Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutITEM VIII-A-3~ C(TYOF , ur AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM -WASH[NGTON Agenda Subject: Ordinance No. 6292 Craig Commercial Rezone; Date: January 26, 2010 A lication No. REZ09-0004 Department: Planning and Attachments: Ordinance No. 6292 Budget Impact: N/A Develo ment and Exhibit List Administrative Recommendation: City Council introduce and adopt Ordinance No. 6292. Background Summary: OWNER/APPLICANT: Jacob Amy, Appiicant and William Kogelschatz, Owner REQUEST: Change in zoning of one parcei from R-20 Residential (20 du/acre) to C-3 Heavy Commercial LOCATION: The property is located at 802 24`h Street NE, Auburn EXISTING LAND USE: Single Family Residence. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Heavy Commerciai SEPA STATUS: A DNS was issued on September 22, 2009 for the Comprehensive Plan land use change that took into account the rezone change. L0201-1 03.8 REZ09-0004 Reviewed by Council & Committees: Reviewed by Departments & Divisions: ❑ Arts Commission COUNCIL COMMITTEES: Z Building ❑ M&O ❑ Airport p Finance ❑ Cemetery ❑ Mayor 0 Hearing Examiner ❑ Municipal Serv. ❑ Finance ❑ Parks ❑ Human Services ❑ Planning & CD 0 Fire 0 Planning ❑ Park Board ❑ Public Works ❑ Legal ❑ Police ❑ Planning Comm. ❑ Other (D Public Works ❑ Human Resources ❑ Information Services Action: Committee Approval: ❑Yes ❑No Council Approval: ❑Yes ❑No Call for Public Hearing Referred to Until Tabled Until Councilmember: Norman Staff: Sn der Meetin Date: Februa 1, 2010 Item Number: VIII.A.3 AU$[,JRN * MORE THAN YOU 1MAGINED Agenda Subject: Ordinance No. 6292 Craig Commercial Rezone; Date: January 26, 2010 Application No. REZ09-0004 The Comprehensive Plan designation, zoning designation and land uses of the surrounding properties are: Com rehensive Plan Zonin Land Use Project Site Heavy Commercial R-20, Residential (20 Single family residence du/acre North High Density Residential R-20, Residential (20 Apartments du/acre South High Density Residential R-20, Residential (20 Townhomes du/acre East High Density Residential R-20, Residential (20 Single family residence du/acre West Heav Commercial C-3 Heav Commercial Sound Credit Union Subiect p zoninfl INCi Lipht Commercial District ■C2 CeMral Business District ■C3 Meavy Commercial District CN Neiqhborhood ShoDDinq District V DUC Downtown Urban Center ■ E7 EnvironmeMal Park District I Institutional Use District Lakeland Hills South PUD ■ LF Airport landinp Field District : . Ml LipM Industrial District ■M2 Heary Industrial District ■PI Public Use District ■PUD Planned Unit DeveloDment 0.1 Residential 1 DU/ACrc RS Residential 5 DU/ACre R7 Residential 7 DU/ACre ■R10 Residential 10 DU/ACre i R20 Residential 20 DU/ACrc P3,RC Residential Conservancy ■RMNC Residential Manufadured/MObile Home Units ■ RO Residential OfFce Distnd ■RO-H Residential Office District (MOSpital) ■N Terrece View UNC Undassified Use Dis[riet Page2of6 ` t.m. u!~~- Agenda Subject: Ordinance No. 6292 Craig Commercial Rezone; Date: January 26, 2010 Application No. REZ09-0004 FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. DMP, Inc., on behalf of Jacob Amy and William Kogelschatz, has appiied for a rezone for property located at 802 24th Street NE. 2. A Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment was applied for concurrently with the rezone on June 17, 2009. The applicant requested a land use change from High Density Residential to Heavy Commercial. The City Council approved the amendment on December 7, 2009 by Ordinance No. 6280. 3. The rezone site at 24'h Street NE is approximately .3 acres (13,068 square feet) in size and contains an existing single family residence. The future development will require the single family residence to be demolished. 4. The applicant filed an environmentai checklist that addressed the comprehensive plan amendment and rezone. A description of future development of the property was included. The proposal is to develop the site with a maximum of 11 multi-family dwelling units, parking, landscaping, and infrastructure improvements (Exhibit 4). 5. The C-3 (Heavy Commercial) zone district allows multi-family development with a conditional use permit (see ACC 18.30.030). The intent of the C-3 zone is, "...this zone is intended to accommodate uses which are oriented to automobiles either as the mode or target or producing the commercial service. The uses enumerated in this classification are considered as having common or similar performance standards in that they are heavier in type than those uses permitted in the more restrictive commercial ciassifications." 6. The C-3 zone development standards including setbacks and lot requirements are contained in ACC 18.30.040. 7. Pursuant to ACC 18.68.030 and 18.68.040, ail applications for a rezone shall be reviewed by the planning director prior to the scheduling of a public hearing. After review of the application, the director shall determine which of the following two processes should occur to properly hear the rezone: a. If the rezone is consistent with the comprehensive pian, then the hearing examiner shall conduct a public hearing on the rezone and make a recommendation to the city council pursuant to ACC 18.66.170. This application is consistent with the comprehensive plan, as outlined below in the conclusions. 8. On September 22, 2009, the SEPA Responsible Official issued a Determination of Non- Significance (DNS) for the comprehensive plan land use amendment that aiso took into account the rezone. There were no comments received and no appeals filed (Exhibit 8). 9. Pursuant to ACC 18.68.040, notice of a public hearing shall be given at least 10 days prior to the public hearing and in accordance with ACC 14.07.040. The public hearing notice was published in the Seattle Times December 29, 2009, provided to the property owners within 300 feet of the subject site, and posted on the subject property meeting this requirement (Exhibit 5). 10. The City Council changed their role in quasi-judicial approvals giving that authority to Hearing Examiner to make decisions. Since rezones are approved by Ordinance the City Council is still Page 3 of 6 Agenda Subject: Ordinance No. 6292 Craig Commercial Rezone; Date: January 26, 2010 Application No. REZ09-0004 the decision maker on rezones with the Hearing Examiner making a recommendation on the proposal. 11. 24th Street NE is a local non-residential street and this road classification supports the rezone request. However the current roadway is not constructed to current local non-residential street standards. The proposed multi-family development will require the need for roadway improvements and dedication of right of way along the site frontage and adjacent ailey. 12. A comprehensive plan map amendment was processed as part of the 2009 Comprehensive Plan Annuai Amendments. The City Council approved a land use map change from High Density Residential to Heavy Commerciai by Ordinance No. 6280 on December 7, 2009 (Exhibit 10) 13. The City received one comment letter from the adjacent property owner to the south (Exhibit 11). 