HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-06-2017PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
September 6, 2017
AGENDA
I.CALL TO ORDER – 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers
A.ROLL CALL/ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM
B.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
II.APROVAL OF MINUTES
A.August 8, 2017
III.PUBLIC COMMENT
Comment from the audience on any item not listed on the agenda for discussion or public
hearing.
IV.PUBLIC HEARING
A.ZOA17-0005 – Rezone of EP to M-1 * (Tate)
Summary: Introduce proposal for an areawide rezone of al EP zoned properties to
M-1.
B.ZOA17-0006 – Calculating Residential Density* (Tate)
Summary: Introduce draft amendments to the methodology for calculating residential
density.
V.OTHER BUSINESS
No items were brought forward for other business.
VI.COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT
Update on Community Development Services activities.
VII.ADJOURNMENT
Page 1 of 36
DRAFT
PLANNING COMMISSION
August 8, 2017
MINUTES
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Judi Roland called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. in the Council Chambers
located on the first floor of Auburn City Hall, 25 West Main Street, Auburn, WA.
a.) ROLL CALL/ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM
Planning Commission Members present were: Chair Judi Roland, Commissioner
Mason, Commissioner Lee, Commissioner Stephens, Commissioner Copple,
Commissioner Shin, Commissioner Moutzouris, and Commissioner Smith.
Staff present included: Assistant Director of Community Development and Public
Works Jeff Tate, Assistant City Attorney Jessica Leiser, Planner II Alex Teague; and
Planning Administrative Assistant Tina Kriss.
Members of the public present: Wayne Wiltse, Planner III Muckleshoot Indian Tribe;
Jeff Watson, Planner III Muckleshoot Indian Tribe; Ken Calvert, Muckleshoot Indian
Tribe; Valley Regional Fire Authority Fire Marshal Karen Stewart, and Rob Renner.
b.) PLEDGE OF ALLEGENCE
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. July 5, 2017
Commissioner Copple moved and Commissioner Moutzouris seconded to approve
the minutes from the July 5, 2017 meeting as written.
MOTION CARRIED. 7-0
Commissioner Mason did not vote, she was absent from the July 5th, 2017 meeting.
III. PUBLIC COMMENT
There were no comments provided the public that was present.
IV. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Open Space Zoning Code Amendments
Chair Roland stated that at the July 5, 2017 Planning Commission meeting a Public
Hearing was held on the Open Space Zoning Code Amendments. The hearing was
continued to August 8, 2017. Chair Roland re-opened the continued hearing at 7:03
p.m.
Alex Teague, Planner II, provided background information on the Open Space
Zoning Amendments and reviewed the proposal before consideration. A letter dated
August 8, 2017 from the Muckleshoot Planning Commission was distributed to the
Auburn Planning Commission. The letter submitted provides historical facts
regarding the Muckleshoot Indian Reservation and the Treaties of Medicine Creek
and Point Elliot and expresses the desire to continue a cooperative working
Page 2 of 36
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES August 8, 2017
Page 2
relationship with the City of Auburn. The desire of the MIT is that the City of Auburn
would consider providing clear and bold perimeter outline of the Muckleshoot Indian
Reservation being incorporated into the official zoning map for the City of Auburn
and to establish a MIT Zone for Tribal Holdings (on the Reservation).
In answer to the question as to the frequency of how often properties held in fee
ownership are conveyed to non-tribal members, staff explained it is difficult to
quantify as there is no static answer to the question, the numbers can change
frequently. Staff pointed out that even if the property is zoned Open Space, the land
is under the jurisdiction of the MIT.
Staff expressed their willingness to hold discussions with MIT for the potential
creation of an MIT Zone for Tribal holdings; any amendments to the Comprehensive
Plan would be considered on an annual basis in the City of Auburn annual
Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Assistant Director Tate stated, to denote
boundary lines and provide foot notes on zoning maps for who has authority or
jurisdiction over certain areas would provide good customer service to the user of the
maps. It would be a valuable exercise to discuss an MIT Zone with MIT.
The Commission and staff reviewed properties and discussed the current and
proposed land use and zoning designations. A discussion was held as to the
marketability of the properties if they are zoned Open Space. Staff explained that
the properties are located in the river or along the shoreline making them subject to
potential critical areas and shoreline designation which could make marketability
difficult to understand.
Staff explained that the Commission can provide, as part of their deliberations, a
recommendation to add a clear and bold perimeter of the Muckleshoot Indian
Reservation on the City’s comprehensive zoning map and direct staff to continue to
hold discussions with the MIT to discuss the MIT Planning Commission requests.
Ms. Teague explained that staff respectfully requests the Planning Commission
recommend to City Council approval of the following:
Amendments to the Auburn City Code Chapter 18.02 (General Provisions)
Amendment to Auburn City Code Chapter 18.35 (Special Purpose Zones) as
presented in the August 8, 2017 meeting materials.
Approval of the revised amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Map,
Attachment B with the following revisions:
o Except Parcels owned by Levan Auburn Development LLC
1. 7815700095
2. 7815700135
o Except Parcels owned by the City of Auburn
1. 7815700085
o Except Parcels owned by Segale
1. 2921059002
2. 2921059021
3. 2921059044
4. 3021059361
Page 3 of 36
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES August 8, 2017
Page 3
Add the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe boundaries to the Comprehensive Zoning
Map
Chair Roland invited the public forward for public testimony on the Open Space
Zoning Amendments.
Jeff Watson, Planner III, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (MIT)
Jeff Watson thanked the Commission for an opportunity to speak with the Planning
Commission to express the MIT Planning Commission’s concerns. Mr. Watson
thanked Auburn staff for cooperating and assisting the new MIT Planning staff to
understand the land use, zoning, and GIS of the properties. At this stage of
deliberations MIT is limited as to what can be done to address the 9 parcels.
Changing the zoning designation of the 9 parcels will have no tangible impact for
either the City of Auburn or MIT at this time.
MIT feels pretty comfortable if Auburn moves forward with their rezone and Planning
Commission deliberations. All properties are “in-trust” and fall under Muckleshoot
Tribal Jurisdiction, any development in the next year can be addressed with both
jurisdictions.
Planner Watson stated that with the inconsistencies with the MIT and Auburn land
use and zoning maps, there needs to be further conversations to see if a consensus
can take place for the creation of a MIT Zone. Creating some type of specialized
zones will work to protect the City of Auburn and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe as
both jurisdictions work together in the future.
Mr. Watson stated the MIT is interested in a long term and cooperative relationship
with the City of auburn, the Auburn Planning Commission, the MIT Planning
Commission, and the Tribal Council and Auburn City Council. MIT staff looks
forward to working with the City to come up with a good solution for both parties.
With no other testimony from the public, Chair Roland closed the public hearing at
7:49 p.m. on the Open Space Zoning Code Amendments.
The Commission deliberated.
Commissioner Shin moved and Commissioner Copple seconded to recommend City
Council adopt the Open Space Zoning Amendments and for staff to continue
ongoing discussions with the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe with respect to the letter
submitted by the Muckleshoot Planning Commission dated August 8, 2017.
MOTION CARRIED. 7-1
V. OTHER BUSINESS
Item V.A., ZOA17-0005 – Rezone of EP to M-1 will follow item V.B., Calculating
Residential Density
A. ZOA17-0005 - Rezone of EP to M-1
Assistant Director Tate presented the staff report for the rezone of the Environmental
Park (EP) Zone to M-1 Zone, light industrial zone. Staff provided an overview of the
intent of the EP Zone under Ordinance No. 6036.
