Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6292 . � , , � �� d� , III�IIII I�IIIV uIII I�II IIIII IIIII IIIII I�II UIII�IQ lllll�ll Ilullllllllu Refurn Address: 20100218�00341 Au6um City Clerk ppplpI� NW TIT ORD �1.00 Gity of.Auburn PQGE-001 OF 030 25 West Main St. i°ciNCBCOeuriTr11uas Auburn, WA 98001 - - RECORDER'S COVER SHEET Document Title(s) (or transactions contained therein): 1� � � 1. Rezone (Ordinance 6292) �;�ED BY Pf�lWT Reference Number(s) of Docu_ments assigned or released: NONE �AddiGonal reference#'s on page of documeM Grantor(s)/BorroweHs) (Last name first, then first name and initials) CITY OF AUBURN ��- ���� Grantee/Assignee/Beneficiary: (La"st name first) Amy, Jacob Legal Description (abbreviated` i.e. lot, block, plat or section, township, range) NW-07-21-05 aka 802 24�h St NE C So `I) �Additional legal is on page_of ddwment. Assessor's Property Tax Parcel/Account Number $dio Apcvmcri�s) were T�i'im: inr 5125400241 �tr.d by Pscific FiorthwesS T!I�! 48 � z^CO:?imCvisl:rX�o���y. 'nqa na�bF+7r :.:���u:�f,cl 1lS;4 :%fOne�1 tJAECt1U(,`/S�" ❑Assessor Tax#not yet assigned �'�'= +'-��`e+CP u?x�n iN.la ORDINANCE NO. 6 2 9 2 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, APPROVING THE REQUEST OF JACOB AMY FOR A REZONE FROM R-20 RESIDENTIAL 20 DU/ACRE TO C-3 HEAVY COMMERCIAL TO IMPLEMENT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND AMENDING THE CITY'S ZONING MAPS ACCORDINGLY WHEREAS, the City of Auburn on August 18, 1986 adopted a Comprehensive Plan by Resolution No. 1703 which includes a Map establishing the location of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations throughout the City; and WHEREAS, on April 17, 1995 the City of Auburn adopted Comprehensive Plan Amendments by Resolution No. 2635 to comply with the Washington State Growth Management Act; and WHEREAS, the City of Auburn on September 5, 1995 reaffirmed that action by Ordinance No. 4788; and WHEREAS, Jacob Amy, the applicant, submitted a Comprehensive Plan map amendment and rezone application for the Craig Commercial rezone on June 17, 2009 for tax parcel 5125400241; and WHEREAS, Comprehensive Plan map and text amendments were processed by the Planning and Development Department as proposed Year 2009 amendments to the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan, and the City of Auburn adopted the 2009 Comprehensive Plan amendments on December 7, 2009 by Ordinance No. 6280; and Ordinance No. 6292 - January 26, 2010 Page 1 WHEREAS, the environmental impacts of the Year 2009 Comprehensive Plan amendments were considered in accordance with procedures of the State Environmental Policy Act; and WHEREAS, the environmental impacts of the Craig Commercial Rezone were considered in accordance with the procedures of the State Environmental Policy Act; 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 January 13, 2010 conducted a public hearing on the proposed Craig Commercial Rezone; and WHEREAS, at the public hearing the City of Auburn Hearing Examiner heard public testimony and took evidence and exhibits into consideration; and WHEREAS, thereafter the City of Auburn Hearing Examiner made a recommendation to the City Councii on the proposed Craig Commercial Rezone; and WHEREAS, on February 1, 2010, the Auburn City Council considered the proposed Craig Commercial Rezone as recommended by the City of Auburn Hearing Examiner. 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 Craig Commercial rezone from R-20 Residential (20 du/acre) to C-3 Heavy Commercial and Ordinance No. 6292 January 26, 2010 Page 2 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 applicant is Jacob Amy, and the owner is William Kogelschatz. 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 January 13, 2010. Substantive: 3. Site/Proposal Description. The applicant has applied for the rezoning of one parcel, totaling approximately three acres, which is located off of 24th Avenue NE. The site currently houses a single-family residence. 4. Characteristics of the Area. The subject property is surrounded by apartments to the North, Townhomes to the South, a single-family residence to the East, and a Credit Union to the West. Generally, the surrounding area is made up primarily of multi-family properties. The surrounding zoning includes R-20 Residential and C-3 Heavy Commercial. Additionally, the surrounding Comprehensive Plan designations are High Density Residential and Heavy Commercial. 