14. A public hearing was held before the City of Auburn Hearing Examiner on January 13, 2010. 15. The City of Auburn Hearing Examiner issued a recommendation of approval on January 25, 2010. CONCLUSIONS: ACC Chapter 18.68 provides certain criteria for approval of a rezone: 1. The rezone must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Comment The applicant applied for both a rezone and comprehensive pian amendment on June 17, 2009. The comprehensive plan amendment was processed as part of the 2009 annual amendments. The land use map amendment request was from High Density Residential to Heavy Commercial. On December 7, 2009 the City Council approved the comprehensive plan amendments through Ordinance No. 6280 (Exhibit 10). Policy LU-34 states that multipie-family developments should be located functionally convenient to the necessary supporting facilities including utilities, arterials, parks, transit service, etc. Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Comprehensive Plan, Heavy Commerciai is to provide automobile oriented commercial areas to meet both the local and regional need for such services. Compatible uses are automobile sales, restaurants, convenience stores, and other similar heavy commercial uses. A major goal of the Growth Management Act is to reduce urban sprawl. One way to minimize sprawl is to fuliy develop areas already receiving urban services. Policy LU-114 states, "Encourage well designed infill and redevelopment projects to fully utilize investment in existing infrastructure." The proposed rezone will set the framework for an 11-unit multi-family development that redevelops an underutilized lot. Also, the subject site is within mile of transit service, schools, and Auburn Way North is west one block. 2. The rezone must be initiated by someone other than the City in order for the Hearing Examiner to consider the request. Comment The rezone has been initiated by the property owner, William Kogelschatz and applicant, Jacob Amy. Page 4 of 6 Agenda Subject: Ordinance No. 6292 Craig Commercial Rezone; Date: January 26, 2010 Application No. REZ09-0004 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. Comment The requested rezone change, from R-4 Residential (20 du/acre), to C-3, Heavy Commercial, will not result in a more intense zone than what is requested. 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)): a. Conditions in the area must have changed since the original zoning was established. Comment The subject property has been zoned R-4, High Density Residential (Now re-named R-20), when the City adopted its revised zoning code (overhaul) in 1987. The density established for the R-4 zone, was 18 du/acre and remained that density until the recent code changes (June 15, 2009) that slightly increased the density to 20 du/acre; although the revised density is net density rather than gross density. Multi-family development in the C-3 zone, at a density of 36 du/acre has been a conditional use since the 1987 zoning became effective and that regulation is still in effect today. The primary reason for the rezone request is to construct additional units on the subject site. Under the current zoning of R-20 a maximum of six units is possible. With the proposed rezone a maximum of eleven units is possible. When the density was established for the R-4 (now R-20) zone, the Growth Management Act did not exist, requiring jurisdictions to accommodate a certain amount of urban growth. Staff supports the increased density at the project site to accommodate Auburn's fair share of growth; as well as the property is within a'/< mile of transit, near other services such as schools, and one block Auburn Way North. b. The proposed rezone must bear a substantial relationship to the general welfare of the community. The property as currently zoned could be developed with multi-family units, however, only with a maximum of six units. With the proposed rezone, a maximum of eleven units could be realized. This supports the City's goal of achieving our growth targets over the next twenty years established by King County and meet infill development policies of the comprehensive plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based upon the application and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of the staff report, staff recommends that the Hearing Examiner recommend to the City Council approval of the rezone with the following conditions of approval: 1. Future development of the property shall only be multi-family units. Commercial uses are prohibited. 2. As part of the future development, the applicant shall dedicate twelve (12) feet for right-of-way along the 24th Street NE property frontage. 3. As part of the future development, the applicant shall dedicate nine (9) feet for right-of-way radius at the property corner of the intersection at 24th Street NE and the alley bordering the west side of the property. Page 5 of 6 Agenda Subject: Ordinance No. 6292 Craig Commercial Rezone; Date: January 26, 2010 Application No. REZ09-0004 4. Construct 1/2 street improvements to city standards for a local non residential road on 24th Ave NE. 5. Reconstruct and add additional paving along the site frontage with the alley bordering the west side of the subject property to create a twenty foot paved surface and appropriate alley drainage to the existing storm system in 24th St NE. HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION After conducting a duly advertised public hearing, the Hearing Examiner issued his recommendation of approvai on January 25, 2010 with five conditions of approval: 1. Future development of the property shall only be multi-family units. Commercial uses are prohibited. 2. As part of the future development, the appiicant shall dedicate twelve (12) feet for right-of-way along the 24th Street NE property frontage. 3. As part of the future development, the applicant shall dedicate nine (9) feet for right-of-way radius at the property corner of the intersection at 24th Street NE and the ailey bordering the west side of the property. 