(To view the agenda online: > Planning Commission > Agenda Packets )

Transcription

1 Members Scott Morris, Chair David A. Boe, Vice Chair Robert T. de Grouchy, III Jeremy C. Doty Peter Elswick Kimberly Freeman Sean Gaffney Thomas C. O Connor Agenda (vacant) Community and Economic Development Department Ryan Petty, Director Tacoma Planning Commission Peter Huffman, Planning Division Manager Public Works Department Charles Solverson, P.E., Building Official Tacoma Public Utilities 747 Market Street, Room 1036, Tacoma, WA Heather Pennington, Water Representative Phone (253) ; FAX (253) Cathy Leone-Woods, Power Transmission & Distribution Assistant Manager (To view the agenda online: > Planning Commission > Agenda Packets ) MEETING: TIME: PLACE: Regular Meeting Wednesday, August 5, 2009, 4:00 p.m. Tacoma Municipal Building, City Council Chambers First Floor, 747 Market Street, Tacoma, WA A. CALL TO ORDER B. QUORUM CALL C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Regular Meeting on June 17, 2009 (July 1 and 15, 2009 meetings were canceled) D. GENERAL BUSINESS (4:05 p.m.) 1. Development Regulation Agreements Description: Continue to review Development Regulation Agreements (DRA) as allowed by the Growth Management Act, together with a preliminary proposal (discussion draft) to amend the Land Use Regulatory Code to authorize their use in the city under certain specific circumstances and standards. Actions Requested: Review, Discussion Support Information: See Agenda Item GB-1 Staff Contact: Ian Munce, , imunce@cityoftacoma.org (4:20 p.m.) 2. Mixed-Use Center Master Planning Definition and Process Description: Discuss Resolution No adopted by City Council on July 28 directing the Planning Commission to develop recommendations concerning a definition, process, costs and priority to conduct master planning for mixed-use centers. Actions Requested: Review, Discussion Support Information: See Agenda Item GB-2 Staff Contact: Brian Boudet, , bboudet@cityoftacoma.org The Community and Economic Development Department does not discriminate on the basis of handicap in any of its programs and services. Upon request, accommodations can be provided within five (5) business days. Contact (253) (voice) or (253) (TTY).

2 Agenda for Regular Meeting on Wednesday, August 5, 2009 Page 2 (4:50 p.m.) Annual Amendment and Work Items Description: Review plan and code amendments under consideration for inclusion in the 2010 annual amendment package as well as other planning activities currently underway or planned to be initiated in the remainder of 2009 or 2010 Actions Requested: Review, Discussion Support Information: See Agenda Item GB-3 Staff Contact: Donna Stenger, , dstenger@cityoftacoma.org (5:10 p.m.) 4. Whither Tacoma? Description: A film presentation by Mr. Alan Liddle ( ), a Tacoma architect, per request of Vice-Chair Boe Actions Requested: Review (film length: 20 minutes) Support Information: N/A Staff Contact: Lihuang Wung, , lwung@cityoftacoma.org E. COMMUNICATION ITEMS 1. Land Use Administrator s Reports and Decisions Agenda Item C-1 2. Hearing Examiner s Reports and Recommendations Agenda Item C-2 F. COMMENTS BY PLANNING DIVISION G. COMMENTS BY PLANNING COMMISSION H. ADJOURNMENT

3 Members Scott Morris, Chair David A. Boe, Vice Chair Robert T. de Grouchy, III Jeremy C. Doty Peter Elswick Kimberly Freeman Sean Gaffney Thomas C. O Connor (vacant) Minutes Tacoma Planning Commission Community and Economic Development Department Ryan Petty, Director Peter Huffman, Planning Division Manager Public Works Department Charles Solverson, P.E., Building Official Tacoma Public Utilities 747 Market Street, Room 1036, Tacoma, WA Heather Pennington, Water Representative Phone (253) ; FAX (253) Cathy Leone-Woods, Power Transmission & Distribution Assistant Manager MEETING: TIME: PLACE: Members Present: Members Excused: Staff Present: Regular Meeting Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 4:00 p.m. Tacoma Municipal Building, City Council Chambers First Floor, 747 Market Street, Tacoma, WA Scott Morris (Chair), David Boe (Vice-Chair), Jeremy Doty, Peter Elswick, Kimberly Freeman Robert de Grouchy, Sean Gaffney, Thomas O Connor Brian Boudet, Peter Huffman, Reuben McKnight, Donna Stenger, Lihuang Wung (Community and Economic Development); Jana Magoon, Cap Pearson (Public Works Building and Land Use Services) Chair Scott Morris called the meeting to order at 4:22 p.m. The minutes for the regular meeting on June 3, 2009, were approved as submitted. GENERAL BUSINESS 1. Historic Preservation Plan Mr. Reuben McKnight, Historic Preservation Officer, stated that, in response to increasing interest in historic preservation related issues from the community, the City Council had appropriated $200,000 in its Biennial Budget for a review of the Comprehensive Plan policies relating to historic preservation and cultural resources management. This project will include: Amendments to the existing Comprehensive Plan Culture and History element, where gaps in policy exist, and the creation of a new Preservation Plan, including historical context statements, goals, language regarding coordination of preservation related policies with other City policies, and related areas. The Community and Economic Development Department does not discriminate on the basis of handicap in any of its programs and services. Upon request, accommodations can be provided within five (5) business days. Contact (253) (voice) or (253) (TTY).

