HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-06-2012 Agenda PacketThe City of Auburn Planning Commission is an eight member advisory body that provides recommendations to the
Auburn City Council on the preparation of and amendments to land use plans and related codes such as zoning.
Planning Commissioners are appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council.
Actions taken by the Planning Commission are not final decisions; they are in the form of recommendations to the
City Council who must ultimately make the final decision.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
March 6, 2012
AGENDA
I. CALL TO ORDER – 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. February 7, 2012
III. PUBLIC COMMENT
Comment from the audience on any item not listed on the agenda for discussion or public
hearing.
IV. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT
Update on Planning and Development Department activities.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Interim Sign Controls – Real Estate Signs* (Wagner)
Summary: Public Hearing on interim sign controls related to real estate signs, Auburn
City Code Chapter 18.56.
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Proposed Amendment to the P-1, Public Use District* (Wagner)
Summary: Planning Commission to review proposed amendment to the P-1, Public
Use District; land use zoning as it relates to animal shelters.
B. Proposed Zoning Code Amendment to ACC Section 18.31.200 related to
Architectural and Site Design Review Standard and Regulations.* (Dixon)
Summary: Planning Commission to review proposed zoning code amendment to
ACC Section 18.31.200 related to architectural design review standards and
regulations.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
DRAFT
PLANNING COMMISSION
February 7, 2012
MINUTES
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. Roll Call
Chair Judi Roland called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers
located on the first floor of Auburn City Hall, 25 West Main Street, Auburn, WA.
Commission Members present were: Chair Judi Roland, Vice Chair Kevin Chapman,
Joan Mason, Dave Peace, Yolanda Trout, Bob Baggett and Mark Ramey.
Commissioner Copple is excused.
Staff present included: Planning Manager Elizabeth Chamberlain, Planner Stuart
Wagner, City Attorney Dan Heid, Senior Planner Hillary Taylor, and Planning &
Development Department Secretary Tina Kriss.
Audience members in attendance: Rick Fares and Green River Community College
students Peter Lin, Tyler Williams, Zoe Deissler, Cameron Cahoon, Trevar Zesiger,
and Dyland Brown.
B. Agenda Modifications
There were no agenda modifications
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. January 4, 2012
Commissioner Peace moved and Commissioner Mason seconded to approve the
minutes from the January 4, 2012 as presented.
MOTION CARRIED 5-0
III. PUBLIC COMMENT
There were no comments from the public.
IV. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT
Planning Manager Elizabeth Chamberlain updated the Commission on the old Walmart
building; Oregon based company Coastal Farm and Ranch has submitted their tenant
improvement permit application, the City is almost finished with the review and ready to
issue permits. Coastal Farm and Ranch is expecting to occupy the building and be open
for business in May. The “M” Street SE Grade Separation (underpass) project has gone
out to bid, the winner of the bid was Scarsella Brothers, Inc.; ground breaking is
scheduled for February 28th.
V. PUBLIC HEARING
There were no public hearings scheduled.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 7, 2012
2
V. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Cannabis Collective Garden Moratorium Expiration
Senior Planner Hillary Taylor explained the history of Resolution No. 4739 passed by
the City of Auburn August 15, 2011 establishing a moratorium on collective gardens.
The moratorium will expire August 15, 2012. Should the moratorium be ended, a
dispensary use would need a business license; however, due to conflict with state
and federal laws, the City of Auburn would not be able to issue a business license for
a dispensary. In addition the City does not currently have any land use regulations
governing the location and standards for medical marijuana dispensaries.
Ms. Taylor asked the Planning Commission to consider discussion on this matter as
directed by Resolution No. 4739 adopting the moratorium by City Council providing a
specific work plan. Ms. Taylor asked the Commissioners to consider what the legal
ramifications of adopting legislation as directed by the State bill would be and what
the potential impacts of the pending legislation at the State and Federal level would
be.
Attorney Den Heid provided the City’s legal perspective on these questions
explaining Washington State Legislature approved Engrossed Second Substitute
Senate Bill E2SSB 5073 effective July 22, 2011 that allows cannabis to be grown in
collective gardens.
E2SSB 5073 allows the City to regulate cannabis by enacting zoning licensing and
health and safety requirements. The City of Auburn does not currently have a
specific provision in its zoning and land use codes addressing the use of property for
collective gardens and in conformity and with the responsibilities of the City of
Auburn to provide for zoning and land use regulations pursuant to state law and the
City authority to regulate land use activity within its corporate limits the City intends
to develop appropriate zoning and land use regulations for collective gardens.
Commissioner Peace asked if the City allows dispensaries within the City would the
City be open to prosecution; if the City does nothing what would happen.
Mr. Heid stated if we did nothing businesses could crop up and we would have an
ambiguity in terms of business licensing. Permitting a business that violates a
federal law triggers the activity that was threatened for prosecution by the US
Attorney’s office. If we did not license them a business is operating without a
business license.
Attorney Heid replied to Chair Roland’s question asking what recommendations the
Commission could propose by stating the Commission could ask for more
information, see what happens with the potential for federal action, recommend an
ordinance should potential federal action takes place or extend the moratorium until
we have answers pertinent to decision making, or other action. A moratorium can be
established for six months without a work plan. If there is a work plan there can be a
moratorium for a maximum of one year. Subsequent extensions can only be for six
months at a time.
Commissioner Baggett stated since the City is really caught between the State and
Federal law it appears we should extend the moratorium. Commissioner Peace
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 7, 2012
3
stated maybe the solution is to go forward with the formulation of a work plan while
the state and federal government work out the inconsistencies.
Ms. Taylor stated the most effective way to address the conflict between the state
and federal government would be for the government to change marijuana to a
schedule II drug, allowing physicians to prescribe for medical purposes allowing the
drug to be regulated.
Chair Roland asked if the Commission will be holding a hearing. Attorney Heid
stated if recommending a land use decision a hearing would need to be called and
the Planning Commission would hold the hearing. If you decide you are not ready to
hold the hearing the Commission could recommend extending the moratorium and a
hearing for the moratorium extension would be held by the City Council. Staff will
bring this item back to Commission.
B. Interim Sign Controls – Real Estate Signs
Planner Stuart Wagner reviewed the interim sign controls (regulating off-premise real
estate signs) passed by the Auburn City Council on April 18, 2011.
Commission and staff reviewed the following concerns regarding off-premise real
estate signs expressed by community members:
Sign glut or too many off-premise real estate signs could occur;
The signs, individually or collectively could create a public safety hazard;
Signs are sometimes located too far from the actual development;
The signs could be in place longer then they need to be.
Planner Wagner stated staff is not recommending a wayfinding kiosk sign program at
this time. Commission and staff discussed kiosk options. Commissioner Chapman
stated there does not appear to be a good location for kiosks in the City. Chair
Roland expressed her concern for safety while drivers may be navigating and
attempting to read a distant sign at the same time. Commission is not supportive of
wayfinding kiosk signage.
Commission and staff reviewed the proposed changes to the adopted interim real
estate signs and discussed the additional language: “Additionally the maximum area
of all off-premise signs advertising a particular development shall not exceed 250
square feet”. Ms. Chamberlain stated a policy question Commission needs to
consider in the recommendation to City Council is do you want to continue with the
Planning Director making determinations on a case by case basis as provided in the
current language or make code more prescriptive.
Staff stated there will be a public hearing at the next meeting.
C. Proposed Amendment to the P-1, Public Use District
Planner Wagner explained the City currently has a contract with King County for
animal control and sheltering. It as found the Auburn Valley Human Society (AVHS)
will lessen the burden of government by providing animal sheltering services at a
savings to the City of Auburn. Prior to occupying the building along A Street
Southeast, a change to the zoning code is needed. In order for Auburn Valley
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 7, 2012
4
Human Society to operate and maintain the future animal shelter the following needs
to take place:
Chapter 18.41 (Public Use District) of the Auburn City Code needs to be amended,
with “Animal Shelter” added as a permitted use within the zone. A new definition of
“animal shelter” needs to be added to Chapter 18.04 (Definitions).
Staff and Commission reviewed the draft code language and discussed the term
“medical care”. Member Mason suggested leaving spay/neuter out of the language.
Commissioners discussed the City responsibility in regards to animal control and
sheltering. Commission expressed their concern with providing these services and
the upgrades the City is providing to the facility.
Chair Roland asked if City tax dollars fund this shelter and services. Planning
Manager Chamberlain was unsure of each detail but will check to see what
information may be available. Chair Roland asked if the City is providing money for
anything other than offering the building. Planner Wagner explained that license
fees would provide 80% of operations and 20% would come from donations.
Vice-Chair Chapman asked if the proposed code amendment would apply to any
property zoned Public Use and staff answered yes the code amendment would apply
to any property zoned Public Use.
Member Ramsey asked what will be spent for the facility and why the City did not
pursue the fire station if the property was purchased for one. Ms. Chamberlain
stated the line of questioning being asked by the Commission is getting beyond the
purview of the Commission but would take the Commission’s question back to the
administration and see what could be answered. The Planning Commission’s
responsibility is reviewing land use changes with recommendations to the City
Council.
Commission asked what share the City would be providing for these services and
how much pet licensing would provide. Commissioner Chapman would like to know
how many animals are serviced by the City.
Staff stated they will be bringing this back before Commission at a future meeting.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
The next regular meeting will be held March 6, 2012. There being no further business to
come before the Planning Commission, Chair Roland adjourned the meeting at 8:31
p.m.
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject: Proposed amendments to Section 18.56.025 – Real
Estate Signs, of the Auburn City Code (ZOA12-0001)
Date: February 29, 2012
Department: Planning and
Development
Attachments: See Exhibit list below. Budget Impact: N/A
Administrative Recommendation: Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on the proposed
amendments and make a recommendation to City Council.
Background Summary:
On April 18, 2011, the Auburn City Council passed Ordinance No. 6360 that established one (1) year
interim zoning controls pertaining to the allowance, dimensions, and location of real estate signs not
currently permitted by existing sign regulations in the public right-of-way or on private property relate to
the sale, lease, or rent of residential and non-residential development properties. Ordinance No. 6360
was developed in response to multiple requests from developers and owners of residential and non-
residential real property in the City seeking authorization for the placement of real estate signs on public
and private properties in locations, numbers and of a size than is currently allowable under existing City
regulations. The Ordinance’s key purpose was to assist in local economic development associated with
the sale and development of residential and non-residential property in the City.
The City Council’s passage of Ordinance No. 6360 was intended to provide the City Council, Planning
Commission, interested citizens, and City staff a reasonable time opportunity to fully consider all the
options and alternative standards for the regulation of different sizes and types of residential and non-
residential real estate signs and provide procedures for the permitting of these signs.
The City has fully considered the options and alternative standards of real estate signs and now wishes to
amend Section 18.56.025 - Real Estate Signs of the Auburn City Code. Staff recommends that the
interim zoning control on real estate signs (no changes made) be adopted into code but only remain
effective until April 21, 2013, unless extended by the City Council through separate ordinance action.
The March 6, 2012 Planning Commission meeting will involve a public hearing on the proposed code
amendments. The Planning Commission is advisory to the City Council and will make a recommendation
to the City Council on the proposed code amendment.
Reviewed by Council & Committees: Reviewed by Departments & Divisions:
Arts Commission COUNCIL COMMITTEES: Building M&O
Airport Finance Cemetery Mayor
Hearing Examiner Municipal Serv. Finance Parks
Human Services Planning & CD Fire Planning
Park Board Public Works Legal Police
Planning Comm. Other 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: Staff: Wagner
Meeting Date: March 6, 2012 Item Number:
Agenda Subject: Proposed amendments to Auburn City Code related
to Real Estate signs – Section 18.56.025
Date: February 29, 2012
Page 2 of 6
A. RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT:
City of Auburn Planning and Development Department, Kevin H. Snyder, AICP, Director
B. RESPONSIBLE STAFF:
Stuart Wagner, AICP Planner, City of Auburn Planning and Development Department
C. AREA OF IMPACT:
Citywide
D. PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DATE:
March 6, 2012
E. CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE CONSIDERATION DATE:
Currently scheduled for April 16, 2012
F. FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. On April 18, 2011, the Auburn City Council passed Ordinance No. 6360 that established one
(1) year interim zoning controls pertaining to the allowance, dimensions, and location of real
estate signs not currently permitted by existing sign regulations in the public right-of-way or
on private property related to the sale, lease, or rent of residential and non-residential
development properties.
2. Ordinance No. 6360 was developed in response to multiple requests from developers and
owners of residential and non-residential real property in the City seeking authorization for
the placement of real estate signs on public and private properties in locations, numbers and
of a size than is currently allowable under existing City regulations. The Ordinance’s key
purpose was to assist in local economic development associated with the sale and
development of residential and non-residential property in the City.
3. The City Council’s passage of Ordinance No. 6360 was intended to provide the City Council,
Planning Commission, interested citizens, and City staff a reasonable time opportunity to
fully consider all the options and alternative standards for the regulation of different sizes and
types of residential and non-residential real estate signs and provide procedures for the
permitting of these signs.
4. The City has fully considered the options and alternative standards of real estate signs and
now wishes to amend Section 18.56.025 - Real Estate Signs of the Auburn City Code.
5. Title 18 of the Auburn City Code (ACC) includes Chapter 18.68, Amendments, which
addresses amendments to Title 18, Zoning.
6. The proposed code amendment is supported by the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan as
discussed under the conclusions’ section of this report.
7. A Determination of Non-Significance was issued for the City initiated Code Amendments on
February 17, 2012 under city file SEP12-0003. The Determination of Non-Significance was
Agenda Subject: Proposed amendments to Auburn City Code related
to Real Estate signs – Section 18.56.025
Date: February 29, 2012
Page 3 of 6
published in the February 17, 2012 edition of the Seattle Times. To date no comments have
been received. The comment period ends March 2, 2012 at 5:00 p.m.
8. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, the proposed zoning code amendments outlined in this
agenda bill were sent to the Washington State Department of Commerce, Growth
Management Services, and other state agencies as required for the 60-day state review. An
acknowledgement letter was received on February 22, 2012. No comments were received
from Commerce or other state agencies as of the writing of this report.
9. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed work study session on January 4, 2012
and February 7, 2012 to review and discuss with staff potential amendment issues and ideas
inclusive of the potential amendments to Title 18 (Zoning).
10. The public hearing notice was published on February 23, 2012 in the Seattle Times at least
10-days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing scheduled for March 6, 2012.
11. Prior to, during, and after the work study sessions held by the Planning Commission
comments on the proposed code amendments were received by planning staff. Exhibit B
contains comments in favor of (or indifferent) additional (off-premise) real estate signs and
Exhibit C contains comments against them.
12. The following conclusions support the proposed amendments to Section 18.56.025,
scheduled for the Planning Commission’s March 6, 2012 public hearing with a staff
recommendation.
G. General Conclusions
1. The proposed amendments to Section 18.56.025 (Real Estate Signs) are intended to control
the number, height, area, and placement of off-premise real estate signs as well as bring
predictability to how much signage residential and commercial builders and developers can
display for a particular development. The proposed amendments will also allow for
continued economic development associated with the sale and development of residential
and non-residential property in the City that can have a positive impact on the City finances
in terms of real estate exercise tax, development review fees, impact fees, system
development charges, sales taxes and property taxes that contribute to the City’s ability to
provide public services.
2. The proposed amendments to Title 18 (Zoning) do not require any changes to the City’s
current critical area regulations contained in ACC 16.10 (Critical Areas). Any future
development subject to the proposed amendments to Title 18 will still be required to
demonstrate compliance to applicable standards and regulation specified in ACC 16.10.
3. The proposed amendments to Title 18 (Zoning) will support current and future land and
shoreline uses that are consistent with the City’s current Comprehensive Plan and current
Shoreline Master Program. Staff has not proposed substantive or non-substantive
amendments to Title 18 that would be deemed inconsistent with the City’s adopted plans and
policies.
H. Specific Conclusions
1. Pursuant to Auburn City Code (ACC) Section 18.68.030 the following public process is
applicable:
Agenda Subject: Proposed amendments to Auburn City Code related
to Real Estate signs – Section 18.56.025
Date: February 29, 2012
Page 4 of 6
18.68.030 Public hearing process
A. Text Amendments. With the exception of purely administrative or procedural
amendments, the planning commission shall conduct at least one public hearing on
all amendments to this title. The planning commission shall make a recommendation
to the city council who may or may not conduct a public hearing.
Comment:
The March 6, 2012 Planning Commission meeting will involve a public hearing on the
proposed code amendments where a recommendation is made to the city council.
2. Pursuant to Auburn City Code (ACC) Section 18.68.040 the following public hearing notice
requirement is applicable:
18.68.040 Public hearing notice requirements
A. Text Amendments.
1. Planning Commission. For text amendments that require a public hearing under
ACC 18.68.030(A), notice of a public hearing shall be given by publication, in a
newspaper of general circulation in the area, at least 10 days prior to the public
hearing and by posting the notice in three general public locations.
2. City Council. Notice of a public hearing shall be given by publication, in a
newspaper of general circulation in the area, prior to the public hearing and by
posting the notice in three general public locations.
Comment:
The public hearing before the Planning Commission is scheduled for March 6, 2012, meeting
the requirement under ACC 18.68.030. The public hearing notice was published in the
Seattle Times, the City’s official newspaper, on February 23, 2012 at least 10 days prior to
the public hearing. The public hearing notice was also posted at City Hall (25 West Main
Street), the Customer Service Center (One East Main Street), and on the City’s website
meeting the requirement for posting the notice in three general public locations.
3. Auburn City Code Chapter 18.68, Amendments, does not have specific decision criteria for
text amendments to the zoning title. At a minimum, proposed text amendments are to be
consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan pursuant to RCW 36.70A.040. The proposed
code amendment is supported by the following Comprehensive Plan Objectives and Policies:
Policy guidance on sign clutter
Objective 22.2. To improve the visual quality of new development
Policy
LU-16 Sign clutter should be reduced by updating and revising the City’s sign code.
While the sign code was substantially updated, with extensive public participation, it
should be reviewed periodically.
Comment:
The proposed amendments to Section 18.56.025 (Real Estate Signs) are intended to control
the number, height, area, and placement of off-premise real estate signs. The regulations will
also facilitate equity between the builders and developers where they are afforded the same
advertising rights by the code. Prior to adoption of the interim zoning controls regulating real
Agenda Subject: Proposed amendments to Auburn City Code related
to Real Estate signs – Section 18.56.025
Date: February 29, 2012
Page 5 of 6
estate signs, builders and developers illegally installed signs of varying heights and areas
some far exceeding the height and area maximums stated under existing City Code. The
City responded to the placement of these signs using progressive code enforcement action.
In a number of instances, these signs were found to be obstructions in the public right of
way, thereby creating sight hazards to traffic. Following the City Council’s passage of the
interim zoning controls and using the regulatory authority of these controls, staff worked with
all of the builders and developers to bring all existing signs into conformance as well as
requiring new signs to conform.
The current interim zoning controls grant the Planning Director the authority to consider the
number of existing signs in any proposed location, and limit or prohibit new ones so as to
prevent a traffic safety hazard or a detrimental effect on neighboring property. Staff proposes
to retain this language in the proposed regulations so as to provide a method to evaluate
impacts of proposed new signage.
To insure that the City balances the economic development needs of the real estates signs
with potential impacts on surrounding communities and neighborhoods, staff is
recommending that the proposed regulations be effective until April 21, 2013, unless
extended by the City Council through separate ordinance action.
Policy guidance on economic development
Objective 9.1. Promote a diversified economic base capable of withstanding changes in
interest rates, inflation, tax structure and market conditions.
Policy
ED-1 City promotion of new industry shall be directed at attracting business that
diversifies the City’s tax base, offers secure, quality employment opportunities, is
sensitive to community values and promotes the development of attractive facilities.
Objective 9.3. Develop effective land use policies and economic development strategies that
provide long-term and stable employment, increase per capita income and reduce the tax
burden of Auburn residents.
Policy
ED-8 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.
