HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-20-2013 CITY OF �
PLANNING COMMISSION
gym.
V.-BURN
WASHINGTON November 20, 2012
MINUTES
SUMMARY
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Judi Roland called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. in the Council Chambers
located on the first floor of Auburn City Hall, 25 West Main Street, Auburn, WA.
Commission Members present were: Chair Judi Roland, Vice Chair Kevin Chapman,
Commissioner Baggett, Commissioner Copple, Commissioner Peace, Commissioner
Trout, and Commissioner Ramey. Commissioner Mason is excused.
Staff present included: Planning Manager Elizabeth Chamberlain, Principal Planner Jeff
Dixon, City Attorney Dan Heid, and Planning and Development Secretary Tina Kriss.
Members of the Audience Included: Rich Hill, Council for Applicant; Eli Berman, Agent
for Applicant, Skyline Properties; Randy Smythe, and Kristi Byarlay.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. November 7, 2012
Commissioner Peace moved and Commissioner Trout seconded to approve the minutes
from the November 7, 2012 meeting.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7-0
III. PUBLIC COMMENT
There were no public comments on any item not listed on the agenda for discussion or
public hearing.
IV. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT
Planning Manager Elizabeth Chamberlain stated the Permit Center has received 358
single family residential building permits for the year.
Orion Industries, an aerospace manufacturing company, has submitted their grading
permit and environmental review documents for the project on the property located west
of the airport and north of the 15th Street Park & Ride. Orion Industries is currently
located in Federal Way but plans to move their operations to Auburn.
V. PUBLIC HEARING
A. 2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments File No. CPA12-0003
Principal Planner Jeff Dixon provided background information on Comprehensive
Plan Amendment CPM#3, Map amendment to Map No. 14.1 — Locke Property to
change the Comprehensive Plan designation from "Single Family Residential" to
"High Density Residential", 1.88 acre parcel. The property address is 12130 SE
310th ST within NW quarter of Section 9, T 21 North, R5 East, W.M. Parcel
#0921059132.
Pagel
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 20, 2012
Commission and staff reviewed and discussed the Comprehensive Map
designations, zoning designations, and land uses of the surrounding properties.
Chair Roland opened the public hearing on CPM#3, Map amendment to Map No.
14.1, File No. CPA12-0003 at 7:48 p.m.
Rich Hill, Council for Applicant, 701 Fifth Avenue, Seattle Washington.
Mr. Hill reviewed the request by the lockes to amend Comprehensive Plan
designation from "Single Family Residential" to "High Density Residential"
(approximately 1.88 acres).
Eli Berman, agent for Applicant, Skyline Properties.
Mr. Berman reviewed the property purchased by William and Amy Locke in 2005, the
zoning for the property, and the Lockes' plans to develop the property.
Randy Smythe, 12024 Southeast 310th Street, Auburn, Washington.
Mr. Smythe stated he lives just a couple lots west of the property. He is concerned
about the applicants request to change the designation and believes if it is approved
it may send a message to others to apply for the same designation. If multiple
changes are made to the designations to High Density Residential in the area it
would increase the already congested traffic and change the community I moved to
from single family residential.
Kristi Byarlay, 12116 SE 310th Street, Auburn, Washington.
Ms. Byarlay expressed her concern that if the change from Single Family Residential
to High Density Residential is approved that others currently living in a single family
residential zoned area may apply. Not only would that change the neighborhood to
High-Density Residential it would also diminish the property values for those that
purchased their single family residences. Ms. Byarlay also expressed her concerns
that if the amendment were approved it would increase the volume of traffic and
continue to increase the dangerous conditions of the road.
With no other comments from the public, Chair Roland closed the public hearing at
8:54 p.m. on CPM#3, Map amendment to Map No. 14.1, File No. CPA12-0003.
Commissioner Ramey moved and Commissioner Trout seconded to recommend a
closed session to deliberate on recommendations for Comprehensive Plan
Amendment CPM#3, Map amendment to Map No. 14.1.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7-0
The Commission went into closed session at 8:58 p.m. to deliberate on
recommendations for CPM#3, Map amendment to Map No. 14.1, File No. CPA12-
0003. The Commission ended the closed session at 9:21 p.m.
Commissioner Baggett moved and Commissioner Copple seconded to recommend
denial of CPM#3, Map Amendment to Map No. 14.1, File No. CPA12-0003.
Page 2
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 20, 2012
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6 — 1
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
There were no other business items.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chair Roland
adjourned the meeting at 9.24 p.m.
Page 3
r�
CITY OF AUBURN
PLANNING CONIl�lI S S I ON MEET ING
November 20 , 2012
Northwest Transcribers(425)497-9760, P. O. Box 12192, Mill Creek,Washington 96082-0192
_
T A B L E 0 F C 0 N T E N T S
PAGE N0.
�
November 20, 2012 •
CALL TO ORDER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
COMMISSIONER PEACE MOVES TO APPROVE MINUTES FROM
NOVEMBER 7, 2012 COUNCIL MEETING . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
COMMISSIONER TROUT SECONDS THE MOTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
MOTION CARRIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . ... . . . . . 1
ELIZABETH CHAMBERLAIN, PLANNING MANAGER, PRESENTS
DIRECTOR' S REPORT . . . . . ._ ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . 2
CITY ATTORNEY DAN HEID ADVISES COUNCIL OF HIS ROLE
AT THIS MEETSNG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
JEFF DIXON, PLANNING DEPARTMENT, PRESENT STAFF REPORT . . . 6
PUBLIC TESTIMONY:
By Rich Hill, Counsel for Applicant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
By Eli Berman, Agent for Applicant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
By Rich Hill, Counsel for Applicant . . . . . . . ...: . . . . . . . . 48
By Randy Smythe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
ByKristi Byarlay . . . . . ... ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . . . . 65
DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • • • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
CHAIR ROLAND CLOSES THE PUBLIC HEARING . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . 82
COMMISSIONER RAMEY MOVES TO DELIBERATE IN CLOSED
SESSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
COMMISSIONER TROUT SECONDS THE MOTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . 63
MOTION CARRIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
CLOSED SESSION DELIBERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . 84
CHAIR ROLAND CALLS THE MEETING BACK TO ORDER . . . . . . . . . . . 85
COMMISSIONER BAGGETT MOVES TO DENY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT CPM #3, MAP AMENDMENT TO MAP NO,. 14 . 1 . . . . . 85
COMMISSIONER COPPLE SECONDS THE MOTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SS
MOTION CARRIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
QUESTION BY RICH HILL, COUNSEL FOR APPLICANT . . . . . . . . . . . 86
DISCUSSION • • • • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760/(425) 337-5211 -fax 1
1 November 20, 2012, 7 : 01 p.m.
2 CHAIR ROLAND: Good evening. I'm going to call the
3 Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday, November 20th, to
4 order. The first item on our—I want to first mention that
5 Joan Mason is excused this evening, and we have everybody
6 else here. Welcome. Thank you for cominq.
7 The first item on our aqenda is approval of the minutes
8 from the November 7th meeting. Has everyone had' a chance to
9 look at those? Are there any corrections or addit-ion to
10 those minutes?
11 COMMISSIONER PEACE: I move that we approve the minutes .
12 CHAIR ROLAND: Okay. We ha�e a motion. I have a second?
13 COMMISSIONER TROUT: Second.
19 CHAIR ROLAND: Okay. Second. All those in favor, say aye.
15 [All respond "aye. "]
16 CHAIR ROLAND: Opposed?
17 [No response. ]
18 CHAIR ROLAND: Thank you. The minutes are approved .as
19 written.
20 The next item on our agenda is for public comment from
21 someone in the audience. And, at this time, it' s—if it' s
22 for an item that is not on the agenda this evening; if
23 you' re here to speak to something on the agenda, which will
24 come under our public hearing, then you can wait till then.
25 But, otherwise, is there anyone that wishes to speak?
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760/(425)337-5211 -fax 1
1 [No response. ]
2 CHAIR ROLAND: All right . Seeing none, we will move on to
3 the, public comment-the Planning Department report, sorry.
4 MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Thank you. Elizabeth Chamberlain,
S Planning Manager. Just two things to update the Planning °I
6 Commission on. One is we' re at 358 single-family
7 residential building permits, new residential building
8 permits, for the year, so we' re still trending really
9 strong in our sinqle-family home development, which is
10 great to see. And, then also you may have seen recently in
11 the Auburn Reporter, but Orion Industries has submitted'
12 their application for review its grading permit and
13 environmental review for property that' s located �ust west
14 of the airport and north of the 15th Street park-and-ride.
15 There' s a land kind of negotiation that the City is
16 involved in between King County Metro, us, and Orion to
17 bring-for them to construct a new facility. And they would
18 move their operations from Federal Way here to Auburn. So,
19 that project has been submitted, and it' s in seview. So,
20 it' s another positive development project coming in to the
21 city.
22 CHAIR ROLAND: Is that going to be taking away any
23 parking of the lot?
24 MS. CHAMBERLAIN: It does take away some of tfie park-and-
25 rsde spaces, but there is surplus there based on-King
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760!(425) 337-5211 -fax 2
1 County Metro did some analysis of what they needed for that
2 particular park-and-ride. I don' t have the exact numbers
3 off the top of my head, but it does take away some, and
4 some of that parking goes for the Orion facility.
5 CHAIR ROLAND: Okay.
6 VICE-CHAIR GHAPMAN: Is that also the Pea Patch property?
7 MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, it is. Yes.
B CHAIR ROLAND: Okay.
9 MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions I
10 can answer for the Commission or?
11 CHAIR ROLAND: Anything else going on around town?
12 MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Uh-uh.
13 COMMISSIONER COPPLE: Anything else that you can divulge
T4 yet?
15 MS. CHAMBERLAIN: No.
16 COMMISSIONER COPPLE: I didn' t think so.
17 CHAIR ROLAND: ShuCkS.
18 MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Nothing yet . Okay. Thank you:
19 COMMISSIONER RAMEY:: I' ll ask a question.
20 MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Oh, sure.
21 COMMISSIONER RAMEY: What is it that Orion does?
22 MS. CHAMBERLAIN: They' re an aerospace manufacturer.. I
23 don' t know exactly what parts they do. But, they were-and
29 then they were also named, I believe, Boeing' s number one
25 supplier for this past year. So, in the aerospace industry.
Northwest Transcribers(425)497-9760/(425) 337-5211 -fax 3
1 Okay. Thank you.
2 CHAIR ROLAND: All right. The fourth item on our agenda
3 is the public hearing this evening. And, this is a
9 Comprehensive Plan amendment, No. 3, for property up on the
5 East Hill. Jeff, do you want to go ahead and give us the
6 report?
7 MR. DIXON.:' Sure, thank you. This is Jeff Dixon, Planning
8 Department. And, I' d like to introduce and describe for you
9 the proposal this evening for a Comprehensive Plan map
10 amendment. And I have a little presentation in terms of a
11 PowerPoint to give you an overview of it in addition to the
12 information that' s in the Staff Report.
13 And before I get started with that, however, I' d like to
14 tell the Commission that we have our City Attorney,
15 Dan Heid, with us this evening to assist the Commission..
16 And, Dan might want to say a few words .
17 MR. HEID: Good afternoon. I think most of you know me.
18 I'm Dan Heid, City Attorney here in town. And, my role here
19 is to act as your legal advisor. I am not making a
20 presentation; I'm not going to engage in any of the
21 discussion regarding the pros or cons of the proposal . But,
22 I am here to act as your legal advisor in connection wsth
23 the request that has been presented—or that is bei:ng
24 presented to you.
25 And, I should also mention something else, just in case
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760/(425) 337-5211 -fax 4
1 you hear these words or have heard these words. This is a
2 quasi-judicial matter; this is not a city-wide proposed
3 legislative change. Because it is involving such a small
4 piece of property, one particular piece of property, it is
5 quasi-judicial, which means it is more akin to a court-type
6 proceeding. And, so you will be acting as the judge, so to
7 speak, in the issues of deciding whether to grant the
8 request or to deny the request. And that implicates a
9 couple of different things that might not always be
10 involved in decisions you have to make. The quasi-judicial
11 matters are actually addressed in state law and treated a
12 little differently than the legislative matters. And, in
13 fact, one of the advantaqes of having to address a quasi-
19 judicial matter, and that is something that is a very
15 small, unique facet of the entire picture of the city being
16 affected or very few people being affected versus something
17 that is more comprehensive or more generalized in terms of
18 its effect. You have the opportunity to evaluate this like
19 a court does, which means you don' t have to necessarily
20 deliberate in public if you choose not to do so. There' s a
21 specific statute that exempts quasi-judicial matters from
22 ' the Open Public Meetings Act, and that is something that
23 you may want to consider or not . You don' t have to, but you '
24 can if you want .
25 The factors that you have to use in making the decision
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760/(425) 337-5211 -fax 5
1 will probably be very well-addressed by both the pro and
2 con representers [sic] of this issue. But, if you have
3 questions that I can assist you or issues that you' d' like
4 to discuss with me, you can do so either in public or in a
5 closed session should that be your desire.. If you have
6 questions of ine at this point, I' d like to certainly want
7 to make sure I answer them. But, otherwise, I am here as
8 your legal counsel in this proceeding.
9 CHAIR ROLAND: Thank you, Dan.
10 MR. DIXON: I' d like to start off by giving a littTe bit
11 of the background on the City' s Comprehensive Plan. The
12 City has had a Comprehensive Plan since the '60s, and we
13 updated it in compliance with our Growth Management Act in
T4 1995. And we've also updated our Comprehensive Plan
15 annually each year, and generally we' ve updated it each
16 year for smaller type of amendments.. It' s been for
17 housekeeping things in response to private applications the
18 City has received' such as map amendments or text
19 amendments, and also to keep current in terms of trends and
20 changes to the community, and to reflect that and make sure
21 our Comp Plan is up to date.
22 The Chapter 14 . 22 of the City' s code provides the
23 process for Comprehensive Plan amendments. It provides that
29 the City can initiate Comp Plan amendments or accept
25 private applications for Comp Plan amendments. And then
Northwest Transcribers (425)497-9760/(425) 337-5211 -fax 6
1 those requests are reviewed by the Planning Commission
2 through a public hearing process_ The Planning Commis§ion
3 makes a recommendation to the City Council for final '
4 action. And, then the City Council considers the Planning '
5 Commission' s recommendation and makes the final decision oa
6 those requests.
7 We received three private map amendment applications
8 this year. The Commission' s already dealt with two of them,
9 and this is the third one. And, you' re aware of the
10 proceedings that we've had to date. The request this
11 evening identified as Comprehensive Plan Amendment 12-003
12 is a privately-initiated map amendment for the Locke
13 property. It' s an amendment to our City Comprehensive Plan
L4 map, which is identified as Map 14 . 1, and it' s a request to
15 change the Comprehensive Plan designation from the cur-rent
16 desiqnation of single-family residential to high-density
17 residential for develop approximately 1. 8 [sic] -acre 'lot.