4 Minutes of Regular Meeting of June 17, 2009 Page 2 The development of implementation strategies and review of regulatory code for consistency with policy framework; Updates to the City s Historic Buildings Inventory; Review of preservation related development incentives and recommendations regarding potential new incentives; and A citywide archaeological study, including the development of project review procedures, an archaeological resources inventory, a project permitting tool (such as a GIS-based risk based or probability model), and review of related policy and code areas for compatibility and coordination. The City has broken the project into two major components: (1) update to the Culture and History Element, and (2) a citywide Archaeological Study. The City has retained two firms, i.e., Winter & Company and ICF Jones & Stokes, to provide expertise and consulting services for each respective component. While the detailed scopes of work are being finalized by staff and consultants, the tentative schedule calls for the project kick-off to occur in summer 2009, development of the first draft documents in September 2009 and the final draft in January 2010, and the public distribution of proposed amendments in February 2010, along with the public review of the proposed 2010 Annual Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Regulatory Code, Mr. McKnight said. Vice-Chair David Boe asked for clarification on the nature and scope of the archaeological study. Mr. McKnight replied that the archaeological study will not involve excavation or testing, in search of archaeological sites; rather, it is intended to develop a database of potential sites of historical and archaeological significance. The database will be similar to the statewide predictive model that the State is developing, using a GIS platform, to denote the high, medium and low assessment probabilities for potential sites. He said that currently the City requires projects occurring within the tribal settlement boundary to have an archaeological assessment done as part of the SEPA review and shoreline permitting processes, while projects located elsewhere are required to answer three questions in the SEPA Checklist pertaining to Historical and Cultural Preservation. The three questions address known sites on historical registers, known sites of historic and archaeological significance, and impact mitigation measures. However, most project applicants tend to answer N/A (not applicable) to these questions, which is not adequate. The database resulting from the archaeological study would provide a data-driven approach and an efficient tool to determine potential impacts. Project applicants would have to engage cultural resources professionals to review the three questions and address them with a formal technical memorandum, Mr. McKnight stated. Vice-Chair Boe commented that it seems the results of the archaeological study should infuse the update to the Culture and History Element, but the two projects are proceeding simultaneously. Mr. McKnight replied that the two projects will be well coordinated and integrated with each other. Commissioner Kimberly Freeman asked if the Historic Buildings Inventory is or would be on the GIS mapping system and available online for prospective developers. Mr. McKnight replied that the City has been digitizing the paper record of the citywide architecture photograph survey into the State inventory format. Those data that have been digitized are available online at and the new data produced by the study will be put online as well.

5 Minutes of Regular Meeting of June 17, 2009 Page 3 Commissioner Jeremy Doty wondered if the inventory contains only those buildings that the City has determined as historically or culturally significant, but not necessarily those buildings that the owners have requested for inclusion in certain historic registers. Mr. McKnight replied yes and commented that the inventory will not be a list of landmarks and that whether a building should be included in, or in some circumstances removed from, the inventory will be determined by architectural professionals. The inventory is intended to be a management tool to provide policy guidance and increase the predictability and efficiency in handling buildings of historic and cultural significance. Commissioner Doty commented that the City, essentially dictating to building owners what constitutes historic significance, should be cautious that some buildings owners might demolish the buildings before new, applicable regulations prohibiting such become effective. Vice-Chair Boe asked if the inventory would include groupings of buildings that, individually, may not be considered historically significant, but collectively, represent a certain era or value in the history. Mr. McKnight responded yes and commented that the inventory is a way for the City to proactively look into areas that have prevailing historic significance. 2. Mixed-Use Center Update Project Ms. Donna Stenger stated that the purpose of the discussion, in response to the Planning Commission s request, is to assist the Commissioners in framing and structuring their thoughts about master plans for Mixed-Use Centers. The Commission is scheduled to present its recommendations on the Mixed-Use Centers Zoning and Regulations to the City Council at the joint study session on June 30, 2009, and master planning will be presented as part of the next steps. To facilitate the Commissioners discussion, Ms. Stenger distributed a handout containing the following suggested questions: What is a Master Plan? What are the expected outcomes of a Mixed-Use Center Master Plan? What is the purpose/goal? What is the most important thing that a Master Plan process could achieve? What should/should not be included in a Master Plan? What should be on the table and what should not? What factors should be looked at in prioritizing the Mixed-Use Centers for master planning? Ms. Stenger also mentioned that Commissioner Tom O Connor had requested to be excused from the meeting and asked his thoughts be shared with other Commissioners. He believed that master planning is a must, should occur on several levels, and could be pursued in the following steps as a sequence: (1) Assess the infrastructure of each mixed-use center to determine its capacity to handle the density proposed when fully developed. Identify the low hanging fruit so that development might be directed toward the centers most ready to go now; (2) Where required, prioritize the mixed-use centers that fall below the level of service needed to support the planned density. This can then become the basis for future Local Improvement Districts (LIDs); and (3) Develop interconnectivity between the mixed-use centers and downtown, employment centers, utilities and regional transit.