Page 4 of 36
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES August 8, 2017
Page 4
Assistant Director Tate explained, since the inception of the EP Zone in 2006 there
has been very little private sector investment into the privately owned properties
within this commercial designation. Staff stated that at a discussion held March 7,
2014 at a City Council Planning and Community Development Committee meeting a
realtor and several owners of EP Zoned land presented information for staff to
consider the appropriateness of eliminating the EP Zone from the City’s
Comprehensive Plan and Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map.
When customers come to the counter to talk about options for the EP Zone staff is
often telling them the desired ideas are prohibited in the EP Zone because the zone
is very restrictive. Staff stated that the original intent of the Environmental Park Zone
was to create an Industrial Zone. The strategy was to provide regulations to
mandate sustainable design and green building practices. Eleven years later those
principles are now incentivized or required (Low Impact Development).
When staff prepared the 2015 Comprehensive Plan update the EP Zone was
removed from the list of implementing zoning designations under the “Industrial Land
Use Designations”. The 2015 Comprehensive Plan was approved by the Planning
Commission and adopted by City Council under Ordinance No. 6584 on December
14, 2015.
Staff pointed out that in the Comprehensive Plan map that was adopted as part of
Ordinance No. 6584 those portions of the EP Zone that are owned by the City and
consist of park and wetlands are designated as Open Space. The remaining
portions of the EP Zone are designated as Light Industrial. Staff is seeking an
amendment to the City’s Zoning Map to change the portion of the EP Zone that is
depicted as Light Manufacturing in the Comprehensive Plan map to an M-1 zoning
designation. This zoning map amendment accomplishes the following:
1. Because the EP Zone is no longer listed in the Comprehensive Plan as an
implementing zoning designation, a change to M-1 will eliminate the existing
inconsistency.
2. Changing the zoning map will expand the viability to utilize, develop, and market
the affected properties.
Staff provided a review of the properties proposed as part of the rezone.
Staff asked if the Commission was comfortable with staff bringing back the rezone of
the EP to M-1 at the next Planning Commission meeting for Public Hearing
September 6, 2017.
The Commission expressed their support to move forward on the rezone of EP to the
M-1 Zone, bringing back the proposal for a public hearing on September 6, 2017.
B. ZOA17-0006 - Calculating Residential Density
Assistant Director Tate presented information on the existing city code related to
residential zoning designations; defined, in part, by its allowed density range. The
density range establishing both a minimum density and maximum density within
each zone.
Staff pointed out that part of the discussion today will be regarding density
calculations in residential zones within the City using net site area and gross site
area calculations.
Page 5 of 36
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES August 8, 2017
Page 5
Staff provided an overview of challenges and suggestions to address current Auburn
City Code lot size standards, calculating density, and the allowance to deviate from
minimum density. To address the challenges and make the code easier for
calculating density, the preliminary series of draft code amendments are intended to
accomplish the following:
(1) Modify ACC 18.07.030.C to eliminate the requirement that the developer achieve
an overall minimum average lot size across the entire subdivision.
(2) Modify ACC 18.02.065.A to reorganize the code so that it is easier to understand
how to calculate density.
(3) Modify ACC 18.02.065.A to change the method of calculating density from Net
Site Area to Gross Site Area.
(4) Modify ACC 18.02.065.A to allow for administrative consideration of deviations to
the minimum density requirement.
(5) Add ACC 18.02.065.B which exempts short plats from the requirements to meet
minimum density.
The Commission and staff discussed the lot width of subdivisions and various setbacks.
Commissioner Stephens asked if staff could provide a comparison table showing the
current and proposed zone density and layout design standards. Staff confirmed that
they will provide a comparison table for the next discussion.
In response to the question if the Commission would like staff to advance the discussion
of calculating residential density and receive input from outside parties, the Commission
concurs.
VI. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT
Assistant Director Tate reported that Geaux Brewing, located at 425 East Main Street,
has opened (soft opening).
Staff reported that approvals have been issued for a new Holiday Inn, the 200 room
hotel will be located at the bottom of the off-ram from Highway 18 at C Street. An
additional application was submitted for a 97 room hotel, True by Hilton. The location of
that hotel will be south of Safeway.
In July, approvals for the new North Auburn Logistics warehouse building was issued.
The building is 250,000 square feet and located on West Valley Highway.
Staff informed the Commission that on August 14, 2017, Sound Transit will be
presenting to City Council information on the cost estimates for the 4 sites proposed for
the 2nd parking garage in Auburn.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chair Roland
adjourned the meeting at 8:58 p.m.
Page 6 of 36
MEMORANDUM
TO: Judi Roland, Chair, Planning Commission
Ron Copple, Vice-Chair, Planning Commission
Planning Commission Members
FROM: Jeff Tate, Assistant Director of Community Development
DATE: August 29, 2017
RE: Changing the Environmental Park Zone to the M-1 Zone
Update from August 8, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting
This memo and the attachments are identical to the materials that were previously transmitted
to the Planning commission in anticipation of the August 8, 2017 meeting. During the August 8th
meeting the Planning Commission requested that a side by side comparison be provided in
order to help evaluate the effect of an areawide rezone from EP to M-1. The side by side
comparison has been added as Attachment F.
Summary
On August 7, 2006 City Council approved Ordinance No. 6036 which created the Environmental
Park (EP) Zone. Despite its name, the EP Zone is grouped in with the other commercial and
industrial zones that are identified in Chapter 18.23 of the Auburn City Code. As stated in
Ordinance No. 6036 the intent of the EP zone is as follows:
The Environmental Park District is intended to allow uses in proximity to the Auburn
Environmental Park that benefit from that location and will complement the Park and its
environmental focus. Uses allowed in this zone will focus upon medical, biotech and “green”
technologies including energy conversation, engineering, water quality and similar uses.
Other uses complementary to and supporting these uses are also allowed. Incorporation of
sustainable design and green building practices will be a primary aspect of this zone. The
construction of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) and Built Green
certified buildings is encouraged and Built Green will be required for multiple family
dwellings. The City recognizes that much of the property in this zone was developed under
earlier standards, so the goals of the district will be realized over a period of time as
properties are redeveloped.
The EP Zone is located west of the BNSF rail lines and spans across Main Street (See
Attachment A for map). The EP Zone consists of a mix of pre-existing industrial properties as
well as several large city owned properties that include the Auburn Environmental Park and
wetland properties that are a component of the City wide stormwater management system.
Attachment B depicts those areas within the EP Zone that are owned by the city.
Since the inception of the EP Zone in 2006 there has been very little private sector investment
into the privately owned properties within this commercial designation. On March 7, 2014 a
Page 7 of 36
realtor and several owners of EP Zoned land presented information to the City Council’s
Planning and Community Development Committee that documented the challenges that they
faced with utilizing, developing, and marketing EP Zoned property. They also provided
information that showed robust investment activity within the M-1 Zone with very little activity in
the EP Zone. The M-1 Zone is a light industrial zone that is present throughout the Highway
167/West Valley Highway/B Street NW corridors. Much of the consternation with the EP Zone
pertains to: (1) a 15% site limit on outdoor storage (M-1 allows up to 50% of a site to be used for
outdoor storage), (2) a prohibition on barbed wire (M-1 allows barbed wire which is an important
security features for industrial uses), (3) a maximum lot coverage of 35% (M-1 does not have a
limit); and, (4) a long list of prohibited uses (uses that are otherwise permitted in M-1).
