisfy all current development
standards, but there will be some improvements in response to changes in
stormwater standards. Staff have also noted that some street improvements
may be necessary, in particular the addition of a bike lane to M Street as
contemplated in the recently updated its Comprehensive Transportation Plan,
which now identifies a bike lane along M Street as connecting to the Interurban
Trail. All of these infrastructure improvements are minor enough to be
addressed at the site plan review stage of approval. Given some of the issues
associated with the connectivity of the bike lane, the bike lane requirement is
also best left to the site plan review stage when there may be more information
available about future connectivity.
There are no adverse impacts discernable from the record given that
infrastructure improvements can be adequately addressed at site plan review;
that there are no environmentally sensitive areas associated with the site; and
that there are no compatibility problems with adjoining land uses.
Ordinance No. 6297
March 10, 2010
Page 4
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Procedural:
1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. ACC 18.68.030(B)(1)(a) grants the Hearing
Examiner with the authority to review and make a recommendation on rezone
requests to the City Council if the planning director determines that the rezone
requests are consistent with the comprehensive plan. The planning director has
determined that the rezone request is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
The comprehensive plan land use map designation for the property is Heavy
Commercial with an overlay of "region serving". Acc 18.36.010 provides that the
BP zone may be established in any area designated "region serving" that is
zoned commercial or industrial.
Substantive:
2. Zoning Desiqnation. The property is current zoned C-3, Heavy Commercial.
3. Case Law Review Criteria and Application. Washington appellate courts have
imposed some criteria themselves, requiring that the proponents of a rezone
must establish that conditions have substantially changed since the original
showing and that the rezone must bear a substantial relationship to the public
health, safety, morals or welfare. See Ahmann-Yamane, LLC v. Tabler, 105 Wn.
App. 103, 111 (2001). If a rezone implements the Comprehensive Plan, a
showing that a change of circumstances has occurred is not required. Id. at 112.
As discussed in the staff report, there is no question that the project is consistent
with the comprehensive plan. The requirement for retaining some retail use
along with the industrial use helps to support Auburn's role as a regional
employment and commercial center as contemplated by Policy LU-3. The
design standards agreed upon by the applicant in conjunction with the frontage
retail requirement is consistent with the LU-109 prohibition on placing industrial
uses in highly visible areas (if the area even qualifies as highly visible - as noted
previously the evidence on this issue is incomplete). The rezone facilitates the
development of the vacant land into uses that will create jobs, as consistent with
Policy ED-8.
Although the policy may be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, it is
debatable whether it "implements" the Comprehensive Plan. The current C-3
designation is also consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. It is unclear from
the case law whether changing from one consistent use to another qualifies as
"implementing" the plan. The courts use of the term "implemenY" the Plan
instead of the standard requirement for consistency with the Plan suggests that
something more is required. The only reasonably plausible "something more" is
Ordinance No. 6297
March 10, 2010
Page 5
that the change is necessary for consistency with the plan. Given that a rezone
is not necessary to achieve consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, a change
in circumstances is necessary. The severe downturn in the commercial real
estate market, as testified by Mr. Volchok, qualifies as a change in
circumstances since the last rezone of the property in 2006.
Since the proposal will result in a net public benefit as discussed in the Findings
of Fact, it bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals or
welfare as required by the case law cited above.
4. Code Requirements for Approval of a BP Rezone. Although Auburn's municipal
code does not provide any review standards for rezones in general, there are
specific standards that apply to rezones to the BP designation. These standards
are identified in Chapter 18.36 ACC. Relevant standards are quoted below with
accompanying analysis in conclusions of law.
ACC 18.36.020(A)(1): Conceptual approval of a business park shall be applied by
the rezone process as specified in ACC 18.68.030(8)(1)(a). The rezone shall be a
contract rezone and shall include an agreement that establishes the type, square
footage and general location of the uses; the location and size of the park; restrictive
covenants; public improvements; and the responsibilities of the owner/developer.
5. As mentioned previously, the conceptual site plan offered by the applicant is
worthless, since the applicant and staff both acknowledge that the project will
probably not bear any resemblance to what is diagramed in the site plan.
However, it should be recognized that no site plan is actually required by ACC
18.36.020(A)(1) at this stage of review. Exhibits 13 and 14, in conjunction with
the 95,000 square foot size limitation and the boundaries of the subject parcel
provide the information required by ACC 18.36.020(A)(1). It is a little puzzling
why the applicant has presented any actual site plan, since all it accomplishes is
confusion. It is understood that the site plan helps establish a maximum building
area for the project, but if that is all it's used for its purpose must be more clearly
expressed.
ACC 18.36.020(A)(2): A BP district shall only be approved when the
owner/developer has demonstrated that a public benefit will result and the project
contains architectural, site, and landscape design standards that are significantly
superior to those typically required in the other industrial and commercial zones.
6. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 5, the project creates a net public benefit. A
comparison of the standards agreed upon by the applicant (Exhibit 13) to those
required in other industrial and commercial zones reveals that they are
significantly superior.
Ordinance No. 6297
March 10, 2010
Page 6
ACC 18.36.020(A)(3): No significant impacts on the public infrastructure shall occur
that cannot be effectively mitigated by the development of the business park.
7. As discussed in Finding of Fact No. 6, infrastructure improvements will be
relatively minor and can be addressed during site plan review.
DECISION
The Hearing Examiner recommends approval of REZ09-0003, subject to the
following condition:
1. A lot line elimination shall be processed concurrently with the final site plan
approval.
2. The applicant shall submit a traffic impact analysis, storm drainage report, and
wetland report as part of the final site plan approval process.
3. The permitted uses shall be those uses identified in Exhibit 1 to this ordinance
with the exceptions previously noted. Items 26 and 35 of Exhibit 1 are revised to
allow the specified uses throughout the buildings of the project except in the
areas required for retail use.
4. The project shall comply with the design standards as outlined in Exhibit 2 to this
ordinance. As part of the final site plan submittal and review process, the
applicant shall submit building elevations demonstrating how the proposed
building complies with the Fiorito Business Park Design Standards.
5. The general location of the proposed building to be developed on the subject site
shall be consistent with the conceptual site plan dated February 5, 2010. The
total area of any proposed building shall be limited to 95,000 square feet. The
proposed storm drainage facility may increase depending on the outcome of the
final site plan review which could impact location of parking spaces and will be
reviewed as part of the final site plan review process. The project shall comply
with the retail space requirements of Condition 2(B)(1) of Auburn Ordinance No.
5607 however the location of glass windows shall be at a minimum the west
facing fagade.
6. A master landscape plan shall be prepared for the entire project site. A
minimum ten (10) foot wide landscape area shall be constructed along the M
Street NW as it rises to intersect 15th Street NW shall be designed in an
innovative way and create a gateway into the project. The master landscape
plan shall be prepared and submitted as part of the final site plan process.
Ordinance No. 6297
March 10, 2010
Page 7
7. A master sign plan shall be prepared and approved by the City that coordinates
the exterior signs of the individual tenants. The sign regulations outlined in ACC
Chapter 18.56 for the C-3 zone shall apply for size, height, and number of signs
permitted. Signage shall be part of the architecture of the building and not an
afterthought; however, the architectural design of the tenants' logos is not
intended to be altered by this condition. The master sign plan shall be prepared
and submitted as part of the final site plan process.
8. All exterior lighting shall be designed and constructed such that the direct
illumination does not unreasonably spill over on adjoining properties. The
exterior lighting shall be coordinated for the site, including both parking lot
lighting and building lighting. The exterior lighting plan shall be prepared and
submitted as part of the final site plan process.
9. Pedestrian walkways shall be provided that connect the parking areas to building
entrances. Pedestrian connections shall be clearly defined by textured paving,
including vehicular lanes, such as unit pavers, stamped concrete, or scored
concrete. These walkways shall be shown on the final site plan.
10. The concept of a recreational trail adjacent to the wetland area on Parcel
1221049041 shall be part of the final site plan review process and potential
connection to the Interurban Trail explored.
11.Amendments to this Business Park rezone may occur as follows:
a. The Planning Director may interpret the words and meaning of the certain
conditions in order to resolve conflicts in implementation.
b. If changes to the language of the rezone are required, such proposed
changes shall be reviewed by the Planning and Community Development
Committee of the City Council, or its successor. If the change is minor--less
than 10% change--then the Committee shall make a recommendation to the
City Council. If the change is major--greater than 10% modification--then the
Committee shall refer the change to the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing
Examiner shall conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to the
City Council.
c. Amendments to the rezone shall only be initiated by the property owner of the
City.
Ordinance No. 6297
March 10, 2010
Page 8
Section 4. Upon the passage, approval, and publication of this Ordinance as
provided by law, the City Clerk of the City of Auburn shall cause this Ordinance to be
recorded in the office of the King County Recorder.
Section 5. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of
this Ordinance or any of the Zoning Map amendments adopted herein, is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutionat by any Court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall
be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision, and such holding shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 6. The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement such administrative
procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directives of this legislation.
