Auburn council holds public hearing on ordinance to allow limited commercial uses in rural zones

The Auburn City Council on Sept. 2 opened a public hearing and debated an ordinance that would amend Article 4, Table 4‑1 of the City of Auburn zoning ordinance to allow additional commercial and entertainment uses conditionally in the city’s rural zoning district.

The proposed amendment, recommended unanimously by the Planning Commission with conditions, would allow certain small‑scale commercial uses along arterial or collector roads if they meet special development standards and utility requirements. Director Cotton told the Council the change grew from stakeholder interest in placing small destination or convenience uses at high‑traffic rural intersections rather than pushing developers through a longer planned unit development (PUD) process.

Why it matters: The change would give property owners and prospective businesses additional path to open retail or entertainment uses near emerging residential corridors, while keeping Council oversight through the conditional‑use review process.

Planning staff and Council emphasized limits built into the draft text: convenience stores would be capped at 3,000 square feet and would not include fuel sales; many uses would carry a minimum three‑acre site requirement; the rural commercial entertainment rules already include a maximum floor‑area ratio of 0.1 and a 30% impervious‑surface cap. Director Cotton also explained staff would use NAICS codes and business‑license definitions to classify “all other commercial uses” where a specific listing does not exist.

Resident Robert Wilkins urged the Council to postpone the ordinance for 90 days, saying the proposal raised unanswered questions about sewage capacity in rural areas and concerns about “spot zoning.” Wilkins asked whether affected property owners had been contacted and cautioned that loosening uses could shift costs for utility extensions. He recommended postponement or denial of unanimous consent.

Council members pressed staff on several points. Staff said any use proposed under the amendment would still need to meet utilities and special‑development standards before a conditional‑use permit could be issued; most rural parcels lack city sewer and would rely on septic systems unless sewer is extended. Council members asked whether higher‑intensity uses such as a full grocery store would be permitted; staff said grocery stores and other high‑intensity retail are not included in the proposed commercial‑entertainment list and likely could not meet the site and utility constraints of rural areas.

Director Cotton described the Planning Commission’s approach: to allow flexibility but restrict locations to arterials or collectors shown on the city’s maps or as designated by the appropriate governing body. That map‑based limitation was added after stakeholders and the Planning Commission expressed concern about opening entire rural neighborhoods to commercial conversions.

The Council also discussed enforcement and the legal standard for denying a conditional use, with staff and the city attorney reminding members the ordinance provides criteria tied to health, safety and welfare and that prior conditional‑use requests had been denied when impacts could not be mitigated.

The Council opened and closed the public hearing for the item and then moved to roll call for a vote. A final recorded vote on this ordinance did not appear in the available transcript excerpt and is not documented here.