The information that was provided by the landowners and realtor compelled staff to consider the
appropriateness of eliminating the EP Zone from the City’s Comprehensive Plan and
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. When staff prepared the 2015 Comprehensive Plan
update the EP Zone was removed from the list of implementing zoning designations under the
“Industrial Land Use Designations”. Attachment C provides the Comprehensive Plan language
related to Industrial Land Use Designations. Note that this section of the Comprehensive Plan
only identifies Light Industrial and Heavy Industrial zoning designations and that the
Environmental Park designation is no longer included. The 2015 Comprehensive Plan was
approved by the Planning Commission and adopted by City Council under Ordinance No. 6584
on December 14, 2015.
Attachment D is the Comprehensive Plan map that was adopted as part of Ordinance No. 6584.
Those portions of the EP Zone that are owned by the City and consist of park and wetlands are
designated as Open Space (depicted in green). The remaining portions of the EP Zone are
designated as Light Industrial (depicted in light blue). Staff is seeking an amendment to the
City’s Zoning Map to change the portion of the EP Zone that is depicted as Light Manufacturing
to M-1. This zoning map amendment accomplishes the following:
1. Because the EP Zone is no longer listed in the Comprehensive Plan as an implementing
zoning designation, a change to M-1 will eliminate the existing inconsistency.
2. Changing the zoning map will expand the viability to utilize, develop, and market the
affected properties.
Attachment E provides an aerial image with the proposed area wide rezone highlighted in light
blue.
Prior to Planning Commission conducting a public hearing on this matter, staff will provide direct
outreach to all property owners that are affected. Outreach will be in the form of direct mail as
well as emailing parties that have expressed an interest in this matter in the past.
Questions
1. Are there any questions that the Planning Commission has about the above narrative
and/or the maps that have been provided?
2. Is there additional background information that the Planning Commission would like staff
to provide prior to scheduling a public hearing?
Page 8 of 36
2,449.0
NAD_1983_StatePlane_Washington_North_FIPS_4601_Feet
Feet2,449.0
Notes
Type any additional notes- delete text to
leave blank
Legend
1,224.50
1:14,694
EP Zoning Designation
1 in =1,224.5 ft
7/13/2017Printed Date:
Map Created by City of Auburn eGIS
Imagery Date: May 2015
Information shown is for general
reference purposes only and does not
necessarily represent exact geographic
or cartographic data as mapped. The
City of Auburn makes no warranty as to
its accuracy.
Scale
Parcels
Zoning
C1 Light Commercial District
C2 Central Business District
C3 Heavy Commercial District
C4 Mixed Use Commercial
CN Neighborhood Shopping District
DUC Downtown Urban Center
EP Environmental Park District
I Institutional Use District
Lakeland Hills South PUD
LF Airport Landing Field District
M1 Light Industrial District
M2 Heavy Industrial District
P1 Public Use District
PUD Planned Unit Development
R1 Residential 1 DU/Acre
R5 Residential 5 DU/Acre
R7 Residential 7 DU/Acre
R10 Residential 10 DU/Acre
R20 Residential 20 DU/Acre
Residential Conservency
RMHC Residential Manufactured/Mobile Home Units
RO Residential Office District
RO-H Residential Office District (Hospital)
TV Terrace View
UNC Unclassified Use District
Attachment A
Page 9 of 36
2,449.0
NAD_1983_StatePlane_Washington_North_FIPS_4601_Feet
Feet2,449.0
Notes
Type any additional notes- delete text to
leave blank
Legend
1,224.50
1:14,694
City Owned Properties within the EP Zone
1 in =1,224.5 ft
7/13/2017Printed Date:
Map Created by City of Auburn eGIS
Imagery Date: May 2015
Information shown is for general
reference purposes only and does not
necessarily represent exact geographic
or cartographic data as mapped. The
City of Auburn makes no warranty as to
its accuracy.
Scale
Parcels
Zoning
C1 Light Commercial District
C2 Central Business District
C3 Heavy Commercial District
C4 Mixed Use Commercial
CN Neighborhood Shopping District
DUC Downtown Urban Center
EP Environmental Park District
I Institutional Use District
Lakeland Hills South PUD
LF Airport Landing Field District
M1 Light Industrial District
M2 Heavy Industrial District
P1 Public Use District
PUD Planned Unit Development
R1 Residential 1 DU/Acre
R5 Residential 5 DU/Acre
R7 Residential 7 DU/Acre
R10 Residential 10 DU/Acre
R20 Residential 20 DU/Acre
Residential Conservency
RMHC Residential Manufactured/Mobile Home Units
RO Residential Office District
RO-H Residential Office District (Hospital)
TV Terrace View
UNC Unclassified Use District
Attachment B
Page 10 of 36
City of Auburn | Land Use Element P a g e | 17
variety of appropriate commercial uses in this designation benefit from the location, access,
physical configuration, and building types of these properties. It is distinguished from heavier
industrial uses by means of performance criteria. All significant activities shall take place inside
buildings, and the processing or storage of hazardous materials shall be strictly controlled and
permitted only as an incidental part of another use.
Designation Criteria
1. Previously developed light industrial areas; or
2. Located along high visibility corridors;
3. Provides buffering for heavy industrial areas or is buffered from the Single Family designation
by landscaping, environmental features, or the Residential Transition designation and
buffered from all other Residential designations; and
4. Meets the development parameters of the Light Industrial designation.
Implementing Zoning Designations
Light Industrial
Policies
Policy LU-76. A wide range of industrial uses may be permitted, subject to performance
standards. Heavy commercial uses that serve the needs of workers in light
industries are also appropriate. These uses include indoor manufacturing,
processing, and assembling of materials from previously prepared or raw
materials and ancillary and necessary warehousing and distribution of finished
goods associated with manufacturing and industrial uses.
Policy LU-77. Parking lots must be located and designed in a manner that softens their
appearance from adjacent public roads. This is accomplished through
landscaping, pedestrian spaces, and the location of buildings on the pr operty.
Where practicable, low impact development techniques and landscaping should
be used to promote on site stormwater infiltration and shading of hard surfaces.
Minimum and maximum parking ratios must be established for each type of
permitted use.
Policy LU-78. Landscaping, sidewalks, and bike paths will be integral parts of site design i f a
development is located on an impression corridor or located within or adjacent to
an identified non-motorized corridor.
Policy LU-79. Outside storage shall be permitted subject to performanc e criteria addressing its
quantity and location. This is to ensure compatibility with adjacent uses, so that
such storage would not detract from the potential use of the area for light
industry. In all cases, such storage shall be extensively screened.
Policy LU-80. Where a light industrial use is located adjacent to a property with a less intense
zoning designation, the light industrial use bears the burden of incorporating
techniques that mitigate the visual, noise, dust, and odor impacts.
Policy LU-81. Uses involving substantial storage or processing of hazardous materials, as well
as substantial emissions, should not be permitted in these areas.
Page 11 of 36
City of Auburn | Land Use Element P a g e | 18
Policy LU-82. A wide range of commercial activities may be allowed to provide increased
opportunities for sales tax revenue .
Policy LU-83. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad Auburn Yard located within
the Railroad Special Plan Area is considered a compatible use at its current level
of usage. It is not bound by the policies concerning outside storage under the
existing light industrial designation as it was an existing use prior to the
development of this policy. Should BNSF decide to reactivate its applications to
upgrade the yard to an intermodal facility, the proposal will be subject to the
essential public facility siting process as defined in the Capital Facilities Element.