5. Adverse Impacts. The proposed rezone, as conditioned, will be limited to a modest increase in density. As noted during public testimony, the increase in density will allow for the construction of three-story multifamily complexes instead of two-story complexes. Three-story townhomes are already located behind the Ordinance No. 6292 January 26, 2010 Page 3 subject property, so there is no apparent compatibility or other adverse impact discernable from the record. In both written (Exhibit 12) and verbal testimony during the hearing, Sam Di Re expressed concerns over garbage and disruptive behavior associated with high density development. Mr. Di Re does not appear to be basing his comments on the type of development (e.g., apartments v. single-family homes v. townhomes), but simply from the premise that if you have x incidents per y number of people, incidents will increase as the number of people increases. From a municipal government standpoint, Mr. Di Re appears to be stating that the City has inadequate police and code enforcement resources to handle the increased population that will result from the rezone. There are a couple reasons why Mr. Di Re's concerns cannot be addressed in this rezone proceeding. First, Mr. Di Re does not identify any level of service requirement for police and code enforcement that the Examiner could impose upon the development. The adequacy of police and code enforcement is a highly subjective determination. Without an objective standard that can be applied uniformly to all multifamily development, any efFort by the Examiner to address garbage and other potentially illegal conduct would be construed as arbitrary and capricious by a reviewing court. Certainly if there was something highly unusual about the project that would make it more likely to generate illicit conduct than other multifamily developments, the Examiner could address Mr. Di Re's concerns, but there is nothing unusual about the project proposed. Indeed, no specific development proposal is even identified at this point. The second reason that Mr. Di Re's concerns cannot be addressed during rezone review is that the increase in density (three dwelling units) proposed is marginal, and there is no evidence that this slight increase will generate any material increase in illicit conduct. The City does not have sufficient evidence to find that the proposed increase in density will necessitate any restrictions (including rezone denial) to prevent illicit behavior. Although this proceeding may not be the most appropriate to address Mr. Di Re's concerns, his concerns will certainly be heard by the Mayor and City Council during this rezone review. If there is a problem with garbage and illegal behavior in Mr. Di Re's neighborhood, the Mayor and Council can take steps to address it outside this land use review process. Ordinance No. 6292 January 26, 2010 • Page 4 • CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Procedural: 1. Authoritv of Hearing Examiner. ACG 18.68.030(B) grants the Hearing Examiner with the authority to review a request for Rezoning and make a recommendation to the City Council for final approval. Substantive: 2. Zoninq Desiqnation. The property is zoned R-20, Residential, and the Comprehensive Plan designation is Heavy Commercial. 3. Review Criteria and Application. ACC 18.68.030(B) and 18.68.050 lay out the criteria the Hearing Examiner must consider when determining a recommendation. In addition to the code criteria, 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). However, no change in circumstances is necessary for rezones that implement a comprehensive plan. Id. at 112. , The criteria for both the ACC and Ahmann-Yamane are satisfied as outlined below where each criterion is in italics and the application to the project is applied in corresponding Conclusions of Law. • ACC 18.64.030(B)(1)(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. 4. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation for the property is Heavy Commercial. The only corresponding Zoning Map designation that is consistent with this Comprehensive Plan designation is Heavy Commercial, the reclassification requested by the applicant. Consequently, the rezone is consistent with the comprehensive plan. ACC 18.64.050(A): The modification or change shall not result in a more intense zone than the one requested. Ordinance No. 6292 January 26, 2010 Page 5 ACC 18.64.050(B): The area of the request shall not be enlarged, however, the area may be lessened. 5. The recommended reclassification is the reclassification requested by the applicant, and there is no recommendation to change the size of the area subject to the request. Ahmann-Yamane Condition 1: Conditions in the area must have changed since the original zoning was established. However, no change in circumstances is necessary for rezones that implement a comprehensive plan. 6. As noted in Conclusion of Law No. 4, the proposed Heavy Commercial reclassification is the only Zoning Code designation that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Heavy Commercial designation. Consequently, the proposed reclassification is necessary to implement the Comprehensive Plan designation. No change in circumstances needs to be demonstrated. Ahmann-Yamane Condition 2: The proposed rezone must bear a substantial relationship to the general welfare of the community. 