Loading...
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 ~