HomeMy WebLinkAbout6440 Exhibit D (2)
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Page 1 of 49
Agenda Subject
CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004,
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments – Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Department: Planning and
Development
Attachments: See separate working
binder
Budget Impact: N/A
Administrative Recommendation: The Planning and Community Development Committee to
recommend approval of Ordinance No. 6440 to the City Council
Background Summary:
The City of Auburn adopted amendments to its Comprehensive Plan in 1995 in response to the
Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) requirements, as amended. Since then the Auburn
Comprehensive Plan has been amended annually.
Comprehensive plan amendments can be initiated by the City of Auburn (city-initiated) and by private
citizens (privately-initiated). This year the city is initiating two map amendments and seven policy and/or
text amendments. In addition, this year the city received three privately-initiated plan map amendment
applications.
This staff report and its recommendations address all of the amendments:
• Comprehensive Plan Map (CPM) Amendments CPM # 1 & CPM #5 (City initiated)
• Comprehensive Plan Map CPM #2, CPM #3 & CPM #4 (privately initiated - each separately)
• Policy/Text (P/T) Amendments P/T # 1 through # 7. (city initiated)
Comprehensive plan amendments are initially reviewed during a public hearing process before the City of
Auburn Planning Commission, who then provides a recommendation to the City Council for final action.
City Council consideration and action on the amendments is targeted for near the end of this year.
Reviewed by Council & Committees: Reviewed by Departments & Divisions:
Arts Commission COUNCIL COMMITTEES: Building M&O
Airport Finance Cemetery Mayor
Hearing Examiner Municipal Services Finance Parks
Human Services Planning & Dev. Fire Planning
Park Board Public Works Legal Police
Planning Comm. Other Public Works Human Resources
Action:
Committee Approval: Yes No
Council Approval: Yes No Call for Public Hearing ___/___/____
Referred to _________________________________ Until ____/___/____
Tabled ______________________________________ Until ___/___/____
Councilmember: Backus Staff: Snyder
Meeting Date: December 10, 2012 Item Number:
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 2 of 49
At its October 16, 2012 public hearing the Planning Commission reviewed the following
(Group #1):
A. Policy/Text Amendments
P/T #1 – Auburn School District 2012-2018 Capital Facilities Plan
P/T #2 – Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan 2013-2018
P/T #3 – Federal Way School District 2013 Capital Facilities Plan
P/T #4 – Kent School District 2012/2013 – 2017/2018 Capital Facilities Plan
P/T #5 – City of Auburn 2013-2018 Capital Facilities Plan
P/T #6 - Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Revise Chapter 2 – “The Street System”
• Revise (eliminate and replace) Table 2-3 “Future Roadway
Capacity Improvement Projects and Cost Estimates”
• Revise text pages 2-14 thru 2-15 to be consistent with
updated Table 2-3.
• Revise Figure 2-6 “Roadway Improvements Alternatives”
to be consistent with updated Table 2-3.
Revise Chapter 5 – “Policies”
• Update policies: TR-19, TR-20 & TR-21 related to Level of
Service, TR-23 related to concurrency, TR-28 related to
finance, TR-59 related to parking and TR-163 related to
transit.
B. Map Amendments
CPM #1 – Comprehensive Plan – Revise Electrical Service Facilities Map No.
6.1
At its November 7, 2012 public hearing, the Planning Commission reviewed the following
(Group #2):
A. Policy/Text Amendments
P/T #7 - Comprehensive Plan
Revise Chapter 14 – “Comprehensive Plan Map” related to economic
development strategies areas
• Revise pages 14-25 through 14-28 to incorporate
advancement of economic development strategy areas.
• Related changes to articulate “Manufacturing Villages” &
“Innovation Partnership Zones (IPZ)”
• Add reference to Map No. 14.3, “Economic Development
Strategy Areas”
• Revise Policy III.J related to “Problem Areas” and “West
Auburn” to clarify meaning of “Local Serving” and “Region
Serving”.
B. Map Amendments
CPM #2 (File # CPA12-0002)
Map amendment to Map No. 14.1 – River Mobile Home Park (HCA
Management) to change the comprehensive plan designation from “Public/Quasi-
Public” to “Moderate Density Residential” of approx. 6.36 acres of adjacent
property Parcel # 0004000098. The mobile park is located at 3611 “I” ST NE.
CPM #4 (File # CPA12-0004)
Map amendment to Map No. 14.1 – Auburn School District to change the
comprehensive plan designation of 14 parcels; two parcels totaling 0.63 acres
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 3 of 49
located SE of the Auburn High School from “Office Residential” to “Public/Quasi-
Public” and to change 12 parcels totaling 1.74 acres located NW of the school
from "High Density Residential" to "Public/Quasi-Public". The school is located at
800 4th ST NE.
CPM #5 Add new map No 14.3, “Economic Development Strategy Areas”
At its November 20, 2012 public hearing, the Planning Commission reviewed the following
(Group #3):
A. Policy/Text Amendments
(None)
B. Map Amendments
CPM #3 (File # CPA12-0003)
Map amendment to Map No. 14.1 – Locke Property to change the
Comprehensive Plan designation from “Single Family Residential” to “High
Density Residential” for a 1.88-acre parcel #0921059132. The parcel is located
at 12130 SE 310th ST.
The Planning Commission has forwarded its recommendation to the City Council on all plan
map and policy/text Amendments. City Council consideration and action on the amendments is
limited to once a year, except in certain specific instances, and generally occurs around the end
of this year.
The 2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments were reviewed by the Planning and Community
Development Committee of the City Council on June 25, 2012, September 10, 2012 and
November 13, 2012, and will be again be reviewed at the committee’s December 10, 2012
meeting for a recommendation to the City Council.
The Public Works Committee of the City Council reviewed the amendments and the Planning
Commission recommendations at their December 3, 2012 meeting. The Finance Committee of
the City Council reviewed the amendments and the Planning Commission recommendations at
their December 3, 2012 meeting. Ordinance No. 6440 is proposed for action at the December
17, 2012 City Council meeting.
A. Findings
1. RCW 36.70A.130 (Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA)) provides for
amendments to locally adopted GMA comprehensive plans. Except in limited circumstances
provided for in State law, comprehensive plan amendments shall be considered by the city
or county legislative body no more frequently than once per year.
2. The City of Auburn established a June 8, 2012 deadline for the submittal of privately-
initiated comprehensive plan applications (map or policy/text). Notice to the public of the
filing deadline was provided on the City’s website, the Seattle Times, and sent to a compiled
notification list. The City received three privately-initiated plan map amendment applications
by the submittal deadline.
3. The City of Auburn received annual updates to the four school district capital facilities plans
whose districts occur within the City of Auburn. These capital facilities plans, as well as the
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 4 of 49
City’s Capital Facilities Plan are referenced in Chapter 5, Capital Facilities, of the Auburn
Comprehensive Plan and are processed as Policy/Text (P/T) amendments.
4. The environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) resulted in a
Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) issued for the City-initiated Comprehensive Plan
Amendments on September 10, 2012 under City file No. SEP12-0023. The comment period
ended September 24, 2012 and the appeal period ended October 8, 2012. No comments
were received or appeals filed.
5. The environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) resulted in a
Determination of Non-Significance (DNS), issued for the River Mobile Home Park (HCA
Management) Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and rezone on August 29, 2012 under
City File No. SEP12-0016. The comment period ended September 12, 2012 and the appeal
period ended September 26, 2012. No comments were received or appeals filed.
6. The environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) resulted in a
Determination of Non-Significance (DNS), issued for the Locke Property Comprehensive
Plan Map Amendment and Rezone on August 29, 2012 under City File No. SEP12-0017.
The comment period ended September 12, 2012 and the appeal period ended September
26, 2012. One comment letter was received after the close of the public comment period in
response to the issuance of this environmental review decision.
7. The environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), resulted in a
Determination of Non-Significance (DNS), issued for the Auburn School District
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Rezone on September 4, 2012 under City File
No. SEP12-0021. The comment period ended September 18, 2012 and the appeal period
ended October 2, 2012. No comments were received or appeals filed.
8. The Auburn School District issued a Determination of Non-Significance for the 2012 - 2018
Auburn School District Capital Facilities Plan May 8, 2012; the Dieringer School District
issued a Determination of Non- Significance for the 2013-2018 Dieringer School District
Capital Facilities Plan March 12, 2012; the Federal Way School District issued a
Determination of Non-Significance for the 2013 Federal Way School District Capital
Facilities Plan May 11, 2012; and the Kent School District issued a Determination of Non-
Significance for the 2012-2013 through 2017-2018 Kent School District Capital Facilities
Plan May 29, 2012.
9. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, the proposed comprehensive plan amendments were sent to
the Washington State Office of Commerce on September 10, 2012, formerly the Department
of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED) and then transmitted other state
agencies as required for the 60-day state review. The proposed comprehensive plan
amendments were transmitted by separate letter. The Washington State Office of
Commerce acknowledged receipt of the amendments by letter dated September 11, 2012.
No comments have been received from Commerce or other state agencies.
10. Due to the nature of the city-initiated map amendments and the scope and limited number of
privately initiated policy/text changes, the optional process as provided in the city code for a
public open house was not conducted.
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 5 of 49
11. Public notice via publication within the official newspaper as required by ACC 14.22.100 was
accomplished. The public hearing notice was published on October 5, 2012 in the Seattle
Times newspaper at least 10-days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing
scheduled for October 16, 2012. The public hearing notice was published on October 26,
2012 in the Seattle Times newspaper at least 10-days prior to the Planning Commission
public hearing scheduled for November 7, 2012. The public hearing notice was published
on November 9, 2012 in the Seattle Times newspaper at least 10-days prior to the Planning
Commission public hearing scheduled for November 20, 2012.
12. Public notice via mailing as required by ACC 14.22.100 for site-specific map amendments
was accomplished. A public notice was mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the
subject site and the property was posted with a land use notice board that included the
SEPA determination.
13. Auburn City Code Chapter 14.22 outlines the process for submittal of privately-initiated
amendments and the processing of comprehensive plan amendments as follows:
“Section 14.22.100
A. The planning commission shall hold at least one public hearing on all proposed
amendments to the comprehensive plan. Notice of such public hearing shall be given
pursuant to Chapter 1.27 ACC and, at a minimum, include the following:
1. For site-specific plan map amendments:
a. Notice shall be published once in the official newspaper of the city not
less than 10 calendar days prior to the date of public hearing;
b. Notice shall be mailed by first class mail to all property owners of record
within a radius of 300 feet of the proposed map amendment request, not
less than 10 calendar days prior to the public hearing;
2. For area-wide plan map amendments:
a. Notice shall be published once in the official newspaper of the city not
less than 10 calendar days prior to the date of public hearing;
b. Notice shall be mailed by first class mail to all property owners of record
within the area subject to the proposed amendment;
c. Notice shall be posted in at least two conspicuous locations in the area
subject to the proposed amendment not less than 10 calendar days prior
to the date of the public hearing.
B. Notwithstanding the above, the director may expand the minimum noticing provisions
noted above as deemed necessary.
C. Planning Commission Recommendation. The planning commission shall conduct a
public hearing on all potential comprehensive plan amendments and shall make and
forward a recommendation on each to the city council. The planning commission
shall adopt written findings and make a recommendation consistent with those
findings to the city council.
D. The city council, if it elects to amend the comprehensive plan, shall adopt written
findings and adopt said amendments by ordinance.
E. State Review. All comprehensive plan amendments considered by the planning
commission shall be forwarded for state agency review consistent with RCW
36.70A.106.
F. Any appeal of an amendment to the comprehensive plan shall be made in
accordance with Chapter 36.70A RCW. (Ord. 6172 § 1, 2008.)”
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 6 of 49
14. The annual comprehensive plan amendments were previously discussed with the Planning
and Community Development Committee of the City Council on June 25, 2012 at which time
the draft docket and draft schedule were reviewed. Also, a reporting of the status of Annual
Comprehensive Plan Amendments processing occurred at the September 10, 2012 and
November 13, 2012 regular meetings.
15. On November 26, 2012, the Planning and Community Development Committee of the City
Council reviewed, and again on December 10, 2012 will review the 2010 Comprehensive
Plan Amendments and the recommendations of the Planning Commission.
16. On December 3, 2012 the Public Works Committee of the City Council reviewed the 2012
Comprehensive Plan Amendments and the recommendations of the Planning Commission.