Section 7. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force five days from and
after its passage, approval, and publication as provided by law.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
APPROVED:
Peter B. Lewis
MAYOR
ATTEST:
Danielle E. Daskam,
City Clerk
Ordinance No. 6297
March 10, 2010
Page 9
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
4a/ly
Daniel B. Heid,
City Attorney
Published:
Ordinance No. 6297
March 10, 2010
Page 10
Exhibit 1
Staff Recommended Permitted Uses
Fiorito Business Park Rezone
, PERMITTED USES
ENTIRE BUILDING
REAR PORTION
BUILDING ONLY
1
Arcades
YES
YES
2
Art, music, and photography
studios
YES
YES
3
Auction houses, excludin animals
YES
YES
4
Automobile re air services
YES
YES
5
Automobile sales, new and/or used
YES
YES
, 6
Automobile or truck rental
YES
YES
7
Automobile washes
YES
YES
8
Banking and related financial
institutions
YES
YES
9
Building contractor services,
includin stora e ards, if screened
YES
YES
10
Civic, social, and fraternal
associations
YES
YES
11
Delicatessens
YES
YES
12
D cleanin and laund services
YES
YES
13
i
Equipment rental and leasing, does
not include heavy construction
e ui ment
YES
YES
14
Hotels
YES
YES
15
Laund , self-service
YES
YES
~ 16
Lumber ards
YES
YES
17
Mini-stora e warehouses
YES
YES
18
Motorc cle sales and service
YES
YES
19
Personal service sho s
YES
YES
20
Printin and ublishin
YES
YES
21
ProfessionalOffices
YES
YES
'22
Recreational vehicle sales lots
YES
YES
' 23
Restaurants
YES
YES
24
Retail stores and shops, including
department and variety stores as
listed in ACC Section
18.30.020 WW 1-32 .
YES
YES
, 25
Re-u holste and furniture re air
YES
YES
26
Storage warehousing, limited to
being incidental to principal
ermitted use on ro ert
YES, EXCEPT WHERE
RETAIL REQUIRED
PER CONDITION 5
YES
I 27
Truck sales with re air as
YES
YES
Ordinance No. 6297
March 10, 2010
Page 11
Exhibit 1
I
seconda use
28
Health and h sical fitness clubs
YES
YES
29
Household movers and stora e
YES
YES
30
Janitorial Services
YES
YES
31
Manufacturing, assembling and
YES
YES
packaging of articles, products and
merchandise when conducted
entirely within an enclosed building
I
,
and if 1 job per 1,000 square feet is
i
created.
32
Printing, publishing, and allied
YES
YES
industries including such processes
!
as lithography, etching, engraving,
binding, blueprinting, photocopying,
~
and film rocessin
33
Research, develo ment and testin
YES
YES
34
Small a liance re air
YES
YES
35
Warehousing and distribution
YES, EXCEPT WHERE
YES
I
facilities, to include wholesale trade
RETAIL REQUIRED
I
,
not open to the general public. This
PER CONDITION 5
I~
includes motor freight
I
transportation as an incidental use
but specifically excludes motor
freight transportation as the
rinci al use of the ro ert
36
Other uses may be permitted by
YES
YES
the Planning Director if the use is
determined to be consistent with
j
the intent of the Fiorito Business
Park Zone and is of the same
general character of the uses
~
ermitted in this list
Ordinance No. 6297
March 10, 2010
Page 12
Exhibit 2
DESIGN STANDARDS
FIORITO BUSINESS PARK REZONE
1. STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO SITE DESIGN
A. Parking Lots
1. Surface lots shall have a planter bed that includes at least one tree, a
minimum of two inch caliper at the time of planting, shrubs, and groundcover.
6. Pedestrian Walkways
1. Pedestrian connections not less than five (5) feet wide shall be provided
through parking lots to building entrances and sidewalks.
2. Pedestrian connections shall be clearly defined by textured paving, including
across vehicular lanes, such as scored concrete, stamped concrete, or unit
pavers.
C. Lighting
1. Only City approved standard fixtures shall be uses for public sidewalk
lighting.
2. All site lighting shall be shielded from producing off-site glare and so that the
direction of the light is downward.
3. The maximum height allowed for parking lot lighting is 24 feet.
4. Site lighting should be appropriate to create adequate visibility at night,
evenly distributed to increase security, and coordinated with adjacent
landscaping to avoid casting long shadows.
D. Screening of Trash and Service Areas
1. Trash and service areas shall be placed away from streets.
2. All service, loading, and trash collection areas shall be screened by a
masonry fence and planting, with similar character to the design of the
building it serves.
II. STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO BUILDING DESIGN
A. Entrances
1. Main entrances should be oriented so they are visible to the public right-of-
way.
2. Building entrances shall have awnings a minimum of four (4) feet deep and
cover the entire door width.
B. Landscaping adjacent to Building(s)
1. To provide visual transition of the joining of a building to the site, a minimum
four (4) foot landscape space between the exterior wall and the horizontal
paved surfaces, except at entrances/exits, loading docks, and service entries
Ordinance No. 6297
March 10, 2010
Page 13
Exhibit 2
shall be provided. A mix of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs, and
ground cover shall be included.
C. Building(s) Facades
1. All new buildings shall include on the fagade visible from the public street,
public recreational facilities, or the freeway shall the foltowing:
a. Varied courses or panel of material
b. Articulated wall panels with accentuated joints, edges, or reveals visible
from the street.
c. Windows, doors, or other openings over at least 20 percent of the
building.
d. Articulated roofline or building base.
D. If concrete blocks (concrete masonry units or "cinder blocks") are used for walls
that are visible from a public street/freeway, public recreational facility, or
pedestrian route, then the concrete block construction must be architecturally
treated in one or more of the following ways:
1. Use of textured blocks with surfaces such as split-face or grooved.
2. Use of colored mortar.
3. Use of other masonry types, such as brick, glass block, or tile, in conjunction
with concrete blocks.
4. Use of decorative coursing to break up blank wall areas.
E. If concrete tilt-up structures are used for walls that are visible from a public
street/freeway, public recreational facility, or pedestrian route, then the concrete
wall must be architecturally treated in one or more of the following ways:
1. Provided a textured scale to be visually perceptible at the distance viewed by
the public
2. Provide a pattern or composition created by casting relief in the exposed face
of the concrete.
3. Create compositions with horizontal profile; a repetitive pattern applied to
multiple panels is acceptable.
Ordinance No. 6297
March 10, 2010
Page 14
BEFOTtE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF AUBURN
2
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 .
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Zs
Phi141brechts, Hearing Examiner
RE: Fiorito Business Park
FINDINGS OF FACT, CUNCLUSIONS
Rezone OF LAW AND RECOMMENDATION.
REZ09-0043
INTRODUCTION
The appIicant has requested a rezone of an appraximately 10-acre parcel fi•om C-3
(Heavy Commercial) to BP (Business Park). The Examiner x•ecommends approval of
the request with conditions.
ORAL TESTIMONY
Ms. Chamberlain noted that the SEPA commen# period had ended the day before and
no comments were supplied.
Gary Volchok, applicant's representative, testified on the history of the property. He
noted that the Fiorito brothers used to own the adjoining Costco property. He nated
that as part of the short plat to ci•eate the Castco property, the Fiorito brothers
installed all utilities including stormwater, but that due to a change in stormwater
regutatians additional stormwater facilities will have to be installed. He noted that he
was in general agreemeiit with the staff recommendation and appreciates the work of
the staff in the past year and a half in processing the application. He noted that
originally in 2005 and 2006 when the City did some major rezoning of the area, the
planning department approved maintaining the propez•ty as M-1 but the Council
changed the designation to comm.ercial in order to generate sales taxes. Subsequently
the owners have tried to sell the property to several users without any success. When
the praperty was zoned M-1 in 2004, the applicant acquii•ed SEPA and grading permit
approval for a boat-nianufacturing operatian, whiclt is shown on the conceptual site
plan. The conceptual site plan will pz•obably not reflect wliat is actually built, but the
planning director will have final authority on the site plan. Propei-ty to the noilh of
the property is all wetlands. Forhinately, the floodplain is also confined nortli of the
property.
Mr. Volchok noted that only 0.3% of City land is vacant industrial land. There are
2861 gross acz•es of M-1 land. In reality, if you remove wetlands, railroad property
and nonindustrial uses, there is only 35 acres left to be developed. There is 1432
acres of C-3 zoning. He noted that driving along SR 167 from SR 18 to 277`E' he
counted 22 realtoz• signs for available C-3 properties. Tliese were empty lots with
excellent exposure, easy access, and excellent synergy with surrounding uses.
{PA0768723.DOC;1\00083.9000001 }
Rezone p. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Mr. Volchok noted that originally the staff reconunended a text amendmen# to allow
BP uses in the G3 zone. A significant amowit of work went in to preparing for a
Iiearing on this amendment and then it was discovered that the text amendment would
affect all C-3 property. The soiutioji was to rezoixe the property to BP as proposed.
Mr. Volchok noted that the only BP property in the City is the 18-acre Opus property
located on SW 15"' near the Supermall. It is 100% developed. Consequently,
rezoning the applicant's property as reqtiested wotild be a public benefit because there
is no BP zoning and there is very little M-1 property, Part of this shortfall in M-1
praperty was due to adoptioii of the City's wetlands ordinance.
For a viable C-3 parcel you need good visibility, good access, and synergy with Iike
users. The applicant's property has none of the three. Mr. Volchok took pictures
going east, west, north, and south alozig adjoining roads, SR 167 and 15 NW. Using
the photos Mx. Volchok demonstrated tliat you can only see the applicant's property
until you get to M Street from lSt" NW. The Opus property has excellent visibility
fi•om adjoining roads. On access, the only way in and out of tlie propeity is M Street.
Mr. Volcliok noted that there is a very high volume af traffic along 15"', making it
very difficult ta turii onto M Street. He noted that the City of Auburn and WSDOT
liave advised that a traffic Iiglrt at the M Street/15"' NW intersection would not be
permitted due to its proximity to the on ramp to SR 167. On synergy, the OPUS
property has the Supermall, office space, etc.,.for excellent synergy. Mr. Volchok
noted that there is no synergy at the applicant's property. The property is surrounded
by wetiands and a creek and 29"' NW is closed.