Comment:
Staff believes the current economic situation warrants continued flexibility for the use of
residential and non-residential real estate signage. Specifically, staff believes that the nature
and severity of the economic downturn on the real estate and development industries has
significantly impacted an important contributor to the employment, property tax and sales tax
bases of the City. Consistent with the previous findings and conclusions for the
implementation of the interim zoning controls, staff believes that this economic situation
continues to have a substantive impact on this industry and that the continued t allowance of
residential and non-residential real estate signs initially authorized by the interim zoning
controls will positively contribute to the ability of this industry to gradually recover in the City
of Auburn.
Agenda Subject: Proposed amendments to Auburn City Code related
to Real Estate signs – Section 18.56.025
Date: February 29, 2012
Page 6 of 6
Staff Recommendation
The Planning Commission recommends approval to the City Council of the proposed zoning code
text amendment as presented by staff based on the findings of fact and conclusions.
Exhibits
Exhibit 1: Auburn City Code Section 18.50.025 – Real Estate Signs, Proposed Code
Amendments
Exhibit 2: Comments received - in favor of or indifferent
Exhibit 3: Comments received – against
Exhibit 4: Determination of Non-Significance and Affidavit of Publication
Exhibit 5: Environmental Checklist
Exhibit 6: Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Publication
Exhibit 7: Letter to Department of Commerce for 60-day State Review
Exhibit 8: Acknowledgment letter from Department of Commerce
EXHIBIT 1: Auburn City Code Section 18.50.025 – Real Estate Signs, Proposed Code Amendments
18.56.025 Real estate signs.
No sign permit is required, except as provided in subsection F of this section. All exterior real
estate signs must be of wood or plastic or other durable material.
The permitted signs are as follows:
A. Residential “for sale” and “sold” signs: such signs shall be limited to one sign per street
frontage not to exceed five square feet in sign area per side, placed entirely on the property for sale, and
not to exceed a height of seven feet.
B. Residential directional “open house” signs: such signs shall be limited to one sign per street
frontage on the premises for sale and three off-premises signs. However, if a broker/agent has more than
one house open for inspection in a single development or subdivision, he/she is limited to four off-
premises “open house” signs in the entire development or subdivision. Such signs are permitted only
during daylight hours and when the broker/agent or seller or an agent is in attendance at the property for
sale. No such sign shall exceed five square feet in sign area per side. The sign may be placed along the
periphery of a public right-of-way, provided it does not interfere with traffic safety, but it may not be
attached to a utility pole or traffic safety device.
C. Undeveloped commercial and industrial property “for sale or rent” signs: one sign per street
frontage advertising undeveloped commercial and industrial property for sale or for rent is permitted while
the property is actually for sale or rent. The sign shall not exceed 32 square feet in sign area per side and
eight feet in height.
D. Developed commercial and industrial property “for sale or rent” signs: one sign per street
frontage advertising a commercial or industrial building for rent or sale is permitted while the building is
actually for rent or sale. If one face of the building is less than 10 feet from the building line, the sign shall
be placed on the building or in a window. The sign shall not exceed eight feet in height; if freestanding, it
shall be located more than 15 feet from any abutting property line and a public right-of-way line. Said sign
shall not exceed 32 square feet in sign area per side.
E. Undeveloped residential property “for sale” signs: one sign per street frontage advertising
undeveloped residential property for sale is permitted not exceeding 32 square feet in area per side, nor
exceeding a height of eight feet.
F. Additional signs [Effective through April 21, 2013]: the planning and development director may
grant written authorization to allow temporary off-premises signs in addition to those permitted above. The
size of these signs shall be determined by the planning and development director based on factors
including but not limited to surrounding land uses, sight distance and traffic safety, but in no instances
shall the height of the sign exceed eight (8) feet and the total sign face area exceed sixty-four (64) square
feet. Notice of adjacent property owners shall not be required. Such additional signs may be used to
advertise open houses, to advertise properties for sale, lease or rent, to provide directions to new
developments, or similar purposes. Such signs may be placed within the public right-of-way, provided
they do not interfere with traffic safety, but they may not be attached to utility poles or traffic safety
devices. For the placement of signs within the public right-of-way, the planning and development director
shall consult with the City Engineer, Police Chief, Risk Manager and other staff as appropriate regarding
the placement, size and number of signs that may be permissible within the public right-of-way and may
require hold harmless agreements or similar legal instrument prior to sign placement as a condition of
authorization. The planning and development director shall determine the number and locations of such
signs, and the period during which they may be displayed. The planning and development director shall
take into account the number of existing signs in any proposed location, and may limit or prohibit new
ones so as to prevent a traffic safety hazard or a detrimental effect on neighboring property. (Ord. 6287
§ 2, 2010; Ord. 5993 § 1, 2006.)
Interim regulations as adopted
1
Stuart Wagner
From:Stephannie Karlsson [Stephannie.Karlsson@mainvuehomes.com]
Sent:Thursday, March 01, 2012 8:40 AM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:RE: Real Estate Signs (emphasis - off-premise signs) - Public Hearing 3/6/12
Hi Stuart-
Thank you so much for sending this to me. I’ve asked our marketing manager for some feedback and her comments are:
T h a n k s S t e p h a n i e ,
W e d e f i n i t e l y w a n t t o k n o w e v e r y t h i n g g o i n g o n w i t h t h i s ….t h e k i o s k s a r e g r e a t f o r i n f o r m a t i o n b u t t h e m o r e c r i t i c a l s i g n a g e i s o u r
o n s i t e a n d o f f s i t e d i r e c t i o n a l s i g n a g e s u c h a s a -b o a r d s a n d o f f s i t e s e m i -p e r m a n e n t s i g n s .T h e s e s i g n s d r i v e t h e t r a f f i c t o t h e s i t e s a n d
a r e o u r s e c o n d l a r g e s t t r a f f i c g e n e r a t o r .W e w o u l d l i k e t o s e e t h e r u l e s a n d r e g u l a t i o n s f o r t h i s s i g n a g e t o r e m a i n i n p l a c e .
T h a n k y o u
Sara Rutkowski Marketing Manager
Thanks!
Stephannie Karlsson Production Manager
SFC Homes LLC 11100 Main Street, Suite 100 Bellevue, WA 98004
(direct) 425.709.7571 (mobile) 425.445.0635 (fax) 425.646.4024
www.mainvuehomes.com | www.bennetthomes.com
From: Stuart Wagner [mailto:swagner@auburnwa.gov]
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 8:08 AM
To: 'arrows.signs@gmail.com'; 'ToddS@connerhomes.com'; 'mike@spectrumsign.com';
'katherine.orni@PolygonHomes.com'; 'piedmontdirectional@earthlink.net'
Cc: Stephannie Karlsson
Subject: RE: Real Estate Signs (emphasis - off-premise signs) - Public Hearing 3/6/12
Good morning,
2
The public hearing on Real Estate signs (emphasis – off-premise signs) will be held on 3/6/12. See attachment for
details.
Regards,
Stuart
Stuart Wagner, AICP
Planner
Planning & Development Department
City of Auburn
25 West Main Street
Auburn, WA 98001-4998
p: (253) 804-5031
swagner@auburnwa.gov
From: Stuart Wagner
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 4:08 PM
To: 'arrows.signs@gmail.com'; 'ToddS@connerhomes.com'; 'mike@spectrumsign.com';
'katherine.orni@PolygonHomes.com'; 'piedmontdirectional@earthlink.net'
Subject: Real Estate Signs (emphasis - off-premise signs) - Meeting 2/7/12 and Public Hearing 2/22/12
Hello,
On April 18, 2011, the Auburn City Council passed Ordinance No. 6360 that established one (1) year interim zoning
controls pertaining to the allowance, dimensions, and location of real estate signs not currently permitted by existing sign
regulations in the public right-of-way or on private property relate to the sale, lease, or rent of residential and non-
residential development properties.
Ordinance No. 6360 was developed in response to multiple requests from developers and owners of residential and non-
residential real property in the City seeking authorization for the placement of real estate signs on public and private
properties in locations, numbers and of a size than is currently allowable under existing City regulations. The Ordinance’s
key purpose was to assist in local economic development associated with the sale and development of residential and
non-residential property in the City. See attachment (page 10) for the interim sign controls.
3
Before April 18, 2012 the interim sign controls will either go away, be codified as is, or else modified. The Planning
Commission is currently reviewing the interim sign control and determining whether they should remain as is or otherwise
be modified. A discussion will be held on the interim sign controls tonight (February 7, 2012) at 7pm in the Council
Chambers. A public hearing on the item will likely occur February 22, 2012.
If you feel the interim sign controls should continue as written or be modified please let me know. Also, you may attend
any of the meeting mentioned above.
Regards,
Stuart
Stuart Wagner, AICP
Planner
Planning & Development Department
City of Auburn
25 West Main Street
Auburn, WA 98001-4998
p: (253) 804-5031
swagner@auburnwa.gov
4
Stuart Wagner
From:Ed Loveland [eloveland@comcast.net]
Sent:Wednesday, February 29, 2012 11:06 AM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Signage
Knowing that, the failure of the housing industry is the main cause of the recession that we are only barley crawling out of it, I was
amassed that anyone would complain about signage necessary to sell homes.
As Mayor Lewis shared, it is the selling of homes that keeps people employed. Fellow Lake Land residents, let's
tone down our over zealous sensibilities, and get behind the rest of the country and support the creation of jobs
and do our part to put this recession behind us.
It would be understandable if the signs were in your yards or in front of the community center, but along a
highway?
Ed & Sandra Loveland
9 year homeowners in View Ridge
Sandy - Chaired the Lake Land (LL) Transition ( builder to homeowner HOA) Committee
Served as Member at Large on Transition or 1st LL HOA Board
Served as member of the L L Covenants Committee (discontinued)
Ed - Chaired the Community Center Committee (discontinued)
5
Stuart Wagner
From:dseaquist@q.com
Sent:Tuesday, February 28, 2012 11:37 AM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:signs
My reaction to these signs is----This is a positive sign that the community is continuing to grow and develope.
The community is not stagnant or receeding.
I trust the city of Auburn to make these temporary variances as they deem appropriate but would certainly be
against a permanent approval of signs that mar the beauty of the landscape. Right now signs of economic
growth should be supported. Dorine Seaquist
6
Stuart Wagner
From:Jess Kuich [jkuich@yahoo.com]
Sent:Monday, February 27, 2012 11:34 AM
To:Stuart Wagner
Hi I'm replying to the email regarding builders signs. They are. fine with me!
Thanks!
Sent from my Kindle Fire
7
Stuart Wagner
From:Sandie [boatlvr2@comcast.net]
Sent:Saturday, February 25, 2012 8:34 AM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Signs
I r e a l l y d o n 't c a r e o n e w a y o r t h e o t h e r .
8
Stuart Wagner
From:slotoy.larson@comcast.net
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 8:06 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Signs
I don't mind them, as long as they are not up any longer than they need be to market the product.
Darlene Larson
Lakeland Hills
9
Stuart Wagner
From:hs5221952@q.com
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 7:43 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:signs
Hey,
How does anyone think that we the existing landowners found their homes, by signs..Worry about the bigger
things in life, health and happiness. These too will disappear in time.
Patti Dawes
10
Stuart Wagner
From:Kyle Stevens [eternal.knight@comcast.net]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 7:37 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Signs Ordanance in Lakeland Hills
If te signs are posted on the developers land, I say leave them alone so they do not park vans and trucks all over
the place with the same messages painted on the side. That is something that needs an ordenance. Stop
allowing advertising on the side of rusty old heaps to be parked al over the place.
Kyle Stevens
Home Owner
Carrara
From my Android Tablet.
11
Stuart Wagner
From:dcouey@q.com
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 4:09 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Signs...
The signs do not bother us at all. There is not much of anything else on that road so it doesn't
look too "junky" yet.
James & Diana Couey
5622 Evergreen Loop Se
12
Stuart Wagner
From:Steve Carstens [sjcarstens1@gmail.com]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 2:11 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Signs in Lakeland hills
O u r H O A a s k e d u s t o e m a i l y o u c o n c e r n i n g t h e s i g n s i n o u r c o m m u n i t y (t h e o n e s o n l a k e t a p p s
p k w y s i m i l a r t o t h e o l d B u r m a s h a v e r o a d s i d e a d s )
I h a v e n o i s s u e w i t h t h e m i f t h e y h e l p t h e d e v e l o p e r s e l l t h e h o u s e s i t 's f i n e b y m e .I j u s t
w a n t t h e m t o r e m a i n i n g o o d r e p a i r a n d r e m o v e d w h e n n o l o n g e r n e e d e d .
T h a n k s f o r t a k i n g t h e t i m e f o r m y c o m m e n t .
S e n t f r o m m y i P h o n e
s o p l e a s e e x c u s e a n y t y p o s !
T h a n k s ,
S t e v e C a r s t e n s
13
Stuart Wagner
From:Kathy [kkuper65@hotmail.com]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 1:03 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Ordinance Renewal
C o u l d c a r e a l e s s .
-----
S e n t f r o m m B o x M a i l
H o t m a i l f o r i P h o n e a n d i P o d T o u c h
h t t p ://w w w .f l u e n t f a c t o r y .c o m /m b o x m a i l
14
Stuart Wagner
From:Stacy Fairchild [davestacy4@comcast.net]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 11:45 AM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:signs
I don't have a problem with these signs. I'm sure they are helpful/necessary for the realtors and those selling homes.
15
Stuart Wagner
From:Dennis Fagen [dennis@piedmontdirectionalsigns.com]
Sent:Wednesday, February 08, 2012 12:50 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Cc:'Leo Baumstarck'; suzie@piedmontdirectionalsigns.com
Subject:RE: Real Estate Signs (emphasis - off-premise signs) - Meeting 2/7/12 and Public Hearing
2/22/12
Stuart,
I feel the interim sign controls are fair and should be continued as written. I want to also say that
Michael Dunbar the Codes Compliance Officer was very professional to work with while going through the
permitting process. He has the knowledge and made the process very easy for all involved. I only wish more
cities would adopt your codes. I have been in the sign business for 15 years in the 3 county area and I will say
that Auburn was willing to permit these types of signs so the Homebuilders with in their city can sell their
homes with the proper use and installation of signs to get potential buyers to their communities. These codes
have been good for everyone involved the citizens the City of Auburn the Homebuilders and the Sign
companies. I also appreciate your e-mail asking everyone’s opinion.
Thanks
Dennis
From: Stuart Wagner [mailto:swagner@auburnwa.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 4:08 PM
To: 'arrows.signs@gmail.com'; 'ToddS@connerhomes.com'; 'mike@spectrumsign.com';
'katherine.orni@PolygonHomes.com'; 'piedmontdirectional@earthlink.net'
Subject: Real Estate Signs (emphasis - off-premise signs) - Meeting 2/7/12 and Public Hearing 2/22/12
Hello,
On April 18, 2011, the Auburn City Council passed Ordinance No. 6360 that established one (1) year interim
zoning controls pertaining to the allowance, dimensions, and location of real estate signs not currently permitted
by existing sign regulations in the public right-of-way or on private property relate to the sale, lease, or rent of
residential and non-residential development properties.
Ordinance No. 6360 was developed in response to multiple requests from developers and owners of residential
and non-residential real property in the City seeking authorization for the placement of real estate signs on
16
public and private properties in locations, numbers and of a size than is currently allowable under existing City
regulations. The Ordinance’s key purpose was to assist in local economic development associated with the sale
and development of residential and non-residential property in the City. See attachment (page 10) for the
interim sign controls.
Before April 18, 2012 the interim sign controls will either go away, be codified as is, or else modified. The
Planning Commission is currently reviewing the interim sign control and determining whether they should
remain as is or otherwise be modified. A discussion will be held on the interim sign controls tonight (February
7, 2012) at 7pm in the Council Chambers. A public hearing on the item will likely occur February 22, 2012.
If you feel the interim sign controls should continue as written or be modified please let me know. Also, you
may attend any of the meeting mentioned above.
Regards,
Stuart
Stuart Wagner, AICP
Planner
Planning & Development Department
City of Auburn
25 West Main Street
Auburn, WA 98001-4998
p: (253) 804-5031
swagner@auburnwa.gov
1
Stuart Wagner
From:Vicki M [vicki_m55@msn.com]
Sent:Tuesday, February 28, 2012 10:42 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Signs
P l e a s e ...N o m o r e s i g n s i n L a k e l a n d H i l l s
S e n t f r o m m y i P h o n e
2
Stuart Wagner
From:Rob Poznanski [rob@atomicmarble.com]
Sent:Tuesday, February 28, 2012 11:18 AM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Please take signs down!
To whom it may concern,
I understand this city ordinance is up for renewal. As a Lakeland residence, this is an eyesore & I am not in
favor of renewing the City ordinance that allows the builders to keep these signs up without our permission.
They stuck us with water capacity fees they should have covered when they started building and ballooned our
home prices to the point where most of us cannot sell without taking a huge loss. So because of this, I am not in
favor of the ordinance renewal.
Another alternative is to have them pay the community of Lakeland Hills a billboard fee to have these signs up.
Those funds then go into general fund for community events in Lakeland hills.
Thank you!
Rob Poznanski
Verona North
Right-click
here to
download
pictures. To
help protect
your privacy,
Outlook
prevented
automatic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.
3
Stuart Wagner
From:Adam & Carly Fufa [thefufas@yahoo.com]
Sent:Tuesday, February 28, 2012 10:20 AM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:signs
Hello -
Personally I would like to see the signs removed as they are a distraction to drivers, and also create a mess when
they fall down, wear out, etc.
I understand builders are looking to advertise, but it would be safer and more pleasant overall to find other ways
to do so. Signs along the roadway just don't look very nice.
Thank you for your time -
Carly Rose-Fufa
4
Stuart Wagner
From:Adam Braun [adamcbraun@yahoo.com]
Sent:Tuesday, February 28, 2012 8:44 AM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Re: Please Let The City of Auburn Know
Dear Mr. Wagner,
I am writing in opposition to any laws that allow the uncontrolled posting of signs like the ones in the
picture below. There are a number of issues that make these signs undesirable:
1. They blight our neighborhoods. These signs make our community look bad.
2. They are distracting to drivers. They have a tendency to take drivers' eyes off the road, which leads to more
accidents.
3. They are an unnecessary traffic hazard. In the event that a driver loses control of his vehicle, these signs are
an obstruction that could seriously injure or kill the driver or passenger. Imagine hitting the pictured 4x4 posts
and plywood board. Unlike the speed limit sign (which is likely designed as a breakaway post, and less likely to
complicate an auto accident), the advertisement does not provide any information that will aid the driver in
safety.
4. They do not provide any useful information. Many of the signs do not provide directions, contact
information, or even information about the products being sold. Even those signs that do provide information
are generally ineffective, as so many of the new signs added over the past several years have been for home
builders. The majority of home shoppers today use a mix of a hired realtor and online listings such as Zillow or
MLSOnline. Very few people do "drive arounds" to shop for a home.
What kind of community do we want? One that is full of billboards and advertisements, or one that is pleasant
to live in? I want a community WITHOUT signs and banners and advertisements on every streetcorner.
Thank you for your consideration on this issue.
Adam Braun
5207 Quincy Ave SE
Auburn, WA 98092
From: Lakeland <admin@lakelandliving.net>
To: adamcbraun@yahoo.com
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 11:45 AM
Subject: Please Let The City of Auburn Know
These signs, and many others like them, are in our community.
Do you like them?
Right-click
here to
download
pictures. To
help protect
your privacy,
Outlook
prevented
automatic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.
A temporary City of Auburn ordinance allowed these signs to be there without our consent. This
ordinance is up for renewal. The builders would like this ordinance renewed.
What about you?
Your Board of Directors requests your input today.
5
Please e-mail swagner@auburnwa.gov
NO LATER THAN TUESDAY February 28th
6
Stuart Wagner
From:Carol Pfister [cmpfister@hotmail.com]
Sent:Tuesday, February 28, 2012 8:27 AM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Temporary sign ordinance
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing to express my concern with regard to the temporary city of Auburn sign ordinance. The quantity
and many times the actual size of the signs are both out of control. They are unsightly and cheapen the look of
our city. In particular, the signs on Lake Tapps Parkway are an eyesore. These signs look like a desperate
attempt to attract people, giving the impression of an area that is begging for residents because it is in decline,
when in fact our area is not in decline. These signs are as distasteful as the many signs placed along the sides of
roads for political candidates. In addition, all of these signs are a distraction and pose a driving hazard. Drivers
need to concentrate on driving and reading signs that actually matter, such as speed limits signs and warning
signs.