17. On December 3, 2012 the Finance Committee of the City Council reviewed the 2012
Comprehensive Plan Amendments and the recommendations of the Planning Commission.
18. The following report identifies the full docket of the Comprehensive Plan Map (CPM) and
Policy/Text (P/T) amendments that were heard by the Planning Commission at their October
16, 2012, November 7, 2012 and November 20, 2012 public hearings along with the original
staff recommendation to the Planning Commission and the subsequent Planning
Commission recommendation.
---------------- OCTOBER 16, 2012 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING -----------------
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments
CPM #1
Revise Map No. 6.1, ‘Electrical Service Facilities” to update the information regarding the
capacity and location of major electrical transmission lines throughout the city.
Discussion
The reference map: “Electrical Service Facilities”, Map No 6.1 in the back of the Comprehensive
Plan document and referenced within Chapter 6, “Private Utilities” is being updated to reflect
more accurate information on the location of major aerial electrical transmission lines within the
city limits. This map only shows main electrical transmission lines and not local service lines
and only shows existing lines and not future lines. Puget Sound Energy was consulted for
information on the location of their major transmission lines within the City and the map was
revised in response to this information. Puget Sound Energy requested that in the future, the
map could be revised to indicate planned future electrical facilities. The City will consider
showing planned facilities with future updates to this map and the maps of other private utilities
so that similar information is provided on all private utility maps within the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Recommendation
Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council
Planning Commission Recommendation
Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 7 of 49
Comprehensive Plan Policy/Text Amendments
P/T #1
Incorporate Auburn School District Capital Facilities Plan 2012 through 2018, adopted by
School Board May 29, 2012 into the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan.
Discussion
The Auburn School District has provided the City with its annually updated Capital Facilities
Plan (CFP) covering from 2012-2018. The CFP was adopted by the Auburn School District
School Board on May 29, 2012 and has been subject to separate SEPA review and a
Determination of Non Significance (DNS). Information contained in the School District CFP
serves as the basis for the City’s collection of school impact fees on behalf of the school district.
A review of the Auburn School District’s updated Capital Facilities Plan indicates the District is
requesting a change in the fee obligations. The fee for single-family dwellings is proposed to be
$5,511.69, a decrease of $45.61 and for multiple-family dwellings the requested fee is
$3,380.26, an increase of $1,075.04. The actual impact fee that is assessed is set by separate
ordinance by the Auburn City Council.
Staff Recommendation
Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council
Planning Commission Recommendation
Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council
P/T#2
Incorporate the Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan 2013-2018 adopted March 26,
2012 by the School Board as part of the Auburn Comprehensive Plan.
Discussion
The Dieringer School District has provided the City with its annually updated Capital Facilities
Plan 2013 - 2018. The CFP was adopted by the Dieringer School District Board of Directors on
March 26, 2012. The CFP has been subject to separate SEPA review and a DNS. Information
contained in the School District CFP serves as the basis for the City’s collection of school
impact fees on behalf of the school district.
A review of the Dieringer School District’s updated Capital Facilities Plan indicates the District is
requesting a change in the fee obligations. The CFP shows a net fee obligation for single-family
dwellings of $5,322.00 and a negative net fee obligation of $1,684.00 for multiple family
dwellings. The fee for single-family dwellings is proposed to be $5,322.00, an increase of
$1,822.00 and a fee of $0 for multiple-family residential. The actual impact fee assessed is set
by separate ordinance by the Auburn City Council.
Staff Recommendation
Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council
Planning Commission Recommendation
Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 8 of 49
P/T #3
Incorporate Federal Way School District Capital Facilities Plan 2013 adopted June 12, 2012 by
the School Board into the City Comprehensive Plan.
Discussion
The Federal Way School District has provided the City with its annually updated Capital
Facilities Plan (2013). The CFP was adopted by the Federal Way School District School Board
on June 12, 2012. The CFP has been subject to separate SEPA review and a DNS. Information
contained in the School District CFP serves as the basis for the City’s collection of school
impact fees on behalf of the school district.
A review of the Federal Way School District’s updated Capital Facilities Plan indicates the
District is requesting a change in the fee obligations. The net fee obligation for single-family
dwellings is $4,014.00, representing no change and for multi-family dwellings is $1,381, an
increase of $128.00. The actual impact fee assessed is set by separate ordinance by the
Auburn City Council.
Staff Recommendation
Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council
Planning Commission Recommendation
Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council
P/T #4
Incorporate Kent School District Capital Facilities Plan 2012-2013 to 2017-2018 adopted June
27, 2012 by the School Board into the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan.
Discussion
The Kent School District has provided its annually updated 2012-2013 to 2017-2018 Capital
Facilities Plan. The CFP was adopted by the Kent School District School Board on June 27,
2012 and has been subject to separate SEPA review and a Determination of Non Significance
(DNS). Information contained in the School District CFP serves as the basis for the City’s
collection of school impact fees on behalf of the school district.
A review of the Kent School District’s updated Capital Facilities Plan indicates the District is not
requesting a change in the fees. The Plan indicates the net fee obligation for single-family
dwellings of $5,486.00, representing no change, and for multi-family dwellings a fee of
$3,378.00, also representing no change. The actual impact fee that is assessed is set by
separate ordinance by the Auburn City Council.
Staff Recommendation
Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council
Planning Commission Recommendation
Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council
CPM #5
Incorporate the City of Auburn’s 6-year Capital Facilities Plan 2013-2018, into the City’s
Comprehensive Plan.
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 9 of 49
Discussion
A Capital Facilities Plan is one of the comprehensive plan elements required by the Washington
State Growth Management Act (GMA) (RCW 36.70A). The GMA requires that a capital facilities
plan include an inventory of existing capital facilities (showing locations and capacities), a
forecast of future needs for such capital facilities, proposed locations and capacities of new or
expanded capital facilities, and a minimum of a six-year plan to finance capital facilities with
identified sources of funding. The City of Auburn 6-year Capital Facilities Plan 2013-2018
satisfies the GMA requirements for a capital facilities element as part of the Comprehensive
Plan.
Each comprehensive plan prepared under the GMA must include a capital facilities plan
element. RCW 36.70A.070(3) of the GMA states the following:
A capital facilities plan element consisting of:
(a) An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities, showing the
locations and capacities of the capital facilities;
(b) a forecast of the future needs of such capital facilities;
(c) the proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities;
(d) at least a six-year plan that will finance such capital facilities within projected funding
capacities and clearly identifies sources of public money for such purposes; and
(e) a requirement to reassess the land use element if probable funding falls short of
meeting existing needs and to ensure that the land use element, capital facilities plan
element, and financing plan within the capital facilities plan element are coordinated and
consistent. Park and recreation facilities shall be included in the capital facilities plan
element.
A capital facility is a structure, street or utility system improvement, or other long-lasting major
asset, including land. Capital facilities are provided for public purposes. Capital facilities include,
but are not limited to, the following: streets, roads, highways, sidewalks, street and road lighting
systems, traffic signals, domestic water systems, storm and sanitary sewer systems, parks and
recreation facilities, and police and fire protection facilities. These capital facilities include
necessary ancillary and support facilities.
The memo from the Finance Department contained in the working notebook identifies the major
changes in the CFP from last year. The proposed City of Auburn 6-year Capital Facilities Plan
2013-2018 is incorporated by reference in the Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 5, “Capital
Facilities”.
Staff Recommendation
Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council
Planning Commission Recommendation
Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council
NOTE: Subsequent to the Planning Commission’s recommendation, it was identified that pages
175 and 176 of the City Capital Facilities Plan need to be modified to shift $129,000 from one
fund of the City Hall project to another. More specifically, to change the 2012 year end estimate
the capital improvement fund: “City Hall HVAC System Upgrade” (CP0716) (decreased) to “City
Hall Remodel, Phase 1” (CP1009) (increased). This change is reflected in the working binder.
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 10 of 49
CPM #6
Revise portions of two chapters of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan.
Discussion
The Comprehensive Transportation Plan is a separate document that is incorporated by
reference into and therefore is part of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. In Chapter 2, “The Street
System” the document contains Table 2-3 and corresponding narrative discussion and map
(Figure 2-6) of city roadway capacity improvement projects and their associated cost estimates.
As projects are completed and priorities change based on available funding sources, the project
listing needs to be updated to be accurate. This requires changes to the table, narrative and the
map. For legibility, the existing Table 2-3 is proposed to be eliminated and replaced with a new
Table 2-3 rather than attempting to show strike through and underline changes. More
specifically, the changes include:
Revise Chapter 2 – “The Street System”
• Revise (eliminate and replace) Table 2-3 “Future Roadway Capacity
Improvement Projects and Cost Estimates”
• Revise text pages 2-14 thru 2-15 to be consistent with updated Table 2-3.
• Revise Figure 2-6, “Roadway Improvements Alternatives” to be consistent with
updated Table 2-3.
Chapter 5, “Policies”, contains a number of policy statements that are used by the city to guide
private and public transportation-related projects. Opportunities for refinement, improvement
and clarification of the policies are recognized as these policies are used. Also, the policies
need to evolve and change in response to changing circumstances. Three policy changes are
proposed related to the level of service, other policies are proposed to change related to
concurrency (ensuring that road level of service keeps pace with demand for roadway capacity),
finance, parking and transit. The changes are shown with strike through and underline. More
specifically, the changes include:
Revise Chapter 5 – “Policies”
• Update policies: TR-19, TR-20, & TR-21 related to Level of Service, TR-
23 related to concurrency, TR-28 related to finance, TR-59 related to
parking, and TR-163 related to transit.
Staff Recommendation
Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council
Planning Commission Recommendation
Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council
NOTE: At the December 3, 2012 Public Works Committee review of the Comprehensive Plan
amendments, the Committee requested that the word: “all” be removed from Policy TR-28, on
page 5-5. With this change, the policy would read:”TR-28: Require developments or
redevelopments to construct all transportation infrastructure systems needed to serve new
developments.” This change is reflected in the working binder.
---------------- NOVEMBER 7, 2012 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING -----------------
Comprehensive Plan Policy/Text Amendments
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 11 of 49
P/T #7
Revise narrative within Chapter 14 – “The Comprehensive Plan Map” related to economic
development strategy areas based on City Council discussions to-date.
• Revise pages 14-25 through 14-28 to incorporate advancement of economic
development strategy areas.
• Add three policies related economic development strategy areas and
‘manufacturing villages’ and innovative partnership zones (IPZ).
• Revise Policy III.J. related to the discussion of “Problem Areas” and subcategory,
“West Auburn” to clarify “Local Serving” and “Region Serving”. See page 14-28.
Discussion
In 2005 an “Economic Development Strategies” document was developed that includes
strategies and actions needed to affect necessary change for specific target areas within the
city. As adopted by Resolution No. 3944 in 2005 (See Resolution No. 3944 in Working Binder),
the Economic Development Strategies document identifies six strategy areas. These economic
development strategy areas are targeted for population and employment growth.
In 2010, the City Council identified two additional economic development strategy areas and
solidified the idea of expanding elements of the Urban Center designation--greater residential
population density (i.e. mixed use), clustered non-residential uses (offices, retail, services),
increased employment and multi-modal transportation (i.e. walking, transit, and bicycling)--to
these economic development strategy areas as key economic development nodes in the City.
The planning horizon for the economic development strategy areas focused on the City’s 20-
year (2031) growth target.