6 Minutes of Regular Meeting of June 17, 2009 Page 4 Mr. Peter Huffman noted that staff is preparing a discussion paper about mixed-use center master planning, in response to the request that Deputy Mayor Julie Anderson made at the joint study session with the Planning Commission on May 19 th. The discussion paper will be forwarded to the City Council later this week, and will be made available to the Commissioners prior to the June 30 th study session, he said. Discussion began. Vice-Chair Boe offered his view of the key components of a good master plan, i.e., an inventory of the existing conditions and infrastructure to provide a good understanding of the study area, a program for the area that indicates the uses and functions for various facilities (e.g., commercial on the ground floor), the community s desired vision and character for the area (taking into account such aspects as urban design, architectural attributes, open spaces and parks, street rights-of-way, parking, building heights, building scales, setbacks, and view), an economic analysis to examine the development potential, and an action plan to upgrade the infrastructure as necessary. Mr. Huffman asked if Vice-Chair Boe was implying that the master plan could result in distinct land use regulations developed for and applied to individual properties for example, the building on one property could be as high as 85 feet and the one on the next property only 45 feet. Vice-Chair Boe replied that potentially it could, depending on what vision and character the community wants for the area; taking South Tacoma Way as an example, the densities and heights of developments on either side of the street could be very different, because the west side is adjacent to an industrial area while the east side abuts residential areas. Mr. Huffman presumed that Vice-Chair Boe also inferred that when this concept is implemented with appropriate zoning regulations, the zoning envelope would be maintained, allowing buildings to go up to the maximum heights; in other words, the concept is not to be realized with minimum heights, which Councilmember Mike Lonergan had inquired about. Vice-Chair Boe concurred and commented that if projects must meet the minimum heights, they might not ever be built, especially when there is no market. Ms. Stenger pointed out that Vice-Chair Boe s comments seem to relate well to the type of master plans that are associated with major redevelopment projects on large sites (50+ acres) under single ownerships, such as shopping centers, town centers, the University of Washington Tacoma, and Foss Waterway; while in mixed-use centers, usually the City does not own any property. Vice-Chair Boe replied that the City owns all of the street rights-of-way. Mr. Huffman asked if the master plans that are being discussed refer to streetscape or right-of-way master plans. Vice-Chair Boe replied that streetscape and street rights-of-way are important aspects of a master plan, but what is more critical is the analysis of infrastructure to determine if the infrastructure would be able to support the development envisioned for the center or if the cost for upgrading the infrastructure could be so prohibitive that the center should not have been designated in the first place. Mr. Huffman asked whether the Broadway LID would be considered a master plan. The project assessed the zoning and the development potential of the area, estimated the capacity of the infrastructure that would be needed, and improved the surface and underground utilities and streetscape accordingly. The geographic scope and the scale of the project, however, were dictated by the property owners and funding, hence the project was more about the infrastructure than the architectural aspects, Mr. Huffman said. Vice-Chair Boe commented that architecture has to be a component of a master plan, because it is closely related to so many issues in the zoning regulations especially associated with the transition between mixed-use development projects and the abutting residential neighborhood.

