HomeMy WebLinkAboutITEM VIII-A-6
CITY OF --
.:~UBUR.~T
a. WASHINGTON
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject: Ordinance No. 6117 to approve the Rusnak Conditional Date:
Use Permit CUP07-0002 Au ust 14, 2007
Department: Planning, Building, Attachments: Ordinance No. 6117, Budget Impact: N/A
and Communit Please refer to Exhibit List
Administrative Recommendation:
Cit Council introduce and ado t Ordinance No. 6117
Background Summary:
On July 18, 2007 the Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on the request of Matthew Rusnak to allow
a professional office within an existing residential structure in the R2 (Single Family Residential) zone at
119 M Street N E.
On August 1, 2007, the Hearing Examiner issued a decision recommending to City Council approval of
the conditional use permit request subject to four (4) conditions of approval as follows,
1. A building permit application for the change of use shall be submitted to the Auburn
Permit Center within 30 days of the effective date of the City Council ordinance approving
the Conditional Use Permit.
2. Eight parking spaces shall be provided on site, which meet the dimensional requirements
as established in ACC 18.52.090, including being served via a minimum 12' wide paved
driveway.
3. Use of the project shall be limited to a total of four full-time employees and/or
owners/tenants (or full-time equivalents) for professional office use as currently defined
by ACC 18.04.750.
4. Access shall be limited to either L or M streets and shall not be open to both at the same
time. Access may be restricted by a gate or other similar means acceptable to City staff.
In accordance with ACC 18.66.170, the City Council upon its review of the record, may:
1. Affirm the Hearing Examiner recommendation;
2. Remand the recommendation to the Hearing Examiner; or
3. Schedule a closed record public hearing before the City Council.
Staff is recommending the Council affirm the Examiner's recommendation and adopt Ordinance No. 6117.
03.10.1 CUP07-0002
L0820-2
Reviewed by Council & Committees: Reviewed by Departments & Divisions:
^ Arts Commission COUNCIL COMMITTEES: ~~, ®Building ^ M&O
^ Airport ^ Finance ^ Cemetery ^ Mayor
®Hearing Examiner ^ Municipal Serv. ^ Finance ® Parks
^ Human Services ^ Planning & CD ®Fire ® Planning
^ Park Board ^ Public Works ^ Legal ^ Police
^ Planning Comm. ^ Other ®Public Works ^ Human Resources
^ Information Services
Action:
Committee Approval: ^Yes ^No
Council Approval: ^Yes ^No Call for Public Hearing /_/_
Referred to Until /_/_
Tabled Until ! i
Councilmember: Norman Staff: Osaki
Meetin Date: Au ust 20, 2007 Item Number: VIII.A.6
t~U B~ ~ j~ ~ MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED
Agenda Subject: Ordinance No. 6117
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1 Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner, dated 7-10-07
Exhibit 2 Master Land Use Application, received 3-23-07
Exhibit 2(a) Site plan, received 6-18-07
Exhibit 3 Notice of Public Hearing and Vicinity Map**
Exhibit 4 Affidavit of Posting**
Exhibit 5 Affidavit of Mailing**
Exhibit 6 Confirmation of Publication of Legal Notice**
Exhibit 7 Aerial Photograph
Date: August 20, 2007
** =Exhibit is not included in the packet but is available for review upon
request.
Page 2 of 2
ORDINANCE NO. 6 1 1 7
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
AUBURN, WASHINGTON, APPROVING A CONDITONAL USE
PERMIT TO ALLOW A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE WITHIN AN R2
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE AT 119 M STREET NE,
AUBURN WASHINGTON
WHEREAS, Application No. CUP07-0002, dated March 19, 2007, was
submitted to the City of Auburn, Washington by Matthew Rusnak for approval of
a Conditional Use Permit to allow a professional office within an R2 Single
Family Residential Zone at 119 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, 2007,
and the Hearing Examiner recommended approval of the application on August
7, 2007, subject to four conditions; and
WHEREAS, on August 14, 2007, the City Council considered said
application and approved the Hearing Examiner's recommendation and
proposed conditions for the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow
a professional office within an R2 Single Family Residential Zone at 119 M
Street NE in Auburn, Washington; and
Ordinance No. 6117
August 14, 2007
Page 1
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 professional office within an R2 Single Family
Residential Zone at 119 M Street NE (King County Parcel 182105-9321)
identified on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated in this Ordinance by
reference in the City of Auburn, State of Washington, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Use of the project shall be limited to a total of four full-time
employees and/or owners/tenants (or full-time equivalents) for
professional office use as currently defined by ACC 18.04.750.