4. Construct 1/2 street improvements to city standards for a local non-residential road on 24th Avenue NE. 5. Reconstruct and add additional paving along the site frontage with the alley bordering the west side of the subject property to create a twenty-foot paved surface and appropriate alley drainage to the existing storm system in 24th Street NE. EXHIBIT LIST Exhibit 1 Staff Report (agenda bill) Exhibit 2 Vicinity Map Exhibit 3 Application Exhibit 4 Site Plan Exhibit 5"`" Combined Notice of Application and Public Hearing Exhibit 6"" Affidavit of Posting Exhibit 7*"` Affidavit of Mailing Exhibit 8"` Determination of Non-Significance Exhibit 9 Aerial Photograph Exhibit 10 Ordinance No. 6280 Exhibit 11** Affidavit of Publication from Seattle Times, received December 30, 2009; submitted into record at hearing Exhibit 12 Comment letter from Sam DiRe, received January 13, 2010; submitted into record at hearing **Exhibits with an asterisk are not included in the packet but are available upon request. Page 6 of 6 ORDINANCE NO. 6 2 9 2 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, APPROVING THE REQUEST OF JACOB AMY FOR A REZONE FROM R-20 RESIDENTIAL 20 DU/ACRE TO C-3 HEAVY COMMERCIAL TO IMPLEMENT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND AMENDING THE CITY'S ZONING MAPS ACCORDINGLY WHEREAS, the City of Auburn on August 18, 1986 adopted a Comprehensive Plan by Resolution No. 1703 which includes a Map establishing the location of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations throughout the City; and WHEREAS, on April 17, 1995 the City of Auburn adopted Comprehensive Plan Amendments by Resolution No. 2635 to comply with the Washington State Growth Management Act; and WHEREAS, the City of Auburn on September 5, 1995 reaffirmed that action by Ordinance No. 4788; and WHEREAS, Jacob Amy, the applicant, submitted a Comprehensive Plan map amendment and rezone application for the Craig Commercial rezone on June 17, 2009 for tax parcel 5125400241; and WHEREAS, Comprehensive Plan map and text amendments were processed by the Planning and Development Department as proposed Year 2009 amendments to the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan, and the City of Auburn adopted the 2009 Comprehensive Plan amendments on December 7, 2009 by Ordinance No. 6280; and Ordinance No. 6292 January 26, 2010 Page 1 WHEREAS, the environmental impacts of the Year 2009 Comprehensive Plan amendments were considered in accordance with procedures of the State Environmental Policy Act; and WHEREAS, the environmental impacts of the Craig Commercial Rezone were considered in accordance with the procedures of the State Environmental Policy Act; and WHEREAS, after proper notice published in the City's official newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the date of hearing, the City of Auburn Hearing Examiner on January 13, 2010 conducted a public hearing on the proposed Craig Commercial Rezone; and WHEREAS, at the public hearing the City of Auburn Hearing Examiner heard public testimony and took evidence and exhibits into consideration; and WHEREAS, thereafter the City of Auburn Hearing Examiner made a recommendation to the City Council on the proposed Craig Commercial Rezone; and WHEREAS, on February 1, 2010, the Auburn City Council considered the proposed Craig Commercial Rezone as recommended by the City of Auburn Hearing Examiner. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council ("Council) adopts and approves the Craig Commercial rezone from R-20 Residential (20 du/acre) to C-3 Heavy Commercial and Ordinance No. 6292 January 26, 2010 Page 2 directs that the rezone application and all related documents be filed along with this Ordinance with the Auburn City Clerk and be available for public inspection. Section 2. The Zoning Map amendment is herewith designated as a basis for the exercise of substantive authority under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act by the City's responsible environmental official in accordance with RCW. 43.21 C.060. Section 3. The Council adopts the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, in the Hearing Examiner's recommendation outlined below: FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: 1. Applicant. The applicant is Jacob Amy, and the owner is William Kogelschatz. 2. Hearin . The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the application at 5:30 p.m. at Auburn City Hall in the Council Chambers on January 13, 2010. Substantive: 3. Site/Proposal Description. The applicant has applied for the rezoning of one parcel, totaling approximately three acres, which is located off of 24th Avenue NE. The site currently houses a single-family residence. 4. Characteristics of the Area. The subject property is surrounded by apartments to the North, Townhomes to the South, a single-family residence to the East, and a Credit Union to the West. Generally, the surrounding area is made up primarily of multi-family properties. The surrounding zoning includes R-20 Residential and C-3 Heavy Commercial. Additionally, the surrounding Comprehensive Plan designations are High Density Residential and Heavy Commercial. 5. Adverse Impacts. The proposed rezone, as conditioned, will be limited to a modest increase in density. As noted during public testimony, the increase in density will allow for the construction of three-story multifamily complexes instead of two-story complexes. Three-story townhomes are already located behind the Ordinance No. 6292 January 26, 2010 Page 3 subject property, so there is no apparent compatibility or other adverse impact discernable from the record. In both written (Exhibit 12) and verbal testimony during the hearing, Sam Di Re expressed concerns over garbage and disruptive behavior associated with high density development. Mr. Di Re does not appear to be basing his comments on the type of development (e.g., apartments v. single-family homes v. townhomes), but simply from the premise that if you have x incidents per y number of people, incidents will increase as the number of people increases. From a municipal government standpoint, Mr. Di Re appears to be stating that the City has inadequate police and code enforcement resources to handle the increased population that will result from the rezone. There are a couple reasons why Mr. Di Re's concerns cannot be addressed in this rezone proceeding. First, Mr. Di Re does not identify any level of service requirement for police and code enforcement that the Examiner could impose upon the development. The adequacy of police and code enforcement is a highly subjective determination. Without an objective standard that can be applied uniformly to all multifamily development, any effort by the Examiner to address garbage and other potentially illegal conduct would be construed as arbitrary and capricious by a reviewing court. Certainly if there was something highly unusual about the project that would make it more likely to generate illicit conduct than other multifamily developments, the Examiner could address Mr. Di Re's concerns, but there is nothing unusual about the project proposed. Indeed, no specific development proposal is even identified at this point. The second reason that Mr. Di Re's concerns cannot be addressed during rezone review is that the increase in density (three dwelling units) proposed is marginal, and there is no evidence that this slight increase will generate any material increase in illicit conduct. The City does not have sufficient evidence to find that the proposed increase in density will necessitate any restrictions (including rezone denial) to prevent illicit behavior. Although this proceeding may not be the most appropriate to address Mr. Di Re's concerns, his concerns will certainly be heard by the Mayor and City Council during this rezone review. If there is a problem with garbage and illegal behavior in Mr. Di Re's neighborhood, the Mayor and Council can take steps to address it outside this land use review process. Ordinance No. 6292 January 26, 2010 Page 4 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Procedural: Authority of Hearing Examiner. ACC 18.68.030(B) grants the Hearing Examiner with the authority to review a request for Rezoning and make a recommendation to the City Council for final approval. Substantive: 2. Zoning Designation. The property is zoned R-20, Residential, and the Comprehensive Plan designation is Heavy Commercial. 