With the City Council’s Economic Development Retreat in May 2012, the Council’s Planning and
Community Development Committee meeting on September 10, 2012 and the Council’s
Committee of the Whole meeting on October 29, 2012, the population and employment growth
purpose of the eight Economic Development Strategy Areas was further articulated. A new
Economic Development Strategy Area proposed to be added (bringing the total to nine), revised
50-year planning horizon and modified boundaries were used to correlate the Economic
Development Strategy Areas (EDSA) with priority business sectors as follows:
• Auburn Environmental Park and “Green Zone” (the zoning designation surrounding
and supportive of the Environmental Park District):
o Healthcare research (provision and prevention);
o Ecosystem management (“green engineering”);
o Education;
o Bio-research facilities; and
o “Manufacturing Village” – mixed uses consisting of manufacturing,
commercial and multiple family residential
• Urban Center
o Healthcare research (provision and prevention);
o Entertainment;
o High density housing; and
o Ecosystem management (“Green Engineering”);
• Auburn Way North Corridor (Generally, paralleling the street between 15th ST NE to
S 277th ST and C ST NW to I ST NE)
o Mixed-use of commercial and multiple family residential (retail emphasis);
and
o Entertainment
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 12 of 49
• Auburn Way South Corridor (Generally, paralleling the street from SR 18 south to
Riverwalk DR SW)
o Healthcare research (provision and prevention);
o Ecosystem management (“Green Engineering”);
o Education;
o Bio-research facilities; and
o Aerospace
• 15th Street SW/C Street SW/West Valley Highway (Generally, SR 18 to Boundary
Boulevard SW and West VLY HWY to C ST SW)
o Mixed-use of commercial and multiple family residential (retail emphasis)
• A Street SE Corridor (Generally, SR 18 to 41st ST SE and C ST SW to D ST SE)
o Multiple Family Residential
• SE 312th Street/124th Avenue SE Corridor (Generally, SE 310th ST to SE 314th ST
and 121st PL SE to 129th AVE SE)
o Retail Services
• M Street SE between Auburn Way North and Auburn South
o Mixed-use of commercial and multiple family residential (retail and service
emphasis)
• Northwest Auburn Area (Generally, between S. 277th ST and 30th ST NW and west
of Auburn WY N Corridor Area to SR 167)
o “Manufacturing Village” – mixed uses consisting of manufacturing,
commercial and multiple family residential
The proposed changes can be summarized as follows:
• Documenting the additional work of the City Council at PCDC and COW meetings
• Recognizing the additional EDSA, termed the “Northwest Auburn Area”
• Add Policy III.D – specifying the goal of EDSA’s
• Add Policy III.E – city’s commitment to EDSA’s
• Add Policy III.F – relation of the EDSA’s to “Manufacturing Villages”’ and to the
“Innovative Partnership Zone” (IPZ).
Manufacturing Village Concept
The concept of a “Manufacturing Village” is a 21st Century re-imagination of historic
development pattern that contains residences in conjunction with commercial uses or industry.
The re-imagined concept focuses on a mixed use center that provides a combination of housing
and manufacturing/industrial uses was discussed at the May 2012 economic development City
Council retreat. The concept as discussed is to provide comprehensive plan policies and
subsequently, zoning regulations that provide incentives to encourage dwellings and
employment in close proximity to one another. The concept was discussed specifically in
relation to the Environmental Park zoning district (referred to as the “Green Zone” – the zoning
district adjacent to and supportive of the natural resources park). However, the concept of the
manufacturing village may also be applied to other Economic Development Strategy Areas.
The City Council has generally been receptive to making additional changes to the
comprehensive plan designation and the Environmental Park zoning district to promote a
location supportive of small to medium scale, environmentally friendly manufacturing uses that
would be conducive to a location proximate to multiple family housing. The manufacturing uses
are envisioned to be generally smaller-scale and non-nuisance type businesses.
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 13 of 49
The purpose of the proposed comprehensive plan policy/text amendments is to document and
specify the evolving discussions of the City Council on this new initiative and to provide a policy
framework within this year’s comprehensive plan amendment process that “set the stage” for
future comprehensive plan and zoning regulation changes. Therefore, the purpose of the
change is to provide a policy foundation as a starting point for future planning actions.
Innovative Partnership Zone
The “Innovative Partnership Zone” (IPZ) is a unique economic development effort that partners
research, workforce training, and private sector participation in close geographic proximity to
promote collaboration in a research based effort that will lead to new technologies, marketable
products, company formation, and job creation. Created by the State Legislature in 2007 and
assigned to the State Department of Commerce, the zones are administered by the City
pursuant to a comprehensive business plan.
1. Mission:
The mission of Auburn's Innovative Partnership Zone to support a vibrant, vital economy
for the City of Auburn, our local region and the State of Washington. Encouraging the
adaption of warehouse districts to mixed use, market-affordable technology clusters and
facilitating collaborative partnering among private sector employers, research partners,
and programmed workforce development, the IPZ will implement a multi-phased plan
across a variety of business sectors beginning with Ecosystems and Rainwater
Management. These collaborative clusters will realize new businesses and products;
expand our existing knowledge based middle-wage jobs while creating new higher-
paying employment opportunities for the citizens of our City. Through new partnerships
and the clustering of entrepreneurs, ideas will flourish, manufacturing efficiencies will be
developed and our diverse business community will expand, creating investment
opportunities, new technologies and the general growth of our economy.
2. Goals:
The focal point the State's overall IPZ program is as a resource development tool for
general economic development within this zone, the City of Auburn and throughout the
State of Washington. Specifically for the City of Auburn our primary goal is job creation
for our citizens and the general economic development of our City as a regional center
for business enterprise and technology.
Historically, Auburn has developed as a manufacturing center and as a hub for
supply/distribution warehouse space. Some of this IPZ's existing businesses and
clusters surround advanced technology/high-wage employment manufacturing; the
greater percentage of Auburn industry is made up of solid, well established
manufacturing clusters employing a significant number of knowledge-based middle-
wage workers.
A certain goal of this Innovation Partnership Zone is to capitalize on our diverse
manufacturing technology clusters and through the introduction of research partnering,
encourage their expansion and development; another goal will be to maximize
efficiencies within our supply chain warehousing/distribution industries; and a third and
critically important goal will be to persuade our Auburn property owners to encourage the
conversion of warehouse inventory to new market-affordable, mid to high-wage
employment technology clusters.
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 14 of 49
In addition, our overall goals also emphasize the creation of marketable products,
business retention and expansion, the formation of new business partnerships (including
the diversification of manufactures across traditional business lines) and the creation of
new technological advances.
3. Leadership/Governance:
The IPZ Administrator shall be the Economic Development Manager for the City of
Auburn. As administrator he/she will be responsible for day-to-day implementation of this
business plan including its Mission, Goals, as well as the general overall success of the
IPZ program. The Administrator shall work with the Management Team to promote the
economic sustainability of the IPZ and its partners. Further, the Administrator shall
actively work to assist existing business organizations within the zone, introduce new
partnerships, encourage creativity and fresh ideas, and to promote Auburn as a
destination for new businesses and clusters.
Staff Recommendation
Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council
Planning Commission Recommendation
Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council
Housekeeping Item of Clarification
At the request of the Planning Commission, staff was asked to clarify the meaning of existing
text in the Comprehensive Plan. Two changes are suggested as a result. First, to revise Policy
III.J. on page 14-28 to renumber the policy as “Policy III.I” since there are already two policies
with the same letter designation: “J”. And second, to revise this policy related to the discussion
of “Problem Areas” and subcategory, “West Auburn” to clarify “Local Serving” and “‘Region
Serving”. Quotation marks are proposed to be added to signify that the terms have a special
sense or specific meaning, described elsewhere in the Plan.
These terms are further explained in the context of the Comprehensive Plan Chapter 3, “Land
Use” where it says:
“Urban Form Planning deals with the basic geographic form of the city.
Auburn's existing form separates the city into two parts: a concentration of employment
base on the west with sufficient existing and potential jobs to be of regional significance
(region serving area), and residential and locally oriented business uses to the east
(community serving area). This existing policy of a "split" form has generally been
effective in avoiding gross land use conflicts between residential uses and more
intensive (e.g. industrial) land uses. This Plan's policies maintain this basic split policy.
However, Auburn's downtown area is also treated as a unique (both region and
community-serving) part of the city's form.”
Staff Recommendation
Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council
Planning Commission Recommendation
Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 15 of 49
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments
CPM #5
Add new Map No. 14.3, ‘Economic Development Strategy Areas” as a reference map at the
back of the city’s Comprehensive Plan to show the nine areas that have been identified and
discussed by the City Council.
Discussion
The reference Map No. 14.3, ‘Economic Development Strategy Areas” proposed for inclusion in
the back of the Comprehensive Plan document and referenced within Chapter 14, “The
Comprehensive Plan Map” is being added. This map is new to the Plan and is proposed to be
added for ease of communicating and understanding the location of the Economic Development
Strategy Areas. The location of the economic development strategy areas are depicted
generally based on the City council discussions and the precise boundaries will be established
through subsequent planning actions. The map includes this fact as a notation.
Staff Recommendation
Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council
Planning Commission Recommendation
Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council
CPM #2 – CPA12-0002, River Mobile Home Park map amendment
1. The applicant submitted a comprehensive plan map amendment application on June 8,
2012 by the submittal deadline of June 8, 2012. The comprehensive plan map amendment
application seeks to change the mapped land use designation of a parcel shown on Map No
14.1, titled “Comprehensive Plan”.
2. The application was submitted by K. Michael McDowell, Principal, of Confluence
Environmental Company on behalf of Dean Moser, Managing Director, HCA Management,
Applicant and property owner.
3. In addition to the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, the applicant submitted an
environmental checklist application. A Determination of Non-Significance was issued for the
River Mobile Home Park (HCA Management) Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and
rezone under City File No. SEP12-0016 on August 29, 2012. No comments were received
or appeals filed.
4. The application seeks to change the comprehensive plan land use designation for the
northern approximately 6.36 acres of a parcel (Parcel # 0004000098) located west of the
Green River from “Public and Quasi-Public” to “Moderate Density Residential”. The subject
property is located east of the 3400 block of I Street NE and directly south of the River
Mobile Home Park which is addressed as 3611 “I” Street NE (Parcel # 0621059002).
5. The portion of the parcel requested for change is undeveloped. The balance of the parcel is
undeveloped, except for the overhead electrical transmission lines on lattice towers
(Bonneville Power Administration), an underground water transmission pipeline (Tacoma
Pipeline No. 5) and storm drainage ponds and wetlands.
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 16 of 49
6. The site does not border public streets.
7. The property is located within the King County portion of the City of Auburn. It was annexed
to City in 1959 by Ordinance No. 1300.
8. The subject property had a “single family residential” comprehensive plan designation and
was zoned R2, Single Family Residential since at least 1987. The designation was changed
to “Public Quasi-Public” and the zoning changed to P1, Public Use after the city’s acquisition
of the parcel in 1995 for potential use for regional storm water treatment and storage
purposes. Subsequent, changes in drainage standards and more specific storm drainage
modeling by the city indicated that the full amount of the parcel was no longer needed. An
update to the City’s Comprehensive Drainage Plan was processed as a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment last year based on this storm drainage modeling of this drainage basin
(CPA11-0003 –P/T#7).
9. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment and related rezoning have been requested by the
Applicant for the purpose of changing the land use designation. The change is to facilitate
future development of replacement mobile home spaces and the park’s recreational vehicle
parking that will be displaced by King County Reddington Levee Extension and Setback
Project. The King County Flood Control District is acquiring the east end of the mobile
home park (closest to the Green River) in order to relocate the levee further west and away
from the River and allow additional flood capacity and river migration area.
10. The following explanation of the King County Reddington Levee Extension and Setback
Project is excerpted from their website:
(http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/wlr/sections-programs/river- floodplain-
section/capital-projects/reddington-levee-setback-and-extension.aspx)
The project
The Reddington Levee Setback and Extension Project, as a component of King County’s
Green River levee system, is part of a larger overall flood management strategy for the
entire Green River. This project will set back and extend the Reddington Levee along the
left (west) bank of the Green River through a portion of the City of Auburn from Brannan
Park (26th Street Northeast) north to 43rd Street Northeast.
Problem addressed
The project will result in a wider corridor for moving flood flows, and a wider riparian
corridor with enhanced ecological benefits. It will greatly reduce flood risk to residents,
businesses and infrastructure within the City of Auburn and the Green River Valley.
Once the new setback levee is constructed and the existing levee removed, the river
channel will be free to migrate laterally and form new channel patterns in this area.
The project includes approximately 6,600 linear feet (LF) of setback levee. The southern
end of the project includes removing existing rock armoring and the existing levee prism
that is currently sitting along the river’s edge. The northern end of the project will extend
the levee north to 43rd Street Northeast.
Project goals
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 17 of 49
The Green River basin is located in Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9. The
WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan identifies actions for the recovery of endangered salmon in
the Green River, including specific project recommendations. The plan calls for side
channel rehabilitation within the Reddington Levee Setback and Extension project plan
area (Project LG-1). The proposed Reddington project not only accomplishes the side
channel reconnection goal, it also removes channel armoring, incorporates engineered
log structures and riparian revegetation, and avoids the use of tidegates thereby allowing
access for juvenile and adult salmonids.