Policy LU-84. Upzone requests to the next zone should be approved based on the innovations
in transportation and stormwater management and public amenities proposed for
the development associated with the request.
Heavy Industrial
Description - This designation allows the full range of industrial uses, as well as certain heavy
commercial uses that serve the needs of workers in light industries are also appropriate.
Designation Criteria
1. Previously developed heavy industrial areas; or
2. Not located along high visibility corridors;
3. Is buffered by the Light Industrial Designation or otherwise buffered from all other compatible
designations; and
4. Meets the development parameters of the Heavy Industrial designation.
Implementing Zoning Designations
Heavy Industrial
Policies
Policy LU-85. While this zone should be reserved primarily for the heavier forms of industrial
activities, a wide range of industrial activities may be permitted. These heavier
forms of industrial activities may include outdoor or semi-enclosed
manufacturing, processing, or assembling activities, significant outdoor storage,
and uses involving substantial storage or processing of hazardous materials.
Heavy commercial uses that serve the needs of workers in heavy industries are
also appropriate.
Policy LU-86. Parking lots must be located and designed in a manner that softens their
appearance from adjacent public roads. This is accomplished through
landscaping, pedestrian spaces, and the location of buildings on the property.
Where practicable, low impact development techniques and landscaping should
be used to promote on site stormwater infiltration and shading of hard surfaces.
Minimum and maximum parking ratios must be established for each type of
Page 12 of 36
City of Auburn | Land Use Element P a g e | 19
permitted use.
Policy LU-87. Landscaping, sidewalks, and bike paths will be integral parts of site design i f a
development is located on an impression corridor or located within or adjacent to
an identified non-motorized corridor.
Policy LU-88. Where a heavy industrial use is located adjacent to a property with a less intense
zoning designation, the heavy industrial use bears the burden of incorporating
techniques that mitigate the visual, noise, dust, and odor impacts.
Page 13 of 36
2,449.0
NAD_1983_StatePlane_Washington_North_FIPS_4601_Feet
Feet2,449.0
Notes
Type any additional notes- delete text to
leave blank
Legend
1,224.50
1:14,694
2015 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
1 in =1,224.5 ft
7/13/2017Printed Date:
Map Created by City of Auburn eGIS
Imagery Date: May 2015
Information shown is for general
reference purposes only and does not
necessarily represent exact geographic
or cartographic data as mapped. The
City of Auburn makes no warranty as to
its accuracy.
Scale
Parcels
Land Use
Downtown Urban Center
Heavy Commercial
Heavy Industrial
Institutional
Light Commercial
Light Industrial
Multi-Family
Neighborhood Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial Overlay
Open Space
Residential Conservancy
Residential Transition
Residential Transition Overlay
Single Family
Attachment D
Page 14 of 36
1,280.7
NAD_1983_StatePlane_Washington_North_FIPS_4601_Feet
Feet1,280.7
Notes
Type any additional notes- delete text to
leave blank
Legend
640.30
1:7,684
Area Rezoned from EP Zone to M-1 Zone
1 in =640.3 ft
7/13/2017Printed Date:
Map Created by City of Auburn eGIS
Imagery Date: May 2015
Information shown is for general
reference purposes only and does not
necessarily represent exact geographic
or cartographic data as mapped. The
City of Auburn makes no warranty as to
its accuracy.
Scale
Parcels
Attachment E
Page 15 of 36
Side by Side Comparison – M-1 and EP Zones
M-1 Zone EP Zone
Zone Intent M-1, Light Industrial Zone. The intent of the M-1 zone
is to accommodate a variety of industrial, commercial,
and limited residential uses in an industrial park
environment, to preserve land primarily for light
industrial and commercial uses, to implement the
economic goals of the comprehensive plan and to
provide a greater flexibility within the zoning
regulations for those uses which are non-nuisance in
terms of air and water pollution, noise, vibration, glare
or odor. The light industrial/commercial character of
this zone is intended to address the way in which
industrial and commercial uses are carried out rather
than the actual types of products made.
The character of this zone will limit the type of primary
activities which may be conducted outside of enclosed
buildings to outdoor displays and sales. Uses which are
not customarily conducted indoors or involve
hazardous materials are considered heavy industrial
uses under this title and are not appropriate for the M -
1 zone. An essential aspect of this zone is the need to
maintain a quality of development that attracts rather
than discourages further investment in light industrial
and commercial development. Consequently, site
activities which could distract from the visual quality of
development of those areas, such as outdoor storage,
should be strictly regulated within this zone.
EP, Environmental Park Zone. The environmental park
district is intended to allow uses in proximity to the Auburn
Environmental Park that benefit from that location and will
complement the park and its environmental focus. Uses
allowed in this zone will focus upon medical, biotech and
“green” technologies including energy conservation,
engineering, water quality and similar uses. Other uses
complementary to and supporting these uses are also
allowed. Incorporation of sustainable design and green
building practices will be a primary aspect of this zone. The
construction of leadership in energy and environmental
design (LEED) and built green certified buildings is
encouraged and built green will be required for multiple-
family dwellings. The city recognizes that much of the
property in this zone was developed under earlier
standards, so the goals of the district will be realized over a
period of time as properties are redeveloped.
Uses:
P=Permitted
X=Prohibited
C=Conditional
A=Admin.
Highlighting=
Difference
INDUSTRIAL, MANUFACTURING AND PROCESSING, WHOLESALING
M-1 EP
Building contractor, light P X
Building contractor, heavy A X
Manufacturing, assembling and packaging – Light intensity P P
Manufacturing, assembling and packaging – Medium intensity P A
Manufacturing, assembling and packaging – Heavy intensity X X
Outdoor storage, incidental to principal permitted use on property P P
Storage – Personal household storage facility (mini-storage) P X
Warehousing and distribution P P
Warehousing and distribution, bonded and located within a designated foreign trade zone P P
Wholesaling with on-site retail as an incidental use (coffee, bakery, e.g.) P P
RECREATION, EDUCATION AND PUBLIC ASSEMBLY USES
Commercial recreation facility, indoor P P
Commercial recreation facility, outdoor P A
Conference/convention facility A X
Library, museum A P
Meeting facility, public or private A P
Movie theater, except drive-in X X
Exhibit F
Page 16 of 36
Private school – Specialized education/training (for profit) P P
Religious institutions, lot size less than one acre A A
Religious institutions, lot size more than one acre A A
Sexually oriented businesses P X
Sports and entertainment assembly facility A X
Studio – Art, dance, martial arts, music, etc. P A
RESIDENTIAL
Caretaker apartment P P
Live/work unit P P
Work/live unit P P
Multiple-family dwellings as part of a mixed-use development2 P P
Multiple-family dwellings, stand-alone X X
Nursing home, assisted living facility X X
Senior housing2 X X
RETAIL
Building and landscape materials sales P X
Construction and heavy equipment sales and rental A X
Convenience store P P
Drive-through espresso stands P A
Drive-through facility, including banks and restaurants P X
Entertainment, commercial A X
Groceries, specialty food stores P P
Nursery P X
Outdoor displays and sales associated with a permitted use (auto/vehicle sales not
included in this category)
P P
Restaurant, cafe, coffee shop P P
Community retail establishment P X
Neighborhood retail establishment P X
Regional retail establishment P X
Tasting room P P
Tavern P X
Wine production facility, small craft distillery, small craft brewery P P
SERVICES
Animal daycare (excluding kennels and animal boarding) P X
Animal sales and services (excluding kennels and veterinary clinics) P X
Banking and related financial institutions, excluding drive-through facilities P P
Catering service P A
Daycare, including mini daycare, daycare center, preschools or nursery schools P P
Page 17 of 36
Dry cleaning and laundry service (personal) P P
Equipment rental and leasing P X
Kennel, animal boarding A X
Government facilities; this excludes offices and related uses that are permitted outright A A
Hospital P X
Lodging – Hotel or motel A P
Medical – Dental clinic P X
Mortuary, funeral home, crematorium P X
Personal service shops P X
Pharmacies X X
Print and copy shop P X
Printing and publishing (of books, newspaper and other printed matter) P P
Professional offices P P
Repair service – Equipment, appliances P X
Veterinary clinic, animal hospital P X
TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Ambulance, taxi, and specialized transportation facility P X
Broadcasting studio P X
Heliport C X
Motor freight terminal 1 X X
Parking facility, public or commercial, surface P P
Parking facility, public or commercial, structured P P
Towing storage yard A X
Utility transmission or distribution line or substation A A
Wireless communication facility (WCF) – –
Automobile washes (automatic, full or self-service) P X
Auto parts sales with installation services P X
Auto/vehicle sales and rental P X
Fueling station P X
Mobile home, boat, or RV sales P X
Vehicle services – Repair/body work P X
OTHER
Any commercial use abutting a residential zone which has hours of operation outside of
the following: Sunday: 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. or Monday – Saturday: 7:00 a.m. to 10:00
p.m.
