HomeMy WebLinkAboutITEM VIII-A-1C1TY OF
~
10
WASHINGTON
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject Ordinance No. 6241 "Piano, LLC" Rezone Application .
Date: May 12, 2009
No. REZ07-0034
Department: Planning,
Attachments: Ordinance No. 6241,
Budget Impact: NA
Buildin , & Communit
Exhibit List
Administrative Recommendation:
Cit Council introduce and ado t Ordinance No. 6241
Background Summary:
On December 17, 2007, a request was submitted to the City of Auburn by Piano I.LC, for approval to
rezone a 4.75 acre parcel from R1, Single Family Residential District to R3, Duplex Residential District.
The property is located northeast of the intersection of Oravetz Road and Lakeland Hills Way SE and is
identified as King County Assessor's Parcel No. 3121059064.
At this time, the applicant does not have a specific development proposed for this parcel.
On April 6, 2009 the Hearing Examiner issued a recommendation to City Council for approval of the
proposed rezone with the following condition:
1. Based on the comments received during the public comment period and other information
submitted with this rezone request, a Final SEPA Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance
(MDNS) was issued by the responsible SEPA Official on January 14, 2009. The MDNS included
three conditions of approval to mitigate potential impacts of the proposed rezone request.
Compliance with these conditions is required for this rezone to be approved.
In accordance with ACC 18.66.170, the City Council upon its review of the record, may
1. Affirm the Hearing Examiner recommendation;
2. Remand the recommendation to the Hearing Examiner; or
3. Schedule a closed record public hearing before the City Council.
Staff is recommending the Council affirm the Examiner's recommendation and adopt Ordinance No.
6241.
W0518-5
03.5 REZ07-0034
Reviewed by Council & Committees:
Reviewed by Departments & Divisions:
❑ Arts Commission
0 Building ❑ M&O
❑ Airport ❑ Finance
❑ Cemetery " ❑ Mayor
N Hearing Examiner ❑ Municipal Serv.
❑ Finance ❑ Parks
❑ Human Services ❑ Planning & CD
~ Fire ~ Planning
❑ Park Board ❑Public Works
❑ Legal ❑ Police
❑ Planning Comm. ❑ Other
Z Public Works ❑ Human Resources
Action:
Committee Approval: Yes No
ll for Public Hearin
BY
N
C
l
il A
C
g
es
o
a
pprova
:
ounc
Referred to Until
Tabled Untif =T 7-
Councilmember: Norman
Staff: Baker
Meeting Date: Ma~r 18, 2009
Item Number: VIII.A.1
AU$j,J~RN *CvtOKE THAN YOU IMAGINED
Agenda Subject: Ordinance No. 6241 "Piano, LLC" Rezone Application Date: May 12, 2009
No. (REZ07-0034)
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1 Staff Report
Exhibit 2 Master Land Use Application
Exhibit 3 Notice of Application & Proposed Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS)
Exhibit 4 Notice of Public Hearing*
Exhibit 5 Affidavits & Confirmation of Publication for Legal Notice*
Exhibit 6 Rezone Map
Exhibit 7 Comprehensive Plan Map
Exhibit 8 Final Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS)
Exhibit 9 SEPA Checklist*
Exhibit 10 Geotechnical Report by Associated Earth Sciences (April 8, 2008)"
Exhibit 11 Independent Review Letter of Geotechnical Report by ZZA Terracon received May 30,
2008*
Exhibit 12 Updated Independent Review Letter of Geotechnical Report by ZZA Terracon received
June 16, 2008"'
Exhibit 13 Comment Letter Received Feb. 29, 2008 from Investco Corporation
Exhibit 14 Comment Letter Received Mar. 3, 2008 from Mel Johnson
Exhibit 15 Comment Letter Received Mar. 5, 2008 from Molly Lawrence, Gordon Derr,
Exhibit 16 Letter Requesting Additional Information dated Mar. 11, 2008 from City of Auburn
Exhibit 17 Comment Letter on Proposed MDNS Received Aug. 1, 2008 from the Applicant, Jason
Naden, Piano LLC
Exhibit 18 Chapter 14 Comprehensive Plan Map - Auburn Comprehensive Plan (as submitted at
hearing by applicant)
Exhibit 19 Correspondence from Applicant & City via e-mail (as submitted at hearing by applicant)
Exhibit 20 Reconsideration Request/Decision dated April 24, 2009
* Exhibit is not included in the packet but is available for review upon request.
Page 2 of 2
ORDINANCE NO. 6241
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
AUBURN, WASHINGTON, APPROVING A REZONE AS
REQUESTED BY PIANO LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY
CORPORATION, OF A 4.75-ACRE PARCEL FROM R-1
(SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO R-3 (DUPLEX
RESIDENTIAL) -
WHEREAS, Application No. REZ07-0034, submitted December 17, 2007, was
submitted to the City of Auburn, Washington, by Piano LLC, for approval to rezone a
4.75 acre parcel from R1, Single Family Residential District to R3, Duplex Residential
District; and
WHEREAS, the property is located NE of the Intersection of Oravetz Road and
Lakeland Hills Way SE within the southwest quarter of Section 31, Township 21 North,
Range 5 East, W.M. King County, Washington, and is identified as King County
Assessor's Parcel No. 3121059064; and
WHEREAS, on March 25, 2009, the Hearing Examiner conducted a duly noticed
public hearing on the matter and on April 6, 2009, issued a decision recommending the
City Council approve the rezone; and
WHEREAS, on April 13, 2009, the City of Auburn received a timely Request for
Reconsideration from the applicant, asserting that the Examiner did not identify a
document entered at the hearing by the applicant into the exhibit list of the Examiner's
recommendation; and
WHEREAS, on April 24, 2009, the Hearing Examiner issued an Order on
Reconsideration, confirming the applicant's request to include a document that was
Ordinance No. 6241
May 12, 2009
Page 1 of 7
submitted at the public hearing and inadvertently left out of the exhibit list in the decision
of April 6, 2009; and
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN as follows:
Section 1. Approval. The request to rezone approximately 4.75 acres from
R-1 (Single-Family Residential) to R-3 (Duplex Residential) is hereby APPROVED,
subject to the conditions herein.
Section 2. Adoption of Hearing Examiner's Decision. The City Council
adopts the Hearing Examiner's Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recommendation
dated April 6, 2009, attached hereto and incorporated by reference, for the property
located NE of the Intersection of Oravetz Road and Lakeland Hills Way SE within the
southwest quarter of Section 31, Township 21 North, Range 5 East, W.M. King County,
Washington, and is identified as King County Assessor's Parcel No. 3121059064 as
identified in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated by reference, to wit:
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
1. Applicant. The applicant is Piano, LLC.
2. Hearinq. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the application at 3:00 p.m.
at Auburn City Hall in the Council Chambers on March 25, 2009.
Substantive:
3. Site/Proposal Description. The applicant has applied for the rezoning of a 4.75-acre
parcel from R-1 (Single-Family Residential) to R-3 (Duplex Residential). The rezone will
enable more than twice the currently allowed density. Nothing but single-family
residences are allowed in the R-1 zoning district. Single-family residences and duplexes
are allowed outright within the R-3 zoning district. Multiple duplexes on a single lot and
multi-family residential structures are allowed upon approval of a conditional use permit
in the R-3 zoning district. There is no development proposal associated with this rezone
request at this time.
Ordinance No. 6241
May 12, 2009
Page 2 of 7
The site is currently vacant with forested areas throughout. It is bordered by Oravetz
Road on the west and Lakeland Hills Way on the east. Both roads are classified as
minor arterials. The site comprises of a roughly rectangular-shaped parcel, which slopes
moderately to steeply upward to the south and east from Oravetz Road Southeast. The
central section of the site contains a benched area. From the benched area, the site
slopes steeply upwards to Lakeland Hills Way Southeast within northern and central
sections and gently upward within the southern sections of the site. The steep slopes
along Oravetz Road Southeast are generally inclined at approximately 70-percent
grades, while the steep slopes within the central section of the site below Lakeland Hills
Way Southeast are inclined at approximately 40- to 60-percent grades. Some localized
areas of the slopes above the benched area are inclined at grades of approximately 80
to 90 percent. The slopes along Oravetz Road Southeast and within the centrat portion
of the site appear to have been modified by past grading activity.
4. Characteristics of the Area. The general vicinity of the subject site is characterized
as land transitioning from less urban to a more urban development pattern. The
Lakeland Hills Planned Unit Development is a few hundred feet to the east. Properties
adjacent to the subject site, particularly along the north and east edges, are
characterized as developed to higher urban densities that are consistent with the City of
Auburn's zoning and comprehensive plan designations. A high school and an
elementary school are located north and west of the site on the west side of Oravetz
Road.
5. Adverse Impacts. The primary issue of concern for the subject property is its steep
slopes. As noted by staff, steep-slope issues have undergone extensive review by both
the applicant's geotechnical consultant (Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.) and a peer-
review consultant (ZZA-Terracon). The last written documentation from the peer-review
consultant (Exhibit 12) concludes that the proposed rezone may be at odds with the
AMC--Specified Prohibition of Class IV Land Slide Hazard Area alteration since
development of the site for multi-family housing would [sic] the likely require alteration of
the Class IV Landslide Hazard Areas.
However, staff and the applicant's attorney testified that the peer-review consultant has
subsequently concluded that the property is not Class IV hazard area, but rather a Class
II hazard area and that as such, the proposed rezone is consistent with the geological
constraints of the property. This testimony is consistent with the MDNS (Exhibit A) for
the project, where it is stated at Page 3 that the peer-review engineer has agreed that
the project should be classified as a Class II/Moderate Hazard Landslide Hazard Area.
This evolution in the assessment of geological hazard apparently arises from the fact
that the original Class IV designation was based solely upon topographical conditions
(the steep slopes at the site). Whereas a more in-depth investigation revealed that the
soils and groundwater characteristics of the site merited a less hazardous designation.
Given these factors, the Examiner finds that the proposed rezone is consistent with the
geological constraints of the site.
A letter in opposition was also received (Exhibit 14) by Mel Johnson. Mr. Johnson
expressed concerns over traffic, visual impact, stormwater and "zoning continuity." Mr.
Johnson notes that the Lakeland Hills Way and A Street intersections are already highly
Ordinance No. 6241
May 12, 2009
Page 3 of 7
congested, and there are already many more areas in Lakeland Hills that are still to be
developed. Staff comment on existing traffic conditions and capacity of the road network
would have been helpful in evaluating this concern. However, the roads serving this
project are arterials and, consequently, no development on the subject site will be
allowed under the Growth Management Act that Iowers the level of service of these
arterials below City-adopted standards. Further, as noted in the staff report, all traffic
impacts will be mitigated at the time of development. Given these safeguards, the
Examiner finds that transportation will be adequately addressed.
As to stormwater, the City has extensive regulations that address stormwater impacts.
These regulations prohibit any net increase in discharge of stormwater offsite. The
City's existing regulations adequately address stormwater.
As to visual impact, there is little that can legally be done to address visual impacts in
permit review, given the lack of specific standards to address the situation. However,
Condition No. 1 of the MDNS (Exhibit 8) does require the applicant to "minimize" visual
impacts as viewed from surrounding parcels in Oravetz Road and Lakeland Hills Way
Southeast.
As to "zoning continuity," Mr. Johnson argues that there is already sufficient high-density
development in the surrounding area. The proximity of other high-density development
is actually an argument in favor of the proposed rezone, since this ensures the further
compatibility of adjoining use. Also, the Growth Management Act encourages high-
density development within urban growth areas such as the City of Auburn.
There are no other adverse impacts discernible from the record. The Examiner finds
that the proposed rezone will not create any material or significant adverse impacts.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Procedural:
1. Authoritv 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 property is Moderate Density Residential. Page 14-6 of the City of
Auburn Comprehensive Plan provides that the R-3 zone implements this zoning
designation.
Substantive:
2. Zoninq Desianation. The property is zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential.
3. Review Criteria and Application. Chapter 18.68 ACC does not provide any specific
review criteria for site specific rezones. However, Washington appellate courts have
imposed some criteria themselves, requiring that the proponents of a rezone must
establish that conditions have substantially changed since the original showing and that
the rezone must bear a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals or
welfare. See Ahmann-Yamane, LLC v. Tabler, 105 Wn. App. 103, 111 (2001).
-------------w-----------
Ordinance No. 6241
May 12, 2009
Page 4 of 7
However, no change in circumstances is necessary for rezones that implement a
comprehensive plan. Id. at 112.
In this case a change in circumstances is not necessary since the rezone does
implement the comprehensive plan. As previously discussed, the current zoning
designation for the property is inconsistent with the underlying comprehensive plan
designation. The proposed rezone is consistent with the underlying comprehensive plan
designation. Even if the changed circumstances criterion did apply, this project would
satisfy it by the intense development that has occurred in the surrounding area.
As noted in detail in the staff report, the proposed rezone also is consistent with and
implements other Comprehensive Plan policies. The site is served by minor arterials, is
in an area characterized by high-density development, and is located within an urban
growth area. All of these factors support the rezone to a higher density. Further, the
City must allow a rezone to either the proposed R-3 district or the R-MHP (Residential
Manufactured Home Park District) in order to provide for consistency between the
Comprehensive Plan land use map and the zoning map as required by the Growth
Management Act ("GMA"), Chapter 36.70A RCW.
The project bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety and welfare. It
promotes high density infill development within urban growth areas as encouraged by
the GMA. It serves as a transition area to institutional and high-density uses. The
density is also compatible with those of the adjoining single family and other uses.
4. Decision. The Hearing Examiner recommends approval of REZ07-0034, subject to
the following condition:
Based on the comments received during the public comment period and other
information submitted with this rezone request, a Final SEPA Mitigated Determination of
Non-Significance (MDNS) was issued by the responsible SEPA Official on January 14,
2009. The MDNS included three conditions of approval to mitigate potential impacts of
the proposed rezone request. Compliance with these conditions is required for this
rezone to be approved.
Section 3. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are declared to be
separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision,
section or portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the application thereof to any
person or circumstance shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance, or
the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances.
Ordinance No. 6241
May 12, 2009
Page 5 of 7
Section 4. Recording. 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 Auditor.
Section 5. Implementation. The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement
such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directions of this
legislation.
Section 6. Effective Date. 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:
PETER B. LEWIS
MAYOR
Al-f EST:
Danielle E. Daskam,
City Clerk
APPROVED/AS TO F
VoWel B. eid
City Attorney
PUBLISHED:
Ordinance No. 6241
May 12, 2009
Page 6 of 7
EXHIBIT A
King County Tax Parcel No. 3121059064
Legal Description
POR OF GL 3 IN SEC 31-21-5 LY BETWEEN LAKELAND HILLS WY N& ORAVETZ
RD AS PER REC # 9302161342 & 9805281842
Ordinance No. 6241
May 12, 2009
Page 7 of 7
* f
CITY OF~ ~ . AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
WAS H 1 NGTON
AQenda Subject Public Hearing Application No. REZ07-0004, Piano
Date:
LLC, Rezone
.