• The Reddington Levee Setback and Extension Project goals are to:
• Reduce flood risks to residents of Auburn and the Green River Valley by:
• Replacing levees that do not meet modern structural design standards and have
a history of seepage problems
• Extending the levee system where no levee currently exists along roughly a mile
of river bank from just north of the River Mobile Home Park to 43rd Street
Northeast
• Setting back levees to reduce their susceptibility to scour, the forceful removal
and translocation of sediment by heavy water flows
• Increasing the flow containment capacity of the levee system beyond 12,000
cubic feet per second
• Improve natural river functions to improve habitat by:
• Setting back levees to allow for more channel movement within the project area
• Allowing the river to meander, scour and develop a more complex ecosystem,
which includes formation of rearing habitat for juvenile salmon
• Providing floodplain refuge for fish to avoid high flow velocities
• Protecting existing vegetation and restoring a corridor of native vegetation to
increase shoreline and channel shading, support the riparian food web, and
improve fish and wildlife habitat adjacent to and within the river channel
Project time line
The project is planned for construction in 2013 and will cover approximately
6,600 feet of levee.
11. The King County Flood Control District will financially compensate the mobile park owner
and the mobile park residents for the acquisition and displacement consistent with
applicable state and federal laws. As a separate action from the County’s project, the
mobile park owner seeks to apply to the city to replace the approximately 16 mobile home
spaces and the park’s recreational vehicle parking area that will be displaced.
12. Concurrently with the requested change in comprehensive plan and zoning designations,
the mobile home park owner is negotiating with the City for acquisition of a portion of this
city-owned parcel. Upon successful conclusion of negotiations, a Boundary Line Adjustment
or other method will be required to combine the area of acquisition (the approximately 6.36
acres) with the existing mobile home park.
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 18 of 49
13. The current Comprehensive Plan designation, zoning designation and land uses of the site
and surrounding properties are as follows:
Comprehensive Plan Designation
Zoning Classification
Current Land Use
Site
Public and Quasi-Public
P1, Public Use Vacant
North Moderate Density Residential
RMHC, Residential Manufactured Home Community
Mobile home park
South Public and Quasi-Public
P1, Public Use Vacant except for overhead electrical transmission lines on lattice towers, an underground water transmission pipeline and storm drainage ponds and wetlands
East Open Space P1, Public Use Green River West High Density Residential
R20, 20 dwelling units per acre
Multiple family residential
and I Street NE
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 19 of 49
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 20 of 49
14. The purpose of the Comprehensive Plan document is to provide a policy basis for the future
zoning changes to ensure that the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance are
consistent as required by the following city code section:
“ACC 14.22.050 Conformance and consistency.
The zoning, land division and other development codes contained or referenced within
Auburn City Code shall be consistent with and implement the intent of the
comprehensive plan. Capital budget decisions shall be made in conformity with the
comprehensive plan. “
15. The City code provides certain criteria for decisions for Comprehensive Plan amendments
as follows:
“ACC 14.22.110 Decision criteria for plan amendments.
A. The comprehensive plan was developed and adopted after significant
study and public participation. The principles, goals, objectives and policies
contained therein shall be granted substantial weight when considering a
proposed amendment. Therefore, the burden of proof for justifying a proposed
amendment rests with the applicant, who must demonstrate that the request
complies with and/or relates to the following decision criteria:
1. The proposed change will further and be consistent with the goals and
objectives of the plan and the plan will remain internally consistent;
2. Whether the capacity to provide adequate services is diminished or
increased;
3. Assumptions upon which the comprehensive plan is based are found to
be invalid;
4. A determination 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;
5. If applicable, a determination that a question of consistency exists
between the comprehensive plan and Chapter 36.70A RCW, the countywide
planning policies for either King and/or Pierce County, as appropriate, and Vision
2040: Growth and Transportation Strategy for the Puget Sound Region.”
16. The first criterion is that the change must further and be consistent with the goals
and objectives of the plan and the plan will remain internally consistent. The
Comprehensive Plan contains policy guidance that relate to this application. Chapter 14,
“Comprehensive Plan Map”, starting at page 14-5 provides the following purpose and
description of the “Moderate Density Residential” Comprehensive Plan designation:
“Moderate Density
Purpose: To provide a transition between single family residential areas and other
more intensive designations, as well as other activities which reduce the suitability of
potential residential areas for single family uses (such as high traffic volumes). In so
doing, this designation will offer opportunities for housing types which balance residential
amenities with the need to provide economical housing choice, in a manner consistent
with conserving the character of adjacent single family areas.
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 21 of 49
Description: Moderate density residential areas are planned to accommodate
moderate densities of varying residential dwelling types. Appropriate densities in these
areas shall range from 8 to 10 units net per acre and potentially 16 units per net acre,
where properties have frontage on an arterial or residential collector. Dwelling types
would generally range from single family units to multiple-family dwellings, with larger
structures allowed (at the same overall density) where offsetting community benefits can
be identified. Structures designed to be occupied by owner-managers shall be
encouraged within this designation.
Compatible Uses: Public and quasi-public uses that have land use impacts similar to
moderate to high density residential uses are appropriate within this category. Also, uses
which require access to traffic (such as schools and churches) are appropriate for these
areas. Carefully developed low intensity office, or residentially related commercial uses
(such as day care centers) can be compatible if developed properly. This designation
can include manufactured home parks.
Criteria for Designation: Areas particularly appropriate for such designation are:
1. Areas between single family residential uses and all other uses.
2. Areas adjacent to, or close to arterials designated in the transportation element.
3. Existing manufactured home parks.
4. Areas sandwiched between higher intensity uses, but not directly served by an
arterial.
5. Urban infill areas not appropriate for single family uses but also not capable of
supporting higher density uses.
Considerations Against Applying this Designation: Areas to generally be avoided
by moderate density residential designations include:
1. Areas surrounded by lower density uses.
2. Areas more appropriate for commercial or higher density uses due to traffic or
extensively developed public facilities.
3. Areas within the Region Serving Area designated by this Plan (except as
otherwise provided by the Plan).
4. Any areas not planned to be served by water and sewer systems.
Appropriate Implementation: This designation can be implemented by three zones:
1) R-10: Permits 10 dwelling units per net acre. The zoning allows single family
dwellings and duplexes as permitted uses. Multiple-family dwellings, some residential
supporting uses, and professional offices as part of a mixed-use development may be
permitted as conditional uses.
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 22 of 49
2) R-16: Permits 16 dwelling units per net acre. The zoning allows for a variety of
housing types, include single family, duplexes, and multiple-family dwellings and mixed-
use development.
3) R-MHC: Manufactured/Mobile Home Community permits the development of
manufactured home parks on property that is at least 5 acres in size. The base density
is 10 dwelling units per net acre.”
17. For comparison, Chapter 14, “Comprehensive Plan Map”, starting at page 14-8 provides the
following purpose and description of the “Public and Quasi-Public” Comprehensive Plan
designation:
“Purpose: To designate areas of significant size needed to provide public and quasi-
public services to the community.
Description: This category includes those areas which are reserved for public or quasi-
public uses of a developed character. It is intended to include those of a significant
extent, and not those smaller public uses which are consistent with and may be included
in another designation. Public uses of an industrial character, such as the General
Services Administration, are included in the industrial designation. Streets, utilities and
other public activities supporting other uses are not considered separate uses and are
not so mapped. This designation includes large churches, private schools and similar
uses of a quasi-public character. Developed parks are also designated under this
category.
Compatible Uses: Uses more appropriately designated under another category should
not be designated under this category, irrespective of ownership. Industrial and
commercial uses which are affiliated with and managed by educational institutions for
vocational educational purposes may be classified as a public use and permitted on a
conditional basis.
Criteria for Designation: Designation of these areas should be consistent with the
character of adjacent uses.
Appropriate Implementation: This designation will generally be implemented by three
zones:
1) P-1 (Public Use) District provides for the location and development of public uses
that serve the cultural, educational, recreational and public service needs of the
community.
2) I (Institutional Use) District provides for similar uses, but includes schools and
typically allows a much broader list of uses.
3) LF (Landing Field) District provides for the operation and management of the Auburn
Municipal Airport.”
Since the full extent of the City-owned property is no longer needed for the city–wide purpose of
storm drainage management and the Comprehensive Drainage Plan has been revised
accordingly, it is not appropriate for the entire property to continue to reflect a “Public and
Quasi-Public” Comprehensive Plan designation. Instead, it is appropriate to change the
designation of a portion of the site to a designation in order to return the property to a use which
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 23 of 49
allows replacement of the mobile home park units that is being displaced by the community-
serving flood protection project, in response to this application.
18. Also, in Chapter 3, “Land Use”, the Comprehensive Plan document provides various policies
which promote additional residential development in order to meet community and growth
management goals. The following selected polices support the residential development:
“LU-13 The City should promote the provision, preservation and maintenance of
adequate housing for the city's residents by encouraging a balanced mix of housing
types and values appropriate to the income levels and lifestyles of area residents.
Auburn has always been willing to accept its "fair share" of low and moderate cost
housing opportunities. However, this has translated into a great disparity in Puget Sound
communities with cities such as Auburn receiving more of these types of housing than
other comparable communities. This has had impacts in terms of the costs of meeting
human service needs as well as some poorly maintained multifamily properties which
have caused a variety of problems. Auburn will work to insure that housing units are
equitably distributed across the region in terms of both physical location and cost.”
“LU-24 The development of residential areas should recognize the importance of
community and public facilities in developing a sense of neighborhood and community.”
“LU-37 Siting of moderate density units shall be encouraged as a buffer between
single family areas and more intense uses. Such buffering is appropriate along arterials
where existing platting prevents effective lot layout for single family units. Also, such
buffering is appropriate between single family areas and commercial and industrial uses.
Where there are established single family areas, the design and siting of moderate
density units shall be controlled to reduce potential conflicts and to ensure buffering of
uses. Higher density units are not to be considered such a buffer.”
The city-owned property requested for change does not border a public street and is bordered
by overhead electrical lines and underground water lines. Thus, the existing configuration does
not lend itself to a wide variety of uses, but is suitable for replacement of housing stock that is
being lost to the levee setback and extension project. The replacement of the mobile homes is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan polices of supporting diversity and preservation of
housing and maintaining neighborhoods.
19. In addition Chapter 3, “Land Use”, recognizes the value of manufactured home and mobile
home parks. The Plan recognizes that mobile home parks serve a community purpose of
filling a need for affordable housing. The subsection entitled “manufactured homes”
identifies these specific areas and recognizes and addresses the need within the city as
follows:
“Manufactured Homes Manufactured homes provide affordable housing to many
Auburn residents. In many cases, they provide the opportunity of home ownership to
households which cannot afford to purchase more traditional types of housing.
However, poorly designed, high density manufactured home parks can raise the same
issues that multiple family developments pose. Careful design and placement of
manufactured housing in parks especially with appropriate landscaping, can greatly
reduce problems associated with such development.
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 24 of 49
This Plan's policies continue to recognize the benefits that manufactured homes can
have on housing affordability. Improved codes requiring high standards for the design
and siting of manufactured home parks and units on individual lots should be
implemented.
Objective 7.6 To continue to allow manufactured homes as an affordable form of home
ownership, provided that such developments are carried out in a manner which supports
rather than detracts from the quality of the community and adjacent uses.
Policies:
LU-39 The siting of new manufactured home parks shall be subject to the same policies
applicable to high density residential development. Manufactured home park densities
should not exceed 8 units per acre. New manufactured home parks shall be bordered or
contained by physical features, or planned and designed as part of a larger development
incorporating other housing types in a manner which limits further manufactured home
park expansion into adjacent areas.”
The request allows the continuation of manufactured homes as a more affordable form of
home ownership.
20. The second decision criterion is that the comprehensive plan amendment must not
diminish or increase the ability to provide adequate services. The proposed change by
itself, if approved will not affect the ability to provide adequate services. Under the current
conditions, as with many properties in the city, the infrastructure improvements would be the
responsibility of the future development. At the time of development, adequate services are
required to be provided in order for the development to be authorized so it is not anticipated
that approval of the request negatively affects provision of services.
The property was previously designated for residential development prior to 1995 and thus it
is foreseeable that a change in the designation of a portion of the site can be adequately
served by adequate services.