3. Review Criteria and Application. ACC 18.68.030(B) and 18.68.050 lay out the criteria the Hearing Examiner must consider when determining a recommendation. In addition to the code criteria, 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). However, no change in circumstances is necessary for rezones that implement a comprehensive plan. Id. at 112. The criteria for both the ACC and Ahmann-Yamane are satisfied as outlined below where each criterion is in italics and the application to the project is applied in corresponding Conclusions of Law. ACC 18.64.030(B)(1)(a): If the rezone is consistent with the comprehensive plan, then the hearing examiner shall conduct a public hearing on the rezone and make a recommendation to the city council pursuant to ACC 18.66.170. 4. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation for the property is Heavy Commercial. The only corresponding Zoning Map designation that is consistent with this Comprehensive Plan designation is Heavy Commercial, the reclassification requested by the applicant. Consequently, the rezone is consistent with the comprehensive plan. ACC 18.64.050(A): The modification or change shall not result in a more intense zone than the one requested. Ordinance No. 6292 January 26, 2010 Page 5 ACC 18.64.050(B): The area of the request shall not be enlarged, however, the area may be /essened. 5. The recommended reclassification is the reclassification requested by the applicant, and there is no recommendation to change the size of the area subject to the request. Ahmann-Yamane Condition 1: Conditions in the area must have changed since the original zoning was established. However, no change in circumstances is necessary for rezones that imp/ement a comprehensive p/an. 6. As noted in Conclusion of Law No. 4, the proposed Heavy Commercial reclassification is the only Zoning Code designation that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Heavy Commercial designation. Consequently, the proposed reclassification is necessary to implement the Comprehensive Plan designation. No change in circumstances needs to be demonstrated. Ahmann-Yamane Condition 2: The proposed rezone must bear a substantial relationship to the general welfare of the community. 7. With the proposed rezone, a maximum of eleven apartment units could be constructed on the site, as opposed to only six under the current zoning requirements. This supports the City's goal of achieving growth targets over the next twenty years as established by King County, to meet infill development policies of the comprehensive plan, and to prevent urban sprawl. However, it must also be noted that the proposed reclassification is for a parcel surrounded on three sides by zoning limited to residential use (R-20), as part of a four-block area limited to residential use. Unrestricted, approval of the proposed reclassification would allow the development of commercial uses in an area limited to residential development. This could result in incompatible uses that do not promote the general welfare of the community. The City Council approved the a Comprehensive Plan redesignation of the parcel from R-20 to Heavy Commercial with the understanding that the Zoning Code reclassification would be conditioned on limiting development to residential use. In order to carry out this Council intent and to maintain a substantial relationship to the general welfare of the community, the Examiner recommends that the redesignation be limited to residential use as recommended in the staff report. Staff have also recommended conditions to assure adequate traffic infrastructure for the more intense development authorized by the reclassification. The Examiner finds these conditions necessary for the general welfare as well. However, the Council may find that the conditions are premature at the rezone Ordinance No. 6292 January 26, 2010 Page 6 stage of development. The conditions regarding street improvements are required "as part of future development". The developer has no obligation to commence development at anytime in the near future. By the time the developer does get around to developing the entire property, the conditions may no longer be appropriate, due to a change in circumstances such as the completion of new road projects. For these types of reasons, street frontage requirements are usually imposed during the review of a specific project (such as site plan or conditional use permit review), as opposed to rezones. It is the Examiner's understanding that conditioning rezones is a common practice in Auburn. The Council is cautioned that there is a difference in legal opinion on whether conditioning rezones is consistent with state mandated Zoning Code amendment procedures. At least to the extent conditions limit uses, those conditions arguably create a new Zoning Code map classification. All new Zoning Code map classifications should go through planning commission review and review by the Washington State Department of Commerce as mandated by the Washington State Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW) and the Planning and Zoning in Code Cities Act (Chapter 35A.63 RCW). Of course, the counter-argument is that a public hearing has been held for the proposed rezone and that a hearing examiner can be designated as the planning commission for Zoning Code amendments. The differences in review are fairly minor. The Council may wish to acquire advice from its City Attorney on this issue. In lieu of imposing the conditions as part of the rezone, the Council could impose them as part of a rezone agreement adopted under the procedural requirements of RCW 36.70B.170-.200. RECOMMENDATION The Hearing Examiner recommends approval of REZ09-0004, subject to the following conditions: 1. Future development of the property shall only be multi-family units. Commercial uses are prohibited. 2. As part of the future development, the applicant shall dedicate twelve (12) feet for right-of-way along the 24th Street NE property frontage. 