No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutITEM II-B-1* ` C[TY OF__ -~~ "F- '~ ~U~~~~ AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM WASHINGTON Agenda Subject: Closed record hearing on Ordinance 6108 approving a Date: Conditional Use Permit to convert an existing single family residence into July 31, 2007 professional office suites for a property located at 105 M St. NE within a R2 Sin le Famil Residential Zone. Department: Planning Attachments: Please refer to Exhibit Budget Impact: NA List Administrative Recommendation: The Hearing Examiner recommended the City Council approve the requested Conditional Use Permit based upon the Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Conditions as outlined in the attached decision. Background Summary: OWNER/APPLICANT: Kathryn Cruze REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit to add onto and convert an existing residence into professional office suites. LOCATION: The northwest corner of 15~ St NE and M St NE, addressed as 105 M St NE EXISTING ZONING: R2 Single Family Residential District EXISTING LAND USE: The site is currently occupied by a single family residence, detached "cottage" and detached garage. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Office Residential SEPA STATUS: This project is exempt from SEPA review. L0806-1 03.10.1 CUP07-0001 eviewe y ounce ommittees: eviewe y epartme nts ivisions: Arts Commission COUNCIL COMMITTE S: Building M&O Airport Finance Cemetery Mayor Hearing Examiner Municipal Serv. Finance Parks Human Services Planning & CD Fire Planning Park Board Public Works Legal li W k Police R H Planning Comm. Other or s Pub c uman esources Action: Committee Approval: Yes No / / rin ll f P bli H C N BY _ g _ or u c ea a es o Council Approval: Referred to Until / / Tabled Unties T_T Councilmember: Norman Staff: Osaki Meetin Date: Au ust 6, 2007 Item Number: II.A.2 Ajj$~[,TF~ * MARE THAN Y4U IMAGINED Agenda Subject: Closed Record Hearing CUP07-0001 EXHIBIT LIST Date: Julv 31, 2007 Exhibit 1 Staff Report Exhibit 2 Site Plan Exhibit 3 Application Exhibit 4 Notice of Application (Not included, but available for review in official file) Exhibit 5 Notice of Public Hearing (Not included, but available for review in official file) Exhibit 6 Affidavit of Posting (Not included, but available for review in official file) Exhibit 7 Affidavit of Mailing (Not included, but available for review in official file) Exhibit 8 Aerial Photograph Exhibit 9 Fourteen photographs submitted by Henry Severson (Not included; photos were stolen together with Hearing Examiner's laptop computer) Exhibit 10 Variance decision for 220 M St. NE Exhibit 11 April 17, 2007 e-mail from Henry Severson Exhibit 12 April 20, 2007 from Kathryn Cruze Exhibit 13 Hearing Examiner decision dated May 2, 2007 Exhibit 14 Reconsideration request filed by Henry Severson on May 17, 2007 Exhibit 15 Hearing Examiner Briefing Schedule on Severson Request for Reconsideration Exhibit 16 Letter of May 20, 2007 from Kathryn Cruze sent in response to Reconsideration request Exhibit 17 Letter of June 8, 2007 from Henry Severson sent in response to K. Cruze letter of 5/30/07 Exhibit 18 Hearing Examiner's Order on Reconsideration Exhibit 19 Memo of June 20, 2007 from Steve Pitcher to Hearing Examiner re: Order on Reconsideration Exhibit 20 Hearing Examiner's Order on Reconsideration dated June 21, 2007 Exhibit 21 Transcript of April 11, 2007 hearing before the Hearing Examiner Exhibit 22 Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision filed by Henry Severson on July 9, 2007 Exhibit 23 Ordinance 6108 Page 2 of 2 CITY OF .. SUB-~J~ ~~ ~ WASHINGTON AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM EXHIBIT ~ .~ Agenda Subject Public Hearing Application No. CUP07-0001 Date: March 19, 2007 Department: Planning Attachments: Please refer to Exhibit Budget Impact: NA List Administrative Recommendation: Hearing Examiner to recommend to the City Council approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit based upon the Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Conditions as outlined. Background Summary: OWNER/APPLICANT: Kathryn Cruze REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit to add onto and convert an existing residence into professional office suites. LOCATION: The northwest corner of 15t St NE and M St NE, addressed as 105 M St NE EXISTING ZONING: R2 Single Family Residential District EXISTING LAND USE: The site is currently occupied by a single family residence, detached "cottage" and detached garage. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Office Residential SEPA STATUS: This project is exempt from SEPA review. eview y ounci ommittees: eview y epartments ivisions: Arts Commission C OUNCIL COMMITTE S: Building M&O Airport Finance ~ Cemetery Mayor Hearing Examiner Municipal Serv. Finance Parks Human Services Planning 8~ CD Fire Planning Park Board Public Works ~ Legat Police Planning Comm. Other Public Works Human Resources Action: Committee Approval: Yes No Council Approval: 8 8 Yes No Call for Public Hearing / / Referred to _ Until / / Tabled Until % / Councilmember: Norman Staff: Pitcher Meeting Date: April 11, 2007 Item Number: ..1~-~UBLTRN ~ ~oR~TH~N you rnn~~l~~a Agenda Subject Public Hearing CUP 07-0001 Date: 4/3/2007 The Comprehensive Plan designation, zoning designation and land uses of the surrounding properties are: Comprehensive Zoning Land Use ..Plan... Site Office Residential R2 Single Family Single Family Residential Residential North Office Residential R2 Single Family Single Family Residential Residential South Neighborhood CN Neighborhood Commercial Commercial Commercial Sho in Center East Office Residential R2 Single Family Single Family Residential Residential West Single Family R2 Single Family Single Family Residential Residential Residential EXHIBIT LIST Exhibit 1 Staff Report Exhibit 2 Vicinity Map Exhibit 3 Application Exhibit 4 Notice of Public Hearing Exhibit 5 Affidavit of Posting Exhibit 6 Affidavit of Mailing Exhibit 7 Confirmation of Publication of Legal Notice Exhibit 8 Aerial Photograph. FINDINGS OF FACT: Kathryn Cruze has applied for a conditional use permit to convert an existing single family residence into professional office suites.-The project will involve demolishing a detached garage and detached "cottage" located on the property, constructing additions onto the existing home, and remodeling the existing residence for professional office use. Off-street parking for 9 vehicles will also be provided, as well as on-site fencing and landscaping. 2. According to King County Assessor's records, the existing 2-bedroom brick home was constructed in 1957, is 990 sq. ft. in area, and features a full basement and attic. There is also a detached brick garage and small "cottage" on the site. The lot is 12,075 sq. ft. in area. The home is connected to City of Auburn water and sanitary sewer service. Access to the existing detached garage is from 1St St. NE. Landscaping on the property consists primarily of lawn, one large apparently healthy deciduous tree along 1St St NE and several other deciduous trees that appear to have been severely pruned in the past. The applicant intends to demolish the detached garage and "cottage," add onto the existing home primarily on its northern end, and convert the interior to provide 10 individual offices with a shared reception area/waiting room. Total square footage of the building will be 2351 sq. ft. Site improvements include construction of a 9 stall off-street parking lot, which will feature a 7'9" landscaping buffer along the western property boundary and a lesser width landscaped buffer along the northern boundary. To provide additional buffering of the parking lot, the applicant proposes to install a wood fence on the western and northern property boundaries. Page 2 of 7 Agenda Subject Public Hearing CUP 07-0001 Date: 4/3/2007 4. The site is located across 1St St. NE from an old shopping center that features a local drug store and small grocery store. The backs of these structures face 1St St. NE; no landscaping is provided between the building and the street. Single family residential uses are located directly to the west and north of the site and directly across M St. NE to the east. Two office/service-uses are located along the east side of M St. NE, just north of E. Main. The property to the north features a private driveway along its southern border, directly adjacent to the site. 5. The site is located within an area designated as "Office Residential" by the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of this designation is "to reserve areas to accommodate professional offices for expanding medical and business services, while providing a transition between residential uses and more intensive uses and activities" (City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan, pg. 14-13). An RO Residential Office zone is typically used to implement this Plan designation, but this area has historically been zoned R2 and the City has not initiated an area- wide rezone. 6. In August 2006, the Hearing Examiner recommended approval of a rezone and accompanying conditional use permit for an existing home at 220 M St. NE to allow its conversions into a day spa/massage center (REZ05-0006/CUP05-0005). 7. M St. NE is a designated Principal Arterial, while 1St St. NE is a classified as a local residential street. 2005 traffic volumes on M St. NE in this area were approx. 18,900 vehicle trips per day. M St. NE features curb, gutter and sidewalk; currently, sidewalk is lacking along the site's 1St St. NE frontage. Auburn City Code 12.64 requires the completion of half street improvements when the value of on-site improvements exceeds 50% of the assessed valuation of existing property improvements. Current assessed valuation of these improvement is $136,000 according to King County records. 8. The City of Auburn requires the payment of traffic impact fees and fire impact fees at the time of building permit issuance. 9. Auburn Design Standards 7.01.5.1 requires all structures (except single family residential homes) to be within 150 ft. of a fire hydrant. Otherwise, an on-site hydrant will be required. It appears to be at least 200 ft. to the nearest fire hydrant, so an on-site hydrant will be required. 10. City standards will require parking lot stormwater runoff to receive water quality treatment prior to runoff being infiltrated on-site. 11. Staff made a site visit on March 19, 2007 to verify conditions. 12. The contents of the case file for this project (CUP07-0001) are hereby incorporated by reference and made part of the record of this hearing. CONCLUSIONS: ACC Chapter 18.64 provides certain criteria for approval of a conditional use permit: 1. The use will have no more adverse effect on the health, safety or comfort of persons living or working in the area and will be no more injurious, economically or otherwise, to property or improvements in the surrounding area than would any use generally permitted in the district. The applicant's site is located along a Principal Arterial street (M St. NE) and across the street from a small shopping center, a location somewhat undesirable for single family residential uses. The Page 3 of 7 Agenda Subject Public Hearing CUP 07-0001 Date: 4/3/2007 proposed office project will not result in a structure that is out-of-scale with the R2 zone. The required off-street parking area will be appropriately landscaped and screened from the adjacent residential properties by a wood fence. Any overflow parking needs in the area can be accommodated by on- street parking along 1St St. NE, which would be similar to a residential use. Staff finds the proposal, as conditioned, to be consistent with this criteria. 2. The proposal is in accordance with the goals, policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The project site is designated as "Office Residential" on the Comprehensive Plan map. The purpose of this designation is "to reserve areas to accommodate professional offices for expanding medical and business services, while providing a transition between residential uses and more intensive uses and activities" (City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan, pg. 14-13). As noted, the site is located adjacent to a shopping center that is zoned CN Neighborhood Commercial and abuts a Principal Arterial street (M St. NE). This appears to be a suitable location for an office use, to act as a transition in intensity between the abutting residential uses and these more intensive areas. Staff finds the proposal to be consistent with this criteria. 3. The proposal complies with all requirements of this title (i.e., Zoning Code). The following development standards apply in the R2 zone: 18.14.040 Development standards. Development standards in an R-2 district are as follows: A. Minimum lot area: 6,000 square feet; B. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit: 6,000 square feet; C. Minimum lot width: 60 feet; D. Minimum lot depth: 80 feet; E. Maximum lot coverage: 35 percent; F. Minimum yard setbacks: 1. Front: 20 feet, 2. Side, interior: five feet, 3. Side, street: 10 feet, 4. Rear: 25 feet, 5. Accessory structures shall meet all the required setbacks of the zone with the exception that the rear yard setback may be reduced to five feet; provided, that any structure with a vehicular entrance from a street (public or private) or public alley shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet; G. Maximum building height: 1. Main building: 30 feet, 2. Accessory buildings: 16 feet; H. Fences and hedges: see Chapter 18.48 ACC; I. Parking: see Chapter 18.52 ACC; J. Landscaping: see Chapter 18.50 ACC; K. Signs: see Chapter 18.56 ACC. Page 4 of 7 Agenda Subject Public Hearing CUP 07-0001 Date: 4/3/2007 Parking standards for professional offices are as follows: 18.52.020 Required off-street parking -Minimum standards. The number of off-street parking spaces shall be determined for each principal use of the land, building, or structure. For ancillary uses to the principal use, required parking shall be calculated the same as for the principal use, or as otherwise provided for in this chapter. Parking requirements in downtown are eligible for a reduction pursuant to ACC 18.52.030(A). 12. Offices, including professional and business, banks and_related activities: one space per 300 square feet of gross floor area. Up to 400 square feet of unfinished basement floor area used exclusively for storage may be excluded from the parking requirement. Unfinished basement floor area is defined as any floor level, below the first story of a building, which floor level is not provided sufficient light, ventilation, exit facilities, or sanitary facilities, as required for any legal occupancy classification. (See subsection D of this section for doctor's offices, and clinics, etc.); Landscaping requirements are as established by any conditions imposed through the conditional use permit process: 18.50.050 Regulations by zone. A. R-R, R-S, LHRS, R-1, LHR1, R-2, LHR2, R-3, and LHR3 Districts. Landscaping shall only be required in conjunction with a conditional use permit. The type and amount to be determined at that time the CUP is approved. At the time of writing this staff report, the applicant had not provided any proposed signage for the office use. Any future signage will be subject to the following: 18.56.040 Regulation by district. A. R-R, R-S, LHRS, R-1, LHR1, R-2, LHR2, R-3, LHR3, R-4, LHR4, R-MHP, LHRMHP Zoning Districts (Nonresidential Uses, Except as Noted). 1. Residential entry monument: A cumulative area of 50 square feet or 10 feet in height (highest point of sign structure) not to exceed two per entrance; provided, that no sign exceeds 32 square feet in area. 2. Maximum sign area of all signs is 40 square feet per frontage. 3. Freestanding Signs. a. Total number permitted: one per frontage not to exceed two total freestanding signs per property. b. Maximum height: 10 feet. c. Maximum area: 32 square feet per face, calculated at a rate of one square foot of sign area for every three lineal feet of frontage. The minimum entitlement for freestanding signs shall be one 16-square-foot sign for those sites with frontages less than 48 feet. 4. Wall Signs (for Building or Tenant Space). a. Total number permitted: one per frontage not to exceed two total wall signs per building. b. Maximum area: 32 square feet, calculated at a rate of one square foot of sign area for every three lineal feet of frontage. The minimum entitlement for wall signs shall be one 16-square-foot sign for those sites with frontages less than 48 feet. 5. Signs may be indirectly illuminated only. The submitted site plan indicates the project either does or can be conditioned to comply with all of the above code requirements. Staff frnds the proposal to be consistent with this criterion. Page 5 of 7 Agenda Subject Public Hearing CUP 07-0001 Date: 4/3/2007 4. The proposal can be constructed and maintained so as to be harmonious and appropriate in design, character and appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity. As noted, the size of the office will not be out of character with a residential neighborhood. The structure will remain one-story (with attic) in height and the total floor area of the expanded structure, while larger than some other homes in the vicinity, is not out of proportion to the lot. The parking lot can be adequately screened with landscaping and fencing to minimize its impact .on adjacent properties. Staff finds the proposal to be consistent with this criteria. 5. The proposal will not adversely affect the public infrastructure. The applicant will be required to install a fire hydrant on site and to construct a sidewalk along 1St St. NE. These improvements are required by City codes and development standards. All other infrastructure is adequate to serve the proposed use. Staff trnds the proposal to be consistent with this criteria. 6. The proposal will not cause or create a public nuisance. The site is located along a Principal Arterial street carrying significant amounts of traffic. A commercial shopping center is located across the street to the south. The surrounding area is similarly impacted. Typically, office uses generate little noise other than that caused by vehicular traffic. If closed during evening hours, they can possibly generate less impact in hours when residents are typically home than another residential use. Staff finds the proposal, as conditioned, to be consistent with this criteria. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the application and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of the staff report, Staff recommends that the Hearing Examiner recommend to the City Council approval of the Conditional Use Permit with the following conditions of approval: 1. Site development shall occur in substantial conformance with the submitted plans. 2. The proposed building expansion shall blend in with the existing character of the brick home, as determined by the Planning Director. 3. The landscaped areas between the proposed office structure and 1St St. NE and M St. NE shall feature a minimum of 10 feet of Type III landscaping. Efforts shall be made to retain the existing large deciduous tree along 1St St NE. The required sight distance triangle at the intersection of 1St St. NE and M St. NE shall be maintained. 4. The landscaped area surrounding the parking lot and along the northern end of the structure shall be comprised of Type II landscaping. 5. A minimum 6 ft. tall solid wood fence shall be constructed along the western and northern property lines, except that the height shall be reduced to no greater than 42 inches within the required setbacks along 1St St. NE and M St. NE. Page 6 of 7 Agenda Subject Public Hearing CUP 07-0001 Date: 4/3/2007 Future signage shall be limited to one wall sign each facing M St. NE and 1ST St. NE, plus no more than one monument sign, indirectly illuminated, and no greater than 6 ft. in height and 32 sq. ft. in area. Staff reserves the right to supplement the record of the case to respond to matters and information raised subsequent to the writing of this report. rage i of i 1 O I ~ ~ i _ --' r r 0 --_~ -~ ® ~ 3N '1S..W.. :~_ _ . ------------------r---------------------~ ,~sd 1 1 e - '~~~ ~° o II 8-' ~- -i _- __ _- -_ - I-- _-_-_~' 1 I_ ~~ i~ ~~~'~ ~'~ ~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~ 1 ~ ~ - ;a _. ~ r ~a i ~ ~ ~ J= ~~ I r-~ .y gr nb 1 I _ r .. ~ i r . ~ - ~,a; 1 1 ao 1 ~ w III s I ~~ I I 1 1~ ~ ~' 4 h ~~ ~ ~ ~ tt' S m ~ g a w ~ I,~ 3 8 ~~I ~' 1 '.. ~m\ L ~~ \\ 11 L ..-----. ------- _=--------- JIB\~ \~~/ 1 ~ }I 8 1 3 __ Yw 3e 1 E E ' d ~, i 8 ~~ ~8 h~ o x3 O ~ 7 - C ~ rv ~- ~ _. N 1n _ N U :: N .._ m N __ • _ _ II _ N $ (~ ~ O m I N ~ ^ _ W ~ a a i ~ ' i i ~`~ ; n. ~ E .U ~~ 1..L >/ I ~, T l f ~ l ~ - ~ ~, a ~ m U Y ~ O f O ~ I ' i 6 - j -' ~ i ro O g E - & Z - i j ~ - CJ -- _' ~ a € s" ~ ~ _ ~_. . ~~ltF;arm C'-~-l.~a ~- o~-o/ Ct~~Y tir :`' .:>:¢,: wry `,~'` G/~fl~~~ 1:~~~---~ - -~~~~" :4i~i1~1{CIvCi'1'Qly Plantzr't;~.lr, .l3atilding, anti Co>,ununity Depurttncnt MASTER LAND USE APPLICA TION -PLANNING APPLICATIONS Project Namc Cgttag~: Gardens :t?rofessioi7al-:Office :Date February .6:,._20b7 Parcel No(s) 2.'(4800,4;610 `>''_: - SiteAddresS105 M.Street :Northeast Legal Description (attached sej~arate sheet if necessary) Lots. i5. = ~$ :Block Z, Frenchs Addn .;ta., Slaughter.;;. Less `W: 5. ;ft. , NE1./4 'Sec 7.8;;,- Twp 21N RSEWM`- Name: Kathryn. Crude. . 24.216 231st PT:. S E;!:; P9a le VaFl,ley, ;WA. _;98038 Mailing Address: P. Telephoneaud Fax: P. . , e: 253. ,640 0499. Fax:..253 :887 9444.` Email: x.Cruzc@ s Signature• Owner (if mote lia~t on ttach another sheet) Name: ,_. Mailing Address: _ ' ;, Telephone and Fax: . ... - ..: Email: - Si nature: Engineer/Architecture/Other ,., , Name: Steve Oyer, :.,~irGhite,'ct Mailing Address: 1909, ,Drake R~chaxdson, ;1`X _ _ _. Telephone and Fax: Email: steve~QyerArc~itects com Description of t?roposed Action: Condi,tioriaJ t7se Permi.;t to .develop prof~~sonal. office suites:: ROmOde1 :•and add on; ro;'e i~tnq: single' faniilyl. }xoMe. Demolish `garage acid •cottage., ./';~;,,y.y:D `,-n,. o.,:--~- ~j .p_u; n, 'd-,-~ Type of Application Required (Check all that Apply) (' Administrative flppeal"° ('~ Rezone (site specific)* (` Administrative Use Permit* (; Short Plat (' Annexation' (`, Special Exception* (~ Boundary Line Adjustment (' Special Home Occupation Permit* (', Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Text or Map)* (` Substantial Shoreline Development* (: Conditional Use Permit* ('~ Surface Mining Permit* (^; Critical Areas Variance* ('; Temporary Use Permit (' Development Agreement'` ('; Variance* (' Environmental Review (SEPA)* *Please note that public notification is (~ Final Plat required. A separate cost is charged (' Preliminary Plat'" for the signs. City prepares signs but (' PUD Site Plan Appt•oval applicant responsible for sign posting. (^ Reasonable Use Exception* Page 1 of 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION COTTAGE GARDENS PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDING 105 M Street Northeast Auburn, WA 98002 Kathryn Cilize, MC, LMHC Owner 1. How is the property involved in the application more suitable for the Conditional use Permit than those uses permitted outright in the present zoning classification? The current zoning is R2 which allows for residential use but not professional office. 2. Why is this Conditional Use Permit compatible with the other existing uses in the neighborhood? The corridor along M Street Northeast is in transition from residential to professional office use as many former residences have been turned into professional offices. In addition, there are other non-residential buildings on M Street Northeast such as churches, a gas station, a drug store, and a car repair. I think this project would reflect favorably on the appearance and business uses of the neighborhood. 3. Why is this Conditional Use Permit compatible with the existing zoning in the area? This Conditional Use Permit would remodel and add on to an existing residential structure retaining the character and charm of the current home. 4. Why is this Conditional Use Permit consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the area? The Comprehensive Plan provides for the rezoning of the M Street corridor from R2 to RO. ~ N i .l: ~......~,.. s) 3 Ob-OF-f N "3'N is W _________________T__ 1 -- -------- -r o. 1 ~~ ______ ~ ______1..e J ~, n 1 u a OM,i f N 4llg£h' o a 3'N 15 l ..,..~.i.° .~,"""0'F "'~ } ~ Z~ 1 if t 1 7 'o ~ ~ i i N ~Y i; ~ 1 1 ~ ~ 1 :. 1 ~~ 1 ~ 1 t i,... 1~//~~ i ~~,. i ~ ij y~ or ~ , o~, SB c 641 Ps~so 3 ~ 1 1 1 +t ~ ~ ~~ ~r 1 1 i~ ~ h 1 .fl. 1 1 t 1 1 ~Q+j i ~ i '~ ~ ~ ~ O i ~~ e~i i ~ ^ V I ~ 1~ p~ pX ~`~ pl r~ ``° 1 - ~ ~~ O I 1 ~ ~^1>' 1 O "'(9¢I IN d• 'O 1 •/1 -~1 I 1 `' ~n moo'-'JI to r M 1~ 1 v! ~ t 1 1~ t , m ml 1 ,. 'Ab 31101~IbH~ ~ ~ ~ ~ __ __~x 1 r^ , 1 1 ~ N ~y ~ f~ 1 i (j= In y.1 -~----------- .+ Q. i 3 ~ ~ r R t _ ______________ A l M' ~' ~r ~ J ~ j ~ c.1 .------------- -- ~ ..- ~ ~y ~1. i. ~$ _ Sj _______S' m ~ ~: a 1 1 ____~__________._.~~ _~1j i --------------- i l~ ~y ~ I a °' I ,,,..~. .~,...:~:__ Y1 Q( ~ 1 1 iv lA 1 yy F' S5Ct~11 ' I # ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ rl N - O O.p - -' ~ 1 1 M 1 s p --- -°-- FBO - (' 3t i _ _ i ; _ O~Bd~OO ~ __ f __~_--__- @@ y 1 ~------Q--------- 3 ' c" ~~ ~ v i i i 3 1 ) .. °J I I 1 ..._.. .. .. 09 ~ ~ : ' M y ~ • G s--- ~°~~~ ------ - 2 : -----'--------- 1 1 _._ .. . p! p9 pO pB ~ s p ~B pO 'r8 ~~'~ 1B TS 7a dO ~ '`/B dO __ 0 _ _______ ~ N OOlBB`/p 1 S /^ ~ f, OOdp.Qn! Op'G6y?% ) ` ~~ Q.. _ m...09 ~ ~ .0 ~~~" I I ~ ~' ' 4. . 55. .. .... t_` 5~° 0 bn a t/] .~ ~' W 4-a ~--~ U N ~ C ... . ..,.-. »w ~ ~ ~ ~ O •- ~9 ~ c ~ ~ _ ~ „., ,~~. Q ~9 C y i9 ~ t • ~?. S4 ~ ~ 7 ~ ~ a ~ ~ U a w m i O - i t i t n V ti r ~I ~w yy i ~ - ~ _ .. -- wee _ ±... .~K - Apr- -,--. mss,..}-.m,~ ~: '4{ ?T. iy~ 1, 'l t ,- ~ - .' .t t ~~~iii a 4 .q ~R~L - .4 lf~ f. '~N ~' ~y ~~ Fri ~ _ ~' _ ~~ ., . r> ~ } ~~ _ t 3N'1S i ~;'" '_ ., .: ~ ~, Number mf Pagee _.,~. BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF AUBURN In the Matter of the Application of ) NO. CUPOS-0005 APRIL AND JERAMEY PARKER ) FiND1NGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION For a Conditional Use Permit ) SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION The Hearing Examiner for the City of Auburn recommends to the Auburn City Council that a Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a day spa within the Residential Office zoning district be APPROVED; subject to conditions. SUMMARY OF RECORD Requests: April and Jeramey Parker (Applicants) requested a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for operation of a day spa on property located at 220 M Street NE in Auburn, Washington. Hearing_Date: The Hearing Examiner for the City of Auburn held an open record public hearing on July 18, 2006. Testimony: The following individuals presented testimony under oath at the open record public hearing: 1. Stacy Borland, City of Auburn Planner 2. April Parker, Owner/Applicant Exhibits: The following exhibits were admitted at the open record public hearing: Exhibit 1 Staff Report, dated July 13; 2006 Exhibit 2 Site Plan received October 25, 2005 Exhibit 2a Parcel Map Exhibit 3 Conditional Use Permit and Rezone Application, received October 25, 2006 Exhibit 4 Notice of Application, no date Exhibit 5/Sa Notice of Public Hearing, no date Exhibit 6/6a Affidavit of Posting dated and posted July 7, 2006 Exhibit 7 Affidavit of Mailing, no date, mailed July 7, 2006 Parker Day Spa CUP OS-0005 City of Auburn Hearing Examiner Findings, Conclusion, and Recommendation Page 1 of 6 Exhibit 8/8a Confirmation of Publication of Legal Notice dated July 5, 2006 Exhibit 9 Aerial photograph, no date Exhibit 10 Comment Letter from Henry E. Severson dated December 21, 2005 Exhibit 11 Comment Letter from Walter E. Russell received December 23, 2005 Exhibit 12 Letter from Paul Krauss, City of Auburn, to Henry E. Severson dated January 10, 2006 Exhibit 13 Letter from Paul Krauss, City of Auburn, to Walter Russell dated January 10, 2006 Exhibit 14 Comment Letter from Henry E. Severson dated January 26, 2006 Exhibit 15 Letter from Paul Krauss, City of Auburn, to Henry E. Severson dated February 15, 2006 Exhibit 16 City Department Comment Sheet, no date, last revision June 7, 2006 Exhibit 17 Geotechnical Report by Jason Engineering and Consulting Business, Inc. dated May 20, 2006 Upon consideration of the testimony and exhibits admitted at the open record hearing, the Hearing Examiner enters the following Findings and Conclusions: FINDINGS 1. The Applicants request approval of a CUP for the operation of a day spa -including the provision of massage, manicure, pedicure, and skin care services - at 220 M Street NE in Auburn, Washington. The subject property is approximately 0.23 acres in area and is identified by King County Tax Parcel No. 1821059109. Exhibit 1, pages 1-2; Exhibit 2a; Exhibit 3, pages 1 and 5; Testimony of April Parker. 2. The subject property currently is currently developed as a single family residence; the same structure would accommodate the new use. Additional paved parking would be provided on the east portion of the parcel, behind the existing structure. The new impervious surface area would drain to an on-site infiltration system. Exhibit 1, pages 1, 2, and S; Exhibit 3, page S; Exhibit 17. 3. The subject property is presently zoned Single Family Residential (R2) but in Auburn's Comprehensive Plan it is designated as Office Residential and the applicants have submitted a concurrent request to rezone the property to Residential Office (RO). Exhibit 1, page 1; Exhibit 3, page 1. 4. The RO zone is intended to accommodate business and professional offices, medical and dental clinics, banks and similar financial institutions at locations where they are compatible with residential uses. Some retail and personal services may be permitted if supplemental to the other uses allowed in the zone. This zone is intended for those areas that are in transition from residential to commercial uses along arterials. The City of Auburn Comprehensive Parker Day Spa CUP OS-0005 City of Auburn Hearing Examiner Findings, Conclusion, and Recommendation Page 2 of 6 Transportation Plan classifies M Street NE as a principal arterial. Auburn City Code (ACC) 18.22.010. Exhibit 1 page 3. 5. Zoning and use of surrounding parcels is compatible with the proposed use of the subject parcel. The area is residential, transitioning towards business. The parcel to the north of the subject parcel is already zoned RO and used for business purposes. Additional, nearby parcels along M Street NE, Harvey Road, and East Main Street are also used for business. Exhibit 1, pages 4 and 6; Exhibit 3, page2. 6. The traffic impacts of the proposed use do not require a traffic impact study. The Applicants hope to eventually employ 5-6 staff members. Clients are expected to be present in a one-to- one ratio with staff members. The Applicant currently plans to schedule 15 minutes between the ending of one client's appointment and the start of the next; she expects this spacing will ease traffic burdens as one client will leave before another arrives. Exhibit 1, page 6; Testimony of April Parker. 7. Off-street parking requirements are set out in ACC 18.52. ACC 18.52.020(A)(3) requires one off-street parking space for every 400 square feet of gross floor area. Parking spaces must meet the dimensional standards set forth in ACC 18.52.090. The Applicants have proposed six paved off-street parking spaces for the 1,540 square foot building. The Applicants' proposal would satisfy the off-street parking requirements of the zoning district. Exhibit 1, page 3; Exhibit 17; Testimony of Stacy Borland. 8. Review of the proposal by other city departments, including Public Works, determined that the public infrastructures (sewer and water) would not be affected by the proposal so long as the plan is implemented as presented and recommended conditions are followed. The site plan introduced as Exhibit 2 is no longer current; the appropriate site plan for this project is attached to Exhibit 17. The site plan attached to Exhibit 17 improperly marks south as north, the direction should be reversed. Exhibit 1, page 6; Exhibit 16; Testimony of Stacy Borland. 9. ACC 18.50.020(B) requires landscaping be updated in conjunction with a change of use in an RO district. To the greatest extent possible, the applicants are required to comply with the buffer distances set forth in the code. In an RO district, ACC 18.50.050(C) requires 10 feet of Type III landscaping between the street frontage and the structure. Additionally, the code requires 10 feet of Type III landscaping as a buffer between any adjacent RR, RS, R1, R2, and R3 zones. Parking or driveways near those zones require 10 feet of Type II landscaping. While the proposed layout will largely accommodate these requirements, for at least 30 feet along the southern boundary the house prevents a buffer zone of larger than 6 feet. Exhibit 1, page 6; Exhibit 17; Testimony of Stacy Borland. 10. The City determined that due to the small size of the proposal, the proposal falls below the threshold for environmental review under Washington's State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW 43.21 C. Exhibit 1, page 4; WAC 197-11-800. Parker Day Spa CUP OS-0005 City of Auburn Hearing Examiner Findings, Conclusion, and Recommendation Page 3 of 6 11. Proper notice of both the application and the hearing for this request was given by the City of Auburn. Exhibits S, 6, 7. CONCLUSIONS Jurisdiction The Hearing Examiner is granted jurisdiction to hear and make a recommendation to the Auburn City Council on an application for a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to ACC 18.64.020(A) and 18.66, and RCW 35.63.130. The Hearing Examiner is also granted authority to place conditions on the conditional use permit pursuant to ACC 18.64.050. Criteria for Review Auburn City Code 18,64.040 provides criteria for review for CUP applications. A CUP application shall only be approved if the Applicant can demonstrate that: 1. The use will have no more adverse effect on the health, safety, or comfort of persons living or working in the area and will be no more injurious, economically or otherwise, to property or improvements in the surrounding are than would any use generally permitted in the district. 2. The proposal is in accordance with the goals, policies, and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The proposal complies with all requirements of ACC Title 18. 4. The proposal can be constructed and maintained so as to be harmonious and appropriate in design, character, and appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity. 5. The proposal will not adversely affect the public infrastructure. 6. The proposal will not cause or create a public nuisance. Conclusions Based on Findings 1. The use will have no more adverse effect on the health, safety, or comfort of persons living or working in the area and will be no more injurious, economically or otherwise, to property or improvements in the surrounding area than would any use generally permitted in the district. The proposed day spa will be located on a principal arterial near residences and other businesses. The day spa will occupy the existing building and will provide on-site parking. A personal service business, such as a day spa, is a permitted use within the RO zone upon issuance of a CUP. Findings 1, 2, S, and 7; ACC 18.22.030(A)(S). Parker Day Spa CUP OS-0005 City ofAuburn Hearing Examiner Findings, Conclusion, and Recommendation Page 4 of 6 2. The proposal is in accordance with the goals, policies, and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed use is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site -Office Residential. The goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan are supported by the proposal. Findings 3, 4, and S. 3. The proposal complies with all requirements of ACC Title 18. Required landscaping and parking are in compliance with ACC 18.50 and 18.52. The other aspects of site and structure will remain unchanged. Findings 1, 2, 7, 8, and 9. 