A A
Other uses may be permitted by the planning director or designee if the use is determined
to be consistent with the intent of the zone and is of the same general character of the
uses permitted. See ACC 18.02.120(C)(6), Unclassified Uses.
P P
Page 18 of 36
Development
Standards
Highlighting=
Difference
Development Standard Requirement by Zone
M-1
Light Industrial
EP
Environmental Park
Minimum lot area None None
Minimum lot width, depth None None
Maximum lot coverage None 35 percent
Minimum setbacks Minimum setbacks required for structures. See also ACC 18.31.070 for
specific exceptions to these standards.
Front 20 ft 20 ft
Side – Interior None (1) 15 ft
Side – Corner 20 ft 20 ft
Rear None (1) 20 ft (1)
Height limit Maximum allowable height of structures. See also ACC 18.31.030
(Height limitations – Exceptions) for specific height limit exceptions.
Maximum height 45 ft (2) 35 ft
Additional development standards None ACC 18.23.060
Fences and hedges See Chapter 18.31 ACC
Landscaping See Chapter 18.50 ACC
Parking See Chapter 18.52 ACC
Signs See Chapter 18.56 ACC
Lighting See Chapter 18.55 ACC
Nonconforming structures, land and uses See Chapter 18.54 ACC
Notes:
(1) A 25-foot setback is required when adjacent to a residential zone.
(2) Buildings may exceed 45 feet if one foot of setback is provided from each property line (or required minimum
setback) for each foot the building exceeds 45 feet.
Page 19 of 36
MEMORANDUM
TO: Judi Roland, Chair, Planning Commission
Ron Copple, Vice-Chair, Planning Commission
Planning Commission Members
FROM: Jeff Tate, Assistant Director of Community Development
DATE: August 29, 2017
RE: Calculating Residential Densities
Update from August 8, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting
This memo and the attachments are identical to the materials that were previously transmitted
to the Planning commission in anticipation of the August 8, 2017 meeting. Since the August 8,
2017 Planning Commission meeting staff had the opportunity to discuss the draft modifications
with the King Snohomish Master Builder’s Association (MBA). MBA membership asked staff to
consider the merits of the significant impact that lot width has on the appearance, feel and
function of a community and their opinion that lot size has much less impact. The MBA
provided several examples of communities that have 40, 50 and 60 foot lot widths. The MBA
also suggested that 50 foot lot widths provide an ideal balance between aesthetics, parking,
density, design, marketability, and constructability. The MBA urged staff to consider the
benefits of lot width over lot size when
It is important to note that the City’s predominant residential zone – R-5, already establishes a
minimum lot width of 50 feet. The MBA has suggested that the City hold strong to this standard
but to consider reducing the 6,000 square foot minimum lot size in the R-5 zone. The MBA
contends that lot size has less impact on the aesthetics, parking, design, functionality and feel of
a community – provided that the allowed density range is established in city code and the
minimum lot width does not fall below 50 feet.
As a result of the feedback provided above, staff began looking at built subdivisions with
different lot widths and lot sizes to try to better understand how a community looks, feels and
functions. A powerpoint slideshow is attached to this memo as Exhibit B. The slides are
intended to serve as a visual aid when considering the impacts of lot width and lot size.
The slides provide examples of communities that were developed with 35 foot lot widths, 40 foot
lot widths, and 50 foot lot widths. The following staff observations are provided:
1.All three communities have average lot sizes of 4,000 square feet or smaller. The
community with 35 foot lot widths has 3,200 square foot lots. The community with 50
foot lot widths has 3,400 square foot lots.
2.Narrower lots forces construction of a home that is dominated with a first floor garage
presence. The wider 50 foot lots enable construction of a façade that offers more
architectural intrigue than a garage. Furthermore, because Auburn’s city code requires
a larger setback from the road to the garage than the rest of the home, it ensures that
Page 20 of 36
the appearance of the community while walking or driving is not dominated by garage
doors.
3. Communities with narrower lots that are dominated by garage doors are in conflict with
efforts to deter crime. This is because there are fewer windows on the front façade and
the windows that are present on the front of the home are on the second floor. The first
floor of homes in these communities are void of windows. It is a proven principal of
Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) that ground floor windows
send a very real message to criminals that there is a high likelihood that they will be
seen.
4. The two communities with 35 and 40 foot lot widths lack any on street parking. While
the builder can easily construct a home on a 35 or 40 foot lot the future occupants will
struggle with a lack of parking. This is a proven experience in Auburn where the City
receives ongoing parking complaints once all of the homes are occupied.
5. Within the two communities with narrower lots it is also far more challenging to identify
locations for mail boxes, fire hydrants, street lighting, landscaping, and other
improvements that are located within the right of way and sidewalk areas.
Staff believes that the comments and opinion provided by MBA have merit and that lot width
had a far greater impact on the quality of community that is created than lot size (provided a
maximum density is adhered to and the total number of lots can not be exceeded when
subdividing land). It is particularly striking to look at the last slide in the powepoint and note that
the community with 35 foot lot widths and the community with 50 foot lot widths have very
similar lot sizes yet present a very different appearance, feel, and function. As a result, staff
believes that it is appropriate to consider reducing the minimum lot size in the R-5 zone from
6,000 square feet to 4,500 square feet.
It is also important to note that a reduction in minimum lot size does not enable the creation of
more lots since the density range within the R-5 zone already limits the maximum density at 5
dwelling units per acre. In other words, irrespective of the minimum lot size, a 5 acre property in
the R-5 zone is limited to a maximum lot yield of 25 lots under either scenario.
Summary Statement
Community Development and Public Works is seeking to pursue amendments to the Auburn
City Code to help simplify the layout standards for new residential subdivisions. The proposed
amendments (attached as Exhibit A) will work to improve the methodology that the City Code
utilizes when calculating the potential number of new lots in the residential subdivision.