2. Access shall be limited to either L or M Streets and shall not be
open to both at the same time. Access may be restricted by a gate
or other similar means acceptable to City staff.
Section 2. Severability.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
Ordinance No. 6117
August 14, 2007
Page 2
of the remainder of this ordinance, or the validity of its application to other
persons or circumstances.
Section 3. Recording. Upon the passage, approval and publication of
this Ordinance as provided by law, the City Clerk of the City of Auburn shall
cause this Ordinance to be recorded in the office of the King County Auditor.
Section 4. Implementation. The Mayor is hereby authorized to
implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the
directions of this legislation.
Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be
in force five days from and after its passage, approval and publication, as
provided by law.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
APPROVED:
PETER B. LEWIS
MAYOR
ATTEST:
Danielle E. Daskam,
City Clerk
Ordinance No. 6117
August 14, 2007
Page 3
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Attorney
PUBLISHED:
Ordinance No. 6117
August 14, 2007
Page 4
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF AUBURN
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19'
20
21
22
23
24
25
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
RE: Matthew Rusnak
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
Conditional Use Permit OF LAW AND RECOMMENDATION
CUP07-0002
INTRODUCTION
The applicant has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to convert asingle-family
residence into a law office. The Examiner recommends approval of the request
subject to conditions.
ORAL TESTIMONY
Stacy Borland with the City's Planning Department introduced and summarized the
staff report. She noted that the application is for a conditional use permit for a
professional office building at 119 M Street NE. The lot is zoned Single Family
Residential R2. There already exists a structure on the site that is being used as a
professional office building, and the City currently has an open code enforcement
action against the property. Although the structure is asingle-family home, no one is
living in it, and the entire structure is being used as a professional office for a solo
law practitioner.
Ms. Borland testified that there currently is insufficient off-street parking to meet the
requirement of the code. Design standards, including paving and driveway width,
must be met, and eight spaces must be provided. Applicable driveway standards are
those for commercial properties, which is 24 feet. There are two access points to the
property. One is on M and the other is on L Street. The applicant will need to
request a deviation from City standards from 24 feet to 18 feet for the access point on
L Street because the lot is only 20 feet wide at this point. (The subject lot is a
panhandle lot with the panhandle serving as the access to L Street.)
Ms. Borland clarified for the Hearing Examiner that there is no landscaping
requirement for R2 zoned lots. Furthermore, in this case, staff did not find a need to
impose a landscaping requirement as a conditional use requirement because sufficient
landscaping and fencing is already in place. She also added that the number of
parking spaces required under the City code depended on the square footage of the
subject building.
{PA0669532.DOC;1/00083.900000/}
Conditional Use
p. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Joe Welsh, the City's traffic engineer, testified that approval of the conditional use
permit would have a negligible impact on traffic. Instead, parking was the City's
main concern. He noted that M Street is an arterial, whereas L Street is residential. It
would be ideal to limit access to the property to M Street, but a secondary access
through L Street could become useful for the property if full access, or left-turn
egress from the property to M Street, were to be restricted in the future.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The applicant testified that the root cause of the code violation stemmed from
misinformation provided by Windermere's professional space property manager, who
assured him that the property was zoned for his intended use. He claimed that there
was no willful intention to violate the code. He noted that there was sufficient space
on the back of the property to provide the required off-street parking. Furthermore,
he testified that a padlocked gate prevented access to and from M Street. Access
would, in practice, be from L Street. It would result in no parking on M Street, and
all of it would be provided off-street. He noted that there was no parking allowed per
City regulations on the portion of M Street abutting the subject property. Although
he was the lessee and not the owner of the property, he testified he had no intention of
changing the outside appearance of the property or affecting the character of the
neighborhood. He noted that there is a strip mall with a grocery store two properties
down the street, and asingle-family residence that was converted to a photo studio
across the street. He apologized and noted that there was no reason to disbelieve
claims made by the property manager at the time he began commercial use of the
property.