18 The property' s up on Lea Hill area, and that is the request
19 and the only request this evening.
20 This map is the same map that' s in your Staff Report and
21 attached to your package. It shows in the bright orange
22 color the subject piece of property. It has the current
23 yellow single-family residential designation, and the
24 request is to change it to the brown h3gh-density
25 residential Comp Plan designation. And the parcel numbers
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760/(425) 337-5211 -fax 7
1 referenced in the property is at 12130 Southeast 310th
2 Street. So, it' s northwest of the intersection of 309th and
3 124th.
4 This is just an expanded, a closer-up of, the property,
5 showing the current designation and the proposed way the
6 map would be changed if this request were approved. So, the
7 yellow designation denoting the single-family would be
8 changed to the brown, denoting the high-density
9 residential. And, that' s the request that the Applicants
10 have indicated by their application materials.
11 So, in your working binders there is a Staff Report that
12 describes this proposal and provides the Staff' s evaluation
13 and analysis of this proposal . It ss the first Staff Report
19 behind the tab of "Staff Reports and Presentations . " And
15 then also in your Comp Plan binder under "Map Amendments"
16 is the application materials that the Applicant had
17 submitted to initiate the application. So, behind the ��Map
18 Amendments" tab is their completed application form, their
19 narrative statement about why they' re seeking this request,
20 the maps they provided for that purpose. Also, there' s a
21 tab in there that' s labeled for "Environmental Review" that
22 contains the SEPA decision that was issued for this
23 property. And, it also contains behind that the one comment
29 letter we received in response to the issuance of that
25 Determination of Non-Significance for this property_
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760/(425) 337-5211 -fax 8
1 There is also two things that were handed out this
2 evening. One is a memo from the Applicant' s attorney, '
3 Rich Hill, providing some additional information for the
4 Commission' s consideration. And, then there is also a City
5 memo that was provided and handed out this evening also.
6 So, I want to make sure all the commissioners have copies
7 of those.
8 CHAIR ROLAND: Is the memo from the—
9 MR. DIXON: The City memo is from me.
10 CHAIR ROLAND: Right. And, is the other one the one we
11 got emailed yesterday—
12 MR. DIXON: Correct.
13 CHAIR ROLAND: —and also handed—
14 MR. DIXON: Correct. i
15 CHAIR ROLAND: —out today? Okay.
16 MR. DIXON: But, I just wanted to make sure in case—
1Z CHAIR ROLAND: Okay.
18 MR. DIXON: —folks hadn' t checked their email that—
79 CHAIR ROLAND: Okay.
20 MR. DIXON: —we have copies available for—
21 CHAIR ROLAND: So, they aren' t different. I didn' t want
22 to have to go through it and see if there were changes, so.
23 MR. DIXON: Correct.
24 CHAIR ROLAND: Okay.
25 MR. DIXON: They are not different .
Northwes;Transcribers (425)497-9760/(425)337-52t1 -fax 9
1 CHAIR ROLAND: Okay.
2 MR. DIXON: So, I' d like a little opportunity to explain
3 the background of the City' s memo because the Commiss.ion' s
4 just getting that at this time.
5 CHAIR ROLAND: Right.
6 MR. DIXON: In reviewing th3s proposal and the land use
7 designations of the property and of the parcels in the
8 vicinity, it came to the City' s attention that there was a
9 scrivener' s error in the Comp Plan designations applicable
10 to not the subject property that the application is
11 requested for, but of adjacent properties dating back .from
12 2007 and Ordinance 6138 . In particular, we found that the
13 Comp Plan designations of high-density residential and
14 single-family residential had been reversed on either side
15 of the property that is the subject of the hearing this
16 evening. And it' s a little hard to see on this map, but
17 this map is actually the official exhibit that was attached
18 to that ordinance. And, I have some easier-to-see copies of
19 this, but I had a hard time photocopying this very large
20 image into-we don' t have a color copier big enough to do
21 this whole image. So, I' ve got it in pieces . And if you' d'
22 like to see that, I can. But, it shows that we reflected a
23 high-density residential designation to the west. to a
24 single-family developed property, and the single-family
25 designation to the east to a property that was already
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760/(425) 337-5211 -fax 10
1 developed multi-family.
2 CHAIR ROLAND: Okay. And that' s right kind of in the
3 center there?
4 MR. DIXON: Yeah. And—
5 CHAIR ROLAND: Okay.
6 MR. DIXON: —if you don' t mind, I can euen walk up and
7 show you kind of where it is. I apologize for kind of the
8 poor quality of the image that comes out of the screen
9 here. But, yeah, it is right here.
10 CHAIR ROLAND: Okay.
11 MR. DIXON: And we reflected that it had this `brown
12 designation for property to the west that contains a
13 single-family residence when it should have been a high-
14 density residential designation here on a property .that is
1'5 developed with multi-family. And then the subject property
16 that is the subject of the hearing this evening is the one
17 here in the center between those two.
18 CHAIR ROLAND: Okay. So, this has been out for the public
19 since 2007 . And that was just caught recently.
20 MR. DIXON: That is correct .
21 CHAIR ROLAND: Okay.
22 MR. DIXON: So, the City memo is to the City CTerks,
23 asking the City Clerk to make that correction based upon
24 the coming to our attention of that scrivener' s error. It
25 provides some background in terms of describing that it was
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760/(425)337-5211 -fax 11
1 part of the Comprehensive Plan amendments that were adopted,
2 in 2007 . Those Comprehensive Plan amendments were the
3 subject of considerable public outreach. The City had a
4 series of ineetings after the successful annexation vote, '
5 but before the annexation became effective. And, had a
6 number of public meetings to solicit information about the
7 Gomprehensive Plan designations and specifically convened a
8 Lea Hill Citizens Advisory Committee. And the Council' s '
9 intent with the Comp Plan designations was to designate as
10 high-density residential those properties that were
11 developed as multi-family and to reflect single-family on '
12 other properties . So, the memo contains attached to it a
13 map showing how those designations would change 3n response
14 to that error.
15 I also want to make clear that the City Council' s
16 legislative intent was accurately captured on the zoning
17 map. The Comp Plan designations were reversed, 'bub the
18 zoning was not. And so, this .is the map that was the
19 official map adopted for the zoning changes by
20 Ordinance 6192, and this map-again, it' s a little .hard to
21 see in that location because of try3ng to take such a big
22 map and reduce st down for purposes of this presentation.
23 But, it shows that the property that is multi-family
24 developed located to the east does. have the multi-family or
25 R-20 zoning, and the property that' s single-family
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760/(425) 337-5211 -fax 12
1 developed to the west does have the R-5 residential zoning,
2 single-family residential zoning.
3 And, the information about this scrivener' s error is
4 important in context to the memo you received from the
5 Applicant about their position on the proposal or on the
6 application. If there was an error on the part of the 2007
7 mapping of the Comp Plan designations, the Proponent
8 asserts that an error was made on the designations
9 applicable to their own property in the memo that they've
10 provided. So-
11 CHAIR ROLAND: Say that again? Say what you just said
12 again?
13 MR. DIXON: I said that they' re asserting that the City
19 made an error in the Comp Plan mapping applicable to their
15 property-
16 CHAIR ROLANDe Right .
17 MR. DIXON: -whereas-
18 CHAIR ROLAND: Wouldn' t you say-
19 MR. DIXON: -we made an error instead on adj,acent
20 properties.
2T CHAIR ROLAND: Okay, okay. That' s the part that I-
22 MR. DIXON: And, this is the same map that is attached to
23 the back of that memo that .shows how the current-how the
24 map was adopted on the top image and shows how it should be
25 changed to be corrected on the bottom image.
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760/(425) 337-5211 -fax 13
1 And, just to kind of make this clearer, I did pull out
2 these images as a comparison. So, I brought a series of
3 images here to show you both a 2007 aerial photo with the
4 subject property outlined in red so you could see that it
5 contains a sinqle-family residence. The property to the
6 east of it—or one of the properties to the east of it has a
7 . multi-family development already. There is multi-family
8 development to the north of the subject property. To the
9 west of the subject property is two lots, each with a
10 single-family residence. So, that kind of describes the
11 adjacent land uses of this property. And for comparison,
12 this is the zoning designations for the property. You can
13 see that it does have a single family residential zoning,
19 R-5. The property to the west is also R-5. But, the
15 properties to the north and on a part of the site to the
16 east have the R-20 multi-family residential zoning
17 desiqnation. And then, in terms of Comp Plan designations,
18 you could see that they' re very a somewhat similar pattern,
19 but here is the designations that kind of show the error
20 that was made here for the designation of the property to
21 the west with that hiqh-density residential designation
22 should more appropriately be reflected on the east.
23 CHAIR ROLAND: What' s on the property to the east of the
24 property, the Locke property?
25 MR. DIXON: What' s on the property to the east?
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760!(425) 337-5211 -fax 14
1 CHAIR ROLAND: Yes. Is that—are there residents or—othei
2 than the one right next to it is a multi-family. What' s—
3 COMMISSIONER MALE 1: Beyond that?
4 CHAIR ROLAND: —beyond that over towards the green?
5 MR. DIXON: There is that very long linear parcel
6 oriented east/west that leads out to T24th.
7 CHAIR ROLAND: Yeah. But, the yellow; what' s on the
8 yellow between the Locke property and the next one is the
9 multi-family you said—
10 MR. DIXON: Yes.
11 CHAIR ROLAND: —already on it.
12 MR. DIXON: Yes.
13 CHAIR ROLAND: Then what' s beyond that between that and
14 the green?
15 MR. DIXON: They are single-family residences in that
16 area.
17 CHAIR ROLANDr Okay. Thank you.
18 MR. DIXON: Yeah, on the—there' s approximately, I think,
19 about five Lots there.
20 CHAIR ROLAND: Okay.
21 MR. DIXON: So., the proposed change is to go from single-
22 family residential to high-density residential. The
23 Applicant has indicated in their materials that the request
24 is sought for the purposes of flexibility for future
25 development. They do not have specific plans for any:
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760/(425)337-5211 -fax 15
1 development that—that' s what they' ve indicated in their
2 materials. The site is relatively flat. It contains an
3 existing single-family house. It has a driveway leading out
4 to Southeast 310th Street . It' s bordered to the south by
5 310th, which is designated a local residential street. That
6 street is improved to the east, where it leads to 124th.
7 But, there is—it' s not fully improved to the west. And a
8 matter of fact, it' s barricaded to the west so there would
9 be future improvements necessary to bring it up to full
10 city standards_ This property was annexed to the city in
11 2007; it became effective in 2008 by Ordinance 6121.
12 Aqain, the purpose of the City' s Comprehensive Plan is
13 to provide the policy guidance for land use decisions of
14 the City. And specifically that importance is reflected in
15 the City' s Code at 14 .22. 050, where it says that the zoning
16 land division and other development codes contained a
17 reference with the Auburn City Code shall be consistent
18 with and implement the intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
19 CHAIR ROLAND: And what was this property zoned when King
20 County had it before it came to Auburn?
21 MR. DIXON: It was zoned for multi-family in King County
22 before it was annexed.
23 CHAIR ROLAND: Okay.
29 MR_ DIXON: The City Code—so, in the City Code section
25 related to the criteria for Comp Plan amendments, it
Northwest Transcribers (425)497-9760/(425) 337-5211 -fax 16
1 pro�ides that, "The Comprehensive Plan was developed and
2 adopted after signif3cant study and public participation.
3 The principles, goals, objectives, and policies contained '
4 herein shall be granted substantial weight when considering
5 a proposed amendment. Therefore, the burden of proof for
6 justifying a proposed amendment rests with the Applicant
7 who must demonstrate if the request complies with and/or
8 relates to the following criteria_ " And, it goes on to
9 provide that there' s generally five decision criteria for
10 Comprehensive Plan amendments. There is a sixth one that
11 applies in the instances of map changes. So, the Staff
12 Report steps through each of these criteria and provide_s an
13 analysis and Staff evaluation, and repeats the appropriate
14 sections of the City' s Comprehensive Plan that relate to
15 this. And, for purposes of presentation this evensng, I' d
16 like to summary some of that information.
17 So, these are the five criteria, and I' d like to step
18 through briefly a summary of those criteria.
19 The first one is that the change must further and be
20 consistent with the goals .and objectives of the Plan and
21 ensure that the Plan remain internally consistent. The
22 Staff Report steps through a comparison of this proposal to
23 the description of the intended designation, of the high-
24 density residential Comp Plan designation. It provides that
25 the high-density residential designation should be applied
Northwest Trenscribers (425)497-9760!(425) 337-5211 -fax 17
1 to those areas that are either now debeloped or are
2 reserved for multi-family development. The property is not
3 currently developed for multi-fam3ly residential, and there
4 has been no effort in the-and there' s no information in the.
5 Comprehensive Plan that indicates that this area' s reserved
6 for multi-family residential development.
7 The site and adjacent contiguous parcels are not at a
8 location that' s currently efficiently served with high-
9 capacity and high-quality public servicea and facilities .
10 Staff Report steps through that water/sewage/storm are
11 generally available in the vicinity, but also provides that
12 the road is not fully improved at the present time. It
13 would have to be improved both along the frontage of this
19 parcel and other parcels to fully be developed to City
15 standard. It's designated as a local residential street,
16 not typically the type that' s supposed to carry large
17 volumes of vehicle traffic. But, they d3d look at the
18 amount of development that could take place under this Comp
19 Plan designation and the amount of zoning, and determined
20 that it generally. doesn' t rise to the level that it would
21 necessitate a traffic impact analysis study. But, you also
22 have to look at kind of the cumulative impacts. If the case.
23 is being made for changing this designation of this parcel
24 and other parcels adjacent were granted the same type of
25 thing, what would be the impacts of that kind of cumulative
Northwest Transcribers (425)497-9760/(425) 337-5211 -fax 18
1 change? So, it' s Staff' s position that the first criteria
2 is not met by this request.
3 The first criteria also was addressed by Chapter 3, Land
9 Use, of the City' s Comprehensive Plan, and specifically at
5 Pages 13-12 under the section, "Residential Development. "
6 The plan emphasizes the City should prioritize singTe-
7 family residential development over other forms of
8 residential development, and that residential land policies
9 will emphasize the creation and preservation of singTe-
10 family residential neighborhoods . So, the City' s
11 Comprehensive Plan does provide some policy guidance that
12 single-family residential and single-family development is
13 given a priority over multi-family, and specifically Land
14 Use Policy 19 found in Chapter 3. In applying the land use
15 designations to the Comprehensive Plan, first consideration
S6 shall be designating an area for single-family residential
17 development. That is the designation this property already
18 has, but chanqing it to a different designation would not
19 be consistent with this guidance.
