HomeMy WebLinkAboutITEM VIII-A-4
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Aqenda Subiect: Ordinance No. 6044 to approve the Parker Conditional Date: August 12, 2006
Use Permit CUP05-0005
Department: Planning Attachments: Ordinance No. 6044. Budget Impact: NA
Buildin and Communit Please refer to Exhibit List
Administrative Recommendation:
Cit Council introduce and adopt Ordinance No. 6044
Backqround Summary:
OWNER/APPLICANT: April Parker
REQUEST: To convert a single family residence into a day spa clinic, a personal
service shop, which requires a Conditional Use Permit.
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.
L0821-4
03.10.1 CUP05-0005
eVlewe y epartments IVISlons:
~ Building ~ M&O
Cemetery Mayor
Finance Parks
Fire Planning
Le al Police
pu%lic Works Human Resources
eVlewe y ou nCI
~Arts Commission
Airport
Hearing Examiner
Human Services
Park Board
Planning Comm.
ommlttees:
COUNCIL COMMITTE S:
~~~~~T~al Servo
Planning & CD
Public Works
Other
Action:
Committee Approval:
Council Approval:
Referred to
Tabled
8Yes8NO
Yes No
Call for Public Hearing _/_/_
Until / /
Until T-r-
Staff: Osaki
Item Number: VIII.A.4
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED
Date:
8/16/2006
Aqenda Subiect
Ordinance No. 6044
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
Com prehensive
Plan
)
Office Residential
Zonin.g
Rarey & Associates
CPA
Single family
residence
Single family
residence
Duplex
RO, Residential
Office
R2, Single Family
Residential
R2, Single Family
Residential
R2, Single Family
Residential
Office Residential
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 6
Aqenda Subiect
Ordinance No. 6044
Date:
8/16/2006
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 NE. 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 6
Aqenda Subiect
Ordinance No. 6044
Date:
8/16/2006
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 determ ination 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 18.64 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 RO zone allows for a variety of residential development and businesses permitted outright while
a personal service shop requires review and approval of a conditional use permit. The project site is
small (approximately .23 acre in size) and contains an existing residence within which the business
will be conducted. Development of the property will involve establishment of paved parking stalls and
required landscaping.
A traffic study is not required for the new business and the required number of parking stalls will be
provided. Auburn City Code contains provisions for development standards including setbacks, sign
regulations, landscaping requirements, and parking provisions that ensure development patterns are
consistent throughout the city. The change of use of the house to a day spa clinic requires a building
permit be obtained and plans submitted to the Auburn Permit Center.
Staff recommends the project be conditioned to require a building permit be obtained for the change
in use of the single family dwelling.
2. The proposal is in accordance with the goals, policies and objectives of the Comprehensive
Plan.
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
(ACP)).
Page 4 of 6
Aoenda Subiect
Ordinance No. 6044
Date:
8/16/2006
Areas with an Office Residential designation are, "reserved to accommodate growth in this sector,
which is largely expressed in the form of professional offices. This category also assures space to
accommodate the rapid growth that is occurring in business services and other service oriented
activities." (page 14-13, ACP)
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 proposal includes 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, which requires a Conditional Use
Permit. The site plan shows that 6 paved parking stalls will be established on site. As depicted on
the site plan some of the spaces do not meet the dimensional requirements of the code, however
there appears to be adequate space available on site that would not interfere with any required
landscaping areas, which would accommodate the necessary parking and backing areas at the
required dimensions. The parking spaces are required to meet the dimensional requirements as
established in ACC 18.52.090.
The development requires the establishment of a 10' width of Type III landscaping along the street
frontage (with the exception of existing driveway locations) and adjacent to the properties to the south
and east. The parking area adjacent to property to the east also requires a 10' width of Type II
landscaping. Compliance with landscaping requirements for properties that have existing buildings is
required to the maximum extent possible; per ACC 18.50.020.
Staff recommends the project be conditioned to ensure the parking area meets City of Auburn
dimensional requirements and the required landscaping is provided.
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.
