Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutITEM II-A-1* ~ CITY OF -~ AUBURN WASHINGTON AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: Ordinance No. 6150 "Gazhenko Conditional Use Permit" Date: A lication No. CUP07-0003 Janua 30, 2008 Department: Planning, Building, Attachments: Ordinance No. 6150, Budget Impact: N/A and Communit Please refer to Exhibit List Administrative Recommendation: City Council to conduct a closed record hearing. Background Summary: On October 17, 2007 the Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on the request of Leonard Gazhenko to allow a triplex in the R2 (Single Family Residential) zone at 504 H Street NE. The Examiner left the record open for public comment until November 7, 2007. The City of Auburn and applicant were allowed to and did respond to items submitted by the public until November 21, 2007. On December 6, 2007 the Hearing Examiner issued a recommendation to City Council for approval of the conditional use permit request subject to two (2) conditions of approval as follows, 1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall submit to the City for review and approval a landscaping plan for the installation of a five-foot wide Type III landscaping along the eastern and northern property lines that includes vegetation that will grow to at least six feet in height. The substitution of the required shrub and groundcover layers of the Type III landscaping of the sod lawn served by an automatic irrigation system per ACC 18.50.060(E) will not be allowed. Prior to final inspection of the triplex, the landscaping shall be completed. Any fencing subsequently added to the property shall require an amendment to this conditional use permit. 2. The design of the proposal shall substantially conform to the site plan introduced into the record as Exhibit No. 2. Trees shall also be retained as indicated in the site plan. Pursuant to Auburn City Code (ACC) section 18.66.150 a timely request for reconsideration. of the Examiner's recommendation was filed by neighbors of the subject property citing errors in judgment on the part of the Examiner. The request asserted that the findings of fact did not address all the concerns raised by project opponents. On January 9, 2008, the Hearing Examiner issued a response to the request for reconsideration affirming the original recommendation. 03.10.1 CUP07-0003 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: Norman Staff: Baker Meetin Date: Februa 6, 2008 Item Number: II.A.1 AUBURN ~ MORE THAN YOU IMAGCNED Agenda Subject: Ordinance No. 6150 Date: February 6, 2008 The case was placed on the agenda of the regular City Council meeting on Monday, December 17, 2007. At that meeting, the City Council decided to conduct a closed record hearing on the Conditional Use Permit request. In accordance with ACC 18.66.170, "upon (conducting) its own closed record hearing the City Council may affirm, reject, (or) modify the hearing examiner's recommendation or take whatever action it deems appropriate pursuant to law." Ordinance No. 6150, if adopted, would affirm the Hearing Examiner's recommendation. Staff is recommending the Council affirm the Examiner's recommendation and adopt Ordinance No. 6150. Exhibit List Exhibit 1 Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner, dated 10-10-07 Exhibit 2 Master Land Use Application, received 8-31-07 Exhibit 2a Site plan (revised), received 10-3-07 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 Exhibit No. 8 Email from Kirsten Reynolds stating several people testifying Exhibit No. 9 Letter from Clarence Wells, received by Planning 10-12-07 Exhibit No. 10 Letter from Donald Anderson, dated 10-10-07 Exhibit No. 11 Letter from Nils Fagerlund, dated 10-11-07 Exhibit No. 12 Letter from Clarence Wells, dated 10-12-07 Exhibit No. 13 Letter from Sarah Meier, dated 10-12-07 Exhibit No. 14 Email from Bruce and Gail Meier, dated 10-17-07 Exhibit No. 15 Petition from Residents of H Street and 5 St. NE Exhibit No. 16 Letter from Pat Byrne and Clarence Wells, dated 10-28-07 Exhibit No. 17 Letter from Donald A. Rottle, dated 10-26-07 Exhibit No. 18 Letter from Jennifer Isham, dated 11-1-07 Exhibit No. 19 Letter from Charlie and Candance Maxwell, dated 11-3-07 Exhibit No. 20 Letter from Donald Anderson, dated 11-5-07 Exhibit No. 21 Letter from Loren Libadia, dated 11-5-07 Exhibit No. 22 Hearing Examiner Order on Reconsideration, dated 1-9-08 ** =Exhibit is not included in the packet but is available for review upon request. Page 2 of 2 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: Leonard Gazhenko FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS Conditional Use Permit OF LAW AND RECOMMENDATION. CUP07-0003 INTRODUCTION The applicant has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a triplex in an R2 zone. The Examiner recommends approval of the request