21. The third decision criterion is that the assumptions on which the comprehensive plan
is based are found to be invalid. As previously discussed above, since the entirety of the
City-owned property is no longer needed for the community–wide purpose of storm drainage
management and the Comprehensive Drainage Plan has been revised accordingly, it is not
appropriate for the entire property to continue to reflect the “Public and Quasi-Public”
Comprehensive Plan designation. Instead, it is appropriate to change the designation of a
portion of the site to a designation in order to return the property to a use which allows
replacement of the mobile home park units that is being displaced by the community-serving
flood protection project.
22. The fourth decision criterion is that there has been a change or lack of change in
conditions or circumstances has occurred since the adoption of the latest
amendment to the comprehensive plan that dictates the need for a proposed
amendment. Again, the property is no longer needed for the community–wide purpose of
storm drainage management and the Comprehensive Drainage Plan has been revised
accordingly thus, it is not appropriate for the entire property to continue to reflect a “Public
and Quasi-Public” Comprehensive Plan designation. The City’s recent storm drainage
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 25 of 49
modeling, the corresponding change in City’s Comprehensive Drainage Plan to recognize
this modeling and the King County Flood Control District Reddington Levee Setback and
Extension Project all represent changed circumstances that dictate a need for the proposed
Comprehensive Plan map amendment.
23. The fifth decision criterion is that the change must be determined to be consistent
with the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the Countywide Planning Policies of
the relevant county and “Vision 2040: Growth and Transportation Strategy for the
Puget Sound Region”. The change if approved would continue to be consistent with the
Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the Countywide Planning Policies of King County
and “Vision 2040: Growth and Transportation Strategy for the Puget Sound Region”. The
proposal is consistent because it preserves and replaces existing residential development.
24. The sixth decision criterion, applies only to changes of the mapped land use
designation of a specific property, the applicant must demonstrate one of the
following:
a. The current land use designation was clearly made in error or due to an
oversight;
b. The proposed land use designation is adjacent to property having a similar
or compatible designation, or other conditions are present to ensure
compatibility with surrounding properties;
c. There has been a change in conditions since the current land use
designation came into effect. (Ord. 6172 § 1, 2008.)
The same land use designation as proposed occurs on adjacent properties and thus meets item
b.
Staff Recommendation
Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council
Planning Commission Recommendation
Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council
CPM #4 – Auburn School District map amendment
1. The Comprehensive Plan map amendment application was accepted on June 8, 2012 by
the submittal deadline of June 8, 2012.
2. The application was submitted by Camie Anderson, Senior Associate, Shockey Planning
Group on behalf of Jeffery Grose, Executive Director of Capital Projects, Auburn School
District, Applicant.
3. In addition to the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, the applicant submitted an
environmental checklist application.
4. The Comprehensive Plan map amendment application seeks to change the comprehensive
plan designation of two (2) parcels totaling approximately 0.63 acres located SE of the
Auburn High School from “Office Residential” to “Public and Quasi-Public” and to change
twelve (12) parcels totaling approximately 1.74 acres located NW of the high school from
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 26 of 49
"High Density Residential" to "Public/Quasi-Public". The sites are SE and NW of the high
school addressed as 800 4th ST NE, Auburn.
5. As indicated by the Applicant’s narrative submitted with the application, the Comprehensive
Plan Amendment and related rezoning have been requested for the purpose of changing the
land use designation of the property to ensure the ability for future redevelopment. The
comprehensive plan map amendments and rezones are requested for the purpose of
facilitating the “Auburn High School Modernization and Reconstruction Project”. The
following information on the Auburn High School Modernization and Reconstruction Project
originates from the School District website:
http://ahsproject.auburn.wednet.edu/ahsproject/Info/
“Project Information
Introduction:
• Auburn High School was built in 1950 and expanded five times since then.
• The school provides excellent programs and extensive community facilities but
does so in an aging building that is no longer cost-effective to operate and
maintain.
• To address this situation, Auburn School District is working on the design of a
modernized and reconstructed facility at Auburn High School.
Project History:
• In 2005, an Auburn School District Citizen’s Ad Hoc Committee recommended
the school district replace any building if the cost to modernize the facility
exceeds 70% of the cost of a new building.
• In 2008, Auburn School District completed an in-depth assessment of all of its
buildings and found that Auburn High School:
fails to meet many of the school district’s facility standards,
is beyond its economic life span and not cost-effective to remodel, and
should be replaced because the cost to remodel the school exceeds 70%
of the cost of a new building.
Project Design:
• The modernized and reconstructed school will be built at its current location
between East Main Street and 4th Street NE.
• The project will replace all of the buildings on campus except for the PAC
(Performing Arts Center) and Auto Shop.
• The PAC, Auto Shop and grounds will be modernized.
• The new facility will be similar in size and student capacity to the current school.
• The building will be brick, with a classic and timeless appearance.
• The construction work will be phased so students can safely remain on campus
during the construction project.
Important Design Features:
• A new and prominent front entry on East Main Street.
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 27 of 49
• Direct access to and easily visibility of the PAC and Main Gym from 4th Street
NE.
• Expansion of on-site parking stalls from 315 to over 600.
• Large parking lot adjacent to the Main Gym, PAC and Auburn Pool directly
across the street from Auburn Memorial Stadium.
• Off-street bus loading area.
• New synthetic turf baseball and softball fields.
• All buildings under one roof.
• Improved energy efficiency.
• New classroom and building technology.
• A large student commons.
• Modernized PAC with a new front entry plaza and drop-off area, new lobby and
delivery area, new theater seats, upgraded lighting and sound systems, improved
access for the disabled, seismic upgrades, and more restrooms.
Project Schedule:
• A bond issue will be submitted to the voters on November 6, 2012 to provide
funding for the project.
• If a bond issue passes in November 2012, construction will start in 2013 and be
completed in phases with the last phase finished in 2016.”
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 28 of 49
6. The current Comprehensive Plan designation, zoning designation and land uses of the site
and surrounding properties are as follows:
Current
Comprehensive Plan
Current
Zoning
Current
Land Use
Site
Location
Parcels SE of
High School
Parcels NW
of High
School
Parcels
SE of
High
School
Parcels
NW of
High
School
Parcels SE
of
High School
Parcels NW of
High School
On-site
Office
Residential
High Density
Residential
RO,
Residential
Office
R20,
20 d.u. per
acre
Professional
and medical
offices
School
Facilities,
Single Family &
Multiple Family
Residences, &
Vacant
North
Public/ Quasi-
Public
Public/
Quasi-Public
I,
Institutional
I,
Institutional High School
School District
Swimming Pool,
Parking Lot &
Uses
South
Office
Residential
Public/
Quasi-Public
RO,
Residential
Office
I,
Institutional
Professional
offices &
Single
Family
Residences
Elementary
School
East
Office
Residential
Public/
Quasi-Public
RO,
Residential
Office
I,
Institutional
Professional
offices and
Commercial
High School
West
Public/ Quasi-
Public
High Density
Residential
I,
Institutional
R20,
20 d.u. per
acre
High School
Single Family &
Multiple Family
Residences &
Professional
Offices
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 29 of 49
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 30 of 49
7. The request seeks to change the designation of 14 parcels; 2 parcels totaling 0.63 acres
located SE of the Auburn High School and 12 parcels totaling approximately 1.74 acres
located NW of the high school. The parcels requested for change are each rectangular in
shape and have been previously platted.
8. The two parcels totaling 0.63 acres located SE of the Auburn High School are bordered to
the south by developed East Main Street designated by the City as a “Minor Arterial” street
within a 60-foot right-of-way. The 12 parcels totaling approximately 1.74 acres located NW
of the high school, considered together border the developed right-of-way of E Street NE
designated as a “Local Residential” street within a 60-foot right-of-way.
9. NW of the high school, the one-block length of public alley between the 12 parcels,
(extending east from E Street NE approximately midway between 2nd and 3rd Street NE) and
the one block portion of 2nd street NE located south of the 12 parcels have been requested
by the School District to be vacated. (City File # V1-12). The vacation process is currently
pending and a City Council decision is expected in December 2012.
10. The property is located within the King County portion of the City of Auburn and is within the
original incorporated boundary of the City (circa 1890).
11. The 2 parcels totaling 0.63 acres located SE of the Auburn High School have had a
“Residential Office” comprehensive plan designation and were zoned RO, Residential Office
since 1987. The 12 parcels totaling approximately 1.74 acres located NW of the school
have a “High Density Residential’ comprehensive plan designation and were zoned R4,
Multiple Family Residential (and subsequently amended to R20, 20 dwelling units per acre)
since 1987.
12. The 2 parcels totaling 0.63 acres located SE of the Auburn High School contain an existing
professional office and a medical office. The District has acquired the property or is in the
process of acquiring and has secured the property owner’s permission to file this
application. The 12 parcels totaling approximately 1.74 acres located NW of the school, are
either vacant or contain a single family or multiple family residence. The District has
acquired the property or is in the process of acquiring and has secured the property owner’s
permission to file applications with the City.
13. The purpose of the City’s Comprehensive Plan document is to provide a policy basis for the
future zoning changes to ensure that the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance are
consistent as required by the following city code section:
“ACC 14.22.050 Conformance and consistency.
The zoning, land division and other development codes contained or referenced within
Auburn City Code shall be consistent with and implement the intent of the
comprehensive plan. Capital budget decisions shall be made in conformity with the
comprehensive plan. “
14. The City code provides certain criteria for decisions for comprehensive plan amendments as
follows:
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 31 of 49
“ACC 14.22.110 Decision criteria for plan amendments.
A. The comprehensive plan was developed and adopted after significant study and
public participation. The principles, goals, objectives and policies contained therein shall
be granted substantial weight when considering a proposed amendment. Therefore, the
burden of proof for justifying a proposed amendment rests with the applicant, who must
demonstrate that the request complies with and/or relates to the following decision
criteria:
1. The proposed change will further and be consistent with the goals and
objectives of the plan and the plan will remain internally consistent;
2. Whether the capacity to provide adequate services is diminished or
increased;
3. Assumptions upon which the comprehensive plan is based are found to
be invalid;
4. A determination 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;
5. If applicable, a determination that a question of consistency exists
between the comprehensive plan and Chapter 36.70A RCW, the countywide
planning policies for either King and/or Pierce County, as appropriate, and Vision
2040: Growth and Transportation Strategy for the Puget Sound Region.”
15. The first criterion is that the change must further and be consistent with the goals
and objectives of the plan and the plan will remain internally consistent. The
Comprehensive Plan contains the following policy guidance that relate to this application.
Chapter 14, “Comprehensive Plan Map”, starting at page 14-8 provides the following
purpose and description of the “Public and Quasi-Public” Comprehensive Plan designation:
“Public and Quasi-Public
Purpose: To designate areas of significant size needed to provide public and
quasi-public services to the community.
Description: This category includes those areas which are reserved for public
or quasi-public uses of a developed character. It is intended to include those of a
significant extent, and not those smaller public uses which are consistent with
and may be included in another designation. Public uses of an industrial
character, such as the General Services Administration, are included in the
industrial designation. Streets, utilities and other public activities supporting
other uses are not considered separate uses and are not so mapped. This
designation includes large churches, private schools and similar uses of a quasi-
public character. Developed parks are also designated under this category.
Compatible Uses: Uses more appropriately designated under another category
should not be designated under this category, irrespective of ownership.
Industrial and commercial uses which are affiliated with and managed by
educational institutions for vocational educational purposes may be classified as
a public use and permitted on a conditional basis.
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 32 of 49
Criteria for Designation: Designation of these areas should be consistent with
the character of adjacent uses.
Appropriate Implementation: This designation will generally be implemented
by three zones:
1) P-1 (Public Use) District provides for the location and development of
public uses that serve the cultural, educational, recreational and public
service needs of the community.
4) I (Institutional Use) District provides for similar uses, but includes schools
and typically allows a much broader list of uses.
5) LF (Landing Field) District provides for the operation and management of
the Auburn Municipal Airport.