4. The proposal can be constructed and maintained so as to be harmonious and appropriate in design, character, and appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity. The change in use will not change make significant changes to the design, character, or appearance of the site since the current structure will be retained. The parking will be in the rear and appropriate landscaping will be provided to maintain the area's character. The area is marked in Auburn's Comprehensive Plan as Office Residential and is in transition from single family residential. Findings 2, 3, S, 7, and 9. 5. The proposal will not adversely affect the public infrastructure. Conditions of approval would provide for development of private storm drainage facilities to manage stormwater quantity and water quality impacts. The additional trips created by the change of use will not adversely impact traffic in the area. Findings 6 and 8. 6. The proposal will not cause or create a public nuisance. No concerns were presented at hearing or through exhibits that approval would cause or create a public nuisance. The Applicants propose to use the site for a small business use in an area surrounded by residential and business uses. Findings 2, S, and 6. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the preceding Findings and Conclusions, the Hearing Examiner recommends that the Auburn City Council APPROVE the Applicant's request for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a day spa on property located at 220 M Street NE in Auburn, Washington, subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of this application is contingent upon prior approval by the City Council of the request to rezone the property from Single Family Residential (R2) to Residential Office (RO). 2. The Applicants shall follow through with all drainage and parking plans laid out in Exhibit 17. The parking layout shall satisfy all the dimensional requirements established in ACC 18.52.090. Parker Day Spa CUP OS-0005 City of Auburn Hearing Examiner Findings, Conclusion, and Recommendation Page S of 6 3. A landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Auburn Permit Center that demonstrates compliance with landscaping requirements, to the maximum extent possible. RECOMMENDED this ~~ day of July 2006. ~~-~~ Theodore Paul Hunter, Hearing Examiner Parker Day Spa CUP OS-0005 City of Auburn Hearing Examiner Findings, Conclusion, and Recommendation Page 6 of 6 Page 1 of 3 Exhibit ,_, j,t._ 3 Number of PAg~e _~ Steven Pitcher From: Steven Pilcher Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 5:36 PM To: 'Phil A. Olbrechts' Cc: Kirsten Reynolds Subject: FW: Application no. CUP07-0001, public comments Phil: We received the fo-lowing comment by the close of business today. Per your instructions at the hearing of April 11, no more written comments will be accepted, but Ms. Cruze has the opportunity to respond by the close of business Friday April 20. We will pass this a-mail on to her separately. Steve Pilcher Development Services Coordinator City of Auburn From: henry severson [mailto:henryseverson@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 4:52 PM To: Kirsten Reynolds Subject: Application no. CUP07-0001, public comments Auburn Planning Department 25 W Main Auburn, WA, 98001 Ref #1: Application no. CUP07-0001 Ref #2: City of Auburn, Agenda Bill Approval form, Agenda Subject Public Hearing Application no. CUP07- 0001, March 19, 2007 (exhibit 1, 7 pgs) Additional Comments Following are my additional comments re the application for a Conditional Use Permit to convert a single family residence into professional office suites w/in a R-2 zone (ref #1). These are in addition to my comments at the 4/11/07 public hearing: Proposal Summary I understand the proposal to retain a 990 sq ft house and add to it for a total of 2351 sq ft and remove other structures on the ppty; that the total lot size is 12075 sq ft. The proposal includes a request to have 10 offices and a common reception area. Also there will be parking provided for 9 vehicles. (Ref #2). Adversely Effected Residences I own the property at 203 N ST NE, approximately 500 feet from the subject property. Also of interest are residences adjacent to the west (2) on 1st st NE and to the north (2) on M st NE. There are at least 8 residences directly across the street on M st NE and 6 more residences on L st NE btwn 1st and 3rd st NE in addition to the residence on the NE corner of 1st st NE and L st NE and on the on the SW corner of 1st st NE and L st NE. These are all presently zoned R2. Comments on ref #2 I refer to the Conclusions of ref #2: 1. "The use will have no more adverse effect .......... than would any use generally permitted in the district." These offices will have mental health clients, potentially 12 x 10 per day. (Assumes at a max, 12 appoints Page 2 of 3 per day, 9 AM to 9 PM per office). That could be 840 a week, at 7 days a week usage. Certainly this is a maximum number, but there are no restrictions on such use. The type of cliental is also not restricted. It could be all clients from the justice center, active drug addicts, etc. Again, there are no restrictions. So one must assume the worst that is possible may happen, since there are no restrictions. Therefore, the residences noted above, and nearby, will eventually be adversely effected 2. "The proposal is in accordance w the goals.... of the Comprehensive plan." The plan proposes R0, not R-2 with a conditional use as an excessively officed residence. R-2 was not meant to accommodate such excessive use. This proposal should be resubmitted as R0. Please note, the plan is a plan, not a directive, and proposes an RO zoning here. This means R0, not an R-2 with a conditional use beyond the intent of the R-2 zoning. 3. "The proposal complies w all rgmts of this Zoning code". I do not agree. R-2 proposes a min of one dwelling per 6000 sq ft lot and therefore one family per residence w/in 6000 sq ft. This could allow 2 families (if rezoned into 2 lots). That intent could be 10 to 14 people at a max. To allow 10 offices and a reception on this lot is overuse of the facility, even as a 2351 sq ft structure. First there is no restriction as to volume or specific type (i. e., cliental) or specific time of use. There will be potentially 11 personnel at a minimum occupying the offices. The cliental will probably have 1 hr appts. Since one client will arrive before another leaves, this means another 10 or more clients and 10 clients arriving for their next appointment. This also means 20 cars. There is on site parking proposed for 9 cars. This alone is incompatible for a R-2. The highest use I have seen is 6(@ 20 M st NE, or 106 or 122 M st SE). With the 9 on site and 3 on street, does not allow for adequate parking at the facility. The facility accommodates parking for 12. The rest, as much as a the peak total of 31 minus 12 means 19 will spill over to and into the adjoining neighborhoods. Some will park across the street, using the grocery and drug store parking and facilities. This means the adjacent residences will suffer by providing the spaces for overflow parking. There will also be a pressure of this property to secure the use of driveway belonging to the property on the north, for ease of ingress and egress. (The driveway aligns w the northerly property of the subject property and exits west.) 4. "The proposal can be constructed and maintained ......, to be harmonious ........" The buffers are inadequate, less than the buffers required for an RO zoning. RO zoning requires buffers between residential and residential office use of 10 feet of type III. Comment Summary This is an application for a conditional use within an existing R-2 zone. Even though the Comprehensive Plan proposes future RO zoning, this is not that future. This is an R-2 zone. The intent of ACC 18.14, R-2 Single Family Residential District, states: "The R-2 single-family residential zones are intended to create a living environment of optimum standards for single family dwellings. It is further intended to limit development to relatively low degrees of density." The proposed conditional use permit exceeds this intent: • At a peak, there will be 11 occupying the office and reception, 10 or more clients using the services of the professionals, and 10 or more clients in the reception area awaiting their appointments. This is a population of more than 31! This population is outside the intent of the ACC. • There will be, at a peak, at least 31 cars to be parked, 19 of which cannot be accommodated on or in front of the site. • We do not know the limits of operation. Nighttime use has a negative impact on the adjoining residences. • We do not know the extremes of the behavior of the cliental. The potential for cliental that may pose a danger to children at the adjoining neighborhoods is unaddressed. For the above reasons, I request that ref #1, in its current form, be denied. Respectively, Henry E Severson 203 N st NE Page 3 of 3 Auburn, WA, 98002 253-833-3971 Page 1 of 2 Steven Pitcher From: kathryn cruze [K.Cruze@msn.com] Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 12:02 AM To: Steven Pilcher Subject: CUp response Ea6ibit __l. Number of Pagan Dear Mr. Pilcher: My response regarding the public comment for CUP07-0001 is as follows: I appreciate the time Mr. Severson has taken to address his concerns and his commitment to his community. I hope some of the information below will address his concerns. It is my intention that this property and business will be a good neighbor. Regarding parking: Therapists, attorneys, or accountants would never see 12 clients per day back to back, day after day, seven days per week. A full-time mental health practice is considered a schedule of 20 face to face appointments per week. Administrative work takes up more hours than actual face to face time which is where the number of 20 client hours comes from. In addition, many therapists, including myself have more than one office. I have an office in Issaquah where I spend two days per week leaving three days in Auburn. Dual offices are common. There have been many conversations between myself and the city regarding parking. The site plan has been reworked many times to meeting park requirements. I have been in contact with a church nearby (with an empty parking lot on weekdays) regarding the possibility of off-site negotiated parking and I have received a very positive response from them. In Mr. Severson's calculations regarding available parking he added the nine spaces of on-site parking to three spaces of on street parking totaling 12. He added three spaces on the North side of 1st street but he did not include the south side of 1st street which has an entire block of side street parking available (minus one driveway at the west end of this block). I have been to this site many times and have never seen anyone parking on the south side of 1st Street between M Street and L Street. It is in back of the grocery and drug store and literally unused. In summary, the number of parking spaces he suggests will be needed is greatly overestimated and the number of available parking spaces is greatly underestimated. Regarding safety: There are many residences across the street and in the area around the HOSS building where I currently practice and the prior locations I have practiced in Auburn. In the 20 years that I have been in practice, there have never been any safety problems for the children or families in the area in regard to my practice. Mental health counselors do not provide treatment for "active drug addicts". My practice is typical and made up of working individuals and their families and other tenants would have to be compatible with my practice. I have contracts with insurance companies that provide benefits for employees of large and small companies including Boeing, COSTCO, the Association of Washington Cities, and Starbucks. The real danger in the community is the "active drug addicts" and "justice center clients" living among us who are not receiving treatment or intervention. Restrictions to my building will not improve the safety of children. Education, treatment, and intervention are better strategies and best when provided by specialists in chemical dependency and criminal justice programs. I am hoping that this successful business will help calm the fears associated with the stigma of mental health treatment. I have a young son and I can truly appreciate a parent's concern for the safety of their children however suggesting that this building will provide a threat to residents nearby is without merit. Regarding the statement: "It could be all clients from the justice Page 2 of 2 center, active drug addicts, etc", such a scenario is incompatible with my practice and any future use of the building would be addressed between the city and the business at that future time. There have been some safety problems on this property; specifically prowlers. My tenant has seen evidence of intruders that came into her residence through an open window and she has heard prowling around her residence. This was reported to the police. I have witnessed questionable activity behind the drug store across from the building. The back of the drug store and grocery store on 1st street have poor visibility from M Street. Before I purchased this property, the house was not well kept up and has overgrown vegetation on parts of the property. I saw evidence of regular weekly garage sales at this residence before I purchased it. I believe the improved lighting, and security alarm systems to be installed at the building will improve the safety of this area, by deterring prowling, break-ins, and other illegal activity. The improvement in appearance of this property will benefit the surrounding area as well. Regarding the driveway on the north side of the property: There will no access to the private driveway to the north per the sight plan. This is private property. Regarding the border: The city and I have negotiated a wooden fence along the west and north side of the property along the parking lot which is not a code requirement. The border is specifically designed to be attractive and sheltering. This border will be an improvement over a vegetation border with no fence. Thank you for this opportunity to share my thoughts. Kathryn Cruze ~zbibit Number of Page® 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF AUBURN Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner RE: Kathryn Cruze FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS Conditional Use Permit OF LAW AND RECOMMENDATIONS. CUP07-0001 INTRODUCTION The applicant has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to convert an existing single- family residence into professional office suites. The Examiner approves the request subject to conditions. ORAL TESTIMONY Steve Pilcher, City Planner, summarized the staff report. Mr. Pilcher pointed out that since the property is in the R2 zone, there is no landscaping required. Landscaping is only imposed through the conditional use permitting process. He noted that if the property were zoned RO, which is a Residential Office zoned district, a ten foot landscaping buffer would be required. The subject application contains landscaping buffer that is slightly less than eight feet, but this difference in width is made up by the imposition of a fence requirement, which is not required in the RO zone. Kathy Cruze, applicant, testified that she is a licensed mental health counselor. She stated that the reason she put this project together was that it is hard to find appropriate places to practice that are professional and provide privacy and comfort at a price that a solo practitioner can afford. Ms. Cruze pointed out that there are other commercial uses along the street that are similar to hers. Henry Severson, a neighbor, also testified. He stated he has no overall objection to the project becoming a residential office. He expressed concern that buffer requirements had not enforced in prior rezones. Mr. Severson gave examples of properties that have been zoned RO where ten-foot buffer requirements had not been followed. He also pointed out that the screening in the properties with inadequate buffering was not sufficient to protect adjoining residential uses. Mr. Severson also raised concerns about the range of uses allowed for the property if the office building is allowed. He also stated that the height regulations would allow up to a 50-foot-tall structure, which is incompatible with R2 zoning. Mr. Severson also pointed out that the parking assigned to the commercial uses along M street has been inadequate and this has caused spillover parking onto adjoining streets. {PA0660537.DOC;1/00083.900000/ E Cruze p. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision Don Horn, who resides across the street from the project, also testified. He stated that he felt notice for the hearing was inadequate because it was his understanding that thirty days advance notice was required for any public hearing. He also stated that the signs posted at the site providing notice of the hearing were too small, that he understood that the signs had to be four. by eight feet, and they were only two by four feet. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Steve Pilcher .pointed out that the City's code requires only aten-day advance notice and that this was satisfied. He also pointed out that no signs were required for the project and that the staff had used the small sign for this project because it was a small site. In response to another question from Mr. Horn, Mr. Pilcher also clarified that access to the site would be off of First Street Northeast. Mr. Horn expressed concern that the design of the building was unknown and that multi-uses would be allowed for it. Steve Pilcher also pointed out that the building height would not be a problem because the project was located in the R2 zone, not the RO zone where taller building heights would be permitted (Mr. Severson had been under the impression the Cruze lot was zoned RO). Mr. Pilcher also pointed out that the conditional use permit would be allowed for only specific uses and if someone wanted later to come in and try to change the use, they would have to acquire another conditional use permit. In response to concerns expressed by Mr. Severson about inadequate buffering in other projects, Mr. Pilcher pointed out that at one of the sites, the improvements had not yet been constructed, including the required landscaping, and that in another, the applicants had acquired a variance for a narrower landscaping buffer. In response to questions from the Examiner, Mr. Pilcher stated that any change in landscaping requirements recommended by staff would require a redesign of the project because it would result in the loss of required parking spaces. Another unidentified speaker (his name was not picked up by the recording instrument) who resides at 140 L Street asked to speak out of turn. He was concerned about the range of uses allowed in the office building since he was close to the project site and has children. The Examiner clarified that only professional office uses were allowed and that this did not include overnight treatment or group homes. Henry Severson submitted written comments by e-mail on April 17, 2007. In this e- mail, Mr. Severson noted that there are at least 15 residences within close proximity to the proposed project, all zoned RII. He also noted that there are no restrictions on the clientele of the professional offices, which can include clients from the Justice Center and active drug addicts. He noted that the Comprehensive Plan designates the project site as RO, which is inconsistent with the current R2 designation. He noted that by his calculation, as many as 31 parking spaces were necessary for the project and that it accommodated only 12 spaces. Ms. Cruze responded to Mr. Severson's written comments by e-mail dated April 20, 2007. She pointed out that the basis of Mr. Severson's parking assumptions was { PA0660537.DOC;1/00083.900000/ } Cruze p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 faulty. Mr. Severson based his parking estimates upon 12 clients per day, 7 days per week per professional. She stated that in the case of a mental health practitioner, the maximum the practitioner would see would be 20 appointments per week. She also noted that Mr. Severson did not take into account a large amount of off-street parking available for the project. Ms. Cruze also stated that in the 20 years that she has been in practice, there have never been any safety problems for children or families in the area due to her clients. She stated that mental health counselors do not provide treatment for active drug addicts. EXHIBITS Exhibit Nos. 1 through 8, see page 2 of the March 19, 2007 staff report. Exhibit 9: Fourteen photographs submitted by Henry Severson Exhibit 10: Variance Decision for 220 M Street Exhibit 11: April 17, 2007 e-mail from Henry Severson Exhibit 12: Apri120, 2007 e-mail from Kathryn Cruze FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: 1. Ap lip cant. The applicant is Kathryn Cruze. 2. Hearin. The Hearing Examiner .conducted a hearing on the application at 5:30 p.m. at Auburn City Hall in the Council Chambers on April 11, 2007. The hearing was left open for written comment until 5:00 p.m. on April 17, 2007. The applicant had an opportunity for written response unti15:00 p.m. on Apri120, 2007. Substantive: 3. Site/Proposal Descri tp ion. Kathryn Cruze has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to convert an existing single-family residence into 10 professional office suites. The project will involve demolishing a detached garage and detached cottage located on the property, constructing additions onto the existing home, and remodeling the existing residence for professional office use. Off-street parking for nine vehicles will also be provided, as well as on-site fencing and landscaping. The lot is 12,075 feet in area. The total square footage of the building will be 2,351 square feet. The property will be .fenced on the western and northern property boundaries. A T9" landscaping buffer will be placed along the western property, which adjoins residential uses. A lesser width is proposed on the northern property line, which also adjoins residential use. The staff have also recommended a 6-foot- tall solid wood fence along the western and northern property lines. 4. Characteristics of the Area. The project site fronts a heavily congested arterial in an area predominantly zoned R2 but primarily characterized by commercial (PA0660537.DOC;1/00083.900000/} Cruze p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 use along M Street. The property is surrounded on three sides by single-family developments and on the south side by a commercial shopping center. In contrast to the commercial development that predominates along M Street, the property to the west is a quiet single-family neighborhood. A church, camera shop, and gas station as well as other commercial uses are all within a couple blocks of the proposed professional office building. 5. Adverse Impacts. Several residential neighbors expressed understandable concern about another conversion in their vicinity from residential to commercial use. The development along M Street Northeast constitutes an uncomfortable mixture of commercial and residential development. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 4 above, the noise and traffic and intensity of land use along M Street is in stark contrast to the quiet residential community to the west located along L Street and beyond. Consequently, the conditional use permitting process is an important land use tool to ensure compatibility amongst these different uses. The staff have succeeded in addressing these impacts within their recommended conditions of approval and negotiated project design features. Mr. Severson and the applicant certainly have very different understandings of the amount of parking that will be necessary for. the project. Mr. Severson bases his parking estimates upon use of the building that is difficult to imagine would ever realistically happen. Ms. Craze bases her opinion upon the clientele of her practice, which could be very different from other types of professionals that would be authorized to use the building. In assessing the parking demand created by the project, the Examiner defers to the legislative determinations made by the City Council in adopting the City's parking standards. ACC 18.52.020(B)(12) requires one parking space per 300 square feet of gross floor area. The nine parking stalls proposed by the applicant exceeds this standard and there is no compelling evidence in the record that this will not adequately meet the demand generated by the users of the office building. Adequate buffering for adjoining residential uses is one of the more important mitigation measures to be addressed in this Conditional Use Permit decision. As noted by staff, if the parcel were zoned for Residential Office, a 10-feet buffer with Type II landscaping would be required between parking and driveways and adjoining residential uses. Staff are a little over a couple of feet short on this buffer width for the western property line but believe they have compensated for this deficiency by substituting a 6-foot solid wooden fence. The Examiner agrees that the accommodation of the fence plus Type II landscaping provides for adequate buffering to the residential uses to the west. The width of the landscaping buffer to the north is significantly less than 10 feet the closer one gets to the western property line. The property to the north, however, is not located within the quiet residential neighborhood that fronts L Street. It fronts upon the heavily congested M Street and is surrounded by commercial development. Given the noise, lights, and traffic that already impact that property, a landscaped buffer will not make that much difference. {PA0660537.DOC;1/00083.900000/} Craze p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision For this reason, the buffering in conjunction with the fence proposed for the northern side of the property is adequate mitigation as well. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 There was also significant concern expressed during the hearing about the clientele that would use the building. Much of the testimony focused upon the clientele of the mental health professional. As commented by Ms. Cruze, her practice does not involve any clientele that would be a danger to the community. Given Ms. Cruze's testimony, it would appear that the clientele of a criminal defense attorney (an authorized use of the proposed building) would be a greater cause for concern than that of a mental health professional. Be that as it may, there is no compelling evidence in the record to establish that a relatively minor number of clients that would frequent the facility would contain more "dangerous" individuals than the large number of people that frequent the neighboring store and other commercial uses along M Street. Further, for constitutional and other legal reasons, the City would have a very difficult time prohibiting persons with a criminal history or drug problems from accessing the building. The clientele of the building will largely be restricted by its authorized use. As noted by staff, the permit is only for a professional office building, which is defined by ACC 18.04.750 as "offices maintained and used as places of business conducted by persons engaged in health services for human beings, such as doctors and dentists, and by engineers, attorneys, realtors, architects, accountants, clerical, and other recognized general office and medical occupations." In order to prevent any confusion on the matter, the conditions of approval will be clarified to note that approval is only for professional office use. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Procedural: 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. ACC 18.64.020(A) grants the Hearing Examiner with the authority to review a request for a Conditional Use Permit and make a recommendation to the City Council. Substantive: 2. Zonin Desi nation. The property is zoned R2, single-family residential. 3. Review Criteria and Application. Professional office buildings are permitted within an R2 zone if the criteria for a conditional use permit are met. See ACC 18.14.030(H). Chapter 18.64 ACC governs the criteria for a conditional use permit. Those criteria are quoted below and applied by corresponding conclusions of law. {PA0660537.DOC;1/00083.900000/} Cruze p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ACC 18.64.040(A): The use will have no more adverse effect on the health, safety or comfort of persons living or working in the area and will be no more injurious, economically or otherwise, to property or improvements in the surrounding area than would any use generally permitted in the district. 4. The primary permitted use in the R2 zone is asingle-family dwelling. See ACC 18.14.020(A). The primary adverse impacts of concern are noise, light and traffic. As discussed in the findings of fact, the landscaping and fencing along the north and west property lines provide adequate mitigation for these types of impacts given the context and location of adjoining residential uses. Parking, according to the Auburn City Code, is adequate by the proposed nine off-site parking stalls. ACC 18.64.040(B): The proposal is in accordance with the goals, policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 5. As noted in the staff report, the Comprehensive Plan map designation for the site is "office residential" which encourages the reservation of areas to accommodate professional offices for expanding medical and business services, while providing a transition between residential uses and more intensive uses and activities. The professional office building proposed by the applicant clearly meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. ACC 18.64.040(C): The proposal complies with all requirements of this title. 6. As noted in the staff report, the proposal meets all the requirements of the R2 zone.. ACC 18.64.040(D): The proposal can be constructed and maintained so as to be harmonious and appropriate in design, character and appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity. 7. The landscaping and fencing required of the project will play a major role in ensuring compatibility with adjoining uses. Staff have also recommended a condition that requires consistency in design with the existing brick home. Also, the structure will remain one story in height and the total floor area of the expanded structure is consistent with that of a large single-family residence. ACC 18.64.040(E): The proposal will not adversely affect the public infrastructure. 8. As noted in the staff report, the applicant will be required to install a fire hydrant on site and construct a sidewalk along 1st St. N.E.. This will be made a condition of approval of this application. Further, as testified by staff during the hearing, the streets that serve the project have adequate capacity to meet the increase in traffic demand generated by the project. As further noted in the staff report, the project will be served by sewer and water. { PA06605 37. DOC;1 /00083.900000/ } Cruze p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision ACC 18.64.040(6): The proposal will not cause or create a public nuisance. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ~ 9. The site is located in an area by a heavily congested arterial (M Street Northeast) and surrounded by intense commercial uses such as a commercial shopping center, a church, and other smaller commercial facilities. The project does border a quiet residential community to the west, but the screening and relatively low intensity of the proposal prevent any incompatibility that rises to the level of a public nuisance. DECISION The Hearing Examiner recommends approval of the recommended Conditional Use Permit and adopts the recommended conditions of approval listed in the march 19, 2007 staff report. The Examiner also adds the following recommendations: 1. Use of the project shall be limited to professional office as currently defined by ACC 18.04.750. 2. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall install a fire hydrant and construct a sidewalk along First Street Northeast as required by applicable development standards. 1 Dated this ~ day of ~ , 2007. Phil Olbrechts City of Auburn Hearing Examiner { PA0660537. DOC;1 /00083.900000/ } Cruze p. 7 Findings, Conclusions and Decision CITY OF UBUR:N WASHINGTON Peter B. Lewis, Mayc 25 West Main Street * Auburn WA 98001-4998 * www.auburnwa.gov * 253-931-300 Tz6lblt.._L~ Namber of Page~,,,_/ May 17, 2007 Phil A. Olbrechts Attorney at Law Ogden Murphy Wallace 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2100 Seattle, WA 98101-1686 Re: Reconsideration request of Hearing Examiner decision CUP07-0001, Kathy Cruze Enclosed please find a timely filed Request for Reconsideration for the above-referenced case. Mr. Henry Severson, who testified at the public hearing, has filed the request. By way of copy, we are notifying the applicant of this action. If you have any questions, please contact me at 253-804-3111. Sincerely, r ~~ rf, ~~ e Pitcher --- Development Services Coordinator Cc: Kathy Cruze QT TRT TR YET x: MIIR F TH A N Y(li i i M A(:T NF 203 N street NE ., ~ Auburn, WA, 98002 __ . _ __ __ May 17, 2007'.. Hearing Examiner __ 25 W Main _ _ __ _ _ __ Auburn, WA, 98001-998 Subject: Request for Reconsideration of Hearing Examiner's Officia! Decision re Application No. CUP07-0001 Ref #1: Application no. CUP07-0001 Ref #2: City of Auburn, Agenda Bill Approval form, Agenda Subject Public Hearing Application no. CUP07-0001, March 19, 2007 (exhibit 1, 7 P9s) Ref #3: My e-mailed "Additional Comments`, Henry E. Severson to the Auburn Planning Department ,April 17, 2007 Ref #4: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendations, re Kathryn Cruze, Conditional Use Permit CUP7-0001 Ref #5: Hearing Examiner`s Official Decision re Application No. CUP07-0001 (Considered by the Hearing Examiner on Aprii 11, 2007} Dear Sir, I am requesting that you reconsider your decision, given in ref #5, that states "the Examiner approves the request, subject to conditions." My reasons for this request follow below. As a convince, I have copied and attached the document: BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF AUBURN Phil Olbreehts, Hearing Examiner RE: Kathryn Cruze FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS Conditional Use Permit OF LAW AND RECONIl«NDATIONS. CUP07-0001 I have injected my comments as Italic and bold statements within the copied document, In summary, my case for reconsideration: Under ref #5, Ora/ Testimony: • I was misunderstood, in that I disagreed with the statement: "The proposal is in accordance w the goofs.... of the Comprehensive plan. " • My comments on hours of operation were not addressed • My parking estimates were misunderstood and assumed to be unrealistic. • No agreements for using "the large amount of off street parking", privately owned, were produced, although the use of this private off street parking is proposed as a solution to any parking problems. Under ref #5, Findings of Fact, Substantive: • My Parking estimates were considered unrealistic and dismissed, I have produced, in detail, my estimates, as Attachment A, to support my concerns and a "real time" example of overflow parking into the residential neighborhood, along NE 6t`' street from the 11 office dental clinic at 620 M street NE, as Attachment B. All this shows my estimates to be realistic. • The parking from the site will have a detrimental effect on the R- 2zoned "quiet residential neighborhood." This is not addressed. • THE ACC code 18.5.020{13}(12} requires 9 on-site stalls but the additional off site parking that will be needed to allow the office complex to function is not in conformance w the intent of ACC 18.14, R-2 Single Family Residential District. Further mitigation needs to be addressed and is not. Under ref #5, Concfusions of Law, Substantive: • Parking impacts the adjoining R-2 zoned "quiet residential neighborhood." This is not addressed and does not conform w the intent of ACC 18.14, R-2 Single Family Residential District. • The proposal is not in accordance w the goals.... of the Comprehensive Plan. The plan proposes RQ. It does not propose to stretch the intent of ACC 18.14, R-2 Single Family Residential District that "is further intended to limit development to relatively low degrees of density." A complex with ten offices is not low degree intensity. • The proposal will degrade the adjoining neighborhood, with the parking the mental health facility requires and since it can also be a i0 office dental clinic or any of the professionals defined by ACC 18.04.750 as "offices maintained and used as places of business conducted by persons engaged in health services for human beings, such as doctors and dentists, and by engineers, attorneys, realtors, architects, accountants, clerical, and other recognized general office and medical occupations." None of these uses were addressed. • The hig P de~szty of parking from some of these uses will have an adverseq~r~t a surrounding R-2 zoned residences and beyond the intent of ACC 18.14. See Attachment B, for example. For the reasons summarized above and detailed in the attached marked up document, I respectively request that the findings and the conclusion of the Hearing Examiner in reference #5 be reconsidered. Thank you. Res ctiveiy, Henry Seve son 203 N street NE Auburn, WA, 9$002-4416 253-833-3971 Attachments: COPY (of reference #5, altered by comments from H. E. Severson and submitted with a Request for Reconsideration, 5 j i 7 j07} Attachment A, Parking Estimate for Mental Health Office Complex w 10 Offices Attachment B, Parking Study of the 620 M street NE, w 11 offices 2 4 6 7 s 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COPY f~t~ ~d (This copy has been altered by comments from I~ E. Severson and submitted with a Request for Reconsideration, S/17/07) BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF AUBURN Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner RE: Kathryn Cruze FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS Conditional Use Permit OF LAW AND RECOMMENDATIONS. CUP07-0001 INTRODUCTION The applicant has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to convert an existing single- family residence into professional office suites. The Examiner approves the request subject to conditions. ORAL TESTIMONY Steve Pitcher, City Planner, summarized the staff report. Mr. Pitcher pointed out that since the property is in'the RZ zone, there is no landscaping required. Landscaping is only imposed through the conditional use permitting process. He noted that if the property were zoned RO, which is a Residential Office zoned district, a ten foot landscaping buffer would be required. The subject application contains landscaping buffer that is slightly less than eight feet, but this difference in width is made up by the imposition of a fence requirement, which is not required in the RO zone. Kathy Cruze, applicant, testified that she is a licensed mental health counselor. She stated that the reason she put this project together was that it is hard to find appropriate places to practice that are professional and provide privacy and comfort at a price that a solo practitioner can afford. Ms. Cruze pointed out that there are other commercial uses along the street that are similar to hers. Henry Severson, a neighbor, also testified. He stated he has no overall objection to the project becoming a residential office. He expressed concern that buffer requirements had not enforced in prior rezones. Mr. Severson gave examples of properties that have been zoned RO where ten-foot buffer requirements had not been followed. He also pointed out that the screening in the properties with inadequate buffering was not sufficient to protect adjoining residential uses. Mr. Severson also { P A06605 37. DOC;1 /00083.900000/ } Cruze p. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 2 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 raised concerns about the range of uses allowed for the property if the office building is allowed. He also stated that the height regulations would allow up to a 50-foot-tall structure, which is incompatible with R2 zoning. Mr. Severson also pointed out that the parking assigned to the commercial uses along M street has been inadequate and this has caused spillover parking onto adjoining streets. Don Horn, who resides across the street from the project, also testified. He stated that he felt notice for the hearing was inadequate because it was his understanding that thirty days advance notice was required for any public hearing. He also stated that the signs posted at the site providing notice of the hearing were too small, that he understood that the signs had to be four by eight feet, and they were only two by four feet. Steve Pilcher pointed out that the City's code requires only aten-day advance notice and that this was satisfied. He also pointed out that no signs were required for the project and that the staff had used the small sign for this project because it was a small site. In response to another question from Mr. Horn, Mr. Pilcher also clarified that access to the site would be off of First Street Northeast. Mr. Horn expressed concern that the design of the building was unknown and that multi-uses would be allowed for it. Steve Pilcher also pointed out that the building height would not be a problem because the project was located in the RZ zone, not the RO zone where taller building heights would be permitted (Mr. Severson had been under the impression the Cruze lot was zoned RO}. Mr. Pilcher also pointed out that the conditional use permit would be allowed for only specific uses and if someone wanted later to come in and try to change the use, they would have to acquire another conditional use permit. In response to concerns expressed by Mr. Severson about inadequate buffering in other projects, Mr. Pilcher pointed out that at one of the sites, the improvements had not yet been constructed, including the required landscaping, and that in another, the applicants had acquired a variance for a narrower landscaping buffer. In response to questions from the Examiner, Mr. Pilcher stated that any change in landscaping requirements recommended by staff would require a redesign of the project because it would result in the loss of required parking spaces. Another unidentified speaker (his name was not picked up by the recording instrument) who resides at 140 L Street asked to speak out of turn. He was concerned about the range of uses allowed in the office building since he was close to the project site and has children. The Examiner clarified that only professional office uses were allowed and that this did not include overnight treatment or group homes. Henry Severson submitted written comments by a-mail on April 17, 2007. In this e- mail, Mr. Severson noted that there are at least I S residences within close proximity to the proposed project, all zoned RII. He also noted that there are no restrictions on the clientele of the professional offices, which can include clients from the Justice Center and active drug addicts. He noted that the Comprehensive Plan designates the ~ {PA0660537.DOC;1/00083.900000/} Cruze p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 project site as RO, which is inconsistent with the current R2 designation. He noted that by his calculation, as many as 31 parking spaces were necessary for the project and that it accommodated only 12 spaces. Comments by HES: No, I said I disagreed with the statement: "The proposal is in accordance w the goals.... of the Comprehensive plan. " I said "The plan proposes RO, not R 2 with a conditional use as an excessively officed residence R 2 was not meant to accommodate such excessive use. This proposal should be resubmitted as RO. Please note, the plan is a plan, not a directive, and proposes an RO zoning here This means RO, not an R-Z with a conditional use beyond the intent of the R-2 zoning. "This Conditional Ilse Permit is also not in conformance w the intent of ACC l8. l4, R-2 Single Family Residential District, states: "The R-2 single family residential zones are intended to create a living environment of optimum standards for single family dwellings It is further intended to limit development to relatively low degrees of density. " Regarding my statement from Exhibit II, item Z, under "Comments on ref #2'; the HE did not address this Nor was my statement from Exhibit 11, item 3, under "Comments on ref #2"addressed (see following discussion). I request that both be addressed during reconsideration. Ms. Craze responded to Mr. Severson's written comments by a-mail dated April 20, 2007. She pointed out that the basis of Mr. Severson's parking assumptions was faulty. Mr. Severson based his parking estimates upon 12 clients per day, 7 days per week per professional. Comments by HES: I mode such estimates as a maximum possible use, since no examples of use were available to m. I did not base my parking estimates on this calculation. However, the hours of use have still not been defined I request that the hours of operation be submitted for review, since this comment of mine has not been addressed by the HE and that it be addressed in reconsideration. She stated that in the case of a mental health practitioner, the maximum the practitioner would see would be 20 appointments per week. She also noted that Mr. Severson did not take into account a large amount of off-street parking available for the project. Comments by HES: My estimate of parking required for this facility still stands, .(see Attachment A) with her estimate of 24 appointments a week per mental health professional Also, no agreements woff-street parking lots in this vicinity have been submitted To use these lots w/o an arrangement amounts to trespass Other lot owners, when faced w unauthorized parking, tow the ofj`ending vehicles I request that in the reconsideration, she produce documentation of such arrangements Ms. Craze also stated that in the 20 years that she has been in practice, there have never been any safety problems for children or families in the area due to her clients. She stated that mental health counselors do not provide treatment for active drug addicts. { P A0660 537. DOC;1 /00083.400000/} Craze EXHIBITS p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Exhibit Nos. 1 through 8, see page 2 of the March 19, 2007 staff report Exhibit 9: Fourteen photographs submitted by Henry Severson Exhibit 10: Variance Decision far 220 M Street Exhibit 11: April 17, 2007 e-mail from Henry Severson Exhibit 12: Apri120, 2007 e-mail from Kathryn Cruze FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: Applicant. The applicant is Kathryn Cruze. 2. Hearin. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the application at 5:30 p.m. at Auburn City Hall in the Council Chambers on April 11, 2007. The hearing was left open for written comment until 5:00 p.m. on April 17, 2007. The applicant had an opportunity for written response unti15:00 p.m. on Apri120, 2007. Substantive: 3. SitelProposal Description. Kathryn Cruze has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to convert an existing single-family residence into 10 professional office suites. The project will involve demolishing a detached garage and detached cottage located on the property, constructing additions onto the existing home, and remodeling the existing residence for professional office use. Off-street parking for nine vehicles will also be provided, as well as on-site fencing and landscaping. The lot is 12,075 feet in area. The total square footage of the building will be 2,351 square feet. The property will be fenced on the western and northern property boundaries. A 7'9" landscaping buffer will be placed along the western property, which adjoins residential uses. A lesser width is proposed on the northern property line, which also adjoins residential use. The staff have also recommended a 6-foot- tall solid wood fence along the western and northern property lines. 4. Characteristics of the Area. The project site fronts a heavily congested arterial in an area predominantly zoned RZ but primarily characterized by commercial use along M Street. The property is surrounded on three sides by single-family developments and on the south side by a commercial shopping center. In contrast to the commercial development that predominates along M Street, the property to the west is a quiet single-family neighborhood. A church, camera shop, and gas station as well as other commercial uses are all within a couple blocks of the proposed professional office building. 5. Adverse Impacts. Several residential neighbors expressed understandable concern about another conversion in their vicinity from residential to commercial use. The development along M Street Northeast constitutes an uncomfortable mixture of {PA0660537.DOC;1/00083.900000/} Cruze p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 commercial and residential development. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 4 above, the noise and traffic and intensity of land use along M Street is in stark contrast to the quiet residential community to the west located along L Street and beyond. Consequently, the conditional use permitting process is an important land use tool to ensure compatibility amongst these different uses. The staff have succeeded in addressing these impacts within their recommended conditions of approval and negotiated project design features. Mr. Severson and the applicant certainly have very different understandings of the amount of parking that will be necessary for the project. Mr. Severson bases his parking estimates upon use of the building that is difficult to imagine would ever realistically happen. Comments by HES: The estimate of 31 parking spaces that the site will require is realistic, if the venture is successful, as is Ms Craze's intend Please see Attachment A for a detail of my estimates If this is not realistic, then I/we should be provided with a specific realistic parking plan. See also Attachment B. This is a real time demonstration of the effect of parking overflow and off-site staff parking, spilling over into a quiet, residential neighborhood The cars are from the staff at the dental clinic at 620 M street N~ This facility has 11 offices, only one more than the proposal: (See Attachment B) 18 to ZO cars are consistently parked in the neighborhood, affecting the quality of life and the value of the homes affected The 25 to 30 cars are daily parked in the lot adjacent to the office building. The adjoining and proximate lots belonging to the apartment complex on the north and the church across the street have "Unauthorized cars will be Tawed" signs. Approval of the Conditional Use Permit for offices for mental health professionals is also an approval for the offices to be used as dental offices, since these per ACC 18.04.750 are "offices maintained and used as places of business conducted by persons engaged in health services for human beings, such as doctors and dentists, and by engineers, attorneys, realtors, architects, accountants, clerical, and other recognized general office and medical oecupation~ " Obviously my estimates of the effect of parking from this site or from a future office use on the "quiet residential neighborhood" are very realistic Since my estimate was dismissed as "unrealistic" and is not unrealistic, I request that reconsideration be given to my concerns Ms. Craze bases her opinion upon the clientele of her practice, which could be very different from other types of professionals that would be authorized to use the building. In assessing the parking demand created by the project, the Examiner defers to the legislative determinations made by the City Council in adopting the City's parking standards. ACC 18.52.020(Bx12) requires one parking space per 300 square feet of gross floor area. The nine parking stalls proposed by the applicant exceeds this standard and there is no compelling evidence in the record that this will not adequately meet the demand generated by the users of the office building. Comments by HES: This parking requirement from the ACC certainly should be enforced However, my concern is not for enforcement of this part of the corl~ My concern is for the degradation of the "Quiet residential neighborhoods}':in the vicinity. Creating daily (and Saturday) parking from the site under a conditional use permit is not in {PA0660537.DOC;1/00083.900000/} Craze p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 2 3 4 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 conformance w the intent of ACC 18.14, R-2 Singte Family Residential District, states: "The R 2 single family residential zones are intended to create a living environment of optimum standards for single family dwellings It is further intended to limit development to relatively low degrees of density. " A 10 office building wAn the neighborhood in an R 2 zoning, the resulting off site parking from the proposed use by mental health professionals and the permitted use as dental offices or other permitted and unaddressed uses exceeds this intend Therefore, because of this impact, I request reconsideration be given to this application. Adequate buffering for adjoining residential uses is one of the more important mitigation measures to be addressed in this Conditional Use Permit decision. As noted by staff, if the parcel were zoned for Residential Office, a 10-feet buffer with Type II landscaping would be required between parking and driveways and adjoining residential uses. Staff are a little over a couple of feet short on this buffer width for the western property line but believe they have compensated for this deficiency by substituting a 6-foot solid wooden fence. The Examiner agrees that the accommodation of the fence plus Type II landscaping provides for adequate buffering to the residential uses to the west. The width of the landscaping buffer to the north is significantly less than 10 feet the closer one gets to the western property line. The property to the north, however, is not located within the quiet residential neighborhood that fronts L Street. It fronts upon the heavily congested M Street and is surrounded by commercial development. Given the noise, lights, and traffic that already impact that property, a landscaped buffer will not make that much difference. For this reason, the buffering in conjunction with the fence proposed for the northern side of the property is adequate mitigation as well. There was also significant concern expressed during the hearing about the clientele that would use the building. Much of the testimony focused upon the clientele of the mental health professional. As commented by Ms. Craze, her practice does not involve any clientele that would be a danger to the community. Given Ms. Craze's testimony, it would appear that the clientele of a criminal defense attorney (an authorized use of the proposed building} would be a greater cause for concern than that of a mental health professional. Be that as it may, there is no compelling evidence in the record to establish that a relatively minor number of clients that would frequent the facility would contain more "dangerous" individuals than the large number of people that frequent the neighboring store and other commercial uses along M Street. Further, for constitutional and other legal reasons, the City would have a very difficult time prohibiting persons with a criminal history or drug problems from accessing the building. The clientele of the building will largely be restricted by its authorized use. As noted by staff, the permit is only for a professional office building, which is defined by ACC 18.04.750 as "offices maintained and used as places of business conducted by { PA0660537.DOC;1/00083.900000/} Craze p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 2 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 persons engaged in health services for human beings, such as doctors and dentists, and by engineers, attorneys, realtors, architects, accountants, clerical, and other recognized general office and medical occupations." In order to prevent any confusion on the matter, the conditions of approval will be clarified to note that approval is only for professional offlce use. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Procedural: 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. ACC 18.64.020(A) grants the Hearing Examiner with the authority to review a request for a Conditional Use Permit and make a recommendation to the City Council. Substantive: 2. Zoning Designation. The property is zoned R2, single-family residential. 3. Review Criteria and Application. Professional office buildings are permitted within an R2 zone if the criteria for a conditional use permit are met. See ACC 18.14.030(H). Chapter 18.64 ACC governs the criteria for a conditional use permit. Those criteria are quoted below and applied by corresponding conclusions of law. ACC 18.64.040(A): The use will have no more adverse effect on the health, safety or comfort of persons diving ar working in the area and wilt be no more injurious, economically or otherwise, to property or improvements in the surrounding area than would any use generally permitted in the district. 4. The primary permitted use in the RZ zone is asingle-family dwelling. See ACC 18.14.020(A). The primary adverse impacts of concern are noise, light and traffic. Comments by HES: Another primary impact is the parking that spills over into the adjoining "quiet residential neighborhood (See Attachments A & B)': As discussed in the findings of fact, the landscaping and fencing along the north and west property lines provide adequate mitigation for these types of impacts given the context and location of adjoining residential uses. Parking, according to the Auburn City Code, is adequate by the proposed nine off-site parking stalls. Comments by HES: However, the parking as required for this site to operate successfully, exceeds the parking available at the site, and will have a detrimental affect on the proximate "quiet residential neighborhood': This means the permit is not in conformance w the intent of ACC 18.14, R-2 Single p'amily Residential District, states: "The R-2 single family residential zones are intended to create a living environment of optimum standards for single family dwellings. It is further intended to limit development to relatively low degrees of density. " Additional {PA0660537.DOC;1/00083.9000001} Craze p. 7 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 2 3 4 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2s consideration of this situation, besides the nine site parking required by an ACC is required This requires reconsideration. ACC 18.64.040(B): The proposal is in accordance with the goals, policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 5. As noted in the staff report, the Comprehensive Plan map designation for the site is "office residential" which encourages the reservation of areas to accommodate professional offices for expanding medical and business services, while providing a transition between residential uses and more intensive uses and activities. The professional office building proposed by the applicant clearly meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Comments by HES: I disagreed with the statement: "The proposal is in accordance w the goals.... of the Comprehensive plan. " I said "The plan proposes RO, rt does) not (propose an) R-Z {altered) with a conditional use as an excessively officed residences R-2 was not meant to accommodate such excessive use: " Ticis conditional use is not in conformance w the intent of ACC 18.14, R-2 Single Family Residential District, that states: "The R-2 single family residential zones are intended to create a living environment of optimum standards for single family dwellings It is further intended to limit development to relatively low degrees of density. " This proposal should be resubmitted as RO. Please note, the plan is a plan, not a directive, and proposes an RO zoning hers This means RO, not an R Z with a conditional use beyond the intent of the R-Z zoning. " The HE did not address this statement from Exhibit 11, item 2, under "Comments on ref #2': I request that this statement be addressed during reconsideration. ACC 18.64.040(C}; The proposal complies with all requirements of this title. 6. As noted in the staff report, the proposal meets all the requirements of the R2 zone.. Comments by HES: This is not in compliance w ACC 18.14, R-2 Single Family Residential District, that states: "The R Z single family residential zones are intended to create a living environment of optimum standards for single family dwellings. It is further intended to limit development to relatively low degrees of densi At 10 offices, this is not low density. I therefore request reconsideration. ACC 18.64.040(D): The proposal can be constructed and maintained so as to be harmonious and appropriate in design, character and appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity. 7. The landscaping and fencing required of the project will play a major role in ensuring compatibility with adjoining uses. Staff have also recommended a condition that requires consistency in design with the existing brick home. Also, the { PA0660537. DOC;1 100083.900000/} Cruze p. 8 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 structure will remain one story in height and the total floor area of the expanded structure is consistent with that of a large single-family residence. ACC 18.64.040(E): The proposal will not adversely affect the public infrastructure. 8. As noted in the staff report, the applicant will be required to install a fire hydrant on site and construct a sidewalk along 1st St. N.E.. This will be made a condition of approval of this application. Further, as testified by staff during the hearing, the streets that serve the project have adequate capacity to meet the increase in traffic demand generated by the project. As further noted in the staff report, the project will be served by sewer and water. ACC 18.64.040(6): The proposal will not cause or create a public nuisance. 9. The site is located in an area by a heavily congested arterial (M Street Northeast) and surrounded by intense commercial uses such as a commercial shopping center, a church, and other smaller commercial facilities. Comments by HES: These commercial facilities are south of the site, and do not surround ix The project does border a quiet residential community to the west, but the screening and relatively low intensity of the proposal prevent any incompatibility that rises to the level of a public nuisances The proposal, can and will cause a nuisance, from spillover parking, noted in prior discussions. The "quiet residential neighborhood" won't be so quiet This storage of off site parking will degrade the value and desirability of those homey If the site becomes used as a dental clinic, there will be a constant flaw of clients coming and going. (See Attachments A & B) Since this statement is incorrect, as I have demonstrated above, I request reconsideration. DECISION The Hearing Examiner recommends approval of the recommended Conditional Use Permit and adopts the recommended conditions of approval listed in the march 19, 2007 staff report. The Examiner also adds the following recommendations: 1. Use of the project shall be limited to professional office as currently defined by ACC 18.04.750. 2. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall install a fire hydrant and construct a sidewalk along First Street Northeast as required by applicable development standards. Dated this day of , 2007. Phil Olbrechts City of Auburn Hearing Examiner {PA0660537.DOC;1/00083.900000/} Cruze p. 9 Findings, Conclusions and Decision Attachment A Barking Estimate far Mental Health t}ffice Complex tnr 10 C?ffices I am asking for reconsideration because apparently my concern about the adverse impacts of this project has been misinterpreted, specifically regarding the parking impact on the adjoining R-r zoned neighborhoods, specifically "the property to the west", "a quiet single- family neighborhood." You state "Mr Severson bases his estimates upon use of the building that is difficult to imagine." Let me restate, more clearly, my estimates. ray estimate is based on a successful use of the 10 professional office complex. This estimate is within the estimate of a mental health practitioner seeing a maximum of 20 clients a week. I assume peak usage during the early afternoon, and each office seeing a client. 1. I assume that 10 professionals will occupy the 10 offices. 2. I assume that there will be a receptionist and clerical help. 3. I assume that 90°fo of this staff will use a motor vehicle to get to work, and will have to park it somewhere, while they work. 4. This totals 11 automobiles, that will have to be parked somewhere, when they are an site. 5. The 10 professionals will have clients. 6. The most desirable appointments will be Late afternoon during the week and Saturday mornings ~. Assuming that the office has successful professionals, then many times they wiN be 80°,~o to 90% booked and 8 or 10 will arrive in and park their cars. 8. For example, lets focus an a 4-5 PM appointment during the week. (Saturday mornings will be similar.) Prior to 5 PM another 8 or 10 will arrive for their appointments and need to park. After 5 PM the 4-5 PM appointment clients will leave. To accommodate the clients and the change of clients, there will need to be 16 to 20 parking spaces. 9. The total parking required far staff and clients is 31 spaces. 10. There is to be 9 spaces an the site. There are 3 spaces on the street, next to the property, far a total of 12 spaces. There are approximately ~ spaces across the street. This totals 18 spaces. The rest of the spaces (12) will have to came from parking in front of the R-2 zoned houses, next door or on "L" street. 11. _~~~aff is usually instructed to park "off site" and leave the proximate parking for clients. .~~ X~Ti~~~~r~~ ~~~~k,~,~<.~-~ 12. I did not take into account the " arge amount of off-street parking" because no arrangements have been secured to use these lots. They are private property, and exist for the adjacent businesses and church, respectively. To use this parking without an agreement with the owners would amount to trespassing, In conclusion, this means that the i1 staff automobiles will be stored, every weekday and Saturday in front of the properties to the west. Either the storage of the staff automobiles or the consistent coming and going of the clientele will degrade "the quiet single-family neighborhood" as the parking spills over into the adjoining neighborhood. The intent of ACC 18.14, R-2 Single Family Residential District, states: "The R-2 single-family residential zones are intended to create a living environment of optimum standards for single family dwellings. It is further intended to limit development to relatively low degrees of density." The application states "The use will have no more adverse effect.......... than would any use generally permitted in the district." The introduction of this additional parking will change this neighborhood. This will have mare impact than any use generally permitted Respectively, Henry E Severson ,j 203 ~! st N E Auburn, WA, 9802 253-833-3971 Attachment B Parking Study of the 62a M street IVE, w 11 offices If the estimate in attachment A is still "difficult to imagine" please consider this, This proposed Conditional Use Permit, if approved, allows for even more impact on the adjoining neighborhoods. "As noted by staff, the permit is only for a professional office building, which is defined by ACC 18.04.75Q as 'offices maintained and used as places of business conducted by persons engaged in health services for human beings, such as doctors and dentists, and by engineers, attorneys, realtors, architects, accountants, clerical, and other recognized general office and medical occupations.' " This means that any one of the above mentioned professionals can instead, use this site and replace the use of it by mental health professionals. If this site is used as dental offices, for example, the impact will be much greater. This Conditional Use Permit will allow such use without further approval by the city. There is an example of such effect on the adjoining neighborhoods.. There is an office building at 520 M street NE, north of NE 5th street. This office complex is almost identical to the proposed site. It accommodates 11 offices (vs 10 in the proposal}, all dentists. The square footage is larger, at 500a sq ft. There is on site parking for 35 cars. In spite of this, the staff parks off site, along NE 6th street, west of M street NE. Typically this involves 1$ to 2D cars, ~2Q per count, 10 AM, Tuesday. Parking in the lot next to the dental clinic was 25 cars at this time. Several years ago, the residences along NE 5th street approached the city to help solve the impact this daily parking had an their homes. The result was a "no parking" zone on the north side of NE 6th street, a purchase of a house on he corner of NE Stn and M street NE to add 5 parking spaces plus the 5 spaces at the front and side of the house, In spite of this action, staff cars still fill the south side of NE 5th street, all the way to and including filling the parking in front of Indian T©m Park. The effect of such an office at the referenced site will be almost exactly the same. However, here the client parking and the staff parking is a much higher total, totaling approximately 45 cars. This is not imagined. It is demonstrated daily. The above was presented at the hearing, with photos. The decision did not address this. Respectively, ~° Henry E Severson 2Q3 N st NE Auburn, WA, 98Q~2 253-833-3971 Ea6ibk _ l S Number of Paget 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF AUBURN Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner RE: Kathryn Cruze Briefing Schedule on Severson Request Conditional Use Permit for Reconsideration CUP07-0001 Auburn planning staff received a Request for Reconsideration for the above- captioned case on May 17, 2007 from Henry Severson. If the applicant chooses, she may submit a written response to Auburn planning staff by 5:00 pm, June 1, 2007. Mr. Severson may submit a written repl}~ by 5:00 pm, June 8, 2007. If the applicant chooses to not supply a response, she is encouraged to communicate this to planning staff so that the Examiner can make a decision on the Request for Reconsideration forthwith. No new evidence may be presented in any of the briefing on the Request for Reconsideration. The Examiner will only consider evidence already submitted during the hearing on this matter. Dated this ~ day of , 2007. ~^ Phil Olbrechts City of Auburn Hearing Examiner { PA0661934. DOC; i /0008 3.900000/ } Cruze p. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision Jun, 1. 2007 3:~9FM HOMETOWN OFFICE SUITES No. 3302 P. 1 Exhibit 815 East Main Street Nuntberof,P$gq 90 East Sunset Way Auburn, WA 98002 aquah, wVA 93027 KATHRYN A. (CR 1Z -OY R,~,~~SILC ~~d~~ 557 ,g,d~, Licensed 1V,lental Stealth Counselor WA#r,H00006711 ~,A~'~ COVER SHEET' .~Ft~ TO • pAT~;. (J~ l Company Name TJ' EgQ~~;,, T~athryn Cruze-Oyer, MC, LMI~C Attention: /~, Fax Number=°~~ ~- ~d y ~ ~ I NI1NY ~.~. (,~F PACTFC Comments: ~7SCT,A,~NlF.>!;?: This £ax is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and contains information that is privileged, confidential. and exempt from disclosure under applicable Iaw_ Yf the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible £or delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Tf you have received this communication, in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and permanently destroy this message inut~ediately. Thank you. Jun. 1. 