Development of the property includes using the existing single family residence for the business,
establishment of paved parking stalls, and required landscaping. According to the applicant, the
neighborhood already consists of a mix of residential development and personal and professional
business services.
Staff finds the proposal to be consistent with this criteria.
5. The proposal will not adversely affect the public infrastructure.
The proposal has been reviewed by other city departments including Public Works. Based on
comments received during the review process, there is no evidence that the public infrastructure will
be affected by the proposal, as long as adequate provisions are made with regard to addressing
stormwater runoff from the creation of new impervious surfaces of the parking area. A traffic study is
not required for the new business and the required number of parking stalls will be provided.
Staff recommends the project be conditioned to ensure adequate stormwater provisions are made.
6. The proposal will not cause or create a public nuisance.
The proposal involves a business use in a Residential Office zone. Nearby and adjacent uses
include a mix of residential housing and other businesses. There is no evidence that the proposal will
cause or create a public nuisance.
Page 5 of 6
Aqenda Subject
Ordinance No. 6044
Date:
8/16/2006
Staff finds the proposal to be consistent with this criteria.
RECOMMENDATION
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
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. A building permit for the change of use shall be obtained from the Auburn Permit Center.
2. Parking spaces shall satisfy the dimensional requirements as established in ACC 18.52.090.
3. A landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Auburn Permit Center that demonstrates compliance
with landscaping requirements to the maximum extent possible.
4. In accordance with City of Auburn Design and Construction Standards, the applicant shall
manage the storm water impacts from the new impervious surfaces associated with the project.
After conducting a duly advertised public hearing, the Hearing Examiner issued his recommendation of
approval with conditions on July 25, 2006.
Page 6 of 6
ORDINANCE NO.6 0 4 4
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, APPROVING A
CONDITONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A
PERSONAL SERVICE SHOP WITHIN AN RO
RESIDENTIAL OFFICE ZONE AT 220 M STREET
NE, AUBURN, WASHINGTON
WHEREAS, Application No. CUP05-0005, dated October 25, 2005, was
submitted to the City of Auburn, Washington by April Parker for approval of a
Conditional Use Permit to allow a personal service shop within an RO
Residential Office Zone at 220 M Street NE in Auburn, Washington; and
WHEREAS, said application was referred to the Hearing Examiner for
study and public hearing theron, 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 July 18, 2006,
and the Hearing Examiner recommended approval of the application on July 25,
2006, subject to certain conditions; and
WHEREAS, on August 21, 2006, 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 a personal service shop within an RO Residential Office Zone at 220 M
Street NE in Auburn, Washington; and
Ordinance No. 6044
August16,2006
Page 1 of 4
WHEREAS, based upon the review given this Conditional Use Permit
application by the Hearing Examiner, the City Council hereby makes and enters
the following: Hearing Examiner's recommendation for Conditional Use Permit
based upon the Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recommendation which are
attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN as follows:
Section 1. Approval.
A Conditional Use Permit is hereby
APPROVED to allow for a personal service shop within an RO Residential
Office Zone at 220 M Street identified on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and
incorporated in this Ordinance by reference in the City of Auburn, State of
Washington.
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.
Ordinance No. 6044
August16,2006
Page 2 of 4
Section 3. Recordina. 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.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
APPROVED:
CITY OF AUBURN
PETER B. LEWIS
MAYOR
ATTEST:
Danielle E. Daskam,
City Clerk
Ordinance No. 6044
August16,2006
Page 3 of 4
iel B.Heid,
City Attorney
Publication:
Ordinance No. 6044
August16,2006
Page 4 of 4
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER
OF THE CITY OF AUBURN
In the Matter of the Application of
)
)
)
)
)
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,
AND RECOMMENDATION
NO. CUP05-0005
APRIL AND JERAMEY PARKER
For a Conditional Use Permit
SU~YOFRECOMMffiNDATION
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. .
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.
