Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6531FIRST AMERICAN Return Address: Auburn City Clerk City of Auburn 25 West Main St. Auburn, WA 98001 n� 15 r� 0�8L III I III III III I 11111111111111111 0E60826001828 08/16 15:10 €am OF 009KING COUNTY, WA RECORDER'S COVER SHEET Document Title(s) (or transactions contained therein): 1. Rezone (Ordinance No. 6531) Reference Number(s) of Documents assigned or released: ❑Additional reference #'s on page _ of document Grantor(s) (Last name first, then first name and initials) 1. City of Auburn Grantee: (Last name first) 'ecord as an accomodation only t has not been examined as to ;roper execution or as to its 1. Polygon Northwest Company effect upon title Legal Description (abbreviated: i.e. lot, block, plat or section, township, range) See parcel numbers below ❑ Additional legal is on page _ of the document., Assessor's Property Tax Parcel/Account Number: 1521049017,1521049019,1521049001,152109157,1521049020,9262800194, 9262800201, 9262800201, 9262800203, and 9262800271 ❑ Assessor Tax # not yet assigned ORDINANCE NO. 6 5 3 1 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, APPROVING THE REQUEST OF POLYGON NORTHWEST COMPANY FOR A REZONE FROM R-5 RESIDENTIAL 5 DU/ACRE TO R-7 RESIDENTIAL 7 DU/ACRE TO IMPLEMENT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND AMENDING THE CITY'S ZONING MAPS ACCORDINGLY WHEREAS, the City of Auburn on August 18, 1986 adopted a Comprehensive Plan by Resolution No. 1703 which includes a Map establishing the location of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations throughout the City; and WHEREAS, on April 17, 1995 the City of Auburn adopted Comprehensive Plan Amendments by Resolution No. 2635 to comply with the Washington State Growth Management Act; and WHEREAS, the City of Auburn on September 5, 1995 reaffirmed that action by Ordinance No. 4788; and WHEREAS, Polygon Northwest Company, the applicant, submitted a rezone application on October 1, 2013 for tax parcels 1521049017, 1521049019, 1521049001, 152109157, 1521049020, 9262800194, 9262800201, 9262800203, and 9262800271 which has been requested to facilitate the Auburn Assemblage subdivision; and WHEREAS, the environmental impacts of proposed rezone were considered in accordance with procedures of the State Environmental Policy Act with a Determination of Non -Significance issued on June 3, 2014; and Ordinance No. 6531 September 8, 2014 Page 1 WHEREAS, after proper notice published in the City's official newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the date of hearing, the City of Auburn Hearing Examiner on June 18, 2014 conducted a public hearing on the proposed Polygon Northwest Rezone; and WHEREAS, at the public hearing the City of Auburn Hearing Examiner heard public testimony and took evidence and exhibits into consideration; and WHEREAS, the City of Auburn Hearing Examiner made a recommendation to the City Council on the proposed Polygon Northwest Rezone on July 15, 2014; and WHEREAS, the City of Auburn submitted a reconsideration request to the City of Auburn Hearing Examiner within the 7 day timeframe requesting the Examiner re- evaluate his recommendation based on staffs analysis of the project; and WHEREAS, the City of Auburn Hearing Examiner requested supplemental information as part of the reconsideration request and the City submitted that information on August 6, 2014; and WHEREAS, thereafter the City of Auburn Hearing Examiner made a recommendation to the City Council on the proposed Polygon Northwest Rezone on August 24, 2014; and WHEREAS, on September 15, 2014, the Auburn City Council considered the proposed Polygon Northwest Rezone as recommended by the City of Auburn Hearing Examiner. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Ordinance No. 6531 September 8, 2014 Page 2 Section 1. The City Council ("Council) adopts and approves the Polygon Northwest Company rezone request for a rezone from R-5 Residential 5 du/acre to R-7 Residential 7 du/acre. Section 2. The Zoning Map amendment is herewith designated as a basis for the exercise of substantive authority under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act by the City's responsible environmental official in accordance with RCW 43.21C.060. Section 3. The Council adopts the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, in the Hearing Examiner's recommendation outlined below: FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: 1. Applicant. The Applicant is Polygon Northwest Company. 