2007 3:~9FM HOMETOWN OFFICE SUITES No, 3302 P, 2 Kathryn Cruze, 815 East Main Street Auburn, WA 98002 May 30, 2007 Mr. Steve Pilcher Development Services Coordinator City of Aublrr~z 25 West Main Street Auburn, WA 98002 Re: CU'p07-0001 Subject: Request by Mr. henry Severson for Reconsideration of fTearing Examiner's Official Decision via letter from Mr. Henry Severson dated May 17, 2007. Dear Mr. Pilcher: Enclosed please find my responses to Mr. Henry Severson's Request for Reconsideration of the Hearing Examiners decision regarduig CUP007-0001. Mr. Severson is zequesting a reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's decision. He requests his concerns related to type of business, parking, hours of operation and compatibility with the neighboring RrT zoned neighborhood be addressed. According to the hearing rules for request for reconsideration, no new evidence zzaay be introduced. Attachment $ is a parking study. Tf this is new evidence, it should not be considered. However, Y will address this parking study in my responses_ Z. Regarding Type of Business: Mr. Severson quotes ACC 18.0.750 "offices maintained and used as places of business conducted by persons engaged ui health services for human beings, such as doctors and dentists, and by engineers, attorneys, realto~-s, architects, accountants, clerical, and other recog~~ized general office and medical occupations." He goes on to say, "This means that any o:ne of the above mentioned professionals can instead, use this site and replace the use o£it by mental health professionals." My response to this is that, a mental health professional is a health care provider, a medical occupation ,and provides a health service which is why mental health benefits are Jun. 1. 2007 4:OOPM HOMETOWN OFFICE SUITES No, 3302 P, 3 Steve filcher May 30, 2007 Page 2 I. Re~ardina Tvne of Business (cont.): covered under medical insurance health plans. Therefore, ACC 18.04.750 allows for mental health professional office use. 1vlr. Severson refers to this project as a "mental health facility". This project is not a mental health facility. Valley Cities Counseling and Consultation, Seattle Mental Health Institute, and Auburn Youth Resources are mental health facilities. They see high volwnes of clients, and have large staffs. I have a very different project than the examples of mental health facilities mentioned above. Solo practitioners do not hire staff and do not see high volumes of clients. In fact, many have second jobs or second offices elsewhere in settings such as hospitals and churches which cuts down on their client volume. (This is true of myself and all the potential tenants 1 have talked with so far.) II. Regarding forking including Attachment B: (Mr. Severson submits a pa1•king study which is new evidence.) The parking study references a 5000 square foot dental cliiv.c at 620 M Street Northeast with eleven offices. A dental practice is a much different type of business thaxa independent solo professionals in private practice. Professional businesses in solo private practice rarely hire employees. A 5000 square foot dental office allows for a staff of employees resulting in more workers per each of the 11 offices in the dental building than one professional for each of 10 offices of the professional office building. My project will have no staff. There will be no receptionist. Solo practitioners handle their own administrative tasks or contract for services. Because of adminstrative staff, dental offices can see patients all day long as full as possible. Li private practice, without a staff, a solo practitioner cannot see clients all day long, every day of the week. In my experience in the mental health field, one face to face client hour generates one to two hours of administrative work. Administrative work such as doeurnentation, phone calls, client and insurance billing, site visits, letter writing, credentialing applications, etc. and site visits such as court hearuigs, meetings with colleagues and customer visits take up many hours beyond face to face visits. This is where the concept that 20 hours of face to face client visits constitutes afull-tix~ie practice. They number of clients being seen in a professional private practice setting will be much Less than a full time dental practice. Yn my project there are five different on street parking options that are riot in front of residences within one block of the Uuilding. (See attactunent A). These streets are: Jun, 1. 2007 4:OOFM HOMETOWN OFFICE SUITES No, 3302 P, 4 Steve Pilcher May 30, 2007 Page 3 North side of ls` NE (directly iil front of the proposed project) 2. South side of ls` NE behind the grocery store and drug store. 3. East side of L Street between Main and First. 4. North side of lst NB between L and K (in fiont of the St. Matthews Church) 5. 'W'est side of L Street between 1S` Street Northeast and 2na Street Northeast (1n front of the East side of the church) 111. Regarding Holes of Operation: The petitioner had concez~zs regarding hours of operation. 1 agree that Saturday may seem like a prime time to see a professional but the unfortunate fact is that most private practitioners work regular daytime hours and do not work weekends. Because few pzbfessionals work evenings, Saturdays (and fewer work Sundays), the on site parking will accommodate any vv~eekend and evening business. IV. 1u Response to Attachment A: Regarding #2: There will not be a central receptionist or clerical help. People will contract out or do tYzeir own administrative work. Regarding #Y 2. No intention or plans have ever been discussed to use any off street parking (at the church or grocery/dnig store) withoLit an agreement. Contact with representatives of the St. Matthews Church at 123 L Street NE began in the Fall of 2006 regarding negotiated off street parking and has recently included discussions regarding the public spaces on the street in front of their building. These conversations have been very positive and supportive of the project, (See A.ttachezxzent B). Professionals and clients will be given information on appropriate parking options to mitigate any inconveniences to neighbors and any concerns regarding "trespassing" cars fiom this project. V'. 1n Response to petitioz-zex's Conclusion and concerns re~ardin~ degradation of the neighborhood: Jun. 1. 2007 4:OOFM HOMETOWN OFFICE SUITES No. 3302 P. 5 Steve filcher Nlay 30, 2007 Page 4 Tie states "this means that the l 1 staff automobiles will be stored, every weekday and Saturday in front of the properties to the west. Either the storage of the staff automobiles or the consistent coming and going of the clientele will degrade `the quiet single-family neighborhood' as parking spills over into the adjoining neighborhood." The available on street parking options mentioned above in 1 tluough 5 are not in fibnt of private residences az~d offer adequate overflow parking. These options are different than the on street parking around the dental clinic at 620 M Street NE. )ii addition, this project will require fewer cars per office than the dental clinic redueizlg the need for cars to park in front of the private properties to the west of the project. Clients will primarily enter and exit from M Street NE onto 15` NE and back out to M Street Northeast. Some ix~ay exit and enter from Main Street and L Street NE to ls` NE but this route runs orr a street already bordered by the commercial zone with a grocery store, laundry mat, restaurant, and drug store. (See Attaclunent A) In summary, development of this professional office building has considered parking, bows of operation and impact on the neighborhood. Several meetings and many conversations have occurred with the city planning department, neighbors bordering the north and west sides of the property, and St. Matthews church. Good faith efforts are being made to plan a project that will be a good neighbor, that will consider the parking impact, that fits with the cities comprehensive plan for M Street, that is architectwally pleasing, and that will provide an economic benefit to the city and surrounding properties. Yt will provide needed services in an area that has a shortage of professional service providers and high quality affordable professional office spaces that are currently unavailable in Auburn. Re , •yn Cruze Attachment A: `Vicinity Map Attachment B: Letter from St. Matthews church ~~,~ ~, __ 11~ ~ 6~. ~ ~ ~ X71' ~. ~ ~ ~ 4 ~~ , ~~ ~ Gam, ~-~` ~P~ ~`~° Jun. 1. 2007 4:OOF'M HOMETOWN OFFICE SUITEnS V i Cpl n ii-z~ J 10 S h~ ~p ~. N ~ 'jv1 .~,-~ h~ Q~ r~ S i ~ ce S No. 3302 F. 6 ~0-1~ Jun. 1. 2007 4:OOFM HOMETOWN OFFICE SUITES No. 3302 P. 7 Addendurr>~ , Upon visiting 620 M Street Northeast I witnessed a building with 10 dentists, three hygenists and Future Visions on the street front signage . Future Visions takes up the back of the building in Suite 2. It is a chemical dependency program that provides intensive outpatient chemical dependency treatmentprograms. These programs typically have day and evening classes and always rely primarily ~ group classroom treatment. This would account for the high volume of cars needed For this building. Eabibk _~ ` Number of Pages _ ~ 203 N St NE Auburn, 4VAr 98002 June 8, 2007 Pau± ~lbrechts ,City of Auburn Hearing Examiner C/O Caro€yn Brown (telex 253-804-5035; e-mail; cbrown~ilauburnwa.gov) 25 W Main Auburn, WA, 98001-4998 Subject: H. E. Severson's response to {Ref #8} Kathryn Cruze' May 30, 2007 written response to Request for Reconsideration of Hearing Examiner's Qf~cial Decision re Application No. CUP07- 0001 Ref #1: Application r:o. CUP07-0001 Ref #2: City of Auburn, Agenda Bill Approval form, Agenda Subject Public Hearing Application no. CUP07-0001, March 19, 2007 {exhibit 1, 7 pgs} Ref #3: Transcript of PUBLIC HEARING, tided, 4111/2007, re Application no. CUP07-0001, Conditional Use Permit Application to expand an existing single family home into professional office suites wJin a R2 Single Family Residential zone. (Including 14 photographs submitted by H. E. Severson.} Ref #4: My e-mailed "Additional Comments', Henry E. Severson to the Auburn Planning Department, April i7, 2007 Ref #5: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Lary and Recommendations, re Kathryn Cruze, Conditional Use Permit CUP7-0001, {including Hearing Examiner`s Officiaf Decision re Application Nc. CUP07-0001, Considered tsy the Hearing Examiner on April 11, 2007} Ref #5: Request for Reconsideration of Hearing Examiner's Officiai Decision re Application No. CUP07-0001, H. E. Severson, May 17, 2007. Ref # 7: Briefing Schedule on Severson Request for Reconsideration, May 21, 2007, by Paul Qibrechts, City of Auburn HE, re: CUP07-0001. Ref # 8: Kathryn Cruze' May 30, 2007 written response to HE re: Request for Reconsideration. Dear Mr. Qibrechts, I am responding to Kathryn Cruze` May 30, 2007 r~vritten response to my Request for Reconsideration (Ref ~ 8}. First, she states that I request concerns related to type of business, parking, hours of operation and compatibility w the neighboring R2 zoned neighborhood be addressed. My case for reconsideration is this and mere than this as I stated in ref # o: • My comments on hours of operation were not addressed • My parking estimates were misunderstood and assumed to be unrealistic. • No agreements for using "the large amount of off street parking", privately owned, were produced. • My Parking estimates were misunderstood, considered unrealistic and dismissed. Therefore, I have produced, in detail, my estimates, as Attachment A, to support my concerns and a "real time" example cf overflow parking into the residential neighborhood, along NE ~cn street from the ii office dental clinic at 620 M street NE, as Attachment B to show my estimates to be realistic. • The parking from the site will have a detrimental effect en the R-2 zoned "quiet residential neighborhood.° This is not addressed. • Under ref #5, Conclusions of Law, Substantive: • Parking impacts the adjoining R-2 zoned "quiet residential neighborhood." This is not addressed and does not conform w the intent of ACC 18.14, R-2 Single Family Residential District. • The proposa6 is not in accordance w the goals..., of the Comprehensive Plan. The plan proposes RQ not a conditional use R2 that "is further intended to limit development to relatively low degrees of density." A complex with ten offices is not law degree intensity, • The proposal will degrade the adjoining neighborhood, with the parking the office facility requires and since it can any of a number of other professional uses. None of these other uses were addressed. • The high density of parking from same of these uses will have an. adverse effect on the surrounding R-2 zoned residences and beyond the intent of ACC 18.14. Ref #8. Item I MS Cruze, under ° Regarding Type of Business", does not apparently understand srry paint. It is this: The HE decision allows "use of this project shall be limited to professional office as currently defined Dy ACC 18.04.750." This allovrs for any and al! of the following uses: "offices maintained and used as places of business conducted by persons engaged in health services for human beings, such as doctors and dentists, and by engineers, attarneys, realtors, architects, accountants, clerical, and other recognized genera! office and medico! occupations." Therefore, for example, Ms Cruze can, with this Canditianal Use Permit, use this facility as a Dental Clinic, for example, with the resulting impact similar to the 620 M Street Clinic. Neither this use nor any of the other uses have been addressed, although ail will be allowed with the permit. Ref #8. Item II. Let us continue to Ms Cruze Item II, "Regarding Parking including Attachment B" Girst, this is not new evidence. Refer to Ref ~t3. During the testimony, I described the impact of the Dental Clinic, and supplied photos of the parking an site and the off site parking by the staff and the effort of the offended R2 homes to try to get relief from the inundation of the Dental Clinic of- site parking the filled the spaces in €ront of their homes. See also Exhibit 9, Ref #5. Also w/in Item II, she proposes at last, some of the street parking her project will use. As a verification of my concerns, she proposes to have parking in the R2 zoned adjoining neighborhood. (See number 4 and 5 on page 3, °4, North side of 1St NE ....."and "5. West side of L St .....,." She does not propose an effective way to assure ether parking will not regulary occur in. front of her neighbor to the dvest or at other residences. Ref #8. Item III, "Regarding Hours of Operation". This business clients prefer to came after the end of their 8 hour day, and on weekends, I am suspicious of her statement. Ref #$. Item IV, °Response to Attachment A". She states, "Regarding X12. No intention or plans have ever been discussed to use any off street parking (at the church/drug stare) without an agreement." However, in ref #5, quote, the top of page 3, under Findings, Conclusions, Decisions, Line 2 states: "She (MS Cruze) also noted that Mr Severson did not take into account the large amount of off-street parking available far the project." This sounds like an intention ar plan to me, to "take into account the large amount of off-street parking available for the project" but without use agreements, since none were presented, She also aEludes to a letter from St Mathews church regarding parking !n the R2 zone, that she was unable to produce. Again, she proposes parking within the R2 neighborhood. Regarding her statement, "Professionals and clients vrill be given information on parking options to mitigate any inconvenience to neighbors and any concerns regarding "trespassing" cars from this project." Again, this statement is vague and ron specific. Haw wilt she do this? The residents on NE 6"' St had to petition for a solution, finally agreeing to a na parking zone to keep the dental clinic`c staff from daily storing their cars in the front of their homes. See ref 6, Attachment B. Ref #8. Item V. This is a R2 zone. A 10 office complex is beyond the intention of ACC 18.14, as I have frequently stated. Her "parking options" , 4 and 5 are well within the R2 zone. She does indeed plan to park in the neighborhood to solve her parking problem. This verifies some of the impact on the R@ zoned neighbarhoad! Also, if this CUP is approved per the HE decision, the "use of the project shall be limited to professional office use as defined by ACC 18.04.750." (see ref ~5, DECISION). 18.04.750 states: 18.Q4.75O Prpfess"sonal offices. "Professional offices" means offices maintained and used as places of business conducted by persons engaged in health services for human beings, such as doctors and dentists, and by engineers, attarneys, realtors, architects, accountants, clerical, and ether recognized general office and medical occupations. (Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.) This allows her to accommodate "doctors and dentists, and ..... engineers, attorneys, realtors, architects, accountants, clerical, .....etc. That is, she can alter her pion and self this focility and it can become an office for any of the professions stated !n ACC 18.04.750. The worst of these as far as impact on the R2 zone appears to be a dentist clinic. All need be addressed and studied for impact an the R2 neighborhood.. The intent of ACC 18.14, R-2 Single Family Residential District, states; "The R-2 single-family residential zones are intended to create a Civing environment of optimum standards for single family dwellings. It is further intended to limit development to relatively low degrees of density." The application states "The use will have no more aduerse effect.......... than would any use generally permitted in the district." The introduction of this additional parking will change this neighborhood. This wi{I have more impact than any use generally permitted This type of office use may very weft provide much needed services to the community as mental health professionals. However, this CUP is well beyond any intent of the ACC for the R2 zone, allows many unaddressed optional uses, and will produce a heavy impact on the rest of the R2 neighbors. If you lived in an R2 zoned neighborhood, would you want to see your neighbors house converted to a 10 office facility, which could generate the parking and traffic as, for example, as the 620 M ST dental clinic? I would not, I do nat. And, this Conditional Use Permit is beyond the intent. and the letter of the ACC. Comments on ref #8, "Attachments .and Addendums": "Attachment B; Letter from St Mathews church and Addendum C." There is no letter. And this is all submitted after the closing date and is certainly new evidence. However, I have no objection to her effort to solve the parking problem and admitting any such proposed solutions, if effective. But, using the R2 neighborhood for her parking is rot an acceptable solution, per the ACC 18.14. "Addendum C." My comments: The 620 M St Dental clinic does share the building w Future visions. Future Visions has 10 of the 35 spaces. The dents{ offices have 25. None are designated ar specifically assigned, except for disabled. Future Visions has a staff of 4 and holds groups 10 AM to 1 PM and 6 PM to 9 PM and takes appointments 9 AM to 5 PM. They use about 2000 sq ft. The dental Office has a staff of 30! "Alt park off-site." This is from interviews with M. Finnegan, Future Visions and the Dental Clinic Office Manager. The dental clinic accommodates li dental professionals. The total staff, again, is 30! Again, "all park off-site." The CUP site requests 10 offices. The sq ft available is about the same as the M St Cental clinic. The M St Cental clinic uses 25 on site parking spaces. The staff of 30 "park off-site." The high volume of parking comes from the dental clinic. It is interesting to note that a facility such as Future Visions could qualify to use Ms Cruze' facility. Actually 2 or 3 such facilities would fit. That would be a staff of 12 (4 x 3} and a need to accommodate parking for 30 (i0 x 3). Either way, either use would create an impact on the R2 zoned neighborhood of the CUP. Again, ail of this (the 620 M St Cental Clinic impact) was first presented with photos at the public hearing. It is not new evidence. Thank you for your consideration Sinter yours, /1! ~ ! ~ ,, Gc/'lM/r-~ vL en E Severs n Eabibit / o l~Tuanber of P~~e~s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF AUBURN Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner RE: Kathryn Cruze Conditional Use Permit CUP07-0001 Order on Reconsideration The City of Auburn received a timely request from Henry Severson for the above- referenced case on May 17, 2007. The Examiner issued a briefing schedule on May 21, 2007. A timely response was filed by the applicant on June 1, 2007. Mr. Severson filed a timely reply on June 8, 2007. Mr. Severson's comments are addressed point by point below. The Examiner finds no error in the Examiner's decision in this matter except that he should not have limited mitigation of parking impacts to the parking requirements of ACC 18.52.020(B)(12). Parking impacts are addressed in an additional condition of approval as identified in the decision section of this Order. Mr. Severson's reconsideration request will be addressed in the order of points raised in his May 17, 2007 motion: 1. Incorrect Testimony Summary: The Testimony section of the Examiner's decision provides that Mr. Severson "noted that the Comprehensive Plan designates the project site as RO, which is inconsistent with the current R2 designation." In his reconsideration request Mr. Severson believes this to be an incorrect summary of the following written statement submitted by him on 4/17: "The plan proposes RO, not R Zwith a conditiona/ use as an excessive/y o~ced residence. R 2 was not meant to accommodate such excessive use. This proposal should be resubmitted as RO. Please note, the p/an is a plan, not a directive, and proposes an RO zoning here. This means RO, not an R-2 with a conditional use beyond the intent of the R-2 zoning. " The Examiner's summary appears to be accurate, but his comments are laid out in full above should anyone wish to read the details. Mr. Severson's 4/17 comments were also listed as an exhibit in the Decision of this case and were (and are) a part of the record should anyone have wished to view the comments in their entirety. 2. Inconsistency of R2 designation with Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Severson states that the Examiner should have addressed his comments on inconsistency of the Comprehensive Plan designation of the property as RO with the zoning designation of R2. When there is inconsistency between a specific zoning regulation and the { PA0667393.DOC;1/00083.900000/ } Cruze Reconsideration Order p. 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 comprehensive plan, the zoning regulation prevails. Citizens for Mount Vernon v. City of Mount Vernon, 133 Wn.2d 861, 947 P.2d 1208 (1997). Since Auburn's Zoning Code designates the property as R2, this designation and its allowed uses will supersede any conflicting comprehensive plan provisions, including the Comprehensive Plan RO designation. 3. I_nconsistency with intent of R2 Zoning District. Mr. Severson asserts that the proposed professional office use is inconsistent with the intent of the R2 district as expressed in ACC 18.14.010. ACC 18.14.010 provides as follows: The R-2 single-family residential zones are intended to create a living environment of optimum standards for single-family dwellings. It is further intended to limit development to relatively low degrees of density. This district will provide for the development of single-family detached dwellings, not more than one such dwelling on each lot, and for such accessory uses as are related, incidental and not detrimental to the residential environment. Multiple family dwellings may be permitted as conditional uses only to the extent such uses conform to guidelines of the comprehensive plan. The intent provision appears to limit the R2 district to residential use. However, ACC 18.14.030(H) expressly authorizes professional office use. In order to harmonize the provisions, professional office must be accommodated to the extent reasonably consistent with the intent of ACC 18.14.010. Professional office by its nature is of relative low intensity and in this sense consistent with residential use. The applicant only proposes a building large enough to accommodate ten offices, which for a professional office complex is of modest size. The conditions of approval, including those added in this reconsideration decision, ensure that the project will not be detrimental to the residential environment. As conditioned, the project is consistent with the intent of the R2 zoning district. 4. Parking Estimates. Mr. Severson takes issue with the conclusions of the Examiner that Mr. Severson's parking assumptions are "difficult to imagine would ever realistically happen." In his April 17, 2007 comments Mr. Severson stated: These offices will have mental health clients, potentially 12 x 10 per day. (Assumes at a max, 12 appoints per day, 9 AM to 9 PM per office). That could be 840 a week, at 7 days a week usage. Certainly this is a maximum number, but there are no restrictions on such use. In his estimate of a need for 31 parking spaces between 9:00 am and 9:00 pm Mr. Severson assumes that all ten offices will have clients along with 10 more clients in the waiting room. The Examiner stands by his comments. 5. Dental Building Parking. Mr. Severson and Ms. Cruze present a significant amount of new evidence during the reconsideration motions to discuss the parking of a nearby dental building. Since the record is closed, this evidence is excluded. The evidence on the dental building is limited to the testimony of Mr. Severson and the { PA0667393.DOC;1 /00083.900000/ } Cruze Reconsideration Order p. 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 photos he submitted along with that testimony. Mr. Severson's testimony on the dental building at the April 11, 2007 on this matter was limited to the following: Okay. My concern is there, once again, uh, and this property may not affect my specific neighborhood but it'll affect adjacent neighborhoods. In that, uh, as you can see, there's heavy parking in spite of the, uh, the professional office that has purchased that property there on the corner and used it for additional parking, there still is parking that spills over into the residential neighborhood on a daily basis, and, uh, my count there was 24 cars parked on the street, uh, four of them on M Street, the others along on 6`h, and three of them even using the parking spaces for the, uh, what is it, Indiana Town Park. - Mr. Severson takes issue with the fact that the Examiner did not address these comments, but as can be seen from the testimony above, there is little information provided on the comparative impacts of parking problems created by another professional office building. The most that can be made from this statement is that Mr. Severson believes that the users of a professional office parked their vehicles in the adjoining neighborhoods. However, there is no evidence that the professional office, as opposed to other uses, creates this parking problem. There is also no identification of how much off street parking is available to the professional office, which makes it difficult to compare the subject proposal. Mr. Severson's comments do establish that parking is a problem in the neighborhoods of the area. The Examiner addresses these impacts in the parking condition imposed by this Order. 6. Parking Impacts on Adjoining Neighborhood. Mr. Severson asserts that the conditional use process should be used to impose parking beyond that required by ACC 18.52.020(B)(12), because the parking adversely affects the adjoining neighborhood. The Examiner will reverse himself and agree on this point. The legislative determinations made in ACC 18.52.020(B)(12) were not tailored to a situation such as this where a business is proposed adjacent to asingle-family neighborhood. The conditional use process is designed to address the specific impacts of a project that are not covered by the generic legislative determinations made in the Zoning Code. Although Mr. Severson's parking estimates are unlikely to occur with any significant frequency, it is equally clear that the site of the project is insufficient to accommodate the parking needs of the project. The nine on-site parking spots aren't even enough to accommodate the tenants of the building, let alone their clients. Off-site parking in the form of additional on-street parking or off- street parking will be necessary. Ms. Cruze argues that the amount of parking will be nominal based upon her expectations of the tenants. However, there is no guaranty that her building will be occupied by tenants with low parking demand. Some of the types of tenants authorized as a professional office use, such as dentists and doctors, can create significantly more parking demand than Ms. Cruze projects for the tenants { PA0667393.DOC;1/00083.900000/ } Cruze Reconsideration Order p. 3 she anticipates. Further, Ms. Cruze's expectation that she will be able to negotiate an 1 off-street harking agreement is also of limited values, since there is no guaranty she 2 will succeed in acquiring such an agreement. As confirmed by the Examiner's site visit, there is on-street parking available outside the single-family neighborhood, most 3 notably along 1st N.E. between L and M streets. A handful of parking demand can be accommodated by on-street parking. The project will be conditioned to ensure that 4 only a few on-street parking spaces will be necessary for the site by limiting the building use to the type expected by the applicant, i.e. professionals who do not need 5 a significant amount of support staff. Tenants of the building will also be prohibited 6 from parking in adjoining residential areas. ~ 7. Sun~oundin Uses. Mr. Severson takes issue with the Examiner's conclusion in Conclusion of Law No. 9 that the property is surrounded by commercial uses. As Mr. 8 Severson states, most of the commercial use is located to the south. However, as found in the Examiner's site visit, there is a church located to the north and northwest 9 of the project. As conditioned, the Examiner finds that the proposal will not create a 10 Public nuisance due to the buffering and parking restrictions and the character of the surrounding use. 11 12 Decision The Decision in this case is affirmed except to the extent inconsistent with this 13 reconsideration order. An additional condition is also imposed as follows: 14 Occupancy of the professional office building shall be limited to a total of 11 persons 15 for tenants and their employees at any one time. Tenants and their employees shall not park in front of any residential lot, except along M Street or E. Main St., for the 16 area bounded by and including E Main St., K St. N.E., O St. N.E. and 2nd and 3rd St. N.E. This parking restriction shall be placed in the leases of all tenants of the 17 building. This condition is waived for the duration of any off-street parking 18 agreement for any additional off-street parking located within three blocks of the proposal that provides parking for at least nine vehicles. This condition shall also be 19 waived if the City of Auburn adopts any parking restrictions for any of the residential areas in the "no parking" area of this condition. 20 21 22 23 24 25 II `Any evidence presented by Ms. Cruze after the close of the record regarding her negotiations for off-street parking is not admitted. { PA0667393. DOC;1 /00083.900000/ } Cruze Reconsideration Order p. 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16' 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Staff is invited to provide comment by June 25, 2007 if they find the condition above too difficult to enforce or if they have any suggestion for improvement. Otherwise this Order is final. /~j fh Dated this !-/ day of _ , 2007. -.~--- r' / Phil Olbrechts City of Auburn Hearing Examiner { PA0667393.DOC;1/00083.900000/ } Cruze Reconsideration Order p. 5 Eabibi4 / o Number of P~~~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2_` BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF AUBURN Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner RE: Kathryn Cruze Conditional Use Permit CUP07-0001 Order on Reconsideration The City of Auburn received a timely request from Henry Severson for the above- referenced case on May 17, 2007. The Examiner issued a briefing schedule on May 21, 2007. A timely response was filed by the applicant on June 1, 2007. Mr. Severson filed a timely reply on June 8, 2007. Mr. Severson's comments are addressed point by point below. The Examiner finds no error in the Examiner's decision in this matter except that he should not have limited mitigation of parking impacts to the parking requirements of ACC 18.52.020(B)(12). Parking impacts are addressed in an additional condition of approval as identified in the decision section of this Order. Mr. Severson's reconsideration request will be addressed in the order of points raised in his May 17, 2007 motion: 1. Incorrect Testimony Summary: The Testimony section of the Examiner's decision provides that Mr. Severson "noted that the Comprehensive Plan designates the project site as RO, which is inconsistent with the current R2 designation." In his reconsideration request Mr. Severson believes this to be an incorrect summary of the following written statement submitted by him on 4/17: "The plan proposes RO, not R-2 with a conditional use as an excessively officed residence. R-2 was not meant to accommodate such excessive use. This proposal should be resubmitted as RO, Please note, the plan is a plan, not a directive, and proposes an RO zoning here. This means RO, not an R-2 with a conditional use beyond the intent of the R-2 zoning. " The Examiner's summary appears to be accurate, but his comments are laid out in full above should anyone wish to read the details. Mr. Severson's 4/17 comments were also listed as an exhibit in the Decision of this case and were (and are) a part of the record should anyone have wished to view the comments in their entirety. 2. Inconsistency of R2 designation with Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Severson states that the Examiner should have addressed hls comments on inconsistency of the Comprehensive Plan designation of the property as RO with the zoning designation of R2. When there is inconsistency between a specific zoning regulation and the { PA0667393.DOC;1/00083.900000/ } Cruze Reconsideration Order p~ 1 CITY OFRR* . _~ _ -' « ~~.L~~..~~~~ WASHINGTQN Date: June 20, 2007 To: Hearing Examiner Olbrechts /' From: Steve Pitcher, evelopment Services Coordinator Re: CUP07-0001, Kathy Cruze ~Cabibit ,,, C= Number of Pages _[~,, Thank you for providing staff with the opportunity to comment on the proposed additional condition of approval for this Conditional Use Permit, as contained in your Order on Reconsideration issued electronically yesterday (June 19tH) After review, staff has concluded the condition would be difficult to enforce. It would be very difficult to ascertain the purpose related to a parked vehicle. For example, a police officer would be dealing with a car parked in a legal parking spot in public right of way. While an officer would be able to establish ownership of the parked vehicle, he/she would not likely be able to establish the exact purpose of the vehicle being parked in a particular location. Staff recommends that the condition be revised to require that the applicant provide the city with a copy of a signed agreement securing an appropriate number of off street parking stalls located within a distance required by city code (500 feet). The receipt of and maintenance of an off street parking agreement could be a condition required in order to obtain building permits for the project. Staff had discussed this as a potential option with the applicant prior to her securing the property. ~ahtbit ~ ____.. Number of P~geA BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF AUBURN 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner RE: Kathryn Cruze Conditional Use Permit CUP07-0001 Order on Reconsideration The City of Auburn received a timely request from Henry Severson for the above- referenced case on May 17, 2007. The Examiner issued a briefing schedule on May 21, 2007. A timely response was filed by the applicant on June 1, 2007. Mr. Severson filed a timely reply on June 8, 2007. Mr. Severson's comments are addressed point by point below. The Examiner finds no error in the Examiner's decision in this matter except that he should not have limited mitigation of parking impacts to the parking requirements of ACC 18.52.020(B)(12). Parking impacts are addressed in an additional condition of approval as identified in the Order section of this Order. Mr. Severson's reconsideration request will be addressed in the order of points raised in his May 17, 2007 motion: 1. Incorrect Testimony Summary: The Testimony section of the Examiner's decision provides that Mr. Severson "noted that the Comprehensive Plan designates the project site as RO, which is inconsistent with the current R2 designation." In his reconsideration request Mr. Severson believes this to be an incorrect summary of the following written statement submitted by him on 4/17: "The plan proposes RO, not R-2 with a conditional use as an excessive/y officed residence. R Z was not meant to accommodate such excessive use. This proposal should be resubmitted as RO. P/ease note, the plan is a p/an, not a directive, and proposes an RD zoning here. This means RO, not an R-2 with a conditional use beyond the intent of the R 2 zoning. " The Examiner's summary appears to be accurate, but Mr. Severson's comments are laid out in full above should anyone wish to read the details. Mr. Severson's 4/17 comments were also listed as an exhibit in the Decision of this case and were (and are) a part of the record should anyone have wished to view the comments in their entirety. 