SUMMARY OF RECORD
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 '
Exhibit 2
Exhibit 2a
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 4
Exhibit 5/5a
Exhibit 6/6a
Exhibit 7
Staff Report, dated July 13,2006
Site Plan received October 25,2005
Parcel Map
Conditional Use Permit 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 EXHIBIT ..a
Affidavit of Mailing, no date, mailed July 7,2006
Parker Day Spa CUP 05-0005
City of Auburn Hearing Examiner
Findings, Conclusion, and Recommendation
Page I of6
Exhibit 8/8a
Exhibit 9
Exhibit 10
Exhibit 11
Exhibit 12
Exhibit 13
Exhibit 14
Exhibit 15
Exhibit 16
Exhibit 17
Confirmation of Publication of Legal Notice dated July 5, 2006
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 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
AubllITl, 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 5; Exhibit 3, page 5;
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 isuintended 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 05-0005
City of Auburn Hearing Examiner
Findings, Conclusion, and Recommendation
Page 2 of6
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 ITllandscaping between the street frontage and the structure. Additionally, the code
requires 10 feet of Type ill landscaping as a buffer between any adjacent RR, RS, Rl, R2,
and R3 zones. Parking or driveways near those zones require 10 feet of Type IT 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 oflarger 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
(SEP A), RCW 43.21 C. Exhibit 1, page 4; WAC 197-11-800.
Parker Day Spa CUP 05-0005
City of Auburn Hearing Examiner
Findings, Conclusion, and Recommendation
Page 3 of6
11. Proper notice of both the application and the hearing for this request was given by the City of
Auburn. Exhibits 5, 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 Pennit 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 pennit 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 Ace 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 pennitted 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, 5, and 7;
ACC 18.22. 030(A) (5). ,
Parker Day Spa CUP 05-0005
City of Auburn Hearing Examiner
Findings, Conclusion, and Recommendation
Page 4 of6
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 5.
3. The proposal complies with all requirements of ACe 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, 5, 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 willnot 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, 5, 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 05-0005
City of Auburn Hearing Examiner
Findings, Conclusion, and Recommendation
Page 5 of6
3. A landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Auburn Permit Center that demonstrates
compliance with landscaping requirements, to the maximum extent possible.
L-
RECOMMENDED this 25 day of July 2006.
~- ~ i?~_o ~
Theodore Paul Hooter,
Hearing Examiner
?!>,
Parker Day Spa CUP 05-0005
City of Auburn Hearing Examiner
Findings, Conclusion, and Recommendation
Page 60f6
-~-
EXHIBIT B
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
182105 109 W ~ OF FOLG-BEG AT PT. 30.05 FT E OF NW COR OF S ~ OF NW Y4
OF SE Y4 OF NE Y4 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.
t'rmt Map Yage
ti)KingCountv ~---
Parcel Map and Data
Parcel Number
Address
Zipcode
Taxpayer
1821059109
220 M ST NE
98002
PARKER APRIL M+JERAMEY J
The information induded on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a
variety 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 shall not be liable for any
general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages inducting, but not limited
to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information
contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited
except by written permission of King County."
Comments
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. gOY /parcelviewer/Print_Process.asp
--
~
EXHIBIT ~
Page I of 1
7/13/2006
D;:r-r: ,
''\'~''',~clVf:1)
or.. __"
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
APPLICATION
OCT 2 5 ZOO.5
PlANNiNG DEP.l\RTfv!ENl
ftpr1/ J jc~~ ~~NAME
CUP(}~-(}~--
APPliCATION NUMBER
Sec. Twp. Rng.:
Zone Existing:
Area Code: .
Request:
Scheduled Public Hearing:
Date Received:
Staff Project Coordinator:
********************AAA .l.......ll........."""aA,U,.lII.AA.....********..................U.""l.U..lI........ ...A...
Do Not Write Above This line
APPLICANT: COMPLETE THIS FORM WITH All ENTRIES BEING TYPED (except signatures) OR NEATLY
PRINTED IN INK. IF ADDED SPACE IS NEEDED, ATTACH THE ADDmONAl REQUIRED PAGES TO THIS
APPLICATION.
I (we), the undersignedj OWNER(S) of property numbered opposite my (our) names(s)
he y petition for a Conditional e Permit for the following use:
(Please attach a 1/2 (typed) page explaining your proposed use.)