Mr. Volchok stated that the access road to the property is fully impraved and that he
does not understand why staff wants to recommend additional improvements.
Mr. Volchok noted that the applicant has tried for four or five years to sell the
property for a C-3 use and that even in the hezglat of tlie z•eal esta#e boom in 2007, no
one would want to use it for that pttrpose because of the problems he described. Mr.
Voichok referred to the letters from James Hamm and Patrick Geiiuna in Exhibit 19,
both experts on real estate development, who both conclude in their letters that the
property is not fit for commercial use.
In response to questions from the Examiner on the accuracy of the conceptual site
plan, Mr. Volchok responded that it was not possible at this time to pxovide anything
more concrete. Mz•. Volchok noted that the actual building will be considarably
smaller than tlzat characterized in the conceptual site plan, because the commercial
uses will generate mare parking. Mr. Volchok also pointed out that the proposal does
involve a designation of a set of uses. Mr. Volchok also noted #hat the proposal also
inchided a higher standard of construction in order to ensure a resuiting public
benefit.
{PA0768723.DOC;1100083.900000\ }
Rezone
p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
4
b
7
8
9
10
Il
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Za
21
22
23
24
25
Paui Cyr, another applicant representative, nated that the site plan is recommended by
staff and has some tises attached to it. The proposal includes a maximuzn square
footage of 92,000 square feet. The p3•oposal also identifies development standards
that will be exceeded tts part of the proposal, iaiciuditig design standards. Design
standards otlierwise do not apply to the C-3 zane.
Mr. Cyr noted that finding af Fact No. 16 of tlie staff raport reQuires fz•ontage
improveinents. He noted that the road is nlready fully developed and met the
standards vested under the Costco short plat. The primary difference between what
was built and what is z•equired by staff is a bike lane. Mr. Cyr also noted that if a bike
lane were incltided it would be isolated and not pait of any bike lane network. Mr.
Seek also noted that there was iiisufficient right-of-way (paved portion of the road)
for a bike lane. The Interurban Trail does run along the back side of Costco. Ms.
Cliamberlaiji comrnented that one way to conriect to the Interurban Trail wou(d be to
run tlie bike lane along M Street to the Trail.
Mr. Cyr also took issue with the staff recommendation that at least 25% of the
building be retail. Mr. Cyr noted that this recoznmendation was located at Page 6 of
the staff report but it was not incorporated into the recommended conditions of
approval. Mr. Cyr recommended that the flexibility for retail should be retained and
that any retail should be located in the front, but that there should be no minimum
retail requirement,
Mr. Cyr also noted that in Exhibit 13, item 26 and item 35 limit storage and
wareliousing to the rear portion of the building and that this was not consistent with
everyone's understanding that warehousing was generally allawed tliroughout the
building.
Randy Fiorito, president of Fiorito Brothers. He testified that Fiorito Brothers has
awned the property since the late 1960s. They were involved in building in SR 167
which is how they acquired the property. Fiorito Brothers completely rebuilt M street
when they sold the Costco property. Fiorito Brothers owns 35% of the property and
liis cnother owns the rest. They have desperately been trying to sell the praperty for
several years. Considerable monay was spent on the Costca property and they are in
tlie process now of installing drainage facilities and filI material.
Mr. Volchok ciarified that the property was last rezoned in 2006. He also confrmec€
that the commercial retail market has plummeted since that rezone.
Ms. Chamberlain noted that curb and gutter for M Street would not be necessary, but
that bike lanes and street trees may still be required under current street standards.
Ms. Chamberlain noted that the City recently updated its Comprehensive
Transportation Plan to identify a bike lane alang M Street to coimect to the Interurban
Trail. She noted that the bike lane connection wolild be along M Street through 29`1'
to the Interurban Trail. She noted that althoicgh 29"' street is currently closed, it will
eventually be opened again.
{PA0768723.DOC;1\00083.900000\ }
Rezone p. 3 Findiiigs, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Ms. Cliamberlain noted that the tota( square feet of the project may not exceed 95,000
square feet. She noted that the 25% limitatian on retail space was intended to be in
tlie conditions of approval and shouid he added. Ms. Chamberlain said that the need
for the retail is a batancing of the goals and policies of the City. She noted that the
City caYUiot continue to have warehousing due to tlie impacts on the City's artez•ial
network with no off-setting tax benefit. She stated that staff was willing to negotiate
on the 25% number. Slxe said that repiacing the 25% of tlie building with a
reyuirement for the first 20 interior feet of the building from the front of the huilding
be retail, as required for Opus in pages 13-14 of Ordinance No. 5607, would be
acceptabie. Ms. Cliambei•lain explained that there is only one BP use in the City
currently because the BP designation is a contract rezone process that only works in
specific locations and the rezone nnust be initiated by the property owner. Ms.
Chamberlain noted that about 18%'af the City is industrial and that a substantial part
of it is developed, but there is potential foz• redevelopment. She stated that the City
has determined that the City is balanced in its proportion of industrial to commercial
land. Ms. Chamberlain stated that staff would be agreeable to modifying Exhibit 13
to allow warehousing and storage throughout the building except the front, instead of
limiting it to the rear of the building. Ms. Cliamberlain also said staff would be
agreeable to having the conditivns require fi•ontage "according to code" as appased to
specifying specific bike lanes, etc.
Mr. Cyr noted that he served far eight years as a Pierce County Council member from
1997 to 2004 during which time a comprehensive ptan was adopted. He stated that
the Aubuin City Council passed a resohrtion addressing the streamlined sales tax and
lie suspects that the adoption of this resolution prompted the City Cauncil to laak foz•
ways to attract more tax revenue. He iioted that the resolutian does not have the force
of law and is just an expression of intent and is not binding on the applicant's
proposal. Ms. Chatnherlain noted that the resolution has been embedded into the
City's comprehensive plan and through the plan does have reguIatory autharzty over
development projects.
Mr. Volchok noted that Auburn lost a h•emendaus amount of development potential
wlien it adopted its wetlands regulatzon in 1987. He noted that it took him 14 years to
get an Army Corp wetlands permit for another Fiorito project. He also noted that he
does not believe in his lifetime that funding will ever be found to open 29"" given the
creek and z•ailroad crossing that would be involved.
EXHIBITS
All exhibits Iisted in the Exhibit List at Page 9-10 of the staff report on tliis
application, dated 2/3/10, are admitted. In the addition, the fallowing exhibits were
admitted during the hearing on this matter:
Exhibit 16 Affidavit of Publication (on published notice of hearing).
Exhibit 17 Auburn Ordinance No. 4962
(PA0768723.DOC;1100083.900006\ )
Rezone
p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Exhibit 18
Auburii Ordinance No. 5607
Exhibit 19
Hamm/Gemma Cora•espondence, Applicant Photas.
ExhiUit 20
Volchok written comments.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
1. ApuIicant. The applicants are the Fiorito Brothers, represented by Gary
Volchok.
2. Hearing, The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the application at
5:30 p.m. at Auburn City HaII in the Council Chambers on February 17, 2010.
Substantive:
3. Site/Propasal Description. The applicant has applied for the rezoning of
an approximate 10-acre parcel from C-3 (Heavy Commercial) to BP (Business Park).
The property was zoned Heavy Comniercial in order to encourage retail use in an area
that is proximate and visible to SR 167. The applicant has found that the area is not
suitable for exclusive retail use and wishes ta rezone it to BP in order to allow for a
inixture of retail and other uses such as industrial. ,
In order to acquire approval of a rezone to BP, the applicant must acquire approval of
a contrac# rezone that incorporates a conceptual site plan. ACC 18.36.020. The
planning director shall approve the final site plan. The applicant acknowledges tlaat
liis conceptual site plan is based upon one propased industrial use from several years
ago and will have little relation to what will actually be developed. There was some
testimony to the effect that the site plan establishes a maximum building area of
95,000 square feet, but this limitation is already included in the xecommended
conditions of approval. The site plan presented by the applicant appears to be
completely meaningless. The applicant has agreed to enhanced design requirements
that would not otherwise be applicable. These are outlined in Exhibit 14. The
applicant has also agreed to a limited set of uses for the property, which are outlined
in Exhibit 15.
4. Characteristics of the Area. The site is adjoined by SR 167 to the west, a
Costco distribution facility on #he east, an undeveloped wetlands and floodplain area
to the noi-th, and IS"' St. NW to the south. Emerald Downs is iocated east of the
Costco facility. M Street only connects to 15Ih St. NW. Assessor and ather maps
show that M street laops into 29th Street, hut 29th Street is closed. As noted by the
applicant, the project site is fairly isolated from any other use. There is conflicting
evidence on whether the praject site is visible from SR 167, with staff stating that it is
visible, in paiticular going southbound on SR 167 while the applicant presented
photos {Ex. 19} that it is not. The photus do not show what can be seen at auto level,
{ PA0768723.DOC;1 \00083.990400\ }
Rezone p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
so they are of limited utility. Vegetation or topography may very well Iimit visibility
from SR 167 but this is not evident from the photos.
2
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
5. Public Benefit. A critical requirement for approval of a BP designation is
that it must result in a public benefit. The applicant has made a compelliiig argument
that the property cannot be developed as a C-3 use. In addition to all the evidence
presented by the applicants, there is also the common sense conclusion that if they
could have sold the property as C-3, they would have dane so given the value of that
type af property. As a baseline, therefore, it must be acknowledged that there is a
public beziefit to the proposed rezone simply because it will facilitate the develapment
of vacant land in an urban area. This promotes the creation of jobs and an increase in
real propeFly taxes. The use limitations and design standards agreed to by the
applicant (Exhibits 13 and 14) further add to public benefit by enhancing the
conipatibility of the development wi#li surrounding uses and enhancing #he aesthe#ic
values of that development.