2. Inconsistency of R2 designation with Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Severson states that the Examiner should have addressed his comments on inconsistency of the Comprehensive Plan designation of the property as RO with the zoning designation of { PA0665958.DOC;1/00083.900000/ } Cruze Reconsideration Order p. 1 R2. When there is inconsistency between a specific zoning regulation and the comprehensive plan, the zoning regulation prevails. Citizens for Mount Vernon v. City of Mount Vernon, 133 Wn.2d 861, 947 P.2d 1208 (1997). Since Auburn's Zoning Code designates the property as R2, this designation and its allowed uses will supersede any conflicting comprehensive plan provisions, including the Comprehensive Plan RO designation. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3. Inconsistency with intent of R2 Zoning District. Mr. Severson asserts that the proposed professional office use is inconsistent with the intent of the R2 district as expressed in ACC 18.14.010. ACC 18.14.010 provides as follows: The R-2 single family residential zones are intended to create a living environment of optimum standards for single family dwellings. It is further intended to limit development to relatively low degrees of density. This district will provide for the development of single family detached dwellings, not more than one such dwelling on each lot, and for such accessory uses as are related, incidental and not detrimental to the residential environment. Multiple family dwellings may be permitted as conditional uses only to the extent such uses conform to guidelines of the comprehensive plan. The intent provision appears to limit the R2 district to residential use. However, ACC 18.14.030(H) expressly authorizes professional office use. In order to harmonize the provisions, professional office must be accommodated to the extent reasonably consistent with the intent of ACC 18.14.010. Professional office by its nature is of relative low intensity and in this sense consistent with residential use. The applicant only proposes a building large enough to accommodate ten offices, which for a professional office complex is of modest size. The conditions of approval, including those added in this reconsideration decision, ensure that the project will not be detrimental to the residential environment. As conditioned, the project is consistent with the intent of the R2 zoning district. 4. Parking Estimates. Mr. Severson takes issue with the conclusions of the Examiner that Mr. Severson's parking assumptions are "difficult to imagine would ever realistically happen." In his April 17, 2007 comments Mr. Severson stated: These offices will have mental health clients, potentially 12 x 10 per day. (Assumes at a max, 12 appoints per day, 9 AM to 9 PM per office). That could be 840 a week, at 7 days a week usage. Certainly this is a maximum number, but there are no restrictions on such use. In his estimate of a need for 31 parking spaces between 9:00 am and 9:00 pm Mr. Severson assumes that all ten offices will have clients along with 10 more clients in the waiting room. The Examiner stands by his comments. 5. Dental Building Parking. Mr. Severson and Ms. Cruze present a significant amount of new evidence during the reconsideration motions to discuss the parking of a nearby dental building. Since the record is closed, this evidence is excluded. The evidence on the dental building is limited to the testimony of Mr. Severson and the Z PA0665958.DOC;1/00083.900000/} Cruze Reconsideration Order p. 2 photos he submitted along with that testimony. Mr. Severson's testimony on the dental building at the April 11, 2007 on this matter was limited to the following: 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Okay. My concern is there, once again, uh, and this property may not affect my specific neighborhood but it'll affect adjacent neighborhoods. In that, uh, as you can see, there's heavy parking in spite of the, uh, the professional oj~ce that has purchased that property there on the corner and used it for additional parking, there still is parking that spills over into the residential neighborhood on a daily basis, and, uh, my count there was 24 cars parked on the street, uh, four of them on M Street, the others along on 6`", and three of them even using the parking spaces for the, uh, what is it, Indiana Town Park. Mr. Severson takes issue with the fact that the Examiner did not address these comments, but as can be seen from the testimony above, there is little information provided on the comparative impacts of parking problems created by another professional office building. The most that can be made from this statement is that Mr. Severson believes that the users of a professional office parked their vehicles in the adjoining neighborhoods. However, there is no evidence that the professional office, as opposed to other uses, creates this parking problem. There is also no identification of how much off street parking is available to the professional office, which makes it difficult to compare the subject proposal. Mr. Severson's comments do establish that parking is a problem in the neighborhoods of the area. The Examiner addresses these impacts in the parking condition imposed by this Order. 6. Parking_Impacts on Adjoining Neighborhood. Mr. Severson asserts that the conditional use process should be used to impose parking beyond that required by ACC 18.52.020(B)(12), because the parking adversely affects the adjoining neighborhood. The Examiner will reverse himself and agree on this point. The legislative determinations made in ACC 18.52.020(B)(12) were not tailored to a situation such as this where a business is proposed adjacent to asingle-family neighborhood. The conditional use process is designed to address the specific impacts of a project that are not covered by the generic legislative determinations made in the Zoning Code. Although Mr. Severson's parking estimates are unlikely to occur with any significant frequency, it is equally clear that the site of the project is insufficient to accommodate the parking needs of the project. The nine on-site parking spots aren't even enough to accommodate the tenants of the building, let alone their clients. Off-site parking in the form of additional on-street parking or off- street parking will be necessary. Ms. Cruze argues that the amount of parking will be nominal based upon her expectations of the tenants. However, there is no guaranty that her building will be occupied by tenants with low parking demand. Some of the types of tenants authorized as a professional office use, such as dentists and doctors, can create significantly more parking demand than Ms. Cruze projects for the tenants she anticipates. Further, Ms. Cruze's expectation that she will be able to negotiate an off-street parking agreement is also of limited value', since there is no guaranty she { PA0665958.DOC;1/00083.900000/ } Cruze Reconsideration Order p. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 will succeed in acquiring such an agreement. As confirmed by the Examiner's site visit, there is on-street parking available outside the single-family neighborhood, most notably along 1st N.E. between L and M streets. A handful of parking demand can be accommodated by on-street parking. It is debatable and Ms. Cruz has failed to prove that the off-street parking will meet the needs of the project without resort to parking within the residential areas. For these reasons a new condition will be placed on the project requiring the acquisition of an off-street parking agreement prior to issuance of building permits. 7. Surroundin Uses. Mr. Severson takes issue with the Examiner's conclusion in Conclusion of Law No. 9 that the property is surrounded by commercial uses. As Mr. Severson states, most of the commercial use is located to the south. However, as found in the Examiner's site visit, there is a church located to the north and northwest of the project. As conditioned, the Examiner finds that the proposal will not create a public nuisance due to the buffering and parking restrictions and the character of the surrounding use. Order2 The Decision in this case is affirmed except to the extent inconsistent with this reconsideration order. An additional condition is also recommended as follows: No building permit shall issue for the project until the applicant acquires an off-street parking agreement for at least nine stalls within 500 feet of the project. Occupancy of the building shall be contingent upon the continued availability of the nine stalls for off-street parking. Dated this ~ day of - , 2007. Phil Olbrechts City of Auburn Hearing Examiner ~ Any evidence presented by Ms. Cruze after the close of the record regarding her negotiations for off- street parking is not admitted. z This order was originally conditioned to provide as follows: Occupancy of the professional office building shall be limited to a total of 11 persons for tenants and their employees at any one time. Tenants and their employees shall not park in front of any residential lot, except along M Street or E. Main St., for the area bounded by and including E Main St., K St. N.E., O St. N.E. and 2nd and 3rd St. N.E. This parking restriction shall be placed in the leases of all tenants of the building. This condition is waived for the duration of any off-street parking agreement for any additional off-street { PA0665958.DOC;1 /00083.900000/ } Cruze Reconsideration Order p. 4 parking located within three blocks of the proposal that provides parking for at least nine vehicles. This condition shall also be waived if the City of Auburn adopts any parking restrictions for any of the residential areas in the "no parking "area of this condition. Staff is invited to provide comment by June 25, 2007 if they find the condition above too difficult to enforce or if they have any suggestion for improvement. Otherwise this Order is final. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Staff submitted a response the day after issuance of the Order above, June 20, 2007, stating that they believed that enforcement would be difficult. Staff responded that the condition would be difficult to enforce because it would be difficult for a police officer to determine the purpose of a car legally parked in public right of way. The Examiner has deferred to staff's concerns and revised the condition, since staff will have the responsibility for enforcement. However, it does appear that staff has misconstrued how the condition would be enforced. Unless police officers serve as code enforcement officers in Auburn, a police officer would not be involved. Parking in violation of the condition would be handled as a code enforcement action against Ms. Cruze. Ms. Cruze would have the authority to govern the parking of her tenants by enforcement of her leases, which would be required by the proposed condition to include a provision prohibiting parking in residential areas. Neighbors who see Ms. Cruze's tenants regularly park in front of their homes or within their neighborhood could serve as witnesses for the City in a code enforcement action. Of course, the condition is not perfect since neighbors will not always be able to know who is a tenant of Ms. Cruze's project. However, most professional tenants will abide by the terms of their lease and the conditional use permit and will avoid parking in the residential areas. Even if it would be very difficult for the City to prove a violation, most of Ms. Cruze's tenants would probably still avoid parking in the residential areas. The condition also appeared to be a good compromise to simply requiring an off-street parking agreement, because this may not be possible for Ms. Cruze. The Examiner would normally provide the parties to this case an opportunity to comment on the staff's response to the parking condition. However, the Examiner only needed to know whether staff was comfortable with enforcing the condition. Also, due to the delays caused by the comments submitted after the close of verbal testimony and the subsequent reconsideration request, more than two months have expired since the Examiner held the hearing on this matter. The City Council may find it useful or necessary to have the parties respond to the June 20, 2007 staff response, but in order to move this matter forward the Examiner is taking no further comment. The original Reconsideration Order and June 20, 2007 staff response are available at City Hall for anyone who wishes to see the documents. { PA0665958.DOC;1/00083.900000/ } Cruze Reconsideration Order p. 5 Exhibit _~ Number of Paget + CITY OF AUBURN April 11, 2007 Hearing HE: PhilOlbrechts KC: Kathy Cruze SP: Steve Pilcher, City Planning Department Public Testimony HE: Well, why don't we get started, it's about 5:30, and we are in the Auburn City Council meeting chambers. It's April 11, 2007, and we have two items on the agenda today. Just curious, just by show of hands to see, uh, if, uh, most people are here for one or another. How many are here for the Cruze Conditional Use Permit, just raise your hand? KC: I'm Ms. Cruze. HE: Pardon, oh, you're Ms. Cruze? I guess you would be here for that, yeah. And then, uh, the other one is for the shoreline, the, the sewer utility line. Who's here? Okay, so it's pretty evenly split. All right I'll just go ahead then in the order of the agenda, and that first is Cruze. And directions for both, uh, hearings basically is that, uh, the format is staff does a presentation where they summarize the Staff Report and what the application is about, and then we have applicant do their pitch, and then the public has an opportunity to testify. And then, uh, staff gets a rebuttal and applicant gets a rebuttal. If anyone wants to speak, and this is very important, you know, we need you to come up to the microphone and state your name and then go right ahead, `cuz we always have these hearings transcribed, and I review that as part of making, uh, my recommendation or decision. And then, uh, if it's appealed or it goes to the City Council for some reason, they'll use the transcript too, to see what you said. And, and we can't get a good recording if people are talking out in the audience or, or talking at the same time. Uh, once the hearing is closed, then I, I am supposed to make a decision within ten calendar days, and if you want a copy of that, you just need to sign the back of the sign-in sheet and the staff will mail that to you. Today the, uh, the Conditional Use Permit is a, it's going to be recommendation to the City Council, the Council makes the final decision. And the shoreline permit is a final decision that I make that can appealed to the City Council if somebody disagrees with it. One very important piece of information I need to give you is that, uh, State law, uh, the City Council is not allowed to hear new evidence. All right? So that means that if you want information to be considered for the permit, it has to be brought forward in this hearing today. Once the hearing is closed, no new evidence is allowed on appeal or recommendation of the City Council. So, uh, as I said, your comments will be transcribed so if it does go to the City Council, they'll know exactly what you said, but you really need to say your peace today, because the Council can't consider anything new once it gets to them. Any, any questions about the process at all? Okay. As I say, let's, uh, let's get started with Cruze then and, uh, we'll have, uh, staff start off with the, the staff presentation. Steve, that's you I take it? SP: Yes. Uh, thank you, Mr. Examiner. Steve Pilcher, uh, City Planning Department. Uh, we have before you a Conditional Use Permit application of Kathy Cruze to convert an existing home into professional office suites. Uh, part of the project would involve demolishing the existing detached garage and small cottage on the property, and then constructing some additions onto .the house to result in a larger home than currently exists, do some interior remodeling of the existing home, and then also creating an off- street parking lot for about nine vehicles on the site. There would also be some, uh, new landscaping and fencing around the parking lot to provide some screening of the adjacent properties. Uh, the total square footage of the new building with the additions and remodel is about 2,351 square feet, and I think you do have a copy of that in your application packet. Uh, the site is located right at the corner of M Street and 1St Street NE. iJh, M Street is actually classified as a principal arterial on the City's Transportation Plan and according to our information in 2005, it was, uh, traffic trips per day was close to 19,000 trips per day. Uh, so it's a fairly heavily traveled street. Uh, it's also right across the street, the site that is, from a local drug store and small grocery store, which are on the, uh, south side of the 1St Street NE. Those are much older buildings. My guess is they're, they, they appear to be a `50 to `60 era-type structures, back when, uh, we didn't really require much in terms of site landscaping or anything of that nature. So basically from this home you look across the street and you see a, a blank concrete block wall and asphalt, so there's really no landscaping or buffering of that, uh, shopping center across the street from this particular property. Uh, the City does require traffic impact fees, fire impact fees at the time of building permits that would be issued for doing both the alteration and addition onto the, to the structure, so there is a way to, that we try to mitigate some of those impacts. Uh, the Conditional Use Permit application has been reviewed by the various City departments -Building, Fire, uh, Public Works, including the Traffic Division -and the, any necessary conditions of approval are noted in the Staff Report. Uh, staff basically finds that the, uh, application and is recommending that the application should be approved. LJh, did want to point out one thing that's somewhat unique in terms of the landscaping requirements that you may note on page 5 of the Staff Report. That landscaping requirements or any conditional permitted use in this zone district, and it is an R2 zone, uh, are simply imposed, what are imposed through the Conditional Use Permit process. Now were this property to be zoned RO, which is aresidential-office zone district, and the Comprehensive Plan would support a change in zoning to that zone district, there, there's a more rigid specific, uh, landscaping requirement that would be required. Uh, staff is comfortable that what is being proposed is adequate to meet the intent, particularly given the fact that the applicant has indicated that they will provide a fencing screen around the parking lot, whereas were this zoned RO, that would only be required to have a landscaping visual buffer standard with not necessarily a fence included as part of that landscaping. So even though it's a little bit less than the 10 feet width that would be otherwise be required were this zones differently, there's still adequate room to provide landscaping and the fencing will provide necessary screening of the parking lot from the property to the west and to the north. So again, our recommendation is for approval. We've included, uh, five recommending, excuse me, six recommending conditions of approval in the Staff Report, and certainly would be here to answer any questions you may have. HE: Okay, thank you, Steve. And I'll, I'll take this opportunity to disclose that I did do a site visit today at about 5 o'clock, and I walked the block on which, uh, this office building is located. And usually I, I don't find site visits, uh, significantly helpful, but, but this time it was really because it, it, you know, if look at the Staff Report about the, the uses that are just around it, you, it looks like, you know, it's, it's, uh, homes on three sides and commercial on another, which, which kind of raised some flags for me in terms of impacts on the neighborhood. But if you go north up M Street, just a couple of houses, there's a big church there, some other commercial uses, and, and I, I think as, uh, as Mr. Pilcher mentioned, M Street itself is a very busy, uh, arterial and certainly at 5 o'clock a lot of traffic, and it's, and it is congested and, and backed up. And along those lines, Steve, I was curious, um, I mean, what's, what's the LOS for this arterial and, and, uh, and, and, uh, you know, in, in the Comp Plan and what, what's the LOS in practice right now? Do you know? SP: Off the top of my head, no. HE: Okay. SP: I, I could go get a copy of the, the Transportation Plan here and, and find that out for you. I believe generally we're, now I think our minimum standard for principal arterial is LOS D typically. HE: Okay. SP: Like most cities who struggle to maintain a higher LOS, it's best to choose a lower one to ensure you can meet your concurrency requirements. Uh, .. . HE: So I take it a traffic analysis was done for this and it was determined that this wouldn't lower the LOS flow what's acceptable. SP: Well, I, this was not of significant enough size that it triggered the need to do a .. . HE: Okay. SP: ...traffic impact analysis, but our Traffic Division did review the project. HE: Okay. Okay. Okay. And, and was the, was the, um, environmental checklist done for this, or ...? SP: No, we did not require a SEPA checklist due to the small size of the project .. . HE: Right. Okay. SP: ...would make it exempt from SEPA. HE: And also in your Staff Report you mentioned that, uh, the entire contents of the file are incorporated by reference, which, which leads me to have to do two things. One is I, I guess I'd have to see the file and everything in it since my, uh, decision has to be based on the record. And I'm also going to have to identify everything that's in it. Um, I know right now we're having a, a bad situation in another city, I represent a City Attorney where the Examiner didn't list all of the, the exhibits and people are unclear as to what is part of the record. And I think especially when you designate the entire planning file, documents can go in and out, and so it's particularly important to identify them. So do you have the file here so that people can look at it and what's in it, or ...? SP: I did not bring the whole file down with me this evening, .. . HE: Yeah. SP: ... I can run up and get that. Or would it be preferable were I to amend the Staff Report to strike that. HE: Sure, you can do that. SP: I mean, if you think that that sounds like that may work better. HE: That might be the easiest thing at this point. SP: Yeah. HE: Uh, you know, and, and, I mean, I think it's a good idea to be more inclusive than less when it comes to exhibits, and, uh, you know, the, probably the best way to handle it, if, if you want to have the whole file, just have a list of everything in the file and then I can say this is .. . SP: Okay. HE: ...the, the admitted exhibits and so on. But for this one so we're just going to take out I think it was 12. SP: Finding #12, correct. HE: And, and the exhibits that are going to be considered part of the record then are, uh, let's see, the Staff Report, Exhibit 1, and then the site plan which is Exhibit Al. Is that, is that right? SP: Correct. HE: Okay. That's, that's great. All right. Uh, let's see, anything else? Nope, okay. Uh, is the applicant here? Do you want to add anything to this? All right. Come on up to the microphone if you want to say anything. KC: Hi, my name is Kathy Cruze, I'm a licensed mental health counselor and I'm the applicant. I have been, um, a mental health provider in the City of Auburn, uh, since 1982, and, um, worked at Valley Cities, then at the Doctors Clinic, now Multicare, and I've been in private practice for 10 years. The, the reason that I started this project was that it's been very hard to find appropriate, uh, places to practice that are professional and provide privacy and comfort, and the professional atmosphere for my clients at an affordable price that a solo practitioner such as myself can afford, as well as, um, similar private practice folks -attorneys, accountants, the like. So, um, that's why I started this project and I saw this property and it's a very unique piece of property. And there are other things along, other bookkeepers and photographers, along the street around very similar to this idea. HE: Okay. All right, thank you. As, as she mentioned about similar uses, I, I, also looking to the south I, you know, I saw a photo shop and the convenience store and the gas station and, I mean, M Street in this area seems to be already heavily commercialized and, and, with a, a lot of commercial development. Um, okay, anyone else want to speak on this application? HS: Yes. I'm Henry Severson, I live at 2003 M Street NE. And, um, I have no overall objection to this, uh, project becoming a residential office, uh. But, uh, what I do have a concern for is the City's, uh, number one, the City's practice, uh, it appears as though on the other three rezones along M Street most recent ones, that, uh, that the requirements, for example, for the buffers have not been enforced, and, uh, I have, uh, some photographs here. HE: Okay. And let's see here. Okay. So you, you've, uh, just handed me, let's see, three, six HS: So those are photographs of the property at, uh, .. . HE: Okay, so I have a total of 10 photographs here. Um, Ms. Cruse, would you like to see these, would anyone like to see these photographs before I admit them into evidence? Okay. Sir. SP: So Mr. Examiner, we'll call those Exhibit 9 then, correct? Nine, you know, maybe like 8? HE: Nine? Well, hold on a second then. I have, and the only exhibits I have I think are the Staff Report and the site plan. Is there an exhibit list in the, in the, um .. . SP: Right, all the notice of appearing. HE: Oh, here it is, okay. SP: Correct. HE: Got it, got it. All right. I was looking for that list. Okay. Um, .. . HS: So it, uh, .. . HE: Uh, I'm sorry, sir, we're, we're still kind of dealing with the paperwork here, so. Um, okay, so we've got Exhibit 1 is the Staff Report, #2 the vicinity map, #3 is the application, #4 is the Notice of Public Hearing, #5 Affidavit of Posting, #6 Affidavit of Mailing, #7 is Confirmation of Publication of Legal Notice, and Exhibit 8 is an aerial photograph. Does anyone need to see any of those documents? Anyone object to their admission? Okay, I'll admit those Exhibits 1 through 8, and then we just have the IO photographs, um, uh, presented by the, uh, the gentleman who's testifying right now. Anyone object to the admission of those? And, and sir, if I could ask, when did you take these photographs? HS: Today. HE: Today, okay, great. Thank you. All right, go ahead, sorry for the interruption. HS: Okay. So what I'm saying is that, uh, there's these three rezones prior to this one along M Street - at 526 M Street NE, 300 M Street NE, and 220. 526, although the zoning requirement requires a 10-foot buffer, uh, uh, Type 1 and 2 on, uh, adjacent to the R2 zoning, uh, 526 has a 7-foot buffer on the north-south line and less than a 5-foot buffer on the east-west line. Uh, the one at 300 M Street NE, although it's a much better buffer, it's not a continuous buffer and, uh, does not conform to the, uh, requirements of the Type 1, Type 2 and Type 3 buffer. 220 has no buffers at all in the front, size or in the rear. That may be still in process, I don't know, but that's the second, the third set of photographs. HE: So, do you know, sir, were these, uh, um, were the buffers wider when the projects were approved and then they, you know, encroached into it, or what happened? HS: I'm, I'm not the, uh, buffer police. HE: Okay. HS: What I do is, uh, essentially just go look at the property I'm concerned about setting precedents, .. . HE: Uh-huh. HS: ...and what has been set before you is inadequate buffering, even conforming directly to this. Now they say they're going to put a fence in here, I don't hear any discussion about the 10-foot buffer. But the code is the code and it requires, uh, that, uh, that it be conformed to, and yet the City appears not to require conformance, so that's my concern. HE: Okay. HS: Just that the City conform to their own requirements. HE: Okay. And, and, and just to clarify for me, which, which part of, uh, which buffers do you see as not conforming on here, in the proposal? HS: 526, the one at 526. HE: No, no, I mean, for this proposal today? HS: I don't know what they're going to end up with. HE: Okay. We, we, okay. HS: Okay. HE: Gotcha. HS: You see what I'm saying is? HE: All right. So you haven't had a chance to see the, the site plans for this project, so you don't know? HS: So, yeah, .. . HE: Okay. HS: ...they've got a site plan, .. . HE: tJh-huh. HS: ...that's fine. They build it, that's fine. Uh, the buffer comes out less than required. HE: Okay. HS: Okay? That's my point. HE: Okay. Great. HS: They can put anything they want on the site plan, but it's a matter of building it and constructing it and finishing it according to code, that's all I'm asking. HE: Okay. Thank you, sir. HS: Okay? Second is that, uh, and this is in general, but there's a requirement here, let's see. The RO zone, residential-office, is trying to be compatible with residential uses, that's the purpose of this, that's the intent. The RO zone is to be compatible with residential uses. And what has actually occurred in those three cases, and I assume is going to happen here again, is, uh, a buffering that does not really screen the properties from R, R2. And I'm concerned about the deterioration of R2, the adjacent R2 property. And I'm afraid the City is not looking after that, and nor does this code look after it. The Type 2 and Type 3 buffering is simply a, uh, small tree I think about, uh, 4 feet high and maybe, uh, an inch and a half in diameter, spaced at I'm not sure what, 8, 10 feet, with some bushes of which the height of the bushes hasn't been designated. That places the screening requirement on the adjacent property. At 526 they have a, uh, a laurel hedge and there's a fence put into place, and that takes care of the buffering. But, uh, in other locations, uh, once again the Type 2 and Type 3, uh, uh, screening does not do an adequate job of screening these different uses from one to another, and the onus falls on the R2 resident. In, uh, 220, apparently there's going to be parking in the back and the resident once again will have to put in a, a solid fence to, uh, to handle the headlights that, uh, will occur, uh, when that's used in the evening. My other concerns are general, too, in that, uh, this property essentially now will be given a blank check, although the current use of residential-office is a very good sounding use, uh, for this corridor, but it has, uh, also a blank check that they can put in anything else in their -banks, computer sales, uh, duplexes. They could put in multi- family dwellings, essentially apartments, uh, since there's 2,400 square foot per use, and a multiple of uses that, uh, that in the future, we don't know what this is going to look like. Uh, third is that, uh, it also allows a structure up to 35 feet high as defined, which is much over 50 feet if the roof is, uh, sloped, because the, uh, height is defined from the, from the ground to the mid point of the roof. Uh, that's also incompatible with, uh, R2 zoning. Last point is the parking concerns. HE: Okay. I've just received three more, no, excuse me, four more photographs on, on the parking issue. We'll, we'll still make this part of Exhibit, uh, 9. HS: Okay. My concern is there, once again, uh, and this property may not affect my specific neighborhood but it'll affect adjacent neighborhoods. In that, uh, as you can see, there's heavy parking in spite of the, uh, the professional office that has purchased that property there on the corner and used it for additional parking, there still is parking that spills over into the residential neighborhood on a daily basis, and, uh, my count there was 24 cars parked on the street, uh, four of them on M Street, the others along on 6th, and three of them even using the parking spaces for the, uh, what is it, Indiana Town Park. HE: Okay. And these are the additional four photographs. Does anyone want to look at these again or ...? HS: That created quite a cont- .. . HE: No? HS: Okay. HE: And no objections to putting that in? Okay, no objections. Thank you, sir. HS: That created, created quite a controversy in that neighborhood. I, I don't know if you were involved in that or not, but, uh, there was a moratorium put on parking in that area -- - ----- -- - - -~----- ------_ n and eventually they came up with the solution of not allowing parking on one side and pushing all the parking over on the south. HE: I see. HS: So those are my concerns. HE: Thank you, sir, appreciate that. Okay, does anyone else wish to speak about this application? All right, sir, come on up. DH: I'm Don Horn. Uh, I'm a neighbor across the street to the property in question, uh, at 42 M Street NE. Uh, I feel that we didn't have adequate, uh, notification of this hearing. LJh, to my knowledge, according to the law of the City, they have to provide at least 30 days notice on a hearing of this sort, a public hearing. And, uh, to my knowledge that I had the first, uh, knowledge, I got a mail, uh, notice about the day after the sign was put on the property. And it's my understanding that signs should be 4 feet by 8 feet and it's more like 2 feet by 4 feet. And I don't think that we've had really enough time to evaluate what the impact is. We have no sketches, no, other than the extension that the building is going to be "fairly like the architecture that exists," which is a brick building and is fairly nice. Another concern that we have being right across the street, where is the entry and egress going to be to the parking lot? Is it going to be on M Street or would it be on 1St? And, uh, that's not been addressed. HE: Uh, Steve, could you address that during staff rebuttal, or why don't you address it now. Sir, is it okay if he answers your questions at this point? SP: Yeah, two things. One, the City code requirements that a notice of a public hearing being posted and mailed and published, uh, at least 10 days prior to a hearing, so there's not a 30-day public advanced notice requirement under City Code. Uh, there's sometimes you'll see a larger notice if there, if a project has gone through this environmental review process, which the Examiner alluded to earlier. But this project is small enough that it didn't have to go through that type of procedure. So the only requirement for notice was just the notice of this hearing tonight and that has to be done 10 days prior to the hearing. Uh, size of the sign, also we have varying size of signs that are used and for small sites such as this we use the, you're only required to use the smaller sign rather than the big 4 x 8 foot sign, so that's why the, I think you may be seeing one of the smaller, probably the smallest of the signs that we do use. Uh, in terms of access, clarify, it says a Conditional Use Permit, so the Examiner is not only being asked to, to approve, uh, the use