7 Minutes of Regular Meeting of June 17, 2009 Page 5 Commissioner Doty commented that architecture may have been over-emphasized in the conversation, while a master plan should also focus on such aspects as underground utilities, traffic patterns, nonmotorized transportation needs, right-of-way needs, Complete Streets concept, stormwater management, open space and public space, as well as the connectivity of the spaces and the acquisition of properties needed to make the connections. A master plan is really about the City declaring what we really want for a center, providing the predictability for the developers, and taking charge to make it happen, he said. Mr. Huffman added that Commissioner Doty s comments would infer that a master plan must be followed through with appropriate capital investments implemented by the City as well as public and private utility entities, and therefore LIDs could work as part of the capital improvements and as a mechanism to facilitate development. Commissioner Doty concurred. Commissioner Freeman commented that a master plan is a blueprint of how we get from where we are today to where we want to be tomorrow. The master plan would identify the current conditions and future needs of stormwater management, roads, transit services, open space, historic buildings, etc., and determine how to achieve the needed capacity and who would be responsible for implementation. Master plans do not necessarily have to be done for every parcel and every action, but will indicate what is most critical for a center and what is expected of the developers. For example, the City may be providing pedestrian facilities and bike lanes for a center, while for another center the City s focus is on historic preservation and developers are expected to provide the pedestrian facilities and bike lanes. Mr. Huffman wanted to clarify with Commissioner Freeman that, by pedestrian facilities and bike lanes, she meant streetscape improvements along the City s rights-of-way. Commissioner Freeman concurred, but added that the master plan should look beyond streetscape improvements and look at all infrastructure with the intent to incentivize development and enhance the quality of life for people living in the centers. For example, the master plan can help define where parks should be and how parks can be linked to schools, and that s the message the City would relay to the developer, she said. Mr. Huffman asked for further clarification about the term City that has been used by many Commissioners. If City means the City of Tacoma General Government, the City s responsibilities and authorities are limited to land use policies, zoning regulations, and certain infrastructure improvements; if parks and open spaces are the subject, MetroParks Tacoma should be involved in the master planning process; if the issue is transit service, at least Pierce Transit should be involved; and the same argument applies to utilities, the school district, the library board, etc., Mr. Huffman said. Commissioner Freeman commented that the roles and responsibilities of multiple jurisdictions are recognized, but the City of Tacoma is the leader and the driver, and should provide the leadership in the process. Vice-Chair Boe added that the City also sets the priority, which will in turn help secure funding and facilitate such actions as reaching a community agreement between the developer and the community to provide the amenities that the community desires. Mr. Huffman asked if the master plan adopted by the City should also be adopted by the agencies involved in the planning process. The master plan is not only a land use policy document, but also a capital improvement plan and a funding document. Adoption of the master plan by those agencies is one way to ensure the effective use of the various funding sources (such as LIDs, school bonds, park district bonds, and federal grants) for the implementation of the capital improvements, he said. Commissioner Freeman suggested that the master plan can be adopted by the City and subsequently ratified by other agencies. Commissioner Doty

8 Minutes of Regular Meeting of June 17, 2009 Page 6 questioned the need for doing so, because those agencies did not adopt our Mixed-Use Center policies or the Comprehensive Plan which provides guidance for capital improvements. Mr. Huffman offered an example, where a proposal in the City s master plan to surplus a school property for future park development would have a stronger standing and funding support if the master plan is also adopted by the Tacoma School District and MetroParks Tacoma. He added that questions such as this are anticipated to be brought up when the Commission meets with the City Council. Commissioner Peter Elswick commented that master plans enable developers to put a value on different land uses, anticipate where people are moving to, and better respond to the market. Without the information and not knowing what to expect, developers tend to avoid the infrastructure improvements that are expensive. Mr. Huffman referred to the written comments provided by Commissioner O Connor and brought up another perspective about infrastructure. One of the key issues related to infrastructure is undergrounding the power lines. In order to allow the development of higher buildings and the incorporation of urban design and architectural features, the existing overhead power lines within 10 feet of the property line would be obstructive and often need to be undergrounded. Undergrounding the power lines is preferably done in the back alley of the building, which however, constantly interferes with the existing large sanitary and storm sewer mains, so undergrounding would have to be done on the front street. Other utilities may also be accommodated along with the undergrounding of the power lines. Consequently, the scope of infrastructure improvements becomes broader than simply undergrounding the power lines; it also encompasses rebuilding the street and the streetscapes, renewing other utilities, and changing the services for various utilities. The improvements and changes to the infrastructure are necessary even when the capacity of the utilities may already be sufficient to serve the new development. That s the policy decision that has to be made for most of the mixed-use centers, especially the Neighborhood Centers, and that will create significant funding challenges, Mr. Huffman said. Vice-Chair Boe echoed Mr. Huffman s concerns and commented that overhead power lines are a massive barrier to development in mixed-use centers, which illustrates the need for master planning. Master plans will examine all issues and elements of the mixed-use center and determine the best strategy for the center s development. Commissioner Freeman also commented that master plans are a mechanism to facilitate and accommodate growth in centers, but it is cost prohibitive to conduct master planning for all 17 mixed-use centers, which is far too many for the city. We need to prioritize the centers to have master plans done for a few centers and monitor the growth in those centers and assess the effects of the respective master plans, she said. Mr. Huffman asked the Commissioners how centers should be prioritized for master planning. Chair Morris wondered if it could be done through an application process, involving the Neighborhood Councils and proper community groups. Vice-Chair Boe suggested it should be a political decision, based on such factors as where there is the greatest chance for successful return on investments, where there is considerable development potential, and where improvements are needed the most. Commissioner Freeman suggested that downtown should be part of the discussion given that downtown has its own issues and is already a high priority area in the City s development strategy, perhaps the question to ask is whether we want to invest in other centers so they will eventually become competitive to downtown or to first invest in downtown before expanding to other centers.