20 And, later on the City' s Comprehensive Plan in
21 Chapter 14, which is entitled "Comprehensive Plan Map, " the
22 City' s Comprehensive Plan has a discussion specifically of
23 this legal area that was prompted by the issues raised at
24 annexation. The City recognizes that the City had been
25 concerned for years about the rapid growth taking place
Northwest Transcribers (428) 497-9760/(425) 337-5291 -fax 19
1 within the Lea Hill potential annexation area, and the
2 additional traffic congestion that was happening as a
3 result of the rapid growth of the area and specifically the
4 rapid growth of multi-family development. The Auburn City
5 Council envisioned retaining the predominantly single-
6 family residential character of the Lea Hill area and
7 sought to stem the trend of the rapid development of multi-
6 family and protect single-family areas within the Lea Hill
9 community.
10 So, for the reasons of the guidance provided in the
11 Comprehensive Plan it is the Staff' s analysis that the
T2 proposal does not meet that first criteria. I' d like to
13 step through some of the other criteria.
14 The second is whether capacity to provide adequate
15 services is diminished or increased in a negative way. As I
16 mentioned earlier, in the review of the proposal there was
17 generally sufficient utilities, water, sewer, and storm in
18 the adjacent roadway that could serve the planned
19 development. There was noted that there was a deficiency in
20 a nearby intersection of 124th and 304th in a.m. peak hour,
21 but that there is a planned improvement for that
22 intersection contemplated for 2016 that would rectify that
23 problem by a project the City already has planned.
24 The third criteria is that the assumptions upon which
25 the Comprehensive Plan are based are found to be invalid..
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760%(425).337-5211 -fax 20
1 And, Staff could not find any reason for the assumptions of
2 the Comprehensive Plan to be invalid that would support
3 this proposal. And, ' there weren' t any offered by the
4 Applicant as well. So, it's Staff' s assertion that the
5 criteria is not being met in this case.
6 The fourth criteria is that there is a change or lack of
7 change in the conditions or circumstances which has
8 occurred since the adoption of the latest amendment to the
9 Plan that drives . the need or dictates the need for the
10 proposed amendment. Again, Staff did not f-ind that there
11 had been any change or lack of change that generates the
12 need for the requested map amendment. The City continues to
13 promote single-family residential development and to seek
14 the infrastructures provided concurrently with that
15 deuelopment and to ensure that single-family residential
16 charactei of the Lea Hill area is maintained. So, again,
. 17 Staff was finding that this criteria is not met..
1B' The fifth criteria is, if applicable, that the change
19 maintains the consistency with the Growth Management Act
2-0 and regional guidance like the Vision 2020 and other
21 comprehensive county-wide planning policies. Oftentimes
22 those polices are such a broad scope that they don' t
23 influence decisions on a parcel-specific basis, and that' s
29 kind of the circumstance here, that while the project was
2'S not inconsistent with any of those plans, it' s a different
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760/(425) 337-5211 -fax 21
1 level of detail or different level of scale, so they really
2 didn' t come into play.
3 The sixth criteria that' s addressed in your Staff Report
4 is one that' s applicable only to map amendments_ And, it
5 requires that it meet one of three circumstances, and one
6 of those circumstances is that the change has to be similar
7 or compatible with a designation of an adjacent property.
8 And in this case, since there is properties adjacent that
9 at the time of the annexation were already developed for '
10 multi-family and were assigned a high-density residential
11 designation, there is properties adjacent with the same
12 designation being requested pursuant to the application
13 this evening.
14 So, on the basis of the findings of the Staff Report and
15 the analysis provided, the Staff is recommendsng that the
16 Planning Commission recommend to the City Council denial of
17 this proposal. I' ve kind of gone through the substantial
18 analysis quickly. And, if there' s any questions the
19 Commission has, I' d be happy to answer any of those. ,And, I
20 have some additional-if the graphics on the screen are not
21 clear, I' ve got some of those same boards available in a
22 hard copy for closer inspection if that would help the
23 Commission.
24 CHAIR ROLAND: I have a question. In the initial
25 paperwork that we were given a few days ago, on Page 4 of
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760!(425) 337-5211 -fax 2 2
1 15 under the Staff analysis, there is a chart set out, and
2 it-
3 MR. DIXON: Yes.
4 CHAIR ROLAND: -talks about the properties-the site
5 property and northeast and so on and so forth. Because'
6 you've corrected this on bhis memo that we were handed
7 tonight, how does that affect this chart? And, I see on a
8 couple of them, one of them it talks about single-family
9 and multi-family being under an R-5 to the east.
10 MR. DIXON: Right.
11 CHAIR ROLAND: So, can you please clarify that? And, use
12 the new-the corrected.
13 MR. DIXON: Okay. I don't know if that' s going to be most
14 helpful to try and point, or just to talk. This table in
I5 the Staff Report is a summary of the Comprehensive Plan
T6 designation, the zoning classification, and the existing
17 development on the properties of this site and the adjacent
18 properties. This does not take into account the scrivener' s
19 error and the need for the change because it was based upon
20 exactly the map as it had been approved.
21 CHAIR ROLAND: Uh-huh.
22. MR. DIXON: So, the changes reflected in that memo are
23 not reflected in this table.
24 CHAIR ROliAND: Okay. But, if you look at east-
25 MR. DIXON: Okay.
Northwest Transcribers (425)497-9760/(425) 337-5211 -fax 2 3
1 CHAIR ROLAND: If we look at east and we look at the
2 corrected one, then it is not single-family; it' s multi-
3 family..
9 MR. DIXON: Right . And that' s what-
5 GHAIR ROLAND: Is that correct?
6 MR. DIXON: Yes, that' s accurate because the Staff Report
7 is not-did not anticipate-
8 CHAIR ROLAND: Right.
9 MR. DIXON: -the need for this scrivener' s error.
10 CHAIR ROLAND: Right. So, when it states over here in the
11 existing land use and it says "single-family" and "multi-
12 family, " it is just multi-family then; is that correct?
13 MR. DIXON: Can you tell me which column-
14 CHAIR ROLAND: I' m still on the east, on the last one.
15 Unless you' re looking at the other-are you counting the
16 other five lots then also under that?
17 MR. DIXON.: Yes, yes, it is .
18 CHAIR ROLAND: So, okay. So, it is single-family-
19 MR. DIXON: Right. So, in terms of-
20 CHAIR ROLAND: -on-
21 MR. DIXON: -east of the Locke property, which is the
22 subject of the request this evening, immediately to the
23 east is a multi-family development w3thin the southern
24 part. There is a lonq narrow piece in the northern par,t
25 . that still has a sinqle-family residential designation.
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760/(425) 337-5211 -fax 2 4
1 CHAIR ROLAND: Okay.
2 MR. DIXON: And, then the properties beyond that closer
3 to 124th are single-family residential.
4' CHAIR ROLAND: Okay. Okay.
5 COMMISSIONER PEACE: And maybe I misheard your question, '
6 � but if you' re talking about existing land use, existing
7 land use is what the existing land use is. That-it is what
8 it is.
9 CHAIR ROLAND: Right.
10 COMMISSIONER PEACE: So, that-it would only be the
11 Comprehensive Plan designation that would change based on
12 this map.
13 CHAIR ROLAND: Right.
14 MR. DIXON: Correct.
15 CHAIR ROLAND: Right. I just wanted to be sure that-
16 COMMISSIONER PEACE: Yeah.
17 CHAIR ROLAND: -that I understood that correctly. So,
18 single-family is R-5; that means five residences can be put
19 on an acre.
20 MR. DIXON: Correct. The R-5 designation is the zoning.
21 category for five dwelling units per acre qenerally.
22 CHAIR ROLAND: Okay. And, the 20 is 20 per acre.
23 MR. DIXON: Yes.
24 CHAIR ROLAND: Yes _ Did' you have a question?
25 VICE-CHAIR CHAPMAN: Yeah, I had a quest3on. So, the
Northwest T�anscribers (425) 497-9760/(425)337-5211 -fax 25
1 property to the east then, it has a multi-family
2 development on it. And my question was, how many units per
3 acre ase on that property?
4 MR. DIXON: I don' t know the total number of units
5 developed on that piece of property.
6 CHAIR ROLAND: Maybe when the—
7 MR. HILL?: The Applicant has that information—
8 CHAIR ROLAND: Okay.
9 VICE-CHAIR CHAPMAN: Okay.
10 MR. HILL?: —and can respond to that.
11 CHAIR ROLAND: Okay. When—we' ll find out shortly.
�
12 Okay. Is there any other questions of Staff.
13 COMMISSIONER PEACE: Yeah, I had a question.
14 CHAIR ROLAND: Okay.
15 COMMISSIONER PEACE: So, to correct the error, is [sic]
16 that go through another Comprehensive Plan amendment
17 process?
18 MR. DIXON: No. We have consulted with our legal
19 department, and they' ve advised that we would not need to
20 address it through the Comprehensive Plan amendment
21 process, but it would need to be addressed in terms of
22 recordkeeping on the permanent record by the City Clerk' s
23 Office.
24 COMMISSIONER PEACE: Help me understand. So, does that
25 mean, you know, you've identified an error, and that was
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760/(425)337-5211 -fax 2 6
1 probably within the last couple days, I imagine, correct?
2 Or we—
3 CHAIR ROLAND: Recently.
4 COMMISSIONER PEACE; Recently.
5 MR. DIXON: Recently, yes.
6 COMMISSIONER PEACE: Okay. So, when does the change
7 happen? Does it happen automatically because you realized
8 it was an error, or is there a process that the City Clerk
9 has to get involved in that would change the map itself, or
10 maybe this is too detailed, but—
11 CHAIR ROLAND: No.
12 MR. HEID: Once-and, again, I'm going to jump in here
13 just to help out a little bit. In connection with the
14 scrivener' s error and when it was identified as an error,
75 fhat meant that the Planning Department had to come back—go
16 back and look at all the factors that were used and
17 employed in identifying the particular Comprehensi�e Plan
18 mapping designations. When it was discovered' that this was
19 an error, including looking at all those, the error was
20 corrected once it was identified as an error. It doesn' t
21 require any need to go back to the City Council or to the
22 Planning Commission to correct an error so long as it can
23 be determined that it was, in fact, an error.
29 COMMISSIONER PEACE: So, bottom line is it' s corrected
25 today.
Northwest Transcnbers (425)497-9760/(425) 337-5211 -fax 2 7
1 MR. HEID: Actually, it' s corrected as soon as it' s
2 identified, and the Clerk-
3 COMMISSIONER PEACE: Okay.
4 MR. HEID: -now has the responsibility of making sure
5 that it' s implemented in terms of the new mapping printing.
6 COMMISSIONER PEACE: Okay. Thank you.
7 CHAIR ROLAND: Go ahead.
8 VICE-CHAIR CHAPMAN: I have a question. There' s a
9 development that' s west of the subject property, and it' s
10 on the south side of Southeast 310th. There' s a cul-de-sac.
11 with a number of properties in that area. I was just
12 wondering what single-family residential designation those
13 properties have.
14 CHAPR ROLAND: That' s on Page 5 of the 15 that we
15 originally were given. We' ve got so many sets of bhings
16 here, it' s kind of-it' s the page right after the chart that
17 we were just looking at.
18 MR. DIXON: Okay. You were saying that south of the
19 property and south of 310-
20 VICE-CHAIR CHAPMAN: West of the property-
21 MR. DIXON: Okay.
22 VICE-CHAIR CHAPMAN: -south of 310 there' s a development
23 that has, I don' t know, 20, 25 properties-
24 MR. DIXON: Right.
25 VICE-CHAIR CHAPMAN: -in the development. I was just
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760/(425) 337-5211 -fax 2 8
1 wondering what designation those properties would be
2 assigned. Because of the size of the parcels-
3 MR. DIXON: Uh-huh.
4 VICE-CHAIR CHAPMAN: -I was just wondering-I mean, those
5 are smaller than five units per acre.
6 MR. DIXON: Right,.,
7 VICE-CHAIR CHAPMAN: I was wondering if they were seven
8 units per acre-`cause they are in the yellow designation
9 single-family.
10 MR. DIXON: Right.
11 VICE-CHAIR CHAPMAN: I was just wondering the size of the
12 parcels in that development and how that would relate to
13 five units per acre.
14 MR. DIXON: Yeah. Because the County had different zoning
15 designations, and some of these properties were deveIoped
16 under County standards before they came into the city, some,
17 of the, you know, lot size minimums were not exactly the
18 same as the City standards for. lot size minimums for the
19 subdivisions. I don' t know the size of the lots in that
20 particular subdivision, which I belieue you' re referring to
21 as that kind of right-handed cul-de-sac that comes off of
22 Southeast 310? But, yeah, that may have lot sizes that are
23 smaller than the City's R-5 designation, but that was bhe
24 closest designation that made sense in the City' s
25 classification in the City' s hierarchy of zoning
Northwest Transcribers(425) 497-9Z60/(425) 337-5211 -fax 2 9
1 classifications applicable to the property. But, 'it may be
2 developed to a standard that they have smaller lot sizes
3 than could have been allowed if they were developed
4 consistent with the City' s R-S standards.
5 CHAIR ROLAND: And, when you say ��they, " you mean King
6 County.
7 MR. DIXON: Or the property owner.
8 CHAIR ROLAND: Oh.
9 MR. DIXON: They—they were developed to a County standard
10 that may be—
11 CHAIR ROLAND: Right, right.
12 MR. DIXON: —not exactly the same as the City' s—
13 CHAIR ROLAND: Right, right. That' s what I meant.
14 MR. DIXON: —designation.
15 CHAIR ROLAND: The King County standard:
16 MR. DIXON: Right.
17 CHAIR ROLAND: Yeah. I think maybe this is—Dan, you might
16 have to answer this . I'm wondering why the-not why the
19 error—the error was found. I'm wondering why the people
20 that are in the area shouldn't be notified of this by some
21 sort of a .mailinq or a notice posted or something that
22 there' s been an error for seven years or whatever on the
23 map. And, because other people around there may want to do
24 something with their property, and if they think that that
25 was, you know—
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760!(425) 337-5211 -fax 3 0
1 MR. HEID: Well, it .certainly could happen. If you' re
2 asking me whether that is legally required, it is not. And,
3 if it' s something that could be done easily, it might not
9 be a bad idea to do it.
5 CHAIR ROLAND: Uh-huh.
6 MR. HEID: But, if your question is, is this .legally
7 required-
8 CHAIR ROLAND: Yeah.
9 MR. HEID: -no, it is not.
10 CHAIR ROLAND: Okay.
11 MR. HEID: And, the only thing I can say is, again, when
12 the question of whether it was an error to start with was
13 being addressed, the City had to come up with those reasons
19 that show that it was an error rather than just a change of
15 direction at this point. And, so it wouldn' t have made any
16 difference perhaps. It would have perhaps come to light
17 sooner had somebody focused attention to it . But,. it
18 wouldn' t have changed anything once it was recognized as an
19 error.