Burt Cain, a nearby property owner, expressed concern with the alley access from L
Street. He wondered whether instant approval would open the floodgates to traffic on
the alley. He noted that use of the alley was already at capacity and it could not
handle additional pressure.
The Hearing Examiner noted, and Ms. Borland agreed, that a conditional use permit
runs with the land. Therefore, if new tenants for a professional office building moved
in, which resulted in heavier demand on traffic, they would nevertheless not be
subject to additional conditional use requirements.
Mr. Cain added that the alley was not wide enough to accommodate two-way traffic
and it was often used by children and domestic animals. He also noted that King
County had told him the alley was an open access lot and the padlocked gate was
illegal because it prevented access of public safety vehicles.
Mr. Welsh responded that the alley was 20 feet wide and capable of accommodating
two-way traffic. In addition, the alley was on private property. As for the fence, staff
would review its status.
The applicant responded that he would be willing to give assurances that the gate
would remain locked and that the M Street access would remain closed. The Hearing
{ PA0669532.DOC;1/00083.900000/ }
Conditional Use
p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19~
20
21
22
23
24
25
Examiner noted, however, that future users could take the gate down and use the
property as acut-through. Mr. Welsh replied that ideally, commercial access should
be from M Street (arterial) rather than L Street (residential). However as noted
earlier, full M Street access in the future could be limited. He therefore believed that
maintaining a secondary access through L Street for the subject property would be a
wise precaution.
EXHIBITS
Exhibit Nos. 1 through 7, see page 2 of the July 10, 2007 staff report.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
1. Applicant. The applicant is Michael J. Rusnak.
2. Hearin. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the application at
5:30 p.m. at Auburn City Hall in the Council Chambers on July 18, 2007.
Substantive:
3. Site/Proposal Descri tp ion. Michael Rusnik -has applied for a Conditional
Use Permit to convert a 2,280-square-foot single-family residence into a single law
office. He is already using the property as a law office because he was not aware that
a conditional use permit is required. The site contains asingle-family home and an
attached garage and carport. The property is accessed off of L Street NE to the west
via a 20-foot-wide gravel driveway, and accessed off of M Street NE to the east via a
10-foot-wide concrete driveway. The M street access point is gated and not currently
used for access. The site is large enough to accommodate the eight parking spaces
required by the Auburn City Code. Asix-foot-high fence runs along the western
property line of the property.
4. Characteristics of the Area. The project site fronts a heavily congested
arterial in an area predominantly zoned R2 but primarily characterized by commercial
use along M Street. The property is surrounded on three sides by single-family
developments and on the south side by asingle-family home currently under review
for a professional office building. See Cruze Conditional Use Permit, CUP07-0001
(hereinafter "Cruze"). To the south of the proposed professional office building is a
commercial shopping center. In contrast to the commercial development that
predominates along M Street, the property to the west is a quiet single-family
neighborhood. A church, camera shop, and gas station as well as other commercial
uses are all within a couple blocks of the project site.
(PA0669532.DOC;1/00083.900000/ }
Conditional Use
p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
5. Adverse Impacts. No significant adverse impacts are associated with the
proposed use of the building for a single law office with gated access to M Street.
However, it is recognized that a blanket approval of this conditional use permit
application would allow the conversion of the building to a significantly more intense
use of the building for professional office space without further conditional use
permit review. The building is only slightly smaller than the building in the Cruze
application. As demonstrated in the Cruze application, the parking required by the
City Code may not be adequate to serve professional office buildings along M Street
when the buildings are used to house a maximum number of tenants. A neighbor also
raised concerns about the use of the lot for through access between L and M streets.
Given the congestion on M Street, this is a valid concern. For these reasons it is
recommended that the number of tenants and the access to L and M Streets be limited
in the conditions of approval. Dual street access or an increase in the number of
allowed tenants could be requested through another conditional use permit
application.