9 Minutes of Regular Meeting of June 17, 2009 Page 7 Mr. Huffman continued to ask if higher priorities for master planning should be given to centers where the business district(s) would support such programs as LID or a Business Improvement Area (BIA) for implementation and long-term maintenance. Chair Morris considered that a clear formula for success. Commissioner Doty suggested that the application process Chair Morris had brought up earlier would indicate whether a business district is interested in master planning and the willingness and readiness to form an LID or a BIA could be part of the criteria in the application. Commissioner Freeman added that cost could be another factor, in that a center that is furthest behind in terms of infrastructure improvement needs and has great support for master planning might be placed at a lower priority than a center that is closer to meeting its development potential and would cost much less to implement a master plan. Mr. Huffman asked how the Commissioners would convey their thoughts to the City Council. Vice-Chair Boe suggested emphasizing the concern of undergrounding the power lines, which is a main reason why developing in Tacoma is so expensive, as Commissioner O Connor had provided in his written comments. Mr. Huffman concurred and commented that what makes master plans different from comprehensive plans, neighborhood plans or subarea plans is the emphasis on capital improvements. He said undergrounding power lines meets the community s desire and urban design requirements but will drive the scope of infrastructure improvements, which will drive the cost of the projects, and consequently affecting the funding mechanism, the timing, and perhaps the support for the projects. Chair Morris suggested that the Commission be straightforward to the City Council and state the obstacles to master planning and the development of mixed-use centers. He also mentioned three criteria he would suggest for selecting centers for master planning, i.e., open land, highest market potential and economic rehabilitation. Vice-Chair Boe solicited examples of master plan areas where site visits could be considered. The Commissioners and staff did not pursue the filed trip idea, but discussed a number of areas around the Puget Sound region where master plans may have had an effect on the development. These areas included the Thea Foss Waterway, the University of Washington Tacoma Campus, the Union Station District, the Lakewood Town Center, the Renton Town Center, as well as the Northgate Mall area, the South Lake Union District and the University Village District in Seattle. It was recognized that UWT is a good example of an effective master plan, but the main leader is the State; the Lakewood Town Center is a good example of economic rehabilitation, but there is no residential component; and the U Village is a good example, but it was done by a private developer and there is no residential component. Commissioner Doty commented that a master plan is a marketing tool for the community. Citing the S. 56 th and S. Tacoma Way Center as an example, he said if there was a master plan, the community could sell it to prospective developers by painting a vision of the area, taking out some of the risks for development, and convincing the developers that their respective development on individual parcels will ultimately contribute to a bigger picture for the whole community. Chair Morris echoed that the S. 56 th and S. Tacoma Way Center is one of the areas that are ripe for redevelopment. Commissioner Freeman suggested that open spaces, public space and spaces between the buildings, as well as how these spaces interact with each other and with the surrounding neighborhood, are a significant component of master planning and should be captured in the conversation with the City Council. Mr. Huffman asked for clarifications if for example a parcel

10 Minutes of Regular Meeting of June 17, 2009 Page 8 contains a portion that is dedicated or desired to be an open space or a linear park in accordance with the master plan, would the property be zoned and regulated accordingly, such that it is controlled and eventually developed differently than other properties in the vicinity? Commissioner Freeman responded that in terms of parks, the approach would be for the community and the property owner to work together and recognize the importance of preserving the property as open space and acquire it at the fair market value through such mechanisms as Transfer of Development Rights (TDR), and grants. In terms of spaces between buildings, vacated rights-of-way, or view corridors, the approach would be to modify the land use regulations for the center as appropriate in order to facilitate the preservation of these spaces, she said. Vice-Chair Boe concurred and added that incentive is the strategy. Discussion continued. Vice-Chair Boe suggested that the City Council be assertive for example, not to endorse the Complete Streets policies on one hand while on the other hand leaving the power lines up. Commissioner Freeman commented that the Stimulus Package funds are available for economic development and perhaps the undergrounding of the power lines could be packaged with the green energy and economic development strategies and become competitive for the Stimulus funds. Commissioner Doty reiterated that the master plan should incorporate such components as the community s vision, traffic, open space and public space, sewer, water, as well as the connectivity and integration of all these components. Commissioner Elswick commented that the City needs to look through the eyes of the developer and lay out the desirability index type of information such as what would incentivize the developer, what the costs are, and what the developer has to work with right now in terms of the infrastructure improvements. Vice-Chair Boe emphasized the importance to realize the real estate reality. Chair Morris asked staff to reflect all these comments in the communication to the City Council. Ms. Stenger commented that one of the impetuses of the Broadway LID is that the Public Utilities saw the investment was happening and thousands of residential units were being built and became interested in improving the infrastructure in a comprehensive manner to accommodate the foreseeable growth. Part of the problem in working with the utilities is planning infrastructure improvements for a probability, not actuality. Asking for improvements now in hope of possible development in the future tends to turn into a concern and a resource issue. A good example is the Tacoma Mall Center where townhouses have been built; but the area was envisioned for higher density. If a master plan had been in place, the appropriate infrastructure improvements would have been designed for the higher density that did not occur, Ms. Stenger concluded. COMMUNICATION ITEMS Chair Morris acknowledged receipt of the following announcements: a. City Council Public Hearing on Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 5:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, concerning the Planning Commission s Recommendations on the 2009 Annual Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Regulatory Code b. Tacoma Light Rail/Streetcar Public Information Forum, Thursday, June 18, 2009, 6:00-7:00 p.m., Tacoma Municipal Building, Room 708