3/20/2009
Deaartment: Planning,
Attachments: Please refer to Exhibit
Budget impact: NA
Building and Community
List, below
Administrative Recommendation:
Hearing Examiner to recom
mend the City Councii grant approval of the requested change in zoning
based u on the Findin s of
Fact, Conclusions as outlined.
Backqround Summarv:
OWNER/APPLICANT:
Douglas Jackson
Piano LLC
1414 31 st Ave S.
Seattle, WA 98144
Molly Lawrence
Gordon Derr, LLP
20251ot Ave, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98121
REQUEST:
Proposed rezone of approximately 4.76 acres from R1, Single Family
Residential District to R3, Two Family Residential District. There is no development proposal associated
with this rezone request at this time.
LOCATION:
The property is located at NE corner of the Intersection of Oravetz Road
and Lakeland Hills Way SE
. The site is located within the southwest quarter of Section 31, Township 21
North, Range 5 East, W.M.
King County, Washington. Assessor's Parcel Number: #3121059064.
EXISTING ZONING:
R1, Single Family Residential. -
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION:
Moderate Density Residential.
SEPA STATUS:
A Final Determination of Non-Significance (SEP07-0034) was issued on
January 14, 2009 for the proposed Rezone.
eviewed by ouncil
ommittees:
ewewed by Departments ivisions:
Arts Commission Council Committees:
Building M&O
Airport
Finance
Cemetery Mayor
Hearing Examiner
Municipal Serv.
Finance Parks
Human Services
Planning & CD
Fire Planning
L
l P
li
Park Board
Public Works
ega
o
ce
Planning Comm.
Other
Public Works Human Resources
Action:
Committee Approval:
Council Approval:
Yes No
BYes No Call for Public Hearing
Referred to
Until
Tabled
Unti- T T-
Councilmember:
Staff: Hankins
Meetin Date: March 25, 2009
Item Number:
1411ubw pW
AU$URN* M4R.E THAN YOU 1MAGINED
Aaenda Subject Public Hearing Piano LLC, Rezone
(Application No. REZ07-0004)
EXHIBIT LIST
Date: 3/25/2009
Exhibit 1 Staff Report
Exhibit 2 Completed Application
Exhibit 3 Notice of Application & Proposed Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS)
Exhibit 4 Notice of Public Hearing
Exhibit 5 Affidavits & Confirmation of Publication for Legal Notice
Exhibit 6 Rezone Map
Exhibit 7 Comprehensive Plan Map
Exhibit 8 Final Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS)
Exhibit 9 SEPA Checklist
Exhibit 10 Geotechnical Repart by Associated Earth Sciences (April 8, 2008)
Exhibit 11 Independent Review Letter of Geotechnical Report by ZZA Terracon received May 30,
2008
Exhibit 12 Updated Independent Review Letter of Geotechnical Report by ZZA Terracon received
June 16, 2008
Exhibit 13 Comment Letter Received Feb. 29, 2008 from Investco Corporation
Exhibit 14 Comment Letter Received Mar. 3, 2008 from Mel Johnson
Exhibit 15 Comment Letter Received Mar. 5, 2008 from Molly Lawrence, Gordon Derr,
Exhibit 16 Letter Requesting Additional Information dated Mar. 11, 2008 from City of Auburn
Exhibit 17 Comment Letter on Proposed MDNS Received Aug. 1, 2008 from the Applicant, Jason
Naden, Piano LLC
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Proposed rezone of approximately 4.76 acres from R1, Single Family Residential District to R3, Two-
Family Residential District. In their application, the applicant states that the rezone to R3, Two-Family
Residential District will allow greater flexibility in density requirements than R1, and thus allows more
variety and creativity in site design and housing types, while protecting the natural features of the
site. There is no development proposal associated with this rezone request at this time.
2. The Comprehensive Plan designation, zoning designation and land uses of the subject site and
surrounding properties are:
Page 2 of 10
Acaenda Subiect Public Hearing Piano LLC, Rezone
(Application No. REZ07-0004)
Date: 3/25/2009
3. As noted above, the site is zoned R1, Single Family Residential. The generai vicinity of the subject
site is characterized as land transitioning fram less urban to a more urban development pattern. The
properties adjacent to the subject site, particularly along the north, and east edge is characterized as
developed to higher urban densities which are consistent with the City of Auburn zoning and
Comprehensive Plan designations. A high school and elementary school are located north and west
of the site on the west side of Oravetz Road SE.
4. The property lies within an Urban Growth Area designated under the State Growth Management Act.
Development is encouraged in the Urban Growth Area where adequate public facilities and services
exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. The City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Map designates the site as Moderate Density Residential 6-10 units per acre. The area east of the
site is designated as High Density Residential, 10-20 units per acre. To the south of the perimeter of
the subject site, areas are designated Moderate Density Residential, 6-10 units per acre. To the west
and north of the perimeter of the subject site, areas are designated as Public & Quasi Public.
5. The allowed gross density of the site under the existing R1 Single Family Residential zoning is
approximately 26 dwelling units (8,000 square foot minimum lots size or 5.4 dwelling units per acre).
With the proposed rezone to R3 Two-Family (Duplex) Residential District the allowed gross density is
increased to approximately 41 dwelling units (5,000 square foot minimum lot size or 8.6 dwelling units
per acre) for single family development. Pursuant to Section 18.16.030 ACC, duplex and multifamily
development are allowed via a conditional use permit in the R3 zoning district, whereas single family
development is allowed outright.
6. A Geotechnical Investigation report was completed by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc, April 8, 2008,
for the subject site and submitted with the environmental checklist by the applicant. The report also
considered a previous preliminary geotechnical study by AESI, September 1998, for the same site.
The City authorized an independent review of the applicant's report by ZZA Terracon which the City
received on May 30, 2008. Both the applicanYs and the independent reports were found to be
consistent with each other and are attached as exhibits.
7. The report characterizes the site as currently vacant with forested areas scattered throughout the site.
The property comprises a roughly triangular,shaped parcel, which slopes moderately to steeply
upward to the south and east from Oravetz Road SE. The central section of the site contains a
benched area. From the bench area, the site slopes steeply upward to Lakeland Hills Way SE within
the northern and central sections and gently upward within the southern sections of the site. The
steep slopes along Oravetz Road SE are generally inclined at approximately 70 percent grades, while
the steep slopes within the central section of the site below Lakeland Hills Way SE are inclined at
approximately 40 to 60 percent grades. Some localized areas of the slopes above the benched area
are inclined at grades of approximately 80 to 90 percent. The slopes along Oravetz Road SE and
within the central portion of the site appear to have been somewhat modified by past grading activity.
8. Based on the geotechnical reports, a portion of the site is classified as a geological hazardous area
as defined in ACC Section 16.10.080.G.2.b (Landslide Hazard Areas). Based on the technical
reports, this geological hazardous feature is defined as a Class II/Moderate Hazard landslide hazard
area.
9. Based on the geotechnical reports, a portion of the site is also classified as a different potential
geologically hazardous area pursuant to the City's Critical Area regulations contained within ACC
Section 16.10.080.G.1 (Critical Erosion Hazard Areas).
Page 3 of 10
Aqenda Subiect Public Hearing Piano LLC, Rezone Date: 3/25/2009
(Application No. REZ07-0004)
.
he site has street frontage on both Lakeland Hills Way SE and Oravetz Road SE. Upon future
development direct access will most likely be on the north side of the property from Oravetz Road SE.
Road and street frontage improvements to the City of Auburn standards will be required at the time of
future development. These improvements include but are not limited to curb, gutter, sidewalks,
planting strips, street lighting, paving, necessary right-of-way dedications, and public stormwater
conveyance. While there will not be impacts on the transportation system at the time of rezoning, if
approved density will be increased and a corresponding increase in vehicle trips on the street network
is likely. The impacts of such trips will be mitigated by collection of traffic impact fees per ACC, and
site specific frontage improvements determined appropriate at the time the property is developed
11. The streets bordering the site; Lakeland Hills Way SE and Oravetz Road SE are classified as Minor
Arterials in accordance with the City of Auburn Comprehensive Transportation Plan. Minor Arterials
interconnect and augment the principal arterial system by providing access to and from the principal
arterials and freeways. They senre moderate length trips at a somewhat lower mobility than principal
arterials, distribute traffic to smaller geographic areas than principal arterials, and should not enter
neighborhoods. They are typically constructed to accommodate four lanes of traffic with speed limits
of 30 to 35 mph.
12. King County Metro provides transit service in the vicinity of the project site including Lakeland Hills
Way SE. Upon future development demand for bus service will increase. METRO will be contacted
at the time of development of the site for any requested improvements to bus stops in the area.
13. The site is served by the City of Auburn for sanitary sewer. A public sanitary sewer system will be
provided with any subsequent development resulting from this proposed rezone. The applicant will
be required to submit plans for review and approval prepared in accordance with City of Auburn's
standards.
14. A stormwater system will be provided with any subsequent development resulting from this proposed
rezone. The applicant will be required to complete a drainage analysis and submit drainage plans
prepared in accordance with City of Auburn's standards.
15. The site was annexed to the City of Auburn in 2003 by Ordinance #5774. The existing zoning
designation of R1, Single Family Residential was established upon annexation. Subsequently, the
City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation of Moderate Density Single Family
Residential 6-10 units per acre was also established at that time.
16. Notice of the public hearing on the rezone was published in the Seattle Times on March 13, 2009.
The site was posted at one location and adjacent property owners within 300 feet of the property
were notified of this public hearing by mail in compliance with City ordinances.
Iffi-~On January 20, 2009, the SEPA Responsible Official issued a Final Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance (MDNS) for the Piano LLC Rezone (File No. SEP07-0034). The Responsible Official
considered whether other regulations would mitigate the identified adverse impacts, and concluded
that mitigation measures are necessary to reduce or avoid reasonably anticipated future impacts not
sufficiently mitigated by existing regulations.
Two comment letters were initially received on the proposed MDNS. The first from Investco, Inc
indicates support of the proposed rezone request and MDNS. The second from Mel Johnson, an
Auburn resident was submitted in opposition to the proposed rezone. Generally, Mr. Johnson's
comments concerned traffic impacts on Lakeland Hills Way/A St. SE, visual impacts of future
Page 4 of 10
Aqenda Subject Public Hearing Piano LLC, Rezone
(Appiication No. REZ07-0004)
Date: 3/25/2009
development to surrounding properties by removing the existing trees and vegetation, stormwater
impacts to the White River, and zoning continuity by permitting additional density on the site. Further,
the applicant submitted two separate comment letters,on the proposed MDNS. The first dated Mar.
3, 2008 requested the City review/revise Condition #1 of the MDNS. The second letter dated Aug. 1,
2008 is regarding the geotechnical analysis related to the proposed rezone. Copies of these letters
are included as part of the record for this Rezone and are attached as exhibits.
Upon conclusion of the comment period, Staff re-evaluated the proposed MDNS based on the
comments received. At that time it was determined that additional information was necessary before
the final SEPA determination could be issued. Specifically, it was determined that information in
reference to topographical features and potential geologic hazards located on the property would
need to be considered to finalize SEPA and to make a recommendation on the request for the
rezone. It was also established at that time that upon review of the new information, the City would
determine if additional conditions associated with the SEPA decision would be necessary to ensure
that anticipated environmental impacts could be mitigated. This request for additional information is
included with this report as Exhibit #16.
As requested, the applicant provided a Geotechnical Report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences
dated April 8, 2008. This report analyzed the existing site conditions and the City's Critical Areas
Ordinance. Subsequently, the City sent the report out for an independent review by another
Geotechnical Engineering firm. The results of this independent review were determined to be
consistent with the applicant's consultant. Upon conclusion of the geotechnical information being
provided, the applicant and staff continued to work collectively on finalizing the SEPA determination
for the proposed rezone.
EXISTING POLICIES, REGULATIONS, & CONCLUSIONS
ACC Chapter 18.68 provides certain criteria for approval of a rezone:
1. The rezone must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan, through its goals and policies presents the City's vision for
the future growth and development of the community. The Land Use Element's goals and policies
guide decisions about the character of development within Auburn and is implemented by the Auburn
City Code. These codes are in place to protect important natural systems and critical areas, and to
establish parameters for new development in order to protect the public health, safety and general
welfare. This rezone application was reviewed for compliance with the zoning code, the critical areas
ordinance, and Chapter 16.06 ACC. In addition, impacts from the proposed rezone were considered
under an environmental review (SEP07-0034). A Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance
(MDIVS) was issued on January 20, 2009 which included mitigation conditions for the visual impact of
the site as viewed from surrounding parcels, vegetation management, and mitigation for future
development. Staff has found that as conditioned through the MDNS; the rezone application is
consistent with applicable City Codes and with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
The Land Use Element contains a land use plan map that illustrates the location of future land uses
and residential densities within the City. The designation for this site at this time is Moderate Density
Residential which allows a density of 6-10 units per acre. The density for the proposed rezone is an
acceptable level to support urban services, and supports projected population growth and the
changing demographics of the City (LU-17, LU-18). The proposed R3, Two-Family Residential
District is specified by the comprehensive plan as a district appropriate to implement the Moderate
Page 5 of 10
A4enda Subiect Public Hearing Piano LLC, Rezone
(Application No. REZ07-0004)
Date: 3/25/2009
Density Comprehensive Plan designation (Comprehensive Plan, page 14-6) The proposed rezone
would increase consistency of the site's zoning to the site's comprehensive plan designation.
The goals and policies of the land use element and housing element generally support the proposed
rezone. The location is near existing urban services and infrastructure. The plan supports the
development of close-in vacant or underdeveloped properties which further limits urban sprawl on the
edges of the planning area. The increased density allowed under this rezone request will encourage
compact urban development, and will provide protection of critical areas existing on the site (LU-23,
LU-29).
In accordance with the Comprehensive Plan (LU-37), the location of moderate density units shall be
encouraged as a buffer between single family areas and more intense uses. In this case, the site is
bordered to the west and north by an elementary school, senior high school and an athletic
stadium/field. To the east and south is existing moderate density single family residential developed
as a Planned Unit Development (PUD). To the southeast are a church and a significant roadway
designated as a principal arterial (A St. SE) according to Auburn's Comprehensive Transportation
Plan. The comprehensive plan also states that such buffering is appropriate along arterials where
existing platting prevents effective lot layout for single family units. This site is bordered by two minor
arterials (Oravetz Rd. SE, & Lakeland Hills SE) pursuant to Auburn's Comprehensive Transportation
Plan. These two frontages in combination with the topography on site, potentially present a challenge
to develop the site with typical low density single family residential units. Further, the design and
siting of moderate density units are controlled through the R-3 zoning classification by requiring a
conditional use permit to be approved for development of any dwelling units other than single family
residential or one duplex. The CUP process provides a mechanism to reduce or prevent impacts of
increased number of dwelling units to adjacent properties or roadways and to ensure that adequate
buffering is considered.