The one downside to tlxe rezone is that it facilitates industrial use, which the City
believes to create a demand on public services (mainly street wear and tear by
industrial vehicles) with no off-setting generation of public revenue through a sales
tax. The staff requirement for a mix of retail and industrial use off-sets this
downside. During the hearing staff and the applicant agreed upon language similar to
that specified pages 13-14 of Ordiiiance No, 5607 where it designates a minimum
amount of retail use. Although the parties came to agreement on some of this
language, the portion agreed upon does not stand upon its own. The parties agreed to
a minitnum requirement of 20 feet of interior space from retail windows without
agreeing upon how much window space is required. The Examiner will include the
amount of window space specifled in Ordinance No. 5607 as well.
Given the lack of marketabiiity of the property as a C-3 use and the design standards
and use limitations agreed to by the applicant, the proposal creates a net public
benefit.
6. Adverse Impacts. As noted above, the proposal will create a net public
benefit. As noted during public testimony, the pi•oject area recently went ttuaugh
sliort plat review. This shoirt plat review required fiill infrastructure improvements
and mitigation fox commercial use of the subject lot. As nated by the applicants,
most af the improvements they have made satisfy alI current development standards,
blit there will be some improvements in response to changes in stormwater standards.
Staff have also noted that some street improvements may be necessary, in particular
the addition of a bike Iane to M Street as cozi#emplated in the recently updated its
Comprehensive Transportation Plan, which now identifies a bike lane along M Street
as connecting to the Interurban Trait. All of these infrastruchire improvements are
minor enougli to be addressed at the site plan review stage of approval. Given solne
of the issues associated with the connectivity of the bike lane, the bike iane
requirement is also best left to the site plan review stage when there may be inore
information available about firture connectivity.
{PA0768723.DOC;1\00083.900000\ }
Rezone p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
S
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
There are no adverse impacts discernable from the record given that infrastc•ucture
improveinents can be adeqiiately addressed at site plan review, that there are no
environmentally sensitive areas associated with the site, and that there are no
conipatibility problems with adjoining land uses.
CONCLUSIUNS OF LAW
Procedirral:
1. Authority of Hearing Examinea•. ACC 18.68.030(B)(1)(a) grants the
Hearing Examinex• with the authority to review and make a recommendation on
rezone requests to the City Council if the planning director determines that the rezone
requests are consistent with the comprehensive plan. The planning director has
determined that the rezone request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The
camprehensive plan land use map designation for the property is Heavy Commercial
with an overlay of "region serving." ACC 18.36.010 provides tliat the BP zone may
be estab[ished in any area designated "region serving" that is zoned commercial or
industrial.
Substantive:
2. Zoning Designation. The property is curz•ent zoned C-3 (k.leavy
Commercial). "
3. Case Law Review Criteria and Application. Washington appellate courts
have imposed some criteria themselves, requiring that the proponents of a rezone
must establish that conditions have substantially changed since the original showing
and that tlie rezone must bear a substantial relationship to the public health, safety,
morals or welfare. See Ahmarrn-Yamarte, LLC v. Tabler, 105 Wn, App. 103, 111
(2001). If a rezone implements the Gomprehensive Plan, a showing that a change of
circumstances lias occurred is not required. Id. at 112.
As discussed in the staff repott, there is no question that the project is consistent with
the comprehensive plan. The requirement for retaining some retail use along with the
industrial use helps to support Auburn's role as a regional employment and
commercial center as contemplated by Policy LU-3. The design standards agreed
upon by the applicant in conjunction wi#h the frontage retail x•equirement is consistent
with the LU-109 prohibition on placing industrial uses in highly visible areas (if the
area even qualifies as highly visible - as noted previously the evidence an this issue is
incomplete). The rezone facilitates the development of the vacant land into uses that
will create jobs, as consistent with Policy ED-8.
Although the policy may be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, it is debatable
whether it "implements" the Conipreliensive Plart. The current C-3 designation is
also consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. It is unclear from the case law whether
clianging from one consistent use to another qualifies as "implementing" the plan.
(PA0768723.DOC;1\00083.900(1001 }
Rezone p. 7 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The courts use of the term "itnplemenY" the Pian instead of the standard requirezneiat
for consistency with the Plan suggests that something more is required. The only
reasonably plausible "something more" is that the change is necessary for consistency
with the plan. Given that a rezone is not necessary to achieve consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan, a change in circumstances is necessary. The severe downturn
in the comiiiercial real estate market, as testified by Mr. Volchok, qualifies as a
change in circumstances since the last rezone of the property in 2006.
Since the proposal will result in a net public benefit as discussed in the Findings of
Fact, it bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals or welfare
as required by the case law cited abave.
4. Code Requii•ements for Approval of a BP Rezone. Although Auburn's
inunicipal code does not provide any review standards for rezones in general, there
are specific standards that apply to rezones to the BP designation. These standards
are identified in Chapter 1$.36 ACC. Relevant standards are quated below with
accompanyiiig analysis in conclusions of law.
ACC 18.36.020(A)(1): Conceptual approval of a business park shafl be
applied by fhe rezone process as spscified in ACC 98.68.030(B)(9)(a). The rezone
shall be a contract rezone and shall include an agreemenf that esfablishes the type,
square footage and general locatiorr of fhe uses; the locafion and size af the park,
resfrictive covenants; public improvements; and the responsibilifies of the '
owner/developer.
5. As mentioned previously, the conceptual site plan offered by the applicant
is worthless, since the applicant and staff both acknowledge that the project will
pz•obably not bear any resemblance to what is diagramed in the site plan. However, it
should be recognized that no site plan is actually required by ACC 18.36.020(A)(I) at
this stage of review. Exhibits 13 and 14, in conjunetion witli the 95,000-square-foot
size limitation and the boundaries of the subject parcel provide the information
required by ACC 18.36.020(A)(1). It is a little puzzling why the applicant has
presented any actual site plan, since all it accomplishes is coiifusion, it is understood
that the site plan helps establish a maximuin huilding area for the project, but if that is
all it is used for, its purpose must be more clearly expressed.
ACC 18.36.020(A)(2): A BP disfrict shail only be approved when fhe
owner/developer has demonsfrafed fhaf a public benefit will result and the project
contains architecfural, site, and landscape design standards that are significantly
superior to those typically required in the other industriai and commercial zones.
b. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 5, the project creates a net pubiic beneft.
A comparisan of the standards agreed upon by the applicant (Exhibit 13) ta those
required in other industrial and commercial zanes reveals that they are significantly
superior.
{PA0768723.DOC;1100483.900000\ }
Rezone p. 8 Findings, Conclusioiis and Decision
ACC 18.36.020(A)(3): No significant impacfs on the pubiic infrastructure sha11
occur thaf cannot be effectively mifigated by the development of the business park.
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
7. As discussed in Finding of Fact No. 6, infi•astrzicture improvements will be
relatively minor and can be addressed during site plan review.
DECISION
The Hearing Examiner recommends approval of REZ09-0003, subject to the
follQwirig cvndition:
1. A lot line elitnination shall be processed concurrently with the final site plan
approval.
2, The applicant shall submit a haffic impact aualysis, starm drainage repart, and
wetland report as part of the final site plan approval process.
3. The permitted uses shall be those uses identified in Exhibit 13 with the exceptions
previously nated. Items 26 and 35 of Exhibit 13 are revised to allow the specified
uses throughout the buildings of the project except in the areas xequired for retail use.
4. The project shall comply with the design standards as outlined in Exhibit 14. As
patl of the final site plan submittal and review process, the applicant shall submit
huilding elevations dernonstra#ing liow the proposed building complies with the
Fiorito Business Park Design Standards.
5. The general lacation af the proposed building to be developed on the subject site
shall be consistent with the conceptual site plan dated Febiuary 5, 2010. The total
area of any proposed building shall be limited to 95,000 square feet. The proposed
storm drainage facility may increase depending on the outcome of #he finai site ptan
review which could impact locatian of parking spaces and will be reviewed as pac-t af
the final site plan review pracess. The project shall compiy with the retail space
requirements of Condition 2(B)(1) of Auburn Ordinance Na. 5607,
6. A master landscape plan shall be prepared for the entire project site. A minimum
ten-(10)-foot-wide landscape area shall be consti•ucted along the M Street NW as it
rises to intersect 1 Sth Street NW and shall be designed in an innovative way to create
a gateway into the project. The niaster landscape plan shall be prepared and
submitted as part of the final site plan process,
7. A master sign plan shall be prepared and approved by the City that coordinates
the exterior signs of the individual tenaiits. The sign regulations outlined in ACC
Chaptea• 18.56 for the C-3 zone shall apply for szze, height, and number af signs
pertnitted, Signage shall be part of tlie architecture of the btiilding and not an
afterthought; however, the architectural design of the tenants' logos is not iiitended to
(PA0768723.UOC;1 100083.9000001)
Rezone p. 9 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
be altered by this conclition. The master sign plan shall be prepared and submittecl as
part of the final site plati pt•aeess. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IQ
12
13
14
15
lb
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
8. All eYterior lighting sliall be designed and constructed S11CI1 that the direet
illumination does not ucveasonably spill over on adjaining properties. The exterioi•
lighting sliall be coardinated for the site, includiiig both parking lot lighting anci
builciing lighting. The exterior lig}iting plan sliall be prepared and submitted as part
of the final site plan process.
9. 1'edestrian walkways shall be pz•ovided that connect the parking areas to building
entrances. Pedestrian connections shali be clear~ly defined by textut•ed paving,
including vehicular lanes, such as unit pavers, stajliperl concrete, or scored concrete.