11 Minutes of Regular Meeting of June 17, 2009 Page 9 c. Public Informational Session on Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 5:30-7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, concerning the Planning Commission s Recommendations on the Proposed Mixed-Use Centers Code Revisions d. City Council Public Hearing on Tuesday, June 30, 2009, 5:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, concerning the Planning Commission s Recommendations on the Proposed Mixed-Use Centers Code Revisions e. The Planning Commission is accepting applications for amending the Comprehensive Plan and/or Land Use Regulatory Code for consideration in Application deadline is Tuesday, June 30, The City Council s adoption of the amendments is scheduled for June ( > 2010 Annual Amendment ) f. The Planning Commission s next meeting on, July 1, 2009 will be canceled. COMMENTS BY PLANNING DIVISION At the request of Chair Morris, Ms. Stenger provided a debriefing of the City Council s public hearing on June 16 th concerning the Planning Commission s Recommendations on the 2009 Annual Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Regulatory Code. Her report focused on Application # , submitted by the Port of Tacoma seeking amendments to the Critical Areas Preservation Ordinance, because there was a change to what the Commission had recommended. The original proposal would allow for dredging, demolition, and normal maintenance and repair of existing shoreline structures within the Hylebos, Blair and Sitcum Waterways with a letter of exemption rather than a critical areas permit. Throughout the Commission s review process, the application received support from the environmental stakeholders including the Citizens for a Healthy Bay (CHB). Two issues came up at the Commission s public hearing on April 1, 2009, i.e., expanding the exemption to all shoreline districts and adopting the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) pertaining to exempt activities pursuant to the Shoreline Management Act. These two revisions were eventually incorporated in the Commission s recommendations to the City Council, which were presented at the study session on June 9 th. On June 10 th, CHB communicated to the City Council an additional analysis indicating that exemptions allowed under WAC include new bulkheads, docks and single family residences, and that CHB does not believe it was the City s intent to exempt these activities due to the comprehensive scale of construction and the associated impacts. CHB s concern was concurred with by additional groups including People for Puget Sound and Futurewise, because such exemptions, albeit not likely to occur in Tacoma, could set a precedent for other jurisdictions. Staff has prepared revised language to the Critical Areas Ordinance accordingly and the draft language has been reviewed by the concerned organizations as well as the Port of Tacoma and the Foss Waterway Development Authority. No additional comments have been received, Ms. Stenger said. Chair Morris noted that it was CHB that had recommended incorporating the WAC exemptions in the original proposal, and was pleased with how CHB s modified recommendation was handled. At the request of Chair Morris, Mr. Huffman provided a preview of the Tacoma Light Rail/Streetcar Public Information Forum to be held on June 18 th. The meeting is sponsored by Deputy Mayor Julie Anderson, intended to gather citizens input on the potential extensions of Sound Transit s Tacoma Link light rail and the potential development of the Tacoma Streetcar system. It will be an open house with a number of stations of information for participants to

12 Minutes of Regular Meeting of June 17, 2009 Page 10 peruse. One of the stations will feature growth management and mixed-use centers as related to the transportation system development. Mr. Huffman also announced that there will be a public information meeting on June 25 th concerning the status of Sound Transit s D-to-M Commuter Rail Project, focusing on the bridge design over the Pacific Avenue crossing. Also in response to Chair Morris request, Ms. Stenger provided a preview of the Public Informational Session on June 24 th concerning the Proposed Mixed-Use Centers Code Revisions. The meeting will provide an opportunity for interested citizens to learn more about the proposals, so that they would be better prepared to testify, if they wish, at the City Council s public hearing on June 30 th. Staff expects a large crowd in attendance, Ms. Stenger stated. COMMENTS BY PLANNING COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Freeman commended Mr. Huffman, Ms. Stenger and Mr. Boudet for their professional work on the Mixed-Use Center project. Vice-Chair Boe also praised staff s capabilities and admired the staff s actions he had observed at numerous community meetings throughout the process. The meeting adjourned at 6:08 p.m. ADJOURNMENT