3. As part of the future development, the applicant shall dedicate nine (9) feet for right-of-way radius at the property corner of the intersection at 24th Street NE and the alley bordering the west side of the property. Ordinance No. 6292 January 26, 2010 Page 7 4. Construct 1/2 street improvements to city standards for a local non-residential road on 24th Avenue NE. 5. Reconstruct and add additional paving along the site frontage with the alley bordering the west side of the subject property to create a twenty-foot paved surface and appropriate alley drainage to the existing storm system in 24th Street NE. Section 4. Upon the passage, approval, and publication of this Ordinance as provided by law, the City Clerk of the City of Auburn shall cause this Ordinance to be recorded in the office of the King County Recorder. Section 5. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance or any of the Zoning Map amendments adopted herein, is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any Court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision, and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 6. The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directives of this legislation. Section 7. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force five days from and after its passage, approval, and publication as provided by law. INTRODUCED: PASSED: APPROVED: Peter B. Lewis Mayor Ordinance No. 6292 January 26, 2010 Page 8 ATTEST: Danielle E. Daskam, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Published: Ordinance No. 6292 January 26, 2010 Page 9 L;ity Httorney : ~ , . S~tatvben~nf PWR..~,~.,~.. ~ cirYaF BU~~.N . ,111N ?.009 - ~ wnsf-urvcroN PlErntzing, I3uil(litrg, ayzd ComniutaityDeptrrtiixmt` MASTERLAND USE APPLICATIDN-PLANNINGAPPLICATXONS Yroject Name Craig Cammerciaf Daxe 12112/2008 Parcel No(s) 5125400241 S4te Address802 24th St NE, Auburn Legal Description (attached separate shect if rcecessary) BLK 1 LCJT 48-49-50 MAF'PLEWOQD ADD TO AUBURN W 110 FT Applicant Name: Jacob J. Amv Mailing Address: p0 Box 190, Auburn. WA 98071 Telepltone and Fax: 206-251-1801-F 53-867-0$11 Email: iacob. , ; Si natt7r ~ pw (i are an ane attac iother sheet) Na - illiam Koqefschatz $071 Mailing Address: p0 Box 19 ttbIJn, -VV Telephone and Fax: 2 74-6217 Email: wifliam ia _ cr &~x-2-06-3 Si nature: Engineer! echire/OELer Narne: Hans Korve 9 DMP, Inc Mailing Address:726 Auburn W v North. Auburn. WA 98002 Telephone and Fax: 253-333-220~-Fax 253-333-2206 Email, hansOdmn-inc,us Description of Proposed Actian: Zoning change from R4 to C3 with the associate comprehensive plan amendment. T e af A lication Re uired Check nll that A 1 Adrninistrative Appeal* ✓ Rezone (site specific)* Area Wide Administrative Use Permit* Sttort Plat Annexatioly* Speoial Exceptian* Boundary Line Adjustment Special Home Occupation Permit* r/ Compretiensive Plan Amendment (Text or Map)* Substantial Shoreline Devetopment* * Canditiona! Use Permit* Surface Mining Perlnit Critical Areas Variance* Temporary Use Perniit * Development Agreement* Variattce Environmental Review (SEPA)* *Please note that public notification is Finat Plat Pretiminary Plat* requirsd. A separate cast is charged for the signs. City prepares signs but PUD Site Plan Appraval applicant responsible for sign posting. Reasanable Use Exce tion* Page 1 of 2 AjJ$URN *MORE "I'HAN YOU iMAGINED GiTYQF f + ~WAsIttNGr~t4 Plarzning, I3rtildijtg, aiid Cornfnuraity Depar-tnaent LETTER I+'R4M PROPERTY 4WNER GRANTING AUTHORIZATI4N TO AGT (A copy of tiiis letter must be submittecl foi• each property owner involved) I, WiEliam C. Kogelschatz , being duly sworn declare that I am the owner of the praperty (PROPERTY OWNBR) Involved in the application. I hereby grant ~Iacob J. Amy Qf The William Craig Company to act on my behalf. I further declare that all statements, ansNvers, and information herein submitted is in all respects true and correct to the best af my knowledge aiid U DOte 4-N ~ Subscribed and sworn to before me this `Q ` daY of bC' C} Notary Public in anci for the State of Washington, ~ Resi(fing at IQ t.I U I C-II )A do SHAWNALLYN DAVIS NOTARY PUBIJC $TA7E OF WASHIN474N MY COMNi1SSlON EXPIRE$ 070011 Page 2 af 2 AUBURN *MoRE THAN YOv 1MAGrNED ,-'7 A~n ~ QI A ldress dm inc. .l_ !i DALEY-MC?RROW-PQBLETE, INC. 726 AUBURN WAY N. RUBIlRN, WASHINGTON 88002 TELEPHQNE: (253) 333-2200 FAX: (253) 333-2206 December 12, 2008 Dear Auburn City Cauncil, We request that the City Cauncil approve aur request to re-zone the parcel lacated at 802 - 24t" Street NE, Auburn (512540-0241) fram R4 (R-20) to C3. We also request that the Council approve the corresponding modification of the Comprehensive Plan. Under the R-4 (R-20) zoning the property can only be deve{aped ta a maximum of 5(6) units. Under the current lending guidelines, and considering the known infrastructure improvement casts, the current zoning will nat provide sufficient incame to justify the investment needed to devefap the property. Assuming a suceessful re-zanc of the property, the Appiicant propases ta construct a 1 Q-unit apartment building on the properky through a conditiona{ use permit. A review of the surrounding uses shaws that the existing single-family harne is located in a neighborhood that is daminated primarily by muiti-family praperties. This lot is located directly behind the Sound Credit Union an Auburn Way and the ad}aining praperty to the South is an 11-unit (3-story) town-home complex. The property is within clase proximately ta the bus fines, as.well as other basic services tMat are within.walking distance. With this changing economy, and the drop in hame ownership, it is clear that the need for additional rental units that will appeal to the middle income cammunity are a necessity. By supparting this proposed re-zone, the Applicant wi(I be able ta offer quality rental units for those who cannot afford to buy a home at this fime, while providing a quality living environmerit that wi(f draw mare af the middfe incorne populatian to the area. The Appficant submits the fallowing responses to the 10 review criteria established in ACC Section 14.22.110, for the amendment of the eomprehensive plan: 1. The proposed change will further and be consistent with the goals and objectives of the plan and the plan will remain internally consistent; The City of Auburn wishes ta preserve the integrity af existing Single-family neighbarhoods and promote the devefapment of new anes. in the wards of.the . Comprehensive plan this would be best accomplished by focusing multi-family development in the urban center. Cansequently, residential land use palicies will emphasize the creation and preservation of single family neighborhoads, while still encouraging the development of other housing types far those who,need. or want them, JUN . . ~ To suport these goals, the City has established a series of palicies that have been used to guide zoning and devefopment regu(ations. Under Land Use Policy 13 (LU-13) the City is encauraged to provide a mix af houseirtg types to meet the needs of all residents. LU-18 and LU-34 further recamends that muti-family develapmenfs be lacated near transit service, shopping and~ parks. The applieants proposal meets each of these policies and is lacated within one