subject to conditions. ORAL TESTIMONY Stacy Borland, Auburn planner, summarized the application. She emphasized that the application is not a rezone. She stated that the only staff recommended condition is a solid wooden fence. Joseph Welsh, Auburn transportation planner, stated that the threshold for a traffic study is thirty PM trips and that the proposal will only generate three PM trips. He stated that the level of service on H Street was adequate and that site distance at the driveway was safe. Zach Lynstrom, friend of the applicant, testified on behalf of the applicant. He emphasized that the triplex units would not be rentals, but would be sold as town homes in the mid 300 thousand range. He said that the town homes would be high quality and would increase property values. Each unit would have oversized two car garages and there would be separation between units to create a "family feeling". Most mature trees would remain after construction. The existing chain link fence would be replaced by a six foot cedar fence. Additional steel and concrete associated with new construction will enhance soil stability. The driveway will be concrete, which will stabilize the site. Parking will be on site. The site is only 884 square feet shy of qualifying for a fourth unit. The Growth Management Act encourages multifamily development to prevent urban sprawl. The Examiner did a site visit and explained the uses he saw around the site. Dr. Herman Ansingh, neighbor. Dr. Ansingh was concerned that he only received seven days notice of the hearing even though the application had been filed the previous March. He would have liked an opportunity to have his attorneys and experts review the application. Dr. Ansingh stated that the property was zoned R2 for {PA0680241. DOC;1 /00083.900000/} Conditional Use p. 1 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 residential use. He stated that people had mo~~ed into the area and ins ested in property on the understanding it would remain asingle-family neighborhood. He said this type of project may force many people to leave town as has occurred in other portions of the community. Dr. Ansingh seeks to preserve what is left of the downtown core area. He said that he and other residents had attended several meetings on this subject ,the most recent one "City of Auburn Vision 2016" with the mission "to promote stability in neighborhoods and to promote pride in Auburn". Dr. Ansingh referenced an atrocious building that went up at the entrance to I Street. Dr. Ansingh then referenced findings made in the staff report. Dr. Ansingh pointed out that the triplex would be located on a corner lot, which would involve three families where only one had been before. He felt this would not promote stability in the neighborhood. He also disagreed that the units could be sold as opposed to rented. He did not believe that on-street parking was available, especially with school and church events. He emphasized that the units will have six or more cars on the property. He felt a wooden fence would be an overkill. He noted that the original plans were to build a duplex. He noted that the R2 zone, as stated in the staff report, has the potential to be the densest of the three implementing zones. Dr. Ansingh requested 120 days to prepare a response to the application in order to consult with experts and legal counsel since the applicants had eight months to process their application. Sarah Meier, neighbor. Ms. Meier presented a slide show composed of about 100 photos on a cd she had submitted along with her letter (Ex 13). Ms. Meier is a certified professional horticulturalist. She stated the subject property has big, majestic tall trees. She showed photos of drainage problems on H St. N.E. She noted that the drainage system does not do a proper job of drainage. The street floods ftequently on the corner of H and 5t1i St. NE. Drainage takes the better part of a day once what the neighbors call a lake is formed after a rain event. She is concerned that triplex a will triple impervious area and that the current storm water system is inadequate to handle the increased runoff. Three two car garages and the driveway will add to drainage problems. Removal of the trees will also increase runoff. Some method of storm water mitigation should be provided by the developer. Ms. Meier stated that parking is at a premium because many garages are small. When the school or Lutheran Church have events parking is difficult to find. Since most people don't park in their garages, the two to three cars per unit will overflow the lot. Ms. Meier felt that a six foot cedar fence is not compatible with the neighborhood and would be a graffiti magnet, including children walking to school. Ms. Meier showed several photos exhibiting graffiti, including the street, a fence and a mailbox. Ms. Meier stated that the character