A How is the property involved in this application more suitable for the Conditional U~ Permit than those
uses pel1llitted outright in the present zoning classification?
Pf'.1<5O\a) &:JMCL ~ ~(J\ye Cl Ccn:tAsbCYl1J ~ ~ "
f\n ttpplt(~OY) 1W tl2011~ ~ naJ lstcn ~1td wtl-t1 Tn/f
O-pplf{txtllYL .
EXHIBIT 3-
Conditional Use Permit
Revised 1213012OO4
Page 4 of 7
B.
;
Why is this Conditional Use Pennit compatible wi!h the other existin~ uses in the ~ei~h.bo~hood?
M~ ~ax{,oJtt1ui~ ems.. .lsts Of-(1 ~lV or rtS1acrt:tleU,
~ ~ fJJlitss'IOW ~(tS. .
C. Why is this Conditional Use Permit compatible With the existing zoning in the C!rea?
2cX'\lVl8 ~ QppllCo.1)lYl ~ t:xen ~d wftt1
thl~ l4'JP \ , Ccth en ~ .
D. Why is this Conditional Use Permit consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the area?
tc)I'YlfYd1-cf\SI~ PM 1lY.CtYitA- 3roLUS Q 201\~ ~
<1Yom (22. ~ .~. .
Conditional Use Pennit
Revised 12J30J2004
Page 5 of 7
ALL PROPERTY OWNERS INCLUDED IN THIS APPLICATION 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 AND PHONE NUMBER
(Please Print)
SIGNATURE
18tJOS'1/0q Hpn I Payt{y"
220, M 8/ A)&
IJu/}(;I?l lUll q/f}lJz-- ZS3--.~(f73lLJ
Fax number ~3??r2l.?x')
E-mail address ~ I @ ~az[f!j..:.lUlJJ f19', tOM;
If2kfll/{flf
[).f)J-Q iUilPYhu/
VJJ M LIJ 1J6
IJJJ1urn tAlA qdt1?i-
Fax number . njr- .
E-mail address AJfJ-
.
DESIGNATED CONTACT PERSON:
Name: i1pn I 'Pd ytry
Address: Iff) tv( ,<y;- t..}b-.
CitylPhone: IIuJ;vm WI} ~ 2753- 33:?-~13 Y'
'Fax number 2J:3- 33:.s- :JI3lJ
E-mail address tlpJ/ ~ ~- J.laffUgt, IUM
Indicate Method for Future Notifications
Fax
Mail
l..--""
Telephone
.......--. '
E-mail
PLEASE NOTE THAT THE SITE PLAN MUST ACCOMPANY THIS APPLICATION.
Conditional Use Permit
Revised 1213012OO4
Page 6 of 7
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
/ f}2/o5 loq CU ~ 0+ --Fti.6 -/3CCl I'TT PT: 3:)1 05 ~ T
~ OF IJtV CO~ OF 5 V2 O~ Vto Y4()'F S6 Y4 of JJ~
Y4- TH IJ 8(0.- 53- 3q. (:; zq g 4B Fr IH 5 cn--ZO.-tX> ~
lb +-T TH S B0- 53- 34-tu 2q8, 7':; FT 7H AI CXJ-1O-5q
b 7":) FT TO t2E-q L6sS 1b12. FOe Sf:
FEE PAYMENT: $778.00 for residential; $1,038.00 for commercial; plus $727.00 for Environmental
Checklist
T.R.#
Cashie(s Initials
Date Received
Conditional Use Permit
Revised 1213012OO4
Page 7 of7
Ptoposed Use for 220 M St. NE, Auburn
Make use of an existing residential structure to be a day spa clinic for licensed massage therapy, aesthetics,
and pedicures. Existing bedrooms will become treatment rooms. This application is being completed in
conjunction with a rezone appliCation.