20 CHAIR ROLAND: Uh-huh. Well, you know, I was just
21 thinking that to the west, if that has been designated all
22 along that that was-that could be multi-family, and then to
23 the east is already multi-family because it' s built upon-
24 MR. HEID: Well, and-
25 CHAIR ROLAND: -you know, it seems like-
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760/(425) 337-5211 -fax 31
1 MR. HEID: It would—
2 CHAIR ROLAND: —it might be kind of mixed up for the
3 neighborhood.
4 MR. HEID: It wouldn' t be a bad idea to communicate that.
5 But, the zoning did have it correct, and that inconsistency
6 is probably one of the factors that points to the fact that
7 it was an error for the zoning to be one and the Comp Plan
8 to be another, which were essentially plugged into the
9 City' s system at the same time. Again, it was—the question
10 of whether it was an error was addressed independently of
11 whether or not this project should go one way or the other.
12 And, it was looked at in terms of what factors went into
13 the decision-making and what factors would have contributed
14 to the ultimate layout of the mapping.
15 CHAIR ROLAND: Uh-huh.
16 MR. HEID: And, personally, I don't know that it' s
17 something that we need to worry about if it' s; in fact,
18 shown to be an error. And that doesn' t mean it' s not a bad
19 idea to—
20 CHAIR ROLAND: Uh-huh. Well, what if the—
21 MR. HEID: —identify that.
22 CHAIR ROLAND: —zoning is in error and the R-5 is
23 correct, or the R-20?
24 MR. HEID: Except it wasn' t. It could have been the other
25 way around, too.
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760/(425) 337-5211 -fax 32
1 CHAIR ROLAND: Yeah.
2 MR. HEID: But, looking at the factors that were plugged
3 in to identify those things, it clearly showed that one
9 piece of property is single-family and the other one is
5 multiple-family, and clearly the purposes of the
6 Comprehensive Plan would have been accomplished more
7 correctly were the zoning and the Comprehensive Plan
8 consistent—were the Comprehensive Plan consistent with what
9 the zoning map shows . And that actually was one of the big
10 factors that points to the fact that it was a scrivener' s
11 error.
12 CHAIR ROLAND: Thank you.
I3 MR. HEID: Thank you.
19 CHAIR ROLAND: Okay. Jeff, go ahead.
15 MR. DIXON: I don' t think there' s anything more, but I'm
16 happy [sic] to answer questions—
17 CHAIR ROLAND: Okay. Okay.
18 MR. DIXON: —the Commission has.
19 CHAIR ROLAND: Any further questions of Staff before I
20 open the public hearing?
21 [No response. ]
22 CHAIR ROLAND: All right. I am going to open the public
23 hearing on this Comprehensive Plan map amendment,
24 Fi1e 12-0003. And, I see we have a couple of people up here
25 at the front table already. Would you please identify
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760/(425) 337-5211 -fax 3 3
1 yourself for us and give us your thoughts on this.
2 MR. HILL: Okay. Commissioner Roland, my name is
3 Rich Hill. I'm counsel for the Applicant. Address, 701
9 Fifth Avenue in Seattle.
5 CHAIR ROLAND: Uh-huh.
6 MR. BERMAN: My name is Eli Berman. I'm a personal real
7 estate broker with Skyline Properties, agent for the
8 Applicant who submitted the application.
9 CHAIR ROLAND: Okay. And, tell me your name again? l '
10 MR. BERMAN: Eli-
11 CHAIR ROLAND: Eli.
12 MR. BERMAN: -Berman.
13 CHAIR ROLAND: Herman?
14 MR. BERMAN: Berman, B-
15 CHAIR ROLAND: Berman.
16 MR. BERMAN: -as in boy-
17 CFiAIR ROLAND: Okay.
18 MR. BERMAN: -E-R-M-A-N.
19 CHAIR ROLAND: Okay. I always like to write them down so
20 that I have-
21 MR. BERMAN: Sure, thank you.
22 CHAIR ROLAND: All right. Go ahead.
23 MR. HILL: Okay.
24 CHAIR ROLAND: Rich, are you speaking first?
25 MR. HILL: I'm going to kind' of set the stage, turn it
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760/(425) 337-5211 -fax 39
1 over to Mr. Berman, and then I' ll address the criteria
2 under the ordinance for a Comprehensive Plan map amendment.
3 ' CHAIR ROLAND: Okay. Okay.
4 MR. HILL: Before I get started, Commissioners, let me
5 just say I'm scratching my head a little bit about the
6 scrivener' s error. Tonight is the first time we've heard
7 about the scrivener' s error. As I'm sure you noticed in the
8 memorandum I submitted, the memorandum discussed the fact
9 that the parcel to the west was identified on the
10 Comprehensive Plan map as multi-family residential. It has
11 been since 2007, apparently. It apparently was that map
12 that had that parcel designated multi-family residentia_1
13 was the map attached to the ordinance that was adopted by
14 the Council adopting the Comprehensive Plan and the
15 Comprehensive Plan map: So, I'm scratching my head a littTe
16 bit about how a memo from a planner, although I know
T7 Mr. Dixon is in good faith, but how a memo from a planner
18 to a City Clerk can change a Comprehensive Plan map that
19 was adopted by the City Council and has been the official
20 map for five years.
21 So, I do—from my experience in other jurisdictions,
22 whether—and I have no reasons to doubt Mr. Heid' s legal
23 analysis, but my experience in other jurisdictions is when
29 there is a scrivener error like that, what happens is that
25 an ordinance is proposed to the City Council to correct the
Northwest Trans ' - - I
cnYers (425) 497 97G�/(425) 337-5211 fax 35
1 map; it isn' t something that' s just done by a planner
2 sending a memo to the City Council. In particular, as
3 Commissioner Roland pointed out, this is a map that has
9 been relied on and understood by the community for five
5 years . So, it seems a little abrupt, especialiy since we' re
6 at a hearing right now tonight on an application where this
7 is a fairly significant fact to all of a sudden have a
8 planner write a memo to the Council changing the map.
9 But, with that introduction, I'm just going to leave
10 that with the Planning Commission, and the Planning.
11 . Commission can certainly deal with that with Staff as the
12 Planning Commission deems appropriate. But, I would suggest
13 that the Planning Commission at least consider suggestinq
14 to Staff that it be a matter addressed to the City Council.
15 Because, what we have here is Staff apparently just
16 concluding from reviewing the record that what the
17 legislative intent was five years ago of a council about
18 where the map should' be, there' s no citation to the
19 legislative record, there' s no cstatson to any policies .
20 So, I'm just scratching my head about it. So, with that, I
21 appreciate your patience in considerinq those thoughts.
22 What-we are here tonight with respect to the request to
23 re-designate a single-family designated parcel under the
24 City's Comprehensive Plan to hiqh-density residential. The
25 reason why is that this single-family designated parcel is
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760/(425) 337-5211 -fax 36
1 wedged between three already developed multi-family parcels
2 in an area that was designated on the Comprehensive Plan
3 generally that node around 312th and 124th for multi-
9 family, high-density, light commercial deveTopment. The
5 City' s Comprehensive Plan-and we' ll go through it in a few
6 moments. The City' s Comprehensive Plan identifies areas for
7 high-density residential development as being appropriate
$ in areas of existing high-residential density development.
9 That' s what the situation is here. The City' s Comprehensive
10 Plan specifically identifies that single-family deuelopment
11 is appropriate in aieas of single-family development.
12 That' s not what we have here. Accordinqly, as just as an
13 introductory matter, we heard to the Council that the
19 Commission consider recommending approval of this request.
15 As I mentioned, in our presentation tonight we' re going
16 to do two things. First, Mr. Berman will describe the
17 property and its vicinity, the uses, the transportation
18 infrastructure, the availability of open space and
19 amenities. When Mr. Berman is done, then I will review the
20 applicable criteria for a Comprehensive Plan map change,
21 explain how Mr. Locke' s request meets each of those.
22 criteria. At any time we' re obviously available for
23 questions.
24 I think Mr. Chapman had a question that we were ready to
25 answer relating to the density of one of the adjacent
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760/(425)337-5211 -fax 37
1 developments. And maybe Mr. Berman could just start off
2 with that.
3 MR. BERMAN:: Yeah_ So, directly to the east of the
4 subject property is a second phased Pasa Fino Apartments..
5 It was originally developed to the south of. the property.
6 And, they added a second phase a few years ago, adding
7 another 19 units . So, there' s currently 19 units to the
8 east of the subject. Okay?
9 All right. Well, thank you, Rich. And, good evening. I
10 appreciate your consideration with this_ As I said before,
11 my name is Eli Berman; I'm a commercial broker with Skyline
12 Properties. And I am representing on behalf of the
13 Applicant, William and Amy Locke. Mr. Locke is a xetired
19 contractor who lives in Bellevue. His daughter just
15 graduated from Seattle University. And, he purchased the
16 subject property in 2005. He purchased it as a part of his
17 retirement planning. At that time, it was a part of
18 unincorporated King County, and it was zoned high-density
19 residential. The zoning consisted of two densities. About
20 the southern third of it was designated R-12, and the upper
21 two-thirds, northern two-thirds, of the property was
22 designated R-18 . But, then in 2008 when this property was
23 annexed into the city, it was designated as .single-family
24 residential .
2'5 When we look at the property, as Rich touched on, and
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760/(425) 337-5211 -fax 38
1 look at the Comprehensive Plan, the property to the west is
2 high-density residential, the property to the north is
3 high-density resident3al. There is currently zoning of R-20
4 to the east, and a development, as I just mentioned, of the
5 Pasa Fino Apartments. And, the properties to the south are
6 also high-density residential. So, when he originally
7 looked at the property and assessed what the basis was for
8 a Zone Plan amendment, and the basis was put in the
9 application, we thought it was clear that the property
TO should have been designated as high-density residential,
11 and it was not designated as high-density residential
12 simply as a mistake, as an error.
13 So, to further discuss the surrounding neighborhood and
14 get a better sense of the property, if you could please
15 look at the photos we included for you. So, starting on the
16 first page, there is a picture of the second phase of Pasa
17 Fino Apartments. It' s directly east of the subject, and
18 it's zoned R-20. It was developed with 19 apartment units .
19 Now, the second picture there is a picture of the
20 property directly to the west of the subject . According to
21 the comprehensive map at the time of our application and up
22 to the point of this hearing, our understanding was—and I
23 would contend that I continue to believe that the
29 Comprehensive Plan is high-density residential for R-20.
25 CHAIR ROLAND: And that is a single-family home on that
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760/(425) 337-5211 -fax 3 9
1 currently.
2 MR. BERMAN: And, that' s a single-family home on that
3 currently, yes .
9 CHAIR ROLAND: Okay. Thank you.
5 MR. BERMAN: Now, across 310th Street to the southeast,
6 that is a picture of further high-density according to the
7 Comprehensive Plan, and it' s improved by VilTage Square,
8 which is a 94-unit condominium/townhome project. And the
9 picture below that is to the south across 310th Street, and
10 that is the original phase of Pasa Fino Apartments, which
11 was a 147-unit project_.
12 MR. HILL: So, Mr. Berman, together the two phases are
13 how many units?
14 MR. BERMAN: So, together the two phases are 166 units.
15 Now, the subject property which has been referenced to the
16 north-or, excuse me, the property to the north of . the
17 subject, which we reference as hiqh-density residential
18 according to the Comprehensive Plan map, is called Cedar
19 Ridge Apartments . And, you can see in the Comprehensive.
20 Plan that' s all designated high-density residential. It' s
21 accessed off of 124th. It abuts the subject directly to the
22 north. And that is another 48 units of apartment complex.
23 Now, if you continue to look in these pictures, the next
24 page, part of the Pasa Fino Apartments, the picture at the
25 top of the page, is a private park as a part of the
NoRhwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760/(425)337-5211 -fax 4 0 I
1 apartment complex. It provides some additional open space
2 to the area. And, then the rest of these pictures gives a
3 better layout and understanding of access, visibility of
4 the property, and ability to absorb increased capacity of
5 traffic. So, this picture on the bottom of the page is
6 facing east down Southeast 310th Street from the subject
7 towards 124th Avenue. And you' ll notice that there is a 60-
8 foot right-of-way. That right-of-way is improved with two
9 lanes of traffic. Each side is improved with curbs,
10 gutters, and sidewalks. And I verified this informat3on
11 just today with Amber Mudd [sic] , who is in the Public
12 Works Department, and she confirmed that Southeast 310th
13 Street has 60-foot of right-of-way leading up to the
14 subject property and past the subject property farther east
15 along Southeast 310th Street.
16 VICE-CHAIR CHAPMAN: Question for you.
17 MR. BERMAN: Sure.
18 VICE-CHAIR CHAPMAN: Quickly. I'm looking at the bottom
19 picture. It says "facing east down 310th. "
20 MR. BERMAN: Uh-huh.
21 UICE-CHAIR CHAPMAN: So, is this from the corner of the
22 subject property looking, like, where that walkway is and
23 the next driveway? Is that on the property where there' s
29 the 19 units, or is that actually the subject property
25 there?
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760/(425) 337-5211 -fax 41
1 MR. BERMAN: It' s at the eastern boundary of the subject
2 property.
3 VICE-CHAIR CHAPMAN: Okay. So, you' re looking-so, that
9 driveway might be going into those 19-unit apartments; is
5 that right?
6 MR. BERMAN: So, at the very front edge of the picture
7 you' ll see that yellow-
8 VICE-CHAIR CHAPMAN: Yeah.
9 MR. BERMAN: -curb. That' s the edge of the subject
10 property. And then if you look kind of towards the middle
11 of the picture on the left side there, that is the
12 driveway, the point of access, for the 19 units.
13 VICE-CHAIR CHAPMAN: Okay. Right. Thank you.
14 MR. BERMAN: Uh-huh. Then, following on the next page,
15 farther along-farther east towards 124th, you' ll see that
16 the 60-foot right-of-way continues . There is a gravel
17 shoulder Jeff Dixon referenced earlier in his testimony
18 that the [inaudible] property towards 124th is all single-
19 family. The zoning is designated as single-family. There is
20 one single-family home to the east of the Pasa Fino
21 Apartments. However, those three additional lots farther to
22 the east, two on their side and the one' s vertical up and
23 down, is simply vacant land; it' a unimproved. While it is
24' designated as single-family now, it is situated on two busy
25 roads. And based on my experience as a broker and how land
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760/(425) 337-5211 -fax 4 2
1 use comes together, I contend that it' s not likely that
2 someone' s going to develop single-family use for those
3 properties because they are situated on the corner of two
4 busy streets . That' s just a side note as a point of
5 reference that is contending with what the whole
6 neighborhood and the layout of the neighborhood is in the
7 Comprehensive Plan.
8 . So, then you can see the bottom of that page, that is a
9 picture of the property to the east of the Pasa Fino
10 Apartments, the remaining single-family home.
11 CHAIR ROLAND: So, are you saying the only sinqle-family
12 home .between the property, the Locke property, and 124th,
13 there' s only one single-family home there?