2. Hearing. A public hearing was held on the proposed rezone on June 18, 2014 at 5:30 p.m. at the City Council chambers at Auburn City Hall. The hearing was left open through June 30, 2014 because the appeal period for the SEPA DNS did not end until that date. Staff forwarded a SEPA mitigation agreement with the City of Federal Way (Ex. 20) to the examiner on July 1, 2014. The City requested reconsideration by document dated July 22, 2014. An Order on Reconsideration was issued on July 24, 2014, which contained numerous questions for City staff. The Order (along with the questions) was distributed to all parties of record. A response from City staff and three members of the public was forwarded to the Examiner on August 7, 2014. Substantive: 3. Site/Proposal Description. The applicant has requested a rezone of 34.35 acres from R5 to R7. The rezone is composed of nine parcels and is located on the south side of 3215` Street South, between 46`h Place South and 51St Avenue South. 4. Characteristics of the Area. The rezone area adjoins vacant land to the north and R5 zoned property developed with single-family homes in all other Ordinance No. 6531 September 8, 2014 Page 3 directions. According to the testimony of Mr. Vinton, the surrounding area is still rural in character. 5. Adverse Impacts. No significant adverse impacts are anticipated from the proposal. The primary issue of concern is traffic. The proposal would increase traffic in an area that suffers from congestion, but improvements proposed by and required of the applicant will assure that traffic levels remain within applicable King County and City of Auburn LOS standards. As background on traffic, the staff report notes that the rezone would enable the applicant to increase the number of lots of its proposed preliminary plat from 135 lots to 154 lots. Through the requested rezone, the applicant seeks to increase density by 14%. Given strong neighborhood concern over existing traffic congestion, any significant increases in traffic should be carefully scrutinized. Without any intersection improvements, the preliminary plat enabled by the proposed rezone would significantly add to the delays of an intersection that will fail to meet applicable King County LOS standards, which is adopted at LOS E. However, improvements will be made such that no significant increases in intersection delay will be created by the proposal. As shown in the traffic study for the Proposed preliminary plat, plat Ex. 13, the northbound leg of the 46 Ave S/S 321s Ave intersection operated at LOS E in 2013. This intersection is in King County and the northbound leg is located in the City of Auburn. In 2016 the leg is anticipated to operate at LOS F with a 50.2 section delay without the proposed Auburn Assemblage preliminary plat and a 71 second delay with the proposed preliminary plat. The applicant will be dedicating right of way to relocate the 46th. Ave S/S 321st Ave intersection and thereby improve LOS. As noted in the City's Reconsideration Request, the City will be making improvements to the intersection in this dedicated right of way as identified in the City's six year transportation improvement plan, adopted in June, 2014. See City of Auburn Resolution 5075. With the applicant's right of way dedication and projected TIP improvements, the City notes in its reconsideration request that it considers impacts to the intersection "...to have been mitigated...". Unfortunately, it's unclear what the City considers to be adequate mitigation in this circumstance, e.g. improving the LOS to E or simply eliminating the increase in delay caused by the project. The latter is the more likely given that the applicant could not be legally required to provide any more mitigation under constitutional proportionality requirements. Either way, the improvements would satisfy the City's concurrency standards (not lowering LOS below adopted levels). Without improvements, the preliminary plat enabled by the proposed rezone would cause another intersection to fall from LOS D to LOS E. The westbound leg of the Ordinance No. 6531 September 8, 2014 Page 4 51 Ave S/S 316th St intersection operated at LOS D in 2013. In 2016 it will continue to have an LOS D without the proposed Auburn Assemblage preliminary plat, but will drop to LOS E with the proposed preliminary plat. The intersection is located in King County, but the back-ups caused by the proposal would be located in Auburn. See City Reconsideration Request, p. 3. King County's LOS is E for the intersection and Auburn's is D. Subsequent to the recommendation for denial, the applicant has proposed to make an intersection improvement that will keep the LOS at D as noted in the City's Request for Reconsideration. With the proposed improvement, the proposal will not adversely affect traffic delays at the 51 st Ave S/S 316th St intersection. Beyond traffic impacts, no other adverse impacts associated with the rezone are reasonably discernible from the record. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Procedural: 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. ACC 18.68.030(B)(1)(a) grants the Hearing Examiner with the authority to review and make a recommendation on rezone requests to the City Council if the planning director determines that the rezone requests are consistent with the comprehensive plan. The planning director has determined that the rezone request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation for the subject property is Single Family Residential, which is consistent with the requested R-7 zoning map designation. Substantive: 2. Zoning Designation. The property is currently zoned R-5. 3. Case Law Review Criteria and Application. The Auburn City Code does not include any criteria for rezone applications. Washington appellate courts have imposed some rezone criteria, requiring that the proponents of a rezone must establish that conditions have substantially changed since the original showing and that the rezone must bear a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals or welfare. See Ahmann-Yamane, LLC v. Tabler, 105 Wn. App. 103, 111 (2001). If a rezone implements the Comprehensive Plan, a showing that a change of circumstances has occurred is not required. Id. at 112. The rezone meets the judicial criteria. The rezone bears a substantial relationship to public health, safety or welfare since it will not create any significant adverse impacts and will allow for greater densities within an urbanized area as encouraged by the Washington State Growth Management Act. The traffic generated by the Ordinance No. 6531 September 8, 2014 Page 5 proposal is not considered to be a significant adverse impact because congestion I evels, as measured by LOS, will not be lowered below adopted LOS levels. As required by RCW 36.70B.030(2)(c), adopted LOS standards are determinative on the issue of adequacy of transportation facilities. The proposal is determined to implement the comprehensive plan because it will be served by adequate public facilities as required by policies such as CF -11 and CF 12, will not create any significant adverse impacts and will provide for greater densities in an urbanized area as encouraged by the Washington State Growth Management Act, Chapter 36.70A RCW. In reviewing staffs reconsideration arguments on the implementation issue, it sometimes appears that staff is focused upon "why not' approve a rezone from one authorized zoning district designation to another as opposed to "why" approve that rezone. It is important to recognize that there is no presumption of validity favoring a rezone. 105 Wn. App. at 111. If an applicant requests an upzone from one authorized residential density to a higher authorized residential density, that applicant must demonstrate how that upzone, as opposed to remaining at the assigned designation, implements the comprehensive plan. The extensive reconsideration argument submitted by the City gave many reasons why the R7 designation is consistent with the comprehensive plan, but there was little explanation as to why an upzone from R5 to R7 would serve to implement the comprehensive plan. There is no Washington case law yet on what it means to "implement' the comprehensive plan in an upzone. At the least it must be conceded that "implementing" the comprehensive plan means a little more than merely ending with a designation that is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Justifying an upzone involving an increase in density is particularly important in areas suffering from severe traffic congestion. RECOMMENDATION The Hearing Examiner recommends approval of REZ13-0003. Section 4. Upon the passage, approval, and publication of this Ordinance as provided by law, the City Clerk of the City of Auburn shall cause this Ordinance to be recorded in the office of the King County Recorder. Section 5. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance or any of the Zoning Map amendments adopted herein, is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any Court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall Ordinance No. 6531 September 8, 2014 Page 6 be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision, and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 6. The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directives of this legislation. Section 7. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force five days from and after its passage, approval, and publication as provided by law. INTRODUCED: PASSED: APPROVED: ancy Bacl s MAYOR ATTEST: 1 / .P �4 �_ - 4=6 _ APPROVED AS TO FORM: Daniel B. Heid, City Attorney SEP 15 2014 SEP 15 2014 SEP 15 2014 Published: /j'je/ Ordinance No. 6531 September 8, 2014 Page 7