By compliance with the zoning code, the Critical Areas Ordinance, the MDNS for the proposed
rezone, and other applicable development regulations, future development of this site will be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Environmental Policies EN-70 and EN-71 describe the
importance of recognizing the role played by natural features and systems in the environmental
quality and livability of the community as well as the need to protect natural resources and their
benefits. Further, the increase in density that can be realized through this rezone is appropriate given
the identified geotechnical constraints of the site.
Due to the unique topographical features associated with this site, future development of the property
will be limited immediately adjacent to these areas. Any proposed site development will be subject to
the requirements of the City's Critical Areas Ordinance. The significant slope features will likely
decrease the number of lots and/or dwelling units allowed on the site and will require any
improvements to be set back from these areas. The regulated slopes and any required buffers will
remain undisturbed upon site development. Pursuant to Chapter 16.10 ACC, the primary goal of
regulating geologic hazards are to avoid and minimize potential impacts to life and property by
regulating and/or limiting land uses where necessary, and to conduct appropriate levels of analysis
and ensure sound engineering and construction practices to address identified hazards. The
environmental constraints of the site will result in a natural topographical area that will be preserved
and fit within the character of the surrounding development in the area.
The Growth Management Act requires consistency between land use and transportation planning. As
noted, the Land Use Plan identifies the area of the rezone as Moderate Density Residential.
Pursuant to Section 12.64.A.030 ACC, upon future development of the site, the City's Public Works
Department will identify specific public right-of-way improvements that are necessary to mitigate the
Page 6 of 10
Aqenda Subject Public Hearing Piano LLC, Rezone
(Application No. REZ07-0004)
Date: 3/25/2009
impacts of site development. Construction or provision of those improvements in the manner
specified by the city engineer shall be a condition of permit approval. Improvements will likely
include; street lighting, sidewalks, concrete curbs and gutters, storm drafnage systems, street
landscaping and appurtenances, traffic control devices, and dedication of public right-of-way.
Finally, this site provides good access for non-motorized means of transportation. The site is
adjacent to an extensive nefinrork of pedestrian friendly trails, sidewalks, and other planning features
that provide access to and from the site.
Below is a summary of the goals, policies, and objectives identified within the Comprehensive Plan
that pertain to this rezone request:
1. Residential densities in areas designated for single family residential use should be no greater
than 6 units per acre. They should also be within areas with good transit availability which is
measured as 1/4 mile or less to a route with at least half hour service. Accessory dwelling units
should be permitted to allow increased densities. The bulk of the single family residential
community should be developed at a density of between 4 and 6 dwelling units per acre. (Policy
LU-17, ACP)
2. Residential densities in areas designated for multiple family development should not exceed 20
units per acre. Multiple family densities should generally decrease with proximity to single family
areas. Multiple family densities may exceed 20 units per acre provided they are within walking
distance (1/4 mile) of regional transit facilities or are targeted to populations not requiring outdoor
recreation areas and having low private automobile usage (e.g. elderly housing). These targeted
developments should be located in close proximity to shopping, medical and public transportation
services. (Policy LU-18, ACP)
3. Siting of moderate density units shall be encouraged as a buffer between single family areas and
more intense uses. Such buffering is appropriate along arterials where existing platting prevents
effective lot layout for single family units. Also, such buffering is appropriate between single family
areas and commercial and industrial uses. Where there are established single family areas, the
design and siting of moderate density units shall be controlled to reduce potential conflicts and to
en-sure buffering of uses. Higher density units are not to be considered such a buffer. (Policy
LU-37, ACP)
4. Residential development should be related to topography, circulation, and other amenities, as
guided by policies of this Plan. (Policy LU-21, ACP)
5. The development of new neighborhoods should be governed by development standards which
allow some flexibility. Flexibility should be considered to encourage compact urban development,
to provide protection of critical areas, and resource lands (including, but not limited to, agricultural
tesource lands, cultural resources, forest resource lands, mineral resource areas, hillsides or
wetlands), and to facilitate non-motorized transportation. (Policy LU-23, ACP)
6. Development design should utilize and preserve natural features, including, but not limited to,
topography and stands of trees, to separate incompatible land uses and densities. (Policy LU-29,
ACP)
7. Development codes shall be modified to allow the City to require that landscaped buffers, natural
area preservation or other measures are utilized to separate new residential developments from
incompatible uses and major streets. These buffers should permit access between the residential
area and the major street by pedestrians and bicyclists. (Policy LU-31, ACP)
Page 7 of 10
Acaenda Subiect Public Hearing Piano LLC, Rezone
(Application No. REZ07-0004)
Date: 3/25/2009
8. The City should adopt innovative zoning provisions which ease the development of vacant
parceis within existing neighborhoods while requiring the new development to fit the context of
the existing buildings in the surrounding area. (Policy HO-27, ACP)
9. The City will encourage varied and human-scaled building design that provides a visual interest to
pedestrians, compatibility with historic buildings or other neighborhood structures, and enhances
the streetscape. (Policy HO-33, ACP)
10. Conserve developable land and natural resources through a variety of housing types,
conservation and site planning techniques that achieve the maximum housing potential and
passive energy use of a particular site. (Policy HO-34, ACP)
11. The City shall seek to ensure that land not be developed or otherwise modified in a manner which
will result in or significantly increase the potential for slope slippage, landslide, subsidence or
substantial soil erosion. The City's development standards shall dictate the use of Best -
Management Practices to minimize the potential for these problems. (Policy EN-69, ACP)
12. Where there is a high probability of erosion (see Map 9.6), grading should be kept to a minimum
and disturbed vegetation should be restored as soon as feasible. The City's development
standards shall dictate the use of Best Management Practices for clearing and grading activity.
(Policy EN-70, ACP)
13. The City shall consider the impacts of new development on hazards associated with soils and
subsurface drainage as a part of its environmental review process and require any appropriate
mitigation measures. (Policy EN-71, ACP)
14. The City shall consider the impacts of new development on Class I and Class III landslide hazard
areas (Map 9.7) as part of its environmental review process and require any appropriate
mitigating measures. The impacts of the new development, both during and after construction, on
adjacent properties shall also be considered. (Policy EN-73, ACP)
15. Auburn will seek to retain areas with slopes in excess of 40 percent as primarily open space
areas in order to protect against erosion and landslide hazards and to limit significant removal of
vegetation to help conserve Auburn's identity within the metropolitan region. Slopes greater than
15 percent with zones of emergent water (springs or ground water seepages) and all slopes with
mappable landslide potential identified by a geotechnical study shall be protected from alteration.
(Policy EN-74, ACP)
16. New development within Class I and Class III landslide hazard areas (Map 9.7) shall be designed
and located to minimize site disturbance and removal of vegetation, and to maintain the natural
topographic character of the site. Clustering of structures, minimizing building footprints, and
retaining trees and other natural vegetation, shall be considered. (Policy EN-76, ACP)
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
5.2 Street System
Objeative: Functional Classification
To provide an integrated street network of appropriate classes of streets designed to facilitate
different types of traffic flows and access needs.
Page 8 of 10
Acaenda Subject Public Hearing Piano LLC, Rezone
(Application No. REZ07-0004)
Date: 3/25/2009
Policy TR-51 The city street system is made up of Arterials, Collectors, and Local Streets
Policy TR-52 The Functional Roadway Classifications Map wiil serve as the adopted standard
for identifying classified streets in the City of Auburn and the potentiai annexation areas.
Objective: Arterials
Policy TR-58 The City has two classes of arterials, as follows.
a. Principal Arterials convey traffic along commercial or industrial activities, and provide access to
freeways.
b. Minor Arterials convey traffic onto principal arterials from collector and local streets. They place
slightly more emphasis on land access and offer a lower level of mobility than principal arterials.
Minor arterial streets are typically constructed to accommodate four lanes of traffic.
2. The rezone must be initiated by someone other than the City in order for the Hearing Examiner
to consider the request.
This rezone request was initiated by the owner of the property Piano, LLC as identified in the
application submitted on December 17, 2007.
3. Any changes or modifications to a rezone request made by either the Hearing Examiner or
City Council will not result in a more intense zone than the one requested.
Staff is not recommending any changes or modifications to the request.
In addition, the Washington State Supreme Court has identified other general rules for rezone
applications (see Parkridge v. Seattle, 89 Wn.2d.454; 573 P.2d 359 (1978)):
1. Conditions in the area must have changed since the original zoning was established.
Since the original R1, Single Family zoning of this sife was established at the time of annexation to
the City of Auburn in 2003, there have been significant changes in the general area. The adjacent
Lakeland Hills South PUD has continued to significantly expand and develop with new residential and
commercial uses and related infrastructure and at this time is nearing build-out. .
2. The proposed rezone must bear a substantial relationship to the general welfare of the
community.
The proposed change in zoning will be compatible with the surrounding uses and zoning
classifications. Properties to the south and east are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and
Planned Unit Development (PUD) - Lakeland Hills. These areas are currently developed with Low to
Moderate Density Single Family Residential. Property to the west and north are zoned for
institutional uses and are currently developed with an elementary school and a high school.
The rezone will allow for future development of the area in a manner consistent with Section
18.16.010 ACC. This section states the R-3, Two-Family residential zones are intended to permit a
limited increase in population density in those areas to which this classification applies by permitting
two dwelling units on a minimum size lot while at the same time, by means of the standards and
requirements set forth in this chapter, maintaining a desirable family living environment by
Page 9 of 10
Agenda Subject Public Hearing Piano LLC, Rezone
(Application No. REZ07-0004)
Date: 3/25/2009
establishing minimum lot areas, yards and open spaces. A related consideration is to provide a
transition between single-family areas and other intensive designations or activities which reduce the
suitability for single-family uses.
When compared to adjacent single family and institutional land uses developed in the area, the proposed
rezone is compatible with the surrounding area. Further, if the applicant decides to pursue developing the
site with a multi-family residential use, a conditional use permit would be required pursuant to Section
18.16.030 ACC. As a conditional use, additional analysis would be provided regarding neighborhood
compatibility.
The City has provided adequate public notice of the rezone application and the public hearing.
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the preceding Findings of Fact and Conclusions in the staff report, staff proposes that the
Hearing Examiner recommend the Auburn City Council GRANT the rezone from R1, Single Family
Residential to R3, Two-Family Residential of the approximate 4.76 acre parcel with the following
condition:
1. Based on the comments received during the public comment period and other information
submitted with this rezone request, a Final SEPA Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance
(MDNS) was issued by the Responsible SEPA Official on January 14, 2009. The MDNS included
three conditions of approval to mitigate potential impacts of the proposed rezone request.
Compliance with these conditions is required for this rezone to be approved.
Staff reserves the righf fo supplement the record of the case to respond to matters and information raised
suhsequent to the writing of this report.
Page 10 of 10
~
,CrrY OF
" WASHINGTON
Planning, Building, and Community Department
MASTER LAND IISEAPPLICATION-PLANNINGAPPLIGATIONS
Project Name Piano Date 12/10/2007
Parcel No(s) 3121059064 Site Address (VaCa11t IOt)
Legal Description (attached separate sheet if necessary)
(see attached sheet)
Applicant
Name: Piano LLC
Mailing Address:1414 31 st Ave S. Seattle. WA 98144
Telephone and Fax:206.322.3690/206.322.3407
Email: Dou4lasi ci.maQnusllc.com
Si nature•
Owner (if more than one attach another sheet)
Name: Piano LLC
Mailing Address:1414 31 st Ave S, Seattle, WA 98144
Telephone and Fax: 206.322.3690/206.322.3407
Email: DouqlasiCcD,ma4nusllc.com
.
Si nature:
Engineer/Architecture/Other
Name: Not applicable at this time.
RECEIVE
Mailing Address:
Telephone and Fax:
DEL '1 200
Email:
Description of Proposed Action:
PtANNING DEP
Rezone of parcel from R-1 to R-3
MENT
e of A lication Re uired Check all that A 1
Administrative Appeal*
✓
Rezone (site specific)* Area Wide
Administrative Use Permit*
Short Plat
Annexation*
Special Exception*
Boundary Line Adjustment
Special Home Occupation Permit*
Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Text or Map)*
Substantial Shoreline Development*
Conditional Use Permit*
Surface Mining Permit*
Critical Areas Variance*
Temporary Use Permit
✓
Development Agreement*
Environmental Review (SEPA)*
Variance*
*Please note that public notification is
Final Plat
required. A separate cost is charged
Preliminary Plat*
for the signs. City prepares signs but
PUD Site Plan Approval
applicant responsible for sign posting.
Reasonable Use Exce tion*
of 2 r~~~ ~
Nra t0rdPAP ~
AUB►UR.N *MORE THAN YOU IGINED
CtTY OF._ - * ~
V1~'ASHINGTC)h1
Planning, Building, and Community Departmertt
LETTER FROM PROPERTY OWNER GRANTING AUTHORIZATION TO ACT
(A copy of this letter must be submitted for each property owner involved)
I, Piano LLC , being duly sworn declare that I am the owner of the property
(PROPERTY OWNER)
Involved in the application. I hereby grant Molly Lawrence and Duncan Greene
of Gordon Derr LLP
to act on my behalf. I further declaxe that all
statements, answers, and information herein submitted is in all respects true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief.
Date
~S~ 3./ ~ S'•, ~"3~~
Address
Subscribed and sworn to before me this I Ll- ttv day of "D e- C. Z" 7
Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, CO [n y."ftn
Residing at SQ.a v_
04 .
~ ~ u5 I a s ~
~a6A~"~~~
,
/
\
~
, ~SS1~N f.r,c•.
:
~
_ ;Q~NpTARy ~9~• -
~
_ •U i.RweW N;
~ N': G pUE3OC a' 2=
%A F ti' O~
4f
9
~
~i
BER
~
W A SN;
Page 2 of 2
AU$(..JRN* MUR.E THAN YOU 1MAGINED
Lega1 Description:
That portion of Government Lot 3, Section 31, Township 21 North,
Range 5, East of Willamette Meridian, in King County, Washington,
lying Northwesterly of 47th Street Southeast as established by deed
recorded under Recording No. 9302161342 and lying Easterly of New
Oravetz Road as established by deed recorded under Recording No.
9302161342.
Rezone Submittal Requirements - Piano LLC Rezone Application
a) The intent of the zoning code and the comprehensive plan of the City. Is the rezone consistent
with the comprehensive plan?
The intent of Auburn's zoning code and Comprehensive Plan is to concentrate higher density
housing in particular regions of the City. The subject property lies within the Comprehensive
Pian designation of "Moderate Density Residential". A rezone to R-3 would bring the property into
compliance with the "Moderate Density Residential" designation.