7. With the proposed rezone, a maximum of eleven apartment units could be constructed on the site, as opposed to only six under the current zoning requirements. This supports the City's goal of achieving growth targets over the next twenty years as established by King County, to meet infill development policies of the comprehensive plan, and to prevent urban sprawl. However, it must also be noted that the proposed reclassification is for a parcel surrounded on three sides by zoning limited to residential use (R-20), as part of a four-block area limited to residential use. Unrestricted, approval of the proposed reclassification would allow the development of commercial uses in an area limited to residential development. This could result in incompatible uses that do not promote the general welfare of the community. The City Council approved the a Comprehensive Plan redesignation of the parcel from R-20 to Heavy Commercial with the understanding that the Zoning Code reclassification would be conditioned on limiting development to residential use. In order to carry out this Council intent and to maintain a substantial relationship to the general welfare of the community, the Examiner recommends that the redesignation be limited to residential use as recommended in the staff report. Staff have also recommended conditions to assure adequate traffic infrastructure for the more intense development authorized by the reclassification. The Examiner finds these conditions necessary for the general welfare as well. However, the Council may find that the conditions are premature at the rezone Ordinance No. 6292 January 26, 2010 Page 6 stage of development. The conditions regarding street improvements are required "as part of future developmenY". The developer has no obligation to commence development at anytime in the near future. By the time the developer does get around to developing the entire property, the conditions may no longer be appropriate, due to a change in circumstances such as the completion of new road projects. For these types of reasons, street frontage requirements are usually imposed during the review of a specific project (such as site plan or conditional use permit review), as opposed to rezones. It is the Examiner's understanding that conditioning rezones is a common practice in Auburn. The Council is cautioned that there is a difference in legal opinion on whether conditioning rezones is consistent with state mandated Zoning Code amendment procedures. At least to the extent conditions limit uses, those conditions arguably create a new Zoning Code map classification. All new Zoning Code map classifications should go through planning commission review and review by the Washington State Department of Commerce as mandated by the Washington State Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW) and the Planning and Zoning in Code Cities Act (Chapter 35A.63 RCW). Of course, the counter-argument is that a public hearing has been held for the proposed rezone and that a hearing examiner can be designated as the planning commission for Zoning Code amendments. The differences in review are fairly minor. The Council may wish to acquire advice from its City Attorney on this issue. In lieu of imposing the conditions as part of the rezone, the Council could impose them as part of a rezone agreement adopted under the procedural requirements of RCW 36.70 B.170-.200. RECOMMENDATION The Hearing Examiner recommends approval of REZ09-0004, subject to the following conditions: 1. Future development of the property shall only be multi-family units. Commercial uses are prohibited. 2. As part of the future development, the applicant shall dedicate twelve (12) feet for right-of-way along the 24th Street NE property frontage. 3. As part of the future development, the applicant shall dedicate nine (9) feet for right-of-way radius at the property corner of the intersection at 24th Street NE and the alley bordering the west side of the property. Ordinance No. 6292 January 26, 2010 Page 7 4. Construct 1/2 street improvements to city standards for a local non-residential road on 24th Avenue NE. 5. Reconstruct and add additional paving along the site frontage with the alley bordering the west side of the subject property to create a twenty-foot paved surface and appropriate alley drainage to the existing storm system in 24th Street NE. 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 unconstitutional 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: FEB - 1 2010 PASSED: FEg - 1701 0 APPR ED: - / Peter B. Lewis Mayor Ordinance No. 6292 January 26, 2010 Page 8 ATTEST: Danielle E. Daskam, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: D niel B. Hei , City Attomey - Published: ~~,vc z Ordinance No. 6292 January 26, 2010 Page 9