The residence to the west is separated from the subject property by asix-foot-high
fence, which is adequate buffering for the proposed use. The property to the south
will also be used for professional office space, so buffering is not necessary. Both
homes to the north and east front on heavily congested M Street and are already
surrounded by commercial uses. Additional buffering would not make any
appreciable difference in this high intensity environment.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Procedural:
1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. ACC 18.64.020(A) grants the Hearing
Examiner with the authority to review a request for a Conditional Use Permit and
make a recommendation to the City Council.
Substantive:
2. Zoning Desi nation. The property is zoned R2, Single-Family
Residential.
3. Review Criteria and Application. Professional office buildings are
permitted within an R2 zone if the criteria for a conditional use permit are met. See
ACC 18.14.030(H). Chapter 18.64 ACC governs the criteria for a conditional use
permit. Those criteria are quoted below and applied by corresponding conclusions of
law.
ACC 18.64.040(A): ,The use will have no more adverse effect on the health, safety or
comfort of persons living or working in the area and will be no more injurious,
{ PA0669532.DOC;1/00083.900000/ }
Conditional Use
p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
economically or otherwise, to property or improvements in the surrounding area than
would any use generally permitted in the district.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4. The primary permitted use in the R2 zone is asingle-family dwelling. See
ACC 18.14.020(A). The primary adverse impacts of concern are noise, light and
traffic. As discussed in the Findings of Fact, the fencing along the west property line
provides adequate mitigation for these types of impacts, given the context and
location of adjoining residential uses. Eight parking stalls for a solo law practice
should be more than sufficient to handle parking demand. Given the nominal impacts
of the project, as mitigated, the project should not generate any adverse impacts that
would materially exceed those of asingle-family home.
ACC 18.64.040(B): The proposal is in accordance with the goals, policies and
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
5. As noted in the staff report, the Comprehensive Plan designation for the
site is "office residential" which encourages the reservation of areas to accommodate
professional offices for expanding medical and business services, while providing a
transition between residential and more intensive uses and activities. The low-
intensity office use proposed for the site combined with the fact that the building is a
single-family residence is clearly consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation
for the site.
ACC 18.64.040(C): The proposal complies with all requirements of this title.
6. The primary code issues are parking, landscaping, storm drainage,
frontage improvements and street access. Staff have determined that there is
sufficient space on the site to accommodate the eight parking stalls required by ACC
18.52.020(B)(12). No landscaping is required in the R2 for professional office space,
except for what maybe found necessary in the conditional use permitting process. As
noted in the findings of fact, the existing six-foot fence is sufficient to meet the
buffering needs of the project and no additional landscaping is needed. The City's
stormwater standards, which will be implemented at building permit review, are
sufficient to address the stormwater impacts of the project. Staff also testified that
frontage improvements may be required at building permit review for M Street. ACC
12.64.020 specifically requires frontage improvements to be assessed and required
during building permit review.
The street access is the most problematical of all the code compliance issues. Staff
testified that the access width for a commercial use property is 24 feet. The property
currently accesses L Street with a 20-foot-wide panhandle. The applicant will have to
acquire a modification to continue the use of the L Street access point, which
according to staff, would be acquired at the building permit stage of review. ACC
12.20.050 provides that driveway width is governed by the Auburn Design and
Construction Standards and that deviations may be granted by the Public Works
{ PA0669532.DOC;1/00083.900000/ }
Conditional Use
p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Committee of the City Council. If the applicant fails to acquire a deviation, he can
simply access M Street, where his property has the required width. This access point
is currently gated closed and not used. Given the options available to the applicant to
provide code compliant street access, it is appropriate to conclude at this stage of
review that access can be adequately addressed during building permit review.
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ACC 18.64.040(D): The proposal can be constructed and maintained so as to be
harmonious and appropriate in design, character and appearance with the existing or
intended character of the general vicinity.
7. The proposed use will be housed in a single family residence, which is, of
course, consistent with the single-family character of the vicinity. The paved parking
(to be located on the west side of the property) is more intense than the single-family
uses to the west, but this will be buffered by asix-foot-high fence.
ACC 18.64.040(E): The proposal will not adversely affect the public infrastructure.