13 City of Tacoma Community and Economic Development Department Agenda Item GB-1 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Peter Huffman, Manager, Planning Division Development Regulation Agreements Draft Proposal DATE: July 29, 2009 Following on from the June 3, 2009 Planning Commission meeting at which staff presented an overview of Development Agreements pursuant to RCW 36.70B , at the next meeting on August 5, 2009 staff will present a draft proposal to add a new section to the Tacoma Municipal Code (TMC) entitled Development Regulation Agreements. It is important to note here and in the public notices that appropriate cross-references to this new section will need to be inserted in TMC and 13.06A. At the June 3, 2009 meeting the Planning Commission specifically asked for a sample Development Regulation Agreement ( DRA ) and for information as to how the cities of Bremerton and Spokane are using DRAs. Staff has established that Bremerton uses DRAs for interlocal agreements but not for site-specific project review. Spokane, on the other hand, routinely uses DRAs for site specific project review; a copy of a recent City of Spokane DRA is attached. Also attached is a DRA used by the City of SeaTac. Also attached is a discussion draft of a TMC amendment that would authorize the use of DRAs in the City of Tacoma. Key items for Planning Commission review are anticipated to focus around what types of project should qualify to use DRAs, e.g., size, location and public benefits. If you have any questions, please contact Ian Munce at or imunce@cityoftacoma.org. PH:im Attachments (3) 747 Market Street, Room 1036 Tacoma, Washington (253)

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39 Development Regulation Agreements Proposed Revisions to Tacoma Municipal Code Planning Commission Review Draft, August 5, Development Regulation Agreements (Key issues highlighted in red) Purpose: Pursuant to RCW 36.70B , the purpose of this section is create an optional application procedure that could authorize certain major projects in key locations to be reviewed, rated, approved, and conditioned according to the extent to which they advance the City s Comprehensive Plan s goals and policies. It is anticipated that there will be a degree of flexibility in the application of the development regulations so that the applicable conditions are tailored to the specifics of the proposed project and community vision in such a manner as to ensure that significant public benefits are secured. Project approval is embodied in a contract designed to assure that anticipated public benefits are realized according to agreed upon terms and conditions, conditions that include project vesting, timing, and funding of on- and off-site improvements. A. A person or entity having ownership or control of real property within those areas of the City identified in sub-section I with a proposed building footprint of at least 20,000 square feet and a proposed height of at least 100 feet may file an application for a development regulation agreement with the Department of Community and Economic Development, solely and exclusively on the current form approved by the said Department, together with the filing fee set forth in the current edition of the City s Fee Schedule as adopted by resolution of the City Council. B. The City Manager, and such designee or designees as may be appointed for the purpose, is authorized, but not required, to negotiate acceptable terms and conditions of the proposed Development Regulation Agreement with due regard for the following criteria: 1. The development regulation agreement conforms to existing Comprehensive Plan policies. Conformance must be demonstrated by the project as described in the Development Regulation Agreement scoring 800 points out of a possible 1000 points according to the following scoring system (based on the Downtown Element of the City Comprehensive Plan): Draft Code Revisions Development Regulation Agreement 1

40 a. Balanced healthy economy - in any project where more than 60% of the floorspace is Class A office space one point shall be awarded for every 200 square feet of floorspace (excluding parking) up to a maximum of 300 points. b. Achieving vitality downtown up to 40 points shall be awarded for each of the following categories: (i) CTEP, (ii) sunlight access to priority areas, (iii) view maximization, (iv) connectivity, (v) quality materials and design, (vi) remarkable features, (vii) access to open space, and, (viii) street edge activation and building ground orientation. c. Sustainability - up to 50 points shall be awarded for each of the following categories: (i) complete streets, (ii) transit connections, (iii) L.E.E.D. certification to a gold level, and (iv) support for public art. d. Quality Urban Design - up to 60 points shall be awarded for each of the following categories: (i) walkability, (ii) public environment, and, (iii) neighborly outlook. 2. Compliance with the provisions of this section B will ensure that the terms of the development regulation agreement are consistent with the development regulations of the City then in effect, except that in the case of Shoreline Management Districts (13.10) and/or Landmarks and Historic Special Review Districts (13.07) specific compliance with regulations and procedures is required. 3. Appropriate project or proposal elements such as permitted uses, residential densities, and nonresidential densities and intensities or structure sizes are adequately provided, to include evidence that the site is adequate in size and shape for the proposed project or use, conforms to the general character of the neighborhood, and would be compatible with adjacent land uses. 4. Appropriate provisions are made for the amount and payment of fees imposed or agreed to in accordance with any applicable provisions of State law, any reimbursement provisions, other financial contributions by the property owner, inspection fees, or dedications. 5. Adequate mitigation measures, development conditions, and mitigation requirements under Chapter 43.21C RCW are provided. 6. Adequate and appropriate design standards such as maximum heights, setbacks, drainage and water quality requirements, landscaping, and other development features are provided. 7. If applicable, targets and requirements regarding affordable housing are addressed. 8. Provisions are sufficient to assure requirements of parks and open space preservation. 9. Best available science and best management practices shall be used to address critical areas within the property covered by a Development Regulation Agreement adopted pursuant to TMC xxx. Review of a development activity s critical area impacts that go beyond those exempted activities identified in TMC shall occur during the Development Regulation Agreement review process and a separate critical areas permit is not required. Any Development Regulation Agreement approval(s) shall to, the maximum extent feasible, avoid potential impacts to critical areas and any unavoidable impacts to Draft Code Revisions Development Regulation Agreement 2

