Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-07-2014 PLANNING COOMISSION MEETING AGENDA PACKETCIITTY TOFF T WAS11INGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING October 7, 2014 AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER — 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers II. ROLL CALL /ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. September 3, 2014 IV. PUBLIC COMMENT Comment from the audience on any item not listed on the agenda for discussion or public hearing. V. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT Update on Community Development Services' activities. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Proposed Amendment to Auburn City Code (ACC) Chapter 18.29, Downtown Urban Center* (Chamberlain) Summary: Amendment to zoning code ACC Chapter 18.29 relating to Floor Area Ratio in the Downtown Urban Center zone. B. Proposed Amendment to Auburn City Code (ACC) Chapter 17.09, Short Subdivisions* (Chamberlain) Summary: Amendment to zoning code ACC Chapter 17.09, Short Subdivisions, related to Short Plat Thresholds from four lots to nine lots. VII. OTHER BUSINESS A. 2014 Comprehensive Plan Amendments* (Dixon) Summary: Review the 2014 Comprehensive Plan Amendments that include the City initiated amendments. VIII. ADJOURNMENT The City of Auburn Planning Commission is an eight member advisory body that provides recommendations to the Auburn City Council on the preparation of and amendments to land use plans and related codes such as zoning. Planning Commissioners are appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council. Actions taken by the Planning Commission are not final decisions; they are in the form of recommendations to the City Council who must ultimately make the final decision. ATY TOFF WASIIINGTON DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION September 3, 2014 MINUTES I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Judi Roland called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers located on the first floor of Auburn City Hall, 25 West Main Street, Auburn, WA. II. ROLL CALL /ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM Planning Commission Members present were: Chair Judi Roland, Vice -Chair Copple, Commissioner Couture, Commissioner Mason, Commissioner Baggett, and Commissioner Pondelick, and Commissioner Smith. Commissioner Smith was excused. Staff present included: Planning and Design Services Manager Elizabeth Chamberlain, Assistant City Attorney Doug Ruth, and Community Development Secretary Tina Kriss. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. August 6, 2014 Commissioner Copple and Commissioner Baggett seconded to approve the minutes from the August 6, 2014 meeting as written. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 6 -0 IV. PUBLIC COMMENT There were no public comments on any item not listed on the agenda for discussion or public hearing. V. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT Planning and Design Services Manager reported that Senior Planner David Jones will be leaving the City for a position with Convergint Technologies, LLC. Ordinance No. 6525, Option 2, regarding 1 -502 recreational marijuana, was adopted by City Council at the September 3, 2014 City Council meeting with a vote of 5 -2. Since the annual comprehensive plan updates are not as extensive as in years past, staff will wait until October to bring them forward for review. The Commission and staff discussed the Trek Apartment and Merrill Gardens development project status. VI. OTHER BUSINESS A. Proposed Code Amendments to Chapter 17.09 Related to Short Plats Planning and Design Services Manager Elizabeth Chamberlain presented the staff report regarding the proposed code amendments to Chapter 17.09 related to Short Plats. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES September 3, 2014 In 2002 the State Legislature modified the definition of short subdivision to allow City's planning under the State Growth Management Act to increase the short subdivision threshold from 4 or fewer lots to 9 or fewer lots. While state law allows for this modification of the threshold, the City of Auburn has not amended City Code. At this time, the City has determined that they would propose increasing the threshold from 4 to 9 or fewer lots with the proposed amendment. Staff reviewed the primary differences in cost between a short subdivision and a subdivision. A discussion was held on the lot sizes on the increase to 9 or fewer lots and the amount of time it takes to process both a short subdivision and a subdivision. The Planning Commission expressed support of the amendments and asked staff to prepare the draft amendments for public hearing at the Commission's next meeting. Staff will bring forward the proposed amendments at the regular meeting in October. B. Proposed Code Amendment to Chapter 18.29, Downtown urban Center Planning and Design Services Manager Elizabeth Chamberlain provided background information on the proposed Code Amendment to Chapter 18.29, Downtown Urban Center. The Downtown Urban Center Zone was adopted by the City Council February 2007. The Planning and Community Development Committee has requested that staff explore with the Planning Commission an amendment to the floor area ratio (FAR) section of the Downtown Urban Center Zone. FAR is the cumulative amount of floor area within a building as a multiple of the lot area. Staff reviewed the proposed amendments that would not have a difference being on the north side of Main Street or the south side of Main Street but one FAR standard. After discussing the proposed amendments, the Planning Commission expressed their support of the proposed amendments and requested that staff prepare the draft code amendment to bring before the Commission for public hearing. Staff will present the proposed code amendment at the Planning Commission public hearing in October. VII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Roland announced that Commissioner Couture will be resigning from the Planning Commission. This meeting will be his last; he is moving to Redondo, Washington and will no longer be able to serve as a Commissioner. The Commission and staff thanked him for his service. The next Planning Commission meeting will be held October 7, 2014. Staff discussed having their semi - annual joint meeting with the Planning and Community Development Committee. The next meeting will be schedule for the later part of September or October. There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chair Roland adjourned the meeting at 7:28 p.m. Page 2 Zoning Code Amendment — Staff Report to Planning Commission Amendment to Chapter 18.29 ZOA14 -0004 I. GENERAL INFORMATION: The Downtown Urban Center Zone was adopted by the City Council February 2007. The shift in zoning took an approach of density through floor are ratio (FAR) standards versus a units per acre density approach. Included in the FAR standard is a different ratio for various uses depending on if the project is located south of Main Street or north of Main Street. This staff report outlines the proposed amendments related to FAR within the Downtown Urban Center Zone. II. SEPA STATUS: Pursuant to WAC 197 -11- 800(6), non - project actions such as code amendments are not exempt from environmental review. The City issued a Determination of Non - Significance September 24, 2014. The comment period ends October 8, 2014 and the appeal period ends on October 26, 2014. III. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. In general, the intent of the proposed zoning code amendments is to amend the Floor Area Ratio thresholds within the Downtown Urban Center zone so there is not a difference between projects on the north side of Main Street versus the south side of Main Street. 2. The process for zoning code text amendments is described in ACC Chapter 18.68: 18.68.020 Initiation of amendments. B. Text. 1. The city council, or planning and development committee of the city council, upon its own motion may request the planning commission to conduct a public hearing to amend any portion or all of this title; provided, that text amendments that are purely administrative or procedural do not require a public hearing, nor do they require preliminary review or recommendations of the planning commission; 2. The planning commission may upon its own motion call for a public hearing to amend any portion or all of this title, with the exception of purely administrative or procedural amendments; 3. Any resident or property owner of the city may petition the city to request an amendment to the text of this title. C. For the purposes of this chapter, substantive amendments shall be distinguished from procedural or administrative amendments in accordance with the following: "Substantive" matters relate to regulations that define or limit what can be done in terms of conduct, use or action (e.g., what use may be made of land, what requirements apply to development, what public infrastructure may be required of certain developments), and "procedural" or "administrative" matters are those that relate to the process of how Zoning Code Amendment Chapter 18.29 ZOA14 -0004 Staff Report October 1, 2014 Page 1 an application to take such action must be pursued (e.g., time limits for applications and appeals, what forms must be used, and where or how applications must be submitted. Essentially, "procedural" or "administrative" matters are the mechanical rules by which substantive issues may be pursued). (Ord. 6287 § 2, 2010; Ord. 6198 § 3, 2008; Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4304 § 1(46), 1988; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.) 18.68.030 Public hearing process. A. Text Amendments. With the exception of purely administrative or procedural amendments, the planning commission shall conduct at least one public hearing on all amendments to this title. The planning commission shall make a recommendation to the city council who may or may not conduct a public hearing. C. City Council Decision. The city council may affirm, modify or disaffirm any recommendation of the planning commission or hearing examiner with regard to amendments of the text or map of this title. (Ord. 6198 § 4, 2008; Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.) 18.68.040 Public hearing notice requirements. A. Text Amendments. 1. Planning Commission. For text amendments that require a public hearing under ACC 18.68.030(A), notice of a public hearing shall be given by publication, in a newspaper of general circulation in the area, at least 10 days prior to the public hearing and by posting the notice in three general public locations. 2. City Council. Notice of a public hearing shall be given by publication, in a newspaper of general circulation in the area, prior to the public hearing and by posting the notice in three general public locations. 3. The proposed code amendments are supported by the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan as identified in the conclusion section of this staff report. 4. Pursuant to WAC 197 -11- 800(6), non - project actions such as code amendments are not exempt from environmental review. The City issued a Determination of Non - Significance September 24, 2014. The comment period ends October 8, 2014 and the appeal period ends on October 26, 2014. As of the writing of this report, no comments have been received. 5. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, the proposed code amendments outlined in this staff report were sent to the Washington State Department of Commerce and other state agencies as required for the 60 -day state review required for modification of development regulations. The amendments were sent on October 1, 2014 and expedited review was requested under RCW 36.70A.106(3)(b). The Department of Commerce acknowledged receipt on October 1, 2014. Expedited review has not been granted as of the writing of this staff report. If the expedited review request is denied then the standard 60 -days applies from the submittal date of October 1, 2014. 6. Planning Commission reviewed the draft code amendments at the regular September 3, 2014 meeting. 7. The public hearing notice was published on September 26, 2014 in the Seattle Times at least 10 -days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing scheduled for October 7, 2014. Zoning Code Amendment Chapter 18.29 ZOA14 -0004 Staff Report October 1, 2014 Page 2 8. The following conclusions support the proposed amendment to Chapter 18.29, Downtown Urban Center, scheduled for the Planning Commission's October 7, 2014 public hearing with a staff recommendation IV. CONCLUSIONS: 1. Pursuant to ACC Section 18.68.020, amendments of Title 18 require a public hearing before the Planning Commission with a public hearing notice published at least 10 -days prior to the public hearing date. Staff Analysis: The public hearing notice was published in the Seattle Times on September 26, 2014 which is at least 10 -days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing scheduled for October 7, 2014. 