8. Staff testified that the traffic generated by the project is too nominal to
make any measurable difference to the level of service for M Street. Staff also found
that all other public infrastructure is adequate to meet the needs of the project.
ACC 18.64.040(F): The proposal will not cause or create a public nuisance.
9. The site abuts an area of the M Street NE arterial that is heavily congested
and is surrounded by intense commercial uses such as a commercial shopping center,
a church, and other smaller commercial facilities. The project does border a quiet
residential community to the west, but the screening and relatively low intensity of
the proposal prevent any incompatibility that may rise to a level of a public nuisance.
DECISION
The Hearing Examiner recommends approval of the recommended Conditional Use
Permit and adopts the recommended conditions of approval listed in the July 10, 2007
staff report. The Examiner also adds the following recommendations:
1. Use of the project shall be limited to a total of four full-time employees
and/or owners/tenants (or full-time equivalents) for professional office use as
currently defined by ACC 18.04.750.
2. Access shall be limited to either L or M streets and shall not be open to
both at the same time. Access may be restricted by a gate or other similar means
acceptable to City staff.
{ PA0669532.DOC;1/00083.900000/}
Conditional Use
p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 '~
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
/ f=
Dated this 6 day of 2007.
Phil Olbrechts
City of Auburn Hearing Examiner
{ PA0669532. DOC;1 /00083.900000/ }
Conditional Use p. 7 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
EXHIBIT B
LOT 2 AUBURN SHORT PLAT NO SP-1-81 RECORDING NO 8102020562 SD SHORT PLAT
BEING A POR OF SW 1/4 NE 1/4 STR 18-21-05 DAF: BEG NE COR LOT 18 BLK 7 FRENCH'S
ADD TO TOWN OF SLAUGHTER TH N 120 FT TH W AT R/A PLW S LN SD BLK 7 DIST 127 FT
TH S 120 FT TO N LN LOT 14 SD BLK 7 TH E 127 FT TO POB TGW POR VAC FRENCH'S
ADD TO TOWN OF SLAUGHTER & OF VAC STS & ALLEYS THIN DAF -- BEG NW COR LOT
10 BLK 7TH ELY ALG SLY LN OF ALLEY IN SD BLK 7 TAP 7 FT WLY OF NE COR LOT 14 IN
SD BLK 7TH NLY ON LN PLT E LN "L" ST NE 120 FT M/L TO SLY LN JEFFERSON ST (VAC)
TH 127 FT M/L TO WLY LN "M" ST NE TH NLY ALG SD WLY LN "M" ST NE 70 FT M/L TO N
LN JEFFERSON ST (VAC) TH WLY ALG NLY LN JEFFERSON ST (VAC) 270 FT M/L TO E LN
"L" ST NE TH SLY ALG ELY LN "L" ST NE 190 FT M/L TO POB LESS POR TAKEN FOR
WIDENING OF "M" ST (REC #2496213) & LESS WLY 1/2 VAC JEFFERSON ST
~:
ACITY OF l ~ ~T"
l 1~~~ J~~1~1 r
WASHINGTON
~~>b~~~t l
Number of Pages
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject: Public Hearing Application No. CUP07-0002 Date: July 10, 2007
Department: Planning, Attachments: Please refer to Exhibit Budget Impact: NA
Buildin ,and Communit List
Administrative Recommendation:
Hearing Examiner to recommend to the City Council approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit
based upon the Findin s of Fact, Conclusions and Conditions as outlined below.
Background Summary:
OWNER: Janet Mattheis
APPLICANT: Matthew J. Rusnak
REQUEST: Allow a professional office at 119 M Street NE on property zoned R2,
which requires a Conditional Use Permit.
LOCATION: The property is located at 119 M Street NE.