These walkways sI1a11 be sliowti on the final site plan.
10. The coiicept of a recreatiotaal trail adjacent to the wetlanci area on Parcel
1221049041 sliall be part of the final site plan review process and potential
coiuiection to the Iixterurban Trail explorecl.
11. Amendments to this Business Park rezone may occur as follows:
a. The Plarnliilg Director rnay interpret the wards and meaning of the certain
conditians in order to resolve conflicts ni implementatian.
b. If changes ta tlte language of the i•ezone are x•equired, such proposed
cliaiiges sliall ba reviewecl by the Plaiuiing and Canunuiiity Development Committee
of the City Coimcil, or its successor. If the ehange is zninor-less than 10%
change-tlien the Committee shall tzlake a recommendation to the City Council. If
the change is major-greater than IO% modification-then the Committee sliall refer
the cliange ta the Hearing EYaminer. Tlie Heariiig Examiner sliall conduct a ptiblie
hearing and make a reconirnendation to the City Council.
c. Amendinents to the rezane shall only be initiated by the propeity owner of
the City.
Dated this 1 st day of March, 2010.
F ii ~Olbrechts
City of Atibuz•n Hearing Exanliner
{PA0768723.DOC;1\00083.900000\ }
Rezone p. 10 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Ct`IYOF
L Rl ~
WASHINGTC)N
Exhibit 1
Number of Pages 10
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject: Fiorito Business Park Rezone; Application No.
Date: February 3, 2010
REZ09-0003
Department: Planning and
Attachments: See Exhibit List
Budget Impact: N/A
Development
Administrative Recommendation: The Hearing Examiner recommends approval to the City Council of
the Fiorito Business Park
Rezone along with the staff recommended conditions of approval.
Background Summary:
OWNER/APPLICANT:
Appiicant: Gary Volchok, CB Richard Ellis 701 Pike Street, Suite 2100,
Seattle, WA 98101
Owner: Fiorito Brothers, 1100 NW Leary Way, Seattle, WA 98107
REQUEST:
Rezone approximately 10 acres from C-3, Heavy Commercial, to BP,
Business Park
LOCATION:
1050 M Street NW; Parcel Numbers: 1221049041, 1221049042, and
1221049043
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION:
Heavy Commercial
SEPA STATUS:
DNS issued on January 18, 2010
Reviewed by Council & Committees:
Reviewed by Departments & Divisions:
❑ Arts Commission
COUNCIL COMMITTEES:
0 Building ❑ M&O
❑ Airport
❑ Finance
❑ Cemetery ❑ Mayor
p Hearing Examiner
❑ Municipal Serv.
❑ Finanee ❑ Parks
❑ Human Services
❑ Planning & CD
0 Fire E Planning
❑ Park Board
❑ Public Works
❑ Legal ❑ Police
❑ Planning Comm.
❑ Other
ED Public Works ❑ Human Resources
p Information Services
Action:
Committee Approval:
❑Yes ❑No
Council Approval:
❑Yes ❑No Call for Public Hearing
Referred to
Until _
Tabled
Until
Councilmember:
Staff: Chamberlain
Meetin Date: Februa
17, 2010
Item Number:
AUBURN *MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED
Agenda Subject: Fiorito Business Park Rezone; Application No. Date: February 3, 2010
REZ09-0003
The Comprehensive Plan designation, zoning designation and land uses of the surrounding properties
are:
'Com rehensive Plan
Zonin '
Land Use
Project Site
Heav Commercial
C-3, Heav Commercial
Vacant
North
Heav Commercial
C-3, Heav Commercial
Vacant
South
Light Industrial
EP, Environmental Park
District
15'h Street NW
East
Heavy Commercial
C-3, Heavy Commercial
Costco Wholesale
warehouse
West
Li ht Industrial
M-1, Li ht Industrial
SR -167
Page 2 of 10
Agenda Subject: Fiorito Business Park Rezone; Application No. Date: February 3, 2010
REZ09-0003
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. Gary Volchok, CB Richard Eilis, on behalf of Fiorito Brothers Inc., has applied for a contract
rezone for a 10 acre property located at 15th Street NW and M Street NW, approximately 1500 M
Street NW.
2. A Comprehensive Plan Text amendment was applied for concurrently with the rezone on June
17, 2009. However, after further review of the requested land use action and the Auburn City
Code, staff determined that a text amendment was not necessary.
3. The Business Park (BP) Zone is allowed pursuant to Auburn City Code (ACC) Chapter 18.36 and
is intended to provide a suitable area for industrial, professional office, service, and commercial
uses within a planned, weli managed site with high quality development standards.
It is also the intent of this district to allow flexibility with regard to development standards and
uses if the flexibility results in an atmosphere of superior architectural, site and landscape design.
This district may be applied to any site within the city designated as "region serving" in the
comprehensive plan, which is zoned commercial or industrial. In addition, the comprehensive
plan identifies specific locations appropriate for business park development.
The subject site is within the City's "region serving area" (Exhibit 15) and has a commercial
zoning designation.
4. The C-3 (Heavy Commercial) zone allows for a variety of uses ranging from automobile sales to
professional offices (see ACC 18.30.020). The intent of the C-3 zone is,
"The intent and objective of the C-3 district classification and its application is to provide
for the location of and grouping of enterprises which may involve some on-premises retail
service but with outside activities and display or fabrication, assembling, and service
features. This zone is intended to accommodate uses which are oriented to automobiles
either as the mode or target or producing the commercial service. The uses enumerated
in this classification are considered as having common or similar performance standards
in that they are heavier in type than those uses permitted in the more restrictive
commercial classifications."
5. The intent of the M-1 (Light Industrial) zone is,
"The purpose of the M-1 light industrial zone is to accommodate a variety of industrial,
commercial, and limited residential uses in an industrial park environment, to preserve
land primarily for light industrial and commercial uses, to implement the economic goals
of the comprehensive plan and to provide a greater flexibility within the zoning regulations
for those uses which are non-nuisance in terms of air and water pollution, noise,
vibration, glare or odor. The light industrial/commercial character of this zone is intended
to address the way in which industrial and commercial uses are carried out rather than
the actual types of products made.
The character of this zone will limit the type of primary activities which may be conducted
outside of enclosed buildings to outdoor displays and sales. Uses which are not
customarily conducted indoors or involve hazardous materials are considered heavy
industrial uses under this title and are not appropriate for the M-1 zone.
An essential aspect of this zone is the need to maintain a quality of development that
attracts rather than discourages further investment in light industrial and commercial
development. Consequently, site activities which could distract from the visual quality of
Page 3 of 10
Agenda Subject: Fiorito Business Park Rezone; Application No. Date: February 3, 2010
REZ09-0003
development of those areas, such as outdoor storage, should be strictly regulated within
this zone."
6. Pursuant to ACC Section 18.36.030, uses listed as permitted, administrative, and conditional in
the M-1 zone and uses listed as permitted in the C-3 zone may be considered for a Business
Park zone. The applicant requests a variety of uses be permitted as part of the Business Park
including warehousing and manufacturing. Please see Exhibit 12 for the complete list of
recommended permitted uses by staff and Exhibit 3 for the complete list of uses proposed by the
applicant.
7. There are specific development and suppiemental development standards that are applicabie to a
Business Park zoned property outlined in ACC Sections 18.36.050 and 18.36.060.
8. As part of a Business Park rezone, a conceptual site plan is required. If the rezone is approved
by the City Council then a final site plan is submitted to the Planning Director for review and
approval. The conceptual site plan shows an approximate 95,250 square foot building with
associated parking, landscaping, and storm drainage facilities. As a tenant has not been
identified for this site, detailed analysis of parking, traffic, and storm drainage facilities will be
done when there is a tenant.
9. A goal of the Business Park zone, as stated above, is to provide a location for a mix of uses that
could include retail, office, or warehouse.
10. Pursuant to ACC 18.68.030 and 18.68.040, all applications for a rezone shall be reviewed by the
Planning Director prior to the scheduling of a public hearing. After review of the application, the
Director shall determine which of the following two processes should occur to properly hear the
rezone:
a. If the rezone is consistent with the comprehensive plan, then the Hearing Examiner shall
conduct a public hearing on the rezone and make a recommendation to the City Council
pursuant to ACC 18.66.170.
b. If the rezone is in conflict with the comprehensive plan, or there are no policies that relate
to the rezone, or the policies are not complete, then a comprehensive plan amendment
must be approved by the City Council prior to the rezone being scheduled for a public
hearing in front of the Hearing Examiner. The Planning Commission shall conduct a
public hearing on the comprehensive plan amendment and make a recommendation to
the City Council.
This application is consistent with the comprehensive plan, as outlined below in the conclusions
portion of the staff report and is therefore being processed pursuant to Process A specified
above.
11. The applicant filed an environmental checklist that addressed the comprehensive plan
amendment and rezone. The checklist was revised on June 23, 2009 to identify adjacent critical
areas (Exhibit 5).
12. On January 18, 2010, the SEPA Responsible Official issued a Determination of Non-Significance
(DNS) for the proposed Business Park rezone. The comment period ended February 2, 2010
with no comments received and the appeal period ends February 16, 2010 (Exhibit 6).
13. Pursuant to ACC 18.68.040, notice of a public hearing shall be given at least 10 days prior to the
public hearing and in accordance with ACC 14.07.040. The public hearing notice was published
in the Seattle Times on February 3, 2010, provided to the property owners within 300 feet of the
subject site, and posted on the subject property meeting this requirement (Exhibit 9).