Background and Overview of Existing City Code
Auburn City Code establishes several different residential zoning designations. Each
designation is defined, in part, by its allowed density range (establishing both a minimum
density and maximum density within each zone). The residential designations and their
corresponding density is displayed in the following table.
Table 1
Zone RC R-1 R-5 R-7 R-10 R-16 R-20
Minimum
Density
.25
(1 house
per 4
acres)
1
(1 house
per acre)
4
(4 houses
per acre)
5
(5 houses
per acre)
8
(8 houses
per acre)
12
(12
houses
per acre)
15
(15
houses
per acre)
Page 21 of 36
Maximum
Density
.25
(1 house
per 4
acres)
1
(1 house
per acre)
5
(5 houses
per acre)
7
(7 houses
per acre)
10
(10
houses
per acre)
16
(16
houses
per acre)
20
(20
houses
per acre)
The above standards generally only have application when considering a subdivision proposal.
In other words, there usually isn’t a need to apply the above density standards to existing
conditions, developments, or uses.
In addition to the minimum and maximum densities within each zone, there are a number of
other standards that apply when subdividing land. If a subdivision of land is proposed, not only
does the subdivision have to fall within the range of required densities of the underlying zoning
designation, each resulting lot must also meet a minimum lot size, minimum lot width, minimum
setback requirements, and an overall minimum average lot size across the entire subdivision.
Those additional standards are added to the table below.
Table 2
Zone RC R-1 R-5 R-7 R-10 R-16 R-20
Minimum
Density
.25
(1 house
per 4
acres)
1
(1 house
per acre)
4
(4 houses
per acre)
5
(5 houses
per acre)
8
(8 houses
per acre)
12
(12
houses
per acre)
15
(15
houses
per acre)
Maximum
Density
.25
(1 house
per 4
acres)
1
(1 house
per acre)
5
(5 houses
per acre)
7
(7 houses
per acre)
10
(10
houses
per acre)
16
(16
houses
per acre)
20
(20
houses
per acre)
Minimum
Lot Size
174,240
sq. ft.
35,000
sq. ft.
6,000
sq. ft.
4,300
sq. ft.
2,000
sq. ft.
2,000
sq. ft.
2,000
sq. ft.
Minimum
Avg. Lot
Size
174,240
sq. ft.
35,000
sq. ft.
8,000
sq. ft.
6,000
sq. ft.
4,300
sq. ft.
2,700
sq. ft.
2,175
sq. ft.
Minimum
Lot Width
125 ft. 125 ft. 50 ft. 40 ft. 20-35 ft.20-35 ft.20-35 ft.
All of the above standards must be achieved when designing the layout of a subdivision.
Additionally, the above standards apply only after identifying the area of a property that is
eligible to be subdivided. In other words, the above standards are not applied to the gross size
of a parcel; instead, they are applied to what the City Code refers to as “Net Site Area” which
requires that specific features of a property first be subtracted before determining lot potential.
Auburn City Code 18.02.065 defines the methodology for determining Net Site Area; this section
of code is provided below. If you find the language confusing, please continue reading past this
section to read a summary of the intent of this language, an overview of the challenges
experienced when applying this code, and suggestions for simplifying and clarifying the
methodology. During staff’s presentation, visual examples will be provided that help illustrate
density calculations using both the existing city code language as well as the proposed
language. The current methodology is provided as follows:
ACC 18.02.065
The permitted number of dwelling units or lots shall be determined as follows:
A.Net Site Area. The area of a site used to calculate the allowed number of dwelling
units or lots shall exclude those areas designated for public rights-of-way, except for the
Page 22 of 36
designation of additional right-of-way along arterials, private streets, vehicle access easements,
and on-site public or homeowners’ association-maintained recreation space if required.
Further, the net site area shall be subject to the following adjustments and limitations for critical
areas:
1. Net site areas shall exclude streams, wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat areas, and high
landslide hazards; and
2. Net site area shall include any required critical area buffer, seismic hazards, and flood
hazard areas when calculating base density, unless critical areas identified in subsection
(A)(1) of this section are present; provided, that net site area shall not include required
critical area buffers when calculating minimum density. The allowed number of dwelling
units or lots for a site shall be computed by multiplying the net site area of the lot as
calculated in this section by the applicable residential base density number found in
the development standards for each zone.
B. “Base density” refers to the maximum number of dwelling units or lots allowed for a
specific zone without application of the bonus density provisions of Chapter 18.25 or 18.49 ACC,
expressed as units per net acre. Base densities for residential zones are specified in
ACC 18.07.030.
C. “Base units” refers to the number of allowable dwelling units for a site, as determined by
multiplying the base density of the zone in which the site is located by the net site area.
For example, the R-5 zone has a base density of five units per acre; therefore, the maximum
number of base units allowed on a lot with 0.6 acres of net site area in the R-5 zone is three
units.
D. Bonus density, where applicable, shall be computed by adding the bonus units authorized by
Chapter 18.25 or 18.49 ACC to the base units computed under this section.
E. When calculations result in a fraction, the fraction shall be rounded to the nearest whole
number as follows:
1. Fractions of 0.50 or above shall be rounded up; and
2. Fractions below 0.50 shall be rounded down.
Overview of Challenges and Suggestions
Lot Size Standards
In Table 2 there is a row that is titled “Minimum Average Lot Size”. After 9 years of this
standard existing in City Code, and dozens of completed subdivisions, it is unclear what this
standard accomplishes. While staff believes that it is appropriate to require that each individual
lot meet a minimum square footage, there does not appear to be a value in designing
subdivisions to also achieve an overall minimum average lot size. Using the R-5 zone as an
example, the current code requires that each lot must be at least 6,000 square feet in size and
that the overall subdivision should have an average lot size of at least 8,000 square feet. This
means that if there is one 6,000 square foot lot there must also be one 10,000 square foot lot in
order to meet the requirement for an average lot size of 8,000 square feet. Staff does not see
how this requirement adds value to the subdivision.
Additionally, because the overall density is still limited to 5 dwelling units per acre, the limitation
on the number of lots is achieved irrespective of lot size. To help make these numbers a little
more tangible, here are some figures to consider:
• There are 43,560 square feet in one acre.
Page 23 of 36
• In the R-5 zone there is a limit of 5 dwelling units per acre.
• 43,560 square feet divided by 5 dwelling units = 8,712 square feet per lot. This means
that a minimum average lot size is already achieved simply by having a maximum
density.
• Allowing each lot to be as small as 6,000 square feet gives the developer greater
flexibility when working around topography, wetlands, storm ponds, etc. While 5 lots that
are each 6,000 square feet only adds up to 30,000 total square feet (and thus, only a
little over 2/3 of an acre) the developer is also designing around other physical features
on the property that are not developable, is required to provide storm water facilities, and
must construct roads and sidewalks.
• By virtue of the city code allowing a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet the city has
already determined that it is an adequate size for a lot within the R-5 zone. If it is
adequate for 1 lot why should it not be adequate for all lots?
• The minimum lot width and setbacks within each zone also control subdivision design
and preclude undesirable lot configurations. In the R-5 zone each lot must be at least 50
feet in width and meet 5-foot side yard setbacks, 20-foot front yard setbacks, and 20-foot
rear setbacks. These standards continue to ensure that houses meet minimum
separations from each other.
Staff believes that the minimum average lot size requirement should be removed from each
residential zoning designation.
Calculating Density
Most readers of the code language sited in the previous section find it confusing. This leads to
numerous questions about how to determine Net Site Area and the resulting allowed density.