Please do not renew this sign ordinance.
Regards,
Carol Pfister
7
Stuart Wagner
From:tomalexander57@comcast.net
Sent:Monday, February 27, 2012 8:46 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Builders
I do not like the signs posted along the roads
8
Stuart Wagner
From:John Hepola [jhepola@gmail.com]
Sent:Monday, February 27, 2012 7:00 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Signs
Don't like them.
Thanks,
John Hepola
9
Stuart Wagner
From:federergene@comcast.net
Sent:Monday, February 27, 2012 6:04 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Fwd: Please Let The City of Auburn Know
This really lowers the attractiveness of the Auburn community and the following foto is mild compared to just
passed the Lakeland shopping area. I know builders are having a difficult time selling their houses but there is a
limit.
Gene Federer
These signs, and many others like them, are in our community.
Do you like them?
Right-click
here to
download
pictures. To
help protect
your privacy,
Outlook
prevented
automatic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.
A temporary City of Auburn ordinance allowed these signs to be there without our consent. This
ordinance is up for renewal. The builders would like this ordinance renewed.
What about you?
Your Board of Directors requests your input today.
Please e-mail swagner@auburnwa.gov
NO LATER THAN TUESDAY February 28th
10
Stuart Wagner
From:ndandtd@comcast.net
Sent:Monday, February 27, 2012 4:57 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:signs
I would like to see these types of signs banned
Regards
Nolan Dodgen
11
Stuart Wagner
From:rtorres344@aol.com
Sent:Monday, February 27, 2012 3:43 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:signs on the roads.
How londg do they stay and who cleans them up. Keep the signs off
12
Stuart Wagner
From:Raymond Wilson [copland50@gmail.com]
Sent:Monday, February 27, 2012 3:24 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Roadside signs
I a m a r e s i d e n t o f L a k e l a n d H i l l s a n d I t h i n k t h e b u i l d e r s s i g n o n t h e r o a d w a y s g o i n g u p t o
L a k e l a n d H i l l s i s a b i g e y e s o r e a l o n g w i t h a s a f e t y i s s u e .P l e a s e d o n o t r e n e w t h e a b i l i t y t o
p u t t h e s e s i g n s u p .T h a n k y o u .
R a y m o n d W i l s o n
7 2 1 7 P e r r y A v e S E
A u b u r n ,W A 9 8 0 9 2
8 0 8 -2 2 0 -0 0 0 5
13
Stuart Wagner
From:KELLY MCGONAGLE [kellymcgonagle@aol.com]
Sent:Monday, February 27, 2012 2:50 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:FWD: Please Let The City of Auburn Know
To Whom It May Concern:
I understand the temporary City of Auburn ordinance that allows signes like those pictured below is coming up
for renewal. As a resident of Lakeland I find that signs such as this lower the overall appearance of the area and
the property value. The City of Auburn and Lakeland's HOA spend a good amount of time and money to
beautify the landscaping in the area and these types of signs detract and make the area look like a strip mall.
Please do not renew this ordinance.
Thanks
Kelly McGonagle
6306 Isaac Ave SE, Unit B Auburn, WA 98092
From: Lakeland <admin@lakelandliving.net>
To: kellymcgonagle <kellymcgonagle@aol.com>
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 at 11:52 am
Subject: Please Let The City of Auburn Know
These signs, and many others like them, are in our community.
Do you like them?
Right-click
here to
download
pictures. To
help protect
your privacy,
Outlook
prevented
automatic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.
A temporary City of Auburn ordinance allowed these signs to be there without our consent. This
ordinance is up for renewal. The builders would like this ordinance renewed.
What about you?
Your Board of Directors requests your input today.
Please e-mail swagner@auburnwa.gov
NO LATER THAN TUESDAY February 28th
14
Stuart Wagner
From:Michelle_Terry@wawb.uscourts.gov
Sent:Monday, February 27, 2012 2:04 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Dont renew the signs
M i c h e l l e T e r r y
C a s e M a n a g e r
(
2 5 3 )8 8 2 -3 9 0 0 x 3 9 2 4
15
Stuart Wagner
From:Colleen [piecefulassembly@comcast.net]
Sent:Monday, February 27, 2012 1:50 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Cc:Frank Tomaszewski; Jerry Carpenter; Kimberly Stanphill ; Rich Faires ; Ron Rutherford
Subject:FW: Please Let The City of Auburn Know
We at Lakeland have tried so hard to put in place rules and regs aimed at maintaining a clean, uncluttered,
attractive ambiance. These signs have always been distracting and detracting, but now they are not only on the
drive up to our community, they are also lining our boulevards and side streets. PLEASE put an end, or at least
some meaningful controls, on this proliferation. Soon we will have bill boards and lawn signs for every
politician, home business and product out there. Once you allow builders carte blanche, can the rest be far
behind?
Colleen Seymour Hoernlein
6617 James Ave. SE, #A
Auburn, WA 98092
253-833-8870
From: Lakeland [mailto:admin@lakelandliving.net]
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 11:43 AM
To: piecefulassembly@comcast.net
Subject: Please Let The City of Auburn Know
These signs, and many others like them, are in our community.
Do you like them?
Right-click
here to
download
pictures. To
help protect
your privacy,
Outlook
prevented
automatic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.
A temporary City of Auburn ordinance allowed these signs to be there without our consent. This
ordinance is up for renewal. The builders would like this ordinance renewed.
What about you?
Your Board of Directors requests your input today.
16
Please e-mail swagner@auburnwa.gov
NO LATER THAN TUESDAY February 28th
17
Stuart Wagner
From:fritz hagedorn [fghahh@yahoo.com]
Sent:Monday, February 27, 2012 12:39 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Please limit the number of signs. Thank you
Fritz Hagedorn
18
Stuart Wagner
From:Trina Reid [misstranell@aol.com]
Sent:Monday, February 27, 2012 11:41 AM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Sign ordanance
I would like to see the signs removed. I think some other medium would be more appropriate. Unless you already live in
Lakeland, you wouldn't see these signs.
Trina
19
Stuart Wagner
From:Fowler, Don [don.fowler@soundtransit.org]
Sent:Monday, February 27, 2012 10:30 AM
To:Stuart Wagner; admin@lakelandliving.net
Subject:Please Let The City of Auburn Know
Attachments:image001.jpg; image002.jpg
I feel that the sings are an eye sore and should have never been allowed to be placed along the road. Since their
er4ection, it is quite evident that the signs are not in keeping with our landscaping and beautification
requirements.
I am against the ordinance allowing these signs should not be extended.
I reside @ 1509 59th St. SE.
Sincerely,
Donald R. Fowler
Senior Systems Engineer
(206) 398-5125 (Office)
(206) 255-4649 (Cell)
(206) 368-5269 (Fax)
don.fowler@soundtransit.org
20
Stuart Wagner
From:Bobby Smith [BSmith@ncmgroup.com]
Sent:Monday, February 27, 2012 10:20 AM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:No signs please
“no signs, do not allow the ordinance to be renewed”
Thanks,
Bobby
Bobby Smith
Lakeland Resident
21
Stuart Wagner
From:Duane [yhdgh1950@yahoo.com]
Sent:Monday, February 27, 2012 9:17 AM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Signs
Attachments:signprotestsmall.jpg
Please do not renew the ordinance that allows these signs to be left up.
Sincerely,
Duane Herold
1301 67th St SE Unit 20B
Auburn, WA 98092
253-333-0599
22
Stuart Wagner
From:Bradford Charles Bill [bradbill@u.washington.edu]
Sent:Monday, February 27, 2012 8:30 AM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:The signs are not good
P l e a s e r e n e w t h e o r d i n a n c e t o b a n t h e s e s i g n s i n a n d a r o u n d L a k e l a n d H i l l s a d v e r t i s i n g n e w
h o m e s a n d s u c h .
23
Stuart Wagner
From:West, Wendy [wendy.west@weyerhaeuser.com]
Sent:Monday, February 27, 2012 8:20 AM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:no signs, do not allow the ordinance to be renewed
Attachments:Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) 1.jpg
Thanks!
Have a great day!
Wendy West
Weyerhaeuser|SR Business Process Analyst
253-924-7380 (tel) | 253-928-1529 (fax) | wendy.west@weyerhaeuser.com
24
Stuart Wagner
From:Hornsby, Denise E [denise.e.hornsby@boeing.com]
Sent:Monday, February 27, 2012 7:08 AM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:City of Auburn ordinance allowed these signs to be there without our consent
Please do not allow the signs to remain up or for the ordinance to be renewed, thanks
DeDe Hornsby
Boeing Supplier Management & Procurement
206-200-4081, Fax: 425-237-1296
Emails can be forwarded to GRP SSG SM&P Service Request and a focal will address your needs.
Backup is Diana Brady - 314-705-9109
Manager: Kris Weber - 206-851-2496
"WHO TO CALL" http://sspnextapp.web.boeing.com/personnel/whosearch.asp
25
Stuart Wagner
From:Herman [hermanross@comcast.net]
Sent:Sunday, February 26, 2012 7:35 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Temporary Auburn Ordinance Allowing Signs Along Roadways
I learned yesterday that the builder's signs along Lake Taps Parkway and also Kersey Way were allowed to
remain despite public objections. I understand there is a temporary Auburn city ordinance allowing them to
remain, but that the ordinance is up for renewal.
As a resident of the Lakeland development and the City of Auburn, I hereby register my protest against renewal
of the ordinance. The signs are unsightly and detract from the visual aspect planned and previously achieved for
these roadways. I will continue to follow this issue and expect public officials to act in the interest of the entire
public.
Sincerely,
Herman Ross
6005 Olive Ave. SE
Auburn, WA 98092
26
Stuart Wagner
From:Jerry & Susan [jshelmick@comcast.net]
Sent:Sunday, February 26, 2012 7:34 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:PLEASE DO NOT RENEW
Attachments:image001.jpg
Please do not renew the ordinance that allows this signage along the entrance to Lakeland Hills.
The signs are tacky, unsightly, and circus like.
The signs detract from the beauty of Lakeland Hills, a family neighborhood.
In addition to these rude signs we have to endure an endless barrage of balloon bouquets and signs at the corner of Lake
Tapps Hwy and Lakeland Hills.
Susan & Jerry Helmick
27
Stuart Wagner
From:BJ Moore [iratherbepullingweeds@gmail.com]
Sent:Sunday, February 26, 2012 7:19 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:signs for development
Thank you for considering our input. I think one sign before the development would be sufficient . What they
have now is way too distracting and makes the road side look cluttered. Again one sign like all the other
builders have is only fair. If they can put up multiple ads for their homes, are the other builders allowed to do
the same? Let's keep signage to minimum.
Brenda Moore
28
Stuart Wagner
From:Maria [mariasackmann@hotmail.com]
Sent:Sunday, February 26, 2012 6:29 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Fwd: Please Let The City of Auburn Know
Please do not renew the city ordinance allowing these hideous real estate signs to take over the hill up Lake
Tapps Pkwy. They are ugly, often misspelled and provide incorrect info about the area. As a Lakeland Hills
resident, I have always disliked all the signs. If you are looking to buy a house up here there are other ways to
locate what is available. In addition most seeking a new home are referrals from those living here already.
Thank you for your time and help.
Maria Sackmann
253.333.2922
Sent from my iPhone
Right-click
here to
download
pictures. To
help protect
your privacy,
Outlook
prevented
automatic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.
29
Stuart Wagner
From:Megan Bearor [meganbearor@hotmail.com]
Sent:Sunday, February 26, 2012 5:56 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Builder Signs
Please do not renew the ordinance allowing builders to display the large red signs that are currently on Lake
Tapps Parkway. They are ugly and detract from the natural beauty of the hill.
Thank you,
Megan & Ted Bearor
30
Stuart Wagner
From:pamala52@comcast.net
Sent:Sunday, February 26, 2012 5:26 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:signs
I would VERY MUCH like to see these GONE. As a retired Realtor I know the need for "Open House" signs
that are up ONLY during the hours the home will be open. ONE large sign advertising a new home project.
However these are just making our neighborhoods junky
31
Stuart Wagner
From:Teri Naber [naber1@comcast.net]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 12:53 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Signs
T h e s i g n s o n L a k e T a p p s P a r k w a y a r e a n e y e s o r e a n d s h o u l d n o t b e a l l o w e d .
S e n t f r o m m y i P h o n e
T e r i N a b e r
(
2 5 3 )7 0 9 -3 8 4 6
n a b e r 1 @ c o m c a s t .n e t
32
Stuart Wagner
From:Susie [aumell1@comcast.net]
Sent:Sunday, February 26, 2012 2:41 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:signs
I don't care for them at all.
Susie Aumell
Westwind
5130 Francis Ct. SE
33
Stuart Wagner
From:Val T [valerietrigueiro@hotmail.com]
Sent:Sunday, February 26, 2012 11:58 AM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Signs on on roadside up Lake Tapps Pkwy
I understand that the contract for the signs as you come up Lake Tapps Pkwy are up for renewal. Personally, I
think they look hideous and are extremely unattractive. As we enter into our most beautiful time of year
(spring/summer) do we really need to clutter up the landscape advertising for a home builder? If the little nail
salon at the bottom of the hill can't put a sandwich board in front of their business to advertise, why is it that a
HUGE builder can put up these tacky signs? Perhaps there is money involved for the city - I don't know. At
any rate, I would like to put in my two cents that the contract for these signs NOT be renewed.
Sincerely,
Valerie Trigueiro
1948 62nd Loop SE
Auburn, WA 98092
34
Stuart Wagner
From:ameedean@comcast.net
Sent:Sunday, February 26, 2012 10:45 AM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Signs
Please revoke the approvals to allow the unsightly signage that has begun popping up in our community. These
are an eyesore and ruin the aesthetics of our beautiful landscaping all the various neighborhoods work so hard to
maintain.
The Webb Family
Lakeland Hills
35
Stuart Wagner
From:Don Thompson [submariner677@gmail.com]
Sent:Sunday, February 26, 2012 9:35 AM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:builders signs
Attachments:image001.gif
Please get rid of these unsightly advertisements. Vote no for extending their use.
36
Stuart Wagner
From:The Robertons [therobertons@comcast.net]
Sent:Sunday, February 26, 2012 7:52 AM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Re: NO SIGNS In Lakeland Hills
Attachments:signprotestsmall.jpg
From: "The Robertons" <therobertons@comcast.net>
To: swagner@auburnwa.gov
Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2012 7:49:18 AM
Subject: NO SIGNS In Lakeland Hills
We absolutely oppose having signs like this in Auburn since the signs 1) distract drivers, who should be drving
and not reading signs, and 2) mar an otherwise nature-filled drive into our beautiful Lakeland Hills community.
Please VOTE NO on the renewal of the ordinance that allows such signage.
Jon & Carol Roberton
37
Stuart Wagner
From:The Robertons [therobertons@comcast.net]
Sent:Sunday, February 26, 2012 7:49 AM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:NO SIGNS In Lakeland Hills
We absolutely oppose having signs like this in Auburn since the signs 1) distract drivers, who should be drving
and not reading signs, and 2) mar an otherwise nature-filled drive into our beautiful Lakeland Hills community.
Please VOTE NO on the renewal of the ordinance that allows such signage.
Jon & Carol Roberton
38
Stuart Wagner
From:Dale Sain [rdsain@comcast.net]
Sent:Saturday, February 25, 2012 10:56 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Billboards
W h i l e o n e o r t w o a r e t e m p o r a r i l y a c c e p t a b l e ,t h e l i k e l y c o n c l u s i o n i s ,u n l e s s s t o p p e d ,t h e y
w o u l d o n l y m u l t i p l y .
T h e c u t e n e s s o f t h e o l d "B u r m a S h a v e "s t y l e s i g n s i s a l r e a d y b e g i n n i n g t o w e a r o f f .I w o u l d
i m a g i n e t h e r e a r e m a n y w h o d o n o t k n o w o f t h a t r e f e r e n c e .
I v o t e t h a t t h e c i t y o f A u b u r n r e v o k e t h e o r d i n a n c e t h a t a l l o w s t h e s e .
D a l e S a i n
T h e R e s e r v e ,L o t 2 4
39
Stuart Wagner
From:roclemente@comcast.net
Sent:Saturday, February 25, 2012 10:07 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Cc:Loretta A. Maestas
Subject:Sings on Lakeland Hills
SWagner,
The signs on Lakeland Hills advertising everything from housing (big red signs), Walgreen's and the like are
not only unsightly, but a driving distraction and not appropriate for the aesthetics of the neighborhood. Who do
I complain to for results.
Rosemarie Clemente, Resident Lakeland Hills.
1132 - 65th Court SE
Auburn, Washington 98092
Mobile Phone: 25t3.347.2190
40
Stuart Wagner
From:Janelle Martin [Cnjmartin97@msn.com]
Sent:Saturday, February 25, 2012 9:07 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Signs
I d o n o t l i k e t h e s i g n s p l a c e d a l o n g t h e r o a d s u p t o L a k e l a n d H i l l s .T h e y a r e t a c k y a n d
d i s t r a c t i n g .
T h a n k y o u ,
J a n e l l e a n d C h r i s M a r t i n
L a k e l a n d H i l l s h o m e o w n e r s
S e n t f r o m m y i P a d
41
Stuart Wagner
From:Kim Triplett [KSTriplett@Comcast.Net]
Sent:Saturday, February 25, 2012 7:51 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:signs in Lakeland Hills
Hello Ms Wagner,
I am a resident of Lakeland Hills and hope that you will block the renew of the ordinance that allows these signs
to be on Lakeland Hills Way and the Sumner-Tapps Highway by Top Foods. The signs look like clutter on the
hill and are going to soon be a place where graffiti will be put. The land does not good with all these signs
strewn all up the hill.
Thank you for your support of this non-renewal of the ordinance.
Kim Triplett
Lakeland Hills Resident
42
Stuart Wagner
From:Jeffery Barsaloux [jsb9553@msn.com]
Sent:Saturday, February 25, 2012 5:12 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Lakeland Signs
Hi,
Please do not renew the ordinance for these sign. Who know what's the next thing people or businesses will
start to put on our roads.
Thanks,
Jeff
43
Stuart Wagner
From:David Morrison [coordpoint@comcast.net]
Sent:Saturday, February 25, 2012 5:08 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Builder/Realtor Signs
Thanks for the opportunity to weigh in on this. My official response is, no, thank you. I don’t want our
neighborhood trashed with this type of advertising. We live here, and this is as bad as the telemarketers that
invade the privacy of our homes. The builder’s should not be allowed to post their signage like this. Our
neighborhood is not a carnival.
Regards,
David Morrison
5909 Panorama Dr SE #10-104
Auburn, WA
44
Stuart Wagner
From:steve bowen [rddlx@yahoo.com]
Sent:Saturday, February 25, 2012 4:47 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:signs
Don't care for them at all.
45
Stuart Wagner
From:Gary G Skinner [ggskinner1301@comcast.net]
Sent:Saturday, February 25, 2012 4:37 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Roadside Signs
Please vote to have these signs removed, they do not add anything to the beauty of our area.
Thanks for asking for my input.
Gary G. Skinner
46
Stuart Wagner
From:Charie & Don [steff81@comcast.net]
Sent:Saturday, February 25, 2012 4:02 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Home Advertisement signs, removal
We are writing in regards to the home advertisement signs along Lake Tapps Blvd. We
strongly disapprove of them and would like to see them removed.
Regards,
Charie & Don Steffens
6425 Montevista Dr SE
Auburn
253 804-0122
47
Stuart Wagner
From:gllwood@comcast.net
Sent:Saturday, February 25, 2012 1:31 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:signs
We are a lakeland family. We think they are cheap, ugly, distasteful. Ever heard of "Wall Drug"?