of the property as proposed by the applicant, but he's also being asked to approve this site plan that is proposed by the applicant. The, and the access to the parking lot is off of 1St Street NE, in fact, the parking would be basically then located along the western portion, boundary of the property. Uh, I think there are extra copies of the site, excuse me, the Staff Report out there. I don't know if, I didn't take a look myself to see if they do have copies of the site plan attached with them, but if you need to get a copy of the site plan, we can certainly provide one of those to you. But, so the Examiner will be, you know, both looking at it from the use perspective and also he'll be addressing any site design concerns in his decision. DH: Have there been any architectural drawings that have been submitted? SP: Of, of building evaluations? DH: Yeah. SP: No. HE: And Steve, that, that was a question I had. Does Auburn have design review or design standards, or is it basically just your bulk and dimensional that ? SP: That's correct, we only have basic setback and building height type of standards. HE: Okay. SP: There aren't any specific design review standards. The staff recommendation is that whatever the addition to the building basically blend in with the existing brick structure that's going to be retained, uh, but that doesn't necessarily mean it would have to be brick, but .. . HE: Was that your conditions, recommended conditions of approval, Steve? SP: Correct, I think that was, uh, .. . HE: Oh, "Condition to the proposed building expansion shall blend in with existing character of the brick home." Okay. SP: Correct. DH: Well, I would like to go on record as this gentleman that I have concerns because we don't know what buildings are going to appear that and it does allow them to have multi- use other than the existing structures, and we don't know that. HE: Okay. DH: Thank you. HE: Thank you, sir. Anyone else wish to speak on this application? Okay, then we'll go to staff rebuttal at this point. Steve, anything you want to add? SP: Yeah, again, I wanted to clarify, uh, based upon some of the testimony that, you know, this is a Conditional Use Permit process in the R2 zone, so there's not a change of zoning to RO is not being requested as part of this proposal tonight. This is a use that is allowed through a Conditional Use Permit process without changing the zone classification. So it's whatever standards that apply in the R2 zone would be applicable to this project. The greater building height that allowed in RO zone is not a factor because we're not asking that the zoning be changed. Uh, and also the, the Examiner is being requested to approve a specific use of the property, so it's, you know, if, if someone wanted then later to come in here and try to change to some other type of, I forget what some of the listed uses were, but, uh, this, it would have to go back through a rezone process if it's that type of use that required a different change in zoning, or if staff felt it was not the character of a professional office, it would still have to come back through another Conditional Use Permit process. So it's .. . HE: See, see if I can add what you're saying. There's a definition in your zoning code of what a professional office is and it has a very limited list - .. . SP: Right. HE: ...doctors, lawyers, and dentists and that kind of thing .. . SP: Correct. HE: ...are allowed there. Okay. SP: So I, I, so I want to make that clear. Uh, in terms of, and Mr. Severson brought up a couple of issues regarding landscaping. I know, I, I'm not familiar with all of the sites, but he, he was in early today so we were able to get a little bit of information on, I know that one, the rezone that was done about a year or so ago at 220 M Street, the, uh, uh, project reported that as yet to improve the property to the, to the allowed use as it was allowed by the rezone and the associated Conditional Use Permit. So there, there really hasn't been any of that landscaped buffering installed yet because they haven't done the work that would trigger the need to do that type of landscaping. The other site, uh, up at 526, I believe it was, M Street, there was a variance approved back in January of 2003 to reduce to some of the required landscaping. I do have a copy of that decision. I don't know if the Examiner wants that for his record or not. HE: Sure. Yeah, that will be fine, helpful. SP: Okay, we'll enter that then as, what, Exhibit 10 then? HE: Yeah, Exhibit 10. Does anyone need to see that or ...? Okay, I'll take that decision. SP: Okay. And this was on a, for Tron King, uh, was the applicant and the owner, and this is the variance from some of the street frontage landscaping is how this was described, and there is a site plan also with this particular decision that I'll provide to you. HE: Okay. SP: Uh, so that's basically, I, I, again, my, my main concern is making it clear that we're, we're not looking at a change in zoning and, and because of the nature of this being a conditional use, it is pretty tightly controlled in terms of what might be able to occur with this property. And again, the Examiner is authority, uh, to impose whatever type of landscaping standards he deems fit, `cuz under City code, uh, uh, or Landscaping code section, it basically says "The type and amount of landscaping in this zone district is determined at the time a Conditional Use Permit is approved." HE: Let me ask you Steve, though, if, if I did like, you know, wide and landscaping buffers or something, uh, I mean, would there be, obviously you'd need know what the specifics are, but is there really that much flexibility in altering landscaping here, or have they pretty much maxed out the parking and what have to redesign everything if I ...? SP: Well, yes, it would require some redesign of the site, definitely. HE: Mm-hmm. SP: `Cuz this is, it's pretty tight. Uh, again, for, staff would recommend, and part of the staff recommendation and why we've supportive of this, is, is that they keep a minimum 6- foot tall solid wood fence along the western and northern property lines, that would be this applicant's responsibility, not the adjoining neighbors' responsibility, to basically provide a solid screen to the parking lot .. . HE: And, and I think you mentioned this is above and beyond what the, just the minimum landscaping requirements are. Is that correct? SP: Yeah, were the zone, if this were to be zoned aresidential-office zone, it basically would require what we call Type 2 landscaping, which is a visual buffer, but it doesn't, it's not even intended for that landscaping to provide necessarily a solid screen of landscaping, and, and there's no fence requirement. So .. . HE: Wait, this is, this is R2, right? SP: This is R2, yes. HE: Fencing isn't even, is, is not required .. . SP: Right. HE: ... at all here. Yeah. SP: So I guess from staff perspective, we feel that even though this isn't a full 10 feet of landscaping say along the western property line, I think it's showing about 7 feet 9 inches, that with a fence in that area this will provide very good screening, uh, uh, uh, through the property to the west. They're also showing a fence being located along the northern property line, practically out to the, uh, to the front of the building, which will also provide HE: So I understand what you're saying correctly, what, what landscaping is required for the R2 zone? Is there any there? SP: There's nothing. HE: Nothing? Okay. SP: There's no landscape requirement for an R2 zone `cuz it's basically residential zones, .. . HE: Right. SP: ...but if you're getting a Conditional Use Permit, it's whatever is determined to be .. . HE: Right. Okay. SP: ... needed by the, .. . HE: Okay. SP: ...through the process. HE: So, so you're saying you're using the landscaping for R, uh, residential-office as sort of the standard to, to work with. SP: Looking at it as a standard and, and basically determining that if this is Type 2 with a fence, it's maybe three less, or 2 feet 3 inches less, but you're getting a fence which would not be required for it to be zoned RO. HE: Okay. SP: We consider that to be as equal if maybe even superior. HE: So it does sound then that, that this is very tightly designed because it, it, uh, certainly looks like it, they could have put in the extra 2 feet, that what you would have wanted, but that would have changed the parking configuration I take it. SP: Yes it would. And, and we, uh, staff in numerous meetings with the applicant over several months just, you know, trying to design this and I know obviously her motivation was to be able to, uh, maximize the use of the property and get as many potential, uh, co- tenants in there I think probably to certainly help share the cost and over time of doing this project. And so, uh, we went, there's a lot of back and forth, but we were very careful in our review and the analysis of the earlier designs to make sure it, the parking would meet code standards. HE: Do you, I mean, if, if you had asight-obscuring hedge or something, are there any benefits of that over a fence? Is, I mean, from a I guess a noise abatement and, and, uh, you know, light abatement perspective, is one better than another? Do you know? SP: From, from a noise perspective I'm sure there's a, uh, an advantage to having a hedge, uh, versus a, a fence. The, of course, the one problem is it takes a few years for a hedge to grow up. You probably, even if you planted a laurel or a, or a photinea hedge, it may take my guess four to five years to attain a height of maybe 6 feet, the same height you would potentially receive with a fence. Uh, I guess, I'm comfortable with the idea if you put a fence in and you provide this kind of vegetative buffer in that intervening area, which includes trees and shrubs and ground cover, that, you know, those trees and those shrubs also help provide some of that sound buffering, and then the, the fence itself would provide like headlight screening and screening of parked, many parked automobiles. HE: How, how many trips are we talking about here for, you think for a facility like this, about? SP: Um, oh boy, I don't .. . HE: You, you don't have IC manual memorized? SP: I'm sorry, I don't, no. I'm sorry, I don't. Uh, really, really couldn't say. HE: Okay. Okay. All right, that's all the questions I had. Anything else, Steve, or ...? SP: I've nothing else to add, thank you. HE: Okay. Okay, the applicant, anything you want to conclude with? I'm sorry, sir, I have a question there, I'll take it. And Mr. Severson, right? HS: Yes. HE: Uh-huh. HS: You want me up there? HE: Yeah, I need you up there. HS: Okay. HE: Thanks. HS: Well, obviously I'm getting schooled in the process. Uh, I'm quite surprised this is R2, I guess I didn't read it close enough, but I'm surprised that during our discussion that it wasn't pointed out to me that it was R2 and not going to RO, after I requested all the residential-office and made all the comments relative to this. So I missed out, um, on that, but, uh, I will say my points of concern do stand. And, uh, and second question is, can I, uh, still make comments on that since, uh, .. . HE: Oh yeah, I'll let you. Sure, yeah, go ahead. HS: accept, uh, written comments or ...? HE: Oh, written comments? Um, .. . HS: Or is this all over now? HE: I'll, yeah, I'll leave the record open, say `till next, how about next Tuesday. Does that give you enough time? HS: Okay. And then we'll be able to look at the, uh, proposal? HE: Sure. Yeah, yeah, this, you can look at the site plan any time, yeah. Um, oh, and Steve, that, that reminds me of another question I had for you, though. There, there were comments made by Mr. Severson about, uh, buffering not being followed in the other parcels there. Do you know what happened there, why that's occurring? SP: I, I have to do some checking. As I mentioned, Mr. Severson just came in today so we really haven't had a chance to follow up on those .. . HE: Okay. SP: ...issues he raised. HE: Is there a much of a disconnect these days between what staff requires and the site plan and what's built out on the site, or ...? SP: Not that I'm aware of. Now historically that could have been the case, but I do know our staff individual currently who reviews landscaping plans and, uh, uh, makes the site inspections typically before a certificate of occupancy would be issued, is very diligent in his review and requirement, and requiring that the standards be followed. He, he's not flexible. HE: Okay, got it. All right, Mr. Severson again. HS: Oh. A question to you is, uh, what is the process of getting the code changed? HE: The code changed? HS: Yeah. HE: Uh, that, that requires a review by the City's Planning Commission and they hold a public hearing, make a recommendation to City Council. And Steve, does your Council hold a second hearing, or not on a code change? SP: It's up to their discretion .. . HE: Okay. SP: ... of whether to hold a hearing. HE: Yeah. And then, and then the Council adopts it as well. Um, the Washington State Department of Community Trade and Economic Development has to review it and make comment on it. And, uh, anyone who is dissatisfied with the amendment to the code can appeal to the Growth Management Hearings Board from the Council. So it's a pretty involved process to do. If, and if you're talking about a site specific rezone though, that, that's not subject to review by, um, the Growth Management Hearings Board, but, um, any other type of text changes would be. So it's a pretty involved legislative process and it involves your elected officials. HS: Can I get a record of what you just said? HE: Well actually, this will be transcribed, so, uh, yeah, if you want a copy, just ask the staff and they'll get it to you. HS: Okay. Thank you very much. HE: Yeah. Sure, sure. Steve, is there anything you wanted to add on my description of, of, uh, the legislative process here in amending the code? SP: No, that's correct. There's, basically an individual could petition to have the code changed, but, uh, most, unless, uh, you, you have some, some degree of financial resources, that typically costs money, uh, to, to do a privately initiated code amendment request. The other opportunity would be to simply, you know, meet with the Planning Commission, express concerns; write a letter to the Department, express concerns; uh, see if it's kind of brought up as a general, general issue of concern that maybe the City would choose to re-evaluate on its own. HE: Okay. SP: `Cuz basically what, and I, I'm going a little bit on our previous discussion today, is basically Mr. Severson has some concerns regarding the, how well the residential-office zone district and, really meets the intent of the, there's an intent statement in the zone, but he's questioning do the standards that are applied really provide for that good transition and compatibility with the surrounding residential areas? And he, you know, he has some concerns whether that's really the case given the development standards of the zoned district. HE: Okay, thanks. All right, uh, now finally to the applicant. Any final comments? KC: I would just like to say that this is a very tiny, little, uh, family home property and it's, it's, um, my intent to provide a building that keeps with the character of this building and ask the, uh, ask the neighborhood not to be and I've tried very hard to City multiple meetings HE: Okay, thank you. All right. Well, as I said, I'm going to leave the record open then for any written comments that anyone can write, uh, regarding the project, and those will be due Tuesday at 5:00 to the, uh, the planning staff here in the Planning Department. Uh, and then, uh, um, the applicant will have an opportunity to respond to that letter in writing by, uh, Friday of, of next week then. Okay? So they're, they're getting `till Tuesday and you got until Friday to write any written response if you want. And if, if you don't want to provide a written response, you think it's fine, let the staff know and then the 10 day clock will start ticking from the date that you say we're not going to respond and that'll speed things up a little bit, so that'll be up to you. Um, any, any questions about this then? Okay. As I say, this is a, uh, recommendation to the City Council and so I'll just be writing up a report that'll be a recommendation to the Council. They'll make the final decision. And in Auburn my understanding is that people are allowed to speak to the Council, they just can't bring up information that wasn't brought up in front of me. Right, Steve, do they have a, they open it up, up the microphone here for public comment on this? SP: Uh, their practice has been to call for a closed record hearing, .. . HE: Right. SP: ... so they would have to first decide they want to do that .. . HE: Oh, they, .. . SP: ...and have a closed record hearing. If they so choose to have a closed record hearing, then they could allow people to speak, but again, your, your, uh, comments would be limited what was presented to the Examiner and, uh, it, I, I would probably be there to police your comments, uh, make sure you weren't getting off track. HE: Yeah. Yeah. Man: I'm sorry, your name? HE: My name is Phil Olbrechts. Uh, yeah, I, I don't actually, I work on, yeah, I work, uh, sort of on a contract for the City, I don't work here full time. Um, and, and that's why I refer to Steve sometimes to find out what the practice is in the City of Auburn, `cuz each place is different. Most communities actually, uh, most City Councils don't allow the public to say anything in a closed record review when it's a recommendation. Uh, but this Council they feel very important it's, they want to hear from the citizens and they take in as much comments as the law will allow. So that, that's, that's what's going on here. Question back in the back? Man: Do you want me to come up there? HE: Yeah, yeah, sure. Man: I'm sorry I came in a little bit late, .. . HE: Uh-huh. Man: ... so I wasn't sure what they're changing this to, to make it plot. HE: Okay. Man: What, what, what is the intent, what are you going to do with it? HE: Steve, maybe, maybe Steve is, he can give you an answer. SP: Uh, first, sir, if you could give us your name and address for the record. HE: Yeah. Man: and I live at 140 L Street. SP: Okay, thank you. We always have to get that. Uh, the proposal here is zoning wise what we call a Conditional Use Permit, so this is a, it's a use that's in the, is allowed within the zone, potentially allowed with the zone, but it's deemed that it requires a little bit higher degree of scrutiny. Basically this would allow them to convert the existing home, do some additions onto the house for professional office suites, and that would be like, uh, you know, lawyers, attorneys, Ms. Cruze here is a counselor, so that would be, I believe she, she could answer better if she even has other people lined up as potentially tenants but it would be for professional office-type services. Man: Oh, basically just about anything you want to? I, I don't have for, uh, massage therapy, uh, .. . SP: No. Man: ... uh, the, the, the psychiatry or whatever. they could SP: Well, a massage therapist is not considered to be a professional office use, and let me, uh, the, uh, our zoning code defines professional offices, uh, "For a place of business conducted by a person engaged in health services for human beings such as doctors, dentists, engineers, attorneys," oh, and, and, "by engineers, attorneys, realtors, architects, accounts, clerical, and other recognized general office and medical occupations." Man: Well, they could switch it over to mental clinic? SP: Well, I, I believe she's a mental health counselor, I believe she introduced herself. Man: So then they could have those residents staying in that place .. . SP: No, no, no. HE: No. Man: ... or just come into for service. SP: Yeah, right. HE: It's not a halfway home or a, a, a, or a group home, it's, it's just a, uh, a professional office, which offices, you know, 8 to 5 kind of stuff. Man: Okay. And they're planning on bringing their driveway in from the south side? SP: Correct, off of 1St Street, correct. Man: And putting up a 6-foot fence between the neighbor right next to them and the one right on the north end of them? SP: Oh, that, that is a staff recommendation, Idon't know whether they are planning to do that, but we're recommending that as a condition of approval. Man: I just want to know if it's going to be safe for my kids out there of whatever's going to be put in there, because I've noticed that all the other ones that Auburn has allowed these residential houses to be turned into, there's more hassle and more hazards for all the kids that are running around there from all the parking and everything else that goes, goes on out there. So, it, you know, `cuz I live right, another house right behind them and that means there's going to be a whole lot more people coming down my street and I've got kids that HE: So where do you live, sir, I'm sorry? Man: 140 L Street. HE: Oh, on L Street, okay. Man: Right around the corner, so. HE: Mm-hmm. Man: And that's my biggest concern of what's going in there and what, they can say that and switch it over to later, and my home .. . HE: Okay. Man: ...and everything else there. I mean, .. . HE: Right. Man: ... the place because it was a nice established neighborhood and now it seems like Auburn is letting more and more turn over into, .. . HE: Mm-hmm. Man: ... to offices and everything else, and it's like they got a whole downtown Auburn and there's plenty of other houses that are already do that. HE: Okay. Man: That's my biggest concern. HE: Okay, thank you, sir. All right, um, Ms. Cruze. Man: I have one thing to say. HE: Mm-hmm. Man: Um, this gentleman here just brought it up to me and said ask about this alley. That is not an alley. That is not an alley, and I don't know who said it. And, uh, on checking the records when I bought my house I wanted to find out about that property, that property belongs to the house directly north of these people and that's not a through access alley, even though the City of Auburn I think says it is. HE: So what's, what's the issue with the alley? I'm not sure what .. . Man: HE: Okay. Man: They have, the house directly north of these guys have a section of land that runs down which they use as a back entrance to their house because the front entrance is cemented and is so hard to turn in and out of, but that is not an access to houses, that's private property, and if this was going to be used as part of that, that's another big concern of mine too, because that right through my side of the house. HE: LTh, so you're talking about alley on the north end of the property? Man: On the north end of this property that they're speaking of .. . HE: Right. Man: ... there's a driveway entrance which goes all the way through to 1St Street .. . HE: Okay. Man: ...and that is private property, that is not a through access alley, that's the people directly north of this property that you're talking about, that's their private property. HE: And Steve, I don't see that as an access to the property, the access is just on the south end, right, from 1St Street? SP: Correct, the applicant is not proposing to access that way and that this, they would just have their own individual access onto 1St Street NE. HE: Okay. Thank you, sir. Uh, Ms. Cruze, anything, you always get final say as the applicant. You don't have to say anything, but, okay, no more comments, all right. Great. Okay, with that, then I'll, I will, as I said, uh, close the hearing, except I'm taking, uh, written comments until next Tuesday at 5:00, and, uh, um, and then Ms. Cruze is free to look at those written comments and, and decide if she wants to submit a response. And if you do want to submit a response, you know, do it by 5:00 next week or, a Friday, or, um, or let staff know that you don't want to do a response and we'll get the decision out earlier for you, so, or I should say recommendation in this case. Again, thank you all for coming, and, uh, this will be going to the City Council for final decision. Thank you. Next Hearin HE: Okay, let's see. Next we've got a, uh, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. Uh, this is for Kersey III Improvements LLC, uh, along the White River. And, um, who we got for staff on this one? Okay, oh, yes, Steve again, there you go. And, and I should say this is unlike the last one, this is a final decision which is appeal to the City Council if someone has an issue with it. So, okay, go ahead. SP: Thank you, Mr. Examiner. Steve Pilcher with the Planning Department. I, I will point out that we have Chris .. . HE: Uh, excuse me, we have some people talking somewhere. I'd appreciate it if, uh, you took that to the hallway please. People in the back. Thanks. Yeah, we, we really need to focus on what people have to say on this application. Thank you. Okay, go ahead, Steve. SP: I was going to say we have Chris Thorn, he's with the, he's the Interim City of Auburn Utility Engineer, so if there are any specific, uh, engineering-type questions, which I am totally incapable of answering, I'm sure Mr. Thorn can. HE: Okay. SP: Uh, to avoid the mistake I made with the first, uh, report, Mr. Examiner, I recommend that I strike Finding #10, which .. . HE: Okay. SP: ...also states about incorporating the entire case file, so as a, by reference. Uh, this is a little background, and for those of you who aren't familiar with our Examiner, which, which you probably wouldn't be since this is his second hearing with us for the City, so he was not the, hasn't enjoyed the past history of the project which has generated the need for this, uh, sewer which is the Kersey III Development, which is occurring further to the south of this site up Kersey Way at about Evergreen Way SE, which went through a pretty thorough review, both with the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement, uh, and then a public hearing in front of, uh, the City's Hearing Examiner, onto the City Council where there was a closed record hearing held. The project was then remanded back to the Hearing Examiner to, to address some particular issues, and then of course went back to the City Council one more time after that, at which time there was yet another closed record hearing. So the, the project which is the primary driving force behind this, uh, sewer has been pretty thoroughly, uh, debated and discussed in, in a public forum. But this particular application is for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit to construct a gravity sanitary sewer main that would be at points within 200 feet of the White River, both, uh, with Oravetz Road and also within, uh, Regnar [SP] Park and the White River Trail which passes through Regnar Park, given the geometry at some points, the sewer line is within that 200 feet, some points it would not be within that 200 feet, uh, distance there. I did want to point out one other thing, which, uh, uh, Mr. Armstrong of Engineers pointed out to me prior to the hearing, that under Finding #7, that apparently since, uh, I wrote the Staff Report, or I wasn't fully aware of what I was writing when the wrote the Staff Report, that, uh, it will not be necessary to lower Oravetz Road .. . HE: Oh, that was going to be my one question, okay. SP: ... as described. Apparently that's not going to happen after all, so, uh, uh, I, I want to make that correction. Uh, again, the staff recommendation, of course, is, uh, to approve this project. It is consistent with the City's Shoreline Management regulations, which as you can tell I believe, we provided you with a copy of our current Shoreline Management regulations, which are in the process of being updated like in so many jurisdictions in Washington State, but also like so many jurisdictions in Washington State we're still dealing with our first ones we adopted about 34 .. . HE: 34. SP: ...years ago, which are very brief in terms of the policy guidance they provide in terms of, in terms of evaluating a project like this. But probably the, the main thing, of course, this is underground utility work so there's temporary disruption in terms of digging and, and the necessary work to install the sewer line, but there will of course be no real long- term, uh, visual impacts from this project unless you consider an occasional manhole that will be installed to be a significant visual impact. Uh, the size of the line I will point out, and I think we're going to have some testimony this evening, that, to address the, the concern over what size of line should be, it was if you'll look at the, the attachments we provided with the Staff Report, uh, when the Sewer Comprehensive Plan was done in 2001, there was a particular size of line projected at that time. There was a little bit more analysis done as part of the Kersey III EIS proposal, which resulted in a, a larger line, a 24-inch line, being recommended. I think initially it was 21 inches if my memory is correct. And, uh, as I mentioned, I think we may have some testimony this evening suggesting that maybe it be left open to potentially allow even a, a larger, uh, sewer line to be installed. And in that regard, I think staff doesn't have any concerns of that, in fact, I don't, so our recommendation I guess, Mr. Examiner, should be deemed to approve this, is that there not be a, a reference made to a specific size of sewer line to be, uh, constructed as much as the fact that there would be a sanitary sewer line to be constructed. HE: How, how close does the line get to the, uh, the shoreline at its closest point? SP: Well, if I may, I would like to defer that to the engineers who are here this evening who designed all this, .. . HE: Okay. SP: ... `cuz HE: And is, is this stream also protected by your Critical Areas Ordinance? SP: Pardon? HE: Is this stream also protected by your Critical Areas Ordinance? SP: Yes it would be. HE: Oh, okay. And, and, and how, how is that reviewed? Is that just kind of reviewed at the staff level? SP: Yes, in the internal staff level, correct. HE: Oh, I see, okay. SP: Yes. HE: And is, is it, is it exempt under the Critical Areas Ordinance or, I, I'm just curious if there's going to be added protection done at that stage as well. SP: Yes. Given that basically, even though it's being done, the insulation is going to curve through applicant, but it's going to become a public utility line, there's some special exemptions in our Critical Areas Ordinance for public facilities, basically that .. . HE: Mm. What, what class stream is this? I, I, do you know? SP: Well, I think it's going to be a Class 1. HE: It's a Class 1? SP: Yeah. HE: Okay. Okay. Uh, so you're saying it, it, since it's, it's going to be exempt, there's not going to be added, um, protection for the stream at all? SP: Because of it being .. . HE: Mitigation measures? SP: ...Class 1. HE: Yeah, yeah. SP: Well, again, our recommendation is basically `cuz it's, primarily this is going through an existing paved trail section .. . HE: Okay, yeah, that was my next question. SP: ... and a paved road, .. . HE: Yeah. SP: ...which is basically just going to get restored. In fact the only change it sounds like that would happen to the trail, is that it would need to be beefed up such as it could support the weight of sewer maintenance vehicles, which would be obviously great, much greater weight than the occasionally .. . HE: Yeah. SP: ...Parks vehicle that would drive down that trail at this point. HE: Yeah, there was mention about removal of trees, so this will affect some vegetation, right, in the ? SP: It, it, it potentially will affect some vegetation and that's why, and this has been reviewed with the Parks Department, that's why there's, one recommendation is to, you know, make sure those trees, if there are already trees disturbed and the cannot be retained, that they, you know, would have to replace all those trees at a much greater ratio than those taken out. HE: Is there any potential stream habitat that's going to be affected by this? SP: No it's, no it's still, uh, very far away from the edge of the river itself. HE: Okay. SP: So, yeah, HE: And, and the trees we're talking about, I mean, is this basically just, you know, landscaping, park landscaping as opposed to natural habitat, do you know? SP: Primarily, yes, .. . HE: Yeah. SP: ...more of installed park landscaping. I think, uh, I, I don't have the notes in front of me right here about exactly which trees the Parks folks identified particularly. HE: Okay. SP: So that's, that is the main concern in that regard. HE: Okay. SP: So, uh, .. . HE: Okay, yeah, SP: I have nothing else to present other than the recommendation, we got the three recommending conditions of approval. HE: Great, okay. Many thanks. Yeah, no, no questions yet, but I'm sure I'll have more. Um, okay, now applicant's turn, if you want to add anything. RA: Good evening, Mr. Examiner, I'm Robert Armstrong, PE, the Facility Engineers. I would like to present an illustrative color exhibit, uh, of the applicant's exhibit, just so that I could give you a brief visual and graphical understanding to go along with a narrative to the Staff Report, to the Staff Report attachments. HE: Okay, so I'll make this part of the record, which means I go off of it? Okay. That's, uh, Exhibit 12. RA: I have a 24 x 36 version of this exhibit mounted on the board that I'll put on an easel, .. . HE: Okay. RA: ... but I also have an 11 x 17 reduction that I'll give to you so you can keep it HE: Oh great. RA: ... in, in HE: Does, uh, would anyone like to see this before, um, and take a lot, any objections to my putting it into the record? Okay, I'll make this Exhibit 12 then, which is a, uh, oh, topographical site plan of, of the area, um, Job #11394. Okay. RA: Mr. Examiner, to put the location of my sites, my client's project in perspective, it's in the lower right-hand corner of this exhibit, this is the project that's called Kersey III, Divisions 1 and 2, referred to. And this yellow line running diagonal is Kersey Way. The yellow is actually highlighted in a portion of the sewer line and then to the west of that yellow diagonal line is a large gravel pit operation owned by Seattle Properties that we know you're going to hear from Mr. Hancock tonight and so I wanted you know where that property was. HE: Okay. RA: This orange, but, this, this thick blue line running through here is the, the White River. We just highlighted that for identification. And this orange L-shape thing is the existing sewer line, right at the angle of the L is the Lakeland Hills bus station that serves all the Lakeland Hills development south, and leaving the lift station running the northwest direction is an existing sewer force main. And then finally, leaving the lift station heading in a northeast direction is an existing 24-inch diameter sanitary sewer main. HE: Is, is that stub main or something? Why does it stop right there? RA: It, it, it ends with a manhole and it ends there because the City had that 2001 Comprehensive Sewer Plan that Mr. Pilcher referred to, and they stubbed it out a ways just to get it away from the lift station and the parking lot. HE: Oh, I see. RA: And then leave for future extension per their Comp Plan when that came along, which is coming along now. And when you see the green line meet the orange line, that's where this sewer project will connect to. Now the portions of the sewer that we highlight in green are the portions that Mr. Pilcher was referring to being within 200 feet of the shoreline of the White River. The shoreline of the White River is defined by the ordinary high water mark in the code and we've surveyed that, that, uh, location. And then the portions of this that are highlighted in yellow is the sewer project that's outside of that 200-foot ordinary high water mark. So it runs, a sewer main from where, when it connects in, through the park to get to Oravetz Road there, and then along Oravetz Road to the Kersey Way/Oravetz intersection, and then up Kersey Way to my client's project. HE: Okay. RA: So that, uh, illustrates just to put that in a geographical context for you. Uh, on behalf of my client, we accept the three recommended conditions of approval that are listed on page 5 of the Staff Report. We accept the staff changes to Findings 7 and 10, will not be lowering