14 MR. BERMAN: Correct.
15 MR. HILL: You need to speak into the microphone..
16 MR. BERMAN: Correct, yeah, there' s only one single-
17 family home to the east between the subject property and
18 124th.
19 CHAIR ROLAND: And-
20 MR. BERMAN: Directly adjacent to it is the high-density
21 residential, the Pasa Fino Apartments, and the property one
22 over to the east of that is a single-family home.
23 CHAIR ROLAND: Do you happen to know if they' re ail owned
24. by the same person or are all-
25 MR. BERMAN: I can' t say for-
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760/(425) 337-5211'-fax 9 3
1 CHAIR ROLAND: -of those individually owned?
2 MR. BERMAN: I can' t tell you for certain, but if I
3 recollect correctly, they are not owned by the same
9 individual.
5 CHAIR ROLAND: Okay. Thank you.
6 MR. BERMAN: So, continuing along on the next page, this
7 top picture is in front of the subject property, facing
8 east down 310th Street . As referenced before, you can see
9 that there is a barricade which shows that the right-of-way
10 goes from 60 feet to 30 feet. However, there is a gravel
11 shoulder there. And then if you look towards the bottom of
12 the picture, there is a grill there for a storm water
13 detention vault. While it is true that any kind of high-
14 density residential development of the subject property
15 would require an increased right-of-way, it' s always been
16 my experience that that has done so as part of development
17 of the property. So, I would contend that having the
18 barricade there and the right-of-way narrowing from 30
19 feet-from 60 feet to 30 feet would be normal in this
20 situation. It would obviously be addressed as part of the
21 planning when actual plans were put forward to develop the
22 property.
23 The picture at the bottom of that page is now facing
24 west along 310th Street. It' s right at the beginning of the
25 property, so you can see where that sidewalk improvement
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760/(425) 337-5211 -fax 4 4
1 ends, and you can see better the barricade from the other.
2 perspective.
3 The photos on the next two pages gives some additional
4 perspective. I' d also like to add that there' s current fire
5 hydrant improvements on 310th Street abutting the subject
6 property. And you can see on the bottom of the page a
7 perspective from across the street towards the property.
8 MR. HILL: Mr. Berman; on the south side of 310th -across
9 from the property, are there curb, gutter, and sidewalk?
10 MR. BERMAN: Yes . So, on the south side across from the
11 property there' s curb, gutter, and sidewalk. That continues
12 further west down 310th Street past the subject property.
13 It runs along the front of the Pasa Fino Apartments and to
14 the edge of that property where there' s a park that was
15 previously referenced.
16 MR. HILL: Thank you.
17 MR. BERMAN: Uh-huh. And this last picture is just an
16 additional picture of the close-up of the storm water
19 detention vault that sits in front of the subject property.,
20 So, in addition, we' d like to demonstrate that we feel
21 there is proper access to the subject. 310th Street can be
22 accessed from 124th. There are two points of access to go
23 to the east to State Route 18 . And, this is obviously a
24 ma�or state route, as I'm sure you' re aware. State Route 18
25 allows for access down to downtown Auburn. It further
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760/(425) 337-5211 -fax 4 5
1 connects to State Route 167 . Alternatively, you can access
2 downtown Auburn from the subject if you travel south on
3 124th and then west on 312th, which becomes Lea Hill Road
4 and turns into downtown as well. I would contend that I' be
5 traveled this route several times in the last couple of
6 months, and in off-peak hours it' s only five minutes to
7 downtown, and even during rush-hour it' s 10 minutes.
8 Furthermore, there is adequate service of public
9 transit, Metro Transit. Routes 164, 181, excuse me, provide
10 access to the surrounding areas . Additionally, there is
11 substantial commercial shopping along 124th and 312th. So,
12 that intersection there provides commercial retail, gas
13 stations, restaurants along 312th both east and west of
14 124th, and a little bit of 312th both north and south of
15 124th.
16 There' s adequate schools in the area, and these schools
17 provide open space as well as parks. The sub�ect is walking
18 distance to three schooTs. You can even -see in the Comp
19 Plan map that we' ve been provided, Lea Hi11 .Elementary is
20 that big green square that' s directly east of the subject
21 on 129th. And, just to the northwest of the subject is a
22 larger parcel of property that provides two schools:
23 Hazelwood Elementary and Rainier Middle School . Auburn
29 Mountainview High School is only a five-minute drive north
25 on 124th Avenue. And, Green River Community College is less
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760/(425) 337-5211 -fax 4 6
1 than a mile south on 124th; which is just about a three-
2 minute drive. Just north of this community college is Lea
3 Hill Park, and a little ways west of Lea Hill Park is
4 Auburndale Park on 108th Avenue Southeast. So, we feel
5 there' s significant access to the local school system.
6 There' s significant access to local parks . And, in addition
7 to this, you know, I would argue with my experience as a
8 real estate broker that the open spaces, the access to
9 school, the easy access to local state routes, the
10 visibility of the project all support our current proposed
11 high-density residential development .
12 You know, I would also say that in my experience a
13 property like this, if it' s not planned for a good
14 designation or a thoughtful planning, you won' t see
15 continued development of that property. I don' t think it' s
16 suitable for single-family residential. It' s an island in a
17 sea of high-family residential. Likely in the future the
18 property-I've seen similar instances where property like
19 that won' t be mainta3ned and will become dilapidated: And
20 investors aren' t going to want to put the money into
21 puttinq a single-family residential plat in the middle of
22 all these apartment buildings. The fit and feel just isn' t
23 quite right for someone looking to buy a home.
24 And, with that being said, I' d like to turn it over to
25 Rich, who' s going to further discuss [inaudible] .
NortFiuvest Transcnbers (425) 497-9760!(425) 337-5211 -fax 47
.
1 MR. HILL: Thank you, Commissioners. I appreciate your
, .
2 atience, and I 11 tr to be brief. I won t go through in
P Y
3 detail all of the analyses set forth in the .memorandum, but
4 I do want to hit the high points. I thsnk Mr. Dixon did a
5 very good job of identifying the criteria that need to be
6 demonstrated by an applicant, and we acknowledge the
7 Applicant here does have the burden of proof. The Applicant
8 has the burden of proof to demonstrate that a number of
9 criteria are met before this Comprehensive Plan map change
10 can be approved. Let me just walk you through each of the
11 criteria and' explain to you why from the Applicant' s
12 perspective those criteria are more than met.
13 The first, and I think by far the most important of the
14 criteria, is that the proposed change has to be consistent
15 with the Comprehensive Plan. And, I think Mr. Dixon in his
16 Staff Report did a good job of culling out of the
17 Comprehensive Plan the key Comprehensive Plan provisions
18 that are applicable to your consideration of this request.
19 And, with due respect to Mr_ Dixon, the Applicant �ust very
20 stronqly disagrees with the conclusions Mr. Dixon has
21 reached. In fact, the Applicant believes that looking at
22 these Comprehensive Plan prouisions in light of the facts
23 that Mr. Berman has just testified . to leads to the
24 conclusion that sinqle-family designation is just plain not
25 appropriate for the site, that hiqh-density designation is.
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760/(425) 337-5211 -fax 9 8
1 At 14-6 of the Comprehensive Plan, it states, ��This
2 category shall be applied"-shall be applied-"to those areas
3 which areas which are either now developed or are reserved
9 for multiple-family dwellings, " okay? So, as a look at the
5 Comprehensive Plan map and the aerial photo shows-and we've
6 attached those to our memorandum-the area in which the
7 Locke property is located is a node of high-density and',
8 light commercial development centered around the
9 intersection of Southeast 312th Street and 124th. And, I
10 apologize; I have a typo in my memorandum; I kept saying
11 "29th.." So, forgive me for that; I meant 124th.
12 The area surrounding Mr. Locke' s property is already
13 developed, as you' ve heard, with multiple-family dwellings
14 on three sides, on three sides. And as we understood untiT
15 a moment ago, and the west was designated to receive
16 multiple-family dwellings. But, even if that was in error;
17 the fact that the surrounding area is all multiple-family
18 and it' s in a node of multiple-family and high-density, we
19 feel that the sentence, "this category shall be applied to
20 those areas which are now developed as multiple-family
21 dwellings" should lead the Planning Commission to recommend
22 approval of this request .
23 The Staff Report at Page 8 incorrectly argues that this
24 provision requires that the subject property itself be
25 developed or reserved for high-density res3dential, but
Northwest Transcribers (425)497-9760/(425) 337-5211 =fax 4 9
1 that, of course, is not the language of the Code. The Plan
2 speaks to the area, not the subject property.
3 There' s also-and I'm referring to Page 4 of my
9 memorandum. There' s an important paragraph from the Comp
5 Plan that Mr. Dixon appropriately ' refers to. And, it reads,
6 "In addition to areas already developed to this density"-
7 and our point is this area already is developed to this
6 density, so the rest of this is just extra, but "In
9 addition to areas already developed to this density, the
10 designation should be applied only to areas which have or
11 may be most efficiently served with high-capacity and high-
12 quality public services and facilities. " And I think that
13 Mr. Berman has indicated that there' s adequate
14 transportation capacity. There' s good schools. There' s good
15 open space. There' s close-by commercial nodes. There' s
16 transit service that meets that criterion. Of particular
17 concern is the provision of adequate traffic circulation.
18 And as the Staff Report indicates, your Public Works
19 Department has determined that this zoning designation is
20 appropriate in terms of traffic circulabion. The traffic
21 issues are not a reason to deny this application.
22 Other siting concerns include access ,to commercial
23 services and open space amenities. And, again, as
24 Mr. Berman testified, those amenities are availabTe.
25 This is an area, as I mentioned in my memorandum, it' s
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760/(425) 337-5211 -fax 5 0
1 approximately a 16-square block node surrounding, the 312th
2 and 24th [sic] intersection that includes light commercial,
3 that includes a school, that includes high-density
4 residential and moderate-density residential. It has
5 convenient access to the State Route, and it' s only 10
6 minutes from downtown-five to 10 minutes from downtown
7 Auburn.
8 The Staff Report suggests that the street itself
9 abutting the property is not an arterial, and that' s true;
10 it is not an arterial. But, again, the Comprehensive Plan
11 does not require; that the street abutting the use .be an
12 arterial; it rather requires it have access to arterials,
73 that there be adequate traffic circulation in the vicinity.
14 Okay.
15 The Staff Report also acknowledges that the area has
16 adequate fire facilities, and you saw the fire hydrant jusb
17 immediately adjacent to the site. So, in terms of what the
18 Comprehensive P.lan asks you to look at in terms of high-
19 density development, this site obviously meets it .
20 Let' s look at what the Comprehensive Plan says about
21 single-family development. And Mr. Dixon cites the key
22 provisions in his Staff Report, and those provisions are at
23 Page 19-3 of bhe Gomprehensive Plan. And the first line is,
24 "To designate and protect areas for predominantly single-
25 family dwellings. " And this is exactly what the City
Northwest Transcribers (425)497-9760/(425) 337-5211 -fax 51
1 Council did when it designated almost the entire Lea Hill
2 for single-family development; almost the entire annexation
3 area is single-family development. However, when you look
4 at the Comprehensive Plan map, the City Council identified
5 two areas that were appropriate for high-density
6 development. One of the areas is where Mr. Locke' s property
7 is located. There' s another area to the east. Since the
8 area surrounding Mr. Locke' s property is already developed
9 with multiple-family dwellings, this area isn' t appropriate
10 for the single-family designation.
11 On Page 5 of my memorandum I identified the following
12 sentence. `�This designation would not be generally
13 appropriate in the following areas: (2) areas developed in
14 or more appropriate under the Plan policies for another
15 use. " This area has been developed for mult_iple-family use.
16 So, because it' s been developed for multi-family use, and
17 your own Comprehensive Plan suggests that single-family
18 designation is not appropriate for it.
19 Next bullet, "The R-5 single-famiTy zone is intended to
20 be applied to the relatively undeveloped portions of the
21 city, areas where existinq development patterns are
22 consistent with the density, and upland areas where greater
23 densities would strain the transportation system. " Well, in
24 this case, this area of the city is developed. Development
25 patterns are not consistent with single-family density. And
Northwest Transcribers (425)497-9760/(425)337-5211 -fax 52
1 your own Public Works Depariment has indicated that this
2 development would hot strain the transportation system.
3 At 11-13, the Staff Report cites other pertinent plan
4 policies, and in particular, policies relating to the Lea
i '5 Hi11 annexation area. And, the quote—this is at the bottom
6 of Page 5 of my memorandum, "In applying the land use
7 designations of the Comprehensive Plan, the first
8 consideration shall be given to designating an area for
9 single-family residential use. Most of the undeveloped
10 areas of the community serving area shall be reserded for
11 ' single-family dwellings_ " And that is exactly what the
12 Council did when they designated Lea Hill area under its
13 Comprehensive Plan. Most of Lea Hill was reserved for
14 single-family dwellings, and you can see that on the plan
15 , map. Two areas were reserved for light commercial and
16 multiple-family. And, the Locke property is smack dab in
17 the middle of one of those areas. "Smack dab" is a legal
18 term.
T9 On Page 6, the fourth paragraph, I cite City policy
20 concerns relating to the time of the Lea Hill area
21 annexation. Quote, "The Auburn City Council envisions
22 retaininq the predominantly single-family character of the
23 Lea Hill area rather than allow the trend of rapidly-
24 developing multi-family projects to continue." And that is
25 exactly what the Council did when they designated Lea Hill.
Northwest Transcribers (425)497-9760/(425) 337-5211 -fax 5 3
1 The Council retained the lion' s share of Lea Hill as
2 single-family and identified only two nodes where higher
3 density were appropriate, higher-density development . And,
4 Mr. Locke' s property is in one of those nodes. The area in
5 which this property is not single-family in character; it
6 was not single-family in character at the time of
7 annexation. It' s multiple-family in character. If
8 Mr. Locke' s property is developed as multiple-family, it
9 will be in character. If it' s developed as singTe-family,
10 it will not be in character.
11 So, that' s Criterion 1 . "Does this request comply with
12 the Comprehensive Plan?" We believe we' ve done [inaudible]
13 that it does.