black of a bus stop, two blocks from Top Foods grocery store and ane block from Cascade Midd(e Schaal & Brannan Park. Please see the full text of each supporting palicy below. LU-13 the City should promofe the provision; preservation and mainfenance af adequate housing far fhe cify's 'residents by encouraging a balanced mix of hvusinq types and values appropriate to the income Ievels and lifestyles of area residents. LU-98 Residentiat densifies in areas designated far multiple family development should nat exceed 20 units per acre. Multiple family densities should generally decrease with proximity to single family areas. Mulfiple family densities may exceed 20 unifs per acre provided they are within walking distance af 114 mite trom re ic~onal transit facilities or are fargeted to populatians not requiring outdaar recreation areas and having low private automobile usage (e.g. nursing homes). These targeted develapments shvuld be located in. close proximify ta shoppinq, medical and public franspartafion SGtV%G@S. LU-32 In considering where future higher density development should locate, priority shall be given to designafed Special Planning Areas, fhe Downtown and areas with high levels of transif servrce. LU-34 Multipte-family developments should be located functional/v canvenient to the neeessary supporfinq facilities includina_ ufilities, arterials parks transif service, efc. In addition to preserving Single-family neighborhaods and pfacing rnulti-family developmen#s as a buffer to more intense cornmerciaf uses, the comprehensive plan also pramotes the redevebpment of underutilised areas. Gaal 12 and its associated poficies encourage redevelopment to reduce sprawl and take full advantage of the Gity's investment in ex'rsting infrastructure. The Applicant proposes ta redevelop an existing singfe-famify home, in a high density residential zone, into a 10,unit apartment camplex: The 9-unit net increase in residential capacity will make full use af the existing City infrastructure and . provide a quality living environment within walking distance af urban services. The City of Aubu.rn is directed by the camprehensive plan to facilitate redevelopment whenever possible and explore innovative mechanisms to accomplish its goals. It is clear that the Appiicant's proposal to re-zone the DMP 09-I I S Crnig Cammercial Rezone property to achieve an economically feasible multi-family infill development through commercial zoning is truly innovative. The full text of each reEevant policy is listed belaw. LU-194 Encourage well designed infill and redevelopment projects to fully utilize previous investment in exisfing infrastrucfure. LU-1 15 Reduee the eonsumption of undeveloped land by faeilifafing the redevelopment of underutilized land and infr'!1 of vacanf parcels whenever possikle. LU-116 Explore innavative mechanisms fo encoura.qe the more effrcient use of land ineluding densify bonuses and sale ofair rrghts. LU-917 /denfify areas far commercial infill development and focus streef and utifity sysfems improvements - ta faoilitate fheir development. 2. Whether the capacity to provide adequate services is diminished or increased; The property is currently serviced by public sewer and water. The prapased development of a 10-unit apartment complex will not adversly effect service capacity in the area. This is an infill proposal that wilf take full advantage of the existing pub(ic investment in infrastructure. As the resuit of a sucsessful re-zane and development of the site, the project will provide full frontage improvments including the expansion of sidewalks. These impravmetns wiN increase automobile and pedestrian safety in the immediate area. 3. Assumptions upon which the comprehensive plan, is based are found to be invalid; The Applicant is not questioning the validity of any underlying Camprehensiue Plan assumption. A partian of the subject property falls v+rithin 'the Heavy Commercial designation. We seek to expand that designation ta include the entire site, 4. A determinatian of change or lack of change in conditions or circumstances has occurred since the adoption of the latest amendment to the specific section of the comprehensive plan that dictates the need for a proposed amendment; A portian of the subject praperty falls within the Heavy Commercial Camprehensive plan designation. We seek to expand that designation to include the entire site and re-zane the property accordingly. It is mast-often inadvisable to have a property with a split designation. The landscape of the national econamy and the local housing market have radicaly changed in the last year, and many residents find themselves in need of more reasonable housing that is DMP 09-115 Creig Cottimercia! Rezone 3 ` close to public services. The propased quality development can address the ecanomic, traffic and ciimate related issues that have been thrust to the-forefront since the last map update in this area. 5. If appEicable, a determina#ian that a quesfion of consistency exists between the cQmprehensive ptan and Chapter 36.70A RCW, the cauntywide planning policies for either King andlar Pierce County, as appropriate, and Vision 2040: Growth and Transportation Strategy for the Puget Sound Region; This elernent is not aplicable. 6. If the request is to change the [and use designation of a specific property on the camprehensive land use map,.#he applicant must demonstrate one of the fallowing: a. The current land use designation was clearfy made in error or due to an oversighf; A partian of the, subject site falls within the Heavy Commercial designation while the majority lies in the Migh Density, residential zone. The proposed alteration would place the entire property camplete(y within the Heavy Cammerciaf Zone. b. The proposed land use designation is adJacent to property having a similar or compatibie designatian, or afher conditions are present to ensure compatibility with surrounding praperties; The surrounding properties on the west side of the Alley are all within the Heavy Comrnercial designation. Saund Gredit union is located to the west of the property and an 11-unit town home development is under construction ta the south. The proposed.alteration would be consistent with that adjacent camprehensive plan designatian. The Applicant proposal to ulfimately develop a 10-unit Apartment complex would be more eompatable with the surounding uses fhen the existign single-famiiy home c. There has been a change in cond"[t[ons since the current land use designation came into effect. A partion of this site has been designated Heavy CommerciaC since the current land use designation came inta effect. This mixed designatian is an indication of a transitian zone. The Applicant's prapasal to alter the Comprehensive Plan designatian to allow for higher residential density would provide that transitian between true "Commercial" uses and the surounding High Density Residential zone. CJiviP 09-11 S Craig Commercial Rezone 7. Identify anticipated lmpacts from the proposal: The proposed re-zone and associated camprehensive plan change are not expected to have an adverse impact on the City ar surrounding neighborhood. The proposed C-3 zoning is consistent with the adjacent commercial uses #o the west and the proposed multi-family devefopment will be similar to the project already under constructian to the south. All urban services are available to the site and the proposed develapment will camplete the needed frontage improvements along 24t" St NE. 8. ldentify impfementing xoning designation being requested: The Applicant is requesfing a rezane fram R-4 to G3. 