The Wood Family
48
Stuart Wagner
From:Lisa N Quam [lquam59@msn.com]
Sent:Saturday, February 25, 2012 1:31 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Please get rid of them ASAP! What an eyesore.
These do NOT portray our beautiful our Lakeland community is, nor does it show our sense of community pride we have
reguarding the outdoor spaces!
Lisa N. Quam
49
Stuart Wagner
From:Todd & Erin O'Bannon [todd.erin@comcast.net]
Sent:Saturday, February 25, 2012 12:19 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Lakeland Hills Signs
T h e s i g n s c o m i n g u p t h e h i l l t o L a k e T a p p s P k w y n e e d t o g o .I d o n 't u n d e r s t a n d w h y t h e y w e r e
a l l o w e d i n t h e f i r s t p l a c e .
T h e y d i s t r a c t d r i v e r s c r e a t i n g a s a f e t y i s s u e .
W e d o n 't n e e d t o s t a r t t h i s p r a c t i c e ,w h e r e w i l l i t s t o p ?
T h e y a r e a n e y e s o r e .
50
Stuart Wagner
From:Linda McKee [overpass400@yahoo.com]
Sent:Saturday, February 25, 2012 11:27 AM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Signs in Lakeland Hills area
I do NOT want the city of Auburn to renew the ordinance to allow all the various signs to be posted throughout
the Lakeland Hills community. None of them should be allowed, whether semi-permanent or the smaller ones
posted on the weekends. I would like to see all of them removed. Thank you for considering the current
residents opinion on this matter.
Thank you for your time.
Linda McKee
Lakeland Hills resident
51
Stuart Wagner
From:Edward Lane [edwardlane@comcast.net]
Sent:Saturday, February 25, 2012 8:50 AM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:CIty Ordinance for building signs on Lake Tapps Parkway
Do not renew this ordinance. The sign are an eyesore and are dangerous as they distract drivers on a very busy
and dangerous road. I would also recommend guardrails on this road due to the steep canyon that lies just a few
feet from the edge of the road.
Sincerely,
Edward Lane
5848 Marshall Pl SE
Auburn, WA 98092
253-332-0936
52
Stuart Wagner
From:Rick Hood [rick@frh3.com]
Sent:Saturday, February 25, 2012 8:45 AM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Please Let The City of Auburn Know
T h e s e s i g n s a r e a b l i g h t .I s i n c e r e l y h o p e t h a t t h e o r d i n a n c e e x p i r e s w i t h o u t r e n e w a l .
53
Stuart Wagner
From:ageorge38@comcast.net
Sent:Saturday, February 25, 2012 7:31 AM
To:Stuart Wagner
Cc:ageorge38@comcast.net
Subject:Unwanted signs in Lakeland
I live in lakeland.
Do not allow the signs to continue,
Annie George
6120 Isaac Ave SE
Unit F
Auburn, Wa 98092-8185
253-887-7902
54
Stuart Wagner
From:Billi Tatum [billi.tatum@yahoo.com]
Sent:Saturday, February 25, 2012 6:43 AM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Fw: Please Let The City of Auburn Know
Right-click
here to
download
pictures. To
help protect
your privacy,
Outlook
prevented
automatic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.
A temporary City of Auburn ordinance allowed these signs to be placed. It is my understanding that this
ordinance is up for renewal. Please don't allow the renewal. These signs are annoying as well as
unattractive and distracts from the beauty of the area.
Thank you.
Ms Billi Tatum
55
Stuart Wagner
From:Jeff Hoevet [jhoevet@yahoo.com]
Sent:Saturday, February 25, 2012 1:01 AM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Signs
P l e a s e d o n o t r e n e w t h e o r d i n a n c e t h a t a l l o w s a d v e r t i s i n g s i g n s a l o n g o u r s t r e e t s '
T h a n k y o u ,
J e f f H o e v e t
S e n t f r o m m y i P o d
56
Stuart Wagner
From:Laura [teach4abit@aol.com]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 11:55 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:signs in Lakeland
The signs along the Lake Tapps road and others in the Lakeland area are unsightly. I
am one voter that does NOT like them. Could you refrain from renewing their
continuing.
Thank you
Right-click
here to
download
pictures. To
help protect
your privacy,
Outlook
prevented
automatic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet. Laura Ranes
1207 63rd st se
unit A
Auburn, WA 98092
57
Stuart Wagner
From:Kimberley Rockwood Ocasio [krocasio@hotmail.com]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 10:45 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:FW: Please Let The City of Auburn Know
I do not like these signs in my neighborhood, and would not like them renewed.
Respectfully,
Kym Ocasio
Lakeland Hills resident
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:45:13 -0500
To: krocasio@hotmail.com
Subject: Please Let The City of Auburn Know
From: admin@lakelandliving.net
These signs, and many others like them, are in our community.
Do you like them?
Right-click
here to
download
pictures. To
help protect
your privacy,
Outlook
prevented
automatic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.
A temporary City of Auburn ordinance allowed these signs to be there without our consent. This
ordinance is up for renewal. The builders would like this ordinance renewed.
What about you?
Your Board of Directors requests your input today.
Please e-mail swagner@auburnwa.gov
NO LATER THAN TUESDAY February 28th
58
Stuart Wagner
From:rnknish@earthlink.net
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 9:55 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:temporary sign allowance
Please stop allowing the temporary signage for developers in Lakeland! Or, at least, let the Lakeland
Homeowners Association have a say in how many signs to allow – it is our beautiful and clean neighborhood!
Thanks for listening.
Ron and Kathy Nishihira
59
Stuart Wagner
From:diane evans [evansdianem@hotmail.com]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 9:28 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:signs in community
I do not like them. It cheapens the community.
Diane Evans
Lakeland Hills
60
Stuart Wagner
From:Mark [tjmarkiemark@yahoo.com]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 9:15 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Signs around Auburn
I l i v e i n L a k e l a n d H i l l s i n A u b u r n a n d c a n 't s t a n d a l l t h e s i g n s !O n e i s o k ,b u t 3 0 o f t h e m
g o i n g u p t h e h i l l i s t o o e x c e s s i v e .T h e y l o o k l i k e p e r m a n e n t b i l l b o a r d s .P l e a s e d o n o t
r e n e w o r d n a n c e .
T h a n k y o u
M a r k H a l e y
S e n t f r o m m y i P h o n e
61
Stuart Wagner
From:carpenter2.0@comcast.net
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 8:56 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Cc:admin@lakelandliving.net
Subject:temporary ordinance re signage in Lakeland Hills
I urge you to vote against the renewal of this ordinance. These signs are too large. What was wrong with the
smaller signs? Don't let the builders ruin Lakeland Hills with there mega signs.
Right-click
here to
download
pictures. To
help protect
your privacy,
Outlook
prevented
automatic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.
Susan Carpenter
6431 Isaac Avenue SE
Auburn, WA 98092
62
Stuart Wagner
From:Sharon Humbert [ivoryticklin@comcast.net]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 8:24 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Signs
Attachments:image001.jpg
We hate the huge red and white signs that are all over Lakeland Hills. They are truly an eyesore. Please
remove them. Thanks!
63
Stuart Wagner
From:SEThibeault [sethibeault@comcast.net]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 7:33 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Excessive Signage
Auburn City Council,
The excessive signage in Lakeland hills is unsightly and an abuse of the policy that allows such advertising.
This policy needs to change before before Auburn turns into a carnival side show. There needs to be more
oversight. There should be a limit to the size, placement and volume of such signs.
Thank you for your attention in this matter,
Steven Thibeault
Lakeland Hills Resident
64
Stuart Wagner
From:paulandsuz@comcast.net
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 7:27 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Signs
We do not approve of these signs.
Paul and Suzanne Dodsworth
5909 Panorama Dr. SE
Auburn, WA 98092
65
Stuart Wagner
From:adonsmith2@aol.com
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 6:56 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Builder's signs
No, I do not like these posted and feel that they detract for the feeling of a stable residential area.
Don Smith
6304 Rebecca Ave S E
66
Stuart Wagner
From:kelliemhamblin@aol.com
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 6:42 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Signs
No. This is not reasonable advertising. It's the visual equivalent of screaming.
It is not in line with the vision of the community, with expectations of civility and respect.
Kellie Hamblin
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID
67
Stuart Wagner
From:John Boatman [jnjboatman@gmail.com]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 6:10 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Cc:'Michael Howe'
Subject:FW: Please Let The City of Auburn Know if you are unhappy with this look
Nope, it’s too much, over the top with these signs. We don’t like them.
John and Jeanne Boatman
7221 Perry Ave SE
Auburn, WA
From: Michael Howe [mailto:MHowe@morrismanagement.com]
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 11:56 AM
To: Michael Howe
Subject: FW: Please Let The City of Auburn Know if you are unhappy with this look
Michael L Howe, CMCA, AMS
Community Association Manager
Morris Management, Inc
425-283-5858 ext.107 Bellevue Office
253-939-5647 Auburn Office
425-283-5859 Fax
mhowe@morrismanagement.com
www.morrismanagement.com
From: Lakeland [mailto:admin@lakelandliving.net]
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 11:43 AM
68
To: Michael Howe
Subject: Please Let The City of Auburn Know
These signs, and many others like them, are in our community.
Do you like them?
Right-click
here to
download
pictures. To
help protect
your privacy,
Outlook
prevented
automatic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.
A temporary City of Auburn ordinance allowed these signs to be there without our consent. This
ordinance is up for renewal. The builders would like this ordinance renewed.
What about you?
Your Board of Directors requests your input today.
Please e-mail swagner@auburnwa.gov
NO LATER THAN TUESDAY February 28th
69
Stuart Wagner
From:Sergio Angarita [sangarita@comcast.net]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 5:58 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Re: Please Let The City of Auburn Know
We dont want those signs anymore polluting our environment. Please take them down if possible.
Thanks,
Sergio
On Feb 24, 2012, at 11:44 AM, Lakeland wrote:
These signs, and many others like them, are in our community.
Do you like them?
Right-click
here to
download
pictures. To
help protect
your privacy,
Outlook
prevented
automatic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.
A temporary City of Auburn ordinance allowed these signs to be there without our consent. This
ordinance is up for renewal. The builders would like this ordinance renewed.
What about you?
Your Board of Directors requests your input today.
Please e-mail swagner@auburnwa.gov
NO LATER THAN TUESDAY February 28th
70
Stuart Wagner
From:Faye Cunningham [fcunningham@accessvia.com]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 5:54 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Quality Homes signs in Auburn
One or maybe two signs are ok, but the builders have over done it.
I say take them down.
71
Stuart Wagner
From:teejay88@comcast.net
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 5:15 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:signs
I hate the developers signs, I think they cheapen the neighborhood.
72
Stuart Wagner
From:Patrick M. Fultz [Scrummy@nospammail.net]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 5:12 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Lakeland Hills Signs
Hi, I am a resident of Lakeland in the Siena neighborhood and I think those signs going up the hill are
horrid and they distract from the esthetic view. Please do NOT renew the ok for the builders.
Pat Fultz.......1209 65th St SE "Siena"
73
Stuart Wagner
From:Gayle K [gayledeeann@gmail.com]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 5:06 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Lakeland signs
H i t h e r e !
I h e a r d t h e o r d i n a n c e f o r b u i l d e r s t o l e a v e u p a d v e r t i s i n g i n l a k e l a n d h i l l s i s u p f o r
r e n e w a l .I w o u l d l o v e t o s e e t h o s e s i g n s c o m e d o w n !T h a n k s
G a y l e K r a u l a n d
S e n t f r o m m y i P h o n e
74
Stuart Wagner
From:Emory Gearhart III [emeksj@hotmail.com]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 5:05 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:signs is Lkeland hills
As a resident of Lakeland Hills for more than 6 years, I respectfully request that you do not approve renewing
signage for advertising homes, developments, businesses or anything similar. We are already surrounded by
advertising on TV, radio, billboards...Please allow us to have uninterrupted views of the nature that surrounds
us, which is the reason most of us live here.
Emory Gearhart
75
Stuart Wagner
From:Don Troublefield [slick16don@tampabay.rr.com]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 5:04 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Signs
No, we do not really like these signs. Thanks for asking!
76
Stuart Wagner
From:Steve [smtanaka@comcast.net]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 5:03 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:signs
No to renewal and NO to signs along the road. It looks very tacky. We pay for and expect good landscaping
along the roadways and this is a distraction and eyesore.
Steve and Carol Tanaka
77
Stuart Wagner
From:Dana Johnson [johnda04@gmail.com]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 4:55 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Signs in Auburn
I would like to respond by Tuesday, Feb. 28 but I am in Maine now visiting family and am not in a position to
see them in person. The picture you have sent does not show what the signs say. Can you put out another
picture showing all of the signs? Thanks. Also, please let us know what the objection is – the color, frequency
(number in a row), what they say ….???
Thanks, Dana Johnson, Viewridge Lot #19
78
Stuart Wagner
From:Noack, Jason [JNoack@russell.com]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 4:43 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Response re: Please Let The City of Auburn Know
These signs are both visually unappealing and distracting for drivers coming up the hill (especially as they are
in a series that prompts multiple viewings that distract from the road). My wife and I are strongly opposed to
this renewal of this ordinance.
We live at 6106 Thomas Ct SE
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Lakeland <admin@lakelandliving.net>
To: adamcbraun@yahoo.com
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 11:45 AM
Subject: Please Let The City of Auburn Know
These signs, and many others like them, are in our community.
Do you like them?
Right-click
here to
download
pictures. To
help protect
your privacy,
Outlook
prevented
automatic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.
A temporary City of Auburn ordinance allowed these signs to be there without our consent. This
ordinance is up for renewal. The builders would like this ordinance renewed.
What about you?
Your Board of Directors requests your input today.
Please e-mail swagner@auburnwa.gov
NO LATER THAN TUESDAY February 28th
79
Stuart Wagner
From:Kali Corliss [kali@corlissphoto.com]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 4:40 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Sign Ordinance
Hello,
I hope I am contacting the right person!
I would very much prefer advertising signs on Lake Tapps Parkway to be removed. They have been up forever
and its time for them to come down. Please do not renew the ordinance for the signs.
Sincerely,
Kali Corliss
--
80
Stuart Wagner
From:Debbie Wenker [debbiewenker@yahoo.com]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 4:20 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:road signs
they are an eyesore-so ghetto.
81
Stuart Wagner
From:drlarrybrewer@comcast.net
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 4:11 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:signs
please stop the sign clutter. Larry
82
Stuart Wagner
From:Quach [hqquach@comcast.net]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 3:55 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Signs on Lake Tapps Parkway
T h e s e r i e s o f s i g n s a r e b i g ,r e d a n d u g l y .T h e b u i l d e r 's r e q u e s t t o r e n e w t h e i r a d v e r t i s i n g
s h o u l d b e d e c l i n e d o r a t l e a s t l i m i t e d t o o n e s i g n t h a t s p e c i f i c a l l y d e s c r i b e s t h e i r p r o j e c t .
T h e s e s i g n s l o o k l i k e a j o k e ,b u t a r e j u s t i n p l a i n b a d t a s t e a n d c h e a p e n s t h e l o o k o f t h e
e s t a b l i s h e d n e i g h b o r h o o d s .
T h e Q u a c h F a m i l y
83
Stuart Wagner
From:Lindy Peterson [lindyprn@hotmail.com]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 3:53 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Signage
Sir or Ma'am,
The signs advertizing new homes around Lakeland are unsightly and a blight to our neighborhood.
Please do not renew the ordinance that allowed the posting of these signs.
Sincerely,
Lorinda Peterson
6333 Perry Ave SE
Auburn, WA 98092
206-920-9098
84
Stuart Wagner
From:Ruby Drake [lattechaitea@yahoo.com]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 3:54 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:The signs
H i !I l o v e L a k e l a n d a n d e n j o y m y d r i v e u p t h e h i l l b u t d i s l i k e l o o k i n g a t t h e t a c k y s i g n s .I t
r e a l l y s p o i l s t h e m o o d a l o n g w i t h m a k i n g t h e s i d e r o a d s a p p e a r u n k e p t .I t w o u l d b e g r e a t i f
t h e y w o u l d p o s t t h e i r a d v e r t i s e m e n t b y a d s i n n e w s p a p e r s ,e t c .
P l e a s e t a k e t h e s i g n s a w a y !
L o v i n g L a k e l a n d ,
R u b y D r a k e
S e n t f r o m m y i P h o n e
85
Stuart Wagner
From:m-mg@comcast.net
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 3:51 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Signs on Lake Tapps Parkway:
To whom it may concern,
I live in Madera, a gated community right off of Lake Tapps Parkway and I DO NOT like those signs put up
by the builders to advertise their homes, they are an eye sore and a nuisance, please do not renew the
contractors option to keep those signs up along the road. They are a terrible distraction. Thank you.
Martin & Marie Gosciniak
906 72nd St. SE
Auburn, WA. 98092
86
Stuart Wagner
From:lksn8@comcast.net
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 3:37 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Re: Unsightlly Signs
As residents in the Lakeland community of Auburn, WA for over 6 years, we are very frustrated with all the
signs we keep seeing all over our area. There are so many signs advertising the builders and communities in
our area and they extremely unsightly. We constantly see more and more and it is very disheartening. We
would like to see them all removed and a cleaner area. I think this has totally gotten out of hand and needs to be
brought back under control. They are an eyesore and we certainly hope you will take this matter under
advisement and let us know what is being done about this.
Sincerely,
Larry and Karen Stewart
lksn8@comcast.net
6411 Montevista Drive SE
Auburn, WA 98092
87
Stuart Wagner
From:Linda Hood [lmh@frh3.com]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 3:37 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Quality Homes barrage
I h a t e t h e s e s i g n s i n a r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a .T h e y a r e t a c k y a n d n o o n e d i d t h i s i n t h e e a r l y
d a y s ,a t l e a s t ,n o t t o t h i s e x t e n t .
88
Stuart Wagner
From:Troy Jenison [tjenison@yahoo.com]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 3:36 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Signs
No signs please.
I respect that the local government will give a temporary permit to promote a new development for a set period
of time. When that time period runs out the developer has received the adequate amount of public advertising
space and now needs to rely on their alternative advertising strategies.
I bought into this Lakeland Hills community for the appearance it has developed over time and I expect it to
continue. Part of this appearance is not advertising signs that benefit a for-profit company and not my
community or homeowners association.
I strongly urge the discontinuation of the marketing signs.
Regards,
Troy Jenison
1309 49th ST SE
Auburn, WA 98092
253.691.8571
tjenison@yahoo.com
89
Stuart Wagner
From:elaasugi@comcast.net
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 3:34 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Lakeland signs
I don't mind a few signs but I think that there are entirely too many.
90
Stuart Wagner
From:Joan Conrad [jfconrad1@comcast.net]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 3:32 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:RE: Signs
I think they are tacky – remind me of the old Burma Shave signs.
Joan Conrad
6025 Nathan Way SE #A
91
Stuart Wagner
From:Vic and Becky Stevens [vebstevens@hotmail.com]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 3:22 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Please Let The City of Auburn Know
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:44:52 -0500
To: vebstevens@hotmail.com
Subject: Please Let The City of Auburn Know
From: admin@lakelandliving.net
Mr. Wagner,
It's time for these signs to go and for the ordinance that allowed them to end. If the builders need to
advertise
their new homes, only the signage nearest to those homes should be allowed. Currently these sign
advertise homes
that are east of the Lakeland Towncenter, yet those you see here are west of the Towncenter and should
be removed.
V.Stevens/vebstevens@hotmail.com
These signs, and many others like them, are in our community.
Do you like them?
Right-click
here to
download
pictures. To
help protect
your privacy,
Outlook
prevented
automatic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.
A temporary City of Auburn ordinance allowed these signs to be there without our consent. This
ordinance is up for renewal. The builders would like this ordinance renewed.
What about you?
Your Board of Directors requests your input today.
Please e-mail swagner@auburnwa.gov
NO LATER THAN TUESDAY February 28th
92
Stuart Wagner
From:m-donnelly@comcast.net
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 3:19 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:signage in Lakeland Hills
Put me on the list of people that do not like the signs going in and out of Lakeland Hills.