41 critical areas shall be fully mitigated, either on or off-site. [Parallel language shall be added as TMC ] 10. Interim uses and phasing of development and construction is appropriately provided. In the case of an interim use of a parcel of property, deferments or departures from development regulations may be allowed without providing a demonstrated benefit to the City; provided, that any departures or deferments to the Code requested for a final use of the property shall comply with criteria No. 11 below. The agreement shall clearly state the conditions under which the interim use shall be converted to a permanent use within a stated time period and the penalties for noncompliance if the interim use is not converted to the permanent use in the stated period of time. 11. Where a phased development regulation agreement is proposed, a site plan shall be provided and shall clearly show the proposed interim and final use subject to the agreement. 12. In the case of a development regulation agreement where the proposed use would be the final use of the property, it shall be clearly documented that any departures from the standards of the Code, requested by the applicant, are in the judgment of the City, off-set by providing a benefit to the City of equal or greater value relative to the departure requested. In no case shall a departure from the Code be granted if no benefit to the City is proposed in turn by the applicant. 13. Conditions are set forth providing for review procedures and standards for implementing decisions, together with conditions explicitly addressing enforceability of Development Regulation Agreement terms and conditions and applicable remedies. 14. A build-out or vesting period for applicable standards is provided. 15 Any other appropriate development requirements or procedures necessary to the specific project or proposal are adequately addressed. 16. If appropriate, and if the applicant is to fund or provide public facilities, the Development Regulation Agreement shall contain appropriate provisions for reimbursement over time to the applicant. 17. Appropriate statutory authority exists for any involuntary obligation of the applicant to fund or provide services, infrastructure, impact fees, inspection fees, dedications, or other service or financial contributions. 18. The building(s) shall be L.E.E.D. certified to a silver level. C. If the City Manager deems that an acceptable development regulation agreement has been negotiated and recommends the same for consideration, the City Council shall hold a public hearing and then may take final action, by resolution, to authorize entry into the development regulation agreement. In addition, the Council may continue the hearing for the purpose of clarifying issues, or obtaining additional information, facts, or documentary evidence. Draft Code Revisions Development Regulation Agreement 3

42 D. The decision of the Council shall be final immediately upon adoption of a resolution authorizing or rejecting the development regulation agreement. E. Following approval of a development regulation agreement by the Council, and execution of the same, the development regulation agreement shall be recorded with the Pierce County Auditor. F. Because a development regulation agreement is not necessary to any given project or use of real property under the existing comprehensive plan and development regulations in effect at the time of making application, approval of a development regulation agreement is wholly discretionary and any action taken by the City Council is legislative only, and not quasi-judicial. G. Once a Development Regulation Agreement is approved no variances may be applied for; changes to standards may only be secured by amendment to the Development Regulation Agreement pursuant to amendment thresholds set forth in the Development Regulation Agreement. H. Unless amended pursuant to Section , or terminated, a Development Regulation Agreement is enforceable during its term by a party to the Agreement. A Development Regulation Agreement and the development standards in the Agreement govern during the term of the agreement, or for all or that part of the specified build-out period. The Agreement will not be subject to a new or amended zoning ordinance or development standard adopted after the effective date of the Agreement, unless otherwise provided in the Agreement or unless amended pursuant to Section Any permit or approval issued by the City after the execution of the Agreement must be consistent with the Development Regulation Agreement. I. An application for a Development Regulation Agreement may only be made by a person or entity having ownership or control of: (1) real property within the International Financial Services Area (IFSA) as defined in City Ordinance No. xxxx; or, (2) real property within the Working Definition of Downtown as set forth in Figure 1 Downtown Element of the City Comprehensive Plan provided that the real property involved is subject to some measure of public ownership or control; or, (3) a public facility site that is at least five acres in size. Draft Code Revisions Development Regulation Agreement 4

43 City of Tacoma Community and Economic Development Department Agenda Item GB-2 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Peter Huffman, Manager, Planning Division Mixed-Use Center Master Plans DATE: July 29, 2009 On July 28, 2009, the City Council adopted Resolution No , which directs the Planning Commission to explore and provide recommendations by October 30, 2009 to the Council regarding master planning in the Mixed-Use Centers. At the next meeting, staff will provide a brief overview of the Council s request and guidance and discuss some of the key issues to be reviewed and a timetable for the Commission s considerations so that a recommendation can be provided as requested by the Council. Attached are a copy of the Council s resolution as well as an outline summarizing some of the key points of the resolution and providing a preliminary schedule for the Commission s discussion of this issue over the next few months. If you have any questions, please contact Brian Boudet at or bboudet@cityoftacoma.org. PH:bb Attachments (2) 747 Market Street, Room 1036 Tacoma, Washington (253)