of the neighborhood is quaint, cozy and cottage-like. She did not believe the proposed triplex is consistent with this character. She stated she moved into the neighborhood because of this character. She showed photos of what other homes in the neighborhood look like. {PA0680241.DOC;1/00083.900000/} Conditional Use p. 2 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 ~~Is. ~~9eier stated that there arc numerous multitamily~ developments in auburn as well as condos on Lea Hill. Downtown neighborhoods do not need to be transformed to high density development where neighbors must hide indoors because there is no outdoor space. Ms. Meier then showed photos of the trees on the site, including a big leaf maple. She stated it has one of the largest Pacific Dogwoods she's ever seen. Larry Libadia, neighbor. Mr. Libadia stated that his neighborhood has nice homes with established families who maintain their yards. He was concerned whether the triplex would be as well maintained as the other homes. He had concern over parking and noted that during football games people park in front of his home during games. He was also concerned about litter left after people park in front of his home. He feels this will get worse with the triplex and the greater parking demand created by the triplex. Patrick Bentson, neighbor. His house was built by his grandfather in 1957. He said he had the choice of either selling his house or moving in when it was given to him. He agreed with the testimony on parking, drainage, and the fence. He stated he has the biggest drainage lake in front of his home and was opposed to further impervious surface. He stated that kids don't have enough outdoor area to play. Within a two block radius of his house there are six large multifamily complexes and that within a mile radius there are 12 to 15 complexes. He felt that storm water mitigation and traffic control (to protect children) would be necessary for the project. Virginia Haugen, 2503 R. St. SE Auburn. She stated she got to know the area when it was a little piece of heaven behind Trojan Field. Part of it still is no thanks to the City of Auburn. The last thing people need is another triplex. Kyle Meier, lives across the street from the triplex. He stated that drainage has improved substantially over the last two years and has improved since the conditions shown in the photos (apparently taken by Ms. Meier 1.5 to 2 years ago). He believes that the triplex would make it a serious problem verses a livable problem. He said that drainage can be a problem for kids on their bikes since they have to ride onto the street from the sidewalk to avoid puddles. Mr. Meier expressed concern about the current owner's care of the property. He noted that the project site has staged several garage sales and has housed a dump truck that has been left on the property since it was sold. The lot has been in disarray and to the point where the City had to post a code enforcement notice on the property to have it cleaned. Donald Anderson, neighbor. Mr. Anderson moved to the Puget Sound forty years ago. He initially moved to Covington but always wanted to move into Auburn for its sidewalks, well maintained homes, small town atmosphere and attractive neighborhoods. He didn't believe that the staff report contained any substance and just reiterates the criteria. He stated that his area already accommodates high density development and that the surrounding area has numerous multifamily complexes. He didn't feel that the removal of trees had been adequately addressed and that trees have {PA0680241. DOC; I /00083.900000/} Conditional Use p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 II 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 stopped de~~elopment projects before. He referenced that the IZ2 zonin~~ standard is to create a living environment of optimum standards for single-family dwellings. There's no reason except for profit motive to grant a conditional use for the triplex. He didn't think a six foot fence was adequate to mitigate the impacts of the project. Kenneth Watson, neighbor immediately adjacent to property. He said his neighborhood is of the type that his friends remember with nostalgia. He bought his home because of the neighborhood. He served for a year and a half on the King County Landmarks and Heritage Commission and served in many hearings that addressed the impacts of new structures in residential and commercial neighborhoods. In his professional opinion one structure can have a tremendous impact on visual character. He testified that school traffic creates parking and driveway ingress/egress problems. He disagrees that H Street has adequate traffic capacity. He also noted that emergency access was difficult for the area. He had concerns about the storm drainage and noted that the area is in the valley of a river. He thought there