14 Next criterion, "Does the proposed change diminish the
15 ab3lity to provide adequate services?" Here, Mr. Dixon and
16 the Applicant are in agreement. The Staff Report indicates
17 that the change will not adversely affect the provision of
18 services. That criterion is met .
19 Third criterion, "Was the 2006 Comprehensive Plan
20 designation of the Locke property a single-family
21 erroneous?" Our view is that it was. And it' s
22 understandable. At the time of annexation, the Council was
23 looking at the entire Lea Hill area. Council was not
24 looking at site-specific annexation decisions. Had the
25 Council applied these policies to th3s specific parcel of
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760/(425) 337-5211 -fax 59
1 property, we believe that Counsel would have been obligated
2 under acting quasi-judicially, under its own adopted
3 policies, to designate it multiple-family, applying these
4 policies. The Council didn' t; that error should be
5 addressed appropriately in this request .
6 Next criterion, "Do circumstances dictate the need for
7 the proposed amendment?" Again, the Applicant believes
8 circumstances do. As Mr:. Berman testified, this property is
9 not appropriate for single-family development_ It' s wedged
10 in between three multi-family, large multi-family pro�ects.
11 Those circumstances dictate the need.
12 Next criterion, "IS the proposed amendment consistent
13 with GMA?" Here, again, Mr. Dixon and the Applicant are :in
14 agreement. It is consistent with GMA.
15 ' And, finally, does the proposed amendment satisfy the
16 sixth decision criterion, which is pertinent to map
17 amendments. And, aqain, Mr. Dixon and the Applicant are in
18 agreement. We do meet that criterion because the proposed
19 land use designation is adjacent to property having a
2-0 similar or compatible designation. Indeed it' s surrounded
21 on three sides by that designation.
22 We very much appreciate your time and attention. And,
23 we' re available to answer any questions you may have.
24 CHAIR ROLAND: Thank you. You gave us a Iot of good
,25 information. Commissioners, do you have questions of the
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760/(425) 337-5211 -fax 55
1 two individuals here?
2 COMMISSIONER RAMEY: I just want to clarify timeline-
3 MR. HILL: Okay.
9 COMMISSIONER RAMEY: -if you can hear me or not.
5 CHAIR ROLAND: Turn it on.
6 MR. HILL: I can.
7 COMMISSIONER RAMEY: Okay. So, Mr. Locke purchased the
8 land in 2005, and at that time it was designated as multi-
9 family, correct?
10 MR. HILL: Multi-family, correct.
11 COMMISSIONER RAMEY: Okay. And, then it was annexed by
T2 City-
13 MR. HILL: Uh-huh.
14 COMMISSIONER RAMEY: -and blanketed and said-
15 MR_ HILL: Single-family.
16 COMMISSIONER RAMEY: -the lion' s share of this is going
17 to be-or most I think is the word you used; I don' t know if
18 that' s the actual designation. But, in an effort to quell
19 multi-family development and differing opinions on that in
20 terms of blight and all those sorts of things, it went as
21 [sic] single-family. Then, now you' re looking to get it
22 back to-
23 MR. HILL: Multiple-family, correct.
24 CONIMISSIONER RAMEY: Got it, yes . Just want to understand
25 that.
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760/(425)33Z-5211 -fax 5 6
1 MR. HILL: Yes.
2 COMMISSIONER RAMEY: But, when he purchased it, it was
3 multi-family.
4 MR. HILL: Basically qetting back to where he was in
5 2005 .
6 COMMISSIONER RAMEY: Right, right.
7 CHAIR ROLAND: Ron?
8 COMMISSIONER COPPLE: The 2005 annexation changed the
9 property to single-family resident—
10 MR. BERMAN: Yes.
11 COMMISSIONER COPPLE: —based upon your testimony7
12 MR. BERMAN: Yes.
13 COMMISSIONER COPPLE: Why is it it' s now 2012, four years
14 later, that you' re now applying for this change to the Code
15 plan amendment maps versus back in 2006 when this change
16 actually occurred from your 2005 purchase?
17 MR. BERMAN: Well, I would contend that my client wasn' t
18 quite sure what [inaudible] would have to bring the
19 property back to high-density residential in 2008 . It
20 seemed like the world might be ending, so to speak. And,
21 there was no future need for a high-density residenbial.
22 You know, it was. an investment property for him. 2t was a
23 part of his retirement planning. And, you know, he did
24 always have the opinion that he wanted to regain what he
25 had lost. And, so, there was no immediate need to do so in
Northwest Transcribers (425)497-9760/(425)337-5211 -fax 57
1 2008; he didn' t have immediate pTans to sell the property.
2 But, it' s just a matter of, you know, eventually he needs
3 to get to regaining that lost investment.
4 COhIINISSIONER COPPLE: Another one quick .because th3s is a
5 serious issue for Mr. Locke. Where is Mr. Locke for this
6 evening' s hearing?
7 MR. BERMAN: Mr. Locke is in California. He had an intent
8 to originally attend the hearing. However, it' s been
9 rescheduled three times, and he had prior plans to visit
10 friends and family for the holiday.
11 COMMISSIONER BAGGETT: Just a comment, having—I live up
12 in that area, in that general area. And it was evident that
13 during the—just prior to the annexation that there was much
14 of the property that was multi-family or multi-use and
15 high-density. Probably the wrong choice of words to be
16 used, but there was a rush of trying to get things approved
17 by the King County prior to the annexation. And these
18 things were rushed through, and what you see is evident up
19 there right now in much of the high-density areas and also
20 the multi-use, multi-family. So, it' s just a point of order
21 that this was very evident during that timeframe. So,
22 whether that was to affect the annexation in some form,
23 we' re not sure, but it definitely did add a lot of value to
24 the people who owned that property at that time. So, just a
25 point.
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760/(425)337-5211 -fax 5 8
1 MR. BERMAN: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.
2 CHAIR ROLAND: Well, I thank you for stepping forward. I
3 don' t know; why don' t you—excuse me, are you folks planning
4 to testify? You are2 Okay_ Why don' t you just sit down:
5 And, if we have anything else that we need to—
6 MR. BERMAN: Thank you.
7 CHAIR ROLAND: —ask of you; we will—
8 MR. HILL: Thanks..
9 CHAIR ROLAND; Uh-huh. Would you folks—are you together
10 or two separate—are one of you testifying?
11 MS. BYARLAY: Yeah, representing separate properties,.
12 CHAIR ROLAND: Oh, okay. One at a time, why don' t you
13 come up and identify yourself and tell us what you' re
14 speaking to and—
15 MR. SMYTHE: Randy Smythe.
16 CHAIR ROLAND: Randy?
17 MR. SMYTHE: Yes.
18 CHAIR ROLAND: Okay. Randy.
19 MR. SMYTHE: Want my address?
20 CHAIR ROLAND: Please.
21 MR. SMYTHE: 12024 Southeast 310th Street .
22 CHAIR ROLAND: Okay.
23 MR. SMYTHE: So, I'm just a couple lots west of the
24 property we' re talking about here.
25 CHAIR ROLAND: Okay. So, you are where? You say west.
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760/(425) 337-5211 -fax 59
1 MR. SMYTHE: West. Well, directly west?
2 UNIDENTIFIED: I think I can even show you where the
3 piece of property is.
4 CHAIR ROLAND: Okay. Because we' re not aware of addresses
5 up there on the hill, so.
6 UNIDENTIFIED: Aren' t you right here?
7 MR. SMYTHE: Yes .
8 CHAIR ROLAND: So, you' re—
9 UNIDENTIFIED: So, he' s—so, the sub�ect property and then
10 intervening two parcels align together, and then he' s here.
11 CHAIR ROLAND: Okay.
12 MR. SMYTHE: That's right.
13 CHAIR ROLAND: Okay. All right. So, you reside on that
19 piece of property?
15 MR. SMYTHE: Yes.
16 CHAIR ROLAND: Okay. Okay, go ahead with your testimony.
17 MR. SMYTHE: Lived there since 1987, we built a house
18 there. Lot of changes in the neighborhood since then and,
19 you know, some of that just happens; it' s natural. But, I'm
20 obviously opposed to rezoninq that property. We just built
21 an ADU, mother-in-law, on our lot. So, just getting
22 finished; not quite done. But, we've kind of committed to
23 stayinq there. My wife' s mom is going to move in there. We
24 committed to staying there with the idea of what the
25 neighborhood' s going to be like, you know, what the zoning
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760/(425) 337-5211 -fax 60
1 already is, what it' s-you know, that it' s going to stay
2 that way, so. So, we don' t, you know, really want multi-
3 family moving closer and closer. I mean, I don' t know if
9 you let a rezone on that lot go through, then the next
5 lot' s going to say, well, gee, we' re right there, so we' d`
6 like to rezone. And then-I mean, how far does it go, you
7 know? And then I've already made a commitment, you know, to
8 stay there with our family. So, that' s one of my reasons :
9 Referring to 310th, you know, I know they talk about a
10 60-foot right-of-way. Maybe a 60-foot right-of-way, but
11 that street is pretty narrow. A lot of times there' s cars
12 parked on both sides. And it' s ultimately-it' s a one-lane
13 road sometimes.
14 CHAIR ROLAND: That' s the-
15 MR. SMYTHE: Sometimes-
16 CHAIR ROLAND: That' s the street that has part-sidewalk
17 on both sides?
18 MR. SMYTHE: It only has the sidewalk on both sides where
19 the second phase of the Pasa Fino is developed.
20 CHAIR ROLAND: Okay.
21 MR. SMYTHE: The rest of it' s sidewalk on the south side
22 and not much-just gravel on the other and-
23 CHAIR ROLAND: So, you enter your property off of 3-is
24 that 310th?
25 MR. SMYTHE: Yes .
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760/(425) 337-5211 -fax 61
1 CHAIR ROLAND: Okay. The writing is awfully little for
2 some.
3 MR. SMYTHE: Yeah.
4 CHAIR ROLAND: Okay.
5 MR. SMYTHE: Yeah. So, anyway—
6 COMMISSIONER PEACE: Sorry, so it' s—is it kind of a flag
7 lot so your driveway goes past that one propeity; is that
8 correct? Am I looking at the right one?
9 COMMISSIONER MALE 2: I think it' s the next one over. Oh,
10 wait, maybe that is . Sorry.
11 COMMISSIONER PEACE: So, but is your driveway—comes off
12 of 310th� is that correct?
13 MR. SMYTHE: Yes.
14 COMMISSIONER PEACE: So, it' s kind of a nairow driveway,
T5 and tlien your—
16 MR. SMYTHE: Yes.
17 COMMISSIONER PEACE: —property is back—okay.
18 MR. SMYTHE: Right.
19 COMMISSIONER PEACE: I' d call it a flag auto—it's l.ike a
20 flag pole?
21 MR. SMYTHE: Yes, yeah.
22 COMMISSIONER PEAGE: Yeah.
23 MR.. SMYTHE: Exactly.
24 COMMISSIONER PEACE: Okay. Gotcha.
25 MR. SMYTHE: Uh-huh. But, anyway, that road is sometimes
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760/(425) 337-5211 -fax 62
1 difficult for two cars to negotiate when you' re goin_g by
2 each other. Sometimes you have to kind of pull off and let
3 the other car qo by, and then continue on.
4 And, then referring to traffic, the traffic wasn' t bad;
5 it takes some 10 minutes to get to Auburn, three minutes to
6 Green River College. And, you know, a lot of times that' s
7 true. But, I don' t know if he' s ever been there in the
8 morning when Green River Community College is in session
9 and everybody' s try3ng to get their eight or nine o' clock
10 class, and the elementary school is starting up there up at
11 Lea Hill Elementary. It' s-you know, different times of day
12 does make a difference, so.
13 And, then also just to add on about Mr. Locke, I dori' t
14 know. I went through the whole annexation process and
15 stuff. I wasn' t sure-I had mixed feelings about being
16 annexed' and stuff and mixed feelings about what the. zoning
17 change was going to do to us when it went from multiple-
18 family, which we were also part of that. I don't remetnber
19 exactly what we were; we might have been R-18 or somebhing
20 like that or-but, anyways, ours changed also, you know.. I
21 had mixed feelings about that, but it changed. The City
22 made their decision on what it was. And, you know, so-so,
23 you know, we went with that; we stuck with it. But, I
24 don' t-I don' t know-I went to a lot of the hearings and
25 meetings and stuff like that, maybe not all of them. And, I
Northwest Transcribers (425)497-9760/(425) 337-5211 -fax 63
1 don' t know if Mr. Locke was involved in that at the time. I
2 mean, we were heard and stuff, and we said what we-what our
3 opinion was at the time. And, I don,' t know if that wasn' t
4 his-more of the time for him to address this than now
5 anyway.
6 And one more thing: As far as the perception of the
7 zoning or the property just west of the one they want to
8 change the zoning-
9 CHAIR ROLAND: Uh-huh. The error? The error lot?
10 MR. SMYTHE: The error.
11 CHAIR ROLAND: Okay.
12 MR. SMYTHE: The scrivener' s error.
13 CHAIR ROLAND: Right.
14 MR. SMYTHE: This meeting, coming to this meeting today,
15 and I looked at this map, you know, and my neighbor, and we
16 looked at that, and we says, well, what the heck is that,
17 you know? That' s not multi-family. And, this is the first
18 I've known that it was multi-family. So, just my take on
19 it. As far as I'm concerned, it' s always been a single-
20 family dwelling zoning just like the rest of the property
21 around it, ours included.
22 So, that' s all I' ve qot.
23 CHAIR ROLAND: Okay. Thank you, Randy.
24 COMMISSIONER RAMEY: Thanks. Could I ask a question of
25 you, Randy, real fast? How long have you lived there?
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760/(425) 337-5211-fax 64
1 MR. SMYTHE: Since 1987..
2 COMMISSIONER RAMEY: ' 87. Thank you.
3 MR. SMYTHE: Uh-huh.
4 CHAIR ROLAND: Please identify yourself.
5 MS. BYARLAY: Good afternoon.
6 CHAIR ROLAND: Name and address. .
7 MS. BYARLAY: My name is Kristi Byarlay, and I live at
8 12116 Southeast 310th Street.
9 CHAIR ROLAND: Which is where?
10 MS. BYARLAY: [Inaudible] . Right here.
11 CHAIR ROLAND: Okay. Can you show us on this?
12 MS. BYARLAY: Yeah. This little half-acre right there.
13 CHAIR ROLAND: Okay.
14 MS. BYARLAY: Next to this property.
15 CHAIR ROLAND: Okay. Next door to Randy.
16 MS. BYARLAY: Yes.
17 CHAIR ROLAND: Okay. Kristi is your name?
18 MS. BYARLAY: Uh-huh.
19 CHAIR ROLAND: Okay. Okay_ Go ahead, Kristi.
20 MS. BYARLAY: All right. So, there was something
21 mentioned, and now I don' t remember by who—about permits
22 being sought currently for more multi-family—a request by
23 an adjacent property. Is that happening in that area? No,
24 okay. Okay. Just wanted to clear that up.