Auburn GIS - Maps
Comments
DISCLAIMER
This map is intended for reference pU'1'oses only. For data verification. please contact Auburn GIS. IT Depl.
httn' //oisin1"I::llIhl1rnO,~" J;'nv-,n,,/nr;nt ~~~c)'r;.I~-n~_1. _,.1l1 ,..,An
Page I of I
>,Legend
isf' =
o Ciiy Units
D~
. RNEr!l
R~
Image
cry of
Aillum Image
EXHIBIT !L
Ati]~. Of.~"'?~
"P" . , . - -f
.' .... WA$H!NGTON
203-NStNE
Aub~ W A, 98002.,.
4416
Dec 21,2005
RECEIVED
DEe 2 2 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:
SEP05-0034. 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.
~~A.J~ ~~.
First, according to Chapter 18.22 ofthe"city-eol:Je;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 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 can produce high traffic volume, affecting R-2 residences
north and south6f 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 ( 0
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 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 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 .rim 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.
;r;;y, L, A~
Henry E. Severson
~'(:.v
o'X,cx:. '1~~~
\"'- ~ \r _ ~~
\.. '1 . i\~\'"
\\~ /J~
\) ,~~
fJV
~~~
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.
Jl ,;'"
0'
First, according to Chapter 18.22 of the city^~ode, RO RESIDENTAL
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 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 can produce high traffic volume, affecting R -2 residences
north and south 'ofthis 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 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 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 ~ The buffer requirement has apparently not been
complied with on these properties. The ROproperty at M &6tft has a 7 foot
wide (vs 1 0 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 zoIling requirements on the referenced potential
rezone and future rezones as well.
Citizens should not be required to police the city OD 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
J~~~~ '.
~ J~~~;$~-a~
d/au · , e:ff~~l,~~_j,,,
. ~~~~~~
~ U'1, ~~~,#,~gJ/l~
~ ()./~ .~ . ~23 4~:t
^- .1_.. .. , . d:L- c,N-r:r7TL-
* *
. AC\TYOF ... '"
rtlJBURN
* .
WASHINGTON
Peter B. Lewis. Mayor
25 West Main Street * Auburn WA 98001-4998 * www.auburnwa.gov * 253-931-3000
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 (RO)
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 concurrenUy 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 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..
The RO zone does allow buildings up to 35' in height; however the R2 zone allows 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 taller structures on adjacent existing development The city does not
regulate residential lighting. Business signage is normally 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 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 arteria~ 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 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 must be probable, not merely possible or speculative. The probability of impacts EXHIBIT ~
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED
Severson
1/10/2006
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
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 th;:lt 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.
The city employs 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 Checklist appflCation (Fife No. SEP05-0034) for the proposed
Parker rezone, as well as our reply letter, will be fOfWarded onto the city's Hearing Examiner once the
Rezone (REZ05-0006) and Cond~nal Use permit (CUP05-0005) applications are scheduled for a
public hearing.
If you have questions 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, A.I.C.P.
Director
Department of Planning Building & Community
Enc: Final Determination of Non-SignifICance, SEP05-oo34
*
CITY OF * *
AUBURN
" WASHINGTON
Peter B. Lewis, Mayor
25 West Main Street * Auburn WA 98001-4998 * www.auburnwa.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 professional OffICeS, medical and
dental clinics, banks and similar financial institutions at locations where they are compatible with
residential uses. Some retail af)d personal services may be permitted if supplemental to the other uses
allowed in the zone..
The RO zone does allow buildings up to 35' in height; however the R2 zone allows 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 taller structures on adjacent existing development The city does not
regulate residential lighting. Business signage is normally 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.
T o'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 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 /3
likelihood of impacts must be probable, not merely possible or speculative. The probability of impacts EXHIBrr. .
-
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED
Russell
1110/2006
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
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 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.
The city employs two code enforcement officers that respond to citizen complaints. If 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 welcome to come and. provide
comment to the city's Hearing Examiner. When a larger area rezone is proposed, the city will 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 thanthjs particular rezone application.
Your comments on this Environmental Checklist application (File No. SEP05-0034) for the proposed
Parker rezone, as well 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 questions 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. SEP05-0034
RECEIVED
JAN 2 7 2006
.NG Oa>AR1MEN1
pLANN\
203 N St NE
Auburn, W A, 98002-
4416
JanuaIy 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 RO. City File No: SEP05-
0034. Date of Application: October 25, 2005. Applicant: April &
Jeramey Parker.