were better options for development of the subject lot. Mr. Watson said that Auburn is the next layer out from metropolitan Seattle. He said that Auburn is at a point can choose to become another beltway layer where people don't care where they live or Auburn can carefully watch out for the best assets that Auburn has. He thinks the best thing Auburn has is its neighborhoods here every property is a keystone property and every conditional use and variance makes the next one easier. Neighborhoods don't grow back. Jennifer Isham, neighbor. She has lived in the neighborhood for 39 years. She saw a field she had used as a child converted to a multifamily complex. She loves her neighborhood and city. The applicant has a right to develop his property but not at the expense of the character of the neighborhood. She shared the concerns over storm drainage. She said that traffic is always an issue. She said that people are not complaining about the events of the school but they do not want to make it worse. She mentioned that litter is a big problem. Ed Eaton, 1313 F. St. SE. He fought the apartment complex noted by Dr. Ansingh. The City had said the apartments were ok for the neighborhood. After 30 years he still doesn't think the aparhnents are alright. Mr. Eaton served on the Auburn Planning Commission for five years. He doesn't feel that the proposed triplex fits in asingle-family neighborhood. Charles Maxwell, neighbor. He's concerned that the neighbors haven't had sufficient time to comment. Vivian Krestevens, neighbor. She is very impressed by the neighborhood and would hate to see it changed. Her street is full when there are activities at school and this would increase tremendously with a triplex. {PA0680241.DOC;1/00083.900000/} Conditional Use p. 4 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 Jonathan Miller, neighbor. 1{e is concerned about pedestrian traffic and traffic durin~~ school events and that the poor drainage creates a dangerous condition for pedestrians. He wanted to know how the project will impact flooding. He noted that a lot of soil and trees would be displaced by the project. He thought the fence would create a big tag target for graffiti. Candace Maxwell, neighbor. She noted that the neighbors have petitioned the City twice for speed bumps and that the police department has not dealt with a speeding problem in the area. Kyle Meier, neighbor, inquired about the timeframe for review. He wanted to know who would be responsible for the fence and what type of recourse would the neighbors have. In response to questions from the Examiner, Stacey Borland responded that the City has a graffiti ordinance and that there has been an unusually large number of graffiti complaints in the past year and that graffiti is a greater problem near the schools. Ms. Borland also testified that the applicant could sell the triplex units through the condominium process. The Examiner gave the parties until November 7, 2007 to provide additional written comment and gave the applicant until November 21, 2007. The Examiner also asked input from staff on the feasibility of a living fence for the property. Tim Carlaw, Auburn storm water engineer. Mr. Carlaw noted that the development would be required to comply with City storm water standards. In this case that would involve infiltration, which will be required at the building permit stage. In his opinion the water will not get off site. The project will be designed to a 100 year storm event, i.e. to keep all runoff on site from a 100 year storm event. Current storm water problems are caused by settling pavement. As Auburn streets are repaired and upgraded these storm water issues are addressed. He explained that the infiltration system would involve an underground pipe that would direct the water to a deeper soil layer where the water can be absorbed. Zach Lynstrom, applicant representative, suggested a living fence to prevent graffiti. He also stated that the large mature trees of the property will be retained. EXHIBITS Exhibit Nos. 1 through 7: see page 2 of the October 10, 2007 staff report. Additional exhibits were admitted as follows: Exhibit No. 8 Email from Kirsten Reynolds stating several people testifying Exhibit No. 9 Letter from Clarence Wells received by Planning 10/12/07 Exhibit No. 10 Letter from Donald Anderson dated 10/ 10/07 {PA0680241.DOC;1/00083.900000/} Conditional Use p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Exhibit No. 1 1 Letter tivm Mils Fa~~erluild dated 10,' 11107 Exhibit No. 12 Letter from Clarence Wells dated 10/ 12/07 Exhibit No. 13 Letter from Sarah Meier dated 10/12/07 Exhibit No. 14 Email from Bruce and Gail Meier dated 10/17/07 Exhibit No. 15 Petition from Residents of H Street and 5 St. NE Exhibit No. 16 Letter from Pat Byrne and Clarence Wells dated 10/28/07 Exhibit No. 17 Letter from Donald A. Rottle dated 10/26/07 Exhibit No. 18 Letter from Jennifer Isham dated 11/1/07 Exhibit No. 19 Letter from Charlie and Candance Maxwell dated 11/3/07 Exhibit No. 20 Letter from Donald Anderson dated 11/5/07 Exhibit No. 21 Letter from Loren Libadia dated 11/5/07 FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: 1. Applicant. The applicant is Leonard Gazhenko. 