Page 4 of 10
Agenda Subject: Fiorito Business Park Rezone; Application No. Date: February 3, 2010
REZ09-0003
14. The City Council changed their role in quasi-judicial approvals giving that authority to Hearing
Examiner to make decisions with the adoption of Ordinance No. 6184 on October 6, 2008. Since
rezones are approved by Ordinance the City Council is stiil the decision maker on rezones with
the Hearing Examiner making a recommendation on the proposal.
15. As part of the 2006 Annual Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, the City initiated several
land use map changes from an industrial designation to a commercial designation. The subject
property was part of those amendments with the City Council approving a land use change from
Light Industrial to Heavy Commerciai along with a subsequent rezone from M-1 to C-3. After four
years of not being able to secure a tenant for the site under the C-3 zoning, the applicant
requested a Business Park rezone in order to allow additional uses, primarily industrial.
16. M Street NW abutting the subject property to the west is a non-residential collector and this road
classification supports the rezone request. However the current roadway is not constructed to
current non-residentiai collector street standards. Any future development of the subject site will
require frontage improvements at a minimum inciudes curb, gutter, sidewalk, street trees, street
lights, and a bike lane.
17. The subject sites access is from M Street NW which ties into 15t" Street NW. This intersection is
located within approximately 350 feet to the 15th Street NW/SR-167 on/off ramps, which are
controlled by the Washington State Department of Transportation. Once a tenant has been
identified and the final site plan submitted for review, the City will further analyze the traffic
impacts of the project and identify appropriate traffic mitigation that may be warranted as a result
of the tenant.
CONCLUSIONS:
ACC Chapter 18.68 provides certain criteria for approval of a rezone and ACC Chapter 18.36 has specific
requirements that shall be met for approving a Business Park zone:
1. The rezone must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Comment
Policy LU-3 states that areas on the valley floor which are suitable to support large scale economic
development project should be reserved, for the most part, for uses which support Auburn's role as a
regional employment and commercial center (to be known as the Region Serving Area). The subject
site is within the designated Region Serving Area and proposed to be developed with a 95,000
square foot building that will support a range of commercial and industrial type uses.
Policy LU-109 states that highly visible areas (lands visible from SR-167 or SR-18) which tend to
establish the image of the city should not be used by heavy industrial uses. The subject site is visible
from SR-167, particularly from the southbound direction. Staff recommends several design standards
be applied to the development of this site as part of the contract rezone to insure that the project has
a high quality visual appearance.
Policy ED-8 states that Auburn should continue to provide an economic base not only for the Auburn
area but also for the south King County and north Pierce County region. The subject site is located
centrally in Auburn and will provide a range of commercial and industrial uses that will provide jobs
and economic growth within the region.
Page5af10
Agenda Subject: Fiorito Business Park Rezone; Application No. Date: February 3, 2010
REZ09-0003
The Economic Development chapter of the Comprehensive Plan discusses the impacts of
Streamlined Sales Tax on the City of Auburn. Auburn and similar cities have historically invested in
infrastructure to support businesses engaged in warehouse and distribution activities. With the
passage of streamlined sales tax, new warehouse and distribution facilities do not provide the sales
tax revenue to support the infrastructure needs of these types of uses. The applicant proposes that
warehouse and distribution is a permitted use as part of the business park. The Business Park zone
states that uses in the C-3 and M-1 zones may be permitted in the Business Park zone. Under
Finding 9, a goal of the Business Park zone is to provide a location for a mix of uses that could
include retail, office, or warehouse. Staff recognizes that requiring oniy retail at this location has not
proven successful; however, the recommendation is to permit only warehouse and distribution in the
rear portion of the proposed building and require retail in the front portion of the building that is visible
to SR-167. Under the recommended conditions of approval, staff requests that a minimum of 25% of
the building be retail.
Policy UD-9 states that the visual impact of large new deveiopments should be a priority
consideration in their review and approval. Staff's recommendation includes design standards for the
project to develop under.
2. The rezone must be initiated by someone other than the City in order for the Hearing Examiner
to consider the request.
Comment
The rezone has been initiated by the property owner, Fiorito Brothers Inc. and applicant, Gary
Volchok.
3. Pursuant to ACC Section 18.36.020, a conceptual approval is the first step in a Business Park
rezone. The rezone shall be a contract rezone and shall include an agreement that estabiishes
the type, square footage, and general location of the uses; the location and size of the park;
restrictive covenants; public improvements; and the responsibilities of the owner/developer.
Comment
The proposed business park is approximately 10 acres in size which meets the required minimum
area as required under Section 18.36.050. At the conceptual site plan stage, the application
proposes a single structure that is approximately 95,250 square feet. When a final site plan is
submitted, staff is not opposed to multiple structures as long as the total square footage does not
exceed 95,252 square feet.
As stated in the application materials (Exhibit 3), the applicant proposes several uses from both the
C-3 and M-1 zoning districts. Staff concurs with the majority of the proposed permitted uses with the
exception of bingo halls and cold storage plants (Exhibit 13). As discussed under response number
1, the Business Park zone states that uses in the C-3 and M-1 zones may be permitted in the
Business Park zone. Under Finding 9, a goal of the Business Park zone is to provide a location for a
mix of uses that could include retail, office, or warehouse. Staff recognizes that requiring only retail at
this location has not proven successful; however, the recommendation is to permit only warehouse
and distribution in the rear portion of the proposed building and require retail in the front portion of the
building that is visible to SR-167. Under the recommended conditions of approval, staff requests that
a minimum of 25% of the building be retail.
Frontage improvements will be required when the property develops and any necessary utility
improvements depending on the tenant of the building (e.g. fire flow). As mentioned above under
Finding 16, staff will review the traffic impacts once there is a tenant and a project is submitted for
permits.
PageBof10
Agenda Subject: Fiorito Business Park Rezone; Application No. Date: February 3, 2010
REZ09-0003
4. Pursuant to ACC Section 18.36.020, a Business Park zone shall only be approved when the
owner/developer has demonstrated that a public benefit will result and the project contains
architectural, site, and landscape design standards that are significantly superior to those
typically required in the other industrial and commercial zones.
Comment
The applicant proposes to construct a development similar to the Opus Park site, which was a
Business Park, originally approved by the City Council in 1997 (Ordinance No. 4962) and
subsequently revised in 2001 (Ordinance No. 5607), and located south of the SuperMall (See Section
D of Exhibit 3). The applicant proposes the project site will have landscaping, a master sign plan,
lighting, and architectural features similar to those constructed at the Opus Park site.
Staff reviewed the proposed elements to the Fiorito Business Park Rezone and provided a
comparison outlined below:
Re uired b Code
A licant Pro osal to Exceed Standard
a. Fronta e landsca in - 5 foot width T e III
a. Pro osal 10 foot width landsca in
b. Architectural elements - Comprehensive Plan
b. Applicant proposes similar architectural features
policies to address visual impact of large
as the Opus Park site.
developments however, City does not have design
standards for the C-3 zone
c. Parking lot landscaping -100 square foot
c. What shown on the conceptual site plan is code
lanter island eve 10 stalls.
minimum.
d. Signs permitted individually by tenant
d. Applicant proposes to have a master sign plan
for the business park.
e. Recreation facilities are not required as part of
e. Provide a trail along the wetland buffer that
commercial develo ment.
could otentiall connect to the Interurban Trail.
Staff concurs that the applicant's proposal exceeds the standards required by code in regards to
landscaping, a master signage plan, and providing a trail. While the architectural elements are not a
code requirement and the appiicant is proposing similar project look to the Opus Park site, staff is
concerned with some of the features at the Opus Park site such as blank walls, no awnings over
business entrances, and the building scale appearance. Staff recommends design standards be
applied to the project as outlined in Exhibit 14.
5. No significant impacts on the public infrastructure shall occur that cannot be effectively
mitigated by the development of the business park.
Comment
The proposed Business Park is not anticipated to have significant impacts on the public infrastructure
that cannot be effectively mitigated. There are existing utilities available to the project site; an 8 inch
sewer main and 8 inch water main. Depending on the eventual tenant of the subject site, there could
be a need to upgrade the water main to meet fire flow requirements. Frontage improvements will be
required along M Street NW to meet the City's non-residential collector standards. As previously
stated, a detailed traffic analysis will be provided and reviewed by staff at the final site plan stage and
a tenant is identified.
6. If the approval of the business park requires a subdivision of the property, the preliminary plat
may be processed concurrently.
page 7 of 10
Agenda Subject: Fiorito Business Park Rezone; Application No. Date: February 3, 2010
R EZ09-0003
Comment
The business park does not require a subdivision of the property; however, a lot line elimination will
need to be processed concurrently with the final site plan approval process to remove the parcel line
going through the property building. Staff recommends a condition of approval to address this.
In addition, the Washington State Supreme Court has identified other general rules for rezone
applications (see Parkridge v. Seattle, 89 Wn.2d.454; 573 P.2d 359 (1978)):
a. Conditions in the area must have changed since the original zoning was established if not
consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Comment
The proposed business park rezone is consistent with the comprehensive plan as analyzed
above under response number 1.
b. The proposed rezone must bear a substantial relationship to the general welfare of the
community.
Comment
Also a requirement of the Business Park zone, the applicant must demonstrate a public benefit.
The proposed rezone implements the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan by providing economic
development within the Region Serving Area of the City. By meeting the conditions of approval,
the development will be constructed under design standards that would not otherwise be required
if developed under the C-3 zone as well as providing additional landscaping, and potentially
recreational facilities along the access road that could potentially connect to the Interurban Trail.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the application and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of the staff report, staff recommends
that the Hearing Examiner recommend to the City Council approval of the rezone with the following
conditions of approval:
1. A lot line elimination shall be processed concurrently with the final site plan approval.
2. The applicant shall submit a traffic impact analysis, storm drainage report, and wetiand report as
part of the final site plan approval process.