The designation can also be implemented as a conditional use under various
zones. Approval of these types of uses (and open space uses), not individually
designated on the Plan Map, under a conditional use permit or rezone consistent
with or related to adjacent zoning, shall not be considered inconsistent with the
designations under this Plan.” (Emphasis added)
The request to change the designation of the 14 parcels to “Public and Quasi-Public” is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The property is adjacent to other parcels already
designated for and/or developed with public school facilities. It is adjacent to the
approximately 28-acre property (parcel # 1821059082) containing the Auburn High School
and Performing Arts Center (PAC) and the 4.3-acre parcel (Parcel # 1821059060)
containing the Washington Elementary School. So the request seeks to expand the existing
area designated “Public and Quasi-Public” to achieve a “significant extent” of an already
“developed character” for quasi-public use.
For comparison, Chapter 14, “Comprehensive Plan Map”, starting at page 14-3 provides the
following purpose and description of the “High Density Residential” Comprehensive Plan
designation:
“High Density Residential
Purpose: To provide an opportunity for the location of the most economical forms of
housing in areas appropriately situated for such uses under the policies of this Plan.
Description: This category shall be applied to those areas which are either now
developed or are reserved for multiple family dwellings. Densities may range from 16 to
20 units per acre. Dwelling types may range from single family units to apartment
complexes, and may include manufactured home parks when located adjacent to major
arterial streets. Adequate on-site open space areas should be provided for all multi-
family developments. Densities exceeding 20 units per acre and special development
standards may be authorized for senior housing projects, within the Downtown area and
within 1/4 mile of regional transit service.
Compatible Uses: Compatible uses are similar to those identified under the other
residential categories, except higher intensities of use may be appropriate. Public uses
and open spaces which tend to visually relieve the high density character of these areas
should be encouraged.
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 33 of 49
Criteria for Designation: In addition to areas already developed to this density, this
designation should be applied only to areas which have or may be most efficiently
served with high capacity and high quality public services and facilities. Of particular
concern is the provision of adequate traffic circulation, and this category shall only be
applied to areas with developed arterial access. Other siting concerns may include
access to commercial services and open space amenities. This category may also be
applied to areas which are threatened with deterioration and multiple family dwellings
offer the potential for rehabilitation.
Considerations against Applying this Designation: Areas not appropriate for this
zone include areas surrounded, without physical separation, by lower intensity uses.
Appropriate Implementation: This designation can be implemented by the following
zones:
1) R-16: Permits 16 units per net acre. The zoning allows for a variety of housing
types include single family, duplexes, and multiple-family dwellings and mixed-use
development.
2) R-20: Permits 20 units per net acre and multiple-family residential and mixed-use
development. Residential supporting uses and some professional offices are permitted
as conditional uses.
3) R-MHC: Manufactured/Mobile Home Community permits the development of
manufactured home parks on property that is at least 5 acres in size. The base density
is 10 dwelling units per net acre.”
The current designation of the 12 parcels located NW of the high school is “High Density
Residential” and the properties are vacant or developed with single family or multiple family
residential structures. The designation is part of a larger “strip” or “band” with the same land
use designation. This band provides an appropriate location for more economic housing
located between commercially developed areas and public use. The request to change does
not adversely affect the integrity of the remaining area of “High Density Residential”.
For comparison, Chapter 14, “Comprehensive Plan Map”, starting at page 14-13 provides the
following purpose and description of the “Office-Residential” Comprehensive Plan designation:
“Office-Residential
Purpose: To reserve areas to accommodate professional offices for expanding medical
and business services, while providing a transition between residential uses and more
intensive uses and activities.
Description: This category is a restricted commercial designation reserved only for
certain types of activities. As a growing medical center, areas need to be reserved to
accommodate growth in this sector, which is largely expressed in the form of
professional offices. This category also assures space to accommodate the rapid
growth that is occurring in business services and other service oriented activities. Such
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 34 of 49
uses also provide a means for an appropriate transition for areas originally developed as
a residential area but now not appropriate for that type of use.
Compatible Uses: To be fully effective as a transition or a buffer, residential uses
should be permitted on a conditional basis.
Criteria for Designation: As a transition this designation can serve as an appropriate
buffer between heavily traveled arterials and established single family areas. It would be
particularly appropriate in areas where large traffic volumes have affected an established
residential area. It can be applied where amenity values mitigate against heavy
commercial uses along major arterials. This designation should also be used to
accommodate the expansion of medical services in the area around Auburn Regional
Medical Center.
Considerations Against Applying this Designation: This zone is intended for
particular applications as described. It generally should not be applied on a large scale
basis.
Appropriate Implementation: This category is implemented by two zones:
1) RO - Residential Office District which is intended to primarily accommodate
business and professional offices where they are compatible with residential uses.
2) RO-H Residential Office-Hospital District is to be used exclusively for the area
around Auburn Regional Medical Center.”
The current designation of the 2 parcels located SE of the high school is “Office-Residential”
and the properties are developed with small professional office uses. The designation is part of
a larger “strip” or “band” with the same “Office-Residential” designation that provides an
appropriate location as a transition from the high school property and arterial street of East Main
Street to nearby single family areas, to the south. The request to change these 2 parcels does
not affect the adversely integrity of the remaining area of “Office-Residential” area since the
designation remains on the south side of East Main Street to serve as a transition to single
family areas located to the south.
16. Also, in Chapter 3, Land Use, and Chapter 5, Capital Facilities, the Comprehensive Plan
document provides various policies which relate to this request. Several policies promote
additional residential development in order to meet community and growth management
goals. The following excerpted policies relate to this requested change to “Public and
Quasi-Public”:
“Chapter 3, Land Use
Objective 8.1 To maintain and enhance all viable and stable residential neighborhoods.
Policies
LU-42 Regulatory decisions in all residential neighborhoods shall result in maintenance
or enhancement of the neighborhood’s residential character.
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 35 of 49
a. The location of uses other than those permitted outright shall only be allowed as
specified in this comprehensive plan and in the zoning code.
b. Approval of any non-residential land use shall occur only after a public hearing
process.
c. The City recognizes the important role that public facilities (such as sidewalks,
neighborhood parks and elementary schools) and limited scale quasi-public uses (such
as smaller churches and daycare centers) play in maintaining viable residential
neighborhoods.
d. Single family detached residential neighborhoods should be protected from
intrusion by non-residential or large scale multi-family uses.” (Emphasis added)
As a “public facility” in this context, this policy statement of the Comprehensive Plan recognizes
the important role that public facilities or quasi-public facilities such as schools contribute to
residential neighborhoods. The proposal to expand the existing designation of “Public and
Quasi-Public” to facilitate redevelopment of the high school is consistent with this policy. The
neighborhood already contains properties with the “Public and Quasi-Public” designation; it is
not a new land use for the vicinity.
”Chapter 5 Capital Facilities
GOAL 14. PUBLIC BUILDINGS
To maximize public access and provide for the appropriate location and development of
public and quasi-public facilities that serve the cultural, educational, recreational,
religious and public service needs of the community and the region.
Objective 14.1. To site public buildings in accord with their service function and the
needs of the members of the public served by the facility.
Policies:
CF-63 Public and quasi-public facilities which attract a large number of visitors (City
Hall, museums, libraries, educational, permit or license offices, and health or similar
facilities, etc.) should be sited in areas which are accessible (within 1/4 mile) by transit.
CF-65 The location of religious institutions, private schools, community centers, parks
and similar public or quasi-public facilities shall be related to the size of the facility and
the area served. City-wide facilities should be sited in visible and accessible locations.
CF-66 Small public or quasi-public facilities intended to serve one or two residential
neighborhoods may be located within a neighborhood. Larger public or quasi-public
facilities intended to serve mainly Auburn residents or businesses shall be located along
major arterial roads within the Community Serving Area of Auburn, however, elementary
schools should be given flexibility to locate along smaller roads. Buffering from adjacent
land uses may be required.”
The request to change the designation to “Public and Quasi-Public” is consistent with these
policies since the property is close to transit, related to the surrounding area served and located
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 36 of 49
along an arterial street (East Main Street) to be sufficiently publicly accessible. The change is
for redevelopment of the high school which is within a ¼ mile of transit. The location is within ¼
mile of bus lines and bus stops along Auburn Way North (Northbound stop at 4th ST NE &
Auburn WY N – Serving Routes 152, 180, 910, & 919)(Southbound stops at 2nd ST NE &
Auburn WY N and 5th ST NE & Auburn WY N – Serving Routes 152, 180, 910, & 919)
according to website information.
The requested change is to facilitate redevelopment of the high school and build upon the
significant existing capital investment in the site. Redevelopment of the site capitalizes on the
existing location that is appropriate and accessible and serves the student population and
community. The high school and performing arts center are bordered by an arterial street (East
Main St) and a non-residential collector (4th Street NE). In fact, the project will be provide “A
new and prominent front entry on East Main Street”, the arterial classified street.
Also, the requested change assists the Comprehensive Plan in remaining internally consistent
since the amendments are consistent with the School District’s proposed Capital Facilities Plan
(CFP). The School District’s Capital Facilities Plan is currently being processed as a text
amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan (Reference P/T# 1, CPA12-0001). It is proposed
to be incorporated by reference in Chapter 5, Capital Facilities.
17. The second decision criterion is that the comprehensive plan amendment must not
diminish or increase the ability to provide adequate services. The proposed application
for a change in comprehensive plan designation and zoning has been reviewed by the Fire
Agency and the City’s Utilities and Traffic divisions. Based on these reviews, the change
would not adversely affect the provision of services.
The proposal is a non-project action; the proposed application is for a change in the
comprehensive plan designation and zoning. The proposed “project action” for physical
redevelopment of the high school is the subject of a separate environmental review.
The proposed change by itself, if approved will not affect the ability to provide adequate
services. As typical with development in the City, the infrastructure improvements needed to
serve the development would be the responsibility of the future development. At the time of
development, adequate services are required to be provided concurrent with the
development in order for the project to be authorized. So, it is not anticipated that approval
of the request negatively affects provision of services.
18. The third decision criterion is that the assumptions on which the comprehensive plan
is based are found to be invalid. While the policies of the Comprehensive Plan are not
invalid, a change to the mapped configuration of the land use designations of this request is
logical (a change to Map No. 14.1). The 12 parcels located NW of the high school are
currently surrounded by the “Public and Quasi-Public” designation on 3 sides; the properties
to the SE are bordered on 2 sides. The proposed change expands the existing area of the
“Public and Quasi-Public” designation and squares up the existing boundaries; it eliminates
protrusions and “bump-ins” to provide a more uniform boundary. The change also reduces
instances of property designated for other uses immediately abutting the “Public and Quasi-
Public” designation and thereby reduces potential conflicts and provides more logical
boundaries as they are proposed to be separated by public rights-of-way.
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 37 of 49
19. The fourth decision criterion is that there has been a change or lack of change in
conditions or circumstances has occurred since the adoption of the latest
amendment to the comprehensive plan that dictates the need for a proposed
amendment. Changes since the time of adoption of the Comprehensive Plan is that the
Auburn School District has conducted additional planning for redevelopment of the high
school and determined that “In order to accommodate the district’s current educational
specification and standards, an increase in the areas of the site is necessary.” (See the
memo from the Auburn School District dated October 24, 2012) Another change is that the
school district has acquired or is in the process of acquiring properties abutting the existing
high school parcel. At last verification, the District owned 11 of the 14 parcels and had
permission to file city applications on the remaining 3 parcels that are in the process of
being acquired.
20. The fifth decision criterion is that the change must be determined to be consistent
with the Growth Management Act (GMA)(RCW 36.70A), the Countywide Planning
Policies of the relevant county and “Vision 2040: Growth and Transportation Strategy
for the Puget Sound Region”. The change if approved would continue to be consistent
with the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the Countywide Planning Policies of King
County and “Vision 2040: Growth and Transportation Strategy for the Puget Sound Region”.
The proposal is consistent because enhances the general goal of providing public facilities
concurrently with the needs of education and residential development.
21. The sixth decision criterion, applies only to changes of the mapped land use
designation of a specific property, the applicant must demonstrate one of the
following:
d. The current land use designation was clearly made in error or due to an
oversight;
e. The proposed land use designation is adjacent to property having a similar
or compatible designation, or other conditions are present to ensure
compatibility with surrounding properties;
f. There has been a change in conditions since the current land use
designation came into effect. (Ord. 6172 § 1, 2008.)
The same land use designation as proposed occurs on adjacent properties and thus meets item
b.
Staff Recommendation
Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council
Planning Commission Recommendation
Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council
---------------- NOVEMBER 20, 2012 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING ---------------
CPM #3 – Locke Property map amendment
1. The applicant submitted a Comprehensive Plan map amendment application on June 8,
2012 by the submittal deadline of June 8, 2012.