The current zoning of the property as R-1 conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan designation. R-
1 is not an implementing zone for "Moderate Density Residential". Rather, R-1 zoning provides for single-
family detached dwellings, which one wouid find in a"Single Family" Comprehensive Plan
Designation. By comparison, a re-zone to R-3 would implement the Comprehensive Plan designation of
"Moderate Density Residential".
b) The availability of municipal services such as water, sewer, roads, fire, and police protection
which might be required by reason of the proposed rezone
All municipal services, such as water, sewer, roads, fire, and police currently serve the property.
The same would apply to a rezone. Dave Burdick in the Public Works department reported that the
property is serviced by a 12" water line and a 24" storm sewer, both of which are adequate to service the
density that a rezone to R-3 would allow. Bob Elwell, sewer engineer, reported the 8" sewer line would
be able to service as many units as couid fit on the property. Police and fire departments report that they
also service the area.
C[TY OF AtiBURN Peter B. lewis, Mayor
WASHINGTON 25 West Main Street * Auburn WA 98001-4998 * www.auburnwa.gov * 253-931-3000
NOTICE OF PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATED
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
Auburn, Washington
The City of Auburn has determined that the following project does not have a probable significant adverse impact on
the environment, and an EIS is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c) only if the following conditions are met.
This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the
C ity.
Case No. SEP07-0034: Project Proposed rezone of approicimately 4.76 acres from r-1 to R3 Applicant: Gordon
Derr LLP . Location: The intersection of Oravetz Road and Lakeland Hills Way SE. Assessors Parcel Number
3121059064. A summary of conditions related to this action includes: 1. Measures to minimize potential adverse
visua) impact of the site as viewed from the intersection.
Further information regarding this action and related conditions is available to the public upon request at the Auburn
Department of Planning and Community Development, Auburn City Hall, 25 West Main, Auburn, WA 98001,
Phone: 931-3090. This MDNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2). Comments must be submitted by 5:00 P.M.
on March 3. 2008. The lead agency will not issue a final determination on this proposal for 15 days from the date
of publication of this notice. Any person aggrieved by the City's determination may file an appeal with the Auburn
City Clerk within 21 days of issuance of the final determination. Copies of the final determination, specifying the
appeals deadline, can be requested or obtained from the Department of Planning and Community Development.
Published in the Seattle Times February 19, 2008.
"Imt 3
Number ofFages„~
._,.l, .,1 1
Piano LLC Rezone-Zoning
i J t ~ - G ' ~
33544006EO
F----
pFtp,VETZ
3521049040 ebtfG7'.7' C7'•Sf
tv LW
3f~z1U49U50 i a
~ ,~,Q• - _ ; ~
GA x
~ LAYELAhJC! HILLS 1NA'f 5E
~ 3E21049011
~ ~ -<<• ti,~\ `53kD
- - - - 41389577
3621049016 4 in i~~,?iin'~ .:~i~°'+ii: ` l.~ -I-~..~ f~ ~ I•
621L149D7r I i~'• a~~at r ~:F~~ Yc~ ' I- ~
~ , . hysF ; ~
r,
~ -t--
p 336 F et
O _ ,
Created by eGIS on Tue Mar 17 14:18:44 2009
Tax ParceI Lir~es
Tax F'arcel PJumbers
RR RESIDEf`JTIAL DISTR ICT
RS;'LHR S SING LE-F,AhV11[Y RESIC?ENTIAL C?ISTF;ICT
R1iLHR1 SINGLE=F.AMILY RESIDENT1AL DISTFICT
F"~?ILHF.2 SINGLE-FAM IL`r` RESI C?EPJTIAL DISTPI CT
~ P3 TWO-FAMI Ll` (C?UPLEX) P ESI C?ENTI AL GISTRI CT
R4ILH R4 Cv'1 ULTI FLE-FAhsrll L'~ F:E SI DENI IAL DI STRI C-T
~ P11LHF"1 F'UBLIC: USE C?ISTF:'ICT
I I NSTITLJTION,AL USE DI STF41 (-:T
UNC UNCLASSI FI ED U`,E DI `-;T R1 CT ~11h1w., ~
rtu~i~~x~ g~~~~ ~
~ P~.JG~ F'L,+~NP~dEC~ ~JP•~IT DE'S~ELt~PP•.r9EhJT
~ LAK:ELAND HILLS SOUTH F'tJD
~ TV TER F;AC:E VIEW
City of Auburn eGIS
Rural
Single Family Residential
Nladerate Density Residential
~ High Density Residential
Office Residential
Neighborhood Residential
Light Commercial
~ Heavy comrnercial
~ Downtown
~i Light Industrial
~ HeavV In di_istrial
~ Public anci Quasi-Pubic
open Space
Rivers, Streams and Lakes
City Limits
~ J
i ur'~ a
sx6eloit. -1,
~
Ntem'bews Of PW-
CITY OF * -.~~`~~~j -
•R F '
~
'ffi~ Peter B. Lewis, Mayor
WASHINGTON 25 West Maln Street * Aubum WA 98001 .4948 # www.aubumwa.gov * 259•431-M
FzNaL .
MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNFICANCE (MDNS)
SEP07-0034
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Proposed rezone of approximately 4.76 acres from Ri,
Single Family Residenfiial District to R3, Dupiex Residential District. There is no development
associated with this. rezone request at this time.
APPLICA7'ION NAME: Piano t1C, Rezone
PROPONENT: Molfy Lawrence
Gordon Derr LLP
202511 Ave, Suite #500
Seattle, WA 98121
(206) 322-3690
LOCATION: The properly is located NE of the Intersection of Oravetz Road and Lakeland
Hilis Way SE. The site is located within the southwest quarter of Section 31, Township 21
North, Range 5 East, W.M. King County, Washington. Assessor's Parcel Number: ~
3121059064.
LEAD AGENCY: Gty of Aubum. The ieadagency for this proposal has determined that it
does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental
impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). However, the
Responsibie Official has determined that an MDNS is appropriate for this proposal under the
authority of ACC 14.08.010 (C) and ACC 16.06.120. This decision was made after review of
a completed environmental checklist and other information submitted. by the applicant on file
with the lead agency. A copy of the subsequent threshold determination for the specific
proposal may be obfiained upon request.
The Responsible Official of the City of Auburn hereby makes the fallowing Findings of Fact
based upon impacts identified in the environmental checklist and the."Final Staff Evaluation
for fnviranmental Checklist No. SEP07-0034°, and Conciusions of Law based upon the
Aubum Comprehensive Plan, and other Municipal policies, plans, rules and regulations
designated as a basis for the eacercise of substantive authority under the Washington State
Environmental Poitcy Act Rules pursuant to RCW 43.21C.060. The SEPA Re.sponsible Official
has further determined that, consistent with WAC 197-11-158 and RCW 43.21C.240, many
impacts of the proposal will be mitigated by, exissting development regula'dons as well as
applicable County, State and Federal regulations and permit requirements.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Page 1 of 10 Rib"~
Nnmber of PUeeLL
1. Proposed rezone of approximately 436 acres from R1, Single Family Residential
District to R3, Duplex Residentiai District. The applicant states that the rezone to R3,
Dupiex Residential Disixict wifl allow greater flexibility in density requirements than
R1, and thus allows more diversity and creativity in site design and housing types,
while protecting the natural features of the site. Single family residences and
duplexes are aliowed outright within the R3 mning disfirict. Mu(tiple duplexes on a
single lot and multifamily residential structures are aliowed upon approvai of a
conditional use in the R3 zoning district. Whereas within the exisfing Ri zoning
disirict, development is limited to one detached single family residerrtial unit per lot.
There is no development proposal associated with this rezone request at this time.
2. A Geotechnicai Investigation report completed by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc,
April 8, 2008, was rnmpleted for the subject site and submitted with the
environmental checklist by the applicant. The report also considered a previous
preliminary geotedmical study by AESI, September 1998, for the same sibe. The City
authorized an independent review of the applicanYs report by ZZA Terracon which
the City ceceived on May 30, 2008.
The report characterizes the site as currently vacant with forested areas throughout
the site. The property comprises a roughly rectangular shaped parcel, which slopes
moderately to steepiy upward to the south and east from Oravetr Road SE. The
central section of the site contains a benched area. From the bench area, the site
slopes steeply upward to l.akeland Hilis Way SE within the northem and central
secctions and gently upward within the southern sections of the site.. The steep sfopes
along Oravetz Road SE are generaily indined at approximately 70 percent grades,
while the steep slopes within the central section of tlhe site below Lakeland Hilis Way
SE are inclined at approximately 40 to 60 percent grades. Some.localized areas of
the slopes above the benched area are inclined at grades of approximately 80 to 90
percent. The slopes along Oravetz Road SE and within the centrat portion of the site
appear to have been somewhat modified by past grading activity.
Based on the geotechnical report, portions of the site are classifled as a potentiai
geologicaAy hazardous area pursuant to the City's Critical Area regulations contained
within Section 16.10.080.G.2 ACC (Landslide Hazard Areas). Landsiide hazard areas
arE classified as Class I, Class II, Class III, or Gass N. Class N/Very High Hazard
landslide hazards are areas with slopes steeper than 15 percent with mappable zones
of emergent water (e.g., springs or ground water seepage), areas of known
(mappable) landsiide deposits regardless of slope, and all areas with slopes 40
percent or greater.
Based on site topographical conditions, the applicant's geotechnical engineer
indicates that a Ciass N Very High Hazard landslide area exists per Section
16.10.080.G.2.d ACC (Landslide Hazard Areas) exdsts. However, it is tfie opinion of
the applicant's geotechnical engineer that based upon the medium to dense, gtaciaNy
consolidated soil conditions, and lack of adverse groundwater conditions, and
Page 2 of 10
Revised 1/14/2009
lndications of past landslide activity, site landslide hazard shauld be considered low to
moderate.
In addition, the independent review conducbed by ZZA Terrarnn concuRed with the
applicant's geotechnical engineer that characterizing the slope as very high hazard
"based on the exisdng slope gradients is not jusi3fied." ZZA Terracon observed that
the current topography appears to have been artificialfy created. It is the opinion of
the City's independent geotechnical engineer that the siope "overall landslide hazard"
be classified as Class II/Moderate Hazard. ~
Upon future development of the site, the applicant's geotechnical engineer is
recommending that all building foundations observe a 15-foot buffer from the crest
and toe of all steep slopes indined at grades of 40 percent or steeper (ACC
16.10.090.E.4.c). Alternatlvely, the steep slope buffer could be reduced to zero
provided adequate foundation embedment or retainage is provided. Proposed
reductions of the recommended slope buffer should be reviewed by the project
geotechnical engineer once a specific development plan is available. .Further, the
applicanfs geotechnical engineer indicates that future site developmerrt would not
decrease the stability of the slopes below current conditions provlded the engineer's
rernmmendations are follawed.
Based on the geotechnical reports, the site is classified as a potential geologically
hazardous area pursuant to the C'ity's Critical Area regulations contained WMin
Section 16.10.080.G.1 ACC Critical Erosion Hazard areas. Soils on the site generaily consist af silty fine sands and gravels containing a signiflcant amount of s(It and fine
sand sized particles. These soiis have been classifled as gravelly sandy loam (AgD)
soils by the NRCS with an erosion classification of severe. Therefore the site is
classified as an Erosion Hazard area and these soils wili be sensitive to erosion,
especially given the sioping nature of the site. Upon site development specific mitigativn measures are recommended to be implemented while the site is under
constructlon. This issue will be addressed at the time construction permfts for
devetopment proposais are submitted by the applicant for review by.the City. The
following mitigating measures are recommended by the applicanYs geotechnical
engineer: , .
o To reduce the amount of sediment transport ofF the site during construc4on,
silt fencing should be placed along the lower elevations of the cleared areas.
o Construction should proceed during the drier periods of the year and
distributed areas shoutd be placed along the lower elevations of the cleared
areas.
o- Surface runoff should be controlled during and foilowing development. Newly
graded slopes should be provided with intermediate benches and drainage
swales to siow the surtace runoff velocities and reduce slope erosion. SurFace
runaff must not be directed onto or above the steeply sloping areas. All
devices used to collect surtace runoff should be directed into a tight line or
Page 3 of 10
Revised 1/14/2009
swale system designed to convey the collected drainage to discharge into an
approved storm drain subsequent to meeting the City's and Washington State
Department of Erniogy turbidity requirements. Uncontrolled discharge on or
above the sloping areas may promote erosion and earth mavement
o Soils which are to be reused around the site should be stored in such a
manner as ta reduce erosion from the stockpile. Protecdve measures may
include, but are not necessarily limited to, covering with plasstic sheating, the
use of low stockpiles in flatter'areas, or the use of hay bales/silt fences
around pile perimeters. o Areas stripped of vegetation during construction should be mulched and
hydroseeded or replanted as soon as possible, or othervvise protected. During
winter rnnstruction, hydroseeded slopes should be covered with clear piastic
bo facilitate new grass growth.
3. The site is zaned Ri Single Family Residential. The area within the general vicinity of
the subject site can be characterized as land transitioning from less urban to a more
urban development pattem. The properties adjacent to the subject site, particularly
along the north, and east edge can be characterized as rapidly developing to higher
urban densities which are consistent with the City af Auburn zoning and
Comprehensive Plan designations. A high school and elementary school are located
north and west of the s'rte on the west side of Oravetr Road SE.
4. The praperty lies within an Urban Growth Area designated under the State Growth
Management Act. Development is encouraged in the Urban Growth Area where
adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an eificient manner.
The City of Aubum Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map deslgnates the site as
Moderate Density Residentiat 6-10 units per acre. The area east of the site is
designated as High Density Residential, 10-20 units per acre. To the south of the
perimeter. of the subject site, areas are designated Moderate Density Residential, 6-
10 units per acre. To the west of the perimeter of the subject site, areas are
designated as Public & Quasi Public.
5. The allowed density of the site under the existing Ri Single Family Residenfial zoning
is approximately 26 dwelling units (5.4 dwelling units per acre). With the proposed
rezone to R3 Two-Family (Duplex) Residentia( District the allowed gross density is
increased to approximately 41 dwelling units (8.6 dwelling units per acre) for single
famify development. Pursuant to Secdon 18.16.030 ACC, duplex and multifamily
development are a(lowed via a condifionai use permit in the R3 zoning district,
whereas singie family development is.allowed outright.
6. The site has street frontage on both Lakeland Hills Way SE and Oravetr Road SE.
Upon future development direct aaess will most likely be on the west side of the
property from Oravetz Road S.E.
Page 4 of 10
Revised 1/14/2009
7. Lakeland Hills Way 5E and Oravetr Road SE are classified as Minor Arterials in
accorciance with the Gty of Aubum Comprehensive Transportatian Plan. Minor
Arterials interconnect and augment the principal arterial system by providing access
to and from the principai arterials and freeways. They serve moderate length trips at
a somewhat lower mobility than principal arterials, distribute traffic to smaller
geographic areas than prlncipal arterials, and should not enter neighborhoods. They
are typicaily constructed to accommodate four lanes of traffic with speed limits of 30
to 35 mph.