3. The permitted uses shall be those uses identified in Exhibit 13 with the exceptions previously
noted.
4. The project shall comply with the design standards as outlined in Exhibit 14. As part of the final
site plan submittal and review process, the applicant shall submit building elevations
demonstrating how the proposed building complies with the Fiorito Business Park Design
Standards.
5. The general location of the proposed building to be developed on the subject site shall be
consistent with the conceptual site plan dated February 5, 2010. The proposed storm drainage
facility may increase depending on the outcome of the final site plan review which could impact
location of parking spaces and will be reviewed as part of the finai site plan review process.
Page 8 of 10
Agenda Subject: Fiorito Business Park Rezone; Application No. Date: February 3, 2010
REZ09-0003
6. A master landscape pian shall be prepared for the entire project site. A minimum ten (10) foot
wide landscape area shali be constructed along the M Street NW property frontage. The
expanded landscape area along the top of slope area of M Street NW as it rises to intersect 15tn
Street NW shall be designed in an innovative way and create a gateway into the project. The
master landscape plan shall be prepared and submitted as part of the final site plan process.
7. A master sign plan shall be prepared and approved by the City that coordinates the exterior signs
of the individual tenants. The sign regulations outlined in ACC Chapter 18.56 for the C-3 zone
shall appiy for size, height, and number of signs permitted. Signage shali be part of the
architecture of the buiiding and not an afterthought; however, the architectural design of the
tenants' logos is not intended to be altered by this condition. The master sign plan shall be
prepared and submitted as part of the final site plan process.
8. All exterior lighting shall be designed and constructed such that the direct illumination does not
unreasonably spill over on adjoining properties. The exterior lighting shaii be coordinated for the
site; including both parking lot lighting and building lighting. The exterior lighting plan shall be
prepared and submitted as part of the final site plan process.
9. Pedestrian walkways shall be provided that connect the parking areas to building entrances.
Pedestrian connections shall be clearly defined by textured paving, including vehicular lanes,
such as unit pavers, stamped concrete, or scored concrete. These walkways shall be shown on
the final site plan.
10. The concept of a recreational traii adjacent to the wetiand area on Parcel 1221049041 shall be
part of the final site plan review process and potentiai connection to the Interurban Trail explored.
11. Amendments to this Business Park rezone may occur as follows:
a. The Planning Director may interpret the words and meaning of certain conditions in order
to resolve conflicts in implementation.
b. If changes to the language of the rezone are required, such proposed changes shall be
reviewed by the Planning and Community Development Committee of the City Council, or
its successor. If the change is minor, less than 10% change, then the Committee shall
make a recommendation to the City Council. If the change is major, greater than 10%
modification, then the Committee shall refer the change to the Hearing Examiner. The
Hearing Examiner shall conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to the City
Council.
c. Amendments to the rezone shall only be initiated by the property owner of the City.
EXHIBIT LIST
Exhibit 1
Staff Report
Exhibit 2
Vicinity Map
Exhibit 3
Application
Exhibit 4
Conceptual Site Plan
Exhibit 5
Environmental Checklist
Exhibit 6
Combined Notice of Application (NOA) and SEPA Determination
Exhibit 7
Affidavit of Posting NOA and SEPA Determination
Exhibit 8
Affidavit of Mailing NOA and SEPA Determination
Exhibit 9
Notice of Public Hearing
Exhibit 10
Affidavit of Posting Public Hearing Notice
Exhibit 11
Affidavit of Mailing Pubic Hearing Notice
Exhibit 12
Aerial Photograph
Page 9 of 10
Agenda Subject: Fiorito Business Park Rezone; Application No. Date: February 3, 2010
R EZ09-0003
Exhibit 13
Staff Recommended Permitted Uses for Fiorito Business Park
Exhibit 14
Design Standards for the Fiorito Business Park
Exhibit 15
Map 3.2, Urban Form, Auburn Comprehensive Plan
Exhibit 16
Ordinance No. 4962, Opus Business Park Rezone
Exhibit 17
Ordinance No. 5607, Opus Business Park Revised Rezone
Sfaff reserves the right to supplement the record of the case to respond to matters and information raised
subsequent to the writing of this report
Page 10 of 10
~•U
-41
_ , - ; - - , ; - , - - - - ,J
.
~
s J- 292NO
S~iy~p
b.e/` N ~ A $Ti { i I
NU
I • , - ! ~ ,5.%25111I ~
~
S> lj-j
~ f'nfi! i ' v'Izv~,iH I ~ ~~s~ ~ I ~ ~ C1-
~ 2967FI CY l,
lai> ! 'r.; S2efi7itcr
stw:m) plu ln ,S 256TN ~ Is
I ~
S7 'L., ~Z V n' ' ' i ?N 'j'.,. PIs nmH n ~ S 299~H : i , ~ ~I 'c
. - ' ; i
~
.',,h..
..1 I FzI s_'re b r»in ~g ' ~ ~,~o C ~ L ~ I ~ - I ST . I ~ I il i' \ i
}r A t 5 - 57 h1t ~
+ ao ZtL~CL 29ff1 ST Ifil
1
j , ~ ~ ( oR i _ ~ ,~~1 ~ ,1" ~i I - _ - - . ~
J~ 5
~P
L I,
~ s N J~
~ ~4111 AY 1, R"` ~QZ ~__.'1.a
I 171,' - I `
2
S 305T11
ST EME2ALp
_ - • v~ ~nl ~~'-----7 - .~1~,'WI7~7 i>I.i i`~ S1N SI idli ~ t'. ,
R HS S
GaIE~' ~ .,307TH f~~I _I I ZZND q
0E3711z.
. yA ~I ~ • .
I S 3107H
i
yT. S 310THQI ST~ • ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~
ST ~ q c 151'N ~i ;'I' N4! 15 TI-I ~ S 16TIi 3
S 3,3n6 nr', ST. 1
~ Sl I I - -
I- I ~ '
~i
nx n ~.»~aj'+ I4Tk_Sl 74 i a
ci
3]STH ST ~
TH
~,I S~l5rn rL 31611,
ST
~ ~ i 5 ]111H I ~ I PAhI _ , ~ i { ~
3187'N--~~57 ~ _S. _115TIi 157 =
s
_ _
~~1
°I~in ~ sni II=` ~1, ~ ' li
I UR~~~ ~
> 321ST ST' , _ . 3211H sT 4. ;
_s. _I_a•r~st _ sr
S 322NG
I ~ z
~-----i
6TH
y I'¢I PL Z2 kW
J24TFI ST x 11+i
~~25TH PO~ ~ ~ Cl
iZ6IH LII
6~ 4n ~
~ I; r ara~ ~i S r
~.5 32£3TN sr
I~-~~-.
ST
5 P91H.P' 5 2~ r,ouN rntrr vlc-W
~Di n ~ J!11 ~r I R ~ ~i Z
Af9~ 51 ~ Z ~ i
~ LP~~ 33]5r STi MOUMTqi~ ~tiF'3' sr~~ i
[Ix'iMlY / ~ SY « ` - •
I°
c~Nti~o►~ r- RWY
~n .
f 4:~
._-P,ltil l
_rr
-
f ~ )r~ ~i
i.i361"rl ST , 2 ~ Pl;R1( A ~~F•<« iY~.. I ~
, ~ ! 5 33G7h1 ItIDF ~ i 1, 81EI ST T.~t~' ~ y
ST
511!'fR T1Af.l. OF Si
~I~ I THE GRCl7~ NOHR~IIJFST
I'.. _S '^~3387H ST ~ - ` ~•~Cp L~;,~~~i _r iuu
.
~
- c- -
- ~ -
3non~j ST .SUPLf! 14ALL I-:Y '111 ~ G S•d u i ~ I 13
~I Q L15TI~1 ~ S T . o l S W
3112!1,,o
- , 5T • s 3azno ST
.
15
~
,o t
nLyn ~
; w4 r11 sI saq rH i_ sr
ADUIdU1d2Y_ 34GTH ST j _ .
V
~~1
~
ol
FARA" 7 { ~ F~'~ U
H o 2 S I I a} ~ s i I i1'~ ~I-, i ~
;
~ „ ~
- • - ' -
Exhibit 12
Number of Pages 1
Aerial Photograph of Subject Site and Vicinity
1500 M Street NW
REZ09-0003 Fiorito Business Park Rezone
JJ
1A
♦ ~ _ i~li b ~ ll.y y - .
~ .k
~ ~ . • ~ I Y i . r .
-
; ~ ~ ~ L:
, ,
~~~~..~~rF' .~1C. ~ •.~l~' ~ ' ~ ~:~I . ,..il... . I ' 1 .j.
h t~ ~ ~ ~ k ~ ~ { I
. _1'
. ..C ~ ~ ~a . ~ .
A ..,ar ~F~, . • ~ . i, :i ~ ~~~'~~r . .
~.ry 4
• • ' 4 q ` y
_ • F ~ ~ ~ ~
. _ _
1'~', rr.. •"~'~t ,;'~v~1G'~'~.~..~ L ' a 'v. ~ _ .
- . ~ ~ . _ . _ . . ~ . .4'~, ~_,,,,r,~; _ , ~ ~ , : ~ p ;L
y F"r•n.,y ~ . y0;
4 .
` ♦ s;~~ F I n~tl _ a. o.:.. " ~JJ~+: ~ ~1!~~k~ "-~."I~~,~~~'~.~
Ii'i~
. J ~ Y' « \ y~p+ 5. ~ ..•N - 'i.:::
~ * ~ ~ - -Y~ ~ ~'g~G`i i ~ ' y ~ a~ .,p ~
~ d n ,i~~,r~# .e. • r I~' ~c..