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 38 of 49
2. The application was submitted by Eli Berman, Agent, Skyline Properties on behalf of William
and Amy Locke, Applicants.
3. In addition to the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, the applicant submitted an
environmental checklist application. A Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) was issued
for the Locke Property Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Rezone under City File
No. SEP12-0017 on August 29, 2012. One comment letter was received in response to the
issuance of the environmental review decision after the close of the public comment period.
4. The Comprehensive Plan map amendment application seeks to change the mapped land
use designation for a single approximately 1.88-acre parcel from 'Single Family Residential'
to 'High Density Residential' (Parcel # 0921059132) located at 12130 SE 310th Street.
5. The current Comprehensive Plan designation, zoning designation and land uses of the site
and surrounding properties are as follows:
Comprehensive Plan Designation
Zoning Classification
Existing Land Use
Site
Single Family Residential
R5, Residential 5 dwelling units per acre
Single family house
North High Density Residential
R20, Residential 20 dwelling units per acre
Multiple family residential
South High Density Residential
R20, Residential 20 dwelling units per acre
Across SE 310th Street,
multiple family and single
family residential
East Single Family Residential (Scrivener’s error should be High Density Residential in part )
R5, Residential 5 dwelling units per acre and R20, Residential 20 dwelling units per acre
Single family and multiple
family residential
West High Density and Single Family Residential (Scrivener’s error should be Single Family Residential in part)
R5, Residential 5 dwelling units to the acre
Single Family Residential
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 39 of 49
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 40 of 49
6. The approximately 1.88-acre parcel requested for change is rectangular measuring
approximately 164 feet east to west and 497 feet north to south. The site is developed with
a single family house in the south central portion of the site.
7. The site is bordered to the south by partially developed SE 310th Street, which is designated
as a “Local Residential Street”. The “Local Residential Street” standard prescribes a 28-foot
wide roadway within a 50-foot right-of-way.
8. According to the site plan accompanying the application, the southern 30 feet of the property
is encumbered by an easement for access and utility (gas pipeline) purposes. The map also
shows a 100-foot protective well radius centered near the house.
9. The property is located within the King County portion of the City of Auburn. It was annexed
to the City in 2007 (effective January 1, 2008) by Ordinance No. 6121.
10. The subject property had a “Single Family Residential” comprehensive plan designation
established by Ordinance No. 6138 in 2007. The site has been zoned R2, Single Family
Residential since the time of its annexation into the city in 2007. Subsequently, in 2009, the
residential zoning designation was renamed R5, Residential, 5 dwelling units per acre.
11. The property occurs at an elevation of 443 feet and is relatively flat with a slight downward
slope to the west.
12. The applicant submitted a wetland delineation report, “Locke Property, Auburn WA, Critical
Areas Investigation Letter Report” prepared by Talasaea Consultants Inc. June 7, 2012.
The report indicates that Wetland A, 107 square feet in size, is located in the northwest
corner of the property. The Cowardian Classification of the wetland is Palustine,
Consolidated bottom, Saturated (PUBB). Wetland A is characterized by a shallow, closed
depression with no apparent inlet or outlet. According to the report, the wetland would likely
collect precipitation and shallow groundwater during the wet season. The report indicates
that the wetland would be classified as a Category IV W etland with 25 to 30 foot buffers
based on the city’s critical area regulations. Also according to the report there are some
unconfirmed indications this wetland may be man-made. The wetland provides limited
functions based on the small size.
13. As indicated in the narrative submitted by the Applicant, the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and related rezoning have been requested for the purpose of changing the land
use designation of the property to ensure the ability for future redevelopment. The applicant
indicates there currently are no plans for redevelopment of the site.
14. The purpose of the City’s Comprehensive Plan document is to provide a policy basis for the
future zoning changes to ensure that the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance are
consistent as required by the following city code section:
“ACC 14.22.050 Conformance and consistency.
The zoning, land division and other development codes contained or referenced within
Auburn City Code shall be consistent with and implement the intent of the
comprehensive plan. Capital budget decisions shall be made in conformity with the
comprehensive plan. “
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 41 of 49
15. The City code provides certain criteria for decisions for comprehensive plan amendments as
follows:
“ACC 14.22.110 Decision criteria for plan amendments.
A. The comprehensive plan was developed and adopted after significant
study and public participation. The principles, goals, objectives and policies
contained therein shall be granted substantial weight when considering a
proposed amendment. Therefore, the burden of proof for justifying a proposed
amendment rests with the applicant, who must demonstrate that the request
complies with and/or relates to the following decision criteria:
1. The proposed change will further and be consistent with the goals and
objectives of the plan and the plan will remain internally consistent;
2. Whether the capacity to provide adequate services is diminished or
increased;
3. Assumptions upon which the comprehensive plan is based are found to
be invalid;
4. A determination 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;
5. If applicable, a determination that a question of consistency exists
between the comprehensive plan and Chapter 36.70A RCW, the countywide
planning policies for either King and/or Pierce County, as appropriate, and Vision
2040: Growth and Transportation Strategy for the Puget Sound Region.”
16. The first criterion is that the change must further and be consistent with the goals
and objectives of the plan and the plan will remain internally consistent. The
Comprehensive Plan contains policy guidance that relate to this application. Chapter 14,
“Comprehensive Plan Map”, starting at page 14-6 provides the following purpose and
description of the “High Density Residential” Comprehensive Plan designation:
“High Density Residential
Purpose: To provide an opportunity for the location of the most economical forms of
housing in areas appropriately situated for such uses under the policies of this Plan.
Description: This category shall be applied to those areas which are either now
developed or are reserved for multiple family dwellings. Densities may range from 16 to
20 units per acre. Dwelling types may range from single family units to apartment
complexes, and may include manufactured home parks when located adjacent to major
arterial streets. Adequate on-site open space areas should be provided for all multi-
family developments. Densities exceeding 20 units per acre and special development
standards may be authorized for senior housing projects, within the Downtown area and
within 1/4 mile of regional transit service.
Compatible Uses: Compatible uses are similar to those identified under the other
residential categories, except higher intensities of use may be appropriate. Public uses
and open spaces which tend to visually relieve the high density character of these areas
should be encouraged.
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 42 of 49
Criteria for Designation: In addition to areas already developed to this density, this
designation should be applied only to areas which have or may be most efficiently
served with high capacity and high quality public services and facilities. Of particular
concern is the provision of adequate traffic circulation, and this category shall only be
applied to areas with developed arterial access. Other siting concerns may include
access to commercial services and open space amenities. This category may also be
applied to areas which are threatened with deterioration and multiple family dwellings
offer the potential for rehabilitation.
Considerations Against Applying this Designation: Areas not appropriate for this
zone include areas surrounded, without physical separation, by lower intensity uses.
Appropriate Implementation: This designation can be implemented by the following
zones:
1) R-16: Permits 16 units per net acre. The zoning allows for a variety of housing
types include single family, duplexes, and multiple-family dwellings and mixed-use
development.
2) R-20: Permits 20 units per net acre and multiple-family residential and mixed-use
development. Residential supporting uses and some professional offices are permitted
as conditional uses.
3) R-MHC: Manufactured/Mobile Home Community permits the development of
manufactured home parks on property that is at least 5 acres in size. The base density
is 10 dwelling units per net acre.” (Emphasis added)
The vicinity is characterized by suburban development. The property is adjacent to other
properties to the north and east already developed with multiple-family residential.
However, the properties bordering to the west, as well as others in the vicinity, are
developed with single family residences. To the south, the property has 164 feet of frontage
and access to SE 310th ST. The change is not consistent with this stated description of the
High Density Residential designation, since the property is not currently developed as “High
Density Residential” and has not been “reserved for multiple family dwellings”.
The site and adjacent contiguous parcels are not at a location that is currently “… efficiently
served with high capacity and high quality public services and facilities”. The street
bordering the property does not contain the full amount of right-of-way and is not fully
developed. The street is classified as a “Local Residential Street” which typically requires
28 feet of pavement within a 50-foot right-of-way. The right-of-way bordering this site is
currently 30 feet and additional dedication and road improvements would be required from
this property at time of development. Additional right-of-way dedication is also need from
other off-site properties located to the west and to the east to complete the full width of right-
of-way to city standards. The roadway is fully improved to the east and only partially or
minimally improved to the west. Additional roadway improvements are needed in the future
off-site to the west. The site is not adjacent to a developed arterial as stated is a criteria for
the “High Density Residential” designation. The closest arterial is 124th ST SE (north-south)
which is approx. 525 feet to the east. The site is not currently efficiently served with high
capacity and high quality public services and facilities.
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 43 of 49
There is a 12-inch water and sewer lines within the street paralleling the property frontage.
There is a stub of a 12 inch storm line at the SW corner of the site. City utilities appear
sufficient.
The site is about 2.5 blocks from the intersection of SE 312th Street and 124th Street SE.
which is a small node of light commercial zoning on Lea Hill. The developed commercial
provides a very limited range of commercial services. Also, SE 312th St is designated as a
minor arterial in the City’s Comprehensive Transportation Plan and serves as an east-west
arterial between state Routes 18 and 167.
For contrast and comparison, Chapter 14, “Comprehensive Plan Map”, starting at page 14-3
provides the following purpose and description of the current ‘Single Family Residential”
Comprehensive Plan designation:
“Single Family Residential
Purpose: To designate and protect areas for predominantly single family dwellings.
Description: This category includes those areas reserved primarily for single family
dwellings. Implementing regulations should provide for an appropriate range of lot sizes,
clustered and mixed housing types as part of a planned development.
Compatible Uses: Single family residences and uses that serve or support residential
development, such as schools, daycare centers, churches and parks shall be considered
appropriate and may be permitted on a conditional basis. Other public buildings and
semi-public uses may be permitted if designed and laid out in a manner which enhances
rather than detracts from the residential character of the area. In siting such uses,
however, special care shall be given to ensuring adequate parking, landscaping, and
traffic circulation with a minimum of conflict with residential uses. Uses which generate
significant traffic (such as large churches) should only locate on developed arterials in
areas zoned for institutional uses.
Intrusion of industrial uses into any of these single family areas shall be prohibited. Only
very limited commercial uses such as home occupations or strictly limited appropriate
conditional uses can be allowed.
Planned developments should be favorably considered in these designations in order to
allow optimal flexibility. In providing such flexibility, the emphasis should be on small
alley-loaded lot single family development, limited low density multifamily housing and a
mixture of types, and design diversity should be sought. Except where conditional use
permits have been previously granted, alternate structure types should not exceed more
than 40 percent of the units, and alternative structures should in most cases contain no
more than four dwelling units each. However, where substantial offsetting community
benefits can be identified, such alternative structures may be allowed to contain more
than three units each.
Criteria for Designation: Areas suitable for this designation include those areas
designated in goals and policies of this Plan as single family areas. Consistent with
those policies, areas within the Community Serving Area of the City suitable for this
category should be reserved for these uses. This designation should also be applied to
areas adjacent to lower density residential plan designations.
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 44 of 49
Considerations Against Applying this Designation: This designation would not be
generally appropriate (although exceptions may exist) in the following areas:
1. Areas with high volumes of through traffic.
2. Areas developed in or more appropriate under the Plan policies for
another use.
3. Areas within the Region Serving Area of the City.
Appropriate Implementation: Three zones may be used to implement this category:
1) R-1: Permits one dwelling unit per net acre. This zone is primarily applied to
areas designated as urban separators under the King County Countywide Planning
Policies where rezones from existing densities (typically one unit per acre) are not
allowed for a 20 year period and/or to areas with significant environmental constraints. It
may also be applied in limited instances to areas where greater densities are limited by
environmental constraints.
2) R-5: Permits 4-5 dwelling units per net acre. This zone is intended to create a
living environment of optimum standards for single family dwellings. Duplexes are
conditionally permitted subject to meeting infill residential design standards. It is
intended to be applied to the relatively undeveloped portions of the City, areas where
existing development patterns are consistent with the density and upland areas where
greater densities would strain the transportation system.