25 So, a couple of my—wha£ I' d like to address is the
Noithwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760/(425) 337-5211 -:fax 65
1 cumulative portion of this if-I completely understanding
2 the mistake and understanding, thinking that the lot was ,
3 surrounded by multi-family when, you know, there was an
4 error on the west and on the east. So, where my concern
5 lies is it is, well, a majority single-family; this is a
6 single-family neighborhood down 310th Street ali the way
7 down this street except for the little bit of the Pasa Fino
8 Apartments. We' re directly affected by the Cedar Ridge
9 Apar,tments that are right behind us. And, we were also
10 involved in trying to not have those be built because of
11 wetlands and all different things in that area. And it
12 negatively affected our backyard and the runoff and stuff
13 of the water back there. But, the cumulative portion is so
14 if this is granted, then what' s to say that the person who
15 just bought the property in front of our house wants to
16 then change, and now we' re a half-acre little property back
17 there being completely surrounded by apartments. Then that
18 affects Randy and their new mother-in-law house, and it
19 affects on down this street. So, it' s just like this kind
20 of domino effect on the street of everybody trying to sell
21 out or something to get all multi-family now that we' re
22 surrounded by it.
23 The Pasa Fino Apartments happened right before the
29 annexation. And so that has been there, and it' s not too
25 bad.
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760!(425) 337-5211 -fax 66
1 So, that' s one of my concerns is the cumulative effect
2 is why should they get to build R-18 and the rest of us
3 have to stay put? Obviously we could petition, but that
4 wouldn' t be very neighborly, I don't think, of us for our
5 neighbors.
6 My other question is, the single-family would be fine on
7 that property. It could be split evenly or into five
8 portions per acre. The property right behind the Cedar
9 Ridge Apartments, so where the red square is, if you' re
10 going north, there' s a iong strip of Cedar Ridge, and then
11 north more is all that single-family property. That was all
12 built after the Cedar Ridge Apartments were built. And
13 those houses and lots sold before they were even finished
19 building. So, I don' t think that what they' re saying is
15 that it' s not a good property for single-not a good
16 property for single-resident homes, I disagree with that
17 statement. I think it' s a very good property for sin.gle-.
18 resident homes_
19 I too have friends and family at home, and I'm down here
20 before the holidays. And, I'm also concerned about the land
21 value and property value. Being surrounded by high-density
22 on three sides of our property will negatively affect our
23 land value and down the street, but also the people in
24 front of us who just purchased that property and, you know,
2'5 have hopes and dreams of building a home. on there, and
Northwest Transcribers (425)497-9760/(425) 337-5211 -fax 67
1 then, bam, you' re slammed by apartments on one side. We
2 have an easement going up our driveway, and for a little
3 sentimental value, it is incredible to drive up our
4 driveway past these really old trees that are gorgeous and
S leave the whole city, the noise and everything, and go up
6 this driveway into just quiet in this little spot_ And, you
7 know, that whole idea of that being ruined and surrounded
8 by apartments is disturbing to us. Obviously, I realize
9 we':re one family in all of that area, but that' s my
10 personal opinion and our take on it.
11 And, then we have the Cedar Ridge Apartments behind us.
12 So, we feel violated on a daily basis by kids breaking our
13 fence, jumpinq over our fence. Our dogs have gotten loose.
14 Different things have happened because they' re not taking
15 care of their property so that it keeps the people out of
16 our property. And so, we feel violated by one apartment on
17 one side. So, the idea of having another apartment is just
18 really a huge headache. I can' t even imagine. But, again, I
19 feel—I don' t feel like I have a lot of say being one single
20 sesident. But, I do feel like I need to say my thing.
21 Then, also the road. It is true what Randy said; we have
22 to pull over to let upcoming traffic pass . Right where this
23 property is, our property starts, then a hill happens . And,
24 often there' s cars parked next to the park so there' s
25 literally one lane of traffic in the cars coming up that
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760/(425) 337-5211 -fax 68
1 hill. So, it would be affected by traffic because that road
2 is not improved and it is currently dangerous right now,
3 that if they built on two more and create more traffic, it
4 is-for a single-family neighborhood it is a dangerous
5 street. And I would not like to see 40 or 50 more cars be
6 on that street.
7 So, I guess that' s it.
8 CHAIR ROLAND: I have one quick question. When did you
9 start residing on that property?
10 MS. BYARLAY: We've lived there since 1995.
11 CHAIR ROLAND: Okay.
12 MS. BYARLAY: What is it, 25?
13 CHAIR ROLAND: Do you have a question, Kevin?
14 VICE-CHAIR CHAPMAN: Is 310 a dead-end street on one end�
15 MS. BYARLAY: Yes, it is .
16 COMMISSIONER COPPLE: And, those old trees you were
17 talking about, are they on the Locke property or are on
18 yours?
19 MS. BYARLAY: Locke and on the long property in front of
20 us. We' re the half-acre at the end.
21 COMMISSIONER COPPLE: Okay.
22 CHAIR ROLAND: Well, thank you very-oh, did you have a
23 question?
29 COMMISSIONER PEACE: Well, yeah, this question. So, how
25 do you-tell me again how you access your property? Do you
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760/(425) 337-5211 -fax 69
1 come up off of 310th down a long—
2 MS. BYARLAY: Off of 310th down a long driveway right
3 along that red line.
4 COMMISSIONER PEACE: Okay. Right .along the border between
5 the Locke property and the other property—
6 MS. BYARLAY: One to the west.
7 COMMISSIONER PEACE: —south of you. Okay.
8 MS. BYARLAY: Right.
9 COMMISSIONER PEACE: Gotcha. Thanks.
10 MS. BYARLAY: Yeah, and that is one other thing just for
11 a statement . The previous owner of the statement—of the
12 property that' s in error on that map, you know, we've
13 spoken with him many times, and they were never aware that
14 it may have been. Because I know that he wanted to build
15 commercially on that lot, and he couldn' t after the
16 annexation. And, therefore, he held onto it for a while,
17 and then he finally sold it. So, you know, it' s—error or
18 not, our neighborhood, whether it matters, has known that
19 it was never a multi-family property, just the one east of
20 that was a multi-family property. For statement.
21 CHAIR ROLAND: Well, thank you, Kristi.
22 MS. BYARLAY: Uh-huh.
23 CHAIR ROLAND: Okay, Commissioners, we' ve been given a
24 lot of information tonight . If you have questions of Staff
25 for clarification or for the City Attorney for
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760/(425) 337-5211 -fax 7 0
1 clarification.
2 COMMISSIONER PEACE: I do have a question for Staff. Can
3 you tell me, is there anything, or if there is something,
4 what it is, on the property that runs kind of east and
5 west, the longer one? That would be-
6 CHAIR ROLAND: That was one of the five-
7 COMMISSIONER PEACE: It' s one of the five.
8 CHAIR ROLAND: -they were talking about earlier, the
9 five.
10 COMMISSIONER PEACE: S'm talking about this one up here.
11 CHAIR ROLAND: One, two, three, four, fiue_.
12 COMMISSIONER PEACE: Okay.
13 CHAIR ROLAND: They were talking about those five.
14 They' re single-family; is that correct?
15 COMMISSIONER PEACE: You know which one I'm talking
16 about?
17 MR. DIXON: Yeah. There was a question about some of the
18 properties to the east-
19 . COMMISSIONER PEACE: Yeah, it' s to the east.
20 MR. DIXON: -of the-William and Amy Locke' s property.
21 COMMISSIONER PEACE: And it' s directTy south from these,
22 what was it-
23 MR. DIXON: Correct.. So-
24 COMMISSIONER PEACE: -Cedar-
25 MR. DIXON: So, [inaudible]-
Northwe5t T�anscribers (425)497-9760/(425) 337-5211 -fax 71
1 CHAIR ROLAND: Apartments .
2 MR. DIXON: -is the Pasa Fino Phase II, that multi-family
3 development . And then beyond that is a single-family
4 - residence. And then it looks like there' s three vacant lots � '�
5 that as recently as I double-checked today, the King County
6 Assessor lists those as being owned by Schneider Homes, the
7 three lots there. And then north of that, the long skinny
B one, is one I think you' re asking about .
9 COMMISSIONER PEACE: Right.
10 MR. DIXON: And I show that one as having a single-family
11 residence owned by Nick and Bira DeCara [sic] .
12 COMMISSIONER PEACE: So, there is a single-family home on
13 it?
14 MR. DIXON: Yes .
15 COMMISSIONER PEACE: Okay. Thank you.
16 VICE-CHAIR CHAPMAN: You had a question that-or you
17 stated that Schneider Homes owns three of those parcels? Do
18 they have any intent on developing those?
19 MR. DIXON: I don' t know what they might 6e thinking, but
20 there' s no pending applications .
21 COMMISSIONER PEACE: And could you clarify which three of
22 those-
23 MR. DIXON: Yes . Again, let me show these on the-let me
24 point them out on the map_ I think that-as I made clear.
25 So, it' s these three at the corner, this one, this one, and
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760/(425) 337-5211 -fax 7 2
1 this one at the corner of 124th and 310th, Southeast 3TOth:
2 So, it' s these three. So, it is correct to talk about the
3 uses to the west of the subject property being multi-famiTy
4 and single-family because [inaudible] . But, beyond that
5 further is that vacant property.
6 COMMISSIONER TROUT: I have a question. You mentioned
7 about the roads not being adequate, and I notice fhat
8 Kristi mentioned also and Randy mentioned that there wasn' t
9 enough space for two vehicles to go down that road. So,
10 that-who is responsible for that road, say, that they do
11 get the proposal passed and to make it wider? Who would be
12 responsible for that, the City or would the builder or?
13 MR. DIXON: Well, generally, the way that works ss that
14 when there' s a development build presented to the City,
15 they have to be responsible for dedication of additional
16 right-of-way along their property frontage and road
17 improvements along their property frontage to bring it up
18 to current standards if it' s not already to standards. Then
19 there is-so that' s dealing with the property that' s right
20 along the road frontage of the property that' s bein_g'
21 developed.
22 Off-site, they might need to be responsible for some
23 additional improvements only if it proposes a safety or
2.4 functional limitation. But, in this case, you've heard
25 testimony tonight talking about the fact that the road is-
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760/(425) 337-5211 -fax 7 3
1 has considerable improvements to the west down to 124th,
2 but is lacking other improvements and even the full extent
3 of riqht-of-way to the west.
4 CONIMISSIONER TROUT: Uh-huh.
5 MR. DIXON: And matter of fact, it doesn' t even go
6 through because not all the improvements are there and it' s
7 barricaded.
B COMMISSIONER TROUT: So, again, who would be responsible
9 for making it safe?
10 MR. DIXON: Well, you heard some testimony that there' s
11 not enough-you know, there' s a problem with sometimes
12 about-because people may be parking in the right-of-way and
13 because there isn' t developed edges of roadway, that there
14 may be parking qoing on in locations that makes it
15 difficult to pass there. It depends on-you know,, right now
16 if this property were developed, it doesn' t have any access
17 further to the west because the road doesn' t go through.
16 CONIIKISSIONER TROUT: Okay.
19 MR. DIXON: So, they really wouldn' t have any
20 responsibility unless they were creating enough units there
21 to trigger or require that they had multiple access points
22 to get to the piece of property.
23 COMMISSIONER TROUT: Okay. Thank you.
24 CHAIR ROLAND: Kevin?
25 VICE-CHAIR CHAPMAN: For Village Square, do they access
Northwest Transcri6ers (425)497-9760/(425) 337-5211 -fax 7 9
1 310 for on and off-or in and out of their de�elopment
2 there, or are they just 124th or 312th? I was just
3 wondering where the main drives were.
4 MR. DIXON: For Village Square, yeah. And, Village Square
5 has been at the southwest corner of 310th and 129th. And it
6 looks like they access to 310th. I don' t know if they have
9 any access off of 124th; I'm not sure. Do they?
8 UNIDENTIFIED: Yes, there is access.
9 MR. DIXON: Okay.
10 VICE-CHAIR CHAPMAN: Was Schneider Homes the developer of
11 Village Square?
12 MR. DIXON: I don' t know the answer to that.
13 VICE-CHAIR CHAPMAN: They did 194 units, and you don' t
i4 know if they were the builders on-
15 CHAIR ROLAND: That was before.
16 VICE-CHAIR CHAPMAN: Okay..
17 MR. DIXON: Yes. It was developed to the County Code-
18 VICE-CHAIR CHAPMAN: Oh, okay. All right.
19 CHAIR ROLAND: Yeah.
20 MR. DIXON: -before it was part of the city.
21 VICE-CHAIR CHAPMAN: Sorry, sorry.
22 CHAIR ROLAND: I believe that Jerry Schneider did build'
23 those.
24 [Off-the-record discussion. ]
25 CHAIR ROLAND: Okay. Further questions of Staff.
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760/(425)33?-5211 -fax 7 5
1 VICE-CHAIR CHAPMAN: So, I just have a comment.
2 CHAIR ROLAND: Oh.
3 VICE-CHAIR CHAPMAN: It seems that a lot of the infill,
4 high-density homes and units were built prior to the
5 annexation, you know, and some things may have been pushed
6 through prematurely and with each building permit King
7 County was taking in more money and not putting that money
8 maybe back into the infrastructure of the area. It. seems to
9 be a flooded area right now with the amount of traffic and
10 people up there now. Although the Council has deemed this
11 area to be a node of commercial activity and mixed use
12 housing, it' s kind of a tough decision. Obviously you don' t
13 want to take away from a property owner that, you know, has
19 aspirations for retirement or is in retirement and looking
15 to promote that further. Although, you also don' t want to
16 take away from individual property owners who will have a
17 great effect by such an infill of changing from five units
16 to, you know, quadrupl3ng that to 20 units . So, that' s just
19 a comment that I have, and as Commissioners we' 11 have to
20 take that into consideration.
21 COMMISSIONER BAGGETT: I' ll make another comment also. I
22 was up there on that corner this morning right about the
23 time that the Green River Community College was going in.
24 And, let me tell you, the traffic was horrendous . And', I
25 think that just as a comment from one who resides and
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760!(425) 337-5211 -fax 7 6
1 travels that route every day, it is a congested area, and I
2 think a serious traffia consideration should' be given for
3 the traffic in that area, especially around Lea Hi1T
4 Elementary, the service stations that service two of the
5 corners there at 124th. And, there' s a lot of traffic
6 coming and going on 310 that they come in and out of that
7 access road right there off of 129th. So, it is a heavily
8 congested area at different times during the day.
9 COMMISSIONER COPPLE: Madam Chair, I have a question—
10 . CHAIR ROLAND: Yes.