~ la"tie'~'`' + ~ ~t}}p r
~
;
M ,
~
y ~
Exhibit 13
Number of Pages 2
Staff Recommended Permitted Uses
Fiorito Business Park Rezone
PERMITTED USES
ENTIRE BUILDING
REAR PORTION
BUILDING ONLY
1
Arcades
YES
YES
2
Art, music, and photography
studios
YES
YES
3
Auction houses, excludin animals
YES
YES
4
Automobile re air services
YES
YES
5
Automobile sales, new and/or used
YES
YES
6
Automobile or truck rental
YES
YES
7
Automobile washes
YES
YES
8
Banking and related financial
institutions
YES
YES
9
Building contractor services,
includin stora e ards, if screened
YES
YES
10
Civic, social, and fraternal
associations
YES
YES
11
Delicatessens
YES
YES
12
D cleanin and laund services
YES
YES
13
Equipment rental and leasing, does
not include heavy construction
e ui ment
YES
YES
14
Hotels
YES
YES
15
Laund , self-service
YES
YES
16
Lumber ards
YES
YES
17
Mini-stora e warehouses
YES
YES
18
Motorc cle sales and service
YES
YES
19
Personal service sho s
YES
YES
20
Printin and ublishin
YES
YES
21
ProfessionalOffices
YES
YES
22
Recreational vehicle sales lots
YES
YES
23
Restaurants
YES
YES
24
Retail stores and shops, including
department and variety stores as
listed in ACC Section
18.30.020 WW 1-32 .
YES
YES
25
Re-u holste and furniture re air
YES
YES
26
Storage warehousing, limited to
being incidental to principal
ermitted use on ro ert
NO
YES
27
Truck sales with repair as
seconda use
YES
YES
28
Health and h sical fitness clubs
YES
YES
29
Household movers and stora e
YES
YES
30
Janitorial Services
YES
YES
31
Manufacturing, assembling and
YES
YES
packaging of articles, products and
merchandise when conducted
entirely within an enclosed building
and if 1 job per 1,000 square feet is
created.
32
Printing, publishing, and allied
YES
YES
industries including such processes
as lithography, etching, engraving,
binding, blueprinting, photocopying,
and film rocessin
33
Research, develo ment and testin
YES
YES
34
Small a liance re air
YES
YES
35
Warehousing and distribution
NO
YES
facilities, to include wholesale trade
not open to the general public. This
includes motor freight
transportation as an incidental use
but specifically excludes motor
freight transportation as the
rinci al use of the ro ert
36
Other uses may be permitted by
YES
YES
the Planning Director if the use is
determined to be consistent with
the intent of the Fiorito Business
Park Zone and is of the same
general character of the uses
ermitted in this list
Exhibit 14
Number of Pages 2
DESIGN STANDARDS
FIORITO BUSINESS PARK REZONE
STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO SITE DESIGN
A. Parking Lots
1. Surface lots shall have a planter bed that includes at least one tree, a
minimum of two inch caliper at the time of planting, shrubs, and
groundcover.
6. Pedestrian Walkways
1. Pedestrian connections not less than five (5) feet wide shall be
provided through parking lots to building entrances and sidewalks.
2. Pedestrian connections shall be clearly defined by textured paving,
including across vehicular lanes, such as scored concrete, stamped
concrete, or unit pavers.
C. Lighting
1. Only City approved standard fixtures shall be uses for public sidewalk
lighting.
2. All site lighting shall be shielded from producing off-site glare and so
that the direction of the light is downward.
3. The maximum height allowed for parking lot lighting is 24 feet.
4. Site lighting should be appropriate to create adequate visibility at night,
evenly distributed to increase security, and coordinated with adjacent
landscaping to avoid casting long shadows.
D. Screening of Trash and Service Areas
1. Trash and service areas shall be placed away from streets.
2. All service, loading, and trash collection areas shall be screened by a
masonry fence and planting, with similar character to the design of the
building it serves.
II. STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO BUILDING DESIGN
A. Entrances
1. Main entrances should be oriented so they are visible to the public
right-of-way.
2. Building entrances shall have awnings a minimum of four (4) feet deep
and cover the entire door width.
B. Landscaping adjacent to Building(s)
1. To provide visual transition of the joining of a building to the site, a
minimum four (4) foot landscape space between the exterior wall and
the horizontal paved surfaces, except at entrances/exits, loading
docks, and service entries shall be provided. A mix of evergreen and
deciduous trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be included.
C. Building(s) Facades
1. All new buildings shall include on the fagade visible from the public
street, public recreational facilities, or the freeway shall the following:
a. Varied courses or panel of material
b. Articulated wall panels with accentuated joints, edges, or reveals
visible from the street.
c. Windows, doors, or other openings over at least 20 percent of the
building.
d. Articulated roofline or building base.
D. If concrete blocks (concrete masonry units or "cinder blocks") are used for
walls that are visible from a public street/freeway, public recreational
facility, or pedestrian route, then the concrete block construction must be
architecturally treated in one or more of the following ways:
1. Use of textured blocks with surfaces such as split-face or grooved.
2. Use of colored mortar.
3. Use of other masonry types, such as brick, glass block, or tile, in
conjunction with concrete blocks.
4. Use of decorative coursing to break up blank wall areas.
E. If concrete tilt-up structures are used for walls that are visible from a public
street/freeway, public recreational facility, or pedestrian route, then the
concrete wall must be architecturally treated in one or more of the
following ways:
1. Provided a textured scale to be visually perceptible at the distance
viewed by the public
2. Provide a pattern or composition created by casting relief in the
exposed face of the concrete.
3. Create compositions with horizontal profiles; a repetitive pattern
applied to multiple panels is acceptable.
Febriiary 19, 2009
C0NI_ME_RGIA_L
ClEUELOPMENT
& coNSULri_NG -
INUESTMEtJT AtID
6RONERAG@ SERVICES
RE: FIORITO INDUSTRIAL LAND
AUI3URN, WA
Dear Gaiy,
'
BibiNt I`
Nrsal~r o~'a~::a
WQ analyzecl thic cite forJunirn• hox retail kenancies (ast summer, ari beVlalfofPai7attoni
and quickly ascertained that the site is not a viable retail site for several reasons. Any of
the retail contacts we made we►•e tiot positive. Gei7eral comments are:
0 Access Without signalization on I Sth, will not accotnaiaodate any retaile►•s needs for
I110VII1g CtISt0111e1'S IIl fl11d OUt.
Visibility on the north bound directian on 167 is also limited to the site because of
its tightizess tucked into the interchange area.
We spoke with a handftil af retailers about the site and this opitlioii was basically
confirmed.
Even Nvit}i the iiistallation of signalization oty t Sth, the site 4vould still reniaiii a B to B-
retail site and we would highly acfvise tilat you aiid your client review for industria( usage.
Let rne know if we can be of any ftuiher assistance.
Best regards,
~r
,
~
James F. 1-Ianirti
Enclosures
m k, um" J\ fiunrI n1,~uI na14ii;,11 -titilc h')l.tt? I y
215 Firsl Avenue West
Suite 200
Seat1IQ, INA 98119
(246) 352-1101 • Fax (206) 352•1161
commercial• developmenl.com
LIPANATTONI0
February 24, 2009
Gary Volchok
First Vice President
CB Richard Ellis
701 Pike Street, Suite 2100
Seattle, WA 98101
RE; Fiorito Site Auburn, WA
Gary,
Per our discussion, the Fiorito site is effectively rendered undevelopable by its comprehensive
plan and zoning designation. The subject's Heavy Commercial comprehensive plan and C-3
zone are primarily intended for relatively intensc retail uses with high traffic valumes. A
thorough investigation of the retail brokerage community indicated that retailers liked the subject
site'S southbound exposure, but not its northbound exposure or access. Also, there is no signal
on 15`h to allow cars to tarn left onto "M" Street when traveling East. Further, the close
proximity of another signal would prevent a signal being placed at 15'h and M. Subsequently, no
intense retaiiers are interested in the site. Less intense retailers with low traffic counts {i,e,,
furniture stores, wholesalers, retailers with large shaw raoms} show some interest in the site.
Unforiunately, there are fewer of these reta3lers in the marketplace. In order to feasibly develop
the propased site, we need to be able ta lease to both less intense retailers as we11 as industrial
users. The BP, Business Park Zone allows uses included in both the C-3 and M-1 zones.
Given the above information, in order to make development of the subject site feasible, both the
subject's comprehensive plan and zone need to be changed.
Please feel free to call me with 9uestions.
Sincerely,
Patrick Gemma
Senior Develapment Manager
PANA170v[ DF.V EI.OPMtN1' COMPANY, l Nc.
684o Fort Denc Way, 5uite;5o - S<attle, Washingtong8t88 •'rc! 2o61248•0555 I Fax:o6iza8-00aa
DeiJt'lopmE,°/fit
flppr~~~tunrties
;
„
I~
;
~ . ,
. .
~ . -
.
,
, .
.
,
,
' •
„ -
1"raffic CountS
AvorAge UpAK]Lraff~c
~Intersection of SR 167 & 15th St NWL 116,000
Sowz•e: 1006 Mashingrr,n Srnie DO"f
~
Demographics (Estimate(l)
2 Mile 3 Mile 5 Milo
2007POPulation 27,202 64,892 213,241
2007 Avreracle Hhl income $57,037 _ $55,437 $60,094
Sorn-ce: 2007 Scnu/(I.S F,slinrutcs ~