9. Discuss how the proposed change is consistent with the designation of surrounding properties. As previously indicated, the proposed G-3 zoning is consistent with the adjacent . commercial uses to the west and the proposed multi-family development will be similar to the praject already under construction to the south. 10. Discuss how the adopted City of Auburn capitat Empravement programs . supporE the change: The praposed re-zone has na impact on the adapted City of Auburn capital fmpravement programs. The proposed development that would resuit from a successful re-zone application will make use of existing public facilities and make any minar extensian fo support the development. The proposed development wifl alsa complete fhe needed frontage impravements a(ong 24f" St NE and relieve the City fram the cost of completing that road segment, Thank you for yaur consideration. Sincer ly, -2Hans A. Korve Planning Manager DMP Inc. DMP 09-1 l5 Craig Commercial Rezone Exib"At of Pflge4., CR~.IG COMMER.CIALComprehensive Plan f Re-Zone Request R-4 to C-3 High Density Residential to Heavy Commercial youu ae . ~ • ' wf • ' 0260 53 ~ 14 ----=-------?itsa ~ trdf' . c&fo -_.a~ia3•-- ~ ~ 1 ~ C-3 ~ j ~ . 'R°~ N 15 •---------------------------a~:s+o , 52 r o ~ --o-zss.-------° ° ------m25u-- 16 39900 SF ~ oBOdO S 8000 S 4342 3F~~ O o ~ o w~s 1~ ~ Q ~ ~ 215 220 97. 9C ^~p 51 ~ rn I a; 9 q ' 50 210 155 •_-24fif~t~S'FN-:E----,---_.L_- x/f, 376 - - 658 ~49-12' 305TH ST. 93 61621..4 f- N-"_-"-'•`-'__ - - 43121142 ~ '~7. 201.93 . . ~ . . . ixm ' N R=13 ' a • . • . . ~ ~ 014t 5Q a 17 >0 zo.49 ~ .-:~I~E: 6344 -sr --N o ° ' R-4 . . ~ . ~ . N ce)' ---------------~-__-------o- --:g,:sw ~ 18 ~ 02 .7- ~ : . : : ' : ___6600 SF 48 ~ is ~ • o . ;D . . . . . . . ~ ~ C-3. r 11Q 1 ~ , 20 ~ $12543 • Q1 35,456 SF 021s eaoo s~7 20 . ^ ~ ~ -m---A085___, 220 215 p.. ~ a . • 21 [1210 Q R-4 ~16 .5~.QT 1 --...""'""'""___o_ . aas . ~.~Y ~ m o------------ 22 17600 se Applicant praposes ta rezone a 13,200 SF pa~cel ft•om R-4 to C-3 and constrtxct a 6 ta 10 -unit Apartmerit building through a conditional tise permYt application. The parcel is adjaeent to the C-3. zane and the proposed Apartment development wouid be compatible with the adjacent tawn home praject to the south. The project will be required ta complete frontage impravements along 20' Street NE, rn - i x ~ Wa- 4- 0 ~ ~ E =3 z Z' c v c > o ~ N e ~ ~ V} W ,L ,W 'Z QC~ G E L uy (n U ~ N N Q C,) L 00 0 a o o a, o t1. N W ~ Q NrR~+pw (kf ORDIfVANCE NO. 6 2 8 0 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNGIL f7F THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHlNGTON, RELATING TQ PLANN{NG; ADaPTING C4MPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AND TEXT AMENDMENTS PURSUANT TO THE PRQVI510NS OF REVISED GODE QF WASHINGT4N (RCW) CHAPTER 36.70A . WHEREAS, the City of Auburn on August 18, 1986 adopted a Gomprehensive Pfan by Resolution Na. 1703 which includes a Map establishing the location of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designatians throughouf the City; and WHEREAS, on April 17, 1995 the City af Auburn adapted Camprehensive Plan Amendments by Resolution No. 2635 ta comply with the Washington State Grawth Management Act; and WHEREAS, the Gity af Auburn on September 5, 1995 reaffirmed that action by Ordinance No. 4788; and WHEREAS, the City of Auburn published in the Seattie Times and Auburn Reporter an advertisement that the City is accepted comprehensive plan amendment applications and estabfished a deadline for submittal of June 19, 2009; and WHEREAS, the City af Auburn received four private initiated amendments, three map amendments and one text amendrnent; and WHEREAS, the text amendment was withdrawn; and WHEREAS, Comprehensive Plan map and text amendments were pracessed by the Planning, Building, and Community Department as proposed Year 2009 amendments to the City af Auburn Camprehensive Plart; and Ordinance No. 6280 December 7, 2009 Page 1 WHEREAS, maintaining a current Comprehensive Water Plan is required in order to meet regulatians of the Washington State Department of Health under WAC 246-290-104 and requirements of the Grawth Management Act under RCW 36.74A; and WHEREAS, maintaining a current Comprehensive Sewer Pian is requirad in order ta meet regulations of the Washingfan State Department af Ecalogy under RCW 90.48.100 and WAC 173-240-050 and requirements* af the Grawth Management Act under RCW 36.70A; and WHEREAS, the updated Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan is intended to (replace the 2002 plan; and WHEREAS, the City of Auburn is updating its Comprehensive Transportatian Plan in order to address the annexation of Lea Hill and West Mill; and WHEREAS, the enviranmental impacts af the Ysar 2009 Comprehensive Plan amendments were considered in accardance with procedures af the State Environmental Palicy Act; and WHEREAS, the praposed amendments wer@ transmitted to the Washington State Qffice of Community Development and other State ageneies for the 60 day review period in accordance with RCW 36,70A.106; and WNEREAS, after praper notice published in the City's official newspaper at least ten (10) days priar to the date af hearing, the Auburn Planning Commission on Ordinance No. 6280 December 7, 2009 Page 2 September 9, .2409, 4ctober 6, 2009, and November 4, 2009 conducted public hearings on the proposad amendments; and WHEREAS, at the public hearing the Auburn City Planning Commissian heard public testimany and took evidence and exhibits into consideration; and WHEREAS, thereafter the Auburn City Planning Cammissian made recommendations tQ the Gity Council an the propased Year 2009 Gomprehensive Plan map and text amendments; and WHEREAS, on November 16, 2009 the Public Warks Committee af the, Auburn City Cauncil reviewed the Planning Cammission's recommendations; and WHEREAS, on November 23, 2009 the Planning and Community Deve(opment Committee of'the Auburn Cify Cauncil made a recommendatian to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on.December 7, 2009, the Auburn City Council considered the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments as recammended by the City of Auburn PEanning Commission; NOW, THEREFC?RE, THE CITY COUNCIL. OF THE GITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, QO ORDAIN AS FQLLOWS: Section 1, The 2009 Camprehensive Plan