(2) Comments; H. E. Severson to Auburn Planning Building &
Community Department, Dec 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
(1). 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
comer of 6th and M . .
Second, I am concerned about the allowable height of RO and the effect on
the adjoining neighborhood. You said in ref (3) ~'The RO zone does allow
buildings up to 35' in height; however the R2 zone allows a maximum of
30~ in height fIor the 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' for mechanicals!
(Based on a 100 x 100 lot, a 70 x 70 building, with a 45degree pitched roof
allow another actuall7.5', based on the zone height using the average roqf
height for the allowable zone building height.)
EXHIBIT !!/-
Third, you do not address the traffic overflow into the neighborhood. M st 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! 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,
SE.P05-0034, I am requesting you to address my eon~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'f: ;/~
Henry E. Severson
* . *,
~C~'TY OWF....'..e."c...CltNO"'.<Wii/..7": *
" . C ~._ .~~~,.'# ,~d'<
>~ ,~....WASHINGTON
25 West Main Street * Aubum WA 9800 J -4998 * www.aubumwa.gov * 253-931-3000
Peter B. Lewis, Mayor
February 15, 2006
Henry E. Severson
203 N Street N E
Auburn, WA 98002-4416
Re: Environmental Checklist (File No. SEPOS-O(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-oo34) 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.oo .
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 formal SEPArevfew process.
With respect to your comments about landscaping requirements, the property owner at 526 M Street
NE applied for a variance to reduce the 6" Street NE street frontage landscaping requirements in
2002, which went through a public hearing process before the city's HearingExaminer and was
approved.
The purpose of my comment about height in the prior letter was to illustrate that the difference between
the maximum building height in the R2 (30 foot maximum height for main structures) and RO zones
(35 foot maximum height limit) is 5'. Auburn City Code (ACC) 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 fine 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 requirement as Jong 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 following exempt levels for minor new construction under WAC
197-11-800(1) based on local conditions:
1.
For residential dwelling units in WAC 197-11-800{1)(b)(i): 20 dwelling units or
less.
EXHIBrr J!2.
AUBIJRN * MORE THAN YOl11MAGINED
Severson
2/1512006
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:
-The site will employ 6 employees. In the worst case that would 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 system in the PM peal< lJour
would not degrade level of ServiceM.
The City's Comprehensive Plan designation (future direction) for the properties along this portion of M
Street NE is -Off~ResidentiaIM. A rezone applicatiOn requires an application and review of a SEPA
environmental checkRst There are not a specific number of rezones that would trigger a need for an
applicant to develop an EIS. The need for anEIS 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 well as this reply
letter will be forwarded onto the city's Hearing Examiner once the Rezone (REZOS-D006) and
Conditional Use Permit (CUPOS-0005) apprlCations are scheduled for a public 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
J5j
Jason
Engineering &
Consulting
Business, Inc.
Geotechnical Engineering
Retaining Structures
Foundation Design
Pavement Design & Analysis
Date: 5-20-2006
Project April parker,
220 'M' Street
File #: 06001
April Parker
220 'M' Street
Auburn W A 98071
Re: hrliltrationrates
Attn: Mrs. April Parker
JECB representative arrived on site to obtain information for infiltration rates for the above mentioned site. A test hole
was excavated in the area of the proposed infiltration trench location. hrliltration rates have been calculated for the
site with the result of 26.61 minutes per inch (0.04 inches/min).
The geology of the site and surrounding area as taken from the USDA Soil Conservation Service Survey consists of
(Ur) Urban Land. This soil has been modified from it's original state by construction and urbanization This area now
consists of material most closely related to Oridia silt loam (Os). The Oridia series is gently undulating and made up
of somewhat poorly drained soils that formed in alluvium in river valleys. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent A typical profile
would show the surface layel"$ dark grayish-brown silt loam about 9 inches thick. The subsoil is grayish-brown, dark
grayish-brown, and gray silt loam and silty clay loam that extends to a depth of 60 inches or more. It is dominantly
silt loam but contains layers of silty clay loam, fine sand, loamy fine sand, and very fine sandy loam. The sandy lenses
commonly occur below a depth of 20 inches. Permeability is moderate to moderately slow in the subsoil. The
seasonal high water table is at a depth of 1 to 2 feet Available water capacity is high. Runoff is slow and the erosion
hazard is slight The flood hazard is moderate.