2. Hearing. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the application at 5:30 p.m. at Auburn City Hall in the Council Chambers on October 17, 2007. Substantive: 3. Site/Proposal Descri tp ion. The applicant proposes to build a triplex at 504 H Street N.E. in R2 (single-family residential) zone. The site is flat and contains a single-family home built in 1941, which is proposed to be removed prior to the construction of the triplex. The property is at the southeast corner of the intersection of Fifth Street N.E. and H Street N.E. The triplex would be accessed off of H Street N.E. via a 12-foot-wide, paved driveway. As noted in an October 12, 2007, letter from Sarah Meier (Exhibit No. 13), the subject property houses over 35 trees, many of them mature with heights of up to 65 feet. As shown in the site plan (Exhibit No. 2), the applicant proposes to retain about six of these trees in addition to some shrubs. Stormwater is proposed to be addressed by an infiltration trench on the northwest side of the property. The applicant also proposes asix-foot cedar fence along the north perimeter of the property. A 48-inch chain-link fence is currently located on the east perimeter of the property. Each triplex unit will contain three bedrooms and will have atwo-stall attached garage. The garages will have paved areas for backing and on-site maneuvering. The subject lot is 23,116 square feet in size. 4. Characteristics of the Area. The subject property is surrounded by single- family homes in a setting aptly described by one of the neighbors as "quaint, cozy, and cottage-like." The homes are relatively modest in size and located in a park-like setting with an abundance of trees and well-maintained landscaping. Neighbors clearly take great pride in their neighborhood and the "small-town" atmosphere they {PA068024 LDOC;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 ha~~~ created for themsel~~es as an encla~~~ fr~~n~ ;urroundin~~ urban de~~el~>pment. Surrounding homes are relatively modest in size and are generally several decades old. Landscaping and trees are mature. The subject property is located one residential property north of Messiah Lutheran Church, which is in the process of expanding and remodeling. Directly south of the church is Auburn High School. The subject property is located one residential property east of the high school football field. On-street parking is available along either side of Fifth and H Streets. 5. Adverse Impacts. The extensive testimony on the project raised several issues, which will be addressed individually below: A. Stormwater drainage. Photographs were presented (Exhibit No. 13) showing flooding on H Street N.E. and Fifth Street N.E. According to the testimony of another individual, this flooding problem has improved since the photographs were taken, which was apparently 18 months ago. Several people expressed concern that the addition of significant impermeable surface to the subject property, in addition to the removal of the trees and other vegetation, would exacerbate the drainage problems on H Street N.E. and Fifth Street N.E. Staff responded that stormwater runoff created by the development would be retained onsite by the proposed infiltration trench, which would involve piping that would direct water to soil layers that are able to absorb stormwaters of 100-year flood events. There was no evidence presented in the record that this infiltration system would not be adequate to handle the stormwater runoff created by the development. Given the absence of this evidence and the expertise of staff, the Examiner finds that the project adequately addresses stormwater drainage and that this project will not add to the drainage problems on H Street N.E. and Fifth Street N.E. B. Fencing. Some people were concerned that the six-foot-high fence required by the Planning Department would not be consistent with the open character of the neighborhood and would also serve as a magnet for graffiti. The Examiner agrees and for this reason, and in furtherance of ensuring compatibility with the park- like setting of the neighborhood, recommends that the Council condition the project to replace the six-foot fence with a vegetative wall. C. Traffic and parking. Several comments were made that the neighborhood suffers from congestion and parking problems during school and church events. It is also felt that garages are often just used for storage and that it is likely that the garages will not be used for parking. The staff testified that the