city-initiated Map Amendments are adopted and approved as set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The City Clerk is directed that they be filed along with this Ordinance and be availabte for public inspection. Ord'rnance No. 6280 December 7, 2009 Page 3 , Sectian 2. The 2009 Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments including the four schaol district Gapital Facilities Plans, City of Auburn Capital Facilities Plan, City of Auburn Comprehensive Transportatian Plan, City of Auburn Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan, and amendments to various chapters in the Auburn Comprehensive Plan are adopted and approved as set farth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by referenee. The City Glerk shall file them along with this Ordinance, and keep them availabls for pubfic inspection Section 3. The City of Auburn 2009 Camprehensive Water Plan is adopted and approved as set forth in Exhibit °C" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference pending approval -fram the Washington State aepartmen# af Health. City staff is hereby aufharized fa make minor changes to the appraved Comprehensive Water Plan bassd on comments received from the Washington State Department of Health. Substantive changes shall be approved by the Auburn Ci#y Council. . Section 4. The 2009 Camprehensive Sewer Plan is adopted and approved as set forth in Exhibit °D" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, pending camments received from the Washington State Department of Ecalogy and Kirrg County. City staff is hereby authorized to make minor changes ta the approved Comprehensive Sewer Plan based on comments received from the Washington State Department of Ecology and/or King County. Substantive changes shall be appraved by the Auburn City Council. , Section 5. Application CPA49-0002, Lyden and Lyden Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, requesting a land use change fram Light lndustrial to L"rght Ordinance No. 6280 . December 7, 2009 Page 4 % Commercial for praperty identified by parcel number 1221049020, is approved. The Council adapts the P[anning Commission's recommendation dated Octaber 6, 2009. Section 8. Appiication CPA09-0004, Craig Cammercial Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, requesting a land use change from High Density Residential ta Heavy Commercial for praperty identified by parcel number 5125400241, is approved. Council adapts the Planning Commissran's recommendation dated October 6, 2009 and the findings and conclusions outlined in the staff report dated November 30, 2009. Section 7. Application CPA09-0005, Riverside Village Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, requesting a land use change from Moderate Density Residential to High Density Residential for praperty identified by parcel number 1721059163, is appraved. Council adapts the Planning Cammission's recammendatian dated October 6, 2009 and the findings and conclusions outlined in the staff report dated November 30, 2009. Section 8. The 2009 Comprehensive Plan amendments madify the Comprehensive Pkan adopted on August 18, 1986 by Resofution No. 1703 and adapted by Ordinance Na. 4788 on September 5, 1995. Sectian S. The adopted Gomprehensive Plan as amended are designated as a' basis far the exercise of substantive authority under the Washington Stake Environmental Policy Act by the City`s responsible environmental official in , accordance with RCW. 43.21C.060. Ordinance No. 6280 December 7, 2009 Page 5 Section 10. ff any section, subsectian, sentence, ciause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance or any of the Comprehensive Plan amendments adopted herein, is far any reasan held invalid or unconsfitutional by any Court af competent jurisdiction, such portiorr shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision, and sueh holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining partions thereof. Section 11. The Mayor is hereby authorized to , implement such administrative pracedures as may be necessary to carry out the directions af this legislatian ta include incarporating into one dacument the adopted Comprehensive , Plan map and fext amendments, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B" and preparing and pubfishing the amended Comprehensive Plan. Sectian 12. Sectian 3 of this Ordinance shaCl take effect and be in farce upon ~ receipt of appraval from the Washington State Department of Health. Section 4 of , this Ordinance shall take effect and be in force upon receipt of approval from the Washington Sta#e Department af EcoEogy and King County. All other provisians of , this Ordinance shall take effect and be in force five days fram and after its passage, approval, and publication as provided by law. INTRODUCED: DEC 7 2009 PASSED; 7°2049 - APPROVED: - 7.24Q9 Peter B'. Lewis MAYOR Ordinance No. 6280 December 7, 2009 Page 6 ATTEST; Danielle E. Daskam, . City Clerk' APPROVED AS TO FORM: niel B. Heid, City Attorney Pubiished; ~-~'~~.~~1✓/~. ~d , ardinance tJo. 6280 December 7, 2009 Page 7 Page 1 of 1 Elizabeth Chamberiain From: sjdire@comcast.net Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 12:20 AM Ex6libRB ~ To: Elizabeth Chamberlain )\t°~~~~~~ ~~Page`~ SubjecE: Rezone Application REZ09-0004 Craig Commercial My name is Sam Di Re and I am the properry owner of 2301 "I" St NE. This rezoiie praposal concerns me and my tenants as it increases densiiy in an area where existing apartment camlexes are poorly and inadequately managed or maintained. My property is in the minority in that area. I am one of few property owners who niaintains my praperty and manages my tenants per Auburn ordinances and cades. Sui-rounding apartment units are in disreplir with praperty owners/managers allowing their tenants to scatter trash and abai;don vehicles on tlieir premises, disrupt the neigixUors w/ load utuuly behaviar, and cequire frequent visits by the Auburn Police to resolve domestic disputes. My property has been used as a staging area for the police to gat}ier before moving in on suspects in the apartment complex immediately south, Increasing denisty in the area to bring rilore uncontrolled resideiits is not the way to grow a city with a positive, shong reputation. Ariother exaniple of inappropriate zaning is the house constructed on tlie postage stamp lot at the SW corner of NE 24th St & I St NE. Packing more and inore dwellings into this area just to bring in more tax revenue is not au acceptable way to grow the city of Aubuin. First aiid foremost it is important that the City develop and follow a well thought out plan for the local area and provide proper enforetnent of existing code violations. Adding even more density to an area that is in severe need of control is not the responsible way to grow the city and pz•ovide a safe environment for the families and Iocal citizens. It you have any questions ar need more information, please give nie a call. Sam Di Re Home: 425-226-89I9 1/1'1/?010