We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you and we look forward to working with you in the future. If you
have any questions concerning this report, the procedures used, or if we can be of any further assistance please call us
at (206) 786-8645.
EXPIRES 09/03/2007
EXH'BIT .D
PO Box 181 Auburn W A.98071
Phone: 206-786-8645 Fax: 253-833-7316 EmaiI: jecbpe@yahoo.com
Page 1 of6
Jason
Engineering &
Consulting
Business, Inc.
Geotechnical Engineering
Retaining Structures
Foundation Design
Pavement Design & Analysis
Date: 5-20-2006
Project April parker,
220 'M' Street
File #: 06001-041
PERCOLATION TESTS
The tests were performed in accordance with the applicable EP A standards for a falling head percolation test. The
depth of the percolation test ranged from 3 to 6 feet beneath the existing surface. The native soils were saturated prior
to running the tests. The percolation rates shown above are considered accurate for the site. The results obtained were
as follows:
Test #1 Test #2
Tillie Distalltt PttroIatioo Rate TIme Disfuce Percolation Rate
seroDCIs inches in/miD seroDCIs iBdtes in/mill
0 36.00 0.0000 0 34.25 0.0000
90 36.25 0.1667 ISO 3425 0.0000
ISO 3625 0.0000 600 34.50 0.0357
480 36.50 0.0500 900 34.75 0.0500
600 36.50 0.0000 1200 35.00 0.0500
900 36.75 0.0500 1800 3525 0.0250
1080 37.00 0.0833 2400 35.75 0.0500
Average: 0.05 inImin Average: 0.03 inImin
20.00 minrm 33.22 minIin
Average: 26.61 minrm 0.04 ioImin
VICINITY MAP
SCS SOIL INFORMATION
PO Box 181 Auburn W A. 98071
Phone: 206-786-8645 Fax: 253-833-7316 Email: jecbpe@yahoo.com
Page 2 of6
JL~0:'" Jason
. ..% Engineering &
Consulting
Business, Inc.
Geotechnical Engineering
Retaining Structures
Foundation Design
Pavement Design & Analysis
Date: 5-20-2006
Proiect April parker,
220 'M' Street
File #: 06001-041
TRENCH CALCULATION: DEN OF ECOLOGY
Project April Parker
Date: 05/15/2006
Site Information
Impervious Roof Area: 0 ft2
Impervious Driveway: 2588 ft2
Total Impervious Areas: 2588 ft2
Infiltration Rate (King County Surface Water Design Manual 2005 Edition)
IDesign = Imeasvred x Flesting x FgeomeIIy x FplagiDg
(max: 20 inches/hour)
Feting = 0.30 EP A Method
0.50 Double Ring Infiltrometer (ASIM D-3385)
Fgeomeby
4 x D / W + 0.05, must be between 0.25 and 1.00
3 D, ft = depth from the bottom to maximum wet-season water table or impervious layer
2 W, ft = width of the facility
6.05 (range between 0.25 and 1.(0)
Fplugging
0.70 for loams and sandy loams
0.80 for fine sands and loamy sands
0.90 for medium sands
1.00 for coarse sands or cobbles or
preceded by a water quality facility
Imeasured =
FlI!sting =
Fgeomeby =
FpIugging =
IDesign =
Test#1
3.00
0.30
1.00
0.70
0.63
Test #3
Test #2
1.82
0.30
1.00
0.70
0.38
Average
IDtsign =
0.51 indteti/hour
Trench Calculation (Dept of Ecology)
Soil Type:
UneaI Feet of Trench/ 1,000
ft2 :
Regional Scale Factor:
Fine sand to Loamy
sand
75 ft
1.0
194.1 UneaIfeetofInfiltration Drain
PO Box 181 Auburn W A. 98071
Phone: 206-786-8645 Fax: 253-833-7316 Email: jecbpe@yahoo.com
Page 3 of6
,m
~
DETAILS
Jason
Engineering &
Consulting
Business, Inc.