2. These code amendments are supported by the City of Auburn's Comprehensive Plan as follows: Objective 6.2. Maintain downtown as an area that uniquely serves both regional and community needs. Policies: LU -6 The downtown urban center shall be the focal point of the Auburn community. It should include a mix of uses including, but not limited to, government and civic uses, retail, residential and services that are appropriate to fill that role. LU -6A Focus growth and development in the Auburn Downtown urban center to support economic development, complement transit oriented development, direct growth pressures away from single family residential neighborhoods, and implement regional growth management strategies. LU -80 To increase consistency with the Urban Center boundary, the area lying generally east of "D" Street S.E. to "F" Street S.E. and south of Main Street (not including the Main Street frontage) to SR 18 shall be designated for mixed residential and commercial uses. LU -84 The downtown area shall be comprised of a mixture of uses consistent with the area's role as the focal point of the community. These uses shall be primarily "people - oriented" as opposed to "automobile- oriented ", and shall include commercial, medical, governmental, professional services, cultural and residential uses. ED -3 The importance of Downtown Auburn as a unique retail environment and subregional center of commerce should be considered in the City's economic plan. Staff Analysis: The proposed code amendment is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan through focusing growth within downtown Auburn and encouraging a mix of uses by not having a different FAR for residential or commercial but still fostering mixed -use by having that type of development with the highest FAR opportunity. Zoning Code Amendment Chapter 18.29 ZOA14 -0004 Staff Report October 1, 2014 Page 3 Let the market decide what is the best location of residential standalone, mixed -use, and non - residential standalone projects should be located. Our design standards will govern what the structures look like, the pedestrian amenities, parking locations, etc. Auburn's regulations should not stand in the way of market demands. Mixed -use will still have the highest achievable FAR to promote residential development with commercial but open the market up on the south side of Main Street to standalone non - residential projects. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed code amendment to Chapter 18.29. VI. EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 Proposed code changes Auburn City Code Chapter 18.29 Exhibit 2 Request to Department of Commerce for Expedited State Review Exhibit 3 Department of Commerce acknowledgement letter Exhibit 4 Request to publish combined SEPA Determination and Hearing Notice in newspaper Exhibit 5 Environmental Checklist Exhibit 6 Determination of Non - Significance and Public Hearing Notice Prepared by (include name and sign): Elizabeth Chamberlain, AICP, Planning and Design Services Manager Zoning Code Amendment Chapter 18.29 ZOA14 -0004 Staff Report October 1, 2014 Page 4 Exhibit 1 Sections: 18.29.010 18.29.020 18.29.030 18.29.040 18.29.050 18.29.053 18.29.055 18.29.060 18.29.070 Chapter 18.29 DUC DOWNTOWN URBAN CENTER DISTRICT Intent. Scope. Process. Definitions. Use limitations. Uses /activities requiring an administrative use permit. Uses /activities requiring a conditional use permit. Development standards. Design standards. 18.29.060 Development standards. A. Minimum lot area: none. B. Minimum lot width: none. C. Minimum lot depth: none. D. Floor Area Ratio. Floor area ratio is the cumulative amount of floor area within a building as a multiple of the lot area. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) For properties abutting the south side of Main Street and to the south: Basic Allowable "As of Right" Maximum Allowable with Bonuscs Nonresidential2 Residential2 Nonresidential Nonresidential2 Residential Nonresidential Residential e€14 4 2.0 4-5 3-5 5.0 Properties abutting the north side of Main Street and to the north: Basic Allowable "As of Right" Maximum Allowable with Bonuses Nonresidential2 Residential2 Nonresidential Residential3 Combined4 3.0 2.0 4.0 3.5 5.0 1 Floor area is measured to the inside face of exterior walls. The following shall be excluded from floor area calculation: a. All space below finished grade. b. Space dedicated to structured parking. c. Space used for any bonus feature listed in subsection E of this section. 2 Minimum required FAR is 0.75; basic allowable FAR is 1.0. 3 Hotels, nursing homes, assisted living centers, etc. shall be considered residential for the purpose of calculating FAR. 4 Allowable FAR for nonresidential and residential uses may be added together within a project, for a combined total. Draft Code Amendment Version 1 September 24, 2014 Page 1 of 1 Exhibit 2 Department of Commerce Innovation is in our nature. Notice of Proposed Amendment Request for Expedited Review Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106(3)(b), the following jurisdiction provides notice of a proposed development regulation amendment and requests expedited state agency review under the Growth Management Act. Under statute, proposed amendments to comprehensive plans are not eligible for expedited review. The expedited review period is 10 business days (14 calendar days). (If needed, you may expand this form and the fields below, but please try to keep the entire form under two pages in length.) Jurisdiction: City of Auburn Mailing Address: 25 West Main Street Auburn, WA 98001 Date: October 1, 2014 Contact Name: Elizabeth Chamberlain Title /Position: Planning and Design Services Manager Phone Number: 253 - 931 -3092 E -mail Address: echamberlain @auburnwa.gov Brief Description of the Proposed /Draft Development Regulations Amendment: (40 words or less) Proposed zoning code amendments is to amend the Floor Area Ratio thresholds within the Downtown Urban Center zone (Chapter 18.29) so there is not a difference between projects on the north side of Main Street versus the south side of Main Street. Is this action part of the periodic review and update? GMA requires review every 8 years under RCW 36.70A.130(4) -(6). Yes: No. X Public Hearing Date: Planning Board /Commission: October 7, 2014 Council /County Commission: N/A Proposed Adoption Date: If expedited review granted November 2014 REQUIRED: Attach or include a copy the proposed amendment text. Rev 01/2013 Exhibit 3 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 4071 Plum Street SE • PO Sox 42525 • Olympia, Washingrron 98504 -2525 • (360) 725 -4000 WWW.COmmerme.wa.gov October 1, 2014 Elizabeth Chamberlain Senior Planner City of Auburn 25 W Main Street Auburn, Washington 98001 -4998 Dear Ms. Chamberlain: Thank you for sending the Washington State Department of Commerce (Commerce) the following materials as required under RCW 36.70A.106. Please keep this letter as documentation that you have met this procedural requirement. City of Auburn - Proposed zoning code amendments is to amend the Floor Area Ratio thresholds within the Downtown Urban Center zone (Chapter 18.29) so there is not a difference between projects on the north side of Main Street versus the south side of Main Street. These materials were received on October 01, 2014 and processed with the material ID # 20674. Expedited Review is requested under RCW 36.70A.106(3)(b). If this submitted material is an adopted amendment, then please keep this letter as documentation that you have met the procedural requirement under RCW 36.70A.106. If you have submitted this material as a draft amendment requesting expedited review, then we have forwarded a copy of this notice to other state agencies for expedited review and comment. If one or more state agencies indicate that they will be commenting, then Commerce will deny expedited review and the standard 60 -day review period (from date received) will apply. Commerce will notify you by e -mail regarding of approval or denial of your expedited review request. If approved for expedited review, then final adoption may occur no earlier than fifteen calendar days after the original date of receipt by Commerce. Please remember to submit the final adopted amendment to Commerce within ten days of adoption. If you have any questions, please contact Growth Management Services at reviewteam @commerce.wa.gov, or call Dave Andersen (509) 434 -4491 or Paul Johnson (360) 725 -3048. Sincerely, Review Team Growth Management Services Exhibit 4 REQUEST TO PUBLISH Please publish the following Notice of Public Hearing in the Seattle Times on September 26, 2014 Bill the City of Auburn: City of Auburn ATT: City Clerk 25 West Main Auburn, WA. 98001 An "Affidavit of Publication" is requested for this billing. Thank you. Please publish below the line only. City of Auburn Combined Determination of Non - Significance and Notice of Public Hearing Description of Proposal: Amending Auburn City Code Chapter 18.29, Downtown Urban Center, related to Floor Area Ratio Proponent: City of Auburn, Community Development and Public Works Department Location: Properties zoned Downtown Urban Center Lead Agency: City of Auburn The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. This DNS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date issued below. Comments must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on October 8, 2014 to Elizabeth Chamberlain, Planning and Design Services Manager, at echamberlain @auburnwa.gov or mailed to 25 West Main Street, Auburn, WA 98001. Any person aggrieved of the City's determination may file an appeal with the Auburn City Clerk within 14 days of the close of the comment period, or by 5:00 p.m. on October 26, 2014. Note: This determination does not constitute approval of the proposal. Approval of the proposal can only be made by the legislative or administrative body vested with that authority. The proposal will be required to meet all applicable regulations. Public Hearing: A public hearing is required for this proposal. The public hearing has been scheduled for Tuesday, October 7, 2014 7:00 p.m. in the Auburn Council Chambers at Auburn City Hall, 25 West Main Street, Auburn, WA 98001 before the City's Planning Commission. For citizens with speech, sight or hearing disabilities wishing to review documents pertaining to this hearing, should contact the City of Auburn within 10 calendar days prior to the meeting, as to the type of service or equipment needed. Each request will be considered individually according to the type of request, the availability of resources, and the financial ability of the City to provide the requested services or equipment. CITY OF AUBURN WASH 1 NGTON Exhibit 5 Community Development & Public Works Department ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Amendment to Chapter 18.29 — Floor Area Ratio 2. Name of Applicant: City of Auburn 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Applicant: Community Development and Public Works Department 25 West Main Auburn, WA 98001 -4998 Elizabeth Chamberlain, AICP, Planning and Design Services Manager (253) 931 -3092 echamberlain @auburnwa.dov 4. Date checklist prepared: September 23, 2014 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Auburn 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Environmental Review — September 2014 Planning Commission Public Hearing — October 7, 2014 City Council Review — October 2014 City Council Action — November 2014 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. None 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. City of Auburn Downtown Plan and EIS; May 2001 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Page 1 of 16 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. None. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. The City of Auburn Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the proposed code amendments addressed in this environmental checklist and will forward a recommendation to the Auburn City Council. The City Council may or may not hold a public hearing prior to taking action adopting, adopting in part, or not adopting the amendments. Although not an approval or permit, the proposed zoning text amendments are also subject to the 60 -day State Agency review process pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106. The City will be requesting expedited review. 11. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You need not repeat those answers on this page. The City put into place floor area regulations specific to proposals located north of Main Street and proposals located south of Main Street. The proposed code amendment does away with the north /south distinction and has one floor area ratio standard for the Downtown Urban Center zone. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The proposed code amendment would be applicable to properties zoned Downtown Urban Center. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS: 1. Earth: A. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other. The City of Auburn is characterized by a relatively flat valley floor bordered by steep hillsides that plateau. Downtown Auburn is relatively flat. Page 2 of 16 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT B. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The slope of the valley walls in the city varies, but some slopes associated with the valley walls reach 100 %. Most sites on the valley floor have limited slopes. C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. The valley floor is made up primarily of soils of the Oridia, Renton, Snohomish and Briscott series. These soils are fairly poorly drained and formed in the alluvium (river sediments) associated with the White and Green rivers. These are considered good agricultural soils, though in many areas, are not well- drained. There is no designated prime farmland within the City of Auburn. The soils in the uplands are predominantly of the Alderwood series. These soils drain moderately well and are typically located on slopes ranging from 0 - 70 %. D. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Many factors affect slope stability including soil type, parent material, slope and drainage. These factors can be further affected by human intervention such as slope alteration, and vegetation removal. The city has identified categories of geologic hazard areas and inventoried these areas. Maps of the erosion and landslide hazard areas are provided as Maps 9.6 and 9.7, respectively in the City's Comprehensive Plan. E. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Not applicable. The proposed amendments are non - project actions, so no site alteration, construction, or earthwork is proposed. F. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Not applicable. Non - project action. G. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Not applicable. The action does not involve site specific development proposals H. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth. This is a non - project action so no site specific erosion control is proposed. However, the existing comprehensive plan includes numerous policies to reduce or control erosion through the use of best management practices, landscaping requirements, limitations on alteration of steep slopes and other critical areas protections. Impacts to earth will be identified and, if necessary, mitigated during the development review process as specific development proposals are made that might be associated with these plan amendments. Page 3 of 16 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT The city also has design and construction standards that address erosion control measures. 2. Air: A. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if know. Not applicable. Proposal is a non - project action. B. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odors that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Not applicable. Proposal is a non - project action. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Not applicable. Proposal is a non - project action. 3. Water: A. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands): If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. The major bodies of water within Auburn are the Green River, the White River, Mill Creek, Bowman Creek, and White Lake. The City has conducted an inventory of wetlands within the city limits. These are shown on Map 9.3 of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Not applicable. This is a non - project action. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Not applicable. This is non - project action. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Not applicable. This is non - project action. Page 4 of 16 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Proposal is non - project action. However, several areas within Auburn lie within the 100 -year floodplain of the Green or White River and Mill Creek. These areas as well as frequently flooded areas as defined by the City of Auburn Public Works Department are shown on Map 9.4 of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. Proposal is a non - project action. B. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Not applicable. This is non - project action. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: domestic sewage; industrial, containing any toxic chemicals; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) is (are) expected to serve. Not applicable. This is non - project action. C. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Not applicable. This is non - project action. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Not applicable. This is non - project action. D. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Not applicable. This is non - project action. 4. Plants: A. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: Page 5 of 16 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other. X evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other. X shrubs. X grass. X pasture. X crop or grain. X wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, X other. water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other. X other types of vegetation. X B. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Not applicable. This is non - project action. However, in general urban development results in the removal or alteration of many types of vegetation. C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site: None that are known. D. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Not applicable. This is non - project action. 5. Animals: A. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: geese, ducks, crows, etc. Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: urban animals such as dogs, cats, squirrels, rodents, opossums, raccoons, etc. are also present in the city. B. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. There are nesting /breeding sites of bald eagles, great blue herons and green back heron within Auburn as shown on Map 9.2 of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Environmental Impact Statement for the Auburn Thoroughbred Racetrack indicates that peregrine falcons, bald eagles, and the Aleutian Canadian Goose have been seen in the Auburn area. Chinook salmon are currently listed as a threatened species by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Bull trout are also listed. Chinook salmon are known to use the Green and White Rivers. C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Auburn is a portion of the Pacific Flyway for migratory birds. Page 6 of 16 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT D. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Not applicable. This is non - project action. 6. Energy and Natural Resources: A. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Not applicable. This is a non - project action. B. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. Not applicable. This is a non - project action. C. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Not applicable. This is a non - project action. 7. Environmental Health: A. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. Not applicable. This is a non - project action. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required: Not applicable. This is a non - project action. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Not applicable. This is a non - project action. B. Noise: 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Not applicable. This is a non - project action. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short -term or a long -term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Page 7 of 16 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Not applicable. This is a non - project action. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impact, if any: Not applicable. This is a non - project action. 8. Land and Shoreline Use: A. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The City and PAA contain a variety of land uses including residential, industrial, commercial, open space, and public land uses. The proposed code amendment would be to properties zoned Downtown Urban Center. B. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe: Much of the Green River Valley and the City of Auburn were used for agriculture at some time in the past. Over the last several decades, rapid growth in the area resulted in much of the agricultural land converting to urban uses. No land within the city is designated as agricultural, though some parcels continue as that type of use. C. Describe any structures on the site: Structures within the City range from small single family detached homes to large industrial and warehousing facilities. D. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Not applicable. This is a non - project action. E. What is the current zoning classification of the site? City zoning districts include: RR (Rural Residential); R -1 (1 du /acre) R -5 (5 du /acre); R -7 (7 du /acre); R -10 (10 du /acre), R -20 (20 du /acre); RMHP (Residential Manufactured Home District); RO (Residential Office); RO -H (Residential Office - Hospital); CN (Neighborhood Commercial); DUC (Downtown Urban Center); 01 (Light Commercial); C2 (Central Business District); C3 (Heavy Commercial); M1 (Light Industrial); M2 (Heavy Industrial); BP (Business Park); LF (Airport Landing Field); P1 (Public Use); UNC (Unclassified Use); I (Institutional Use); LH (Lea Hill). The proposed code amendment would affect the Downtown Urban Center zone. F. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? A Comprehensive Plan map of the City is contained in the City's Comprehensive Plan and includes 13 different plan designations. G. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Page 8 of 16 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Portions of the City along the Green and White Rivers fall under the Shoreline Master Program. A map of the shoreline designations for those areas is Map 9.1 of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Zoning districts that are applicable to this proposed code amendment do not fall within the City's Shoreline Management area. H. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify: Not applicable. This is a non - project action. However, areas of the City do have sensitive areas and the regulation and protection of sensitive areas are addressed through the City's critical areas ordinance. I. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Not applicable. This is a non - project action and no specific development is proposed. J. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None specifically. Proposal is a non - project action. K. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None specifically. Proposal is a non - project action. L. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: None specifically. Proposal is a non - project action. 9. Housing: A. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. Not applicable. Proposal is a non - project action. B. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. Not applicable. Proposal is a non - project action. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Not applicable. Proposal is a non - project action. 10. Aesthetics: A. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Page 9 of 16 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Not applicable. Proposal is a non - project action. B. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Not applicable. Proposal is a non - project action. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Not applicable. Proposal is a non - project action. 11. Light and Glare: A. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Not applicable. Proposal is a non - project action. B. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Not applicable. Proposal is a non - project action. C. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Not applicable. Proposal is a non - project action. D. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Not applicable. Proposal is a non - project action. 12. Recreation: A. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? The City of Auburn provides a full range of parks and recreational facilities. Map 11.1 of the City's Comprehensive Plan shows the location of these facilities. B. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. Not applicable. Proposal is a non - project action. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Not applicable. Proposal is a non - project action. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation: A. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe: Page 10 of 16 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Not applicable. Proposal is a non - project action. However as a matter of information, in Auburn, the Blomeen House located at 324 B Street NE is on the National Register of Historic Places. The Carnegie Library Building at 306 Auburn Avenue (currently Auburn Dance and Music Center) and the Auburn Post Office (currently Seattle -King County Health Department) at 20 Auburn Avenue NE are local and county landmarks. The Olson Farm, located at 28728 Green River Road South, was designated as King County Landmark in 2000 and the Masonic Temple Building at the southeast corner of Auburn Way South and East Main Street was designated as a King County Historical Landmark in 2002. B. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. Several Indian campsites have been identified along the Green and White rivers in the Auburn Thoroughbred Racetrack EIS and in preliminary work for the Army Corps of Engineers' Special Area Management Plan. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Not applicable. Proposal is a non - project action. 14. Transportation: A. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Figure 2 -1 of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan (transportation element) shows the City's current and future classified street system. B. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Not applicable, non - project action. However, Figure 4 -1 of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan (transportation element) shows the location of public transit routes within the City. Also, a commuter rail station exists along the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad right -of -way just south of West Main Street and east of C Street SW. C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Not applicable. Proposal is a non - project action. D. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private): Not applicable. Proposal is a non - project action. Page 11 of 16 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT E. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe: There is no water transportation in the Auburn area other than for recreational uses. The area is particularly well served by rail. At this time, local freight service is available. Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Union Pacific both operate freight lines within Auburn. Auburn is also a commuter rail station site for the Sounder commuter rail line between Tacoma and Seattle. Service began September 18, 2000. Amtrak trains pass through Auburn but do not stop here. The Auburn Airport is located north of 15th Street NE. F. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. Not applicable. Non - project action. G. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Not applicable. Non - project action. 15. Public Services: A. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe: Not applicable. Non - project action. B. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impact on public services, if any: The comprehensive plan contains policies that seek to maintain a sufficient level of service for public services as development occurs. Also, Auburn reviews under SEPA, the impacts of significant development on these public services. Mitigation measures are required to reduce significant adverse impacts. 16. Utilities: A. Circle utilities currently available at the site: Electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other — Cable TV. All of the above utilities are available within the City of Auburn. B. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed: This is a non - project action. However, the Comprehensive Plan includes a utilities element (as required by the Growth Management Act), which describes the utilities that serve the Auburn area and includes policies for their provision. Also, the city actively engages in planning for public facilities. A new Comprehensive Water Plan and new Comprehensive Sewer Plan were adopted by the City in 2009. A Page 12 of 16 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT new Comprehensive Drainage Plan was adopted in 2009. A new six year Capital Facilities Plan was adopted in 2013 (2014- 2019). These plans ensure that utility impacts are adequately monitored and evaluated on a project level and city -wide basis. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. OWNER /AGENT SIGNATURE: Elizabeth Chamberlain DATE SUBMITTED: September 23, 2014 Page 13 of 16 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (Do not use this sheet for project actions.) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent of the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal that would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? The proposed code amendments to the Downtown Urban Center zone, should have a minimal change in discharging to water, emissions to air, production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances or the production of noise. While the proposed code amendment could apply to undeveloped property, the City's stormwater design manual addresses stormwater discharges and the City has other regulations addressing emissions to air and hazardous substances. The majority of downtown Auburn is already developed with impervious surfaces. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: The City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan contains provisions to reduce increases or emissions caused by new development. Emphasis in the Comprehensive Plan on reducing the reliance on the automobile for transportation should reduce the amount of emissions to the air. Policies in the Environment Chapter also provide guidance in the review of development proposals to encourage native vegetation. This should support wildlife habitat areas, particularly near streams, as the policies assist the City in addressing adverse impacts to water quality and wildlife habitat from runoff since native plantings may require less pesticide use. An environmental review of all non - exempt (from SEPA) development will be conducted to evaluate and mitigate impacts related to discharges, emissions, and the release of toxic substances. Evaluation of the site specific proposals will be based on the policies of the Comprehensive Plan and appropriate mitigation will take place on a case by case basis. City development standards including but not limited to the critical areas ordinance, shoreline master program regulations, and the Design and Construction Manuals, also provide additional protection for these types of impacts. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The proposal is not likely affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life. However, as noted below, the City has development standards to provide protection for these types of impacts. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: Generally, the adopted Auburn Comprehensive Plan and critical areas ordinance seek to protect and conserve plants, animals, fish, and marine life. An environmental review under Page 14 of 16 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT SEPA of all non - exempt development is conducted to measure impacts. Evaluation based on the policies of the Auburn Comprehensive Plan and appropriate mitigation will take place on a case -by -case basis. Policies within the Environment Chapter also provide guidance in the review of development proposals to encourage native vegetation be used and /or retained. This should support wildlife habitat areas, particularly near streams as the policies assist the city in addressing adverse runoff impacts to water quality and wildlife habitat since native plantings may require less pesticide use. City development standards including but not limited to the critical areas ordinance and the shoreline master program regulations also provide additional protection for these types of impacts. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Future development will use natural gas and electricity and could result in increased automobile uses although development downtown Auburn is encourage to be compact and less focus on the vehicle. However, there does not appear to be any significant adverse increases in the use of energy of natural resources resulting from the amendments being proposed to the existing comprehensive plan over what might occur under existing plan designations. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: None specifically, as this is a non - project action. However, in addition to the provisions of the Auburn Energy Management Plan (adopted in 1986), which encourages energy conservation in public buildings, street lighting, and recycling, the comprehensive plan places an emphasis on providing for alternative methods of travel to the automobile such as transit, walking, and biking. An environmental review under SEPA of all significant development will be conducted to measure the project impacts. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? Taken as a whole, there should not be any change in impacts from existing regulations on environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated for government protection. Regulations are in place to protect environmentally sensitive areas regardless of the use of the land or these proposed code amendments. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: The comprehensive plan and, in particular, the critical areas ordinance, seek to protect environmentally sensitive areas (wetlands, streams, geologically hazard areas, floodplain, wildlife habitat, and aquifer recharge areas) and to reduce the impacts of development on them. The Auburn Comprehensive Plan provides for the implementation of innovative land management techniques to protect these resources. An environmental review under SEPA for all non - exempt development will be conducted to evaluate impacts. Page 15 of 16 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Amendments can only be approved if it can be assured that future development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and its policies and related regulations. Those proposals that are not consistent with the comprehensive plan policies or other existing plans will not be approved. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: The comprehensive plan, critical areas ordinance, and other development regulations, such as the zoning ordinance and shoreline master program, seek to protect these land and shoreline resources and to reduce the effects of development on them. An environmental review under SEPA of all development that is non - exempt will also be conducted to evaluate a proposal's land use and environmental impacts. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The proposed amendment could lead towards development that may increase demands on public services, the transportation network, and utilities. The City has adopted a traffic impact fee structure to address impacts to the transportation network. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: The Auburn Comprehensive Plan presently incorporates the 2014 -2019 Capital Facilities Plan updated, which seeks to maintain a sufficient level of service for public services as development occurs. Also, the city actively engages in planning for public facilities. The Comprehensive Water Plan and Comprehensive Sewer Plan updates were adopted by the city in 2009. The Comprehensive Drainage Plan update was also adopted in 2009. The Comprehensive Transportation Plan was adopted in 2005 with updates during the 2006 and 2009 Comprehensive Plan amendment cycles. These plans help ensure that utility impacts are adequately monitored and evaluated on a project level and city -wide basis. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The proposal does not appear to present any conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements. Page 16 of 16 Exhibit 6 CITY OF AUBURN Nancy Backus, Mayor WASHINGTON 25 West Main Street * Auburn WA 98001 -4998 * www.auburnwa.gov * 253 - 931 -3000 Combined Determination of Non - Significance and Public Hearing Notice Amendment to Chapter 18.29 — Floor Area Ratio SEP14 -0012 and ZOA14 -0004 Description of Proposal: Proponent: Amending Auburn City Code Chapter 18.29, Downtown Urban Center, related to Floor Area Ratio City of Auburn, Community Development and Public Works Department 25 West Main Street, Auburn, WA 98001 Elizabeth Chamberlain, AICP, Planning & Design Services Manager 253 - 931 -3092 echamberlain(a auburnwa.gov Location: Properties zoned Downtown Urban Center Lead Agency: City of Auburn The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. This DNS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date issued below. Comments must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on October 8, 2014. Any person aggrieved of the City's determination may file an appeal with the Auburn City Clerk within 14 days of the close of the comment period, or by 5:00 p.m. on October 26, 2014. Responsible Official: Jeff Tate Position /Title: Assistant Director Community Development Address: 25 West Main Street Auburn, Washington 98001 253 - 931 -3090 Date Issued: September 24, 2014 Signature: ; /uikt- 01(► #' IL✓J Note: This determination does not constitute approval of t e proposal. Approval of the proposal can only be made by the legislative or administrative body vested with that authority. The proposal will be required to meet all applicable regulations. Public Hearing: A public hearing is required for this proposal. The public hearing has been scheduled for Tuesday, October 7, 2014 7:00 p.m. in the Auburn Council Chambers at Auburn AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED City Hall, 25 West Main Street, Auburn, WA 98001 before the City's Planning Commission. For citizens with speech, sight or hearing disabilities wishing to review documents pertaining to this hearing, should contact the City of Auburn within 10 calendar days prior to the meeting, as to the type of service or equipment needed. Each request will be considered individually according to the type of request, the availability of resources, and the financial ability of the City to provide the requested services or equipment. Zoning Code Amendment — Staff Report to Planning Commission Amendment to Chapter 17.09 Short Subdivisions ZOA14 -0005 I. GENERAL INFORMATION: Chapter 58.17 of the Revised Code of Washington establishes the legal foundation and framework for subdividing land in Washington State. This statute uses the terms "subdivision" and "short subdivision" to describe the two primary types of land division. A subdivision is defined as a division or redivision of land into 5 or more lots, tracts, parcels or sites. A short subdivision is defined as a division or redivision of land into 4 or fewer lots, tracts, parcels or sites. RCW 58.17.033 requires that jurisdictions establish land division procedures within their local city code. The City of Auburn has adopted Title 17 which sets forth the City's land division procedures. Currently, Title 17 of the Auburn City Code provides a definition for subdivision and short subdivision that is consistent with that established in Chapter 58.17 RCW. II. SEPA STATUS: Pursuant to WAC 197 -11- 800(6), non - project actions such as code amendments are not exempt from environmental review. The City issued a Determination of Non - Significance September 24, 2014. The comment period ends October 8, 2014 and the appeal period ends on October 26, 2014. III. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The intent of the proposed code amendment is to raise the City's short subdivision threshold from 4 or fewer lots to nine or fewer lots as permitted under RCW 58.17. 2. In 2002 the State Legislature modified the definition of short subdivision to allow City's planning under the State Growth Management Act to increase the short subdivision threshold from 4 or fewer lots to 9 or fewer lots. 3. The process for zoning code text amendments is described in ACC Chapter 18.68: 18.68.020 Initiation of amendments. B. Text. 1. The city council, or planning and development committee of the city council, upon its own motion may request the planning commission to conduct a public hearing to amend any portion or all of this title; provided, that text amendments that are purely administrative or procedural do not require a public hearing, nor do they require preliminary review or recommendations of the planning commission; 2. The planning commission may upon its own motion call for a public hearing to amend any portion or all of this title, with the exception of purely administrative or procedural amendments; Zoning Code Amendment Chapter 18.29 ZOA14 -0005 Staff Report October 1, 2014 Page 1 3. Any resident or property owner of the city may petition the city to request an amendment to the text of this title. C. For the purposes of this chapter, substantive amendments shall be distinguished from procedural or administrative amendments in accordance with the following: "Substantive" matters relate to regulations that define or limit what can be done in terms of conduct, use or action (e.g., what use may be made of land, what requirements apply to development, what public infrastructure may be required of certain developments), and "procedural" or "administrative" matters are those that relate to the process of how an application to take such action must be pursued (e.g., time limits for applications and appeals, what forms must be used, and where or how applications must be submitted. Essentially, "procedural" or "administrative" matters are the mechanical rules by which substantive issues may be pursued). (Ord. 6287 § 2, 2010; Ord. 6198 § 3, 2008; Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4304 § 1(46), 1988; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.) 18.68.030 Public hearing process. A. Text Amendments. With the exception of purely administrative or procedural amendments, the planning commission shall conduct at least one public hearing on all amendments to this title. The planning commission shall make a recommendation to the city council who may or may not conduct a public hearing. C. City Council Decision. The city council may affirm, modify or disaffirm any recommendation of the planning commission or hearing examiner with regard to amendments of the text or map of this title. (Ord. 6198 § 4, 2008; Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.) 18.68.040 Public hearing notice requirements. A. Text Amendments. 1. Planning Commission. For text amendments that require a public hearing under ACC 18.68.030(A), notice of a public hearing shall be given by publication, in a newspaper of general circulation in the area, at least 10 days prior to the public hearing and by posting the notice in three general public locations. 2. City Council. Notice of a public hearing shall be given by publication, in a newspaper of general circulation in the area, prior to the public hearing and by posting the notice in three general public locations. 4. The proposed code amendments are supported by the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan as identified in the conclusion section of this staff report. 5. Pursuant to WAC 197 -11- 800(6), non - project actions such as code amendments are not exempt from environmental review. The City issued a Determination of Non - Significance September 24, 2014. The comment period ends October 8, 2014 and the appeal period ends on October 26, 2014. As of the writing of this report, no comments have been received. 6. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, the proposed code amendments outlined in this staff report were sent to the Washington State Department of Commerce and other state agencies as required for the 60 -day state review required for modification of development regulations. The amendments were sent on October 1, 2014 and expedited review was requested under RCW 36.70A.106(3)(b). The Department of Commerce acknowledged receipt on October 1, 2014. Expedited review has not been Zoning Code Amendment Chapter 18.29 ZOA14 -0005 Staff Report October 1, 2014 Page 2 granted as of the writing of this staff report. If the expedited review request is denied then the standard 60 -days applies from the submittal date of October 1, 2014. 7. Planning Commission reviewed the draft code amendments at the regular September 3, 2014 meeting. 8. The public hearing notice was published on September 26, 2014 in the Seattle Times at least 10 -days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing scheduled for October 7, 2014. 9. The following conclusions support the proposed amendment to Chapter 17.09, Short Subdivisions, scheduled for the Planning Commission's October 7, 2014 public hearing with a staff recommendation IV. CONCLUSIONS: 1. Pursuant to ACC Section 18.68.020, amendments of Title 18 require a public hearing before the Planning Commission with a public hearing notice published at least 10 -days prior to the public hearing date. Staff Analysis: The public hearing notice was published in the Seattle Times on September 26, 2014 which is at least 10 -days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing scheduled for October 7, 2014. 2. These code amendments are supported by the City of Auburn's Comprehensive Plan as follows: Objective 6.2. Maintain downtown as an area that uniquely serves both regional and community needs. Policies: LU -23 The development of new neighborhoods should be governed by development standards which allow some flexibility. Flexibility should be considered to encourage compact urban development, to provide protection of critical areas and resource lands (including, but not limited to, agricultural resource lands, cultural resources, forest resource lands, mineral resource areas (Map 9.4) hillsides or wetlands), and to facilitate non - motorized transportation. Increased density is achievable through flexible development standards, if certain criteria are met, as established in city code. LU -117 Encourage well designed infill and redevelopment projects to fully utilize previous investment in existing infrastructure in the single family residential, moderate density residential, and high density residential designated areas of the City. LU -118 Reduce the consumption of undeveloped land by facilitating the redevelopment of underutilized land and infill of vacant parcels whenever possible in the single family residential, moderate density residential, and high density residential designated areas of the City. Zoning Code Amendment Chapter 18.29 ZOA14 -0005 Staff Report October 1, 2014 Page 3 LU -119 Explore innovative mechanisms to encourage the more efficient use of land including density bonuses and sale of air rights. Staff Analysis: The proposed amendment will allow greater flexibility and promotion for infill development by allowing short subdivisions up to nine lots rather than the current limit of four lots. Short subdivisions are an administrative process rather than a hearing examiner decision. Public notice will still be given for short plat applications so adjacent property owners have the opportunity to comment on a proposal. While there are a number of procedural and cost differences between subdivisions and short subdivisions, there are no differences in the development standards that must be adhered to in order to obtain approval or the manner in which land may be used once the land division is complete. Both types of land divisions are required to comply with all of the same requirements for density, provision of public improvements (e.g. sidewalks, streets, utilities, etc.), land use, building, protection of environmental features, etc. The primary differences between a short subdivision and a subdivision are as follows: 1. Short subdivisions are administrative decisions that do not necessitate a public hearing. 2. Subdivisions are quasi-judicial decisions that are made by the Hearing Examiner after a public hearing. 3. Subdivisions are substantially more expensive because they incur the cost of the Hearing Examiner's services, greater permit fees, and costs of public notice. The fee for a Preliminary Subdivision application is $3,000.00 plus $120.00 per lot while the Preliminary Short Subdivision application fee is $1,449.00 plus $60.00 per lot. The fee for a Final Subdivision application is $1,533.00 plus $52.00 per lot while the fee for a Final Short Subdivision is $750.00 plus $25.00 per lot. In addition to the permit fees, the applicant is required to pay for the public notification sign and for the Hearing Examiner's costs to review the file, staff recommendation, conduct a hearing, and write a decision. The fee for a sign is $130.00 and the Hearing Examiner's fees are approximately $1,500.00. The following table provides a comparison of the costs of an 8 lot land division processed under the current rules as a subdivision and the costs if it were classified as a short subdivision: Zoning Code Amendment Chapter 18.29 ZOA14 -0005 Staff Report October 1, 2014 Page 4 8 Lot Land Division "Subdivision" 8 Lot Land Division "Short Subdivision" Preliminary Application Fee (Base) $3,000.00 $1,449.00 Preliminary Application Fee (Per Lot) $ 960.00 $ 480.00 Final Application Fee (Base) $1,533.00 $ 750.00 Final Application Fee (Per Lot) $ 416.00 $ 200.00 Public Notice Sign $ 130.00 N/A Hearing Examiner Costs $ 1,500.00 N/A Total $7,539.00 $2,879.00 Difference +4,660.00 -4,660.00 Zoning Code Amendment Chapter 18.29 ZOA14 -0005 Staff Report October 1, 2014 Page 4 4. A subdivision adds significant additional time to the project review timeframe. Specific expanded timeframes are set forth in city code for public notification, public comment, public hearing, issuance of a decision and appeals. At a minimum, a subdivision will add approximately 90 days to the processing timeframes. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed code amendment to Chapter 17.09 related to Short Subdivisions. VI. EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 Proposed code changes Auburn City Code Chapter 17.09 Exhibit 2 Request to Department of Commerce for Expedited State Review Exhibit 3 Department of Commerce acknowledgement letter (will be provided at hearing) Exhibit 4 Request to publish combined SEPA Determination and Hearing Notice in newspaper Exhibit 5 Environmental Checklist Exhibit 6 Determination of Non - Significance and Public Hearing Notice Prepared by (include name and sign): Elizabeth Chamberlain, AICP, Planning and Design Services Manager Zoning Code Amendment Chapter 18.29 ZOA14 -0005 Staff Report October 1, 2014 Page 5 Exhibit 1 Chapter 17.09 SHORT SUBDIVISIONS Sections: 17.09.010 General provisions. 