EXISTING ZONING: R2, Single Family Residential District
EXISTING LAND USE: Single family home occupied by a law office.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION: Office Residential (east side/majority of property)
Single Family Residential (west sidelpanhandle access)
SEPA STATUS: Exempt
Reviewed by Council & Committees: Reviewed by Departments ~ Divisions:
^ Arts Commission COUNCIL COMMITTEES: ®Building ^ M&O
^ Airport ^ Finance ^ Cemetery ^ Mayor
^ Hearing Examiner ^ Municipal Serv. ^ Finance ^ Parks
^ Human Services ^ Planning & CD ®Fire ® Planning
^ Park Board ^ Public Works ^ Legal ^ Police
^ Planning Comm. ^ Other ®Public Works ^ Human Resources
^ Information Services
Action:
Committee Approval: ^Yes ^No
Council Approval: ^Yes ^No Call for Public Hearing _/_/
Referred to Until _/_/_
Tabled Until ! /
Councilmember: Staff: Borland
Meetin Date: Jul 18, 2007 Item Number:
AU$U~N ~ MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED
Agenda Subject: Application No. CUP07-0002
Date: 7/10/2007
The Comprehensive Plan designation, zoning designation and land use of the surrounding properties are:
Comprehensive Plan
- Zoning ~ ' `
- - Land Use
North
Office Residential
R2, Single Family -
Single family residential
Residential District
South Office Residential R2, Single Family Single family
Residential District residential/proposed
rofessional office
East Office Residential R2, Single Family Single family residential
Residential District
West Single Family R2, Single Family Single family residential
Residential Residential District
EXHIBIT LIST
Exhibit 1 Staff Report
Exhibit 2 Master Land Use Application and site plan, received 3-23-07
Exhibit 3 Notice of Public Hearing and Vicinity Map
Exhibit 4 Affidavit of Posting
Exhibit 5 Affidavit of Mailing
Exhibit 6 Confirmation of Publication of Legal Notice
Exhibit 7 Aerial Photograph
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. Matthew Rusnak (tenant) has applied for a Conditiona- Use Permit to legalize an existing non-
conforming law office at 119 M Street NE in the R2 (Single Family Residential) zone. Pursuant to
Auburn City Code (ACC) 18.14.030.H, professional offices may be permitted when a Conditional
Use Permit (CUP) has been issued pursuant to ACC 18.64.
2. The site contains a single family home used as a law office, attached garage and carport,
detached garage, and a paved parking area. The property is accessed off of L Street NE to the
west via a 20' wide gravel driveway and accessed off of M Street NE to the east via a 10' wide
concrete driveway. The property also has small groups of landscaping typical of a residential
property.
3. Surrounding development includes residential and business uses. The owner of the adjacent
property to the south is also pursuing a Conditional Use Permit for a professional office (City file
no. CUP07-0001).
4. Per ACC 18.52.020.8.12, off-street parking for a professional office is required at a ratio of 1
space per 300 square feet of gross floor area. According to this provision, since the structure is
used as a professional office and is 2,280 square feet in size, the site is required to have at least
8 parking spaces. The site plan shows the property is large enough to accommodate the
required parking.
5. Landscaping may be required because a residential use has been converted to a nonresidential
use, as stated in ACC 18.50.020.8,
Page 2 of 6
Agenda Subject: Application No. CUP07-0002 Date: 7/10/2007
"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. (Ord. 4914 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4304 § 1(33), 1988; Ord.
4229 § 2, 1987.)"
Per ACC 18.50.050.A the type and amount of required landscaping is to be determined at the
time a CUP is reviewed.
6. The RZ (Single Family Residential) zone district allows residential and related uses (see ACC
18.14.020 and 18.14.030). The intent of the R2 zone is:
"...create a living environment of optimum standards for single-family dwellings. It is
further intended to limit development to relatively low degrees of density. This district will
provide for the development of single-family detached dwellings, not more than one such
dwelling on each lot, and for.such accessory uses as are related, incidental and not
detrimental to the residential environment. Multiple family dwellings may be permitted as
conditional uses only to the extent such uses conform to guidelines of the comprehensive
plan."
7. The R2 zone development standards including setbacks and lot requirements are contained in
ACC 18.14.040.
8. The Office Residential Comprehensive Plan designation is intended to "reserve areas to
accommodate professional offices for expanding medical and business services, while providing
a transition between residential uses and more intensive uses and activities."
9. In the City of Auburn Comprehensive Transportation Plan M Street NE is classified as a principal
arterial. 2005 traffic volumes on M Street NE in this area were approximately 18,900 vehicle trips
per day. L Street NE is a classified as a local residential street.