8. King County Metro provides transit service in the vicinity of the project site including
l.akeland Hiils Way SE. Upon future development demand for bus service will
increase. METRO will be contacted at the time of development of the site for any
requested improvements to bus stops in the area.
9. The City of Auburn will provide public water and sanitary sewer to the site upon
future development
10. The "Fnal Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist No. SEP07-0034" is hereby
incorporated by reference as though set forth in full. 11. The consultant reports are attached to this MDNS as exhibits for reference purposes
oniy. Except where specifically cited in this MDNS, they are not adopted as findings
af fact or conclusions of law.
CONCLIlSIONS OF LAW
The conditions af, .this MDNS are supported by plans, regulations, and policies formally
adopted by the City for the exercise of substantive authority under SEPA. The MDNS also
takes note of the extent to which many local, State and Federal regulations and permlt
requirements will govern the project to mitigate its potential impacts, in accordance with
WAC 197-11-158 and RCW 43.21C.240.
Fxisting Poticies & Regulations
i. Residential densities in areas designated for single family residential use should be no
greater than 6 units per acre. They should also be within areas with good transit
availabiiity which ts measured as 1/4 mile or less to a route with at least half hour
service. Accessory dwelling units shouid be permitted to allow increased densities.
The bulk of the single family residenfial community should be developed at a density
of between 4 and 6 dwelling units per acre. (Policy LU-14, ACP)
2. Residential densities in areas designated for mu(tiple famtly development should not
exceed 20 unlts per acre. Muitiple family densities should generally decrease with
proximity to single family areas. MulUple family densities may exceed 20 units per
acre provided they are within walking distance (1/4 mile) of regional transit facilities
. or are targeted to populations not requiring outdoor recreafion areas and having low
private automobile usage (e.g. elderly housing). These targeted developments
Page 5 of 10
Revised 1/14/2009
should be located in close proximity to shopping, medical and public transportation
services. (Policy LU-15, ACP)
3. Residential development should be refated to topography, circulation, and other
amenlties, as guided by policies of this Plan. (Policy LU-18, ACP)
4. The development of new neighborhoods should be govemed by development
standards which allow some flexibility. Flexibility should be considered to encourage
compact urban development, to provide protection of critical areas, and resouroe
lands (including, but not limited to, agricultural resource lands, cultural resources,
forest resource lands, mineral resource areas, hillsides or wetlands), and bo facilitate
non-motorized transportation. (Policy LU-20, ACP)
5. Development design should uGlize and preserve natural features, including, but not
limited to, topography and stands of trees, to separate incompafible land uses and
densides. (Policy LU-26)
6. Development codes shall be modified to aliow the City to require that landscaped
buffers, naturai area preservation or other measures are utilized to separate new
residential developments from incompatible uses and major streets. These buffers
should permit access between the residentiai area and tfie major street by
pedestrians and bicyciists. (Policy LU-28)
7. The City recognizes the important benefits of native vegetation including its role in
attraccting native wildlife, preserving the natural hydrology, and maintaining the
naturai character of the Pacific Northwest region. Native vegetation can aiso reduce
the use of pesticides (thereby reduang the amount of contaminants that may enter
nearby water systems) and reduce watering required of non-native species (thereby
promoting conservation). The City shall encourage the use of natiive vegetation as an
integral part of public and private development plans through strategies that include,
but are not limited to, the following:
Encouraging the use of native plants in streefi landscapes and in pubiic facilities.
• Providing greater clarity in development regulafions in how native plants can
be.used in private development proposals.
• Pursuing opportunities to educate the pubiic about the benefits of native
plants. (Po(icy EN-33, ACP)
8. The City shall discourage the unnecessary disturbance of natural vegetation in new
development. (Policy EN-34, ACP)
9. The City shall seek to ensure that land not being developed or otherwise modified in
a manner which will result in or significantly increase the potential for slope slippage,
landslide, subsidence or substantiai soil erosion. The City's development standards
Page 6 af 10
Revised 1/14/2009
shall dictate the use of Best Management Practices to minimize the potential for these
problems. (Policy EN-69, ACP) 10. Where there is a high probability of erosion (see Map 9.6), grading should be kept to
a minimum and disturbed vegetation should be restored as soon as feasible. The
City's development standards shali dictate the use of Best Management Practices for
clearing and grading activity. (Policy EN-70, ACP)
11. The City shall consider the impacts of new development on hazards associated with
soils and subsurtace drainage as a part of its environmental review process and
require any appropriate mi4gation measures. (Policy EN-71, ACP)
12. The City shall consider the impacts of new development on Ciass I and Gass III
landslide hazard areas (Map 9.7) as part of its environmental review process and
require any appropriate mitigatlng measures. The impacts of the new development,
both during and after construction, an adjacent properties shall also be considered.
(Policy EN-73, ACP) .
13. Auburn will seek to retain areas with slopes in excess of 40 percent as primarily open
space areas in order to protect against erosion and landslide hazards and to limit
significant removal of vegetation to help conserve Aubum's identity within the
metropolitan region. Slopes greaber than 15 percent with zones of emergent water
(springs or ground water seepages) and aii slopes with mappable landsiide potential
identified by a geotechnical study shall be protected from alteration. (Policy EN-74;
ACP) 14. New development within Class I and Class III landslide hazard areas (Map 9.7) shali
be designed and located to minimize site disturbance and removal of vegetation, and
to maintain the natural topographic character of the site. Clustering of stivvctures,
minimizing buiiding footprints, and retaining trees and other natural vegetation, shall
be considered. (Policy EN-76, ACP)
15. It is recognized that a particular development or land use, although otherwise
consistent with city regulations and policies, may create adverse impacts upon
facilities, services, natural systems or the surrounding area when aggregabed with the
impacts of prior or reasonably anticipated future developments. The city shaii
evaluate such cumulative environmental impacts and make its environmental
determinations and substantive decisions accordingly. (ACC 16.06.060.D)
16. Section 16.10.080.6 ACC states that classification af critical areas shall be determined
by the director based on the consideration of the following factors in the following
order: 1) Consideration of ttie technicaf reports submitted by qualified consultants in
connection with the applications subject to these regulations; 2) Application of the
criteria contained in these regulations; and 3) Critical areas maps maintained by the
planning and community development department
Page 7 of 10
Revised 1/14/2009
17. Secction 15.74.020 ACC regulates all land-disturbing activities and the removal of
trees, shrubs, and/or ground cover. Land-disturbing activities proposed within critical
areas andjor land subject to shoreline management jurisdiction shall be subject to
Chapters 16.10 and 16.08 ACC, respectively, and the procedural requirements of
Chapter 15.74 ACC.
18. Pursuant to Secpon 15.74.010 ACC, it is the intent of the Ciearing, Flling, and
Grading Chapter to regulate all land-disturbing acdvities on ali properties, and ensure
reasonable mitigation is provided as necessary to in relevance:
■ Prevent creation of public nuisance situations, promote the public health, safety
and general welfare of the citizens of Aubum;
■ Preserve, maintain and enhance the city's physical and aesthetic diaracter by
controlling the remova{ of significant trees and ground cover on undeveloped and
underdeveloped properties; '
■ Encaurage building and site plarining pracaces that are consistent with the city's
natural topographical and vqgetation features in a manner which provides for the
reasonabie development and enjoyment, to indude preservation and
enhancement of views, of the properly;
■ Preclude the disturbance or removal of vegetation in advance of the cfty's
evaluation af a development proposal;
• Implement the policies of the city's comprehensive plan.
19. Chapter18.50 ACC (Landscaping & Screening) provides minlmum requirements in
order to malntain and protect property values, to enhance the city's appearance, to
visually unify the city and its neighborhoods, to improve the character of certain
areas of the city, to reduce erosion and storm water runoff, and to maintain or
replace exisdng vegetation and ta prevent and abate public nuisances.
20. Secdon 18.16.010 ACC, states the R 3 duplex residential zones are intended to permit
a limited increase in population density in those areas to which this c(assification
appiies by permitting two dwelfing unifis on a minimum size lot while at the same
time, by means of the standards and requirements set forth in this chapter,
maintaining.a desirabie family living environment by estabpshing minimum lot areas,
yards and open spaces. A related consideratton is to provide a transition between
singie-family areas and other intensive designations or activities which reduce the
suitability for singie-family uses.
Conclusions
1. The Responsible Official has considered whether other regulations would mitigate the
identified adverse impacts, and concludes that the reasonably anticipated future
impacts are not sufficiently mitigated by those regulations. Therefore, the imposition
of conditions are appropriate.
Page 8 of 10
Revised 1/14/2009
2. This propasai does not have probable significant impact on the environment, and
therefore an environmentai impact statement is not required under RCW
43.21C.030(2)(c). However, because the rezone of the affecbed praperty from R-1 to
R-3 will result in increased density, the Responsible Official concludes that the rezone
itself creates a reasonable anticipation of future impacts, specifically an increase in
density ailowed as a matter of right in the R 3 Zone, and the possibility of increased
visuai impacts.
3. Based on the Findings of Fact, a portion of the site is classified as a geologicaily
hazardous area as defined in ACC Secdon 16.10.080.G.2.b (Landsltde Hazard Areas).
6ased on the technical reports, th(s geologically hazardous feature is defined as a
Class II/Moderate Hazard landslide hazards area. Therefore, the imposition of a
condition related to the applicant rnmplying with the geotechnical report prepared by
Applied Earth Sciences on Apri18, 2008 is appropriate.
4. Based on Findings of Fact, a portion of the site is classified as a potentia{ geologicaliy
hazardous area pursuant to the Gty's Critical Area regulations contained within ACC
Sec4on 16.10.080.G.1(Critical Erosion Hazard Areas). Therefore, the imposition of a
condition related to the appllcant complying with the geotechnical report prepared by
Applied Earth Sciences on April 8, 2008 is approprlate..
5. The rezane as proposed is consistent with the City of Auburn Cvmprehensive Pian
designation. This proposal implements several goals and polides of the
comprehensive plan. The density for the proposed rezone is an acceptable level to
support urban senrices, and supports projected population growth and the changing
demographics of the aty. Further, the increase in density that can be realized is
appropriate given the identified geotechnical constrainis.
6. The rezone is not anticipated to result in adverse impacts due to the classifications
and capacity of adjacent streets.
CONDITtONS
This determination provides the following specific mitigation measures necessary to avoid a
Determination of Significance under SEPA. .
1. As a prominent entrance associated with the Aubum Lakeland Hills neighborhood, at
the time of future development, the applicantJowner shall in accordance with Chapter
15.74 ACC (Land Clearing, Filling, and Grading) and Chapter 18.50 ACC
(Landscaping) implement measures which minimize the potenfial adverse visual
impact of the site as viewed from surrounding parcels and Oravetr Road and
Lakeland Hills Way SE. 2. Between the time tliis rezone is approved and whenever a subsequent permit for this
site is applied for, the applicant/owner shall not remove the. existing native trees from
the site. For purposes of this condition, the owner shall not be considered to have
removed native vegetation if the vegetation is destroyed or damaged by natural
disaster or other causes not generated by the owner. For example, the owner
Page 9 of 10
Revised 1/14/2009
shall be permitted to remove trees blown down in a windstorm. The applicant owner
may suppiement the native vegetation with native and non-native plantings, as
approved by the Director of Planning or designee. 3. If the rezone request is approved, at the time of future development, the
applicant/owner shail provide sufficient information bo allow the City to determine
whether additionai mitigatfon measures are necessary. This additionai information
may include: a project-specific traffic study; a rendering (conceptual design)
sufficient to allow the city to determine vlew impacts from adjacent proper4es and
streets; an erosion/sedimentation control plan, documentation ensuring rnmpliance
with the Geotechn(cal Report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences for this site
(dated 4/8/08), a vegetation preservatian and enhancement plan, if required by City
Code; and, other information as required by City Code and polides.
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
POSTTION/TITLE:
ADDRESS:
Cynthia Baker, AICP
Director of Planning, Building &
Community
25 West Main Street
Aubum, Washington 98001
(253) 931-3090
DATE ISSUED: January 14. 2009 SIGNATURE:
. ~ 2r
Note: This determination does not constitute approval of the p posal. Approval
of the proposal can only be -made by the legisiative or administrative body vested
with that authority. The proposal is required to meet all applicable regulations.
Any person aggneved of this final determination may file an appeal with the Aubum City
Clerk within 21 days of the date of issuance of this notice. All appeals of the above
determination must be filed by 5:00 P.M. on Februarv 4. 2009, with reauired fee.
Page 10 of 10
Revised 1/14/2009
Investcol
February 29, 2008
CITY OF AUBURN
PLANNING DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
25 WEST MAIN STREET
AUBURN, WA 98001
Re: City of Auburn Case # SEP07-0034
Rezone of King County parcel #312105-9064
Director Baker,
C~,i
. ft-?
~FB 29
~?008
` ►C~~~
We received noticed of the above referenced case and have no comment at this rime.
However, my client has a continued interest in the processing of future actions under the proposed zone. The parcel is in the
vicinity of the King County entrance to the Lakeland Hills/Lakeland Hills South Planned Unit Developments (PUD). Although
the subject parcel is not a part of the Lakeland PUD, the future development will influence the PUD's perception by its mere
location.
I am requesting norification as a party of interest for future actions related to the subject rezone request and subsequent
applications requiring public notice. Please contact me directly (253-826-5378 or smartinAinvestco.net) if additional
information is required or with questions related to this request.
Respectfully Submitted,
ELECTR0IVIC COPY
Sean Martin, AICP
Project Manager
ZX11{,,ft !3
rtumber of Fftu ~
206 264 1212
i T• Headquarters ; 7: 253 863 6200 ; 201 Third Avenue, Suite 3710 ! '
: 1302 Puyallup Street wWw.INVESTCO.COM ' Seattle. Washington 98101 206 264 0121
; Sumner, Washington 98390 ; F: 253 863 2695 , ~ F`
Page 1 of 1
Jeff Dixon
From: Cindy Baker
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 6:39 PM pjs~~~,~
To: Chris Hankins MqR ~
Cc: Jeff Dixon 2008
Subject: FW: Comment on rezone in lakeland hilis area NG Q
~t
Not sure who Mel is, but here is an e-maii
From: Mel Johnson [mailto:engineer.mel@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 4:46 PM
To: Cindy Baker
Subject: Comment on rezone in lakeland hilis area
I can't find an email address for Chris Hankins so I hope you might be able to send this to him for me.
I would like to submit some comments on the proposed rezone as described in the public notice for
Piano LLC, Rezone with application numbers SEPA Checklist (SEP07-0034), Rezone (REZ07-0004)
I oppose the rezone for the following reasons.