Thank you,
Mark Donnelly
93
Stuart Wagner
From:rcbrady1@q.com
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 3:19 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:BUILDERS SIGNS
We DETEST those signs. They are just plain tacky! All of this time we just assumed that the HOA had come to
some kind of agreement with the builders to allow the signs. We had no idea that it was some kind of special
city ordinance. How does that work anyway? Where the city actually decides to cheapen a neighborhood? We
would like them gone.
Rod and Richan Jenson
1928 62nd Loop SE
94
Stuart Wagner
From:Don Jensen [djj2@q.com]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 3:07 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Signs
Not a good president...No!
95
Stuart Wagner
From:Sheri Bymers [bymerssheri@yahoo.com]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 3:06 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Signs.
M y v o t e i s n o s i g n s .T h e s e c o m p a n y 's b u i l d i n g a r o u n d h e r e m a d e o u r c o m m u n i t i e s H O A G U I D E L I N E S
a n d t h e y s h o u l d h a v e t o a b i d e b y s o m e r u l e s t o o .
S h e r i B y m e r s .V e r o n a N o r t h h o m e o w n e r .
S e n t f r o m m y i P h o n e
96
Stuart Wagner
From:Marcia [mmhall@att.net]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 3:02 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Signs
These are trashy and should be removed from all directions.
Marcia Hall
Verona South
Lakeland Hills
97
Stuart Wagner
From:Rosemary Hadcox [rosemary_mw@hotmail.com]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 2:49 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Please DO NOT allow these signs to remain!
To Whom It May Concern:
Please DO NOT allow these sort of signs to remain in our community...they are tacky, ugly, 'bold in your face'
feeling as you drive or walk by, they take away from the natural beauty of the landscape, and most certainly
devalue the property.
Please consider the local homeowners and at minimal, place restrictions on these oversized,
multiple advertising signs...and especially with the ones shown in the photo below...does one builder really need
multiple signs placed close together along a short stretch of road? The community advertised isn't even located
in the Lakeland Hills community! Those signs are ugly and horrid to look at every day I travel that road!
Thank you for your consideration,
Rosemary Hadcox
Rosemary Hadcox
Home: 253.939.4034
Cell: 253.320.9039
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:44:36 -0500
To: rosemary_mw@hotmail.com
Subject: Please Let The City of Auburn Know
From: admin@lakelandliving.net
These signs, and many others like them, are in our community.
Do you like them?
Right-click
here to
download
pictures. To
help protect
your privacy,
Outlook
prevented
automatic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.
A temporary City of Auburn ordinance allowed these signs to be there without our consent. This
ordinance is up for renewal. The builders would like this ordinance renewed.
What about you?
Your Board of Directors requests your input today.
Please e-mail swagner@auburnwa.gov
NO LATER THAN TUESDAY February 28th
98
Stuart Wagner
From:tiangs3@comcast.net
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 2:37 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:signs
We oppose the renewal of these signs. Please let us know if there's any further action on our part that needs to
be done. Thanks.
Julius & Mindy Tiangson
206-331-5267
99
Stuart Wagner
From:Robert Hamer [rhamer5150@q.com]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 2:35 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Builder signs
Hi,
I live in Lakeland Hills and I don't like the home builder signs that line Lake Tapps Parkway. It makes it look
like Federal Way, which looks like Aurora Ave.
Thank you,
Robert Hamer
100
Stuart Wagner
From:Matt McKee [overpass100@gmail.com]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 2:28 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Fwd: Please Let The City of Auburn Know
Please do not renew this ordinance. These signs are ugly and damage an otherwise beautiful community. Please
help us keep our community a pretty place.
Matt McKee
1527 59th Place SE
Begin forwarded message:
From: Lakeland <admin@lakelandliving.net>
Date: February 24, 2012 11:44:52 AM PST
To: matt@overpass.com
Subject: Please Let The City of Auburn Know
Reply-To: Lakeland <admin@lakelandliving.net>
These signs, and many others like them, are in our community.
Do you like them?
Right-click
here to
download
pictures. To
help protect
your privacy,
Outlook
prevented
automatic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.
A temporary City of Auburn ordinance allowed these signs to be there without our consent.
This ordinance is up for renewal. The builders would like this ordinance renewed.
What about you?
Your Board of Directors requests your input today.
Please e-mail swagner@auburnwa.gov
NO LATER THAN TUESDAY February 28th
101
Stuart Wagner
From:g-j-smith@comcast.net
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 2:09 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:signs in Lakeland Hills
I do not like the signs coming up the hill. I think they look tacky and cheapen our community.
Palisades community #12B
102
Stuart Wagner
From:Paul Bailey [paulebailey1@gmail.com]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 1:57 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Please
No more build signs in our community.
Paul Bailey
6501 Francis Loop SE
Auburn Wa 98092
103
Stuart Wagner
From:Keith Snider [kwsnider@gmail.com]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 1:40 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Signs
The builder signs along the road to Lakeland Hills actually cheapen the area and make it a less desirable place
to live. Please do not renew the ordinance that allows them.
Thank you
Keith Snider - Auburn Wa.
104
Stuart Wagner
From:Sara King [sara.king@pobox.com]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 1:30 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:temporary City of Auburn ordinance
Attachments:signprotestsmall.jpg
Hello,
I would like to request that the temporary City of Auburn ordinance that allowed the home builder
signs on Lake Tapps Parkway not be renewed. I was pretty shocked when I saw these go up, and
would prefer not to see these or others like them.
Thank you,
Sara King
Auburn, WA 98092
105
Stuart Wagner
From:Brent Bennett [bwbennett1@comcast.net]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 1:28 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Signs on way to Lakeland
P l e a s e d o n o t r e n e w t h e l i c e n s e f o r t h e s e s i g n s .T h e y a r e u n s i g h t l y a n d r e a l l y j u n k u p w h a t
i s a v e r y n i c e c o m m u n i t y .F u r t h e r m o r e t h e l o c a t i o n t h e y a r e p r o m o t i n g i s n 't e v e n c l o s e t o t h e
s i g n s l o c a t i o n .
S e n t f r o m i P h o n e !
106
Stuart Wagner
From:Cheron Stanley [cstanley@qliance.com]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 1:25 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Road Signage
Attachments:image001.png
Hello. I am a resident of Verona South. I dislike all of the road sign advertising throughout the area. I would
very much like to see the signage go. Thank you.
Cheron Stanley, CMA, XRT
Lead Medical Assistant for Roxanne Ho, M.D.
Qliance Medical Group-Tacoma
2420 S. Union Ave. Suite #100
Tacoma, Wa. 98405
P~253-254-7392
F~206-913-4710
107
Stuart Wagner
From:ckdc2230@comcast.net
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 1:21 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:signage on Lake Tapps Prkway
I strongly dissapprove allowing these large and obtrusive signs to remain. Just today there is a crew errecting
another large sign for Lennar Homes. The collection of large signs from Polygon, Edgeview and Lennar
together with the staked signs from Soundview and others create an ugly image that I thought our zonning
regulations are intended to protect us from.
108
Stuart Wagner
From:Jacqueline Petrick [jpetrick@starbucks.com]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 1:12 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Signs in and around the Lakeland Community
Attachments:image001.gif
Hello there,
I would appreciate if we could limit the number of signs posted by builders in our community.
Thanks,
Jacqueline Petrick
executive assistant to Cliff Burrows,
president of Starbucks Americas U.S.
Starbucks Coffee Company
Tel 206.318.8099 l Fax 206.903.2791
109
Stuart Wagner
From:Rob Scofield [seattlerobert@hotmail.com]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 1:11 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Cc:admin@lakelandliving.net
Subject:FW: Please Let The City of Auburn Know
I disagree with giving special treatment for a specific builder to put up these signs. I am okay with limited,
smaller advertising signs that give directions on Lake Tapps Parkway. However, these signs are too large. And
I do not like when they put signs in the middle of the Lakeland Hills development, i.e., on the corner of
Lakeland Hills and Evergreen. We do not allow garage sale signs at these locations and we should not allow
these either. I don't see a problem with the smaller, typical realtor signs on the weekends but they are placing
very large signs on Lakeland Hills and Evergreen that are an eyesore - and they should not be allowed and
exceptional, "competitive advantage".
Thank you.
Rob Scofield
Lakeland Hills Homeowner (Viewridge subdivision)
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:43:13 -0500
To: seattlerobert@hotmail.com
Subject: Please Let The City of Auburn Know
From: admin@lakelandliving.net
These signs, and many others like them, are in our community.
Do you like them?
Right-click
here to
download
pictures. To
help protect
your privacy,
Outlook
prevented
automatic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.
A temporary City of Auburn ordinance allowed these signs to be there without our consent. This
ordinance is up for renewal. The builders would like this ordinance renewed.
What about you?
Your Board of Directors requests your input today.
Please e-mail swagner@auburnwa.gov
NO LATER THAN TUESDAY February 28th
110
Stuart Wagner
From:Lakeland HOA Webmaster [admin@lakelandliving.net]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 1:09 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Fwd: Re: Please Let The City of Auburn Know
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Please Let The City of Auburn Know
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 12:03:08 -0800 (PST)
From: Bill and Tina Cheplic <thecheplics@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: Bill and Tina Cheplic <thecheplics@yahoo.com>
To: Lakeland <admin@lakelandliving.net>
Hello,
I sent my input on these awful signs. Thank you for sending this information out!
From: Lakeland <admin@lakelandliving.net>
To: thecheplics@yahoo.com
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 11:43 AM
Subject: Please Let The City of Auburn Know
These signs, and many others like them, are in our community.
Do you like them?
Right-click
here to
download
pictures. To
help protect
your privacy,
Outlook
prevented
automatic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.
A temporary City of Auburn ordinance allowed these signs to be there without our consent. This
ordinance is up for renewal. The builders would like this ordinance renewed.
What about you?
Your Board of Directors requests your input today.
Please e-mail swagner@auburnwa.gov
NO LATER THAN TUESDAY February 28th
111
Stuart Wagner
From:Lakeland HOA Webmaster [admin@lakelandliving.net]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 1:08 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Fwd: Re: Please Let The City of Auburn Know
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Please Let The City of Auburn Know
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 12:33:11 -0800
From: Bonnie Manzak <pulxaz@aol.com>
To: Lakeland <admin@lakelandliving.net>
Although the need for advertisement is understandable.
The number of these types of signs should be limited.
No, I do not like them!
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 24, 2012, at 11:45 AM, Lakeland <admin@lakelandliving.net> wrote:
These signs, and many others like them, are in our community.
Do you like them?
Right-click
here to
download
pictures. To
help protect
your privacy,
Outlook
prevented
automatic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.
A temporary City of Auburn ordinance allowed these signs to be there without our consent.
This ordinance is up for renewal. The builders would like this ordinance renewed.
What about you?
Your Board of Directors requests your input today.
Please e-mail swagner@auburnwa.gov
NO LATER THAN TUESDAY February 28th
112
Stuart Wagner
From:Michael deBerardinis [michaeldeberardinis@hotmail.com]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 1:05 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
I don’t want those signs up. They are an eyesore. I vote no, no, no. M. deBerardinis
113
Stuart Wagner
From:ckdc2230 [ckdc2230@comcast.net]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 1:03 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Signs at Lakeland hills
These signs are the biggest eyesores in Lakeland hills. This area is beautiful and well maintained area that sould
not be cluttered with biilboards. Please do not renew this ordiance.
Thank you
Connie Wakefield (Madera resident)
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Tab
114
Stuart Wagner
From:Don Dalton [dhdalton@aol.com]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 1:01 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Cc:DHDalton@aol.com
Subject:Remove Signs
Hi,
Why do we allow these signs when construction is almost complete. Lets remove the signs. The time is past for them.
Don Dalton
115
Stuart Wagner
From:Terry Bechtel [tb-bechtel@msn.com]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 12:57 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Signage
I would like to voice my opinion that the sign ordinance not be renewed for the signs that are posted along Lake
Tapps Pkwy and the signs on Kersey Way.
Terry Bechtel
6525 Elizabeth Loop SE
Verona South
Auburn 98092
tb-bechtel@msn.com
(253) 939-4244
116
Stuart Wagner
From:Ruppert, Corinne [cruppert@auburn.wednet.edu]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 12:56 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:do not like the signs
Signs make it cluttered.
Fyi
Lakeland Hills resident
117
Stuart Wagner
From:Jeannine Johnson [jeanninejohnson@hotmail.com]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 12:53 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Signs in Lakeland - DON'T RENEW!
Hello -
I live up in Lakeland and there are builder signs all over. I understand this is coming up for renewal.
Please consider NOT renewing them! They are unsightly and not a part of the Lakeland covenants - they were
put there also without permission. Please, we are having enough trouble selling our homes and these just add up
to total tackiness!
Thank you,
Jeannine Johnson
6307 Nathan Place SE
Auburn, WA 98092
118
Stuart Wagner
From:Don Isaacs [donisaacs@hotmail.com]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 12:38 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:FW: Please Let The City of Auburn Know if you are unhappy with this look
I do not like the signs, as it makes our community look very unattractive.
Don Isaacs donisaacs@hotmail.com
From: Lakeland [mailto:admin@lakelandliving.net]
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 11:43 AM
To: Michael Howe
Subject: Please Let The City of Auburn Know
These signs, and many others like them, are in our community.
Do you like them?
Right-click
here to
download
pictures. To
help protect
your privacy,
Outlook
prevented
automatic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.
A temporary City of Auburn ordinance allowed these signs to be there without our consent. This
ordinance is up for renewal. The builders would like this ordinance renewed.
What about you?
Your Board of Directors requests your input today.
Please e-mail swagner@auburnwa.gov
NO LATER THAN TUESDAY February 28th
119
Stuart Wagner
From:Stephens, Phillip D [phillip.d.stephens@intel.com]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 12:36 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Signs - Say no to our community looking like the Vegas strip
I am writing today to provide citizen input into the decision process around extending the ability of developers to place signs along
our streets. Even when our HOA and residents don’t want the signs. They are truly ugly to look at and remind me of the bill boards
along Aurora Ave in Seattle. I understand the desire to help our builders in the down economy but this is not the way to do it. They
have many other outlets for promoting their developments. Please help us keep our community from looking like the Vegas strip
and do not extend this rule.
Phillip Stephens
120
Stuart Wagner
From:Jennifer-Masuccio -MTW [jmasucci@fwps.org]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 12:34 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Opposed signs
W e a r e r e s i d e n t s o f t h e E a s t p o i n t e c o m m u n i t y .W e d o n o t l i k e t h e s i g n s a t a l l .T h e y a r e
v e r y d i s t a s t e f u l a n d d i s t r a c t i n g t o d r i v e r s a n d s h o u l d n o t b e i n o u r c o m m u n i t y .
J e n n i f e r M a s u c c i o
121
Stuart Wagner
From:MacStephens [philynne12@centurylink.net]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 12:31 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:No on signs!
Dear Sir,
I understand there is an upcoming decision about extending the rule that allows builders to place advertising
signs along streets, even on private property. As a resident of Lakeland, I have found these signs to be a blight
on the landscape and to our community-that isn’t even represented by these signs. I strongly oppose any
extension and hope you will listen to your Auburn/Lakeland constituents and not the builders!
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Best Regards,
Lynne MacMillan-Stephens
Nathan Loop SE, 98092
122
Stuart Wagner
From:Bonnie Manzak [pulxaz@aol.com]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 12:30 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Signs
I d o n o t l i k e t h e m .I U n d e r s t a n d t h e n e e d f o r a d v e r t i s e m e n t ,t h e n u m b e r o f t h e s e t y p e s o f
s i g n s s h o u l d b e l i m i t e d .
S e n t f r o m m y i P h o n e
123
Stuart Wagner
From:unitednw [info@unitednw.org]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 12:28 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Signs
P l e a s e r e m o v e t h e s e s i g n s .T h e y h a v e m a d e t h a t a r e a s o u g l y .
T h a n k y o u .
J e n n i f e r
S e n t f r o m m y i P h o n e
124
Stuart Wagner
From:Betsy Cruver [bcruvy@yahoo.com]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 12:28 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Thank you for sending out this email. I would like to request that this ordinance NOT be renewed. There is
already a giant billboard right before you head up the hill.
We get enough signs during presidential and annual elections. These signs are the last things i want to see
heading home from work, i'd much rather look at the landscaping.
Thank you very much,
Betsy Dunn
Capri Condos
125
Stuart Wagner
From:Christine Fant [cmfant@gmail.com]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 12:27 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:ordinance approving signs in our community
I do not approve of the ordinance which allows the large signs (installed by builders) in our community.
Please do not renew this ordinance.
126
Stuart Wagner
From:cstaats@EARTHLINK.NET
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 12:24 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Fwd: Please Let The City of Auburn Know
These signs need to go. The ordinance authorizing them needs to expire.
Christopher Staats
1819 61st St SE
Auburn, Wa 98092
253-670-3494
Sent from my HTC Aria™ smartphone on AT&T
----- Forwarded message -----
From: "Lakeland" <admin@lakelandliving.net>
Date: Fri, Feb 24, 2012 11:43 am
Subject: Please Let The City of Auburn Know
To: <cstaats@earthlink.net>
These signs, and many others like them, are in our community.
Do you like them?
Right-click
here to
download
pictures. To
help protect
your privacy,
Outlook
prevented
automatic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.
A temporary City of Auburn ordinance allowed these signs to be there without our consent. This
ordinance is up for renewal. The builders would like this ordinance renewed.
What about you?
Your Board of Directors requests your input today.
Please e-mail swagner@auburnwa.gov
NO LATER THAN TUESDAY February 28th
127
Stuart Wagner
From:Laurel Kirkman [lskirkman@gmail.com]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 12:23 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Sign ordinance in Lakeland Hills area
P l e a s e h a v e t h e b u i l d e r 's s t o p c l u t t e r i n g u p o u r n e i g h b o r h o o d w i t h t h e i r a d v e r t i s i n g .T h e y
s h o u l d u s e t h e n o r m a l c h a n n e l s f o r a d v e r t i s i n g ,n o t t r a s h i n g u p t h e r o a d s a r o u n d A u b u r n .
T h e r e a r e N O E N D o f h o m e s f o r s a l e .B u y e r s d o n 't n e e d t h e s e s i g n s t o f i n d t h e m .
T h a n k s ,
L a u r e l K i r k m a n
8 2 0 6 7 T H L N S E
A U B U R N
128
Stuart Wagner
From:Vicki L Rutherford [msinglink@comcast.net]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 12:22 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Don't need them. Don't want them.
Attachments:signprotestsmall.jpg
Rutherford
1419 60th St SE unit C
Auburn, WA 98092
RJR
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those
who would not." Thomas Jefferson
129
Stuart Wagner
From:Barbara Hafner [barbhafner@me.com]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 12:21 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Signage
I d o n 't l i k e t h e s i g n a g e t h e b u i l d e r s a r e s e t t i n g u p a r o u n d L a k e l a n d a n d o t h e r a r e a s .I
d o n 't l i k e r e a l e s t a t e s i g n a g e p l a s t e r e d a l l o v e r e i t h e r .I n g e n e r a l I d o n o t l i k e v i s u a l
l i t t e r .
M o r e b e a u t i f i c a t i o n w i t h s h r u b s p l e a s e .I a l w a y s h o p e d t h e C i t y C o u n c i l w o u l d g i v e i n t o S u e
S i n g e r 's r e p e a t e d r e q u e s t s f o r e v e r y p o i n t s h e e v e r m a d e a b o u t a l l o w i n g w e e d s !
S i n c e r e l y ,
B a r b a r a H a f n e r
6 7 5 4 M o n t e v i s t a D r S E
A u b u r n ,W A 9 8 0 9 2
130
Stuart Wagner
From:Curtis Howard [curtis@tx3.net]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 12:20 PM
To:Lakeland
Cc:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Re: Please Let The City of Auburn Know
I complained about these and other signs (from the local gym) coming down the hill a year ago without much success,
YES I want those signs torn down immediately!! They are a constant eye sore and reminder of the city of Auburn's desire
to turn our residential community into the strip mall that the Auburn valley has become.