3) R-7: Permits 5-7 dwelling units per net acre. This zone provides for relatively
small lot sizes. It may be applied to the older neighborhoods of the City and reflects the
typically smaller lot sizes found there. Application of this zone should be considered for
areas considered appropriate for a mix of housing types, particularly in some of the
Special Planning Areas as discussed below.” (Emphasis added)
The property is currently developed with one house on approx. 1.88 acres and bordered on
two sides (north and east) by properties that are already developed with multiple-family
residential. The bordering properties developed as multiple-family were either completed or
the development was authorized while located in King County prior to annexation to the City
of Auburn.
The intent of the “Single Family Residential” comprehensive plan designation is provide
areas devoted primarily to single family residences and to protect these areas from
incompatible uses. The site is located within the “Community Serving” area described in
Chapter 3, “Land Use” and shown on Map # 3.2 “Urban Form”. The description of this
designation suggests community serving areas are appropriate primarily for reservation as
“Single Family Residential”. The “Single Family Residential” is implemented by the R1, R5,
and R7 zoning districts. The current zoning of this site is R5, Residential, 5 dwelling units
per acre, which would allow redevelopment of up to approximately 13 detached dwelling
units; each on their own individual lot.
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 45 of 49
In Chapter 3, “Land Use”, the Comprehensive Plan document provides guidance which
promotes single family residential development in order to meet community and growth
management goals. Starting at page 13-12 under the Section: “Residential Development”
the plan emphasizes single family residential over other forms of residential development.
The following excerpt explains this guidance.
“Within most communities, a range of housing densities is allowed to provide a variety of
housing opportunities. The wider the range, the greater the opportunity for individuals to
find housing relative to their particular needs, affordability and preference.
While the City's policy provides for a relatively wide range of residential densities,
development over the past decade has been heavily concentrated toward the middle
and upper levels of the range (See discussion in Chapter 4, Housing Element).
As land costs have escalated in the region, however, Auburn has remained relatively
affordable to the average family.
This Plan provides that the City should seek to restore the traditional character of the
community by encouraging preservation and development of housing that is suitable to
the retention and attraction of families within the community. This would be best
accomplished by focusing multi-family development in the urban center, protecting the
residential character of existing single family neighborhoods and promoting the
development of new neighborhoods of single family homes. Consequently, residential
land use policies will emphasize the creation and preservation of single family
neighborhoods, while still encouraging the development of other housing types for those
who need or want them.” (Emphasis added)
The requested change is in opposition to the promoting single family neighborhoods since it
increases area designated for multiple-family and decreases area for single-family
residential development. The change is also contrary to the Plan’s intent to protect existing
single family neighborhoods and promote development of new single family neighborhoods.
Also, in Chapter 3, “Land Use”, the Comprehensive Plan document provides specific goals,
objectives, and policies that relate to the requested change.
“Goal 7 – Residential Development
To emphasize housing development at single family densities, in order to reestablish a
mix of housing types appropriate for a family oriented community, while recognizing the
need and desire for both lower density and higher density housing appropriately located
to meet the housing needs of all members of the community.
Objective 7.2. To designate land for the development of new single family homes.
LU-19 In applying the land use designations of the Comprehensive Plan, first
consideration shall be given to designating an area for single family residential
use.
LU-20 Most of the undeveloped areas of the Community Serving Area of the city
(see Map 3.2) shall be reserved for single family dwellings. The ability to buffer
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 46 of 49
the area from incompatible land uses and heavily traveled arterials or highways
should be considered in designating currently undeveloped areas for future
single family use. Such buffering can be accomplished by taking advantage of
topographic variations and other natural features, requiring expanded setbacks
along arterials, by orienting lots and houses away from arterials, by designating
moderate density multiple family areas as transitional areas, and by other means.
Objective 7.3. To promote the development of quality single family neighborhoods which
relate the design and types of residential areas to important natural and manmade
features.
LU-24 The development of residential areas should recognize the importance of
community and public facilities in developing a sense of neighborhood and
community.
Objective 7.5. To meet the need for multiple family dwellings while avoiding conflict with
single family residential areas.
LU-34 Multiple-family developments should be located functionally convenient to
the necessary supporting facilities including utilities, arterials, parks, transit
service, etc.
LU-36 Multiple family dwellings shall not be permitted as a matter of right in
single family residential districts, but should be permitted only where necessary
to remove potential blight, to buffer single family uses from incompatible uses or
activities, or to allow effective use of vacant areas. Standards for such siting
should provide for design review to ensure compatibility and provide that the
density of development is consistent with the density of the adjoining single
family uses.
LU-38 Higher density developments or larger scale multiple family developments
should be limited to residential areas where they can be developed as a unit with
the necessary supporting facilities. Such development shall provide adequate
access by developed arterials with minimal potential to generate traffic through
single family areas. Extensive buffering measures shall be required where such
areas adjoin single family residential areas. Care should be exercised to avoid
creating barriers to pedestrian and bicycle movement. Where feasible, new
multiple family development should be planned in conjunction with single family
and moderate density development.” (Emphasis added)
The residential land use policies of the Comprehensive Plan emphasize the establishment
and preservation of single family neighborhoods. The Plan prioritizes single family
residential land uses. The proposed change to “High Density Residential” is not consistent
with the Goal 7 and its objectives and policies of the Plan. The change does not prioritize
single family uses. Instead, the change would result in a sharp contrast in density (from 5 to
20 units per acre) adjacent to one another that would promote incompatibilities, for example,
a 35-foot maximum building height is allowed in the R5 zone while a 50-foot building height
is allowed in the R20 zone. Also, the requested change does not allow for any buffering or
transition in land use as promoted by the Plan.
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 47 of 49
Also, within Chapter 14, “Comprehensive Plan Map”, at page 14-26, this geographic area of
the City, the Lea Hill Area, is specifically recognized as a “Problem Area related to its
Existing Land Uses”. The following Plan excerpt explains the problem related to existing
uses.
“Lea Hill Area
Area: Area annexed on January 1, 2008.
Problem: The City has been concerned for years that the rapid growth taking
place within the Lea Hill PAA will overwhelm city streets. Through annexation the
City can better manage the amount and type of growth in this area and help
ensure that appropriate infrastructure to support development is provided
concurrent with that development.
The Auburn City Council envisions retaining the predominantly single-family
character of the Lea Hill area rather than allow the trend of rapidly developing
multi-family projects to continue. The City's codes will help ensure that the
neighborhood character, traffic and environmentally sensitive features are
protected and/or managed.” (Emphasis added)
Prior to annexation, the Lea Hill Area was characterized by rapid change from a more rural
type character to a suburban character. The goal of the City Council and the resident’s
support for the City’s successful annexation vote for incorporation at the time was the
focused on controlling the rapid growth of multiple family development. As a result, the
“problem” identified within the Plan is to address the ability to ensure that infrastructure
needed to support development is provided concurrently with the development, especially
transportation infrastructure as rural roads were increasingly carrying traffic loads. The Plan
also recognizes the “problem” of potential land use conflicts resulting from multiple family
development bordering single family development. Another “problem” is ensuring that the
existing single family neighborhood character is maintained. The requested change to “High
Density Residential” is not consistent with the Plan’s guidance of retaining the predominantly
single-family character of the Lea Hill area.
The goal of the mapped pattern of the parcels with the High Density Residential designation
within Lea Hill was based on existing or authorized development at the time of annexation in
2008.
17. The second decision criterion is that the comprehensive plan amendment must not
diminish or increase the ability to provide adequate services. The proposed application
for a change in comprehensive plan designation and zoning has been reviewed by Fire
Agency and Utilities and Traffic divisions of the City. Based in these reviews, the change
would not adversely affect the provision of services.
A further explanation of the request’s relation to the transportation system is provided since
the Plan calls out circulation as a primary concern. The proposal is a non-project action; the
applicant indicates there is no plan for construction or development of the property in the
near future. The property has 164 feet of frontage onto SE 310th St. Per the City of Auburn
Design Standards, based on Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) (manual) the potential
theoretical maximum of 37 dwelling units of multiple-family residential that could be
developed would generate 0.62 trips per unit for a total of 23 PM peak trips. Per City Public
Works Design Standards, the City may require a traffic study if there is a likelihood that a
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 48 of 49
site will general more than 30 PM peak hour trips. This threshold is typically used for
evaluating comprehensive plan and zoning designation changes. The triggers for the
preparation of traffic analysis are not met.
SE 310th Street is currently barricaded to the west and traffic from the area enters the
arterial road system via the intersection of SE 310th Street a local residential street and
124th Ave SE a minor arterial road. This intersection is a stop controlled (unsignalized)
intersection located within the school zone of Lea Hill Elementary School of Auburn School
District # 408. The City does not have Level of Service data for the intersection.
The City’s primary methodology for rating transportation Level of Service is “Corridor Level
of Service” a tool which rates the level of service (LOS) of a section of road comprising a
number of intersections. Per the City Comprehensive Transportation Plan, 124th Ave SE is
currently rated as LOS C for its corridor LOS, meeting the city’s level of service standard of
LOS D. The City also maintains an intersection level of Service Standard. The nearest
arterial/arterial intersection to the proposed development area is the intersection of 124th
Ave SE and SE 312th Street. A recent development study yielded the finding that the
intersection met LOS Standard D in the PM peak hour but failed to meet LOS Standard D in
the AM peak hour (operating at LOS E). However, with the implementation of City of
Auburn Transportation Improvement Project # 41 which is currently planned to add lanes to
the intersection and which is scheduled to be completed in 2016, the intersection LOS
operation will be improved to LOS C meeting standards.
The proposed change by itself if approved, will not affect the ability to provide adequate
services. As typical with development in the city, the infrastructure improvements needed to
support the development would be the responsibility of the future development. At the time
of development, adequate services would be required to be provided concurrent with the
development in order for the project to be authorized. So, it is not anticipated that approval
of the request negatively affects provision of services.
18. The third decision criterion is that the assumptions on which the comprehensive plan
is based are found to be invalid. The policies of the Comprehensive Plan are not invalid.
The City continues to promote single family development, to seek to ensure that
infrastructure is provided concurrent with development and to ensure that the single family
residential character of the Lea Hill area is maintained.
Due to the small amount of wetlands identified on the site, the existence of the wetland itself
doesn’t represent a change in circumstance that negatively affects the assumptions about
the ability to redevelop the site. The impacts to wetlands and the provision of buffers would
be addressed at the time of a project action (a redevelopment proposal). The current
comprehensive plan amendment and rezone is a non-project action.
19. The fourth decision criterion is that there has been a change or lack of change in
conditions or circumstances has occurred since the adoption of the latest
amendment to the comprehensive plan that dictates the need for a proposed
amendment. There is no change or lack of change that generates the need for approval of
the requested map amendment. The City continues to promote single family development,
to seek to ensure that infrastructure is provided concurrent with development, and to ensure
that the single family residential character of the area is maintained and protected.
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 49 of 49
20. The fifth decision criterion is that the change must be determined to be consistent
with the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the Countywide Planning Policies of
the relevant county and “Vision 2040: Growth and Transportation Strategy for the
Puget Sound Region”. The change, if approved or denied would continue to be consistent
with the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the Countywide Planning Policies of King
County and “Vision 2040: Growth and Transportation Strategy for the Puget Sound Region”.
The proposal is consistent because it provides land suitable for residential development.
21. The sixth decision criterion, applies only to changes of the mapped land use
designation of a specific property, the applicant must demonstrate one of the
following:
g. The current land use designation was clearly made in error or due to an
oversight;
h. The proposed land use designation is adjacent to property having a similar
or compatible designation, or other conditions are present to ensure
compatibility with surrounding properties;
i. There has been a change in conditions since the current land use
designation came into effect. (Ord. 6172 § 1, 2008.)
City code section 14.22.110, “Decision criteria for plan amendments” indicates the
comprehensive plan was developed and adopted after significant study and public
participation. The principles, goals, objectives and policies contained therein shall be
granted substantial weight when considering a proposed amendment. Therefore, the
burden of proof for justifying a proposed amendment rests with the Applicant, who must
demonstrate that the request complies with and/or relates to the criteria. The Applicant has
not demonstrated that there was an error or oversight to the current designation, that there
are conditions ensuring compatibility of land uses, or that there are change in conditions
since the original designation came into effect. However, the site is adjacent to other
property of the same “High Density Residential” Comprehensive Plan designation.
Staff Recommendation
Planning Commission to recommend denial to the City Council
Planning Commission Recommendation
Planning Commission recommended denial to the City Council