1. Traffic. The Lakeland Hills Way and A street intersection is now already highly congested and there
is already many more areas in lakeland hills that axe still to be developed. I don't think that there is
sufficient traffic capacity on the current roads to support another development especially in a higher
density.
2. Visual impact. I appreciate the mitigation proposed but the Lakeland Hills Way road will have a
sever impact if there is to be destruction of the current green belt.
3. Water Absorption. By proposing a higher density housing zone, there will be an increased amount of
impermiable surface. This will impact the storm sewage system and run off straight into the river.
There would be a negative environmental impact.
4. Zoning continuity. The lakeland hills area already has many high density housing areas. I don't think
that this zone should be changed to high density as there is already plenty of that currently available.
This would impact housing prices and neighborhood continuity.
Thanks,
Mel Johnson
Auburn Washington
Ea6ibit ~
l~Te~~ber o Pa~
12 in ilnn4
o ~D
STTORNEYS AT LAW
Ms. Cynthia L. Baker
Planning Director
City of Auburn
25 `w esi iviain Street
Auburn, WA 98001
March 3, 2008
REC&V
En
MAR o 5 zoos
PL'4NNING pEPqRTME
NI
Re: Piano LLC. Comments on Proposed SEPA Threshold Determination
SEPA Checklist (SEP07-0034) & Rezone (REZ07-0004)
Dear Ms. Baker:
I am the project proponent for the above-referenced rezone application for the property of
Piano LLC ("Piano"). I would like to thank you for your review of our application and use of the
optional MDNS process to expedite project review. We appreciate your efforts to move the
application through the review process in a timely manner. We do have a concern, however,
with one of the proposed SEPA mitigation conditions. Specifically, we request that you
eliminate the third bullet from mitigation measure (1) before issuing the final MDNS for this
application. As explained below, the third bullet point is redundant and places an unnecessary
burden on the property.
Piano and I appreciate the City's concern for protecting the aesthetics within the City and
of neighboring developments. Toward that end, we support the first two bullets under mitigation
condition (1), which require the future installation of a landscape buffer, including new and/or
existing vegetation and possibly a berm, at the entrance to the site. Although the rezone stage is
an early point in the development review process to impose such site-specific conditions, these
conditions axe easily understood.
By comparison, the final bullet under mitigation measure (1) raises significant concerns.
First, based on our review of the City Code, this condition appears to be unnecessary because it
is redundant at this point in the development process. The City's Comprehensive Plan includes
several provisions aimed at preserving area aesthetics. If and when Piano LLC submits an
application to subdivide and/or develop the property, the City will have an opportunity to
evaluate the proposed development against its application criteria, including the City's
Comprehensive Plan provisions regazding aesthetics. However, at this point, Piano has
submitted only a rezone application. Given that Piano is only requesting a rezone, the City does
not need to impose this measure at this point.
Ex6ibi~ /.-T
Neember of l'aM Z
2025 First Avenue, Suite 500, Seattle, WA 98121-3140 206-382-9540 fax 206-626-0675 www.GordonDerr.com
Second, the language of the condition as drafted is vague, leaving its meaning open to
interpretation, debate and potential dispute. What the City will require "to ensure a high quality
visual environment" is not clear from the condition language. As such, it places an undue burden
on the owner in attempting to satisfy such a requirement for a rezone application. While we trust
the City's motives in proposing this condition, our understandable concern is that in the future at
the point of subdivision application the City could attempt to impose an interpretation of this
condition that we could not foresee and with which we do not agree. At that point, the City
would likely assert that we aze bound to its interpretation of this vague condition. That is an
untenable position, leading potentially to unnecessary disputes and ill will.
By comparison, at the point of subdivision or development penmit application, both the
City and applicant will be in a much better position to understand and agree on appropriate
improvements that "will ensure a high quality visual environment as viewed from Oravetz
Road and Lakelanci Hills Way SE." Removing the third bullet now from the DNS regarding our
rezone application will not limit the City's ability to apply the condition during a subsequent
subdivision or development permit application.
Finally, it is unclear at this time whether Piano will be the ultimate developer of the
subject property. Given current economic conditions, Piano might sell the properiy following
the rezone to a builder or other land developer. The presence of this vague condition will
confuse and worry any potential future purchaser/developer. A vague condition attached to a
property wil► potentially make the transfer of that property to a third party more difficult and
impair the efficient use of land. Again, because the City retains the authority to require
adherence to its aesthetic policies as part of a future subdivision or other development permit
application process, there is no reason to saddle the property with this vague condition at this
time.
Based on the foregoing, we urge the City to remove the third bullet from the mitigation
measures for this rezone application before issuing the final MDNS. If you have reservations
about doing so, please contact me prior to issuing the final MDNS so that we can meet to discuss
it in person. Also, if you have any other questions or comments regaxding the content of this
letter or any aspect of the proposed rezone, please contact me. My telephone number is 206-382-
9540 and my email address is mlawrence@gordonderr.com. Thanks in advance for your
consideraiic,n.
Very truly yours,
Molly A. Lawrence
MAL:MAL
cc: Douglas Jackson, Piano LLC
Jason Naiden, Piano LLC
- -
, 77 ~
~
~~~er B. Lewas, ~~ayw
l-4 ; ; , , 2b PJ,!c,3;) ~raHt >:s ~"oburn tr,A 98001 -4998 * +NW4;V.OUbLIYnVNa.gOv
March 11, 2008
Molly Lawrence
Gordon Derr LLP
2025 1s'Ave, Suite #500
Seattle, WA 98121
RE: Piano LLC, Rezone Application
SEPA Checklist (SEP07-0034)
Rezone (REZ07-0004)
Dear Ms. Lawrence:
As you know, the preliminary Mitigated Determination of Non Significance (MDNS) for
this proposed rezone was issued on February 18, 2008 with one condition. Since that
time and prior to the close of the comment period, we received several comments
regarding the proposed MDNS and based on these comments and continued review of
the documents submitted with the rezone and SEPA applications we have determined
that additional information is necessary prior to issuance of a final SEPA determination.
The following summarizes the additional information requested at this time;
A critica/ areas report (geotechnica!) is required to be provided that
ana/yzes the topographica/ features.and s/ope stabi/ity of the properfy.
This report is required to be prepared in accordance with Section
16.10.070 ACC. The purpose of the report is to determine the extent,
characteristics and functions of the critica/ areas /ocated on or
potentia//y affected by activities on the site where regu/ated activities
are proposed. The neport wi// a/so be used by the city to estab/ish
appropriate buffer requirements, use of the site, and to assist in the
review of the rezone request. Furt/rer, the critica/ area report is
required to be prepared by a qua/ified consu/tant,
We have determined that the lack of information associated with the SEPA and rezone
request regarding the topographical features and geologic hazard on the property may
be considered insufficient to make a recommendation on the rezoning action. This is a
subject area where the City needs this information in advance in order to complete its
recommendation on the rezone. Upon review of this information, we may determine
additional conditions associated with this proposed rezone or SERA decision are
necessary to ensure that anticipated environmental impacts are mitigated.
Also, we would like to set up a meeting to discuss your comments submitted by letter on
March 3, 2008 regarding the proposed MDNS regarding protection of aesthetics for
future development of the property.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, I can be reached at (253) 804-5031, fax
(253) 804-3114, or email chankins@auburnwa.gov. To further assist your needs, The
Auburn City Code can be; reviewed in its entirety online at www.auburnwa.qov.
r ;
r.
Sincerely,
~
s
Chr"is Hankins
Senior Planner
Enci: SEPA Comment Letters
cc: Cindy Baker, Director of Planning, Building, & Community
Ingrid Gaub, Assistant City Engineer
Jason Naiden, Piano LLC, 1414 31st Ave. S. #301, Seattle WA 98144
Piano LLC
1414 315` Avenue S. #301
Seattle, WA 98144-3955
Ms. Cynthia L. Baker
Planning Director
City of Auburn
25 West Main Street
Auburn, WA 98001
Tel: 1-206-322-3690
Fax: 1-206-322-3407
jasonn@MagnusLLC.com
P~ CE'~/E~
1 August 2008 ~-r e~~4.reR
AJG 0 5 2008
BY
TIN)E
~
Re: Comments on Proposed SEPA Threshold Determination
SEPA Checklist (SEP07-0034) & Rezone (REZ07-0004)
Dear Ms. Baker:
During our meeting on June 16, 2008, we reviewed the geotechnical reports from Aaron
McMichael at Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. ("AESI"), together with the review letters from
ZZA Terracon ("ZZA"). During that meeting there was some confusion as to the proper
classification of the steep slopes on the Piano parcel under Auburn's Municipal Code (AMC)
16.10.080 (G).
Piano LLC maintains that the on-site slopes are properly categorized as Class II/Moderate
Hazard under the AMC. On page 6 paragraph 4 of the report prepared by AESI dated April 8t',
2008, the report states:
Based on the topographic conditions, site landslide hazard per 16.10.080 would be
classified as Class IV/Very High Hazard. However, it is our opinion that based
on the medium dense to dense, glacially consolidated soil conditions, and iack of
adverse ground water conditions and indications of past landslide activity, site
landslide hazard should be considered low to moderate.
(Emphasis added). In ZZA's review letter, dated May 28, 2008, they similarly state:
Because the current topography appeazs to have been artificially created, we take
no exception with AESI's comment that characterizing -the landslide hazard
based on the existing slope gradients is not justified. Based on the soil
conditions described by AESI and extrapolating the topography of (relatively)
undisturbed slopes in the area, we would classify the overall landslide hazard
ac Ciass II/Moderate."
(Emphasis added).
xibim 11 ~tum~ber of ft"
~
Page 2 of 2
Both geotechnical engineers agree that the landslide hazard is Class IUModerate. Both engineers
agree that classification based on topography alone is not justified. The point of confusion
seems to be the language in the AMC that implies Class IV when ever the gradient is greater than
40%. But this confusion is resolved by ACC 16.10.080 (B), which states in relevant part:
B. Classification of critical areas sha11 be determined by the director based on
consideration of the following factors and in the following order:
1. Consideration of the technical reports submitted by qualified consultants in
connection with applications subject to these regulations;
2. Application of the criteria contained in these regulations; and
3. Critical axeas maps maintained by the planning and community development
department.
(Emphasis added).
Based on this Code section, the geotechnical assessment of the two engineers should determine
the classification of the site's steep slopes. The Code explicitly gives paramount weight to the
assessments from "qualified consultants," who in this instance both agree that classification
should be Class II/Moderate Hazard. Failing to give paramount weight to their assessments
would render the words "in the following order" in AMC 16.10.080(B) meaningless.
In choosing this order of priority, the Auburn City Council understood that the criteria in the
regulations are meant as guidelines and would be less accurate than an in-depth, site-specific
analysis by a qualified consultant. Where a slope is in fact sta.ble, the mere fact of its gradient
should not override the opinions of qualified experts. The qualified consultants agree that the
topography is not the proper method for evaluating and classifying the landslide hazard.
However, at the development stage, the City could elect to evaluate the topography as part of the
development plan.
Based on the foregoing, Piano LLC requests that the Planning Director recognize that the slopes
on the Piano property are in fact Class II/Moderate Hazard. A Class IV designation elevates the
topography of the site over a11 other criteria which is contrary to the technical reports submitted
by two qua.lified consultants. This is not consistent with or warranted by the Code.
Please feel free to contact us if you wish to discuss this further.
Ver~y truly yours,
~
Z/JT/a9,son Naiden
Piano LLC
cc: Chris Hankins
~
CHAPTER 14
~
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP
Introduction
The previous chapters presented the goals, objectives and policies
intended to guide Auburn's future physical development. The
Comprehensive Plan Map presented in this chapter (Map 14.1) applies
those policies to the various areas of the City, by indicating the
appropriate locations for various categories of land use. The Plan Map
should be consulted together with the written policies of this Plan when
decisions about land use and public facility development are considered.
This chapter also explains the reasoning and intention behind the Plan
Map's land use designations. This should be useful in developing and
applying implementing tools (such as zoning provisions); for interpreting
the Plan Map as it applies to specific regulatory decisions or development
proposals; and in adjusting or amending the Plan Map when changing
conditions or land use znarkets warrant. Finally, this chapter sets forth some special policies intended to deal with
the unique problems or opporiunities that exist in certain specific locations
within Auburn. These specific policies supplement the general goals,
objectives and policies of earlier chapters.
Land Use
Designations:
Plan Map
Residential Categories
Residenticzl Conservancy
Purpose: To protect and preserve natural areas with significant
environmental constraints or values from urban levels of development and
to protect the City's water sources.
Page 14-1
Amended 2008
Chapter 14
Description: This category should consist primarily of low density
residential uses (with densities not exceeding one unit per four acres) in
areas with environmenta.l constraints and/or areas requiring special
protection such as the City's watershed, which is a significant water
resource. Examples include the Coal Creek Springs watershed area and
low-lying areas along the Green River that are isolated fiom urban
services. From a practical standpoint, this watershed area cannot be
readily served by public facilities due to its physical separation from
public facilities by an existing gravel mine operation that is expected to
continue operation years into the future. The designation will serve to
both protect environmental features and hold areas for higher density
development until sucktime public facilities become available.
The area designated "residential conservancy" allows for a lifestyle
' similar to that of rural areas since the lower density established protects
the critical axeas such as the City's Coal Creek Springs watershed. A rural
lifestyle generally includes allowance of farm animals, streets not urban in
character (e.g. no sidewalks, street lights), and limited agricultural type
uses.
Compatible Uses: Low density residential uses consistent with
protecting the City's water resources and environmental constraints are
appropriate. Low intensity cottage industry appropriate for rural areas
may be allowed, subject to review. Various public and quasi-public uses.
which are consistent with a rural character may be permitted as
conditional uses. Resource extractive uses can only be allowed if the
basic environmental chaxacter of the area is preserved.
Those areas with critical areas sha11 be appropriate for low density
residential, with the intent to protect environmentally critical areas from
impacts associated with more intensive development. These
environmentally critical areas area valued as a community resource, both
for conservation purposes and public enjoyment;. provided, that the
environmentally critical areas area protected, low density single family
residential use may be appropriate.
Criteria for Designation: This designation should be applied to areas
with either significant environmental values worthy of protection or to
those areas which may pose environmental hazards if developed, such as
areas tributary to public water sources. It may also be appropriate, to a
limited extent, as a nneans of delimiting the edge of the City or to areas
that are impractical to develop to urban levels until a later time period due
to pre-existing development patterns and the absence of public facilities.
Page 14-2
Amended 2008
Comp. Plan
Considerations Against Applying this Designation: Due to the costs of
providing City services to these axeas, this designation should be applied
sparingly. It should be applied as a mea.ns of conserving significant
environmental resources, to achieve watershed protection and/or to areas
where development served by public facilities has been made impractical
due to pre-existing use patterns.
Appropriate Implementation: The RC (residential conservancy) district
will implement this designation.