Equally, it has resulted in inconsistent application of its requirements by staff.
The essence of ACC 18.02.065 is that areas of land must be removed from a property before
determining the potential number of lots that can be created through a subdivision. A developer
starts with the gross site (e.g. 5 acres), must remove specific features from the gross site (e.g.
let’s just say that adds up to 1 acre), and the density potential is calculated on the area that is
left over (e.g. in this case, that leaves 4 acres). If the property is zoned R-5 (5 dwelling units per
acre) it means that the developer can achieve 20 lots (4 acres x 5 dwelling units per acre).
Staff believes that there are two general considerations that should be given for revising ACC
18.02.065:
(1) Restructure the language so that it is easier to understand, and
(2) Revisiting the appropriateness of determining lot potential utilizing net site area or gross
site area.
The greatest need for restructuring the language is in ACC 18.02.065.A. The entirety of this
section is made confusing because the features that are intended to be included and/or
excluded are described in narrative format rather than a simple list. The narrative format utilizes
commas and includes exceptions that can be interpreted in multiple ways. Staff proposes to
restructure this language so that it includes a section of features that should be deducted from
the gross site area and features that should not be deducted (and therefore remain as part of
the net site area). The attached draft code language attempts to better organize the
methodology.
Page 24 of 36
Staff is also recommending that the Net Site Area methodology be replaced with a Gross Site
Area methodology. Because each zone includes a requirement that a subdivision comply with
both the minimum density and the maximum density and because there is a minimum lot size
and width, staff believes that calculating density using Gross Site Area will achieve the
following:
• Simplicity – it is far easier for the applicant and city staff to understand the subdivision
potential when using Gross Site Area. The Gross Site Area is a number that is a known
quantity at the outset whereas Net Site Area is not fully understood until well into the
design process.
• Predictability – Feasibility analysis, property transactions, and pre-application meetings
will all be based upon the same understanding of the lot potential. Also, because many
permit, utility connections and impact fees are based on the number of lots created, it
will be easier to understand these types of upfront costs.
• Flexibility – The applicant and city can exercise greater creativity in designing lot and
road layouts when working around wetlands, steep slopes, storm water ponds, and other
constraints that exist on a property.
• Greater Infill Potential – A fundamental goal of the Growth Management Act is to
encourage growth within cities in order to reduce the pressure of sprawl in the
surrounding farm, forest and open space lands. Over the last decade, without a single
exception, utilizing Net Site Area to calculate density has reduced lot potential by an
average of 1 lot for every 1 acre of land that is being subdivided (e.g. applicants have
achieved 4 dwelling units per acre instead of 5 dwelling units per acre).
Allowance to Deviate from Minimum Density
Minimum density is a necessary standard when considering methods for achieving infill
objectives. In fact, cities are obligated under several court decisions related to the Growth
Management Act to achieve an overall citywide density of at least 4 dwelling units per acre.
While this standard is generally easy to comply with for larger subdivisions, it has become a
barrier for smaller land divisions and/or divisions of lands that are heavily encumbered with
critical areas. Staff suggests that two principles be included within the draft language that
create flexibility related to how minimum density standards are applied.
First, proposed code section ACC 18.02.065.B would allow short plats to have full relief from the
minimum density standard. Short plats are subdivisions of 9 lots or less. In the R-5 zone this
would apply where an applicant is attempting to further subdivide a parcel that is under 2 acres
in size. Over the last 10 years, staff has informed dozens of property owners who are interested
in dividing their land that they must meet a minimum density requirement. They expect that they
can’t exceed the upper range of their zoning density but are surprised that they must also meet
a minimum density. The reason that the minimum density becomes problematic is because
smaller parcels tend to have atypical lot configurations, an existing residence that the owner
would like to retain, or have utility or driveway configurations that reduce the owner’s ability to
create more lots.
A typical example is a .60 acre parcel where the owner would like to divide the land in half,
intends to remain living in an existing home already on the property, and would like for the newly
created vacant parcel to be marketable for construction of an additional home. Unfortunately,
when the owner inquires with the City, staff must inform them that they must divided their land
into at least 3 parcels in order to meet the minimum density requirement. A .60 acre parcel
Page 25 of 36
divided in half results in two .30 acre parcels. In the R-5 zone this type of land division fails to
meet the minimum density requirement because .30 acre lots are nearly a third of an acre in
size and must instead be 1/5th of an acre. Time after time, the City has turned away potential
short plat customers because it is not possible to meet the minimum density. Proposed ACC
18.02.065.B is intended to overcome this by granting full relief. While minimum density is a
necessary tenant of the Growth Management Act, so too is incentivizing infill. The current
standards generally preclude infill on smaller lots.
Second, proposed code section ACC 18.02.065.A.5 allows similar relief for traditional
subdivisions (divisions of land into more than 9 lots) when a property is heavily encumbered
with critical areas. Relief of the minimum density standard can be granted through the land
division process where the applicant is able to demonstrate that the critical are footprint is
encumbering the land to such an extent that it is impossible to meet the minimum density. For
example, a 10 acre lot that has 9 acres of wetland only leaves 1 acre that may be developed. If
the zoning is R-5 and the minimum density is 4 dwelling units per acre, it is impossible to place
the requisite 40 dwelling units on the remaining 1 acre and still meet the minimum lot size of
6,000 square feet (6,000 square feet x 40 dwelling units = 240,000 square feet; 240,000 square
feet / 43,560 square feet = 5.51 acres). In this type of scenario, staff believes that relief should
be granted from the minimum density while requiring that each lot meet the minimum lot size.
Conclusions
Staff has prepared a preliminary series of draft code amendments that are intended to
accomplish the following:
(1)Modify ACC 18.07.030.C to eliminate the requirement that the developer achieve an
overall minimum average lot size across the entire subdivision.
(2)Modify ACC 18.02.065.A to reorganize the code so that it is easier to understand how to
calculate density.
(3)Modify ACC 18.02.065.A to change the method of calculating density from Net Site Area
to Gross Site Area.
(4)Modify ACC 18.02.065.A to allow for administrative consideration of deviations to the
minimum density requirement.
(5)Add ACC 18.02.065.B which exempts short plats from the requirements to meet
minimum density.
Questions
(1)Does the Planning Commission concur with the suggestions offered by staff?
(2)Are there questions or ideas that the Planning Commission would like staff to consider
before bringing code amendments forward for public hearing?
(3)Is Planning Commission comfortable with scheduling a public hearing for August 8,
2017?
Attachments
Draft Code Amendments
Page 26 of 36
18.02.065 Methods of calculating density.
The permitted number of dwelling units or lots shall be determined as follows:
A.Net Site Area. The area of a site used to calculate the allowed number of dwelling units or lots shall exclude those areas
designated for public rights-of-way, except for the designation of additional right-of-way along arterials, private streets, vehicle
access easements, and on-site public or homeowners’ association-maintained recreation space if required.
Further, the net site area shall be subject to the following adjustments and limitations for critical areas:
1. Net site areas shall exclude streams, wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat areas, and high landslide hazards; and
2. Net site area shall include any required critical area buffer, seismic hazards, and flood hazard areas when calculating
base density, unless critical areas identified in subsection (A)(1) of this section are present; provided, that net site area
shall not include required critical area buffers when calculating minimum density. The allowed number of dwelling units
or lots for a site shall be computed by multiplying the net site area of the lot as calculated in this section by the
applicable residential base density number found in the development standards for each zone.