10. M Street NE features curb, gutter and sidewalk. Auburn City Code Chapter 12.64 requires the
completion of half street improvements and right of way dedication for commercial development
when the value of on-site improvements exceeds 25% of the assessed valuation of existing
property improvements or which adds five or more new parking stalls. Current assessed valuation
of these improvements is $192,000 according to King County records. The City of Auburn Traffic
Engineer reviewed the application and determined that the owner needs to dedicate 5.5 feet of
right of way on M Street NE.
11. The proposed development falls below the SEPA categorical exemption thresholds; therefore, a
SEPA checklist and determination are not required for the proposed professional office.
12. The city currently has an open code enforcement violation for the property related to the law
office, which has been in operation without obtaining the required Conditional Use Permit.
13. Staff conducted a site visit on July 9, 2007, to verify the site plan and surrounding conditions.
CONCLUSIONS:
ACC Section 18.64.040 (A-F) provides certain criteria for approval of a conditional use permit:
Page 3 of 6
Agenda Subject: Application No. CUP07-0002 Date: 7/10/2007
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 R2 zone allows for residential development permitted outright while a professional office requires
review and approval of a conditional use permit. The project site is small (approximately .43 acre in
size) and contains a residential structure within which the business is conducted. Development of the
property will involve establishment/expansion of paved parking stalls and right of way dedication.
Additional access improvements may be required including but not limited to, widening of the
driveways, pavement of unpaved areas, restriction of traffic to a one-way flow, and preclusion of one
of the access points (either M Street NE or L Street NE) for business purposes (to be used for
emergency access only). The application of these access improvements will be determined by the
City of Auburn Traffic Engineer at the time the building permit is submitted which must have a site
plan that shows the proposed parking layout.
A traffic study is not required for the new business and the site is capable of accommodating the
required number of parking stalls. According to the applicant, the nature of the law practice involves
almost no client visitation to the office. 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
professional office requires plans to be submitted to the Auburn Permit Center and a building permit
be obtained to verify compliance with building codes, including accessibility and usability.
Staff recommends the project be conditioned to require a building permit be obtained for the change
of 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)).
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)
This appears to be a suitable location for an office use, to act as a transition in intensity between the
abutting residential uses and nearby more intensive business uses.
Staff finds the proposal to be consistent with this criteria.
3. The proposal complies with all requirements of this title (i.e., Zoning Code).
Matthew Rusnak has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to allow establishment of a law office at
119 M Street NE in the R2 (Single Family Residential) zone. Pursuant to Auburn City Code (ACC)
18.14.030.H, professional offices may be permitted when a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) has been
issued pursuant to ACC 18.64.
The proposal includes conversion of an approximately 2,280 square foot single family home into a
law office, which is considered to be a professional office, which requires a Conditional Use Permit.
Page 4 of 6
Agenda Subject: Application No. CUP07.0002 Date: 7/10/2007
As depicted on the site plan there appears to be adequate space available on site that could
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,
including being served via a minimum 12' wide paved driveway.
Landscaping may be required because a residential use has been converted to a nonresidential use,
as stated in ACC 18.50.020. B. Compliance with landscaping requirements for properties that have
existing buildings is required to the maximum extent possible; per ACC 18.50.020. In accordance
with ACC 18.50.050.A the type and amount of required landscaping is to be determined at the time a
CUP is reviewed. As the applicant is not proposing additions to the structure or signage and since a
6' wooden fence exists between the parking area and residence to the west, staff recommends that
no additional landscaping be required.
The applicant has indicated that no signage is proposed for the office use. If in the future a sign is
desired the site will be subject to ACC Section 18.56.040.A.
Staff recommends the project be conditioned to ensure the parking area meets City of Auburn
dimensional requirements and that the required number of spaces be 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 residence for the business and establishment/
expansion of paved parking stalls and associated access improvements. 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. 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.