Single Family
Purpose: To designate and protect areas for predominantly single family
dwellings.
Description: This category includes those areas reserved primarily for
single family dwellings. Implementing regulations should provide for an
appropriate range of lot sizes, clustered and mixed housing types as part of
a planned development.
Compatible Uses: Single family residences and uses that serve or
support residential development, such as schools, daycare centers,
churches and parks shall be considered appropriate and may be permitted
on a conditional basis. Other public buildings and semi-public uses may
be permitted if designed and laid out in a manner which enhances rather
than detracts from the residential character of the area. In siting such uses,
however, special care shall be given to ensuring adequate parking,
landscaping, and traffic circulation with a minimum of conflict with
residential uses. Uses which generate significant traffic (such as large
churches) should only locate on developed arterials in areas zoned for
institutional uses.
Intrusion of industrial uses into any of these single family areas shall be
prohibited. Only very limited commercial uses such as hame occupations
or strictly limited appropriate conditional uses can be allowed.
Planned developments should be favorably considered in these
designations in order to allow optimal flexibility. In providing such
flexibility, the emphasis should be on small alley-loaded lot single family
development, limited low density multifamily housing and a mixture of
types, and design diversity should be sought. Except where conditional
use permits have been previously granted, alternate structure types should
not exceed more than 40 percent of the units, and alternative structures
should in most cases contain no more than four dwelling units each.
However, where substantial offsetting community benefits can be
identified, such alternative structures may be allowed to contain more than
three units each.
Page 14-3
Amended 2008
Chapter 14
Criteria for Designation: Areas suita,ble for this designation include
those areas designated in goals and policies of this Plan as single family
areas. Consistent with those policies, areas within the Community
Serving Area of the City suita.ble for this category should be reserved for
these uses. This designation should also be applied to areas adjacent to
lower density residential plan designations.
Considerations Against Applying this Designation: This designation
would not be generally appropriate (although exceptions may exist) in the
following areas: .
Areas with high volumes of through traffic.
2. Areas developed in or more appropriate under the Plan
policies for another use.
3. Areas within the Region Serving Area of the City.
Appropriate Implementation: Three zones may be used to implement
this category:
1} R-1 - Single Family Residential District permits 8,000 square foot
lots. This zone is intended to provide for moderate lot size single
family development. It is intended to be applied to the relatively
undeveloped portions of the City, areas where existing
development patterns are consistent with the density and upland
areas where greater densities would strain the transportation
system.
2) R-2 - Single Family Residential District permits 6,000 square foot
lots. This zone provides for relatively small lot sizes. It may be
applied to the older neighborhoods of the City and reflects the
typically smaller lot sizes found there. Application of this zone
should be considered for areas considered appropriate for a mix of
housing types, particularly in some of the Special Planning Areas
as discussed below.
3) RS - Single Family Residential District permits 35,000 square foot
lots. This zone is intended to provide for high quality large lot
single family development and is primarily applied to areas
designated as urban separators under the King Counry Countywide
Planning Policies where rezones from existing densities (typically
one unit per acre) are not allowed for a 20 year period and/or to
areas with significant environmental constraints. It may also be
Page 14-4
Amended 2008
Comp. Ptan
applied in limited instances to areas where greater densities are
limited by environmental constraints.
Moderate Density
Purpose: To provide a transition between single family residential areas
and other more intensive designations, as well as other activities which
reduce the suitability of potential residential areas for single family uses
(such as high traffic volumes). In so doing, this designation will offer
opportunities for housing types which balance residential amenities with
the need to provide economical housing choice, in a manner consistent
with conserving the character of adjacent single family areas.
Description: Moderate density residential areas axe planned to
accommodate moderate densities of varying residential dwelling types.
Appropriate densities in these areas shall range from 6 to 10 units per acre.
Dwelling types would generally range from single family units to fourplex
units, with larger structures allowed (at the same overall density) where
offsetting community benefits can be identified. Structures designed to be
occupied by owner-managers shall be encouraged within this designation.
Compatible Uses: Public and quasi-public uses that have land use
impacts similar to moderate to high density residential uses axe
appropriate within this category. Also, uses which require access to traffic
(such as schools and churches) are- appropriate for these areas. Carefully
developed low intensity office, or residentially related commercial uses
(such as day caxe centers) can be compatible if developed properly. This
designation can include manufactured home parks.
Criteria for Designation: Areas particularly appropriate for such
designation are:
1. Areas between single family residential uses and all other uses.
2. Areas adjacent to, or close to major arterials designated in the
transportation element.
3. Existing manufactured home parks.
4. Areas sandwiched between higher intensity uses, but not directly
served by an arterial.
5. Urban infill areas not appropriate for single family uses but also
not capable of supporting higher density uses.
Page 14-5
Amended 2008
Chapter 14
Considerations Against Applying this' Designation: Areas to generally
be avoided by moderate density residential designations include:
1. Areas surrounded by lower density uses.
2. Areas more appropriate for commereial or higher density uses due .
to traffic or extensively developed public facilities.
3. Areas within the Region Serving Area designated by this Plan
(except as otherwise provided by the Plan).
4. Any areas not planned to be served by water and sewer systems.
Appropriate Implementation: This designation can be implemented by
two zones:
1) The R-3 - Two-Family (Duplex) Residential District allows single
family dwellings and duplexes as permitted uses. Fourplexes,
some residential supporting uses, and professional offices are
permitted as conditional uses.
2) R-MHP Residential Manufactured Home Park District permits the
development of manufactured home parks on properry that is at
least 5 acres in size. The maximum density per unit should be
5,200 square feet.
High Density
Purpose: To provide an opportunity for the location of the most
economical forms of housing in areas appropriately situated for such uses
under the policies of this Plan.
Description: This category shall be applied to tlaose areas which are
either now developed or are reserved for multiple family dwellings.
Densities may range from 10 to 20 units per acre. Dwelling types may
range from single family units to 'apartment complexes, and may include
manufactured home parks when located adjacent ta major arterial streets.
Adequate recreation areas should be provided for any development
involving more than 10 units. Densities exceeding 20 units per acre and
special development standards may be authorized for senior housing
projects, within the Downtown area and within 1/4 mile of regional transit
service.
Compatible Uses: Compatible uses are similar to those identified under
the other residential categories, except higher intensities of use may be
Page 14-6
Amended 2008
Molly Lawrence ~
,
From: Steven Gross [sgross@auburnwa.govj Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 11:48 AM
To: Molly Lawrence; Jeff Dixon; Chris Hankins ~
Cc: Jackson, Douglas; Naiden, Jason
Subject: RE: Final MDNS for Piano Rezone (SEP07-0034)
Molly,
We agree with your interpretafiion. Have a good vacation.
Steven L. Gross
Assistant City Attorney
City of Auburn
253.804.5027
The information contained in this electronic communicafiion is personal, privileged and/or
confidential information intended only for fihe use of the individual(s) or entity(ies) to
which it has been addressed. If you read this communication and are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication, other than delivery to the intended recipient is-strictly prohibited. If you
have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-
mail. Thank you.
-----Original Message-----
From: Molly Lawrence [mailto:mlawrence@GordonDerr.com]
Sent: Wednesday, ]anuary'28, 2009 11:59 AM
To: 7eff Dixon; Chris Nankins
Cc: Steven Gross; 7ackson, Douglas; Naiden, ]ason
Subject: RE: Final MDNS for Piano Rezone (SEP07-0034)
Thanks 7eff. So just to clarify, that means that when the MDNS condition says we have to
meet the provisions of our geotech's report; the City is not saying that we are limited to
only the buffers as recounted in the geotech report (based on ACC 16.10.090). Instead, the
future developer can request exceptions to those buffers pursuanfi to ACC 16.10.100 and the
City will entertain such requests to the extent we can show we meet ACC 16.10.100. 7ust
taking a belt and suspenders approach here so there is no confusion later. (I just don't
want the condition to be misconstrued as limiting our ability to use ACC 16.10.100 in the
future.)
Thanks for the clarification.
Molly
From: 7eff Dixon [mailto:jdixon@auburnwa.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, 7anuary 28, 2009 11:28 AM
To: Molly Lawrence; Chris Hankins
Cc: Steven Gross; 7ackson, Douglas; Naiden, 7ason
Subject: RE: Final MDNS for Piano Rezone (SEP07-0034)
1
Molly,
Thanks for your e-mail. Notwithstanding the information in the Final MDNS, the city is
always required to implement its city code.
Thanks,
7eff Dixon
From: Molly Lawrence [mailto:mlawrence@GordonDerr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 7anuary 27, 2009 12:12 PM
To: Molly Lawrence; 7eff Dixon; Chris Hankins
Cc: Steven Gross; 7ackson, Douglas; Naiden, 7ason
Subject: RE: Draft MDNS for Piano Rezone (SEP07-0034)
Dear 7eff and Chris,
I haven't heard back from either of you regarding my email below. Can I expect to hear lafier
today (before I leave out of town for two weeks?)
Thanks. Molly
From: Molly Lawrence
Sent: Monday, 7anuary 26, 2009 9:32 AM
To: '7eff Dixon'; Chris Hankins
Cc: Steven GroSS; 7ackson, Douglas; Naiden, 7ason
Subject: RE: Draft MDNS for Piano Rezone (SEP07-0034)
Thanks 7eff.
We are hoping for one clarification regarding the MDNS. Specifically, in the final version,
the City added a new condi.tion requiring "documentation ensuring compliance with the
Geotechnical Report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences for the site (dated 4/8/08).„
Condition 3. Earlier in the MDNS, the City restates the portion of that AESI report that
explains the buffer requiremenfis from ACC 16.10.090.E.4.c. Finding of Fact, 92 We wanted to
be certain that these provisions read together were not intended to limit our ability to rely
on ACC 16.10.100.E in the future to reduce the standard buffer requirements from ACC
2
19.10.090.E.4.c. In particular, ACC 19.10.100.E prohibits development on Class IV slopes,
but allows development on lesser classified slopes so long as the applicant can meet the
cr.iteria sefi forth in the Code. In discussing this issue with our geotech at AESI, he
explained that it was not his intent, by recounting the standard buffer provisions from ACC
19.10.090.E.4.c, to in any way limit our ability fio rely on ACC 19.10.100.E in the future,
provided we can meet the criteria of ACC 19.10.100.E.
I would appreciate a written response to this email in order to clarify the record. Also, if
at all possible, please get back to me by Wednesday. I am leaving for a trip out of the
country on Thursday morning, and need to understand before then whether we are all on the
same page or perhaps interpreting the AESI report or the City Code differenfily. .
Thanks very much.
Molly A. Lawrence I GordonDerr LLP 1 2025 First Avenue, Suite 500, Seattle, WA 98121-3140
mlawrence@GordonDerr.com I Phone: 206-382-9540 1 Fax: 206-626-0675 1 www.GordonDerr.com
<http://www.gordonderr.com/>
This e-mail is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addr.essed
and may contain confidential, privileged information. If the reader of this e-mail is not the
addressee, please be advised that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail
is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please call (206) 382-
9540 and return this e-mail to GordonDerr at the above e-mail address and delete from your
files. Thank You.
From: 7eff Dixon [mailto:jdixon@auburnwa.gov]
Sent: Friday, ]anuary 16, 2009 1:52 PM
To: Molly Lawrence; Chris Hankins
Cc: Steven Gross; 7ackson, Douglas; Naiden, Jason
Subject: RE: Draft MDNS for Piano Rezone (SEP07-0034)
Molly,
Don't know what the problem was but here is another attempt. Please let me know if this
works.
7eff Dixon
3
~
From: Molly Lawrence [mailto:mlawrence@GordonDerr.com]
Sent: Friday, 7anuary 16, 2009 8:21 AM
To: 7eff Dixon; Chris Hankins
Cc: Steven Gross; 7ackson, Douglas; Naiden, Jason
Subject: RE: Draft MDNS for Piano Rezone (SEP07-0034)
Dear 7eff,
Thanks for your email.
resending it?
Thanks. Molly
When I open the attachment, however, there is not text. Could you try
From: 7eff Dixon [mailto:jdixon@auburnwa.gov]
Sent: Thursday, 7anuary 15, 2009 11:53 AM
To: Molly Lawrence; Chris Hankins
Cc: Steven Gross; 7ackson, Douglas; Naiden, 7ason
Subject: RE: Draft MDNS for Piano Rezone (SEP07-0034)
Dear Molly,
Thanks for your comments, we have incorporated many of these and proceeded to issue the final
decision which is attached. I'm responding for Chris since he is oufi of the office for the
remainder of the week.
7eff Dixon
From: Molly Lawrence [mailto:mlawrence@GordonDerr.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 6:51 AM
To: Chris Hankins
Cc: 7eff Dixon; Steven Gross; ]ackson, Douglas; Naiden, 7ason
Subject: RE: Draft MDNS for Piano Rezone (SEP07-0034)
Dear Chris,
4
I didn't hear from you yesterday, so I thought I would check back in. What is the plan at
this point? Have you integrated our comments into a revised document for publication? Please
let me know.
Thanks much. Molly
From: Molly Lawrence .
Sent: Tuesday, 7anuary 13, 2009 6:37 PM
To: 'Chris Hankins'
Cc: 7eff Dixon; Steven Gross; 7ackson, Douglas; Naiden, 7ason
Subject: RE: Draft MDNS for Piano Rezone (SEP07-0034)
Dear Chris,
Thanks for providing us one last look at the draft MDNS. First, I want to thank you. This
is a vast improvement over the last draft and addresses many of our comments and concerns.
We do have a few straggler issues, and have attached a redlined versions addressing those
issues. Our proposed changes fall into two areas: landslide hazard classification and
future visual buffering. With regard to the first issue, we were surprised by the discussion
of fihe landslide hazard classification in the draft MDNS. When~we were last on the phone
with Cindy in November, she expressly agreed that based on the geotech's reports and
recommendations the slopes qualified as Class II. I know that we discussed this quite a bit
over the past 6+ months, but that was the final conclusion during our last call on the
subject. I have attached my email following the conversation, in which we thanked the City
for finally putting this issue to bed. Based on that discussion, we have redlined the SEPA
MDNS to state that the slopes are Class II/Moderate Hazard.
With regard to the second issue, I thought it was terrific to see the City referring to
specific code sections regarding future land clearing and landscaping activities. That is
very consistent with what we would expect. I became confused, however, when I saw the
sentence: "The applicant/owner shall be responsible fio demonstrate that the existing and
supplemented vegetation is suitable for purposes of providing a buffer to minimize pofiential
visual impacts of future site development." The word "suitable" is undefined and open to
overbroad interpretation. Rather than relying on words like "suitable," we thought the
better approach would be for us to agree not to remove the existing trees on the site between
now and the time of a future development application, and then the applicant and City can
hash out the visual impacts/buffering at the time an actual development-proposal is on the
table. Otherwise, we are shooting in the dark at an uncertain target.
