HomeMy WebLinkAboutITEM VIII-A-3
AlJBU
WASHINGTON
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Aqenda Subiect: Ordinance No. 6043 to approve the Parker Rezone
REZ05-0006
Department: Planning Attachments: Ordinance No. 6043.
Buildin and Communit Please refer to Exhibit List
Administrative Recommendation:
Date: August15,2006
Budget Impact: NA
City Council introduce and adopt Ordinance No. 6043
Backqround Summary:
OWNER/APPLICANT: April Parker
REQUEST: Change in zoning for a .23 acre property from R2-Single Family
Residential to RO-Residential Office.
LOCATION: The property is located at 220 M Street NE.
EXISTING LAND USE: Single family home
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION: Office Residential
SEPA STATUS: A Final Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) for the rezone proposal
was issued on January 12, 2006.
L0821-3
03.8 REZ05-0006
eVlewe y ouncl
~Arts Commission
Airport
Hearing Examiner
Human Services
Park Board
Planning Comm.
ommlttees:
COUNCIL COMMITTE
~Finance
Municipal Servo
Planning & CD
Public Works
Other
eVlewe y epartments IVISlons:
S: ~ Building ~ M&O
Cemetery Mayor
Finance Parks
Fire Planning
Le al Police
Pu~IiC Works Human Resources
Action:
Committee Approval:
Council Approval:
Referred to
Tabled
DYes DNo
DYes DNo
Call for Public Hearing _/----1_
Until / /
Until I~
Staff: Osaki
Item Number: Item VIII.A.3
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED
Aqenda Subiect
Ordinance No. 6043
Date:
August15,2006
The Comprehensive Plan designation, zoning designation and land uses of the surrounding properties
are:
North
South
East
West
EXHIBIT LIST
*Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
Exhibit 3
*Exhibit 4
*Exhibit 5
*Exhibit 6
*Exhibit 7
*Exhibit 8
Exhibit 9
Exhibit 10
Exhibit 11
Exhibit 12
Exhibit 13
Exhibit 14
Exhibit 15
*Exhibit 16
*Exhibit 17
Zoni
Office Residential
RO, Residential
Office
R2, Single Family
Residential
R2, Single Family
Residential
R2, Single Family
Residential
Rarey & Associates
CPA
Single family
residence
Single family
residence
Duplex
Single Family
Residential
Office Residential
Staff Report
Vicinity Map
Application
Notice of Application
Notice of Public Hearing
Affidavit of Posting
Affidavit of Mailing
Confirmation of Publication of Legal Notice
Aerial Photograph
Letter from Henry E. Severson, to Auburn Planning Building & Community Department
regarding Notice of Application, rezone from R-2 to RO. City File No: SEP05-0034, dated
12-21-05.
Letter from Walter Russell, to Auburn Planning Building & Community Department
regarding Notice of Application, rezone from R-2 to RO. City File No: SEP05-0034, dated
12-21-05.
Letter from Paul Krauss, to Henry E. Severson regarding environmental checklist for a
rezone file no. SEP05-0034, dated 1-10-06.
Letter from Paul Krauss, to Walter Russell regarding environmental checklist for a rezone
file no. SEP05-0034, dated 1-10-06.
Letter from Henry E. Severson, to Auburn Planning Building & Community Department
regarding Notice of Application, rezone from R-2 to RO. City File No: SEP05-0034,
comments, response, and office visit, dated 1-26-06.
Letter from Paul Krauss, to Henry E. Severson regarding environmental checklist for a
rezone file no. SEP05-0034, dated 2-15-06.
City Department Comment Sheet, no date, last revision June 7, 2006.
Geotechnical Report by Jason Engineering and Consulting Business, Inc., including
revised site plan, dated May 20, 2006.
*=Exhibit is not included in packet but is available for review upon request.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. April Parker (property owner) has applied for a rezone of the 10,018 square foot (.23 acre)
property at 220 M Street NE. The applicant is seeking to change the zoning to be able to apply
to convert the existing single family residence into a day spa clinic, a use which is not permitted
under the current zoning designation of the property (R2 Single Family Residential).
Page 2 of 5
Aqenda Subiect
Ordinance No. 6043
Date:
August 15, 2006
2. An application has been submitted for a Conditional Use Permit to allow conversion of an
approximately 1,540 square foot single family residence into a day spa clinic, which is considered
to be a personal service shop. Pursuant to Auburn City Code (ACC) 18.22.030.A.5, a personal
service shop may be permitted when a Conditional Use Permit has been issued pursuant to ACC
18.64.
3. Surrounding development includes a mix of residential (consisting mostly of single family homes)
and small businesses located in single family residences that have been converted to this non-
residential use. The site is part of an area currently zoned R2 that is located near areas zoned
R3 (Duplex Residential) to the northwest and several properties zoned RO (Residential Office)
along M Street N E. Additional businesses are located to the north along Harvey Road and to the
south along East Main Street.
4. Per ACC 18.52.020.B.12, off-street parking for a personal service shop is required at a ratio of 1
space per 400 square feet of gross floor area. According to this provision, the applicant is
required to provide at least 4 spaces. The site plan shows that 6 paved parking stalls will be
established on site. The parking spaces are required to meet the dimensional requirements as
established in ACC 18.52.090.
5. The RO zone requires the establishment of a 10' width of Type III landscaping along the street
frontage and adjacent to properties zoned R2, per ACC 18.50.050.C. Parking areas adjacent to
properties zoned R2 require a 10' width of Type II landscaping.
6. Compliance with landscaping requirements for properties that have existing buildings is done to
the maximum extent possible; per ACC 18.50.020 as follows,
"18.50.020 Scope.
B. When additions, alterations, or repairs of any existing building or structure exceed 50
percent of the value of the building or structure, or a residential use is converted to a
nonresidential use, then such building or structure shall be considered to be a new use
and landscaping provided accordingly; provided, that if any existing foundation or fence
layout precludes full compliance herewith, then the landscaping requirements may be
modified by the planning director."
7. The RO (Residential Office) zone district allows businesses along with residential uses (see ACC
18.22.020.A, 18.22.030.A). The intent of the RO zone is
"... intended primarily 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 or near the
hospital."
8. In the City of Auburn Comprehensive Transportation Plan M Street NE is classified as a principal
arterial.
9. The RO zone development standards including setbacks and lot requirements are contained in
ACC 18.22.040 with supplemental development standards identified in ACC 18.22.060.
10. The Office Residential Comprehensive Plan designation is intended to "reserve areas to
accommodate professional offices for expanding medical and business services, while providing
Page 3 of 5
Aqenda Subiect
Ordinance No. 6043
Date:
August 15, 2006
a transition between residential uses and more intensive uses and activities." It is intended to be
implemented by the RO Residential Office Zone and the RO-H Residential Office Hospital Zone
(page 14-13, Auburn Comprehensive Plan).
11. The applicant has filed an environmental checklist that addresses only the rezone, as the
proposed development falls below the SEPA categorical exemption thresholds; therefore, a
SEPA checklist and determination are not required for the day spa clinic.
12. On January 12, 2006, the SEPA Responsible Official issued a Final Determination of Non-
Significance (DNS) for the proposed change in zoning of the property. Comment letters received
on the environmental determination and city response letters are attached as Exhibits 10-15.
13. On November 4, 2005, notice of the proposed change in zoning was provided to the Washington
State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development and other State agencies,
pursuant to RCW 36. 70A.1 06. No comments were received from any agency on the proposed
rezone.
14. Staff conducted a site visit on July 10, 2006, to verify the accuracy of the site plan and site
conditions.
CONCLUSIONS:
ACC Chapter 18.68 provides certain criteria for approval of a rezone:
1. The rezone must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The property subject to this rezone request is designated as "Office Residential" on the
Comprehensive Plan Map. The appropriate zoning assignments for implementation of this
designation are RO Residential Office and the RO-H Residential Office Hospital.
The Office Residential Comprehensive Plan designation is suited for areas in transition. "As a
transition this designation can serve as an appropriate buffer between heavily traveled arterials and
established single family areas. It would be particularly appropriate in areas where large traffic
volumes have affected an established residential area." (page 14-13, Auburn Comprehensive Plan).
2. The rezone must be initiated by someone other than the City in order for the Hearing Examiner
to consider the request.
This rezone request was initiated by the property owner.
3. Any changes or modifications to a rezone request made by either the Hearing Examiner or
City Council will not result in a more intense zone than the one requested.
Given the small amount of land involved in this request, staff is not recommending any changes or
modifications to the request.
In addition, the Washington State Supreme Court has identified other general rules for rezone
applications (see Parkridge v. Seattle, 89 Wn.2d.454; 573 P.2d 359 (1978)):
1. Conditions in the area must have changed since the original zoning was established.
The area of M Street NE is in transition from what has been a primarily residential neighborhood to
now include several businesses, including both home occupations and professional offices. The
Page 4 of 5
AQenda Subiect
Ordinance No. 6043
Date:
August 15,2006
requested zone change will establish an appropriate designation in conformance with the City of
Auburn Comprehensive Plan. According to the applicant, "Recently, many businesses that provide
personal or medical services have started using rezoned residential properties to provide a more
comfortable atmosphere for clients and patients."
2. The proposed rezone must bear a substantial relationship to the general welfare of the
community.
The rezone will allow for future business development in a manner consistent with current
development in the area. Surrounding development includes a mix of residential (consisting mostly of
single family homes) and small businesses located in single family residences that have been
converted to this non-residential use. The site is part of an area currently zoned R2 that is located
near areas zoned R3 (Duplex Residential) to the northwest and several properties zoned RO
(Residential Office) along M Street NE. Additional businesses are located to the north along Harvey
Road and to the south along East Main Street.
RECOMMENDATION
REZONE
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 rezone with no conditions of
approval.
After conducting a duly advertised public hearing, the Hearing Examiner issued his recommendation of
approval on July 25, 2006.
Page 5 of 5
ORDINANCE NO.6 0 4 3
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, APPROVING A
CHANGE OF ZONING FOR PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 220 M STREET NE IN AUBURN, WASHINGTON
FROM R2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO RO
RESIDENTIAL OFFICE
WHEREAS, the City of Auburn received an application for a change in
zoning from the existing R2 Single Family Residential Zone (tax parcel
1821059109) to RO Residential Office for the property commonly known as 220
M Street NE (City File No. REZ05-0006); and
WHEREAS, on July 18, 2006, the Hearing Examiner conducted a duly
noticed public hearing on the matter and on July 25, 2006, issued a decision
recommending the City Council approve the rezone, with no conditions; and
WHEREAS, final approval is appropriate for City Council action; and
WHEREAS, based on the review given this rezone application by the
Hearing Examiner, the City Council hereby makes and enters the following:
Hearing Examiner's recommendation for the rezone based upon the Findings of
Fact, Conclusions and Recommendation which are attached hereto as Exhibit
"An.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN as follows:
Ordinance No. 6043
August 16, 2006
Page 1 of 3
Section 1. Approval. The request to rezone tax parcel 1821059109
from Single Family Residential (R2) to Residential Office (RO) is APPROVED,
with no conditions. The property is identified in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and
incorporated herein.
Section 2. Severabilitv. The provisions of this ordinance are declared
to be separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence,
paragraph, 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
bylaw.
Ordinance No. 6043
August16,2006
Page 2 of 3
ATTEST:
Danielle E. Daskam,
City Clerk
Publication:
Ordinance No. 6043
August16,2006
Page 3 of 3
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
APPROVED:
CITY OF AUBURN
PETER B. LEWIS
MAYOR
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER
FOR THE CITY OF AUBURN
In the Matter of the Application of
)
)
)
)
)
)
NO. REl05-0006
APRIL AND JERAMEY PARKER
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS
AND RECOMMENDATION
For Approval of a Rezone
Request. R2 to RO
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION
The Hearing Examiner recommends the Auburn City Council APPROVE the request to rezone
a 0.23-acre parcel of land from Single Family Residential (R2) to Residential Office (RO).
SUMMARY OF RECORD
Request:
April and Jeramey Parker (Applicants) request a rezone of one parcel of land approximately 0.23
acres in area from Single Family Residential (R2) to Residential Office (RO). The subject
property is located at 220 M StreetNE in Auburn, Washington.
Hearing Date:
The Hearing Examiner for the City of Auburn held an open record hearing on the request 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 into the record:
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
Exhibit 2a
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 4
Exhibit 5/5a
Exhibit 6/6a
Exhibit 7
Exhibit 8/8a
Staff Report, dated July 13,2006
Site Plan received October 25, 2005
Parcel Map
Conditional Use Pennit and Rezone Application, received October 25,2006
Notice of Application, no date
Notice of Public Hearing, no date
Affidavit of Posting dated and posted July 7, 2006
Affidavit of Mailing, no date, mailed July 7, 2006
Confirmation of Publication of Legal Notice dated July 5,2006
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearing Examiner for the City of Auburn
April Parker Rezone, REZ05-0006
Page J of5
EXHIBIT ~
Exhibit 9
Exhibit 10
Exhibit 11
Exhibit 12
Exhibit 13
Exhibit 14
Exhibit 15
Exhibit 16
Exhibit 17
Aerial photograph, no date
Comment Letter from Henry E. Severson dated December 21,2005
Comment Letter from Walter E. Russell received December 23, 2005
Letter from Paul Krauss, City of Auburn, to Henry E. Severson dated January 10,
2006
Letter from Paul Krauss, City of Auburn, to Walter Russell dated January 10,
2006
Comment Letter from Henry E. Severson dated January 26, 2006
Letter from Paul Krauss, City of Auburn, to Henry E. Severson dated February
15,2006
City Department Comment Sheet, no date, last revision June 7, 2006
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 a rezone of one parcel of land approximately 0.23 acres in area
from Single-Family Residential (R2) to Residential Office (RO). The subject property is
located at 220 M Street NE in Auburn, Washington. 1 Exhibit I, pages 1-2; Exhibit 2a;
Exhibit 3, pages 6,8-9.
2. The rezone request is made in conjunction with an application for development of the
site. The Applicants purpose in seeking the rezone is to facilitate a change in use of the
existing building from a residence to a day spa Additional parking and landscaping
would be provided when the use is changed. Exhibit I, page 1; Exhibit 3; Testimony of
April Parker.
3. The purpose of the R2 'zone is 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 purpose of the RO zone is 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 Transportation Plan classifies M
Street NE as a principal arterial. Auburn City Code (ACC) 18.14.010, 18.22.010. Exhibit
1 page 3.
I The site is owned by the Applicants, April and Jeramey Parker, and is referred to as King County Tax Parcel
#1821059109. Exhibit 2a.
Parker Rezone REZ05-0006
City of Auburn Hearing Examiner
Findings, Conclusion, and Recommendation
Page 2 of5
4. The City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan designates this parcel as "Office Residential."
Exhibit 1, page 4.
5. The area surrounding the parcel is transitioning from residences towards businesses. The
parcel immediately to the north of the subject parcel is already zoned RO and there are
additional businesses along M Street NE, Harvey Road, and East Main Street. Exhibit 1,
pages 3-6; Exhibit 3, page 7.
6. Area residents Henry E. Severson and Walter E. Russell expressed concern about the
changing nature of their neighborhood and the possibility of the proposed rezone opening
the door for intensive redevelopment of the property. Paul Krauss, Director of Auburn's
Department of Plarining and Building & Community, explained in his reply letters that
many of the concerns about the property's use are best addressed at the permitting stage
when a specific use is proposed. Building permits will be required for significant
changes to the structure on the property and Conditional Use permits will be required for
government and other special uses of concern to the writers of the comment letters.
Exhibits 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15.
7. The SEPA Responsible Official issued a Final Determination of Non-Significance for
this rezone on January 12,2006. Exhibit 1, page 4.
8. Proper notice of both the application and the hearing for this rezone was given by the
City of Auburn. Exhibits 5a, 6a, 7.
CONCLUSIONS
Jurisdiction
. The Hearing Examiner is granted authority to make a recommendation to the Auburn City
Council on rezone applications pursuant to RCW 35.63.130 and ACC 18.68.170.
Criteria for Review
For a rezone application to be approved, the Applicant must show the following:
1. The rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan;
2. The rezone was.initiated by someone other than the City; and
3. Changes or modifications to the rezone by the Hearing Examiner or City
Council will not result in a more intense zone than the one requested.
ACC 18.68.030 and 18. 68. 050.
In addition to the criteria set forth in the Auburn City Code, the rezone application must be
consistent with state law. In the decision Parkridge v. Seattle, 89 Wn.2d 454 (1978), the
Washington Supreme Court identified the following general criteria for rezone approval:
1. There is no presumption of validity favoring the action or rezoning;
Parker Rezone REZ05-0006
City of Auburn Hearing Examiner
Findings, Conclusion, and Recommendation
Page 3 0[5
2. The proponents of the rezone have the burden of proof in demonstrating that
conditions have changed since the original zoning;
3. The rezone must bear a substantial relationship to the public health, safety,
morals, or welfare.
In more recent decisions, the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals have identified an
exception to the second Parkridge criterion that is relevant to this case. In Bjornson v. Kitsap
County, 78 Wash. App. 840, 846 (1995), the court held that "where the proposed rezone ...
implements policies of the comprehensive plan, changed circumstances are not required." The
court adopted the rationale from an earlier decision (Save Our Rural Environment v. Snohomish
County) where the Supreme Court stated that:
If such implementation were not allowed to occur until physical or developmental
circumstances in the area had changed, the new comprehensive plan might never
be fulfilled: if an area is presently undeveloped and newly amended
. comprehensive plan calls for industrial development, no industrial development
may occur until alleast one rezone has been granted.
Bjarnson, 78 Wash. App. at 846 (quoting Save Our Rural Environment v. Snohomish County, 99
Wash.2d 363, 370 (1983)). Because the City of Auburn criteria for rezone approval require that
the rezone be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, no analysis of changed circumstances is
required.
Conclusions Based on Findings
1. The proposed rezone would be consistent with the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan designation of the subject property is Office Residential. The
requested RO zoning would implement this designation. The Comprehensive Plan provides
justification for an assertion of "changed circumstances." Findings 3, 4, and 5; Bjarnson v.
Kitsap County, 78 Wash. App. 840 (1995)
2. The City of Auburn did not initiate the proposed rezone. The property owners initiated
the proposed rezone of the subject property. Findings 1 and 2.
3. No modification of the proposed rezone is required. The requested RO zoning would be
compatible with the mixed residential and residential office zoning of surrounding properties
and the Comprehensive Plan. Neither the City Staff nor the Hearing Examiner is
recommending any modifications to the proposed rezone. Findings 3, 4, and 5.
4. The proposed rezone bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety,
morals, or welfare of the community. The subject property is in an area characterized by
residential use and emerging business development. The proposed rezone would allow
future business development consistent with existing land uses in the vicinity and with the
land use designation for the site. The contemplated use would be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. Site specific development conditions would be
addressed during site plan review of the any development to ensure that the public health,n
Parker Rezone REZ05-0006
City of Auburn Hearing Examiner
Findings, Conclusion, and Recommendation
Page 40f5
safety, and welfare is not adverse impacted. Findings 3, 4, and 5; Parkridge v. Seattle, 89
Wn.2d 454 (1978).
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the preceding Findings and Conclusions, the request to rezone one parcel of land
approximately 0.23 acres in area located at 220 M Street NE in Auburn, Washington from R2 to
RO should be APPROVED.
RECOMMENDED this2s- ~y of July 2006.
~~
1HEODO~L HUNTER,
Hearing Examiner
Parker Rezone REZ05-0006
City of Auburn Hearing Examiner
Findings, Conclusion, and Recommendation,
Page 5 of5
EXHIBIT B
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
182105 109 W Y2 OF FOLG-BEG AT PT. 30.05 FT E OF NW COR OF S ~ OF NW ~
OF SE ~ OF NE ~ TH N 86-53-34 E 298.08 FT TH S 00-20-00 E 75 FT TH S 86-53-34
W 298.75 FT TH N 00-10-59 E 75 FT TO BEG LESS POR FOR ST.
L LLUt J.VLap L age
(ilKln9 ColIntv ~---IiIlmIlII!lm_
!'4~t!;;;::,~::n::a
.- "........ . .~,.. ::, :~'-'-;"'~'" ..-.,.- .::~;': ::.::;. ;..;;.;.;~;--, ,..:. "';'~;':::"H'; .;~.; .::;;
.' '.': .'q;!.;cjfT!fL~~~~,,;';.i.!iEI;!;'n'i' ilij~~t~~iW~'ii~~i'
Parcel Number
Address
Zipcode
Taxpayer
1821059109
220MSTNE
98002
PARKER APRIL M+JERAMEY J
The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a
Wlriety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no
representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness,
timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. King County shaH not be liable for any
general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including. but not limited
to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the inlOnnalioo
ntalned on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited
except by written permission of King County..
King County I GIS Center I News I Services I Comments I Search
By visiting this and other King County web pages,
you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site.
The details.
http://www5 .metrokc. gov/parcelviewer/Print_ Process.asp
EXHIBIT ~.
-~
Page I of I
7/13/2006
........ '" ........ '" .. .. .... .. .... ............... .. ....... ........ ..... ........................ ..... ....... .... ....... ........ .......... ......... .... .... ... n.... ......... ......
REZONE APPUCA nON
~ 4' fcra Mrl~ fJtlMfl/
PR PERTY OWNER'S NA E
Sec. Twp. Rng.:
f(E-l-tJs -CJ6 -
APPLICATION NUMBER
Zone Existing: tz.U
Zone Request: Yl/)
Area Code:
Scheduled Public Hearing:
Staff Project Coordinator:
Date Received:
...................................................................................................................................................................................
Do Not Write Above This Line
APPLICANT: ~OMPLETE THIS FORM WITH All ENTRIES BEING TYPED (except signatures) OR
NEATLY PRINTED IN INK. IF ADDED SPACE IS NEEDED, ATTACH THE ADOmONAL REQUIRED
PAGES TO THIS APPLICATION.
I (we), the undersigned, OWNER(S) of property numbered opposite my (our)
names(s) hereby petition for a change of zoning classification of property .
described herein from:
~2-
TO
,eo
A How is the property involved in this application more suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed ...
zone than those permitted in the present classification? ,
Tt-c. .~\~ ~ JU~ -t:te Ccupr-cherl~ve. p.an tt1Il:5tOYla;(
--1X tv\. St lK't --\he vreuY ~e . .
B. Explain why there is a need in the area for more zoning of the type requested, and wherever
possible, substantiate this statement with factual data. .
~n IS (,l!fili 'P!QOC 10 1trt.tW- W:ll ~. 1?ew1:ff4. MaYllj.
kus'n~ ~ 'PYtJV\dt/ ~CY #..rt.U(aJ ~~ moL
<JIWlLc( u.s~ ~ I'tSldcY\::tlc.l/ pqxI1I'd -11> pll>\I1dc CL
~'. (()U~ a.:J-Mos~ -fry d(lJ'tls and p:d1LVltJ.
.EXHIBIT ..2-
Rezone for Hearing Examiner
Revised 1m<Ji2004
Page 4 of 7
C. Why is this zoning compatible with the other existing uses in the neighborhood?
M 5r ()Jr) ~\6)\J\g LYtb ~ Raw lS. ~tWdy
fA- b\cnd Of VCS'1ctad\aJ artf ~\Ocvth{Aj office 2m{~_
3cucfCU~I;othej \^au: oJ~ amrcvrd 2onl~ dianed
D. Why is this rezone compatible with the existing zoning in the area?
A 7(x)lY\g ~~ts lKtto -#1e.- ~tY1 _lthtprdrnSl\X:
?QIl <fty u 'Strttt 1 Ctr\1 3WYlll pofX1hes V1au:: ~
o.mlevtd &>V\l~ ~~,
E.. Why is this rezone consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the area?
l\"e ~ \AS\if\ {'Qr Ivt 3\Yeet 'tS zmnq Or:trk:t~
-10 r-esl (le("ct) O-l Dfl ce. as dcMcY1siYQi:-cX tx..t ~
CornpYdtdlS\\X-?tCtt1 rru.p.
Rezone for Hearing Examiner
Revised 1213012OO4
Page 5 of 7
All PROPERTY OWNERS INCLUDED IN THIS APPUCA TION MUST BE LISTED BElOW
OPPOSITE A "PARCEL NUMBER" WHICH IS ALSO SHOWN ON THE lEGAL DESCRIPTION AND
INDICATES THE PROPERTY OWNED BY EACH APPLICANT. YOUR SIGNATURE ALSO
INDICATES YOU HAVE READ AND UNDERSTOOD THE CONTENTS OF THIS APPLICATION AND
ITS ATTACHMENTS.
PARCEL
NUMBER
NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE NUMBER
(Please Print)
SIGNATURE
()p>>J/~RY:
/g1.lImxP/ ~Q ~ '
f\uh }YY'\ UJA qRalL
~87?J\P
Faxnumber. ~333-~/gO
E-mail address.aooJ g 'SOm)l:f u(.(mq: · CCi1
IfJ2/oSQ/(A
Fax number l.1v:\
E-mail address ~~~
AGENT and/or OWNER'S REPRESENTATNE:
Name: c 11/\
Address: ~
City /Phone:
Fax number
E-mail address
Indicate Method for Future NotifICations
Fax
Mail
v
Telephone ,/'"
E-mail
Please be advised that even though the City .of Auburn may approve your requested rezone, that
approval does not guarantee a subsequent, specific use. You will be required to confonn to all
other d~velopment criteria of the City of Auburn in order to develop your property.
Rezone for Hearing Examiner
Revised 12J3a12OO4
Page 6 of 7
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY :J:r a:/fI(dlrc(
R'ifcd M tip 4 PttWL
1!J21t/13 1m tul/2 OF RJL6-13E6 ffT Pi &;,05 FTG or
Nl.V COli! q= :3 V2 of IVIo ~ a= % Tlf IJ &r S3 - ?1- (;
Zqt:J,og FT 1-1/ S oo-zo"O') E: ----OPT TH S 80--5'3-# {()
2-"18,15 +-T 7H IJ <XJ--Io-gq ~ 75 Fr TO 8&:} Ll;JJ
POt< fu~ ST
FEE PAYMENT: $1,556.00 plus $727.00 for SEPA checklist
T.R. #:
Cashier's Initials:
Date Received:
Rezone for Hearing Examiner
Revised 1213012OO4
Page 7 of?
Aubum GIS - Maps
Comments
Page 1 of 1
~legeod
1./# hJtun
;;> SImels
o Cly linlts
o Parct$
. Rivera
RegiclnsS
lmSge
~1Inage
EXHIBIT !i
DISCLAIMER
This map is intended for reference purposes only. For data verification. please contact Auburn GIS. IT Depl.
~
:p ..... .' WASHHIGTON
httn- II oi<:;in)"/;l1lhlJmO/~" F rn01n<:/nrint <>"n'lT;tl~~D~_'. ~_o/ ....i\.....
203-NStNE
Aub~ W A, 98002~
4416
Dec 21,2005
RECEIVED
DEe 2 .8 2005.
Auburn Planning Building & Community Department
25 West Main St
Auburn, WA 98001-4998
PlANNING DEPARTMENT
Reference: Notice of Application, rezone from R-2 to RO. City File No:
SEPOS-0034. Date of Application: October 25, 2005. Applicant: April &
Jeramey Parker.
Dear SirlMadame
The referenced Notice invites comments on the proposed rezone. My
co~ents.follow.
. ~,JrA.J ~ (!~.
First, according to Chapter 18.22 of the l;iiy-eodr!;RO RES/DENTAL
OFFICE, there are many permitted uses that appear to me. to be .
incompatible adjacent to an R-2 zoning. A simple use as an office within a
single family residence facility appears to have little impact. However, RO
is a very inclusive ioning, allowing many uses.
The properties east and south are R-2, Residential. This RO zoning will
allow buildings to 35 feet high, blocking sunlight in theaftemoon to the
residences east of the site. Also, unrestricted lighting and business signage
will adversely affect the privacy and enjoyment of the back yards adjacent
and proximate to the site. In addition, the uses permitted under the RO
zoning and those uses permitted with a conditional use permit are potentially
high traffic use facilities, including studios, banks, computer sales, multiple
family dwellings, service shops, and restaurants. Also, uses with a
. conditional use permit, RO will allow undefined "Government facilities".
These businesses can produce high traffic volume, affecting R -2 residences
north and south.of this property. Further, when these uses produce entering
and exiting traffic, the traffic. on M street will be slowed. This causes the
traffic to bleed off into the adjacent neighborhood, as drivers look for
alternate routes. The amount of this traffic is undefined and should be
estimated. I have no idea of what the extent of the impact may be within this
zoning definition on my neighborhood.
EXHIBIT 10
While it is true that we are considering only one rezone here, this may very
well have a domino effect on other properties along M St. In fact, the city
plans to have the properties along M street in this area, all be rezoned to RO.
Therefore, this rezone is significant and has significant impact on the
adjoining neighborhood. An EIS is required.
Second, according to J 8,50,050, Regulations by zone, part C, RO, a 10 foot
Type ill visual buffer is required on the street frontage and along property
bordering 'im R-2 zone. There have been 2 rezones to RO along this side of
M st between 2nd and 7th. .The buffer requirement has apparently not been .
complied with on these properties. The RO property at M & 7th has a 7 foot
wide (vs 10 feet) buffer along the easterly edge and no significant buffer
along the southerly edge. The RO property on M, immediately north of the
referenced site has no buffer between it and the R-2 properties bordering it.
(I have not been able to fully view the easterly property line.)
I fear that since these 2 properties were approved for RO and did not .
comply with the buffer requirement, the city will continue to be apparently
lax in enforcing its own zoning requirements on the referenced potential
rezone and future rezones as well.
Citizens should not be required to police the city on matters such as these. I
would expect to be informed as to what action the city intends to be in
conformity.
I would like a copy of any decisions on the referenced matter, and to also be
made aware of any appeals.
Thank: you.
~~tivelYlO
p~ C>>'~
Henry E. Severson
N""V
GxS b
(). <,.J '\\\~ ,(.
~v ~ \._ ~'\
"S'-' 't. ,.,;~#
v (,l(,'<
0v
~~:~
203 N St NE
Auburn, W A, 98002-
4416
Dec 21,2005
Auburn Planning Building & Community Department
. 25 West Main St
Auburn, WA 98001-4998
Reference: Notice of Application, rezone from R-2 to RO. City File No:
SEP05-0034. Date of Application: October 25,2005. Applicant: April &
Jeramey Parker.
Dear SirlMadame
The referenced Notice invites comments on the proposed rezone. My
comments follow. (;,
~I,J
First, aCcording to Chapter 18.22 of the city^~~e, RO RESIDENTAL
OFFICE, there are many permitted uses that appear to Iile to be
incompatible adjacent to an R-2 zoning. A simple use as an office within a
single family residence facility appears to have little impact. However, RO.
is a very inclusive zOning, allowing many uses.
The properties east and south are R-2, Residential. This RO zoning will
allow buildings to 35 feet high, blocking sunlight in the afternoon to the
residences east of the site. Also, unrestricted lighting and business signage
will adversely affect the privacy and enjoyment of the back yards adjacent
and proximate to the site. In addition, the uses permitted under the RO
zoning and those uses permitted with a conditional use permit are potentially
high traffic use facilities, including studios, banks, computer sales, multiple
family dwellings, service shops, and restaurants. Also, uses with a
conditional use permit; RO will allow undefined "Government facilities".
These businesses~an produce high traffic volume, affecting R-2 residences
north and south of this property. Further, when these uses produce entering
and exiting traffic, the traffic on M street will be slowed. This causes the _
traffic to bleed off into the adjacent neighporhood, as drivers look for
alternate routes. The amount of this traffic is undefined and should be
estimated. I have no idea of what the extent of the impact may be Within this
zoning definition on my neighborhood.
EXHIBIT LL
While it is true that we are considering only one rezone here, this may very .
well have a domino effect on other properties along M S1. In fact, the city
plans to have the properties along M street in tbis area, all be rezoned to RO.
Therefore, this rezone is significant and has significant impact on the
adjoining neighborhood. An EIS is required.
Second, according to 18,50,050, Regulations by zone, part C, RO, a 10 foot
Type ill visual buffer is required on the street frontage and along property
bordering -..an R-2 zony. There have been 2 rezones to RO along this side of
M st between 2nd and 'j1(.,t'!, The buffer requirement has apparently not been
complied with on these properties. The ROproperty at M &6tt. has a 7 foot
wide (vs 10 feet) buffer along the easterly edge and no significant buffer
along the southerly edge. The RO property on M, immediately north of the .
referenced site has no buffer between it and the R-2 properties bordering it.
(I have not been able to fully view the easterly property line.)
I fear -that since these 2 properties were approved for ItO and did not
comply with the buffer requirement, the city will continue to be apparently
lax in enforcing its own zotting requirements on the referenced potential
rezone and future rezones as well.
Citizens should not be required to police the city on matters such as these. I
would expect to be informed as to what action the city intends to be in
conformity.
I would like a copy of any decisions on the referenced matter, and to also be
made aware of any appeals.
Thank you.
Respectively,
Henry E. Severson
. *
"IC
. AC.l (TYOF .. .. *
nlJBURN
..
WASHINGTON
Peter 8. Lewis, Mayor
25 West Main Street * Auburn WA 98001-4998 * WWW.auburnwa.gov * 253-93 1-3000
January 10, 2006
Henry E. Severson
203 N Street NE
Auburn, WA 98002-4416
Re: Environmental Checklist (File No. SEP05-0034) for a rezone from Single-Family
Residential (R-2) to Residential Office fRO)
Dear Mr. Severson:
Thank you for your comments on the City's Notice of Application and the Proposed Determination of
Non-Significance for the Environmental Checklist application (File No. SEP05-0034) for the proposed
Parker rezone. The SEPA application was submitted concurrently with both a rezone and a conditional
use permit applications. The SEPA review is onfy required for the rezone action, as the subsequent
development proposal to convert the existing single family dwelling into a massage therapy business is
exempt from the SEPA regulations.
With regard to your specific comments, the intent of the Residential Office zone as listed in Auburn CitY
Code Ch. 18.22.010 is as follows:
"The RO zone is intended primarily to accommodate business and professional offices, medica' 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 supplementaJ to the other uses
allowed in the zone..
The RO zone does allow buildings up to 35' in height however the R2 zone aUows.a maximum of 30' in
height for the main building. Development in both zones must meet the same property line setbacks
which would reduce.the impact of taJler structures on adjacent existing development The city does not
regulate residential lighting. Business signage is normaJly located at the front of the business along the .
street, which shouldn't impact the backyards of adjacent properties. The zoning code also contains
regulations for signs by zoning district, under Ch. 18.56.030.
To locate a "government facility" in either the RO or R2 zone requires application for and approval of a
Conditional Use permit. New businesse$ are required to pay traffic impact fees and frequently must
prepare and submit a traffic study. While not related to the proposed rezone, city transportation staff
has determined that the subsequent development to establish the massage therapy business would
not generate enough vehicle traffic to require the appJicant to submit a traffic study. The city has
classified M Street NE as a principal arterial, meaning it is designed to accommodate higher levels of
traffic than other residential streets.
You are correct; the city'sucomprehensive plan designation (future direction) for the properties along M
Street NE is OfficelResidEmtial. The Auburn City Council approves the Comprehensive Plan, which is
updated annual/y. with Opportunities for public comment. Any property within the city that wants to .
have a rezone must apply with the city and go through the review process. The subject property does
not have any significant critical areas or any unique environmental features. Preparation of an.
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not warranted because the rezone is not expected to cause a
significant adverse environmental impact.
Under state law, WAC 197-11-782, in order for the City to impose mitigation measures to reduce
impacts, the City must ensure that there is a reasonable likelihood that impacts will occur. The "1
likelihood of impacts musl be probable, nol merely possible or speculalNe. The probability of impacts EXHIBIT ~
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED
Severson
1/10/2006
Page 2
is not substantiated in this case. Also understate law, WAC 197-11-660, mitigation measures, which
are imposed by the City, must be commensurate with the level of potential impact Given the unknown
likelihood of impacts, the imposition of additional measures as you'vesuggested in your letter does not
bear a reasonable relationship to the potential for impacts.
With respect to your comments about landscaping requirements, the property owner at 300 M Street
NE applied for a variance to the landscaping requirements, which went through a public hearing before
the city's Hearing Examiner and was approved. Compliance with landscaping requirements for
properties that have existing buildings is done to the maximum extent possible; per ACC 18.50.020 as
follows,
18.50.020 Scope.
B. When additions, alterations, or repairs of any existing buikfirig or structure exceed 50 percent of the
value of the building or structure, or a residential use is converted to a nonresidential use, then such
building or structure shaH be considered to be a new use and landscaping provided accordingly;
provided, that if any existing foundation or fence layout precludes full compliance herewith, then the
landscaping requirements may be modified by the planning director. .
The city empfoys two code enforcement offICers that respond to citizen complaints. If you are
interested in the city investigating the illegal actioris of someone in your neighborhood they are
available.
Your comments on this Environmental CheckJjs~ application (Fife No. SEPOs-0034) for the proposed
Parker rezone, as well as our reply letter, wiD be fOfWarded onto the city's Hearing Examiner once the
Rezone (REZ05-0006) and Concr:rtional Use permit (CUP05-(005) applications are scheduled for a
public hearing.
If you have questions regarding this response, please contact Stacey Bortand of the Planning
Department at 253-931-3090. A copy of the City's Final Determination of Non-Significance specifying
the process for appeals is attached.
Paul Krauss, A.tC.P.
Director
Department of Planning Building & Community
Ene: Final Determination of Non-Signiflcance, SEP05-0034
AIJBUIW,
,.
WASHINGTON
Peter B. lewis, Mayor
25 West Main Street * Auburn WA 98001-4998 * www.aubumwa.gov * 253-931-3000
January 10, 2006
Walter Russell
223 N Street NE
Auburn, WA 98002-4416
Re: Environmental Checklist (File No. SEP05-0034) for a rezone from Single-Family
Residential (R-2) to Residential Office (RO)
Dear Mr. Russell:
Thank you for your comments on the City's Notice of Application and the Proposed Determination of
Non-Significance for the Environmental Checklist application (File No. SEP05-0034) for the proposed
Parker rezone. The SEPA application was submitted concurrently with both a rezone and a conditional
use permit applications. The SEPA review is only required for the rezone action, as the subsequent
development proposal to convert the existing single family dwelling into a massage therapy business is
exempt from the SEPA regulations.
With regard to your specifIC comments, the intent of the Residential OffICe zone as listed in Auburn City
Code Ch. 18.22.010 is as follows:
-The RO zone is intended primarily to accommodate business and professionaloffJCeS, medical and
dental clinics, banks and similar financial institutions at locations where they are compatible with
residential uses. Some retail al)d personal services may be permitted if SUpplemental to the other uses
allowed in the zone.-
The RO zone does allow buikiings up to 35' in height however the R2 zone allows a maximum of.3O' in
height for the main building. Development in both zones must meet the same property line setbacks
which would reduce .the impact of taller structures on adjacent existing devefopment The city does not
regulate residential lighting. Business signage is nonnally located at the front of the business along the
street, which shouldn't impact the OOcky;:lrds of adjacent properties. The zoning code also contains
regulations for signs by zoning district. under Ch. 18.56.030.
To'locate a -government facility" in either the RO or R2 zone requires application for and approval of a
Conditional Use permit. New businesses are required to pay traffIC impact fees and frequently must
prepare and submit a traffIC study. While not related to the proposed rezone, city transportation staff
has determined that the subsequent development to establish the massage therapy business would
not generate enough vehicle traffIC to require the applicant to submit a traffic study. The city has
classified M Street NE as a principal arterial, meaning it is designed to accommodate higher levels of
traffic than other residential streets.
You are correct the city's.comprehensive plan designation (future direction) for the properties along M
Street NE is Office/Residential. The Auburn City Council approves the Comprehensive Plan, which is
updated annually, with opportunities for public comment. Any property within the city that wants to
have a rezone must apply with the city and go through the review process. The subject property does
not have any significant critical areas or any unique environmental features. Preparation of an
Environmental Impact Sfatement (EIS) is not warranted because the rezon~ is not expected to cause a
significant adverse environmental impact.
Under state law, WAC 197-11-782, in order for the City to impose mitigation measures to reduce
impacts, the City must ensure that there is a reasonable likelihood that impacts will occur. The
likelihood of impacts must be probable, not merely possible or speculative. The probability of impacts
EXHIBrr /3
-
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED
Russell
111012006
Page 2
is not substantiated in this case. Also under state law, WAC 197-11-660, mitigation measures, which
are imposed by the City, must be commensurate with the level of potential impact Given the unknown
likelihood of impacts, the imposition of additional measures as you've suggested in your letter does not
bear a reasonable relationship to the potential for impacts.
With respect to your comments about landscaping requirements, the property owner at 300 M Street
N E applied for a variance to the landscaping requirements; which went through a public hearing before
the city's Hearing Examiner and was approved. Compliance with landscaping requirements for
properties that have existing buildings is done to the maximum extent possible; per ACC 18.50.020 as
follows,
18.50.020 Scope.
B. When additions, alterations, or repairs of any existing building or structure exceed 50 percent of the
value of the building or structure, or a residential use is converted to a nonresidential use, then such
building or structure shall be considered to be a new use and landscaping provided accordingly;
provided, that if any existing foundation or fence layout precludes fuN compliance herewith, then the
landscaping requirements may be modified by the planning director.
The city employs two code enforcement officers that respond to citizen complaints. tf you are
interested in the city investigating the illegal actions of someone in your neighborhood they are
available.
Thank you for your input on the manner in which the city notifies the neighborhood in which a rezone is
proposed. The City of Aubumcomplies with Washington state law with regard to the required
notification, with a sign posted on the site with information, a notice is published in the local paper, and
a notice of application is mailed to adjacent property OWners within 300'. The proposed rezone
application process includes a public hearing at which anyone is wefcome to come and.provide
comment to the city's Hearing Examiner. When a larger area rezone is proposed, the city wilf hold
neighborhood meetings, but not for a single property rezone. It seems that this portion of your
comments is more directed toward the city's process rather than this particular rezone application.
Your comments on this Environmental Checklist application (File No. SEP05-0034) for the proposed
Parker rezone, as wen as our reply letter, will be forwarded onto the city's Hearing Examiner once the
Rezone (REZ05-0006) and Conditional Use permit (CUP05-0005) applications are scheduled for a
public hearing.
If you have questiQns regarding this response, please contact Stacey Borland of the Planning
Department at 253-931-3090. A copy of the City's- Final Determination of Non-Significance specifying
the process for appeals is attached.
Paul Krauss, AI.C.P.
Director
Department of Planning Building & Community
Enc: Final Determination of Non-Significance, SEPOS-0034
RECEIVED
JAN 2 7 2006
pLANNING Oa>AR1MEN1
203 NStNE
Auburn, W ~ 98002-
4416
January 26, 2006
Auburn Planning Building & Community Department
25 West Main St
Auburn, WA 98001-4998
Reference:
(1) Notice of Application, rezone from R-2 to RD. City File No: SBP05-
0034. Date of Application: October 25,2005. Applicant: April &
Jeramey Parker.
(2) Comments~ H. E. Severson to Auburn Planning Building &
Community Department, Dee 21, 2005 . .
(3) Response, Auburn Planning Building & Community Department,
Paul.Krauss, to H. E. Severson, Jan 10, 2006
(4) Office visit H. E. Severson to to Auburn Planning Building &
Community Department, S. Borland, Jan 24, 2006
Dear Sir/Madame
In ref (3), you responded to my comments on the Notice of Application, ref
(l). However, several of my comments were not responded to.:
First, there was no comment about the property at 526 M stand the
nonconformance to buffers. I expect a comment. This is the property at the
corner of 6th and M . .
Secon~ I am concerned about the allowable height afRO and the eft'ect on
the adjoining neighborhood. You said in ref (3) C:'The RO zone does allow
buildings up to 35' in height; however the R2 zone allows a maximum of
30) in height fforthe main building," Are you saying that 30' and 35' are
. the same? 5' more allows another story! This means that an RO building
can have a real height of more than 50'plusanother 10' formechanicaIs!
(Based on a 100 x 100 lot, a 70 x 70 building, with a 45degree pitched roof
allow another actual 17.5' , based on the zone height using the average fOQf
height for the allowable zone building height.)
EXHIBIT f!/-
Thir<L you do not address the traffic overflow into the neighborhood. M sf is
at its limit and as it clogs during rush hour, the drivers cut thru the
neighborhoods, mostly exceeding the residential speed limits.
This is the third rezone in this long block. It can be argued that this massage
use is not significant to require the studies and public input of and EIS.
However, this is the 3rd rezone. When will these rezones become
significant? If not the third, then when? A car manufacturer can argue that
one car's emissions are not significant, therefore another is not, and then
another 1 This action of rezone is significant in that it another of many and
must be addressed as such. Or you must say what the number of rezones IS
that is significant. This adjacent to an R2 and the character of the R2 should
be protected.
While I am not formally appealing this Determination of Non-Significance, .
SEP05-0034, I am requesting you to address my con~rns
I would like a copy of any decisions on the referenced matter, and to also be
made aware of any appeals.
Thank you.
~IY,?, .J~
Henry E. Severson
*
*
. AJTYOF . *
~;iBRN
:: . ~~-W~H-INGTON
Peter B. lewis, Mayor
25 West Main Street * Auburn WA 9800J-4998 * www.auburnwo.9ov * 253-93J-3OOO
February 15, 2006
Henry E. Severson
203 N Street N E
Auburn, WA 98002-4416
Re: Environmental Checklist (File No. SEPOS"()()34) for a rezone from Single-Family
Residential (R-2) to Residential Office (RO)
Dear Mr. Severson:
Thank you for your additional comments on the City's Final Determination of Non-SignifICance for the
Environmental Checklist application (File No. SEP05-0034) for the proposed Parker rezone.
Please note that the SEPA appeal deadline on the above referenced SEPA case was January 26,
2006. The City of Auburn Planning, Building and Community Department received your comment.on .
January 27, 2006. This letter is therefore intended to respond to your comments but is not being done
so within the context of the City's fonnal SEPA-review process.
With respect to your comments about landscaping requirements, the property owner at 526 M Street
NE applied for a variance to reduce the 611 Street NE street frontage landscaping requirements in
2002, which went through a public hearing process before the city's Hearing Examiner and was
approved.
The purpose of my comment about height in the prior Jetter was to illustrate that the difference between
the maximum building heig/:lt in the R2 (30 foot maximum height for main structures) and RO zones
(35 foot maximum height limit) is 5'. Auburn City Code (ACe) Section 18.04.200 defineS "Building
height" as follows,
"18.04.200 Building height.
"Height of building" means the vertical distance measured from the finished grade to the
highest point of the roof for flat roofs, to the deck line of mansard roofs, and to the mean height
between eaves and ridge for gable, hip and gambrel roofs. If a structure has none of the above
features then the height shall be measured from the finished grade to the highest portion of the
structure. ..
The SEPA environmental checklist review is only required for the rezone action, as the subsequent
development proposal to convert the existing single family dwelling into a massage therapy business is .
exempt from the SEPA regulations. The building example described in your letter would not trigger an
environmental checklist reqlJirement as long as the size is within the SEPA exemption levels provided
for under ACC 16.06.055(2) as follows,
"16.06.055 Categorical exemptions.
A. The city of Auburn adopts by reference WAC 197-11-300 and 197-11-800. In addition
thereto, Auburn establishes the fol/owing exempt levels for minor new construction under WAC
197 -11-8oo( 1) based on local conditions:
1.
For residential dwelling units in WAC 197-11-800{1)(b)(i): 20 dwelling units or
less.
EXHIBfT J!i
AT JRI TV I\.T .",.. AAr\O J: TU ^ ~ I V,",I I H' . ron Trr'\
Severson
2/15/2006
Page 2
2. For office, school, commercial, recreational, service or storage buildings in
WAC 197-11-800(1)(b)(iii): buildings of 12,000 square feet or less and with
associated parking facilities designed for 40 or less automobiles.
3. For parking lots in WAC 197-11-800(1)(b)(iv): 40 or fewer automobile parking
spaces.
4. For fill and excavations in WAC 197-11-800(1)(b)(v): 500 cubic yards or less:
With respect to your concerns on increased traffic, the city's Transportation Planner had the following
comments:
NThe site will employ 6 employees. In the worst case that wouJd result in a total of roughly 12
PM peak hour trips which is less than half the minimum number required to trigger a traffic
' study for level of service. The addition of 12 trips to the street syst~m in the PM peak fJour
would not degrade level of ServiceN.
The City's Comprehensive Plan designation (future direction) for the properties along this portion of M
Street NE is -OffJCelResidential-. A rezone application requires an application and review of a SEPA
environmental checkfist There are not a specific number of rezones that would trigger a need for an
applicant to develop an E/S. The need for an.EIS is triggered by numerous factors, including the-
scope of the proposal, a determination that a proposal is likely to have significant probable adverse
environmental impacts, and the adequacy of the information and'responses contained in the
environmental checklist
Your comments on this Environmental Checklist application (File No. SEP05-0034) as weft as this reply
letter will be fOfWafded onto the city's Heacing Examiner once the Rezone (REZ05-0006) and
Conditional Use Permit (CUP05-0005) applications are scheduled for a pubfic hearing. You will also
receive notice of the public hearing once it is scheduled.
If you have questions regarding this response, please contact Stacey Borland of the Planning
Department at 253 876-1905.
~
. Paul Krauss, AI.C.P.
Director
Department of Planning Building & Community