Geotechnical Engineering
Retaining Structures
Foundation Design
Pavement Design & Analysis
Dale: 5-20-2006
Project April parker,
220 'M' Street
File #: 06001-041
6" MIN
~
l")
~" u
,,/ ) 0 0 0
//J 0
~/ (>
Y
/
2ft
18" MIN
TRENCH SECTION
NOT TO SCALE
'/7<
~~.,,,,
~,
4" - 6" PERFORATED PIPE
CENTER IN TRENCH
SLOPE AT 0010
WRAP TRENCH
ENTIRELY WIlli
FILTER FABRIC
GROUND WATER OR
IMPERMEABLE LAYER
PO Box 181 Auburn W A. 98071
Phone: 206-786-8645 Fax: 253-833-7316 Email: jecbpe@yahoo.com
Page 4 of6
Jason
Engineering &
Consulting
Business, Inc.
Geotechnical Engineering
Retaining Structures
Foundation Design
Pavement Design & Analysis
Date: 5-20-2006
Project April parker,
220 'M' Street
File #: 06001-041
PO Box 181 Auburn W A. 98071
Phone: 206-786-8645 Fax: 253-833-7316 Email: jecbpe@yahoo.com
Page 5 of6
~
Jason
Engineering &
Consulting
Business, Inc.
Geotechnical Engineering
Retaining Structures
Foundation Design
Pavement Design & Analysis
Date: 5-20-2006
Project April parker,
220 'M' Street
File #: 06001-041
......
~
p...
><
.... f-<
ta ~..c:
..s:: ~~
0..
<1.l 000
~ <t::....
~ ~o
<7l ::r:<2
<7l UN
lU
0 E~
,
""..J ( ~
~ ::>c ~ ~
"'J( ~ ~
'" ~ ~
'/ ~ ~
= '" 0 ~
~ '" ~
-a U
~ 0 ~ 00
~ '"
~ ~ 0
"- f-<
U f-<
0
~ Z
><
~ E--4
~
p...~
~ ~
p....~ U
~~< "
PO Box 181 Auburn W A.98071
Phone: 206-786-8645 Fax: 253-833-7316 Email: jecbpe@yahoo.com
Page 6 of 6
~!(Jg!
oW ~ ~
-rn
I~ ~
0'"
[~
j
i@
f
i
~----
I' ---
~
\
-~---------
/\
i
~
~
- t
'-...-
i
i
i
U Iii
- I! ~l
~U-t.....\_l
.,.......
'"
" I
4"
~ ~ '" t-
; f).-
1
I
Q
!
e
!
"
'" .f).
bo
'" "
"-' '"
-'"
'lJ.. bo'
o ___ -$_~__~
'"
'"
"
~
'>.
""!rOil;!
~.! ~ g.~ ff
0'1 <m..v.
iill ~!l.~~
"1"~CS1'
!t;l.._~
!()lil2~
Itllg-
April Parlcer
220 'M' Street
Auburn W A 98071
Phone: 253-740-6090
,,-
'"
"'f
"il ~ · ;.-
M Street NE
~
i'~
i'83
~Q
11
=1
..
(
n
-
~
II
I l:
-1
i
f
i
I~
r---~
1
t
l
i'~
[]
r--~~
~ ~
::11
i
f
"-
~
,,,,,,,,,,,~~_~,...,.t<i;..;""~"~''''''-''''''':'''''''''''._'''''''"'''\;''''''''\~'''''''''''''';
f). ,,'
'"
"f).
,;
-'"
f).
"
~
~
"'~
J
i
i
~I
<\
Geotechnical EngineeringcJl~ Jason
Retainlng WaIls ' Engineering &
Foundations Consulting
Pavement Design & Analysis _ Business, Inc
PO Box 181 Aubum W A. 98071 Phone: (206) 786-8645