Finally, there are a couple of places where I have inserted questions into the text. I used
the highlighting feature to denote them. They represent words or phrases that I did not
quite understand or that I thought required a bit further clarification.
5
Please get back to me with your comments/thoughts. We appreciate your willingness to work
with us on this.
Molly Lawrence
From: Chris Hankins [mailto:chankins@auburnwa.gov]
Sent: Friday, 7anuary 09, 2009 4:52 PM
To: Molly Lawrence
Cc: 7eff Dixon; Steven Gross
Subject: Draft MDNS for Piano Rezone (SEP07-0034)
Hi Molly,
Attached please find the "revised" draft of the MDNS for the Piano Rezone project. If
possible can you please review within the next few days and let us know if you have any
additional comments. We would like to issue the decision by Wednesday (1/14/09) of next
week. Thanks!
Chris Hankins
Transportation Planner/Grants Manager
City of Auburn Public Works Department
25 West Main Streefi
Auburn, WA 98001
(253) 804-5040 direct
(253) 804-3114 fax
e-mail: chankins@auburnwa.gov
web: http://www.auburnwa.gov
6
The information contained in this electronic communication is personal, privileged and/or
confidential information intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity(ies) to
which it has been addressed. If you read this communication and'are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication, other than delivery to the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you
have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-
mail. Thank you.
7
~)(nozT- ._ZL_
RECE,VED ay VEN
~PHY
PER~~rr cEwrER #,Ai
z909 RPR 2 7 P,~ z 1^ LACE
X .L.
C.
K A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
N. Kay Richards
206.447.2231
krichards@omwlaw.com
Apri124, 2009
Carolyn Brown
Assistant Planning Secretary
Planning, Building & Community
City of Auburn
25 West Main Street
Auburn, WA 98001-4998
Re: Piano LLC, REZ07-0004 - Order on Reconsideration
Dear Ms. Brown:
At the request of Phil Olbrechts, enclosed are two executed originals of the above-referenced
document.
Sincerely,
OGDEN MURPHY W.ALLACE, P.L.L.C.
N. Kay Richards, Legal Assistant to
Phil A. Olbrechts
/nkr
Enclosures
Esroblished 1902
A Member of the Internotionol Lawyers Nelwork with independenf inember law firms worldwide
1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2100 • Seattle, WA 98101-1686 • 206.4477000 • Fax: 206.447.0215 • Web: www.omwlow.com
{ PA0706947.DOC;1/00083.900000/)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 I
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
BEFORE THE HEARING EXANIINER FOR THE CITY OF AUBURN
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
RE: Piano I1.C
Rezone ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION
REZ07-0004
INTRODUCTION
The City of Auburn received a timely Request for Reconsideration from Molly
Lawrence, attorney for the applicant, for the above-referenced case on April 13, 2009.
The request asserts that the Exazniner did not identify some documents entered at the
hearing in the exhibit list of the Examiner's recommendation. Specifically, Ms.
Lawrence asserts she presented some email exchanges between her and the Auburn's
legal staff during the March 25, 2009 hearing on this znatter and that these documents
were admitted into the record by the Examiner. The Examiner has reviewed his files
and confirms that Ms. Lawrence is correct.
ORDER
The following document is added to the Exhibits section of the Examiner's
recommendation on the above-captioned matter as follows:
Exhibit 19 Email chain between Steve Goss and Molly
Lawrence, ending 1/29/09. -
Dated this 24th day of April, 2009.
- !~~~itin✓`s't/`
Phil Olbrechts
City of Auburn Hearing Examiner
{ PA0726633. DOC;1 /00083.900000/ }
Rezone
p. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF AUBURN
2 _
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
3 RE: Piano LLC
4 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
5 Rezone OF LAW AND RECOMMENDATION.
REZ07-0004
6 7 INTRODUCTION .
. 8 The applicant has requested a rezone of a 4.75 acre parcel from R1 (single family
9 residential) to R3 (duplex residential). The Examiner recommends approval of the
request with a staff-recommended condition. .
10 ORAL TESTIMONY .
11
No one except staff and the applicant testified or were present for the hearing. In
12 response to questions from the Examiner, staff clarified'that the geotechnical analysis
13 for the project was subject to peer review. Staff had several meetings with the
applicant's geotechnical consultant and the peer-review consultant and both
14 u1timately concluded that the site was a Class II geotechnical hazard and that the
intensity of use for the proposed rezone was consistent with this type of hazard.
15 Molly Lawrence, attorney for the applicant, clarified that the. comments of the peer-
review consultant in Exhibit 12, where the peer-review consultant concluded that the
16 site was not appropriate for a rezone, was based upon the premise that the site was
17. classified as a Class N geotechnical hazard. Ms. Lawrence stated that the applicant
and peer review consultants were in agreement that it was a Class II hazard.
18 .
Chris Hankins, planning staff, noted that the densities idendfied in Finding of Fact
19 No. 5 of the staff report were gross densities and not net densities. He also noted that
20 the reference to "Special Plan Area" on the table on page 2 of the staff report should :
be "High Density Residential." Mr. Hankins also note that the sentence starting with
21 "[T]he regulated slopes" at the second-to-last paragraph of Page 6 of the staff report
should be removed as inaccurate.
22
In response to questions from the Examirier, Mr. Hankins noted that the 23 comprehensive plan designation for the site has not changed since its annexation into
24 the City in 2003, when the zoning and comprehensive plan designarions were initially . assigned to the project.
25
Molly Lawrence, attorney for the applicant, noted that the comprehensive plan
designation for the property at the time of annexation was moderate density
residential and that the zoning was R-1. Ms. Lawrence noted that the current zoning .
(PA0724718.DOC;1/00083.900000!}
Rezbne p. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
is not consistent with this comprehensive plan and that the proposed rezone is
1 consistent. Consequently, the proposed rezone is necessary to implement_ the
2 comprehensive plan. Ms. Lawrence also stated that the sentences starting with "[T]he
significant slope" and "[T]he environmental constraints" should be stricken from the
3 second-to-last paragraph of Page 6 of the staff report. Ms. Lawrence stated that these
sentences overstate the limitations on development created by the geographical 4 hazards of the property.
5 EXHIBITS
6 All exhibits listed in the Exhibit List at Page 2 of the staff report on this application,
7 dated 3/20/04, are admitted. Tn addition, the following exhibit was admitted during
the hearing on this matter: .
, $
9 Exhibit 18 Chapter 14 of the Auburn Comprehensive Plan. .
10 FINDINGS OF FACT
11 Procedural: .
12 1. Annlicant. The applicant is Piano I,LC.
13 2 Heariniz, The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the application at
14 3:00 P•m. at Auburn City Hall in the Council Chambers on March 25, 2009.
15 Substantive:
16 3. Site/Proposal DescriWtion. The applicant has applied for the rezoning of a
17 4.75-acre pazcel from R-1 (Single-Family Residential) to R-3 (Duplex Residential),
The rezone will enable more than twice the. currently allowed density. Nothing but
18 single-farnily residences are allowed in the R-1 zoning district. Single-family
residences and duplexes aze allowed outright within the R-3 zoning district. Muldple
19 duplexes on a single lot and mulG-fanuly residential structures are allowed upon
20 approval of a conditional use pernut in the R-3 zoning district. There is no
development proposal associated with this reaone request at this time.
21 •
The site is currently vacant with forested areas throughout. It is bordered by Oravetz
. 22 Road on the west and Lakeland Hills Way on the east. Both roads are classified as
minor arterials. The site comprises of a roughly rectangular-shaped parcel, which
23 slopes moderately to steeply upward to the south and east from Oravetz Road
24 Southeast. The central section of the site contains a benched area. From the benched
area, the site slopes steeply upwards to Lakeland Hills Way Southeast within northern
Zg and central sections and gently upward wittun the southern sections of the site. The
steep slopes along Oravetz Road 5outheast are generally inclined at approximately
70-percent grades, while the steep slopes within the central section of the site below
Lakeland Hills Way Southeast are inclined at approximately 40. to 60-percent grades.
{PA0724718.DOC;1/00083.900000/}
Rezone p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Some localized areas of the slopes above the benched area are inclined at grades of
1 approximately 80 to 90 percent. The slopes along Oravetz Road Southeast and within
2 the central portion of the site appear to have been modified by past grading activity.
3 4. Characteristics of the Area. The general vicinity of the subject site is
chazacterized as land transitioning from less urban to a more urban development
4 pattern. The Lakeland Hills Planned Unit Development is a few hundred feet to the
east. Properties adjacent to the subject site, particularly along the narth and east
, 5 edges, are characterized as developed to higher urban densities that are consistent
6 with the City of Auburn's zoning and comprehensive plan designations. A high
school and an elementary school are located north and west of the site on the west
7 side of Oravetz Road.
8 5. Adverse Impacts. The primary issue of concern for the subject property is
its steep slopes. As noted by staff, steep-slope issues have undergone extensive 9 review by both the applicant's geotechnical consultant (Associated Earth Sciences,
10 Inc.) and a peer-review consultant (ZZA-Terracon). The last written documentarion
from the peer-review consultant (Exhibit 12) concludes that the proposed rezone
11
may be at odds with the AMC--Specified Prohibition of Class N Land
12 Slide Hazard Area alteration since developrinent of the site for multi-
family housing would [sic] the likely require alteration of the Class IV
13 Landslide Hazard Areas.
14 However, staff and the applicant's attomey testified that the peer-review consultant
15 has subsequently concluded that the property is not Class N hazazd area, but rather a
Class II hazard area and that as such, the proposed rezone is consistent with the
16 geological constraints of the property. This testimony is consistent with the NIDNS
(Exhibit A) for the project, where it is stated at Page 3 that the peer-review engineer 17 has agreed that the project should be classified as a Class IUModerate Hazazd '
ig Landslide HazazdArea. This evolution in the assessment of geological hazard
apparently arises from the fact that the original Class N designation was based solely
19 upon topographical conditions (the steep slopes at the site), whereas a more in-depth
investigation revealed that the soils and groundwater characteristics of the site
20 merited a less hazardous designation. Given these factors, the Examiner finds that the 21 proposed rezone is consistent with the geological constraints of the site.
22 A letter in opposition was also received (Exhibit 14) by Mel Johnson. IVir. 7ohnson
expressed concerns over traffic, visual impact, stormwater and "zoning continuity."
23 Mr. Johnson notes that the Lakeland Hills Way and A Street intersections aze already
highly congested, and there aze already many more areas in Lakeland Hills that are
24 still to be developed. Staff comment on existing traffic conditions and capacity of the
25 road network would have been helpful in evaluating this concern. However, the
roads serving this project are arterials and, consequently, no development on the
subject site will be allowed under the Growth Management Act that lowers the level
of service of these arterials below City-adopted standards. Further, as noted in the
{ PA0724718.DOC;1/00083.900000/}
Rezone p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
staff report, all traffic impacts will be mitigated at the time of development. Given
1 these safeguards, the Examiner finds that transportation will be adequately addressed.
2 As to stormwater, the City has extensive regulations that address stormwater impacts.
3 These regulations prohibit any net increase in dischazge of stormwater offsite. The
City's existing regulations adequately address stormwater.
4
As to visual impact, there is little that can legally be done to address visual impacts in
5permit review, given the lack of specific standazds to address the situation. However,
6 Condition No. 1 of the MDNS (Exhibit 8) does require the applicant to "minimize"
visual impacts as viewed from surrounding parcels in Oravetz Road and Lakeland
7 Hills Way Southeast.
8 As to "zoning continuity,". Mr. Johnson argues that there is already sufficient high-
density development in the sunrounding area. The proximity of other high-densiry 9 development is actually an argument in favor of the proposed rezone, since this 10 ensures the further compatibility of adjoining use: Also,.the Growth Management ' .
Act encourages high-density development within urban growth azeas such as the City
11 of Auburn.
12 There are no other adverse impacts discernible from the record. The Examiner finds
13 that the proposed rezone will not create any material or significant adverse impacts.
14 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
15 ' Procedural:
16 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. ACC 18.68.030(B)(1)(a) grants the
17 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
18 requests are consistent with the comprehensive plan. The planning director has
deternuned that the rezone request is consi$tent with the comprehensive plan. The
19 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation for the property is Moderate Density
Residential. Page 14-6 of the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan provides that the
20 R-3 zone implements this zoning designation.
21
Substantive:
22.
2. Zoning Desi nat'ion. The property is zoned R-1, Single-Family
23 Residential. . 24
3. Review Criteria and Application. Chapter 18.68 ACC does not provide
25 any specific review criteria for site specific rezones. However, Washington appellate
courts have imposed some criteria themselves, requiring that the proponents of a
rezone must establish that conditions have substantially changed since the original
showing and that tlie rezone must bear a substantial relationship to the public health,
{ PA077A718. DOC;1/00083.900000/ }
Rezone p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
safety, morals or welfare. See Ahmann-Yamane, LLC v. Tabler, 105 Wn. App. 103, 1 111 (2001). However, no change in circumstances is necessary for rezones that
2 implement a comprehensive plan. Id. at 112.
3 In this case a change in circumstances is not necessary since the rezone does
implement the comprehensive plan. As previously discussed, the current zoning
4 designation for the property is inconsistent with the underlying comprehensive plan
designarion. The proposed rezone is consistent with the underlying comprehensive
5 plan designation. Even if the changed circumstances criterion did apply, this pxoject
6. would satisfy it by the intense development that has occurred in the surrounding area.
7 As noted in detail in the staff report, the proposed rezone also is consistent with and .
implements other Comprehensive Plan policies. The site is served by minor arterials,
8. is in an azea characterized by high-density development, and is located within an
urban growth area. AIl of these factors support the rezone to a higher density.
9 Further, the Ciry must allow a rezone to either the proposed R-3 district or the R-
10 NUP (Residential Manufactured Home Park District) in order to provide for
consistency between the Comprehensive Plan land use map and the zoning . map as
11 required by the Growth Management Act ("GMA"), Chapter 36.70A RCW.
12 The project bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety and welfare. It
promotes high density infill development within urban growth areas as eneouraged by
13 the GMA. It serves as a transition area to institutional and high-density uses. The
14 density is also compatible with those of the adjoining single family and other uses.
15 DECISION
16 The Hearing Examiner recommends approval of REZ07-0004, subject to the
17 following condition:
18 1. Based on the eomments received during the public comment period and ,
other information submitted with this rezone request, a Final SEPA Mitigated
19 Determination of Non-Significance (NIDNS) was issued by the responsible SEPA
Official on January 14, 2009. The MDNS included three conditions of approval to 20 mitigate potential impacts of the proposed rezone request. Compliance with these
21 conditions is required for this rezone to be approved.
.
22 Dated this 6d' day of April, 2009.
23
24
25 Phil Olbrechts
Ciry of Auburn Hearing Examiner
{ PA0724718.DOC;1/00083.900000! }
Rezone p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision