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