Curtis Howard
----- Original Message -----
From: Lakeland
To: curtis@tx3.net
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 11:44 AM
Subject: Please Let The City of Auburn Know
These signs, and many others like them, are in our community.
Do you like them?
Right-click
here to
download
pictures. To
help protect
your privacy,
Outlook
prevented
automatic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.
A temporary City of Auburn ordinance allowed these signs to be there without our consent.
This ordinance is up for renewal. The builders would like this ordinance renewed.
What about you?
Your Board of Directors requests your input today.
Please e-mail swagner@auburnwa.gov
NO LATER THAN TUESDAY February 28th
131
Stuart Wagner
From:tim_cats@wwdb.org on behalf of Cathy Pickett [tim_cats@wwdb.org]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 12:12 PM
To:PICKETT Timothy; Stuart Wagner; admin@lakelandliving.net
Subject:Re: Please Let The City of Auburn Know
R e g a r d i n g t h e r e m a i l b e l o w
(
s i g n s )-
T h e P i c k e t t F a m i l y
1 2 1 9 6 8 t h L o o p S E
A u b u r n ,W A 9 8 0 9 2
T u s c a n y S u b d i v s i o n -L a k e l a n d H i l l s
W E V O T E -"N O "!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--
W a r m r e g a r d s ,
C a t h y P i c k e t t :)
-----O r i g i n a l M e s s a g e -----
F r o m :L a k e l a n d <a d m i n @ l a k e l a n d l i v i n g .n e t >
T o :t i m
_
c a t s @ w w d b .o r g
S e n t :2 4 F e b 2 0 1 2 1 4 :4 2 :5 6 -0 5 0 0
S u b j e c t :P l e a s e L e t T h e C i t y o f A u b u r n K n o w
>T h e s e s i g n s ,a n d m a n y o t h e r s l i k e t h e m ,a r e i n o u r c o m m u n i t y .
>D o y o u l i k e t h e m ?A t e m p o r a r y C i t y o f A u b u r n o r d i n a n c e a l l o w e d t h e s e
>s i g n s t o b e t h e r e w i t h o u t o u r c o n s e n t .T h i s o r d i n a n c e i s u p f o r r e n e w a l .
>T h e b u i l d e r s w o u l d l i k e t h i s o r d i n a n c e r e n e w e d .
>W h a t a b o u t y o u ?
>Y o u r B o a r d o f D i r e c t o r s r e q u e s t s y o u r i n p u t t o d a y .
>P l e a s e e -m a i l s w a g n e r @ a u b u r n w a .g o v
>N O L A T E R T H A N T U E S D A Y F e b r u a r y 2 8 t h
132
Stuart Wagner
From:Hillary Fawne [hillary_bolton@yahoo.com]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 12:10 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Signs in our community
H e l l o ,
W e l i v e i n m a d e r a -a s w e h a v e t o g o u p l a k e t a p p s p k w y h i l l e v e r y s i n g l e d a y i t i s s u c h a n
e y e s o r e t o s e e t h e s e s i g n s g o i n g u p t o o u r c o m m u n i t y .I u n d e r s t a n d t h e a d v e r t i s i n g i n d u s t r y ,
h o w e v e r o u r c o m m u n i t y i s s o m e w h a t s e c l u d e d -a n y o n e g o i n g u p t h a t h i l l i s m o r e t h a n l i k e l y
g o i n g t o t h e i r h o m e i n w h i c h w e d o n 't n e e d t o b e s l a m m e d w i t h t h e s e u n n e c e s s a r y
a d v e r t i s e m e n t s .I f i t w a s o n t h e w a y t o a m a j o r s h o p p i n g c e n t e r e t c t h e n I c o u l d u n d e r s t a n d
t h e s i g n s r e a c h i n g o u t t o p e o p l e w h o d o n 't l i v e i n o u r a r e a b u t t h i s i s j u s t c o m p l e t e l y
u n n e c e s s a r y a n d n o t v e r y w e l c o m i n g t o u s w h o h a v e l i v e d h e r e f o r y e a r s .P l e a s e r e s p e c t o u r
o p i n i o n o f u s a n d m a n y o t h e r s a n d r e m o v e t h e s e u g l y ,v e r y l a r g e ,d i s r u p t i n g s i g n s .
S e n t f r o m m y i P h o n e
133
Stuart Wagner
From:potter.jr@comcast.net
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 12:09 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Cc:Howe, Michael
Subject:Signs
I am not in favor of renewing the sign ordinance to allow all the signs coming up the hill into Lakeland or any
other area in Lakeland that are put up by the builders. As a matter of fact as I was going down the hill this
morning I saw a guy putting up another huge sign on the way up the hill. These signs detract from the Lakeland
community and they should all be removed immediately. I live in the Reserve and we don't allow any type of
sign in our neighborhood.
When the Lakeland community was formed there were strict codes and bylaws established for the entire
community. These builders should have to live within those same boundries. One or two wouldn't be to bad
but I'll bet you there are over 100 signs all over Lakeland placed by these builders. Do not renew this temporary
ordinance and require all signs to be removed immediately or face stiff fines. They are all in the right of way
and shouldn't be there in the first place.
Jim Potter
The Reserve Board of Directors
Treasurer
7214 Perry Ave SE
Auburn, Washington 98092
253-278-6319
potter.jr@comcast.net
134
Stuart Wagner
From:jackie lukezic [jackielukezic@gmail.com]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 12:07 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Signs in our Community
P l e a s e l i m i t t h e n u m b e r a n d s i z e o f a d v e r t i s i n g s i g n s t h a t b u i l d e r s c a n p u t i n o r c o m m u n i t y .
I l i v e i n L a k e l a n d h i l l s a n d i t l o o k s l i k e a c i r c u s c o m i n g u p L a k e l a n d h i l l s b l v d .
S e n t f r o m m y i P h o n e
135
Stuart Wagner
From:Tracy Gallaway [tracygallaway@comcast.net]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 12:19 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Signs
I t h i n k i t i s t i m e f o r t h e s i g n s t o g o !P l e a s e d o n 't r e n e w t h e t e m p o r a r y o r d i n a n c e .
T r a c y G a l l a w a y
6 7 3 6 M o n t e v i s t a D r S E
A u b u r n ,W A .9 8 0 9 2
S e n t f r o m m y i P a d
136
Stuart Wagner
From:ashleypak@comcast.net
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 12:05 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Fwd: Please Let The City of Auburn Know
NO! I do not like these signs in the community I am already living in, please do not renew the ordinance.
Ashley Pak
From: "Lakeland" <admin@lakelandliving.net>
To: ashleypak@comcast.net
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 11:44:37 AM
Subject: Please Let The City of Auburn Know
These signs, and many others like them, are in our community.
Do you like them?
Right-click
here to
download
pictures. To
help protect
your privacy,
Outlook
prevented
automatic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.
A temporary City of Auburn ordinance allowed these signs to be there without our consent. This
ordinance is up for renewal. The builders would like this ordinance renewed.
What about you?
Your Board of Directors requests your input today.
Please e-mail swagner@auburnwa.gov
NO LATER THAN TUESDAY February 28th
137
Stuart Wagner
From:Ann [winmis@aol.com]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 12:03 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Signs in lakeland
T h e s e b u i l d e r s i g n s a l l t h r o u g h o u r L a k e l a n d n e i g h b o r h o o d d e t r a c t f r o m t h e g r e a t p l a c e t h i s
i s .M a n y p e o p l e l i v e h e r e .P l e a s e l i s t e n t o u s a n d d o n o t r e n e w t h e i r p e r m i t .
A n n f o w l e r
S e n t f r o m m y i P h o n e
138
Stuart Wagner
From:D&L [ldtimm@q.com]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 12:03 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Signs
Please do not renew the ordinance allowing signs to be posted along our streets.
139
Stuart Wagner
From:Cheplic, Tina [cheplic.t@ghc.org]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 12:01 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Signs
Importance:High
Hello,
I understand that the house signs on Lake Tapps Parkway were done by a ordinance and that ordinance is now up for
renewal.
I wanted to let you know that most Lakeland homeowners Including myself and my husband DO NOT LIKE these signs!
There are too many too close together. I am not sure if you have read some of the wording but they are sometime down
right awful. It brings down the look of the community that we so strongly try to keep looking nice, attractive and pleasing.
These signs are an eye sore and make the area look like a JOKE.
Please, please do not renew these signs.
Thanks,
Tina Cheplic, FPC | Payroll Specialist
Payroll Department, Group Health Cooperative
PHONE 206-448-5133 | CDS 320-5133
FAX 206-877-0677
E-MAIL cheplic.t@ghc.org
www.ghc.org
Group Health Headquarters
320 Westlake Ave N Suite 100
Seattle, Washington 98109-5233
________________________________
GHC Confidentiality Statement
This message and any attached files might contain confidential information protected by federal and state
law. The information is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entities originally named as
addressees. The improper disclosure of such information may be subject to civil or criminal penalties. If
this message reached you in error, please contact the sender and destroy this message. Disclosing,
copying, forwarding, or distributing the information by unauthorized individuals or entities is strictly
prohibited by law.
140
Stuart Wagner
From:Joe Audino [joeaudino1@yahoo.com]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 12:00 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Auburn signs
Don't care for them.
141
Stuart Wagner
From:s c [corsu123@hotmail.com]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 12:00 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Signs in Lakeland
My vote is No Signs Please.
Sue and Pete Corak
142
Stuart Wagner
From:Arliss Graf [ladygraf@comcast.net]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 12:00 PM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:signs
Tackey! Makes the area look cheap.
143
Stuart Wagner
From:Jerry Carpenter [jcarp@ccstrat.com]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 11:56 AM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Temporary Ordinance
To Councilman Wagner:
I am not in favor of the type of advertising shown below on Lake Tapps Parkway. Please do not renew
the temporary ordinance for builders or developers.
Thank you
These signs, and many others like them, are in our community.
Do you like them?
Right-click
here to
download
pictures. To
help protect
your privacy,
Outlook
prevented
automatic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.
A temporary City of Auburn ordinance allowed these signs to be there without our consent. This
ordinance is up for renewal. The builders would like this ordinance renewed.
What about you?
Your Board of Directors requests your input today.
Please e-mail swagner@auburnwa.gov
NO LATER THAN TUESDAY February 28th
144
Stuart Wagner
From:Wayne [waynelooney@q.com]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 11:55 AM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Signs
P l e a s e d o n 't l e t t h e s e s i g n s s c a r o u r n e i g h b o r h o o d
S e n t f r o m m y i P h o n e
145
Stuart Wagner
From:McElfresh, Carol [Carol.McElfresh@ssa.gov]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 11:51 AM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Advertisement signs on Lakeland Hill
I live in Madera at the top of the Lakeland Hill and I see these signs daily. I do not
want the builder to be able to renew his right to put up these red signs. They interfere
with the beauty of the natural wooded areas that have been carefully planned and left
natural.
Thank you -
Carol McElfreshCarol McElfreshCarol McElfreshCarol McElfresh
Social Security Admin.
Seattle ICTU
Claims Representative
253-333-8195
146
Stuart Wagner
From:Audrey Tharp [sharptharp@comcast.net]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 11:51 AM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Signs
I do not like the signs posted on the hill of Lakeland Hills Parkway. It is a distraction, and
does not project a good image of the Lakeland Community.
Audrey Tharp
Palisades Community
147
Stuart Wagner
From:Denny and Debbie [love2dine@comcast.net]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 11:51 AM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:SIGNS!
We on Lakeland Hills hate all of these home & apartment builder signs. They make our
neighborhood look terrible. Please don't allow it.
Sincerely, Dennis & Deborah Treibel
148
Stuart Wagner
From:Hendrik Mowilos [hamow@hotmail.com]
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 11:50 AM
To:Stuart Wagner
Cc:Jerry HOA
Subject:FW: Please Let The City of Auburn Know
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN !
We are really against all these signs all over our neighbourhood, please do not allow builders
to place them in our community !
PLEASE !
To: hamow@hotmail.com
Subject: Please Let The City of Auburn Know
From: admin@lakelandliving.net
These signs, and many others like them, are in our community.
Do you like them?
Right-click
here to
download
pictures. To
help protect
your privacy,
Outlook
prevented
automatic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.
A temporary City of Auburn ordinance allowed these signs to be there without our consent. This
ordinance is up for renewal. The builders would like this ordinance renewed.
What about you?
Your Board of Directors requests your input today.
Please e-mail swagner@auburnwa.gov
NO LATER THAN TUESDAY February 28th
149
Stuart Wagner
From:lhoernlein@comcast.net
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 11:50 AM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:signs
I live in Seina and drive up the hill all the time. the signs have to go!!!!!!!
Larry J Hoernlein
150
Stuart Wagner
From:mcshmarquardt@comcast.net
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 11:47 AM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Signs
The signs can go.... they aren't even that close to where the houses that are for sale are. Kinda cheapens the
area.
February 20 is . . . . Hoodie Hoo Day
Connie
151
Stuart Wagner
From:sandra9168@aol.com
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2012 11:47 AM
To:Stuart Wagner
Subject:Signs at Lakeland
I do NOT want all the signs up at Lakeland...we have a beautiful community..do NOT need them.....
Sandra L McDonald
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
1
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
A BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Amendments to Section 18.56.025 of the
Auburn City Code - Real Estate Signs
Reference Number: SEP12-0003
2. Name of applicant:
City of Auburn
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
Planning and Development Department
City of Auburn
25 West Main Street
Auburn, WA 98001
(253) 931-3090
Attn: Stuart Wagner, Planner
4. Date checklist prepared:
February 14, 2012
5. Agency requesting checklist:
City of Auburn
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
The nonproject action described and evaluated herein is a proposal to amend Chapter
18.56 – Signs, of the Auburn City Code. The amendments proposed in this action are
currently scheduled for Planning Commission review and public hearing on March 6,
2012 and City Council consideration and adoption in April of 2012.
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to
or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.
Nonproject action. This nonproject SEPA Environmental Checklist addresses proposed
amendments to Title 18 of the Auburn City Code (ACC)
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
2
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will
be prepared, directly related to this proposal.
City of Auburn. Determination of Non-Significance SEP11-0006 – City of Auburn Zoning
Code Amendments – Amending Chapters 18.50, 18.52, and 18.70 and Adding Chapter
18.55 Auburn City Code. September 15, 2011.
City of Auburn. Determination of Non-Significance SEP09-0025 – City of Auburn Zoning
Code Amendments - Chapter 18.56 Auburn City Code. August 21, 2009.
City of Auburn. Determination of Non-Significance SEP09-0021 – City of Auburn Zoning
Code Amendments - Chapters 18.04 and 18.26 ACC. July 30, 2009.
City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance SEP09-0012 - Amendments to
Title 17-Subdividions and Title 18-Zoning, of the Auburn City Code, and amendments to
the Auburn Comprehensive Zoning Map. May 2009.
City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance – 2009 Comprehensive Plan
amendments. August 2010.
City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance – 2009 Comprehensive Plan
amendments. August 2009.
City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance – 2008 Comprehensive Plan
amendments. August 2008.
City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance—2007 Comprehensive Plan
amendments. August 2007.
City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance – 2006 Comprehensive Plan
amendments. August 2006.
City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance – 2005 Comprehensive Plan
amendments. September 2005.
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of
other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes,
explain.
Non-project action. The proposed amendments would be City-wide
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if
known.
The City of Auburn Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the proposed
Auburn City Code amendments addressed in this environmental checklist and will
forward a recommendation to the Auburn City Council. The City Council may or may not
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
3
hold a public hearing prior to taking action adopting, adopting in part, or not adopting the
amendments.
Although not an approval or permit, the proposed amendments area also subject to State
Agency review pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106.
11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses
and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this
checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not
need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form
to include additional specific information on project description.)
Description of Proposal
On April 18, 2011, the Auburn City Council passed Ordinance No. 6360 that established
one (1) year interim zoning controls pertaining to the allowance, dimensions, and location
of real estate signs not currently permitted by existing sign regulations in the public right-
of-way or on private property relate to the sale, lease, or rent of residential and non-
residential development properties.
The city now wishes to amend Section 18.56.025 - Real Estate Signs of the Auburn City
Code where new regulations on the allowance, dimensions, and location of real estate
signs are added to the zoning code.
Attached to this environmental checklist are the proposed code amendments to Section
18.56.025 - Real estate signs.
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand
the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any,
and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a
range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal
description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available.
While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to
duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to
this checklist.
This is a nonproject action located within the City of Auburn municipal boundaries
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST (CONTINUED) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
4
B ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes,
mountainous, other
The City of Auburn is characterized by a relatively flat valley floor bordered by steep
hillsides and upland plateaus overlooking the valley. See Section D, Nonproject Action.
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?
The slopes vary in the city and PAA areas, but in some locations slopes associated with
the valley walls reach 100%. See Section D, Nonproject Action.
c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel,
peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and
note any prime farmland.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. The valley floor is made up primarily of soils of the
Oridia, Renton, Snohomish, and Briscott series. These soils are poorly drained and
formed in the alluvium (river sediments) associated with the White and Green rivers.
These are considered good agricultural soils, though in many areas, are not well-drained.
There is no designated farmland within the City of Auburn.
The hillsides and plateaus are made up of primarily Alderwood associated soils and a
small amount of Everett associated soils (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1973).
Alderwood soils are moderately well drained gravelly sandy loams 20-40 inches deep.
Beneath these soils is glacial til with low permeability. Roots penetrate easily to the
hardpan layer. Runoff potential is slow to medium. Erosion and slippage hazard is
moderate, ranging to severe on steeper slope phases The Everett series consists of
somewhat excessively drained soils that are underlain by very gravelly sand. These soils
formed in very gravelly glacial outwash deposits under conifers. They are found on
terraces and terrace fronts and are gently undulating to moderately steep.
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity?
If so, describe.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Many factors affect slope stability including soil type,
parent material, slope and drainage. These factors can be further affected by human
intervention such as slope alteration, and vegetation removal. The city has identified
categories of geologic hazard areas and inventoried these areas. Maps of the erosion
and landslide hazard areas are provided as Maps 9.6 and 9.7, respectively in the City’s
Comprehensive Plan.
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading
proposed. Indicate source of fill.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. The proposed amendments to the
Auburn City Code are non-project actions, no site alteration, construction, or earthwork is
proposed.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST (CONTINUED) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
5
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally
describe.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This is a non-project action.
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after
project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. The action does not involve site
specific development proposals.
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if
any:
See Section D, Nonproject Action. This is a non-project action, no site specific erosion
control is proposed. However, the existing comprehensive plan includes numerous
policies to reduce or control erosion through the use of best management practices,
landscaping requirements, limitations on alteration of steep slopes and other critical
areas protections. Impacts to earth will be identified and, if necessary, mitigated during
the development review process as specific development proposals are made that might
be associated with these plan amendments.
The city also has adopted a City Engineering Design Standards Manual and a City
Construction Standards Manual that address erosion impacts (ACC Chapter 12.04 as
referenced by ACC 15.74).
2. Air
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust,
automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the
project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if
known.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This is a non-project action.
b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal?
If so, generally describe.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This is a non-project action.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any:
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This is a non-project action.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST (CONTINUED) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
6
3. Water
a. Surface:
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site
(including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)?
If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river
it flows into.
Citywide nonproject action - See Section D, Nonproject Action. The major bodies of
water within Auburn are the Green River, the White River, Mill Creek, Bowman Creek,
and White Lake. The city has conducted an inventory of wetlands within the city limits.
These are shown on Map 9.3 of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The Green and White
Rivers in Auburn are Type S streams designated as Shorelines of the State in the City of
Auburn Shoreline Master Program.
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) of the
described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This is a non-project action.
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed
from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be
affected. Indicate the source of fill material.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This is non-project action.
4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This is non-project action.
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site
plan.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. The designated 100-year floodplain
areas for the Green River, White River, and Mill Creek, as well as frequently flooded
areas (as defined by the City of Auburn Public Works Department) are shown on Map
9.4 of the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If
so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This is non-project action.
b. Ground:
1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water?
Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This is non-project action.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST (CONTINUED) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
7
2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks
or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the
following chemicals; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system,
the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or
the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This is non-project action.
c. Water runoff (including stormwater):
1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection
and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will
this water flow into other waters? If so, describe.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This is non-project action.
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This is non-project action.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water
impacts, if any:
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This is non-project action.
4. Plants
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site:
X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other
X evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
X Shrubs
X Grass
X Pasture
X crop or grain
X wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk
cabbage, other
X water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other
X other types of vegetation
See Section D, Nonproject Action.
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
See Section D, Nonproject Action. However, in general urban development can result in
the removal or alteration of vegetation. Existing City standards currently address
vegetation modification activities as they relate to critical areas protection (e.g. wetlands),
and landscaping requirements.
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. None known at this time.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST (CONTINUED) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
8
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or
enhance vegetation on the site, if any:
City Comprehensive Plan includes policies on retaining vegetation, ACC Chapter 15.74
governs tree and vegetation retention, and the City’s landscaping regulations (ACC
18.50) govern landscaping within the City. See Section D, Nonproject Action. This is a
non-project action.
5. Animals
a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are
known to be on or near the site:
hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: geese,
ducks, crows, etc.
mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: urban
animals such as dogs, cats, squirrels, rodents,
opossums, raccoons, etc. are also present in the city
fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish,
other:
See Section D, Nonproject Action.
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. There are nesting/breeding sites of bald eagles, great
blue herons and green back heron within Auburn as shown on Map 9.2 of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan. The Environmental Impact Statement for the Auburn
Thoroughbred Racetrack indicates that peregrine falcons, bald eagles, and the Aleutian
Canadian Goose have been seen in the Auburn area.
Chinook salmon are currently listed as a threatened species by the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS). Bull trout are also listed. Chinook salmon are known to use
the Green and White Rivers.
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Auburn is a portion of the Pacific Flyway for migratory
birds, and the Green and White Rivers are known.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
The City’s Comprehensive Plan includes policies that encourage preservation of wildlife
habitat and environmental features supportive of wildlife habitat. In addition, the City’s
critical areas regulations (Chapter 16.10 of the ACC) offers protection for critical wildlife
habitat, among other things. See Section D, Nonproject Action. This is a non-project
action.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST (CONTINUED) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
9
6. Energy and natural resources
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to
meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for
heating, manufacturing, etc.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This is a non-project action.
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties?
If so, generally describe.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This is a non-project action.
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this
proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if
any:
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This is a non-project action.
7. Environmental health
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic
chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as
a result of this proposal? If so, describe.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This is a non-project action.
1) Describe special emergency services that might be required.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This is a non-project action.
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any:
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This is a non-project action.
8. Noise
a. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example:
traffic, equipment, operation, other)?
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This is a non-project action.
b. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project
on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation,
other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This is a non-project action.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This is a non-project action.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST (CONTINUED) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
10
9. Land and shoreline use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
See Section D, Nonproject Action. The City contains a variety of land uses including
residential, industrial, commercial, open space, and public land uses.
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Much of Green River/White River Valley and the City
of Auburn were used for agriculture at some time in the past. Over the last several
decades, rapid growth in the area resulted in much of the agricultural land converting to
urban uses. No land within the city is designated as agricultural in city plans or zoning
code, though some parcels continue to be farmed.
c. Describe any structures on the site.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Structures within the city and Potential Annexation
Areas (PAA) range from small single family detached homes to large industrial and
warehousing facilities. Properties subject to the proposed code amendments include
vacant land, as well as properties improved with residential, commercial, industrial and
public/institutional structures.
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This is a non-project action.
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
See Section D, Nonproject Action.
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
See Section D, Nonproject Action.
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site?
See Section D, Nonproject Action.
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If
so, specify.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. This is a non-project action. However, areas of the
city do contain sensitive areas and the regulation and protection of sensitive areas are
addressed through the city’s critical areas ordinance.
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This is a non-project action and no
specific development is proposed.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST (CONTINUED) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
11
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This proposal is a non-project action
and no specific development is proposed.
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This proposal is a non-project action
and no specific development is proposed.
l. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and
projected land uses and plans, if any:
See Section D, Nonproject Action. This proposal is to amend the City of Auburn Zoning
Code as described in response to the environmental checklist application question A.11
above. The proposed amendments are consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies as
described in Section D.
Also, the proposed amendments are circulated to State agencies for review in
accordance with RCW 36.70A.106.
10. Housing
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high,
middle, or low-income housing.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This proposal is a non-project action.
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether
high, middle, or low-income housing.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. None. This proposal is a non-project action.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
See Section D, Nonproject Action. None specifically, as this is a non-project action.
11. Aesthetics
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas;
what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed?
See Section D, Nonproject Action. None specifically, as this is a non-project action.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
The propose code amendments will allow off-premise real estate signs (for the
advertising of new residential and non-residential developments) of varying sizes.
Contained in the amendments, however, are standards that will control the height, area,
and location of these signs.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST (CONTINUED) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
12
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
Written authorization from the planning and development director is required for all off-
premise real estate signs where he or she shall determine the number and locations of
such signs, and the period during which they may be displayed. The planning and
development director shall take into account the number of existing signs in any
proposed location, and may limit or prohibit new ones so as to prevent a traffic safety
hazard or a detrimental effect on neighboring property.
12. Light and glare
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it
mainly occur?
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This proposal is a non-project action.
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with
views?
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This proposal is a non-project action.
c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This proposal is a non-project action.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any:
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This proposal is a non-project action.
13. Recreation
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate
vicinity?
See Section D, Nonproject Action. The City of Auburn provides a full range of parks and
recreational facilities. Map 11.1 of the City’s Comprehensive Plan shows the location of
these facilities.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so,
describe.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This proposal is a non-project action.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including
recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This proposal is a non-project action.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST (CONTINUED) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
13
14. Historic and cultural preservation
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local
preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally
describe.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. The following sites in the City of Auburn are listed on
the National Register of Historic Places and the Washington State Heritage Register:
Auburn Public Library, 306 Auburn Avenue NE; Auburn Post Office, 20 Auburn Avenue
NE; Oscar Blomeen House, 324 B Street NE; Mary Olson Farm, 28728 Green River
Road NE. Additionally, the Auburn Masonic Temple located at 310 East Main Street is
designated as a City of Auburn Landmark..
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological,
scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Several Indian campsites have been identified along
the Green and White rivers in the Auburn Thoroughbred Racetrack EIS and in
preliminary work for the Army Corps of Engineers’ Special Area Management Plan.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Auburn City Code Chapter 18.49-Flexible
Development Alternatives and Chapter 18.25-Infill Residential Development Standards
provide incentives for additional measures of protection and/or restoration beyond those
otherwise required under Federal/State law and Auburn City Code for sites of historic or
cultural significance.
This proposal is a non-project action. All non-exempt projects will be required to conduct
project-level SEPA analysis.
15. Transportation
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed
access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Figure 2-1 of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan
(transportation element) shows the City’s current and future classified street system.
b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance
to the nearest transit stop?
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Figure 4-1 of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan
(transportation element) shows the location of public transit routes within the City. Also,
a Sound Transit commuter rail station exists along the Burlington Northern Santa Fe
railroad right-of-way just south of West Main Street and east of C Street SW.
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would
the project eliminate?
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This proposal is a non-project action.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST (CONTINUED) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
14
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing
roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate
whether public or private).
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This proposal is a non-project action.
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air
transportation? If so, generally describe.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. There is no water transportation in the Auburn area
other than for recreational uses. The area is particularly well served by rail. At this time,
local freight service is available. Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Union Pacific both
operate freight lines within Auburn. Auburn is also a commuter rail station site for the
Sounder commuter rail line between Tacoma and Seattle. Service began September 18,
2000. Amtrak trains pass through Auburn but do not stop here. The Auburn Municipal
Airport is located north of 15th Street NE.
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If
known, indicate when peak volumes would occur.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This proposal is a non-project action.
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:
See Section D, Nonproject Action.
16. Public services
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire
protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally
describe.
The proposal is not expected to affect the total number of housing units, the number or
types of commercial developments that could be built, or to result in an increased need
for public services as compared with the current zoning regulations.
See Section D, Nonproject Action.
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. The comprehensive plan contains policies that seek
to maintain a sufficient level of service for public services as development occurs. Also,
Auburn reviews the impacts of significant development on these public services during
project-level review and SEPA. Mitigation measures are required to reduce significant
adverse impacts.
17. Utilities
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse
service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other.
All of the above utilities are available within the City of Auburn.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST (CONTINUED) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
15
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the
service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate
vicinity which might be needed.
This is a non-project action. However, the Comprehensive Plan includes a utilities
element (as required by the Growth Management Act), which describes the utilities that
serve the Auburn area and includes policies for their provision.
Also, the city actively engages in planning for public facilities. The Comprehensive
Water Plan and Comprehensive Sewer Plan were adopted by the city in 2001. The
Comprehensive Drainage Plan was adopted in 2002. A new six year Capital Facilities
Plan was adopted in 2008 (2009-2014).
These plans ensure that utility impacts are adequately monitored and evaluated on a
project level and city-wide basis.
C SIGNATURE
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I
understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision.
Signature: ________________________________________________
Date Submitted: __________________________________________
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST (CONTINUED) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
16
D SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS
(Do not use this sheet for project actions)
Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction
with the list of the elements of the environment. W hen answering these questions, be
aware of the extent the proposal or the types of activities likely to result from the
proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the
proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms.
1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air;
production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of
noise?
The proposal would not be likely to increase discharge to water, emissions to air,
production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise.
This nonproject action does not affect the existing City performance standards currently
contained in ACC 18.31 that regulate noise, emissions to air; production, storage, or
release of toxic or hazardous substances.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:
The City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan contains provisions to reduce increases or
emissions caused by new development. Emphasis in the Comprehensive Plan on
reducing the reliance on the automobile for transportation should reduce the amount of
emissions to the air. Policies in the Environment Chapter also provide guidance in the
review of development proposals to encourage native vegetation. This supports wildlife
habitat areas, particularly near streams, as the policies assist the City in addressing
adverse impacts to water quality and wildlife habitat from runoff since native plantings
may require less pesticide use.
Non-exempt development will be subject to SEPA requirements to evaluate and mitigate
impacts related to discharges, emissions, and the release of toxic substances.
Evaluation of the site specific proposals will be based on the policies of the
Comprehensive Plan and appropriate mitigation will take place on a case by case basis.
City development standards including but not limited to the critical areas ordinance (ACC
16.10), shoreline master program regulations (ACC 16.08), the City’s Engineering
Design Standard and Construction Standard Manuals (ACC 12.04) also provide
additional protection for these types of impacts.
2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life?
It is unlikely the proposed code amendment will have any adverse effect on plants,
animals, fish, or marine life.
The proposed amendments would not affect the City’s critical areas regulations and they
are not expected change the developable area of the City. The proposed amendments
would not introduce any new land uses in areas where they are not currently allowed.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are:
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST (CONTINUED) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
17
Generally, the adopted Auburn Comprehensive Plan and critical areas ordinance seek to
protect and conserve plants, animals, fish, and marine life. SEPA environmental review
of all non-exempt development is conducted to measure and mitigate impacts.
Evaluation based on the policies of the Auburn Comprehensive Plan and appropriate
mitigation will take place for each future development proposal on a case-by-case basis.
Policies within the Environment Chapter also provide guidance in the review of
development proposals to encourage native vegetation be used and/or retained. This
should support wildlife habitat areas, particularly near streams as the policies assist the
city in addressing adverse runoff impacts to water quality and wildlife habitat since native
plantings may require less pesticide use.
City development standards including but not limited to the critical areas ordinance and
the shoreline master program regulations also provide additional protection for these
types of impacts.
3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
There are no expected significant increases in the use of energy or natural resources
resulting from the amendments being proposed.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are:
None specifically, as this is a non-project action. However, in addition to the provisions
of the Auburn Energy Management Plan (adopted in 1986), which encourages energy
conservation in public buildings, street lighting, and recycling, the comprehensive plan
places an emphasis on providing for alternative methods of travel to the automobile such
as transit, walking, and biking.
An environmental review under SEPA of all non-exempt development will be conducted
to measure the project impacts.
4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas
or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such
as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species
habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands?
The proposal is unlikely to affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated for
governmental protection.
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are:
The comprehensive plan and, in particular, the critical areas ordinance (ACC 16.10),
seek to protect environmentally sensitive areas (wetlands, streams, geologically hazard
areas, floodplain, wildlife habitat, and aquifer recharge areas) and to reduce the impacts
of development on them. The Auburn Comprehensive Plan provides for the
implementation of innovative land management techniques to protect these resources.
Among the innovative land management techniques, the Flexible Development
Alternatives Chapter (ACC 18.49) includes incentives for enhancement or restoration of
critical area buffers, and/or encouraging development to locate farther from critical areas
than currently required by code.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST (CONTINUED) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
18
SEPA environmental review for all non-exempt development will be conducted to
evaluate impacts.
5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including
whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with
existing plans?
Amendments can only be approved if they can assured that future development is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and its policies and related regulations. Those
proposals that are not consistent with the comprehensive plan policies or other existing
plans will not be approved.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are:
The comprehensive plan, critical areas ordinance, and other development regulations,
such as the zoning ordinance and shoreline master program, seek to protect these land
and shoreline resources and to reduce the effects of development on them. An
environmental review under SEPA of all future development that is non-exempt will also
be conducted to evaluate a proposal’s land use and environmental impacts.
6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public
services and utilities?
The proposal is not expected to affect the total number of housing units or the number or
types of commercial developments that could be built in the City of Auburn, therefore the
proposal is not expected to increase demands on transportation or public services and
utilities as compared with the current zoning regulations.
Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are:
The City has adopted a six-year Transportation Improvement Program (2009-2014) that
identifies projects to meet safety needs, capacity needs, access needs, projected
funding. The Comprehensive Transportation Plan is an element of the City's overall
Comprehensive Plan. It is the City's long-range plan for developing its transportation
system over the next 15 years. This plan helps ensure that transportation impacts are
adequately monitored and evaluated on a project level and city-wide basis.
The City has an adopted 2008-2014 Capital Facilities Plan. Also, the city actively
engages in planning for public facilities. The Comprehensive Water Plan and new
Comprehensive Sewer Plan were adopted by the city in 2001. The Comprehensive
Drainage Plan was adopted in 2002. A Comprehensive Transportation Plan was
adopted in 2005 with updates during the 2006 Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle.
These plans help ensure that utility impacts are adequately monitored and evaluated on
a project level and city-wide basis.
An environmental review under SEPA for all non-exempt development will be conducted
to evaluate environmental impacts. Environmental impacts that must be addressed
during the SEPA review process include traffic, public services, and utilities.
7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal
laws or requirements for the protection of the environment.
The proposal does not conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for
protection of the environment.
Rev 09/2011
Notice of Proposed Amendment
Request for Expedited Review
Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106(3)(b), the following jurisdiction provides notice of a
proposed development regulation amendment and requests expedited state agency
review under the Growth Management Act.
**Under statute, proposed amendments to comprehensive plans are not eligible
for expedited review. The expedited review period is 10 business days (14
calendar days).
(If needed, you may expand this form and the fields below, but please try to keep the
entire form under two pages in length.)
Jurisdiction: City of Auburn
Mailing Address: 25 West Main St. Auburn, WA 98001
Date: February 21, 2012
Contact Name: Stuart Wagner
Title/Position: Planner
Phone Number: (253) 931-3092
E-mail Address: swagner@auburnwa.gov
Brief Description of the
Proposed/Draft Development
Regulations Amendment:
(40 words or less)
Amendments to Section 18.56.025 of the Auburn City
Code - Real Estate Signs. On April 18, 2011, the Auburn
City Council passed Ordinance No. 6360 that established
one (1) year interim zoning controls pertaining to the
allowance, dimensions, and location of real estate signs
not currently permitted by existing sign regulations in the
public right-of-way or on private property relate to the
sale, lease, or rent of residential and non-residential
development properties. The city now wishes to amend
Auburn City Code where new regulations on the
allowance, dimensions, and location of real estate signs
are added to the zoning code.
Public Hearing Date: March 2012
Proposed Adoption Date: April 2012
REQUIRED: Attach or include a copy the proposed amendment text.
Dear Mr. Wagner:
Planner
City of Auburn Planning Department
25 W Main Street
Auburn, Washington 98001-4998
Thank you for sending the Washington State Department of Commerce (Commerce) the following materials
as required under RCW 36.70A.106. Please keep this letter as documentation that you have met this
procedural requirement.
February 22, 2012
Stuart Wagner
City of Auburn - Proposed amendments to Section 18.56.025 of the Auburn City Code - Real Estate
Signs. These materials were received on February 21, 2012 and processed with the material ID #
17838. Expedited Review is requested under RCW 36.70A.106(3)(b).
If this submitted material is an adopted amendment, then please keep this letter as documentation that you
have met the procedural requirement under RCW 36.70A.106.
Sincerely,
Review Team
Growth Management Services
If you have submitted this material as a draft amendment requesting expedited review, then we have
forwarded a copy of this notice to other state agencies for expedited review and comment. If one or more
state agencies indicate that they will be commenting, then Commerce will deny expedited review and the
standard 60-day review period (from date received) will apply. Commerce will notify you by e-mail regarding
of approval or denial of your expedited review request. If approved for expedited review, then final adoption
may occur no earlier than fifteen calendar days after the original date of receipt by Commerce. Please
remember to submit the final adopted amendment to Commerce within ten days of adoption.
If you have any questions, please contact Growth Management Services at reviewteam@commerce.wa.gov,
or call Dave Andersen (509) 434-4491 or Paul Johnson (360) 725-3048.
Memorandum
To: Judi Roland, Chair, Planning Commission
Kevin Chapman, Vice Chair, Planning Commission
Planning Commission Members
From: Stuart Wagner, AICP, Planner, Planning and Development Department
CC: Elizabeth Chamberlain, AICP, Planning Manager, Planning and Development Department
Date: February 29, 2012
Re: Proposed Amendment to the P-1, Public Use District
Background
The City of Auburn City Council has previously authorized a contract with the Auburn Valley Humane
Society for the provision of public animal shelter services at 4910 A Street SE, a City owned
property. This property is currently zoned Public Use (P-1). Current zoning regulations for the P-1
zoning district do not specify public animal shelter services as a permitted use in this zone. In order
to support the intended public animal shelter services at this property, staff has determined the need
to amend the Auburn City Code.
This memorandum will examine the current zoning regulations, the land use implications of an
animal shelter, and the proposed amendments to the zoning code. The contractual agreement
between the City and the Auburn Valley Humane Society and the details of its planned operations at
the subject property are not land use policy issues subject to Planning Commission review and as
such, will not be discussed by staff in this memorandum or during the discussion at the Planning
Commission’s March 6, 2012 meeting.
Discussion
Staff first reviewed the proposed amendments to the P-1 zoning district at the February 7, 2012
Planning Commission meeting. At this meeting, staff presented draft code language that would
modify Chapter 18.41 (Public Use District) of the Auburn City Code by adding “Animal shelter” as a
permitted use with the zone. Further, a new definition of “animal shelter would be added to Chapter
18.04 (Definitions).
At the February 7th meeting, the Commission discussed several land use issues pertaining to animal
shelters. The Commission inquired as to whether a general reference to animal shelters would
permit public and private shelters in the P-1 zoning district. Pursuant to ACC 18.40.010 (Intent), the
P-1 zoning is intended to provide for the appropriate location and development of public uses that
serve the cultural, educational, recreational, and public service needs of the community. Therefore,
to avoid any future confusion on the allowability of private animal shelter services in the P-1 zoning
district, staff has modified the permitted use reference and definition (refer to Attachment A) to
2
specify the public nature of the land use and has also modified the proposed animal shelter definition
to include a specific public reference.