Oravetz Road. HE: Okay. RA: And, then if you wish to recall me after Mr. Hancock from Properties presents his letter and testimony, I would be glad to come back and tell you my client's reaction. HE: Oh, sure, yeah, you have a right of rebuttal, so, last word today. Okay. RA: HE: Do you, was, was there some, uh, what kind of environmental review was done for the, uh, uh, the subdivision up there, do you recall? Was there as EIS done or was it an MDNS? RA: Yeah, it was an Environmental Impact Statement. HE: Okay. RA: An Environmental Impact Statement prepared by the City of Auburn. A draft EIS was first published and circulated, and then following the EIS was published and circulated. HE: Did it addressed the sewer line at all, do you recall? RA: Yes. HE: Okay. RA: Appendix H, both, both the draft EIS and the final EIS had sewer sections that addressed this. And then in, in particular, draft of EIS Appendix H provided a technical study that the City of Auburn commissioned with a company called Apex Engineering, that they selected for the sewer study, and it was that study that Mr. Pilcher referred to that upsized the 2001 City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan that had labeled a 21-inch diameter for that line to be a 24-inch diameter line. It was a 3-inch increase in the diameter of the pipeline as a result of, uh, the first study. HE: Yeah, there, there were no environmental concerns about the location of the sewer line, do, do you remember in, in the EIS or ...? RA: Nope. HE: Okay. RA: And I agree with Mr. Pitcher's testimony, there was just a temporary construction in the past, a sewer line will be built during the summer and there will protections provided with the three conditions of approval that have been recommended by staff. HE: Okay. Thank you. RA: Thank you. HE: All right, now we'll get into the, uh, public portion of the testimony. Who wishes to speak on this one who are out there? Okay, sir, come on up, and we'll just need your name for the record and then go ahead. Okay, and I'm being handed a letter here. Uh, this is by Mr. Hancock I take it? Okay. And it's dated April 11, 2007. Would anyone like to see this letter? Okay, Mr. Hancock is passing that around to everyone. Uh, okay, anyone have any problems with the letter going into the record? Okay, I'll, uh, admit this into the record then as Exhibit, where was I, yeah, I think Exhibit 13. Okay. Go ahead, sir. MH: Thank you. Um, my name is Mark Hancock of Segally [SP] Properties, P.O. Box 88028, Tukwila 98138. And, uh, we own approximately 600 acres to the east side of the Kersey III project, that's within the overall sanitary sewer basin that will be served by the sewer line in question tonight. And we agree with staff that this line would not substantially impact the shoreline environment in the area where it's facility is involved and we do not oppose the permit application. I have what I hope is a minor request tonight, which Mr. Pilcher alluded to. Um, we're in the process of double-checking the assumption that went into the sizing of the line, uh, both those assumptions and also look at our property to make, to check our assumptions as to what might happen to it in the future. It's a gravel mine now, but it will become a more substantial development, and that's 20 years from now. Um, I think it's in all of our interests not to have to dig this line up in 20 years and replace it, so we're trying to make sure that our assumption and the City of Auburn's assumptions are all in sync so that wouldn't be necessary. Um; we may or may not ask the City or the proponent to resize the line, and so I don't think very much, it certainly would not result in any different impacts to the shoreline environment if the line had a few inches bigger in diameter. Uh, so that's why I'm asking you, is that in your ruling if you find something , uh, that you give us a little flexibility in the pipe size, uh, so that, that, so if you could do it at a 24inch line and it became 28 or 30 or something down the line, we prefer not to have come back and, and ask permission to make it a bigger diameter. HE: Uh, when, when do you plan on developing the area, have any idea or ...? MH: Twenty years down. HE: Twenty years down. MH: Yeah. We, we have, uh, we basically own all of that. HE: Okay. MH: Um, 53rd, if 53rd is here, we actually own all of that, all, all the way up to down here. So it'll, it'll be bigger than what's on that. HE: Okay. MH: Uh, and, uh, that's, that's basically the request is if you can find a way to give us the flexibility of the line size, uh, so that we can sort it out and engineering with them and double-checking assumptions , uh, that'd be great hopefully. HE: Okay. Okay, thank you, sir. Uh, would you, um, would you be willing to change the cost of the larger line then or ...? MH: I think, I don't think that's an issue tonight, but get this decision that it has to be done between the three parties tonight, I can't really speak to that. HE: Okay. MH: more about what might be discussed, but, uh, that's what this matter HE: Yeah, oh, I mean, or it can be a latecomer's agreement where, you know, you'd have to, uh, pay once you develop, but those usually are over 15 years. MH: have not had to. HE: Yeah. MH: Yeah. And, but, but there's, there have been a, not knowing what the request may or may not be, it's hard to, hard to answer the question. HE: Okay. MH: And part of it depends on what the sanctions were when the EIS was done, which I know was But, uh, I, I think there's a good possibility it'll be okay, but until we've double-checked it, I can't say for certain. HE: Okay. Thank you, sir. MH: Appreciate it. HE: Um, I was going to take this opportunity to say, I, I'd like to have the EIS made an exhibit, Exhibit 14, since, uh, um, you know, the environmental documents should follow all phases of the project. Does anyone have any objections to introduction of the Environmental Impact Statement as part of the record for this? Okay, I'll go ahead and enter that as well, and that'll include all appendixes to it, of course. Okay. All right, anyone else want to address this application? CM: Mr. Examiner, my name is Chuck Madwell, I'm the 51 - 4th Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. I'm here on, on behalf of the Dooty [SP] who is the owner of Division 3 of the, uh, of the Kersey III Development. HE: Mr. Madwell, I think we have a case together or something, uh, the name sounds very familiar. Um, I'm Phil Olbrechts, I'm .. . CM: Phil Olbrechts, yeah, I know, I know you. HE: Yeah, what's the case, I mean I just need you to disclose if we have any .. . CM: No, we were both at CLE together HE: Oh, is that what it was? Okay. All right. Fine. That's not bad then. Okay. CM: Um, anyway, Mr. Dooty is the owner of the Division 3, and, uh, I believe this application, uh, that's before you is by the owner of Division 2, maybe also Division 1, I'm not sure. Um, and the, uh, the Kersey III, uh, owners jointly, uh, addressed, they entered into an agreement to jointly addressed and share the costs of certain infrastructure for these three divisions, including sanitary sewers. And in particular, to share costs of an construction of a sanitary sewer lift station on the Dooty property, uh, and a force main from the lift station to a sewer main, uh, that's not consistent with this, uh, proposed sewer. And, uh, the, this proposed sewer system that, that you're looking at today maybe inconsistent with that agreement. Now, we're not really sure how this is going to affect the, uh, uh, development of Division 3, and in particular Division sewers. We're not sure how the Dooty property is going to connect to this sewer system or that it can. Whether a, uh, the lift station is still being required to be constructed to provide, uh, sewer services for the, the Dooty property. Uh, and which is why we're here today to, uh, object to, and to raise our objection, uh, to the proposed application. We think these issues need to be resolved, uh, before Divisions 1 and 2 go, uh, any further in, uh, uh, development of a sewer system. HE: Okay, you said your client is, uh, they owned Division 3 was it of this project? CM: Yes. HE: Okay. And where' that located and .. . CM: That is located .. . HE: ... is, is that even on their map? CM: Uh, this is, if these Divisions 1 and 2, it's right here. HE: Okay. And Mr. Madwell is pointing to the site plan that was submitted by the applicant and he's pointing to the, uh, uh, west of the, of Divisions 1 and 2. Okay. Right. CM: So that's really all I really had to say. I did have one question now for staff. Is this, uh, the Substantial Development Permit for the entire sewer system or only the sewer system that, that's within the shoreline jurisdiction? HE: Yeah, I, I think it's just for the portions of the shoreline jurisdiction, right, Steve, that's my understanding. SP: That is correct. HE: .Yeah. Yeah. CM: So that's all we need to say. HE: Okay. Okay, does anyone else want to, uh, comment on this? All right, um, then the staff rebuttal. And Steve, what about the sizing issue? It looks like we have a few people who think this is undersized and this is where you're, you're, uh, the engineer knows it. Right? SP: I'll, I will defer to Mr. Thorn for that HE: Okay. CT: Hello, Mr. Hearing Examiner, Chris Thorn, City of Auburn's, uh, Acting Sewer Engineer. Uh, this was something new that was presented to me this afternoon, uh, when I arrived for this meeting from talking to Mr. Hancock of Segally Company. I, we don't have any issue with re-examining this, uh, to ensure that we get the correct size sewer installed at this point. Uh, .. . HE: But what's your opinion about the adequacy of this line for, um, you know, Division 3 and, and the other project? Would it require a larger, larger line, or do you not know at this point? CT: We do not know at this time. HE: Okay. CT: We believe that it was sized to accommodate that. Uh, certainly we don't know what the Segally Company has planned for their overall property at total build-out. If they've got changes that they would like to make, uh, and try to get zoning changed or something like that, that could affect ultimate built-out and capacity of the sewer. Uh, but at this point we think that that, their properties were included in the sizing of this, uh, but certainly if they would like to revisit that and ensure that, that the sizing is correct, uh, we'd be willing to have them do that. HE: Mm. Now from what I recall, I think Mr. Pilcher said, what, it started out at 21 inches or something and was expanded to 24 to.. . CT: Correct. HE: ...accommodate these. So I, I guess the, there was someone at staff that looked at this issue at one point and decided that 24 was good, good enough for .. . CT: At the Comp planning level, uh, .. . HE: Yeah. CT: ...the 21-inch appeared to be an adequate size. LTh, certainly it was, uh, a very low level of, of scrutiny, uh, as the applicant came in. They did look at that again and, uh, kind of tightened up those numbers. HE: Mm, I see. Okay. Okay, well I'll hear from the applicant on this. I know you, you wanted to address this issue, so. But, did you have anything more you wanted to add, Mr. Thorn, or ...? CT: No thank you. HE: Okay, thank you. RA: Mr. Examiner, Robert Armstrong, PE, once again. Um, first of all, with regard to the Segally letter presented by Mr. Hancock. LJh, you have the applicant who would agree and consent to not locking in the exact diameter of your Shoreline Permit approval. We would agree that I the diameter changes, it does not change the impacts to the shoreline environment. This is an underground utility and, uh, the pipe should be sized with, sized that it should be. We don't expect it to change, but that's a final engineering item that can be done with some number crunching between engineers and not affect the Shoreline Permit. Uh, next addressing Mr. Madwell's testimony for Division 3, the Environmental Impact Statement for Kersey III, in particular, Appendix H, which I'm sure study after this and you've already made it an exhibit of the EIS, included two options for serving the entire Kersey III project, the sanitary sewer service. There was, what you'll see is a lift station alternative and you'll see a gravity sewer alternative. The private agreement that Mr. Madwell referred to, and it's private agreement between the three property owners of the three divisions of Kersey, had anticipated going with the lift station alternative. It was the less expensive alternative; it was the one that the developers wanted to do. And therefore the City in authoring the EIS, prepared both alternatives to leave it open at final engineering. When it got to final engineering, engineering studies showed that they could not get a pump that could push the head up the sewer force main from where the lift station needed to be at the low point to where the existing sewer is at the high point, and it would take two sewer lift stations. And so the City of Auburn staff in reviewing the sewer lift station study made a judgment and they wrote a letter, perhaps Mr. Pilcher can pull it from the files and get it to you, but required us to go to the gravity sewer alterative. Uh, Mr. Madwell's testimony about not sure if the Dooty property can connect to this sewer in the road. The City of Auburn staff has an exhibit in their files that they required my firm to prepare that shows that there are two ways that the Dooty property, Division 3 of the Kersey III project, can connect to that gravity sewer, uh, by gravity without a lift station on their property. One action was a gravity sewer line extended through the Lakeland Hills Estates subdivision, which is an approved preliminary plat not built yet, showed a feasible route that a gravity sewer could go through there. And another option was a gravity sewer siphon that went along an existing, unproved right-of--way, I believe it's called 49`h Street East. And a siphon is a sewer that is, is gravity but is kind of opposite of a siphon hose if you're like siphoning water with a siphon hose. Because this, this siphon goes down and then comes back up, but it's higher on one end than the other. HE: Oh, I see. Okay. RA: And so they, they can, they can gravity out, um, and to withhold this approval while some private agreement gets hashed out `cuz the sewer lift station went away because the City didn't allow it, is not appropriate. This is a sewer main that's set forth in the City's Comprehensive Sewer Plan as the permanent solution for the basin. Uh, the, the sewer lift station was, was a special privilege, they wanted to do it, but that private agreement should not be holding up your approval on this, this shoreline permit. And I believe that was all I needed to address. Did I miss anything, Mr. Examiner, that I should have HE: No, I, I think you, yeah, yeah, you hit the, hit the right issues. RA: Okay. Thank you. CM: Mr. Examiner? HE: Yeah, Mr. Madwell. CM: Points HE: LJh, yeah, I think that that's fine. I mean, as I have to give the applicant, you know, last word, but if you've got more comments, we'll let you in and they can finish it off. CM: Yeah, just a couple of points here. Um, first all, yes, the EIS did look at two alternatives - one of them was the gravity flow system along Kersey Way; the other was the, uh, the pump station, the lift station. Uh, and the parties did agreed to go with the pump station, the agreed to share the cost. The City did not require the applicants to go with the gravity flow system. What the City said is that if you want to go with the two pump station alternative, it's going to require a major amendment to the plat so the applicant went with the gravity flow system. All we're saying is that, yes, there is a agreement on this, but the, uh, this sewer system is getting ahead of the Division 3 development and maybe Mr. Armstrong believes that these other options will work, but we don't know that to be the case, and, uh, and we think that those issues need to worked out before this sewer system gets too far along. HE: Would, would either of those two options involve less encroachment in the shoreline area, do you know, or ...? CM: Actually, I don't, the one along 49th wouldn't involve a shoreline issue at all as far I'm aware. And the, uh, the other option, I'm not sure what that one is. HE: So now the one along 49th is, is, would this be a, a line that also serves the applicant's property or is this, uh, I'm not sure if I'm following you. Would just be Division 3 that that would serve? CM: Just Division 3. HE: Right. Okay. Okay. CM: It would connect up to the sewer line, uh, at some point .. . HE: Okay. CM: ... on 49th and, and Kersey Way. HE: Okay. CM: The other one, I don't know how, if it's a, the option up to Lakeland Hills, I don't quite understand how you can gravity up to Lakeland Hills. But, um, it was my understanding that the other, the long-term permanent option for Division 3 would be to go north and gravity flow at some point Division 3 won't be able to do that because there's no proposed development on that site. HE: Okay. Okay. CM: Yeah, and also if you go through the Lakeland Hills plat, uh, we have to go through wetlands, so there's some significant environment issues there. HE: Okay. CM: Thank you. HE: Thank you. Sir, anything you wanted to add to that? Uh-oh, bringing out the colored pens now. All right. RA: Mr. Examiner, um, first thing I want to do is, I just want to put a little color in this map and clarify location of properties .. . HE: Okay. RA: ... to be referenced here. This square that I just highlighted is Kersey III, Division 3, that's the Dooty property. HE: And for the record, um, uh, who, gentleman is, is, uh, marking Exhibit 12, a blow up of that. RA: Okay, thank you. And on the same exhibit with, uh, pink highlighter also, I'm highlighting what referred to as Lakeland Hills Estates. I'm going to write LHE on here. HE: Okay. RA: Um, there was obviously a, a confusion with Mr. Madwell about Lakeland Hills, which is a very large development to the east of the project, .. . HE: I see. RA: ...it's uphill. And what the developer chose to call Landhill Estates, .. . HE: West of the project, right? RA: ...it's, it's a similar name. HE: Okay. The large project is to the west, not east of, uh, ...? RA: Yeah, so the large Lakeland Hills project lies to the west .. . HE: Yes, okay. RA: ... of Division 3. HE: All right. RA: The smaller, I believe 70 lot, Lakeland Hills Estates project that's an approved preliminary plat not built yet, sits to the east of Division 3 and sandwiched between Division 2 and Division 3. HE: Okay. RA: Next I'm going to use a orange highlighter here, and show you an illustrative fashion. 49th Street east, and I don't the City owns, it is, is here. And I've highlighted in orange the approximate location of this alternative for that siphon, the sanitary sewer inverted siphon .. . HE: Okay. RA: ...within the straight direction here, and that would be considered an interim facility until the property to the north, which we're refer in discussions as the Lebowitz [SP] property. It's, it's a property that's, that's owned by a family called Lebowitz. Okay. They sit about there. And so when Lebowitz develops it is expected that they will develop as single-family according to their zoning, and that they would build sewer lines to their property so that the sanitary sewer siphon by the Division 3 would be in the facility, it would be ultimately lot gravity runs through that Lebowitz property. The other alternative that has been drawn up and it is a, um, workable gravity alternative, is that the sewer could go gravity through the Lakeland Hills Estates property at approximately that alignment there, and it wouldn't involve a siphon, it would, it would involve all gravity. There is a drainage swell that runs through this area, you can see with the, the contours, and it is a stream that is dry during the summer and it does have some pockets of, of wetlands, and so the sewer could do both gravity through the dry and then restore that narrow area that they would build the sewer through. It's, it's a common construction practice to do that. And so they have two feasible options to connect into the gravity sewer on Kersey Way that will be built by the Kersey III, Divisions 1 and 2 project. And all this is in accordance with Engineering Department, Planning and Comprehensive Planning, and it has nothing to do with holding up a shoreline permit for building sewers up here. Now this . . HE: I mean, all those options wouldn't affect the location down there? RA: Wouldn't affect the location, .. . HE: In fact, in that area. RA: ...location, no. HE: Right, okay. RA: Uh, Mr. Madwell testified that what the City letter actually says is that a major amendment would have to be processed in order to allow the lift station scenario. My client, if that was all it was, would have done that and we would have had that done now. But we've high level meetings with City of Auburn staff, all the way up to the Mayor, and we have been told that that will never be approved and we better get it in our heads to build the gravity sewer. If we weren't told that, we wouldn't be building the gravity sewer that cost twice as much as building a lift station. HE: Mm-hmm. I mean, how would the lift station, and again I'm sorry, I'm trying to visualize that on the map then. So we're looking at all the options. RA: You will see in your review of the Environmental Impact Statement, and in particular Appendix H, that it illustrates what they called an interim station, interim means temporary, interim lift station here, this point at the northeast corner of the Division 3 property where I put a green dot. And you'll see it, it illustrates a sewer flush generally in this direction up to this point right here. HE: I see. RA: And at the .. . HE: But again, the route through the shoreline area would stay the same even with the lift station, is that, is that correct? RA: The route through the shoreline will remain the same because this sewer line is going to be built eventually regardless of anything. HE: Okay. RA: But the developers were hoping and the way it, the City wrote the EIS, was to give the option that this interim, or temporary sewer lift station could be built here and pumped back to here on, um, and just for the record, going south and then west along Evergreen Way to the intersection of Evergreen Way and Avenue and connecting to an existing sewer manhole would be an interim or temporary, um, allowance for them and then somebody else or the City would eventually get around to building the sewer down Kersey Way, which my clients are now having to build. HE: Oh, I see. RA: And then at that time when somebody else got around to building the sewers down Kersey Way and Orvatez Road and getting down to the, the park there, would provide the infrastructure so that the sewer lift station ._ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _. .._ ____ ______ ._ ^f L HE: So, so the other developer is actually trying to avoid the cost of building in the shoreline area just to, that's what is boils down to. RA: Yeah. But, but, but the problem was not identified during EIS that the amount of evaluation difference between this lift station and the point of connection was too much for one set of pumps, and it would take two lift stations that would have to go from one lift station and then put another one and pump it again, on up to get the lift station. And the City of Auburn Public Works Department said, "Hold on, you know, you got onboard for one lift station, that's all ,but you're not getting onboard for two lift stations. And that's why we then ended up going with the gravity line for the Comp Plan. HE: Okay. Mr. Thorn, you, can you verify that, or ...? CT: Uh, what I've just heard sounds, uh, I guess to the best of my knowledge is how I recall this all coming to, to pass, I was not involved in the initial aspects of this and the discussions of the pump stations, but I know that, uh, there have been many, many discussions over the pump stations and, uh, there have been, oh, there's been a lot of concern at the City's level, especially when there was talk about needing two pump stations to get sewage up the hill. HE: Okay. Okay, thank you. Steve, did you have something? SP: Yeah, Mr. Examiner, I will, uh, and, and let us know if you want to receive a copy of the letter which Mr. Armstrong referred to in terms of the City's final decision regarding the question of two, uh, lift stations. He is correct, the letter said basically, uh, if you wish to do that, it would require a major amendment to the preliminary plat and kind of an oddity of the way our line use division ordinance is written is basically a major amendment to a preliminary plat means you basically file a new preliminary plat application. And it our understanding given the, uh, length of time it took to get the preliminary plat approved in the first instance, that was not a very attractive option to the, to the applicants. HE: Okay. Would anyone object to my getting a copy of that letter? Put that in the record too. What's, do, do you have anything to identify it with like a date or, I mean, ...? RA: I, I, not off the top of my head. SP: It's a letter, I know it's a letter from, uh, a newsletter from Michael Debolio [SP] that, that has a SEPA, the Planning Director and SEPA official, but I, I can't recall what the date is off hand. HE: Okay. Okay. All right, any other comments from anybody? Um, yeah, I mean, we've spent a lot of time talking about things which may ultimately, uh, really be irrelevant. I mean, my, I'm looking at, of course, this narrow area that's in green, and, uh, I mean, the applicant is right to a certain extent. I mean, constitutionally Ican't make them alter their sewer plans for, for another development project. But, I can look at this in terms of, you know, uh, is there a way to avoid construction in shoreline area? Is it, is it necessary to do that, and how would you do that? And, and so that's why I was taking testimony rn.~cconic r~nn.i innno~ nnnnnnn _ Z7 _ on whether, uh, you know, these lift stations could, uh, could take us out of the shoreline. But what I'm getting from staff, correct staff, is that there are no really, uh, significant environmental impacts from building in this shoreline area, `cuz it's in an already developed area. So, uh, you know, it doesn't, it doesn't appear that's a major consideration in the shoreline, you know, the alternatives. But I, I will look at the letter, I'll look at the Environmental Impact Statement, and, uh, you know, I'll, I'll think some more about, about the issue of alternatives. Um, but again, you know, in, in the context of shoreline impacts, I'm not sure that's a significant factor. Staff, do, do you want the opportunity to provide written comments about what was said tonight, or are you comfortable with the accuracy of what's in the record? Mr. Thorn. CT: I believe all that was said was accurate. HE: Okay. SP: For the record, we both shook our heads yes. HE: Okay. Right. SP: Mr. Examiner, do you prefer the EIS hard copy or on a CD Rom? HE: Um, CD, let's make it CD Rom. SP: Okay. HE: That's, that would, yeah, cut down on the paperwork there, so. All right, I will, uh, assuming no further comments from anyone, I'll go ahead then and close this hearing. And again, you get a decision in 10 days and people can appeal it to the City Council if you got any issues. So, again, thanks for coming tonight, appreciate it. END ~ n Eabibit _~~ I'.I f . ~_ t, Number of P~ ~/ [~ T CITY OF_ *~ ~ %~/ WASHINGTON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION Appeal is filed with the City Clerk Or Deputy City Clerk THE FOLLOWING TO BE COMPETED BY CITY OF AUBURN Application No.: ~.u, r~U'1- O~G U ~ Date Filed: Date of City Council Hearing: Deadline For Filing Appeal: THE FOLLOWING TO BE COMPLETED BY APPELLANT Name of Appellant(s): Appellant Address: ~~~N R~ ~ ; ~.~.'~ ~ 1ZS o ~ z p3 ;~I s r~F ~./~ J~HJ lJt~i~ g~oz Phone: 2, 5 3 ~~ 3 Agent: }~~J Zti .s~v~~t2 So ~ _3 ) ~~ E-mail ~- ~.TM A-c ~ > Cv~~ Agent Address: Phone• E-mail• ~ ~ ~ P~.~~ Page 1 of 3 STATEMENT OF APPEAL The Appellant must identify clearly and specifically the following: 1. The errors which the Appellant believes were made in the action or decision which is-being appealed, or the procedural irregularities associated with that action or decision. 2. Specific reasons why the City's action or decision should be reversed or modified. 3. The harm which is expected to be suffered by the Appellant as a result of the action or decision being appealed. If the Appellant is a group or organization, the harm to any one or more members or the group or organization must be stated. 4. The desired outcome of the appeal. You may provide your responses here, or preferably, attach a separate typed response to each of the above. S~ ~lx~o Page 2 of 3 . `(~ .~G~ I! vv~ Signature ~f ANNellant(s) Dated: ~~_ ~~~1 State of ~ v )ss County of 11 99 me ~ N ~ ~=i~-~L~~U~ i~f D/J On this day person ly appeared before to me known to be the individual(s) described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that fit/ signed the same as !~S free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. Given under my hand and official seal this ~~ day of ~~ , ~~~ ~~ K. C ~i s Q~ _`~ioi`v ~~~ C ti~ 0~~'~pS /1q~ ~ i~:U __ ~ N to Public in and or a State of ~- Residing in ~'-~~ Do Not Mark Below This Line Appeal File Number Assigned by the City: Date Scheduled for Hearing: Page 3 of 3 Statement of Appeal References* Ref #1: Application no. CUP07-0001 Ref #2: City of Auburn, Agenda Bill Approval form, Agenda Subject Public Hearing Application no. CUP07-0001, March 19, 2007 (exhibit 1, 7 pgs) Ref #3: Transcript of PUBLIC HEARING, Wed, 4/l U2007, re Application no. CUP07- 0001, Conditional Use Permit Application to exprnrd an existi~rg single family home into professional office sr~ites x~:'irt a R2 Single Family Residential °o»e. (Including 14 photographs submitted by H. E. Severson.) Ref #4: My e-mailed "Additional Comments', Henry E. Severson to the Auburn Planning Department, April 17, 2007 Ref #5: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendations, re Kathryn Cruze, Conditional Use Permit CUP7-0001, (including Hearing Examiner's Official Decision re Application No. CUP07-0001, Considered by the Hearing Examiner on April 11, 2007) Ref #6: Request for Reconsideration of Hearing Examiner, May 21, 2007, by Paul ~~~'e.~'-rte Olbrechts, City of Auburn HE, re: 's Official Decision re Application No, CUP07-0001, H. E. Severson, May 17, 2007. Ref # 7: Briefing Schedule on Severson Request for Reconsideration May 21, 2007, by Paul Olbrechts ,City of Auburn HE, re: CUP07-0001. Ref # 8: Kathryn Cruze' May 30, 2007 written response to HE re: Request for Reconsideration. Ref #9: CD-R "Hearing Examiner 2007041 l " Ref #10: Order for Reconsideration, 21 June 2007, re Application No. CUP07-0001 *The above references are all part of the planning Department File. If required, I will furnish a copy. Otherwise, refer to the file. Statement of Appeal (continued) Per the instructions on the Statement of Appeal form, I am identifying clearly and specifically the following, regarding Application no. CUP07-0001 (Ref #1) and the H/Es Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendations and Decision (Ref # 5) and the HJEs Order on Reconsideration (Ref #10) 1. The errors I believe were made in the decision I am appealing and the procedural irregularities associated with that action leading to the decision. See Attachment for a detailed discussion. A. The intention of the ACC re R-2 zoning has been violated. B. The impact, specifically parking, on the rest of the adjoining R-2 zoned neighborhoods has not been adequately addressed (including the R-2 neighborhoods on both sides of M St NE) C. The scope of the CUP was expanded arbitrarily by the H/E to include all uses as defined in ACC 18.04.750, apparently beyond the request of the applicant. These additional uses were never discussed in the presentation at the hearing (Ref #3) nor in any of the subsequent discussions. Nor was any discussion of the additional impact allowed or encouraged. The CUP request (Ref # 1) was for 10 offices for Mental Health Professionals and the focus of all discussion was on the request for 10 offices for Mental Health Professionals (Ref # 3, for example). The H/E gave a decision that included more than was requested and therefore not addressed or discussed in the hearing. That is, he arbitrarily expanded the scope of the CUP by giving an expanded decision, by deciding "Use of the project shall be limited to professional office as currently defined by ACC ] 8.04.750. This expands the scope. When. I commented and provided evidence on the impact of this expanded response, my work was rejected as "new evidence". D. The mitigation proposed in the H/E's decision does not adequately mitigate the parking problem that will be caused by this project. E. There are errors in the H/E's consideration of the CUP. F. Existing evidence was defined as "New Evidence". See Attachment for a detailed discussion. Statement of Appeal (continued) 2. Specific reasons why the City's action or decision should be reversed or modified. A. This CUP, if allowed, sets a dangerous precedence for the interpretation of the ACC. I know of no one, planners, council members, or any citizen who would want or expect a 10 office complex as a neighbor in their R-2 zoned neighborhood if they were not directly benefiting from the venture. They would expect, as I do, that the ACC would protect their R-2 zoned home. If allowed, the City should state why it is ignoring the intent of ACC R-2, and mitigate the impact. It may be that this project would be a great benefit to the community. I am not in the position to judge that. However, if approved, the neighbors to this project, myself included, (specifically the R-2 zoned homes to the west and to the east) should not have to suffer by storing the projects cars in the front of their homes. B. The decision still does not require enough parking for the original project for 10 offices for Mental Health Professionals nor for the expanded scope of the project as stated in the decision (Ref #~). The scope of the CUP was expanded arbitrarily by the H/E to include all uses as defined in ACC 18.04.750, apparently beyond the request of the applicant. (See above.) The other uses of this office plex, as defined in ACC 18.04.750, and stated in the H/Es decision (ref #-will produce parking demands that have not been investigated by the city. I am specifically concerned about the use of these offices as a dental clinic. This parking impact was first defined by me as a concern at the hearing and again in my additional comments and again in my Request for Reconsideration. (See above for how this concern was ignored by the H/E.) The effects of pazking on neighborhoods and how they change the character of the neighborhood can be seen as a real time demonstration east of M St NE, on 6~' St NE, where the staff of 30 from the 620 M St Dental Clinic park. They are all instructed to "pazk off site" to leave the adjacent pazking lot open for the customers. This project can be planned so that this snot occur again. (See ref #3, photos). ~1, p~~ ~J ~ ~a ~m~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ 2~~ Statement of Appeal (continued) 3. The harm which is expected to be suffered by me and my neighbors as a result of the action/decision being appealed. A. Change the character of the neighborhood. Consistent storage of cars from the CUP site will change the "quiet residential" neighborhood to a Seattle type neighborhood, where one drives round and round looking for parking, or parks in near-by commercial or church lots. This situation will produce the same type of reaction from the residents on 6th St NE, when 2 years ago they demanded that the city fix their perking problem, caused by the Dental Clinic's off site parking. B. Diminish the value of the R 2 zoned homes. C. Allow for highly populated office complexes within the neighborhoods of Auburn by setting precedence. 