Additionally a traffic study is not required for the new business and the required number of parking
stalls can be provided. Development of the property will involve establishment/expansion of paved
parking stalls and right of way dedication. Additional access improvements may be required including
but not limited to, widening of the driveways, pavement of unpaved areas, restriction of traffic to a
one-way flow, and preclusion of one of the access points (either M Street NE or L Street NE) for
business purposes (to be used for emergency access only). The application of these access
improvements will be determined by the City of Auburn Traffic Engineer at the time the building permit
is submitted which must have a site plan that shows the proposed parking layout.
Staff finds the proposal to be consistent with this criteria.
6. The proposal will not cause or create a public nuisance.
The proposal involves a business use in a residential zone. Nearby and adjacent uses include a mix
of residential housing and other businesses. Typically, office uses generate little noise other than that
caused by vehicular traffic. If closed during evening hours, they can possibly generate less impact in
hours when residents are typically home than a residential use. There is no record of the law office
having caused any public nuisances.
Page 5 of 6
Agenda Subject: Application No. CUP07-0002 Date: 7/10/2007
Staff finds the proposal to be consistent with this criteria.
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the application and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of the staff report, Staff recommends
that the Hearing Examiner recommend to the City Council approval of the Conditional Us_e Permit with the
following conditions of approval:
1. A building permit application for the change of use shall be submitted to the Auburn Permit
Center within 30 days of the effective date of the City Council ordinance approving the
Conditional Use Permit.
2. Eight parking spaces shall be provided on site, which meet the dimensional requirements as
established in ACC 18.52.090, including being served via a minimum 12' wide paved driveway.
Staff reserves the right to supplement the record of the case to respond to matfers and information raised
subsequent to the writing of this report.
Page 6 of 6
r, ~
crrr of , *~
WASHINGTON
E~etbit ~-
Nnmber of Pages
Planning, Building, and Community Department
MASTER LAND ZISEAPPLICATION-PLANNINGAPPLICATIONS
Project Name ~ >/~( `< -~l~'NiQPj/(:~'ll~ (~l~j e ~
Parcel No(s) ~ ~~ /
Legal Description (attached separate sheet if necessary)
Administrative Appeal*
Administrative Use Permit*
Annexation
Boundary Line Adjustment
Comprehensive Pian Amendment (Text or Map)*
Conditional Use Permit*
Critical Areas Variance*
Development Agreement*
Environmental Review (SEPA)*
Final Plat
Preliminary Plat*
PUD Site Plan Approval
Rezone (site sDecificl*
Page 1 of 2
Short Plat
Special Exception*
Special Home Occupation Permit*
Substantial Shoreline Development*
Surface Mining Permit*
Temporary Use Permit
Variance*
*Please note that public notification is
required- A separate cost is charged
for the signs. Ciry prepares signs but
applicant responsible for sign posting.
MAR. 2 3 2007
AIJB~T~N ~ MORE ~t~l-SAN YoU »19OJ~i]DEPRRTMENT
~ Type of Application Required (Check all that Annlvl
6~MAR, r5v2OO16 ~_ 32P~539393575 LAW OFFIC~.S OF I~JR NQ. ~ 2O1 iP. 2 yl
crrroF .:..~,~
- w~-sxtNGroN Pla-rning..Building, and Community ,Department
LE'f')'ER FROM P~tOPERT OWNER GRA~1'l^ING Ail'l'130RIZA'I~ON' TO ACT
(A copy of this letter Anust be sub>oaitted for e$ch property oavmer involved)
1, ~? being duly ~vvo declare that I am the owner of the prop67~ty
(pROPER'iY OWNER) .r
Lnvolved itt the application. Z h by grant
of ~ ~~ to act on my beh lf.. I further declare that all
statements, anewrts, and irnformation herein submitted is in atI respects tzue and correct to the
best of my lotaowledge and belief.
- _j --G~-O`7
Signatwe Date
~ ~ . ~1~'%!-~n I~r
Ad ess ~~
Subscribed and swoz~o to before ale this day of ~~~ ~ O ~ _
~~
Notary public in and for the State of~wasliingter~; ,C~tn-~-~~ Q`~ ~i ~'1G~
Residing at
ADAM TAYLOR
NOTARY PUBUC -ARIZONA
PIMA COUNTY
My Commission Expires
Au ust 6 2010
Page 2 of 2
~`S.U$URN * MOR1: THAN YOU ltvtAGINkD