The Commission also inquired about potential land use impacts that an animal shelter might have on
surrounding land uses. In all land use considerations, staff considers impacts to surrounding
properties including but not limited to noise, odor, vibration, traffic and so on. Staff evaluates the
potential for these impacts on a case by case approach taken into account the individual
characteristics of the site and its relationship to surrounding land uses. This is consistent with both
local and state regulations and case law and is a proper exercise of the City’s police power.
Therefore, a public animal shelter proposed to be located in the P-1 zoning district will be evaluated
for its potential impacts relative to its location and its relationship with surrounding properties. Staff
notes that the site identified for the City’s public animal shelter is not located near single-family or
multi-family residences and abuts public right-of-way and public school uses. As such, staff
anticipates that the impacts at this property on surrounding land uses will likely be minimal, but will
more fully evaluate potential impacts and the need for any mitigating measures at time of a permit
application.
Staff believes that the addition of "Animal shelter, public" to the list of permitted uses is consistent
with the intent statement of the P-1 zone "to provide for the location and development of public uses
that serve the cultural, educational, recreational, and public service needs of the community.”
Animal shelters house homeless, lost, or abandoned animals; primarily a large variety of dogs and
cats and the goal of today's animal shelter is to provide a safe and caring environment until the
animal is either reclaimed by its owner, placed in a new home, or placed with another organization.
As such, animal shelters serve a public purpose. Staff would also note that other public uses of
comparable or greater intensity than the proposed "Animal shelter, public" classification are already
allowed within the P-1 zone including "Government facilities" and "Public schools and related
facilities”.
Attachment:
1. Proposed code amendments to P-1, Public Use District
3
Attachment “A”
DRAFT CODE LANGUAGE
Chapter 18.40
P-1 PUBLIC USE DISTRICT
Sections:
18.40.010 Intent.
18.40.020 Permitted uses.
18.40.030 Uses requiring permit.
18.40.040 Development standards.
18.40.010 Intent.
The P-1 district is intended to provide for the appropriate location and development of public uses that
serve the cultural, educational, recreational, and public service needs of the community. (Ord. 4229 § 2,
1987.)
18.40.020 Permitted uses.
Hereafter all buildings, structures or parcels of land in a P-1 district shall only be used for the following,
unless otherwise provided for in this title:
A. Government facilities;
B. Municipal parks and playgrounds;
C. Public schools and related facilities;
D. Watersheds and related public utilities;
E. Other public uses that the planning director finds compatible with the intent of the P-1 district.
F. Animal shelter, public
Chapter 18.04
DEFINITIONS
18.04.XXX Animal shelter, public. Animal shelter, public means a facility and property that is used to
house or contain stray, homeless, abandoned or unwanted animals and that is owned, operated, or
maintained by a public body or an established humane society, animal welfare society, or other nonprofit
organization under contract with the public body devoted to the welfare, protection and humane treatment
of animals. Supporting services may include medical care.
Memorandum
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jeff Dixon, Principal Planner
CC: Elizabeth Chamberlain, Planning Manager
Kevin Snyder, Director Planning and Development
DATE: February 28, 2012
RE: Proposed Zoning Code Amendment to ACC Section 18.31.200 related
to Architectural and Site Design Review Standard and Regulations.
Background/History
The City has architectural and site design standards in effect that apply to three distinct
geographical areas of the City and another set that apply throughout the entire City
based the specific land use type. The purpose of these architectural and site design
standards is to provide an administrative process for evaluating the design and
arrangement of buildings and site development to ensure quality design of the built
environment. The authority for the architectural and site design standards (Design
Standards) were previously adopted by the City Council and are consistent with, and
implement the policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
The Design Standards applicable to each geographic area is unique and found in a
separate document that applies only to that area or type of land use project. The
requirement for implementation of the Design Standards is found in various sections of
the zoning code (see below). In turn, the zoning code references the separate
documents containing the specific Design Standards that are illustrated by text, figures
and photos, appropriately included in separate documents.
As these Design Standards were adopted at different times and over a period of years
there is not uniformity in the set of regulations to administer the Design Standards. The
Design Standards themselves are not proposed to change through this code
amendment.
The city’s current adopted Design Standards include:
The Downtown Urban Center Design Standards were adopted by Ordinance
No. 6071 in January 2007 to implement the, then new, Downtown Urban Center,
DUC zoning district.
The Auburn Junction Design Standards were adopted by Ordinance No. 6190
in July 2008 to address the four-block downtown catalyst area.
Mixed Use and Multiple Family Development Design Standards were
adopted by the Council Planning and Community Development (PCD)
Committee in June 2009 and subsequently amended by the PCD Committee in
July 7, 2010.
The Northeast Auburn Special Planning Area Architectural and Site Design
Standards were adopted by Resolution No. 4756 in December of 2011 as a
condition of the Development Agreement (DA) approved for the Northeast
Auburn /Robertson Properties’ Auburn Gateway Project.
Discussion
At the March 6 Planning Commission meeting, staff would like to discuss the purpose
and intent to amend the existing zoning code section ACC 18.31.200 that is specific to
the Mixed Use and Multiple Family Development Design Standards to instead broaden
the scope of this code section to include administration and implementation of the other
city Design Standards.
Amending the code to address all the Design Standards and have these referenced
within one section would have the following benefits:
Provide a single code section addressing the city’s different provisions for
architectural and site design standards for ease of locating and use by
perspective applicants.
Provide commonality in the administrative process applied to design review
processes of the city.
Provide uniformity in the administrative provisions for:
o intent and purpose statements,
o exemptions from the design review process,
o timing of the review process,
o submittal requirements,
o decision criteria,
o Planning Director’s ability to review and interpret provisions of the
separate architectural and site design standards documents,
o provide for process to adjust previous approvals; and
o appealing planning director’s decisions on design reviews.
18.31.200 Multifamily development and mixed-use development Architectural and site design
review standards and proceduresregulations.
A. Intent and Purpose. The architectural and site design regulations provide an administrative
review process for evaluating the design and arrangement of development. The architectural and site
design regulations are intended to be consistent with and implement the policies of the comprehensive
plan. The purposes of these design review regulations are to:
1. Foster good decision-making for development through architectural and site design
within the context of the community's built and natural environmental character, scale and
diversity;
2. Promote the use of appropriate scale of buildings and the configuration of open space
and parking areas for development to safely and comfortably accommodate pedestrian
activities;
3. Coordinate the interrelationship of buildings and public and private open space;
4. Discourage monotony in building design and arrangement, while promoting harmony
among distinct building identities; and
5. Mitigate, through design and site plan measures, the visual impact of large building
facades, particularly those which have high public visibility (Encourage the creative use of
architectural and landscape features in order to reduce the actual and perceived scale and bulk
of structures).
B . Applicability. The following land uses, types of development activities, including all related site
improvements, and geographic areas including all related site improvements, are subject to the
architectural and site design standards and the , processes and regulations procedures for conducting
design review contained in this chapter:
1. Mixed uses and multiple family developments. The following land uses and types of
development are subject to the City’s Multiple Family and Mixed Use Design Standards
document unless addressed by a different set of architectural and site design standards
applicable to a specific geographic area.
a. Multifamily development inclusive of triplexes and fourplexes in all zones in the city
where permitted outright or as a conditional use and not otherwise addressed through the city's
Residential Iinfill Development design Sstandards (ACC 18.25); and
2b. Mixed-Use Residential Development. Mixed-use development containing residential
living units in all zones in the city where permitted outright or as a conditional use; and,
3c. Retirement apartments, congregate living facilities and senior housing complexes in
all zones in the city where permitted outright or as a conditional use.
2. Downtown Urban Center. The following land uses, types of development activities are
subject to the City’s Downtown Urban Center Design Standards document.
a. Properties located within the boundaries of the DUC, Downtown Urban Center
zoning district as identified on the Comprehensive Zoning Map.
3. Auburn Junction. The following land uses, types of development activities are subject to the
City’s Auburn Junction Design Standards document.
a. Properties located within the boundaries of West Main Street, 2nd Street SE/SW, A
Street SE, and A Street SW as identified with Auburn City Code 18.29.070, Design
Standards of the DUC zone.
4. Northeast Auburn Special Planning Area . The following land uses, types of development
activities are subject to the City’s Auburn Gateway Architectural and Site Design Standards
document.
a. Properties located within the boundaries of the Auburn Gateway Project as defined
by the Development Agreement approved by City Resolution No . 4756. The Auburn
Gateway Architectural and Site Design are addressed In Section 4 of this Resolution and
provided as Attachment 4.
CB. Exemptions. The following activities as determined by the planning director shall be exempt
from the provisions of the design standards:
1. Any building activity that does not require a building permit; or
2. Interior construction work which does not alter the exterior of the structure; or
3. Normal or routine building and site maintenance/repair that is exempt from issuance of
a permit requirements including the repair or maintenance of structural members; or
4. Interior alterations that do not alter the exterior appearance of a structure or modify an
existing site condition; or
5. Site and exterior alterations that do not exceed 10 percent of the assessed valuation of
the property building or land per the most recent county records; or
6. Building additions that are less than 10 percent of the existing floor area of the existing
building. Any cumulative floor area increase from the adoption date of the ordinance
establishing these architectural and site design standards that totals more than 10 percent shall
not be exempt unless the planning director determines compliance with these standards would
be unfeasible and/or unreasonable.
C. Description and Purpose. The design regulations are intended to be consistent with and
administered to help implement the policies of the comprehensive plan. The purposes of these design
review regulations are to:
1. Foster good decision-making for multifamily and mixed-use development in architectural and
site design within the context of the community's built and natural environmental character, scale and
diversity;
2. Promote the scale of buildings and the configuration of open space and parking areas for
multifamily and mixed-use development to safely and comfortably accommodate pedestrian activities;
3. Discourage placement of multiple-family and mixed-use complexes around large expanses of
vehicular circulation and parking without providing adequate places for recreational and play activities;
4. Discourage monotony in building design and in the arrangement of multiple-family and mixed-
use complexes, while promoting harmony among distinct building identities; and
5. Mitigate, through design and site plan measures, the visual impact of large building facades,
particularly those which have high public visibility (these standards encourage creative use of
architectural and landscape features so as to reduce the actual and perceived scale and bulk of multi-
family and mixed-use structures).
D. Design Standard Documents. Adopted by reference are the following architectural and site
design documentscity of Auburn multifamily and mixed-use design standards, a, copiesy of which shall
be maintained by the city clerk. Theseis documents contains the standards for the design and
development of the built environment . pertaining to multifamily and mixed-use development in
applicable city zones. The planning director or designee shall have the authority to apply the standards
to specific development proposals. The following specific architectural and designse standards
documents may be amended upon approval by the Pplanning and Ddevelopment Ccommittee of the
Auburn city Ccouncil.:
1. Mixed Use and Multiple Family Development Design Standards.
2. Auburn Gateway Architectural and Site Design Standards.
The following specific architectural and design standards document may be amended upon approval by
the Downtown Redevelopment Committee of the Auburn City Council:
1. Downtown Urban Center Design Standards.
2. Auburn Junction Design Standards.
E. Timing of Administrative Design Review.
1. Design review shall be conducted by the planning director or designee prior to or
concurrent with the processing of as a part of site plan review pursuant to building permits
issuance and/or review of discretionary land use approvals/permits.
2. The decision on the administrative design review shall be issued prior to issuance of the
building permits and/or issuance of discretionary land use approvals/permits.
F. Pre-application meeting –when required associated with a design review.
1. A pre-application conference is required for the following instances:
a. For multi-family development in the R-10, R-16, R-20 Residential zones.
b. For mixed-use development containing residential living units located within R-10, R-16
and R-20 Residential zones, and all commercial zones, unless subject to other ;
c. For mixed-use development containing residential living units located within
commercial zones, unless `addressed by a different set of architectural and site design standards
applicable to a specific geographic area.
d. For retirement apartments, congregate living facilities and senior housing complexes
located within R-10, R-16 and R-20 Residential zones, and all commercial zones;
2. A pre-application conference is strongly recommended for all other projects subject to the city’s
architectural and site design review but is not required. for multifamily development inclusive of
triplexes and fourplexes located within R-5 and R-7 zones not otherwise addressed through the city's
infill design standards.
3. A pre-application conference is required for multi-family development in the R-10, R-16,
R-20 zones.
4. A pre-application conference is required for mixed-use development containing
residential living units located within R-10, R-16 and R-20 zones, and all current commercial
zones;
5. A pre-application conference is required for retirement apartments, congregate living
facilities and senior housing complexes located within R-10, R-16 and R-20 zones, and all current
commercial zones;
F. Design Review Submittal Requirements. In addition to any other documentation required for
submittal of a complete application for building permit or discretionary land use approvals/permitssite
plan review, the following items shall be required for the architectural and site design review:
1. Elevation drawings prepared by an architect licensed in the state of Washington of all
proposed construction including dimensional drawings at one-eighth inch equals one foot or
comparable scale showing the type of exterior materials, color (where applicable due to
selection of a menu option), exterior finishes for buildings and accessory structures, location and
elevations of exterior lighting for buildings, the type, style and model of exterior lighting fixtures
(where applicable due to zone transition standards), parking areas, and fenestration details.
Scaled drawings of elevations, conceptual selection of major building materials, and conceptual
selection of colors where applicable may be submitted at preliminary site plan review stage;
2. A to-scale landscape plan prepared by a landscape architect licensed in the state of
Washington showing existing vegetation to be retained and proposed vegetation to be installed
inclusive of the common and botanical name of all vegetation, the location and quantity of
vegetation, the initial planting size and maximum growth size of all vegetation and methods of
irrigation, if applicable;
3. A context vicinity map that shows all structures on the property and within 200 feet in
each direction of the subject property drawn approximately to scale but not to the accuracy of a
survey;
4. A neighborhood circulation plan consistent with the provisions of Chapter 17.16 ACC
(Neighborhood Circulation Plan); and
5. Conceptual plans for any public infrastructure, including roads, water, sewer, and storm
facilities.
G. Interpretations.
1. The planning director shall be authorized to interpret the meaning of words, phrases and
sentences which relate to the implementation of the specific architectural and design standards
document. Any interpretations regarding implementation of the specific architectural and
design standard document shall be made in accordance with its intent or purpose statements
and the intent and purpose statements of this chapter. For interpretations, life safety and
public health regulations shall be given priority over all other regulations.
2. Administrative interpretations may be appealed to the hearing examiner as prescribed in
Chapter 18.70.050 ACC.
Any affected person may challenge an interpretation and determination of the planning director
pertaining to this section subject to the city's administrative appeal provisions of Chapter 14.13 ACC.
H. Design Review Adjustments.
1. Authority for Design review adjustments. The planning director or designee shall have the authority,
subject to the provisions of this section and upon such conditions as the planning director or designee
may deem necessary to comply with the provisions of this section, to approve design adjustments as
follows:
a1. An adjustment to architectural or site design requirements such that no more than two
of the total number of required menu items in the city of Auburn multifamily and mixed-use
design standards are out of compliance.
b2. An adjustment to required building wall and roof modulation standards, as contained in
the city of Auburn multifamily and mixed-use design standards, up to 20 percent of the amount
of any quantified standards contained therein.
2I. Required Findings to Grant Design Review Adjustments. Each determination granting an
adjustment by the planning director or designee shall be supported by written findings showing
specifically wherein all of the following conditions exist:
a1. That the granting of such adjustment does not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and/or zone of the
subject site; and
b2. That the granting of such adjustment will not adversely affect the established character
of the surrounding neighborhood, discourage maintenance or upgrades on surrounding
properties, nor result in perpetuation of those design qualities and conditions which the
comprehensive plan intends to eliminate or avoid; and
c3. That the project incorporates alternate design characteristics that are equivalent or
superior to those otherwise achieved by strict adherence to stated menu options; and
4. That each of the findings under subsection L of this section (Director Authority and
Findings) are made by the planning director or designee in granting such adjustment.
3J. Public Notification and Action on Design Review Adjustment Applications. Upon the filing of a
properly completed application and associated request for a design review adjustment, the planning
director or designee shall comply with the city's Type II land use review requirements for issuance of a
properly noticed and appealable land use decision.
4K. Appeal of Director's Decision Action on Design Review Adjustments.
1. If a written objection to the initial determination notice is filed within 10 business days of said
notification, the planning director or designee shall reconsider the initial determination in light of the
objection(s) as raised and render a final decision on the permit. This final decision shall result in either
the planning director's affirmation of the original determination of approval, the approval with
additional modifications or denial.
2. Upon completion of the planning director's reconsideration, all parties notified of the original
determination shall receive notification of the planning director's final decision. Any party aggrieved by
the planning director's final decision may file an appeal of that decision to the hearing examiner in
accordance with the city's land use appeal provisions. Such appeals for hearing examiner review must be
filed within 10 business days from the date the written decision was made and shall include the
following:
a. The appeal shall be filed on forms provided by the department of planning and development.
b. The appeal shall clearly state the decision being appealed, setting forth the specific reason,
rationale, and/or basis for the appeal.
c. Fees associated with the appeal shall be paid to the city upon filing of the appeal in accordance
with a fee schedule established by resolution.
3. Upon filing of a timely and complete appeal, the hearing examiner shall conduct a public hearing
to consider the merits of the appeal. This hearing shall be subject to the city's public noticing and public
hearing requirements and shall include notification of all parties notified of the planning director's final
decision. The hearing examiner may affirm the planning director's decision or may remand the matter to
the planning director for further review in accord with the examiner's direction.
4. If no written objection is filed to the initial determination within the specified time limits, the
planning director shall render a final decision on the permit in accord with the initial determination.
I Approval criteria for design review.
The planning director or designee may approve, or modify and approve, or deny an application for an
administrative design review. L. Director Authority and Findings. The planning director or
designee shall approve, approve with modifications or deny each project application subject to design
review. Each determination granting approval or approval with modifications shall be supported by
written findings showing the applicant satisfies all the following criteriaspecifically wherein all applicable
conditions exist:
1. The plans and supplemental materials submitted to support the plan meet the requirements of
the specific architectural and site design documentsregulations;
2. The proposed development is consistent with the comprehensive plan;
3. The proposed development meets required setback, landscaping, architectural style and
materials, such that the building walls have sufficient visual variety to mitigate the appearance of large
facades, particularly from public rights-of-way and single-family residential zones.
43. Applicable only to In addition to the criteria in subsections 1-3, for multiple-family residential
and retirement apartment projects, the director or designee must determine that the following key
review criteria have been met:
a. The proposed development is arranged in a manner that either:
i. Provides a courtyard space creating a cohesive identity for the building cluster
and public open space furnished to facilitate its use; or
ii. Possesses a traditional streetscape orientation that provides clearly identifiable
and visible entries from the street, views from residential units onto the street and
reinforces pedestrian-oriented streetscape characteristics (e.g., building edge abutting
sidewalk, entries onto the street); or
iii. Faces and facilitates views of a major open space system;
b. The proposed development provides a variety in architectural massing and articulation
to reduce the apparent size of the buildings and to distinguish vertical and horizontal
dimensions;
c. The proposed development contains a combination of elements such as architectural
forms, massing, assortment of materials, colors, and color bands sufficient to distinguish distinct
portions and stories of the building;
d. Residential buildings in large multiple-family projects or mixed-use projects are
physically integrated into the complex possessing sufficiently different appearance or placement
to be able to distinguish one building from another;
e. Unit entrances are individualized by use of design features that make each entrance
distinct or which facilitate additional personalization by residents;
f. Areas dedicated to parking are sufficiently visually broken up and contain a complement
of vegetative materials to project a landscaped appearance;
g. Where applicable, a transition is created that minimizes impacts from multifamily and
mixed-use development projects on neighboring lower density residential dwelling units in
abutting or adjacent single-family zones; and
h. Where applicable, in cases of granting density or height bonuses, the project has
provided community benefits, facilities or improvements above and beyond those required in
the municipal code and supports the goals, objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan;
4. The proposed development meets required setback, landscaping, architectural style and
materials, such that the building walls have sufficient visual variety to mitigate the appearance of large
facades, particularly from public rights-of-way and single-family residential zones. (Ord. 6287 § 2, 2010;
Ord. 6245 § 15, 2009.)