HomeMy WebLinkAbout5038 Return Address:
Auburn City Clerk
City of Auburn
25 West Main St.
Auburn, WA 98001
RECORDER'S COVER SHEET
Document Title(e) (or transactions contained therein):
1. ORDINANCE NO. 5038 (DENIAL OF REZONE)
2.
3.
4.
~Reference Number(s) of Documents assigned or released:
[]Additional reference #'s on page ~ of document
Grantor(s) (Last name first, then first name and initials)
1. Auburn, City of
2.
3.
4.
Grantee: (Last name first)
1. TITCHENAL, SHIRLEY
12. ADAMS, MONTE
ILegal Description (abbreviated: i.e. lot,
LOT 1, SECTION 28, T 21 N, R 5 E block, plat or section, township, range)
[] Additional legal is on page 6 of document.
Assessor's Property Tax Parcel/Account Number:
282105-9021
[] Assessor Tax # not yet assigned
ORDINANCE NO. ~
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, DENYING THE
REZONING OF 6.8 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT EAST OF HEMLOCK
STREET SE, (IF EXTENDED), WITHIN THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION THEREOF FROM
RR (RURAL RESIDENTIAL) TO R-3 (DUPLEX).
WHEREAS, Application No. REZ0003-96 has been submitted
to the Council of the City of Auburn, Washington, by SHIRLEY
TITCHENAL AND MONTE ADAMS, requesting the rezoning of the
real property hereinafter described in Section 2 of the
Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, said request above referred to, was referred
to the Hearing Examiner for study and public hearing
thereon; and
held a
Council
1997,
WHEREAS, the Hearing Examiner, based upon staff review,
public hearing to consider said petition in the
Chambers of the Auburn City Hall, on August 19,
at the conclusion of which the Hearing Examiner
Ordinance No. 5038
November 3, 1997
Page 1
recommended the approval of the rezoning of said property;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a closed record hearing
on October 20, 1997, considered said request and denied the
Hearing Examiner's recommendation for rezone based upon the
following Findings of Fact and Conclusions, to-wit:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. There are numerous environmental concerns that should
be addressed before this rezone. These include
stability of adjacent steep slopes and storm water
drainage.
2. The applicant removed a number of large trees that
increase concerns of geological stability and
stormwater runoff. At the time the comprehensive plan
amendment was made that supports this rezone, the City
was unaware of the cutting of these trees and therefor
the increased hazards.
The rezone site is a critical area due to geological
concerns. Many of the rezones the Council approves are
not impacted by these critical areas. This rezone is
unique.
that there is substantial
collapse.
Ordinance No. 5038
November 3, 1997
Page 2
The testimony of geologist Brian Sherrod substantiated
risk of accelerated hillside
10.
Substantial testimony from the public supports the
conclusion that this site is a critical area with
geologically hazardous areas.
The Hearing Examiner found that "the majority of the
proposed rezone area has been identified by the city as
having geologically hazardous areas."
The plan to mitigate for loss of trees previously
removed as part of future development is inadequate.
Staff have already raised concerns to the
related to traffic, slopes, access, storm
removal of vegetation and shoreline issues.
applicant
drainage,
The Hearing Examiner states, "Phased environmental
review assists agencies and the public to focus on
issues ready for a decision. Issues that have already
been decided or are not yet ready to be decided can be
excluded from consideration.,,
The Hearing Examiner states, "The City's FDNS was based
on the broader land use policy decision of rezoning the
site."
11.
The Hearing Examiner also stated that "a geotechnical
analysis would not be useful at this point without
knowing the scope of the proposed development.',
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Given the above findings, that the
geologically critical area and that
Ordinance No. 5038
November 3, 1997
Page 3
proposed site is a
the removal of the
2 o
3 o
trees from the site may have exacerbated these
conditions, it is necessary at this time to question
the Comprehensive Plan Map designation that at this
time is the sole stated reason for the rezone.
Therefore, a rezone without environmental analysis
would be inappropriate.
At such time as the applicant wishes to develop the
property, then a rezone could be considered with a
development proposal and corresponding geological
reports.
A plan should be submitted by the applicant to the City
immediately to mitigate for the illegal cutting of
trees.
For each of the above referenced reasons, the
recommendation of the Hearing Examiner to the Auburn City
Council on this rezone from RR (Rural Residential) to R-3
(Duplex) is hereby denied.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
~. The above cited Findings of Fact and
Conclusions are herewith incorporated in this Ordinance.
Ordinance NO. 5038
Nover~Der 3, 1997
Page 4
~ The City Council hereby denies REZ0003-96
filed by SHIRLEY TITCHENAL and MONTE ADAMS, on property
legally described as follows:
All of Government Lot 1 in Section 28,
Township 21 North, Range 5, East, W.M.,
EXCEPT the north 199.9 feet of the west
192.75 feet thereof, City of Auburn,
County of King, State of Washington.
~ 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.
~_~ The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement
such administrative procedures as may be
out the directions of this legislation.
~-~ This Ordinance shall
force five days from and after its
publication as provided by law.
necessary to carry
take effect and be in
passage, approval and
Ordinance NO. 5038
November 3, 1997
Page 5
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
November 3, 1997
November 3, 1997
APPROVED: November 3, 1997
ATTEST:
Danielle E. Daskam,
City Clerk
CHARLES A. BOOTH
MAYOR
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Michael J. Reynolds,
City Attorney
Ordinance No. 5038
November 3, 1997
Page 6