A.Gross Site Area. The gross site area shall be used to calculate both the minimum and maximum number of allowed dwelling
units or lots.
1. When calculations result in a fraction, the fraction shall be rounded to the nearest whole number as follows:
i. Fractions of 0.50 or above shall be rounded up; and
ii. Fractions below 0.50 shall be rounded down.
2.Calculating Base Density. Base density is calculated by multiplying the gross site area by the upper limit of units or
lots allowed within the zone. For example, in the R-5 zone, where density range allows up to 5 dwelling units per acre:
4.3 acre gross site area x 5 units per acres = 21.5 (rounded up to 22)
3.Calculating Minimum Density. Minimum density is calculated by multiplying the gross site area by the lower limit of
units or lots allowed within the zone. For example, in the R-5 zone, where the density range allows as few as 4 dwelling
units per acre:
4.3 acre gross site x 4 units per acre = 17.2 (rounded down to 17)
4. Each lot shall meet the requirements established in Chapter 18.07 ACC for lot area, dimensions, setbacks and other
development standards.
Exhibit A
Page 27 of 36
5.Where a proposed area for subdivision cannot meet minimum density due to encumbrance by critical areas and/or
their buffers, Where critical areas and/or their buffers encumber an area proposed for subdivision, the applicant may
seek anto administrative deviatione tofrom the minimum density which will be reviewed as an administrative decision as
part of the subdivision application. If the applicant seeks a variance from the development standards in Chapter 18.07
ACC the variance shall be processed utilizing the provisions of ACC 18.70.010. Alterations of a critical area or its buffer
shall be processed in accordance with Chapter 16.10 ACC.
B. The minimum density requirements shall not apply to short plats that are processed under Chapter 17.09 ACC.
B.“Base density” refers to the maximum number of dwelling units or lots allowed for a specific zone without application of the
bonus density provisions of Chapter 18.25 or 18.49 ACC, expressed as units per net acre. Base densities for residential zones
are specified in ACC 18.07.030.
C.“Base units” refers to the number of allowable dwelling units for a site, as determined by multiplying the base density of the
zone in which the site is located by the net site area.
For example, the R-5 zone has a base density of five units per acre; therefore, the maximum number of base units allowed on a
lot with 0.6 acres of net site area in the R-5 zone is three units.
DC.Bonus density, where applicable, shall be computed by adding the bonus units authorized by Chapter 18.25 or 18.49 ACC
to the base units computed under this section.
E.When calculations result in a fraction, the fraction shall be rounded to the nearest whole number as follows:
1.Fractions of 0.50 or above shall be rounded up; and
2.Fractions below 0.50 shall be rounded down.
18.04.300 Density.
“Density” is a measure of population, housing units, or building area related to land area, and is expressed as a ratio, e.g., one
dwelling unit per acre. See ACC 18.02.065 for features that are deducted from site area in the city of Auburn’s calculation of
density for the methodology for calculating density.
18.04.301 Density, base.
“Base density” refers to the greatest number of dwelling units allowed without application of the bonus density provisions of
Chapter 18.25 or 18.49 ACC per land area in a specific zone expressed as a ratio. For example, in a zone with a maximum
density of four units per acre, the maximum number of housing units allowed on a one-quarter-acre lot is one unit.
Page 28 of 36
18.04.303 Density, minimum.
“Minimum density” refers to the least number of dwelling units allowed per land area in a specific zone, expressed as a ratio. For
example, in a zone with a minimum density of 12 units per acre, development of a two-acre lot would require a minimum of 24
units.
18.07.030 Development standards.
Table 18.07.030 Residential Development Standards
Standard RC R-1 R-5 R-7 R-10 R-16 R-20
A Base density (units per
net acre) 0.25 1 5 7 10 16 20
B Minimum density (units
per net acre)1 0.25 1 4 5 8 12 15
C Minimum average lot area
per dwelling unit (square
feet)
174,240 35,000 8,000 6,000 4,300 2,700 2,175
DC Minimum lot area per
dwelling unit (square feet) 174,240 35,000 6,000 4,300 2,000 2,000 2,000
ED
Minimum lot width (feet)2 125 125 50 40
20 for
interior
lots; 35 for
exterior
lots
20 for
interior
lots; 35 for
exterior
lots
20 for interior
lots; 35 for
exterior lots
FE Minimum setbacks (feet)2,3
1 Residence front setback3 35 35 10 10 10 10 10
2
Garage (minimum front
setback required from
street access)3
20 20 20 20 20 20
20 unless alley-
loaded then 15
provided there
are 20 feet from
any garage
Page 29 of 36
Table 18.07.030 Residential Development Standards
Standard RC R-1 R-5 R-7 R-10 R-16 R-20
3 Setback to any property
line for barns, stables, or
similar structures for
enclosure of large
domestic animals
For other animals, see the
supplemental
development standards
for animals in ACC
18.31.220
75 X X X X X X
4 Setback to any property
line for any corral,
exercise yard, or arena for
large domestic animals
For other animals, see the
supplemental
development standards
for animals in ACC
18.31.220
35 X X X X X X
5 Interior side setback 20 10 5 5 5 5 5
6 Street side setback3 35 20 10 10 10 10 10
7 Rear setback3 35 35 20 20 20 20 20
8 Rear setback, detached
structure
In all zones, 20 ft for
structure with vehicular
entrance oriented toward
street or public alley3
15 15 10 5 5 5 5
Page 30 of 36
Table 18.07.030 Residential Development Standards
Standard RC R-1 R-5 R-7 R-10 R-16 R-20
GF Maximum lot coverage
(%) 25 35 40 50 60 70 70
HG Maximum impervious area
(%) 25 50 65 75 N/A N/A N/A
IH Maximum building height
(feet) 35 35 35 35 45 45 50
JI Maximum height of
accessory buildings and
structures
354 35 16 16 16 NA NA
KJ Minimum front setback
area landscape strip (feet) N/A N/A 5 5 10 10 10
LK Minimum side setback
area landscape strip (feet) N/A N/A 5 5 10 10 10
ML Minimum landscaped
open space (%) N/A N/A N/A N/A 20 20 20
1.For purposes of calculating minimum density, critical area buffers are not included in net site area. See ACC 18.02.065 for
calculation of net acreage for minimum densitycalculating density.
2.All minimum lot widths, setbacks, and landscaping strips are subject to demonstration to the satisfaction of the city engineer
that all required utility infrastructure, access requirements, and street elements can be accommodated in accordance with
the design and construction standards.
3.In addition to meeting setback requirements, all structures must meet sight distance requirements in accordance with city
design and construction standards.
4.Barns and other specialized structures used for agricultural purposes may exceed the height limits.
Page 31 of 36
35 Foot Lot Width –3,200 square foot lots Exhibit B
Page 32 of 36
40 Foot Lot Width –4,000 square foot lots
Page 33 of 36
50 Foot Lot Width –3,400 square foot lots
Page 34 of 36
35 Feet
Limited on street parking
Garage door is the front
Minimal yard
40 Feet
Limited on street parking
Garage door is the front
Yard spacing
50 Feet
Some on street parking
House façade prominent
Adequate yard
Page 35 of 36
35 Feet
Limited on street parking
Garage door is the front
Minimal yard
Not CPTED Friendly (invites crime)
40 Feet
Limited on street parking
Garage door is the front
Yard spacing
Not CPTED Friendly (invites crime)
50 Feet
Some on street parking
House façade prominent
Adequate yard
Fairly CPTED Friendly (lots of windows)
Page 36 of 36