17.09.020 Preapplication conference. 17.09.030 Preliminary application. 17.09.035 Survey requirements. 17.09.040 Reserved. 17.09.050 Development requirements. 17.09.060 Preliminary short subdivision approval. 17.09.070 Final short subdivision approval. 17.09.080 Distribution and filing. 17.09.090 Conditional approval requirements. 17.09.100 Release of improvement guarantee. 17.09.110 Time limitations. 17.09.120 Terms of approval. 17.09.010 General provisions. Every short subdivision shall comply with the provisions of this chapter. Land shall be divided by the short subdivision method according to the provisions of this title, if the three following criteria are met: A. The division will not result in the creation of more than four nine lots. B. The original tract being divided has not been created by a short subdivision within the previous five years, except that when the short subdivision contains fewer than four parcels, a revised short subdivision may be filed within the five -year period to create up to a total of four lots within the original short subdivision boundaries. C. The entire original tract (except adjacent platted or short subdivided land) shall be included within one short subdivision application; provided, that a pre- existing, unplatted adjacent parcel may also be excluded if it is 20 acres or greater in size. (Ord. 6239 § 1, 2009; Ord. 6006 § 3, 2006; Ord. 5164 § 1, 1998; Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4296 § 2, 1988. Formerly 17.14.010) Draft Code Amendment Version 1 September 24, 2014 Page 1 of 1 Exhibit 2 Department of Commerce Innovation is in our nature. Notice of Proposed Amendment Request for Expedited Review Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106(3)(b), the following jurisdiction provides notice of a proposed development regulation amendment and requests expedited state agency review under the Growth Management Act. Under statute, proposed amendments to comprehensive plans are not eligible for expedited review. The expedited review period is 10 business days (14 calendar days). (If needed, you may expand this form and the fields below, but please try to keep the entire form under two pages in length.) Jurisdiction: City of Auburn Mailing Address: 25 West Main Street Auburn, WA 98001 Date: October 1, 2014 Contact Name: Elizabeth Chamberlain Title /Position: Planning and Design Services Manager Phone Number: 253 - 931 -3092 E -mail Address: echamberlain @auburnwa.gov Brief Description of the Proposed /Draft Development Regulations Amendment: (40 words or less) Proposed zoning code amendments is to amend the Short Subdivision Chapter 17.09 to increase the short plat threshold from 4 lots or fewer to 9 lots or fewer. Is this action part of the periodic review and update? GMA requires review every 8 years under RCW 36.70A.130(4) -(6). Yes: No. X Public Hearing Date: Planning Board /Commission: October 7, 2014 Council /County Commission: N/A Proposed Adoption Date: If expedited review granted November 2014 REQUIRED: Attach or include a copy the proposed amendment text. Rev 01/2013 Exhibit 4 REQUEST TO PUBLISH Please publish the following Notice of Public Hearing in the Seattle Times on September 26, 2014 Bill the City of Auburn: City of Auburn ATT: City Clerk 25 West Main Auburn, WA. 98001 An "Affidavit of Publication" is requested for this billing. Thank you. Please publish below the line only. City of Auburn Combined Determination of Non - Significance and Notice of Public Hearing Description of Proposal: Amending Auburn City Code Chapter 17.09, Short Subdivisions, related to Short Plat Thresholds from four lots to nine lots. Proponent: City of Auburn, Community Development and Public Works Department Location: Properties zoned Downtown Urban Center Lead Agency: City of Auburn The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. This DNS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date issued below. Comments must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on October 8, 2014 to Elizabeth Chamberlain, Planning and Design Services Manager, at echamberlain @auburnwa.gov or mailed to 25 West Main Street, Auburn, WA 98001. Any person aggrieved of the City's determination may file an appeal with the Auburn City Clerk within 14 days of the close of the comment period, or by 5:00 p.m. on October 26, 2014. Note: This determination does not constitute approval of the proposal. Approval of the proposal can only be made by the legislative or administrative body vested with that authority. The proposal will be required to meet all applicable regulations. Public Hearing: A public hearing is required for this proposal. The public hearing has been scheduled for Tuesday, October 7, 2014 7:00 p.m. in the Auburn Council Chambers at Auburn City Hall, 25 West Main Street, Auburn, WA 98001 before the City's Planning Commission. For citizens with speech, sight or hearing disabilities wishing to review documents pertaining to this hearing, should contact the City of Auburn within 10 calendar days prior to the meeting, as to the type of service or equipment needed. Each request will be considered individually according to the type of request, the availability of resources, and the financial ability of the City to provide the requested services or equipment. CITY OF AUBURN WASH 1 NGTON Exhibit 5 Community Development & Public Works Department ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Amendment to Chapter 17.09 — Short Plat Thresholds 2. Name of Applicant: City of Auburn 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Applicant: Community Development and Public Works Department 25 West Main Auburn, WA 98001 -4998 Elizabeth Chamberlain, AICP, Planning and Design Services Manager (253) 931 -3092 echamberlain @auburnwa.gov 4. Date checklist prepared: September 23, 2014 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Auburn 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Environmental Review — September 2014 Planning Commission Public Hearing — October 7, 2014 City Council Review — October 2014 City Council Action — November 2014 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. None 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. None ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Page 1 of 16 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. None. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. The City of Auburn Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the proposed code amendments addressed in this environmental checklist and will forward a recommendation to the Auburn City Council. The City Council may or may not hold a public hearing prior to taking action adopting, adopting in part, or not adopting the amendments. Although not an approval or permit, the proposed zoning text amendments are also subject to the 60 -day State Agency review process pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106. The City will be requesting expedited review. 11. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You need not repeat those answers on this page. The proposed amendment would change the short plat thresholds from four lots to nine lots as allowed under state law. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The proposed code amendment would be applicable city wide. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS: 1. Earth: A. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other. The City of Auburn is characterized by a relatively flat valley floor bordered by steep hillsides that plateau. B. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Page 2 of 16 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT The slope of the valley walls in the city varies, but some slopes associated with the valley walls reach 100 %. Most sites on the valley floor have limited slopes. C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. The valley floor is made up primarily of soils of the Oridia, Renton, Snohomish and Briscott series. These soils are fairly poorly drained and formed in the alluvium (river sediments) associated with the White and Green rivers. These are considered good agricultural soils, though in many areas, are not well- drained. There is no designated prime farmland within the City of Auburn. The soils in the uplands are predominantly of the Alderwood series. These soils drain moderately well and are typically located on slopes ranging from 0 - 70 %. D. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Many factors affect slope stability including soil type, parent material, slope and drainage. These factors can be further affected by human intervention such as slope alteration, and vegetation removal. The city has identified categories of geologic hazard areas and inventoried these areas. Maps of the erosion and landslide hazard areas are provided as Maps 9.6 and 9.7, respectively in the City's Comprehensive Plan. E. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Not applicable. The proposed amendments are non - project actions, so no site alteration, construction, or earthwork is proposed. F. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Not applicable. Non - project action. G. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Not applicable. The action does not involve site specific development proposals H. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth. This is a non - project action so no site specific erosion control is proposed. However, the existing comprehensive plan includes numerous policies to reduce or control erosion through the use of best management practices, landscaping requirements, limitations on alteration of steep slopes and other critical areas protections. Impacts to earth will be identified and, if necessary, mitigated during the development review process as specific development proposals are made that might be associated with these plan amendments. The city also has design and construction standards that address erosion control measures. Page 3 of 16 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 2. Air: A. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if know. Not applicable. Proposal is a non - project action. B. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odors that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Not applicable. Proposal is a non - project action. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Not applicable. Proposal is a non - project action. 3. Water: A. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands): If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. The major bodies of water within Auburn are the Green River, the White River, Mill Creek, Bowman Creek, and White Lake. The City has conducted an inventory of wetlands within the city limits. These are shown on Map 9.3 of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Not applicable. This is a non - project action. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Not applicable. This is non - project action. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Not applicable. This is non - project action. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Page 4 of 16 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Proposal is non - project action. However, several areas within Auburn lie within the 100 -year floodplain of the Green or White River and Mill Creek. These areas as well as frequently flooded areas as defined by the City of Auburn Public Works Department are shown on Map 9.4 of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. Proposal is a non - project action. B. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Not applicable. This is non - project action. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: domestic sewage; industrial, containing any toxic chemicals; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) is (are) expected to serve. Not applicable. This is non - project action. C. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Not applicable. This is non - project action. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Not applicable. This is non - project action. D. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Not applicable. This is non - project action. 4. Plants: A. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other. X evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other. X Page 5 of 16 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT shrubs. X grass. X pasture. X crop or grain. X wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, X other. water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other. X other types of vegetation. X B. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Not applicable. This is non - project action. However, in general urban development results in the removal or alteration of many types of vegetation. C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site: None that are known. D. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Not applicable. This is non - project action. 5. Animals: A. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: geese, ducks, crows, etc. Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: urban animals such as dogs, cats, squirrels, rodents, opossums, raccoons, etc. are also present in the city. B. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. There are nesting /breeding sites of bald eagles, great blue herons and green back heron within Auburn as shown on Map 9.2 of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Environmental Impact Statement for the Auburn Thoroughbred Racetrack indicates that peregrine falcons, bald eagles, and the Aleutian Canadian Goose have been seen in the Auburn area. Chinook salmon are currently listed as a threatened species by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Bull trout are also listed. Chinook salmon are known to use the Green and White Rivers. C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Auburn is a portion of the Pacific Flyway for migratory birds. D. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Not applicable. This is non - project action. Page 6 of 16 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 6. Energy and Natural Resources: A. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Not applicable. This is a non - project action. B. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. Not applicable. This is a non - project action. C. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Not applicable. This is a non - project action. 7. Environmental Health: A. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. Not applicable. This is a non - project action. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required: Not applicable. This is a non - project action. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Not applicable. This is a non - project action. B. Noise: 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Not applicable. This is a non - project action. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short -term or a long -term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Not applicable. This is a non - project action. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impact, if any: Page 7 of 16 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Not applicable. This is a non - project action. 8. Land and Shoreline Use: A. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The City and PAA contain a variety of land uses including residential, industrial, commercial, open space, and public land uses. The proposed code amendment would be to properties zoned Downtown Urban Center. B. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe: Much of the Green River Valley and the City of Auburn were used for agriculture at some time in the past. Over the last several decades, rapid growth in the area resulted in much of the agricultural land converting to urban uses. No land within the city is designated as agricultural, though some parcels continue as that type of use. C. Describe any structures on the site: Structures within the City range from small single family detached homes to large industrial and warehousing facilities. D. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Not applicable. This is a non - project action. E. What is the current zoning classification of the site? City zoning districts include: RR (Rural Residential); R -1 (1 du /acre) R -5 (5 du /acre); R -7 (7 du /acre); R -10 (10 du /acre), R -20 (20 du /acre); RMHP (Residential Manufactured Home District); RO (Residential Office); RO -H (Residential Office - Hospital); CN (Neighborhood Commercial); DUC (Downtown Urban Center); 01 (Light Commercial); C2 (Central Business District); C3 (Heavy Commercial); M1 (Light Industrial); M2 (Heavy Industrial); BP (Business Park); LF (Airport Landing Field); P1 (Public Use); UNC (Unclassified Use); I (Institutional Use); LH (Lea Hill). The proposed code amendment would apply city wide. F. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? A Comprehensive Plan map of the City is contained in the City's Comprehensive Plan and includes 13 different plan designations. G. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Portions of the City along the Green and White Rivers fall under the Shoreline Master Program. A map of the shoreline designations for those areas is Map 9.1 of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Zoning districts that are applicable to this proposed code amendment do fall within the City's Shoreline Management area. Page 8 of 16 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT H. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify: Not applicable. This is a non - project action. However, areas of the City do have sensitive areas and the regulation and protection of sensitive areas are addressed through the City's critical areas ordinance. I. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Not applicable. This is a non - project action and no specific development is proposed. J. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None specifically. Proposal is a non - project action. K. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None specifically. Proposal is a non - project action. L. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: None specifically. Proposal is a non - project action. 9. Housing: A. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. Not applicable. Proposal is a non - project action. B. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. Not applicable. Proposal is a non - project action. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Not applicable. Proposal is a non - project action. 10. Aesthetics: A. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Not applicable. Proposal is a non - project action. B. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Not applicable. Proposal is a non - project action. Page 9 of 16 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Not applicable. Proposal is a non - project action. 11. Light and Glare: A. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Not applicable. Proposal is a non - project action. B. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Not applicable. Proposal is a non - project action. C. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Not applicable. Proposal is a non - project action. D. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Not applicable. Proposal is a non - project action. 12. Recreation: A. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? The City of Auburn provides a full range of parks and recreational facilities. Map 11.1 of the City's Comprehensive Plan shows the location of these facilities. B. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. Not applicable. Proposal is a non - project action. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Not applicable. Proposal is a non - project action. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation: A. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe: Not applicable. Proposal is a non - project action. However as a matter of information, in Auburn, the Blomeen House located at 324 B Street NE is on the National Register of Historic Places. The Carnegie Library Building at 306 Auburn Avenue (currently Auburn Dance and Music Center) and the Auburn Post Office Page 10 of 16 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT (currently Seattle -King County Health Department) at 20 Auburn Avenue NE are local and county landmarks. The Olson Farm, located at 28728 Green River Road South, was designated as King County Landmark in 2000 and the Masonic Temple Building at the southeast corner of Auburn Way South and East Main Street was designated as a King County Historical Landmark in 2002. B. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. Several Indian campsites have been identified along the Green and White rivers in the Auburn Thoroughbred Racetrack EIS and in preliminary work for the Army Corps of Engineers' Special Area Management Plan. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Not applicable. Proposal is a non - project action. 14. Transportation: A. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Figure 2 -1 of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan (transportation element) shows the City's current and future classified street system. B. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Not applicable, non - project action. However, Figure 4 -1 of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan (transportation element) shows the location of public transit routes within the City. Also, a commuter rail station exists along the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad right -of -way just south of West Main Street and east of C Street SW. C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Not applicable. Proposal is a non - project action. D. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private): Not applicable. Proposal is a non - project action. E. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe: There is no water transportation in the Auburn area other than for recreational uses. The area is particularly well served by rail. At this time, local freight service is available. Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Union Pacific both operate freight lines within Auburn. Page 11 of 16 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Auburn is also a commuter rail station site for the Sounder commuter rail line between Tacoma and Seattle. Service began September 18, 2000. Amtrak trains pass through Auburn but do not stop here. The Auburn Airport is located north of 15th Street NE. F. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. Not applicable. Non - project action. G. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Not applicable. Non - project action. 15. Public Services: A. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe: Not applicable. Non - project action. B. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impact on public services, if any: The comprehensive plan contains policies that seek to maintain a sufficient level of service for public services as development occurs. Also, Auburn reviews under SEPA, the impacts of significant development on these public services. Mitigation measures are required to reduce significant adverse impacts. 16. Utilities: A. Circle utilities currently available at the site: Electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other — Cable TV. All of the above utilities are available within the City of Auburn. B. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed: This is a non - project action. However, the Comprehensive Plan includes a utilities element (as required by the Growth Management Act), which describes the utilities that serve the Auburn area and includes policies for their provision. Also, the city actively engages in planning for public facilities. A new Comprehensive Water Plan and new Comprehensive Sewer Plan were adopted by the City in 2009. A new Comprehensive Drainage Plan was adopted in 2009. A new six year Capital Facilities Plan was adopted in 2013 (2014- 2019). These plans ensure that utility impacts are adequately monitored and evaluated on a project level and city -wide basis. Page 12 of 16 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. OWNER /AGENT SIGNATURE: Elizabeth Chamberlain DATE SUBMITTED: September 23, 2014 Page 13 of 16 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (Do not use this sheet for project actions.) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent of the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal that would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? The proposed code amendments to the short plat thresholds, should have a minimal change in discharging to water, emissions to air, production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances or the production of noise as those potential impacts are analyzed with every short plat regardless of number of lots proposed. While the proposed code amendment could apply to undeveloped property, the City's stormwater design manual addresses stormwater discharges and the City has other regulations addressing emissions to air and hazardous substances. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: The City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan contains provisions to reduce increases or emissions caused by new development. Emphasis in the Comprehensive Plan on reducing the reliance on the automobile for transportation should reduce the amount of emissions to the air. Policies in the Environment Chapter also provide guidance in the review of development proposals to encourage native vegetation. This should support wildlife habitat areas, particularly near streams, as the policies assist the City in addressing adverse impacts to water quality and wildlife habitat from runoff since native plantings may require less pesticide use. An environmental review of all non - exempt (from SEPA) development will be conducted to evaluate and mitigate impacts related to discharges, emissions, and the release of toxic substances. Evaluation of the site specific proposals will be based on the policies of the Comprehensive Plan and appropriate mitigation will take place on a case by case basis. City development standards including but not limited to the critical areas ordinance, shoreline master program regulations, and the Design and Construction Manuals, also provide additional protection for these types of impacts. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The proposal is not likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life. However, as noted below, the City has development standards to provide protection for these types of impacts. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: Generally, the adopted Auburn Comprehensive Plan and critical areas ordinance seek to protect and conserve plants, animals, fish, and marine life. An environmental review under Page 14 of 16 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT SEPA of all non - exempt development is conducted to measure impacts. Evaluation based on the policies of the Auburn Comprehensive Plan and appropriate mitigation will take place on a case -by -case basis. Policies within the Environment Chapter also provide guidance in the review of development proposals to encourage native vegetation be used and /or retained. This should support wildlife habitat areas, particularly near streams as the policies assist the city in addressing adverse runoff impacts to water quality and wildlife habitat since native plantings may require less pesticide use. City development standards including but not limited to the critical areas ordinance and the shoreline master program regulations also provide additional protection for these types of impacts. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Future development will use natural gas and electricity and could result in increased automobile uses although development downtown Auburn is encourage to be compact and less focus on the vehicle. However, there does not appear to be any significant adverse increases in the use of energy of natural resources resulting from the amendments being proposed to the existing comprehensive plan over what might occur under existing plan designations. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: None specifically, as this is a non - project action. However, in addition to the provisions of the Auburn Energy Management Plan (adopted in 1986), which encourages energy conservation in public buildings, street lighting, and recycling, the comprehensive plan places an emphasis on providing for alternative methods of travel to the automobile such as transit, walking, and biking. An environmental review under SEPA of all significant development will be conducted to measure the project impacts. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? Taken as a whole, there should not be any change in impacts from existing regulations on environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated for government protection. Regulations are in place to protect environmentally sensitive areas regardless of the use of the land or these proposed code amendments. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: The comprehensive plan and, in particular, the critical areas ordinance, seek to protect environmentally sensitive areas (wetlands, streams, geologically hazard areas, floodplain, wildlife habitat, and aquifer recharge areas) and to reduce the impacts of development on them. The Auburn Comprehensive Plan provides for the implementation of innovative land management techniques to protect these resources. An environmental review under SEPA for all non - exempt development will be conducted to evaluate impacts. Page 15 of 16 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Amendments can only be approved if it can be assured that future development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and its policies and related regulations. Those proposals that are not consistent with the comprehensive plan policies or other existing plans will not be approved. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: The comprehensive plan, critical areas ordinance, and other development regulations, such as the zoning ordinance and shoreline master program, seek to protect these land and shoreline resources and to reduce the effects of development on them. An environmental review under SEPA of all development that is non - exempt will also be conducted to evaluate a proposal's land use and environmental impacts. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The proposed amendment could lead towards development that may increase demands on public services, the transportation network, and utilities. The City has adopted a traffic impact fee structure to address impacts to the transportation network. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: The Auburn Comprehensive Plan presently incorporates the 2014 -2019 Capital Facilities Plan updated, which seeks to maintain a sufficient level of service for public services as development occurs. Also, the city actively engages in planning for public facilities. The Comprehensive Water Plan and Comprehensive Sewer Plan updates were adopted by the city in 2009. The Comprehensive Drainage Plan update was also adopted in 2009. The Comprehensive Transportation Plan was adopted in 2005 with updates during the 2006 and 2009 Comprehensive Plan amendment cycles. These plans help ensure that utility impacts are adequately monitored and evaluated on a project level and city -wide basis. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The proposal does not appear to present any conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements. Page 16 of 16 Exhibit 6 CITY OF jj.JJ3IJJ?J..4 Nancy Backus, Mayor WASHINGTON 25 West Main Street * Auburn WA 98001 -4998 * www.auburnwa.gov * 253 - 931 -3000 Combined Determination of Non - Significance and Public Hearing Notice Amendment to Chapter 17.09 - Short Plat Thresholds SEP14 -0013 and ZOA14 -0005 Description of Proposal: Amending Auburn City Code Chapter 17.09, Short Subdivisions, related to Short Plat Thresholds from four lots to nine lots Proponent: City of Auburn, Community Development and Public Works Department 25 West Main Street, Auburn, WA 98001 Elizabeth Chamberlain, AICP, Planning & Design Services Manager 253 - 931 -3092 echamberlain(a�auburnwa.gov Location: City wide Lead Agency: City of Auburn The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. This DNS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date issued below. Comments must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on October 8, 2014. Any person aggrieved of the City's determination may file an appeal with the Auburn City Clerk within 14 days of the close of the comment period, or by 5:00 p.m. on October 26, 2014. Responsible Official: Jeff Tate Position /Title: Assistant Director Community Development Address: 25 West Main Street Auburn, Washington 98001 253 - 931 -3090 i� Date Issued: September 24, 2014 Signature: W vH omz w iL In% ✓i's Note: This determination does not constitute approval of the proposal. Approval of the proposal can only be made by the legislative or administrative body vested with that authority. The proposal will be required to meet all applicable regulations. Public Hearing: A public hearing is required for this proposal. The public hearing has been scheduled for Tuesday, October 7, 2014 7:00 p.m. in the Auburn Council Chambers at Auburn AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED City Hall, 25 West Main Street, Auburn, WA 98001 before the City's Planning Commission. For citizens with speech, sight or hearing disabilities wishing to review documents pertaining to this hearing, should contact the City of Auburn within 10 calendar days prior to the meeting, as to the type of service or equipment needed. Each request will be considered individually according to the type of request, the availability of resources, and the financial ability of the City to provide the requested services or equipment. CITY OF AUBURN WASHINGTON Memorandum To: Planning Commission Chair Roland and Planning Commissioners From: Jeff Dixon, Planning Services Manager CC: Jeff Tate, Assistant Community Development Director Elizabeth Chamberlain, AICP, Planning and Design Services Manager Date: October 2, 2014 Re: Discussion Topic: Docket of 2014 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments BACKGROUND Annually the City amends its Comprehensive Plan. The City processes city — initiated amendments in response to items that are "docketed" (text or map). The city also includes private— initiated amendments in response to applications that are submitted. Private initiated Comprehensive Plan amendment applications (text or map) were accepted by the City of Auburn until Friday, June 6, 2014. In response to the public notification of the time period for applications, the City received two private — initiated comprehensive plan amendments; both are map amendments; no private text amendments were submitted. However, since the two applications for adjacent sites by the same Applicant were submitted without the necessary environmental checklist application (required pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)), the Applicant has agreed to defer the city's consideration of the applications until consideration of the larger overall Comprehensive Plan Update effort in 2015. Page 1 of 2 AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED The docket was reviewed by the City Council's Planning and Community Development Committee at their June 23, 2014 meeting. The Committee concurred with the deferral of the private applications. DISCUSSION At the October 7, 2014 Planning Commission meeting, staff would like to introduce and discuss: 1. The docket (attached) will consisting of the following. Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments • P/T #1 — Auburn School District 2014 -2020 Capital Facilities Plan • P/T #2 — Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan 2015 -2020 • P/T #3 — Federal Way School District 2015 Capital Facilities Plan • P/T #4 — Kent School District 2014/2015 — 2019/2020 Capital Facilities Plan • P/T #5 — City of Auburn 2015 -2020 Capital Facilities Plan No map amendments are being processed with the 2014 annual amendments. (The 3 -ring binders consisting of documents supporting the annual amendments will be provided shortly). 2. Proposed Schedule (attached) Enclosures: Attachment A - Proposed Docket of Amendments Attachement B - Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment Schedule. Page 2 of 2 AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU ]MAGINED 2014 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT DOCKET CITY - INITIATED TEXT AMENDMENTS Comments Finance Dept originates with assistance for all other city Depts. Cons 0 0 z 0 0 z 0 0 z 0 0 z 0 0 z Pros Reflect new projects and remove projects that have been completed as well as updated information related to development activity and projection of student levels. Reflect new projects and remove projects that have been completed as well as updated information related to development activity and projection of student levels. Reflect new projects and remove projects that have been completed as well as updated information related to development and projection of student levels. Reflect new projects and remove projects that have been completed as well as updated information related to development activity and projection of student levels. Add new projects to the CFP and remove projects that have been completed. Remain current. Reason Incorporate updated information Incorporate updated information Incorporate updated information Incorporate updated information Incorporate updated information Change Q z Q z Q z Q z Miscellaneous amendments Area to be changed Chapter 5, Capital Facilities (Incorporated by reference) Chapter 5, Capital Facilities (Incorporated by reference) Chapter 5, Capital Facilities (Incorporated by reference) Chapter 5, Capital Facilities (Incorporated by reference) Chapter 5, Capital Facilities (Incorporated by reference) Page(s) Auburn School District Capital Facilities Plan Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan Federal Way School District Capital Facilities Plan Kent School District Capital Facilities Plan COA Capital Facilities Plan Item It I- L P/T # 2 P/T # 3 P/T # 4 P/T # 5 AMENDMENTS PRIVATELY- INITIATED ■ 0 C a) E E O 0 0 C O U 0 O L a c 0 0 R a) II a) a) C R t U Area to be changed a) a) R a E Si a) 0 0 Z N w N n co E E w N • E _a • Q Q O 0 Y w U N E O U O N U Council Action U a 0 (0a N U N D 0 0 a O O a N E CJ E 'v D O O C o O 0 O 0 0 a0 O Tr 7 v� U a 0 O 0 0 0 O O N 2 N U C ,�_ 0 ADD c4 0 0) Revised 10 -2 -14