11 COMMISSIONER COPPLE: —of these two gentleman.
12 CHAIR ROLAND: Okay: Would you 3ike to—they need to step
13 forward to the—
I9 COMMISSIONER COPPLE: On this picture—
I5 CHAIR ROLAND: Wait a second.
16 COMMISSIONER COPPLE: Okay. You ready?
17 CHAIR ROLAND: Yeah. They just need to be by the
18 microphones.
I9 COMMISSIONER COPPLE: On this picture here, how far does
20 your property, the Locke property, go?
21 CHAIR ROLAND: What page are you on so we can all geb to
22 where—
23 COMMISSIONER COPPLE: The one where the—behind the
24 roadblock.
25 CHAIR ROLAND: The thisd one?
NoRhwest Transcribers (425)497-9760/(425) 337-5211 -fax 7 7
1 COMMISSIONER COPPLE: That-
2 COMMISSIONER TROUT: Fourth one.
3 CHAIR ROLAND: Fourth is the-
4 COMMISSIONER COPPLE: Right there is-
5 CHAIR ROLAND: -single-family home.
6 COMMISSIONER COPPLE: -a sewer grate. Ss that the .sewer
7 grate you took a picture of, or is it-
8 MR. BERMAN: Yes, that' s the storm water detention vault .
9 COMMISSIONER COPPLE: So, that is the Locke propenty?
10 MR. BERMAN: Correct.
11 COMMISSIONER COPPLE: Frontage? Okay. How far this west
12. does this property go from this picture? Go further?
13 MR. BERMAN: It does go further.' The property is
14 approximately 165 feet in width.
15 COMMISSIONER COPPLE: The frontage is?
16 MR. BERMAN: Yes.
17 COMMISSIONER COPPLE: Okay.
18 MR. BERMAN: I would say that' s about a third from the
19 eastern boundary of the property.
20 COMMISSIONER COPPLE: So, this last picture-
21 MR. BERMAN: Uh-huh.
22 COMMISSIONER COPPLE: -where you got the storm water
23 grate-
24 MR. BERMAN: Uh-huh.
25 COMMISSIONER COPPLE: -and the proper.ty, does it go past
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760/(425) 337-5211 -fax 7 8
1 this power pole?
2 MR. BERMAN: I would say that' s roughly the property
3 boundary. It may be a few feet short.
4 COMMISSIONER COPPLEc Okay. �Cause there' s a driveway
5 right-just past that.
6 MR. BERMAN: Right.
7 COMMISSIONER COPPLE: Just west of that.
6 MR. BERMAN.: Which is the access easement that we' ie
9 referring to.
10 COMMISSIONER COPPLE: Okay. All right . `Cause that' s
11 going to help us look at how much of the frontage-
12 MR. BERMAN: Uh-huh.
13 COMMISSIONER COPPLE: -on that 30-foot-wide road.
14 COMMISSIONER RAMEY: If I could make a comment.
15 CHAIR ROLAND: Well, we' re not supposed to make any
16 comments unless there' s question. But, what do you want to=
17 COMMISSIONER MALE 3: [Inaudible] pose it as a question
18 then_
19 COMMISSIONER RAMEY: Okay. I' ll pose it as a question
20 then.
21 CHAIR ROLAND: Okay. What do you want?
22 COMMISSIONER RAMEY: I'd like to know the thoughts of the
23 Commission on visitinq the property and the surrounding
24 area. I mean, it seema to me that we have a number of
25 questions regarding where' s this and that. And, I think
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-976D/(425) 337-5211 -fax 7 9
1 those are all great . But, for me, I—just—
2 CHAIR ROLAND: Okay. I will—
3 COMMISSIONER RAMEY: —what are your thoughts on tHat?
4 CHAIR ROLAND: —answer that. We got this last week. We
5 had time to go. If you wanted to, you could have gone. So,
6 you' re talking about—
7 COMMISSIONER RAMEY: That' s your response.
8 CHAIR ROLAND: Yes.
9 COMMISSIONER RAMEY: Okay.
10 CHAIR ROLAND: That is my response. That' s why we were
11 given the paperwork ahead of time so we could look at it
12 and see it, and if we want to, to drive out there on our
13 own. We can' t go as a group.
14 COMMISSIONER RAMEY: So=
15 CHAIR ROLAND: So, what you' re trying to say is—
16 COMMISSIONER RAMEY: So, then my questiom is, how many
17 drove around and checked that out? One of us. Two. Okay.
18 CHAIR ROLAND: And I knew where it was, so.
19 COMMISSIONER RAMEY: Okay.
20 CHAIR ROLAND: Yeah.
21 COMMISSIONER RAMEY: Okay. Then, again, I. would say, it
22 would be my suggestion to go and look at it again. I think
23 the majority of us have not. In all fairness to both
24 parties. Wouldn' t you agree, Counsel? Mr. Dixon? That' s a
25 quest3on. We need to pose it in a question.
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760!(425) 337-5211 -fax 8 0
1 MR. HEID: Let me venture this . I am here again as your
2 counsel. And, this is a quasi-judicial matter so that
3 you' re acting as a judge. I would probably suggest that if
4 you wanted to do that; you certainly—there' s .no reason why
5 you couldn' t do that. I would suggest, however, that to
6 make sure that your deliberations are at least controlled,
7 don' t go in a group_ And, I think that was already
8 suggested.
9 COMMISSIONER RAMEY: [Inaudible] group.
10 CHAIR ROLAND: Uh-huh.
11 CHAIR ROLAND: But, I don' t need to go because I know
12 where it is . Kevin says he' s familiar with it . So, i_f
13 there' s one or two that areri' t, they had their opportunity
14 to go from Friday on.
15 COMMISSIONER PEACE: I've got all my questions answeied
16 about it, so I'm okay.
17 CHAIR ROLAND: Yeah.
18 COMMISSIONER TROUT: And, I had a general idea of
19 [inaudible] .
20 CHAIR ROLAND: Yeah.
21 CONIMISSIONER RAMEY: I know exactly where it is. But, in
22 terms of perspective. And I traveled the route as well, and
23 it is incredibly congested as well. But, in terms of you
29 were talking at the outset about deliberations. And' my
25 perception of deliberations is that—and you mentioned that
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760/(425) 337-5211 -fax 81
1 they could be done privately possibly, correct? .
2 MR. HEID: That' s correct, they can be.
3 COMMISSIONER RAMEY: Okay.
4 MR. HEID: Because it' s quasi-judicial, you do not have
5 to hold your deliberations in an open public meeting.
6 COMMISSIONER RAMEY: Okay.
7 MR. HEID: That' s one of the exceptions in the law. It
6 isn' t mandated; it' s just-it' s a choice.
9 COMMISSIONER RAMEY: Right. Okay.
10 CHAIR ROLAND: Commissioners, does anyone else have any
11 questions of Staff? Does anyone wish to propose a-
12 MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Madam Chair, if we' re done questioning-
13 CHAIR ROLAND: Well, I was just kind of-
14 MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Oh, okay. Just as a reminder to make
15 sure we close the public-
16 CHAIR ROLAND: Yes.
17 MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Okay.
18 CHAIR ROLAND: Yes . Well, hearing no further questions of
19 Staff or for the Applicants, I will close the public
20 hearing.
21 COMMISSIONER COPPLE: So, I guess, do we-[inaudible]
22 deliberate in public or in private?
23 COMMISSIONER TROUT: The next step is that we make a
24 recommendation?
25 CHAIR ROLAND: Well, we' ll need a motion or-
Northwest Transcribers (425)497-9760/(425) 337-5211 -fax 82
1 COMMISSIONER COPPLE: Mr. Heid, do we need a motion to
2 move this to private?
3 MR. HEID: Actually, that would be one way to do it, or
9 by consensus you could choose to deliberate in a closed
5 session.
6 COMMISSIONER COPPLE: Okay. Thank you.
7 COMMISSIONER RAMEY.: I'd like to make a motion that we
8 deliberate in a closed session.
9 COMMISSIONER TROUT: I second.
10 CHAIR ROLAND: Okay,. We have a motion and a second to
11 deliberate in private.. Any further discussion on it? All in
12 favor say "aye. " Opposed?
13 [Four respond aye; three respond nay. ]
14 CHAIR ROLAND: So, it looks like it' s—we had four in j
15 favor and three against. So, does that motion fail then �
16 because we didn' t have a majority?
17 MR. HEID: Four were in favor, so you have a majority in
1B favor of deliberating in closed session.
19 CHAIR ROLAND: Okay.
20 MR. HEID: There is actually a room accessible to this
21 room if you wanted to deliberate in that at this time. I
22 assume that you might want to at •least deliberate a 2ittle
23 bit or discuss something in terms of where you want to go
24 today. But, that wouldn' t even be required if you don' t
25 want to spend any more time on it today.
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760/(425) 337-5211 -fax 8 3
1 CHAIR ROLAND: Oh, I think when it' s fresh in our mind we
2 should do it now.
3 MR. HEID: Dkay.
4 CHAIR ROLAND: Okay. We' ll be in recess for a few
5 minutes.
6 MR. HEID: That' s correct. You' ll be in-you go into a-
7 CHAIR ROLAND: Go into a closed-
8 MR. HEID: -closed session.
9 CHAIR ROLAND: Right.
10 MR. HEID: And I don' t want to impose myself in there if
11 you don' t need me. But, if you need me, I'm your counsel.
12 CHAIR ROLAND: Okay. All right . Do I need to designate a
13 period of time?
14 MR. HEID: No, you do not because this is quasi-judicial'
15 and it' s-
16 CHAIR ROLAND: Okay.
17 MR. HEID: -actually an exception to the Open Pubic
18 Meetings Act. So, if this were an Executive Session, you
19 would. But, you do not-
20 CHAIR ROLAND: Okay.
21 MR. HEID: -because of its character.
22 CHAIR ROLAND: Okay. All right.
23 [Closed session from 8 : 58 p.m. to 9: 21 p.m. ]
24 CHAIR ROLAND: Well, thank you for hanging in there with
25 us while we went out and-Executive Session. And-closed
Northwest Transcribers (425)497-9760/(425) 337-5211-fax 8 9
7 session. And now we are bringing our Committee meeting back
2 to order.
3 Commissioners, we've had a discussion. I think we've
4 talked about everything possible. We' ve asked all kinds of'
5 questions . Do I hear a motion?
6. COMMISSIONER BAGGETT: S will make a motion that the
Z Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPM #3, Map Amendment to Map
8 No. 14 . 1 be denied.
9 CHAIR ROLAND: Do we have a second to that?
10 COMMISSIONER COPPLE: I' ll second that .
11 CHAIR ROLAND: We have a motion and a second. Is there
12 any further discussion?
13 [No response. ]
14 CHAIR ROLAND: Hearing none, all those in favor bf the
15 motion signify by saying "aye. "
16 [Six respond "aye. "]
I7 CHAIR ROLAND: Opposed? Aye. Please pass our
18 recommendation on to the City Council .
19 MR. HILL: Can I propose a question to the Commissioners?
20 CHAIR ROLAND: I don' t know. Is that appropriate?
21 MR. HEID: I would say that the decision' s been made; but
22 if you' re willing to entertain a question, you certainly
23 could.
24 CHAIR ROLAND: Okay.
25 MR. HEID: If you do not feel comfortable doing so, you
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760/(425)337-5211 -fax 8 5
1 need not.
2 CHAIR ROLAND: Okay. Well, you can ask the question. I
3 don' t know if we can—if I will answer.
4 MR. HILL: Thank you. Thank you for your courtesy in
5 entertaining the question. Obviously one challenge we face,
6 having not been present to your deliberations, is we don' t
7 understand the basis of your decision. Since this is a
8 recommendation to the Council, it would be helpful to the
9 Applicant when we explain to the Council why we think the
10 Planning Commission recommendation should not be followed,
11 to understand why it was the Planning Commission made the
12 recommendation that it did. And so, to the extent the
13 Commission feels it appropriate to share the grounds for
14 the decision, it would be helpful to the Applicant in terms
15 of the Applicant' s response when we go to the Council.
16 CHAIR ROLAND: Well, I think the majority of the
17 Commission was concerned about the creep, you know, onto
18 further, wouldn' t you say? Yeah. Yeah. And traffic.
19 MR. HILL: Okay.
20 CHAIR ROLAND: And I think that' s the two items that were
21 utmost in our mind.
22 MR. HILL: Well, we really appreciate your courtesy in
23 responding to that .
24 CHAIR ROLAND: You' re welcome. Okay. It looks like we' ve
25 covered almost everything this eveninq. Our next meeting is
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760/(425)337-5211 -fax 8 6
I Tuesday, December 4th, and that is a tentative meeting. So,
2 be sure to put it on your calendar. And, it may be there' s
3 a couple things that are in the works, but may not end up
4 coming forth at that £ime. All right?
5 COMMISSIONER RAMEY: I will be in Costa Rica.
_
6 CHAIR ROLAND: Oh, wow.
7 COMMISSIONER RAMEY: My 20.th wedding anniversary..
8 CHAIR ROLAND: Okay. Meeting' s adjourned. Have a nice
9 Thanksgiving everyone.
10 [Session ends at 9:25 p.m. ]
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760/(425)337-5211 -fax 87
LEGEND OF SYMBOLS USED
- Indicates an incomplete sentence or broken thought.
. . Indicates there appears to be something missing, from
original sound track or a break in the testimony when
switching either from Side A to Side B or swifching
between tapes .
[inaudible} 1 . Somethinq was said but could not be heard.
2 . Speaker may have dropped their voice or
walked away from microphone,..
3. Coughing in background, shuffling of
papers, et cetera, which may have drowned
out speaker's voice.
, [sic] 1 . The correct spelling of that word could
not be found, but is spelled phonetically,
or —
2 . This is what it sounded like was said.
[No response. ] There is a pause in proceedings, but no
response was heard..
[No audible response. ]
Possible that something was said, but woid
or words could not be heard.
[Dff-the-record discussion. ]
1 . Discussion not pertaining to case.
2 . Discussion between counsel and/or the
Court, not meant to be on the record.
Northwest Transcribers (425) 497-9760/(425) 337-5211 -fax 8 8
, C E R T S F I C A T E
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss.
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH )
I, Barbara A. Lane, do hereby certify under penalty
of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington that the
above and foregoing proceeding was recorded on CD earlier,
and then later reduced to transcription by myself, and do
hereby certify that this is a true and correct record of the
proceedings.
I do further certify that I am not a relative or
employee of, or counsel for any of said parties, or
otherwise interested in the event of said proceeding.
Dated this 3rd day of December, 2012 .
�����,� QoSa�
Barbara A. Lane, CET**D-687
Northwest Transcribers
Northwest Transcribers (425)497-9760i(425) 337-5211 -fax 8 9