4. The desired outcome of the appeal. A. Require a realistic parking and use study of the office complex requirements and hours of operation. B. Do not set precedence. If the city finds that this 10 office complex is necessary, that is , of great benefit to the community, state why it is violating the intent of ACC by approving it so that it is not a precedence and why the house next door to me or you in our R-2 zone cannot be approved fora 5 or 10 office complex. C. If B is allowed, Limit the project to the request of the applicant. That is, limit the tenants to 1 1, so that there will not be a complex that requires high staff requirements. D. Require adequate on site parking and additional off site, off street parking. E. Restrict parking to outside of the R-2 neighborhood, so that there is no parking on the R-2 side of 1 ~ St NE, (in front of the R-2 house next door to the west, and along the side of the next lot west), no parking on the R-2 side of L St NE, nor parking in the R-2 neighborhoods to the east or to the west of the project. H. E. Severson, 7/8/07 Statement of Appeal Attachment 1 A detailed discussion of the errors I believe were made in the decision I am appealing and the procedural irregularities associated with that action leading to the decision A. The intention of the ACC re R-2 zoning has been violated. The intent of ACC l g 14, R-2 Single Family Residential District, states: "The R-2 single family residential Loves are intended to create a living environment of optimum standards for single family dwellings It is further intended to limit development to relatively low degrees of density." A 10 ofJ`ice building wltn the neighborhood in an R- 2Zoning, tke resulting off site parking from the proposed use by mental health professionals and the permitted use as dental ofj'rces or other permitted and unaddressed uses exceeds this intend While this seems obvious, the H/E appazeirtly uses ACC 114.030 Uses requiring permit. To support his argument, since the list that includes item H. Prnfessional ices is plural, he somehow concludes that this means 10 offices on a property is OK! The title is Uses requiring permit and is plural. This does not mean that the use of the plural allows 10 Boazdinghouses on a lot or 10 foster care homes, or 10 museums or 10 Nursing Homes on a property, etc, even though they aze listed in the plural! See ACC Ig14.030. No, the intent is for 1 Boardinghouses on a lot or 1 foster care home, or 1 museum or 1 Nursing Home on a property, etc, and for 1 Professional Office on a property. It does not say Professional Office complex. B. The impact, specifically parking, on the rest of the adjoining R-2 zoned neighborhoods has not been adequately addressed (including the R-2 neighborhoods on both sides of M St NE) I have consistently requested a parking study and concerns over the pazking impact. I submitted examples of my concern with photos (Exhibit #9, Hearing) of the spillover parking from the 620 M St Dental Clinic, an 11 office clinic similar to this project, showing 18 cars pazking off site. When no pazking studies were furnished, I made my own (initially for the CUP request of 10 offices for Mental Health Professionals). The H/E called it "unrealistic". When I defended it in my Request for Reconsideration, he called it "New Evidence", even though he expanded the scope of the project with his decision. C. The scope of the CUP was expanded arbitrarily by the H/E to include all uses as defined in ACC 18.04.750, beyond the request of the applicant. These additional us~e were never discussed in the presentation at the hearing (Ref #ridr in any of the subsequent discussions. Nor was any discussion of the additional impact allowed or encouraged. The CUP request (Ref # ~) was for 10 offices for Mental Health Professionals and the focus of all discussion was on the request for 10 offices for Mental Health Professionals (Ref # ~, for example). The H/E gave a decision that included more than was requested and therefore not addressed or discussed in the hearing. That is, he arbitrarily expanded the scope of the CUP by giving an expanded decision: DECISION The Hearing Examiner recommends approval of the recommended Conditional Use Permit and adopts the recommended conditions ojappraval listed in the march 19, 2007 staff report The Examiner also adds the following recommendations: 1. Use of the project shall be limited to professional office as currently Wined by ACC 1 il: 04.750. When I commended and provided evidence on the impact of this expanded response, my work was denied as "new evidence". A Dental Clinic, allowed under ACC 18.04.750 such as the 630 M St Dental Clinic produces a requirement for 30 staff to "park off site". The parking requiremerns for clients is 25. This is for an office of 11 dentists. D. The mitigation proposed in the H/E's decision does not adequately mitigate the pazking problem that will be caused by this project. Unless the staff is limited to 10 or 11. E. There aze errors in the H/E's consideration of the CUP. The H/E states that the property is surrounded by commercial uses and defends this statement with the fact that the church to the north and the church to the wweat ors "Commercial properties". They aze not and they are permitted uses w/in the R-2 zone. There is no parking protection for the house to the west. I assume the latest order is for 9 additional stalls, off street. F. Existing evidence was defined as "New Evidence". I repeat: I have consistently requested a parking study and concerns over the pazking impact. I submitted examples of my concern with photos (Exhibit #9, Hearing) of the spillover parking from the 620 M St Dental Clinic, an I 1 office clinic similar to this project, showing 18 cars parking off site. When no pazking studies were furnished, I made my own (initially for the CUP request of 10 offices for Mental Health Professionals). The H/E called it "unrealistic". When I defended it in my Request for Reconsideration, he called it "New Evidence", even though he expanded the scope of the project with his decision. H. E. Severson, 7/8/07 203NstNE Auburn, WA, 98002 May 17, 2007'. Hearing Examiner. _ _ 25 W Main Auburn, WA, 98001-4998 Subject: Request for Reconsideration of Hearing Examiner's Official Decision re Application No. CUP07-0001 Ref #i: Application no. CUP07-0001 Ref #2: City of Auburn, Agenda Bill Approval form, Agenda Subject Public Hearing Application no. CUP07-0001, March 19, 2007 (exhibit 1, 7 pgs) Ref #3: My e-mailed "Additional Comments', Henry E. Severson to the Auburn Planning Department ,April 17, 2007 Ref #4: Hearing Examiner's Official Decision re Application No. CUP07-0001 (Considered by the Hearing Examiner on April il, 2007) Ref #5: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendations, re Kathryn Cruze, Conditional Use Permit CUP7-0001 Dear Sir, I am requesting that you reconsider your decision given in ref #4, stating "the Examiner approves the request, subject to conditions." My reasons for this request follow below. Restating Proposal Summary from ref #3 I understand the proposal to retain a 990 sq ft house and add to it for a total of 2351 sq ft and remove other structures on the ppty; that the total lot size is 12075 sq ft. The proposal includes a request to have 10 offices and a common reception area. Atso there wilt be parking provided for 9 vehicles. (Ref #2). Restating Adversely Effected Residences from Ref #3 I own the property at 203 N ST NE, approximately 500 feet from the subject property. Also of interest are residences adjacent to the west (2) on 1st st NE and to the north (2) on M st NE. There are at least 8 residences directly across the street on M st NE and 6 more residences on L st NE btwn 1st and 3rd st NE in addition to the residence on the NE corner of 1st st NE and L st NE and on the on the SW corner of 1st st NE and L st NE. These are all presently zoned R2. Summary of my Request for Reconsideration 1. My concerns of the impact of the parking generated by the site. My parking estimates were ignored or misinterpreted. 2. The decision did not address 2, 3 3. proposal exceeds intent Code requires 9 spaces. However, the actual parking pressures must be addressed, as they impact adjoining neighborhoods. This is a conditional use permit for an existing R-2 zoning. The conditional use is not to adversely impact the other R-2 inning. Rfirst rebut Ms Cruze rebuttal of my ref #3 "Additional Comments". She states that I based my parking estimates on !2 clients per day, 7 days per week per professional. I did not. My parking estimate is based on peak use. I assume Ms Cruise expects her endeavor to be successful.. In such case, the professional use proposed will have peak use by clients at the late afternoon hours and evenings during the week and on Saturdays. At this time, according to my layman estimate, there will be a requirement for parking for 31 cars or more. The "large amount of ofF-street parking available for the project is only available by trespass. The ref #1 Application makes no note of any agreements with the businesses to the south or with the church to the west. I assume that this is the "large amount of off-street parking available". Since no such agreements were presented, I must conclude that none exist. First, under Findings of Fac#, Substantive, 4. Characteristics of the Area: Commercial development predominates along M street but to the south. As stated, the property to the west is a quiet single-family neighborhood. The residences to the east and to the north are currently zoned R-2. The Auburn Comprehensive Plan currently recommends that, in the future, the properties within the corridor along M street (now R-2) be allowed to be rezoned to RO, on a one by one, when requested, basis. i. Other uses allowed by variance and parking Dental offices 2. Parking study 3. Future RO or variance. Additional parking? 4. Quiet single-family neighborhood to the west: 5. Time of use It appears that my comments were not read as carefully as I would have hoped or that I did not state them well. My "" "" was a comment to show the ultimate extreme use. The point is that there is no restrictions on the time of use; that an estimate of typical or expected use was not made or presented. It is not my place to make such estimates. This is for the applicant and the planning Department to see that it is provided for the public to view and comment. Comments on ref #2 i refer to the Conclusions of ref #2: 1. "The use will have no more adverse effect .......... than would any use generally permitted in the district." These offices will have mental health clients, potentially 12 x 10 per day. (Assumes at a max, 12 appoints per day, 9 AM to 9 PM per office). That could be 840 a week, at 7 days a week usage. Certainly this is a maximum number, but there are no restrictions on such use. The type of cliental is also not restricted. It could be all clients from the justice center, active drug addicts, etc. Again, there are no restrictions. So one must assume the worst that is possible may happen, since there are no restrictions. Therefore, the residences noted above, and nearby, will eventually be adversely effected 2. "The proposal is in accordance w the goals.... of the Comprehensive plan." The plan proposes RO, not R-2 with a conditional use as an excessively officed residence. R-2 was not meant to accommodate such excessive use. This proposal should be resubmitted as RO. Please note, the plan is a plan, not a directive, and proposes an RO zoning here. This means RO, not an R- 2 with a conditional use beyond the intent of the R-2 zoning. 3. "The proposal complies w all rgmts of this Zoning code". I do not agree. R-2 proposes a min of one dwelling per 6000 sq ft lot and therefore one family per residence w/in 6000 sq ft. This could allow 2 families (if rezoned into 2 lots). That intent could be 10 to 14 people at a max. To allow 10 offices and a reception on this lot is overuse of the facility, even as a 2351 sq ft structure. First there is no restriction as to volume or specific type (i. e., cliental) or specific time of use. There will be potentially li personnel at a minimum occupying the offices. The cliental will probably have 1 hr appts. Since one client will arrive before another leaves, this means another 10 or more clients and 10 clients arriving for their next appointment. This also means 20 cars. There is on site parking proposed for 9 cars. This alone is incompatible for a R-2. The highest use I have seen is 6(@ 20 M st NE, or 106 or 122 M st SE). With the 9 on site and 3 on street, does not allow for adequate parking at the facility. The facility accommodates parking for 12. The rest, as much as a the peak total of 31 minus 12 means 19 will spill over to and into the adjoining neighborhoods. Some will park across the street, using the grocery and drug store parking and facilities. This means the adjacent residences will suffer by providing the spaces for overflow parking. There will also be a pressure of this property to secure the use of driveway belonging to the property on the north, for ease of ingress and egress. (The driveway aligns w the northerly property of the subject property and exits west.) 4. "The proposal can be constructed and maintained ....... to be harmonious ........" The buffers are inadequate, less than the buffers required for an RO zoning. RO zoning requires buffers between residential and residential office use of 10 feet of type III. Comment Summary This is an application for a conditional use within an existing R-2 zone. Even though the Comprehensive Plan proposes future RO zoning, this is not that future. This is an R-2 zone. The intent of ACC 18.14, R-2 Single Family Residential District, states: "The R-2 single-family residential zones are intended to create a living environment of optimum standards for single family dwellings. It is further intended to limit development to relatively low degrees of density." The proposed conditional use permit exceeds this intent: At a peak, there will be 11 occupying the office and reception, 10 or more clients using the services of the professionals, and 10 or more clients in the reception area awaiting their appointments. This is a population of more than 31! This population is outside the intent of the ACC. There will be, at a peak, at least 31 cars to be parked, 19 of which cannot be accommodated on or in front of the site. • We do not know the limits of operation. Nighttime use has a negative impact on the adjoining residences. • We do not know the extremes of the behavior of the cliental. The potential for cliental that may pose a danger to children at the adjoining neighborhoods is unaddressed. For the above reasons, I request that ref #1, in its current form, be denied. Attachment A Parking Estimate for Mental Health Office Complex w 10 Offices I am asking for reconsideration because apparently my concern about the adverse impacts of this project has been misinterpreted, specifically regarding the parking impact on the adjoining R-r zoned neighborhoods, specifically "the property to the west", "a quiet single-family neighborhood." You state "Mr Severson bases his estimates upon use of the building that is difficult to imagine." Let me restate, more clearly, my estimates. My estimate is based on a successful use of the 10 professional office complex. This estimate is within the estimate of a mental health practitioner seeing a maximum of 20 clients a week. I assume peak usage during the early afternoon, and each office seeing a client. 1. I assume that the 10 offices will be occupied by 10 professionals. 2. I assume that there wilt be a receptionist and clerical help. 3. I assume that 90% of this staff will use a motor vehicle to get to work, and will have to park it somewhere, while they work. 4. This totals 11 automobiles, that will have to be parked somewhere, when they are on site. S. The 10 professionals will have clients. 6. The most desirable appointments will be late afternoon during the week and Saturday mornings 7. Assuming that the office has successful professionals, then many times they will be 80% to 90% booked and 8 or 10 wilt arrive in and park their cars. 8. For example, lets focus on a 4-5 PM appointment during the week. (Saturday mornings will be similar.) Prior to 5 PM another 8 or 10 will arrive for their appointments and need to park. After S PM the 4-5 PM appointment clients will leave. To accommodate the clients and the change of clients, there will need to be 16 to 20 parking spaces. 9. The total parking required for staff and clients is 31 spaces. 10. There is to be 9 spaces on the site. There are 3 spaces on the street, next to the property, far a total of 12 spaces. There are approximately 6 spaces across the street. This totals 18 spaces. The rest of the spaces (12) will have to come from parking in front of the R-2 zoned houses, next door or on "L" street. li. The staff are usually instructed to park "off site" and leave the proximate parking for clients. 12. I did not take into account the "large amount of off-street parking" because no arrangements have been secured to use these lots. They are private property, and exist for the adjacent businesses and church, respectively. To use this parking without an agreement with the owners would amount to trespassing. In conclusion, this means that the 11 staff automobiles will be stored, every week day and Saturday in front of the properties to the west. Either the storage of the staff automobiles or the consistent coming and going of the clientele will degrade "the quiet single-family neighborhood" as the parking spills over into the adjoining neighborhood. The intent of ACC 18.14, R-2 Single Family Residential District, states: "The R-2 single-family residential zones are intended to create a living environment of optimum standards for single family dwellings. It is further intended,to limit development to relatively low degrees of density." The application states "The use will have no more adverse effect.......... than would any use generally permitted in the district." The introduction of this additional parking will change this neighborhood. This will have more impact than any use generally permitted Respectively, Henry E Severson 203 N st NE Auburn, WA, 98002 253-833-3971 Attachment A Parking Study of the 620 M street NE, w 11 offices If the estimate in attachment A is still "difficult to imagine" please consider this. This proposed Conditional Use Permit, if approved, allows for even more impact on the adjoining neighborhoods. "As noted by staff, the permit is only for a professional office building, which is defined by ACC 18.04.750 as'offices maintained and used as places of business conducted by persons engaged in health services for human beings, such as doctors and dentists, and by engineers, attorneys, realtors, architects, accountants, clerical, and other recognized general office and medical occupations.' " This means that any one of the above mentioned professionals can instead, use this site and replace the use of it by mental health professionals. If this site is used as dental offices, for example, the impact will be much greater. This Conditional Use Permit will allow such use without further approval by the city. There is an example of such effect on the adjoining neighborhoods.. There is an office building at 620 M street NE, north of NE 6"' street. This office complex is almost identical to the proposed site. It accommodates 11 offices, ail dentists. There is on site parking for 35 cars. in spite of this, the staff parks off site, along NE 6"' street, west of M street NE. Typically this involves 18 to 20 cars, (20 per count, 10 AM, Tuesday). Parking in the lot next to the dental clinic was 25 cars at this time. Several years ago, the residences along NE 6"' street approached the city to help solve the impact this daily parking had on their homes. The result was a "no parking" zone on the north side of NE 6"' street, a purchase of a house on he corner of NE 6"' and M street NE to add 5 parking spaces plus the 5 spaces at the front and side of the house. In spite of this action, staff cars still fill the south side of NE 6~h street, all the way to and including filling the parking in front of Indian Tom Park. The effect of such an office at the referenced site will be almost exactly the same. However, here the client parking and the staff parking is a much higher total, totaling approximately 45 cars. This is not imagined. It is demonstrated daily. The above was presented at the hearing, with photos. The decision did not address this. Respectively, Henry E Severson 203 N st NE Auburn, WA, 98002 253-833-3971 ORDINANCE NO. 6 1 0 8 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONVERT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE INTO PROFESSIONAL OFFICE SUITES FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 105 M STREET NE WITHIN AN R2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE WHEREAS, Application No. CUP07-0001, dated February 9, 2007 was submitted to the City of Auburn, Washington by Kathryn Cruze, property owner, to allow an addition to and conversion of an existing single family residence into professional office suites for a property located at the northwest corner of M Street NE and 1St Street NE, commonly known as 105 M Street NE; and WHEREAS, said application was referred to the Hearing Examiner for study and public hearing thereon, along with staff review; and WHEREAS, the Hearing Examiner held a public hearing to consider said application in the Council Chambers of the Auburn City Hall on April 11, 2007, and the Hearing Examiner recommended approval of the application on May 2, 2007, subject to certain conditions; and WHEREAS, on May 17, 2007, Henry Severson filed a timely Request for Reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's decision; and WHEREAS, on June 21, 2007, the Hearing Examiner issued a revised recommendation of approval; and Ordinance No. 6108 July 30, 2007 Page 1 of 9 WHEREAS on August 6, 2007, the City Council considered said application and approved the Hearing Examiner's recommendation and proposed conditions for the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow the addition to and conversion of a single family residence into professional office suites for property located at 105 M Street NE in Auburn Washington based on the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions, to-wit FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: 1. Applicant. The applicant is Kathryn Cruze. 2. Hearing. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the application at 5:30 p.m. at Auburn City Hall in the Council Chambers on April 11, 2007. The hearing was left open for written comment until 5:00 p.m. on April 17, 2007. The applicant had an opportunity for written response until 5:00 p.m. on April 20, 2007. Substantive: 3. Site/Proposal Description. Kathryn Cruze has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to convert an existing single-family residence into 10 professional office suites. The project will involve demolishing a detached garage and detached cottage located on the property, constructing additions onto the existing home, and remodeling the existing residence for professional office use. Off- street parking for nine vehicles will also be provided, as well as on-site fencing and landscaping. The lot is 12,075 feet in area. The total square footage of the building will be 2,351 square feet. The property will be fenced on the western and northern property boundaries. A 7'9" landscaping buffer will be placed along the western property, which adjoins residential uses. A lesser width is proposed on the northern property line, which also adjoins residential use. The staff have also recommended a 6-foot-tall solid wood fence along the western and northern property lines. 4. Characteristics of the Area. The project site fronts a heavily congested arterial in an area predominantly zoned R2 but primarily characterized by Ordinance No. 6108 July 30, 2007 Page 2 of 9 commercial use along M Street. The property is surrounded on three sides by single-family developments and on the south side by a commercial shopping center. In contrast to the commercial development that predominates along M Street, the property to the west is a quiet single-family neighborhood. A church, camera shop, and gas station as well as other commercial uses are all within a couple blocks of the proposed professional office building. 5. Adverse Impacts. Several residential neighbors expressed understandable concern about another conversion in their vicinity from residential to commercial use. The development along M Street Northeast constitutes an uncomfortable mixture of commercial and residential development. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 4 above, the noise and traffic and intensity of land use along M Street is in stark contrast to the quiet residential community to the west located along L Street and beyond. Consequently, the conditional use permitting process is an important land use tool to ensure compatibility amongst these different uses. The staff have succeeded in addressing these impacts within their recommended conditions of approval and negotiated project design features. Mr. Severson and the applicant certainly have very different understandings of the amount of parking that will be necessary for the project. Mr. Severson bases his parking estimates upon use of the building that is difficult to imagine would ever realistically happen. Ms. Cruze bases her opinion upon the clientele of her practice, which could be very different from other types of professionals that would be authorized to use the building. In assessing the parking demand created by the project, the Examiner defers to the legislative determinations made by the City Council in adopting the City's parking standards. ACC 18.52.020(B)(12) requires one parking space per 300 square feet of gross floor area. The nine parking stalls proposed by the applicant exceeds this standard and there is no compelling evidence in the record that this will not adequately meet the demand generated by the users of the office building. Adequate buffering for adjoining residential uses is one of the more important mitigation measures to be addressed in this Conditional Use Permit decision. As noted by staff, if the parcel were zoned for Residential Office, a 10-feet buffer with Type II landscaping would be required between parking and driveways and adjoining residential uses. Staff are a little over a couple of feet short on this buffer width for the western property line but believe they have compensated for this deficiency by substituting a 6-foot solid wooden fence. The Examiner agrees that the accommodation of the fence plus Type II landscaping provides for adequate buffering to the residential uses to the west. The width of the landscaping buffer to the north is significantly less than 10 feet the closer one gets to the western property line. The property to the north, however, is not located within the quiet residential neighborhood that fronts L Street. It fronts Ordinance No. 6108 July 30, 2007 Page 3 of 9 upon the heavily congested M Street and is surrounded by commercial development. Given the noise, lights, and traffic that already impact that property, a landscaped buffer will not make that much difference. For this reason, the buffering in conjunction with the fence proposed for the northern side of the property is adequate mitigation as well. There was also significant concern expressed during the hearing about the clientele that would use the building. Much of the testimony focused upon the clientele of the mental health professional. As commented by Ms. Cruze, her practice does not involve any clientele that would be a danger to the community. Given Ms. Cruze's testimony, it would appear that the clientele of a criminal defense attorney (an authorized use of the proposed building) would be a greater cause for concern than that of a mental health professional. Be that as it may, there is no compelling evidence in the record to establish that a relatively minor number of clients that would frequent the facility would contain more "dangerous" individuals than the large number of people that frequent the neighboring store and other commercial uses along M Street. Further, for constitutional and other legal reasons, the City would have a very difficult time prohibiting persons with a criminal history or drug problems from accessing the building. The clientele of the building will largely be restricted by its authorized use. As noted by staff, the permit is only for a professional office building, which is defined by ACC 18.04.750 as "offices maintained and used as places of business conducted by persons engaged in health services for human beings, such as doctors and dentists, and by engineers, attorneys, realtors, architects, accountants, clerical, and other recognized general office and medical occupations." In order to prevent any confusion on the matter, the conditions of approval will be clarified to note that approval is only for professional office use. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Procedural: 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. ACC 18.64.020(A) grants the Hearing Examiner with the authority to review a request for a Conditional Use Permit and make a recommendation to the City Council. Substantive: 2. Zoning Designation. The property is zoned R2, single-family residential. 3. Review Criteria and Application. Professional office buildings are permitted within an R2 zone if the criteria for a conditional use permit are met. See ACC 18.14.030(H). Chapter 18.64 ACC governs the criteria for a conditional Ordinance No. 6108 July 30, 2007 Page 4 of 9 use permit. Those criteria are quoted below and applied by corresponding conclusions of law. ACC 18.64.040(A): The use will have no more adverse effect on the health, safety or comfort of persons living or working in the area and will be no more injurious, economically or otherwise, to property or improvements in the surrounding area than would any use generally permitted in the district. 4. The primary permitted use in the R2 zone is asingle-family dwelling. See ACC 18.14.020(A). The primary adverse impacts of concern are noise, light and traffic. As discussed in the findings of fact, the landscaping and fencing along the north and west property lines provide adequate mitigation for these types of impacts given the context and location of adjoining residential uses. Parking, according to the Auburn City Code, is adequate by the proposed nine off-site parking stalls. ACC 18.64.040(B): The proposal is in accordance with the goals, policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 5. As noted in the staff report, the Comprehensive Plan map designation for the site is "office residential" which encourages the reservation of areas to accommodate professional offices for expanding medical and business services, while providing a transition between residential uses and more intensive uses and activities. The professional office building proposed by the applicant clearly meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. ACC 18.64.040(C): The proposal complies with all requirements of this title. 6. As noted in the staff report, the proposal meets all the requirements of the R2 zone. ACC 18.64.040(D): The proposal can be constructed and maintained so as to be harmonious and appropriate in design, character and appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity. 7. The landscaping and fencing required of the project will play a major role in ensuring compatibility with adjoining uses. Staff have also recommended a condition that requires consistency in design with the existing brick home. Also, the structure will remain one story in height and the total floor area of the expanded structure is consistent with that of a large single-family residence. Ordinance No. 6108 July 30, 2007 Page 5 of 9 ACC 18.64.040(E): The proposal will not adversely affect the public infrastructure. 8. As noted in the staff report, the applicant will be required to install a fire hydrant on site and construct a sidewalk along 1st St. N.E.. This will be made a condition of approval of this application. Further, as testified by staff during the hearing, the streets that serve the project have adequate capacity to meet the increase in traffic demand generated by the project. As further noted in the staff report, the .project will be served by sewer and water. ACC 18.64.040(F): The proposal will not cause or create a public nuisance. 9. The site is located in an area by a heavily congested arterial (M Street Northeast) and surrounded by intense commercial uses such as a commercial shopping center, a church, and other smaller commercial facilities. The project does border a quiet residential community to the west, but the screening and relatively low intensity of the proposal prevent any incompatibility that rises to the level of a public nuisance. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the preceding Findings and Conclusions, the Hearing Examiner recommends that the Auburn City Council APPROVE the Applicant's request for a Conditional Use Permit subject to the following conditions: 1. Site development -shall occur in substantial conformance with the submitted plans. 2. The proposed building expansion shall blend in with the existing character of the brick home, as determined by the Planning Director. 3. The landscaped areas between the proposed office structure and 1St St. NE and M St. NE shall feature a minimum of 10 feet of Type III landscaping. Efforts shall be made to retain the existing large deciduous tree along 1St St NE. The required sight distance triangle at the intersection of 1St St. NE and M St. NE shall be maintained. 4. The landscaped area surrounding the parking lot and along the northern end of the structure shall be comprised of Type II landscaping. Ordinance No. 6108 July 30, 2007 Page 6 of 9 5. A minimum 6 ft. tall solid wood fence shall be constructed along the western and northern property lines, except that the height shall be reduced to no greater than 42 inches within the required setbacks along 1St St. NE and M St. NE. 6. Future signage shall be limited to one wall sign each facing M St. NE and 1Sc St. NE, plus no more than one monument sign, indirectly illuminated, and no greater than 6 ft. in height and 32 sq. ft. in area. 7. Use of the project shall be limited to professional office as currently defined by ACC 18.04.750. 8. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall install a fire hydrant and construct a sidewalk along First Street Northeast as required by applicable development standards. 9. No building permit shall be issued for the project until the applicant acquires an off-street parking agreement for at least nine stalls within 500 feet of the project. Occupancy of the building shall be contingent upon the continued availability of the nine stalls for off-street parking. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN as Follows: Section 1. The Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision of the Hearing Examiner are adopted herein by this reference to allow to allow an addition to and conversion of an existing single family residence into professional office suites for a property located at the northwest corner of M Street NE and 1St Street NE, commonly known as 105 M Street NE, and as legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto, subject to the conditions as outlined above. Section 2. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are declared to be separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, Ordinance No. 6108 July 30, 2007 Page 7 of 9 subdivision, section or portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance, or the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances. Section 3. Recording. Upon the passage, approval and publication of this Ordinance as provided by law, the City Clerk of the City of Auburn shall cause this Ordinance to be recorded in the office of the King County Auditor. Section 4. Implementation. The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directions of this legislation. Section 5. Effective date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force five days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. INTRODUCED: PASSED: APPROVED: PETER B. LEWIS MAYOR Attest: Danielle E. Daskam, City Clerk Ordinance No. 6108 July 30, 2007 Page 8 of 9 Approved Daniel B. Heid, City Attorn Published Ordinance No. 6108 July 30, 2007 Page 9 of 9