streets that serve the project are well within the level of service assigned to those streets and that the traffic generated by the units is far below the threshold under City requirements that triggers a traffic study. Although garages are sometimes used for storage at the expense of parking, it does appear unlikely that a homeowner would use a garage for storage if off-site parking were a serious problem. Furthermore, the traffic impacts generated by the project are well within the range of traffic impacts {PA0680241. DOC; l /00083.900000/} Conditional Use p. 7 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 deemed acceptable uucier City traffic standards. Gi~~en these factors, the traffic impacts of the project are adequately addressed. D. Rental units. Concerns were raised that the units would be rented as opposed to sold and that this would attract "low-income" persons who would not maintain their property. Using a zoning code, or any regulation, to discriminate against persons due to their income is likely to violate state and federal constitutional equal protection requirements. Further, the property owner has stated that his intent is to sell the units individually. As noted by staff, the applicant is legally authorized to sell individual units under the state's. condominium laws. See Chapter 64.32 RCW and Chapter 64.34 RCW. Given these factors, the Examiner finds that the concerns over rental of the triplex units is neither factually nor legally supportable. E. Neighborhood Compatibility. As noted previously, the neighborhood qualifies as "quaint, cozy and cottage-like." There is no question that this is a very desirable place to live and that any new development must be sensitive to the beauty and serenity of the neighborhood. There is also no question that abig- box development for a triplex without mitigation would not be compatible with the modest scale of the surrounding homes and the park-like setting in which they are located. However, the project has been designed and mitigated to provide for a legally acceptable level of compatibility. As shown in Exhibit No. 2, the triplex is significantly modulated from one unit and garage to the next as well as within the rooflines. As conditioned with a vegetative fence and as designed with the retention of several mature trees, the project also contributes to and blends in with the park-like setting of the surrounding homes. Given these factors, the Examiner finds that the proposed triplex is compatible with the single-family character of the surrounding neighborhood. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Procedural: 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. ACC 18.64.020(A) grants the Hearing Examiner with the authority to review a request for a Conditional Use Permit and make a recommendation to the City Council. Substantive: 2. Zonin Designation. The property is zoned R2, single-family residential. 3. Review Criteria and Application. Triplexes are permitted within an R2 zone if the underlying lot is at least 18,000 square feet and the criteria for a conditional use permit are met. See ACC 18.14.030(F). Since the subject parcel is 23,116 square feet in size, the lot size requirement is met. The criteria for a {PA0680241. DOC;1/00083.900000/} Conditional Use p. 8 Findings, Conclusions and Decision conditional use permit arc satisfied a~ outlined bclo~~~ ~~~here each criterion is in italics and the application to the project is applied in corresponding Conclusions of Law. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ACC 18.64.040(A): The use will have no more adverse effect on the health, safety or comfort of persons living or working in the area and will be no more injurious, economically or otherwise, to property or improvements in the surrounding area than would any use generally permitted in the district. 4. The primary permitted use in the R2 zone is asingle-family dwelling. See ACC 18.14.020(A). The minimum lot size for the R2 zone is 6,000 square feet. See ACC 18.14.040(A). Consequently, the impacts of the proposed triplex must be compared to the potential to construct three separate single-family homes in the same location. Further, it must be recognized that there are no limits to the size of the homes that could be built on three separate lots and, therefore, no guarantees that the homes that would be built at this location would be of compatible scale to those in the surrounding area. Given the modulated design of the project and vegetative screening from adjoining uses, there is nothing to suggest that the proposed triplex would be more injurious, economically or otherwise, to property improvements in the surrounding area than would be permitted outright. In fact, single-family homes that would not be subject to size, design or screening restrictions could create a much more significantly adverse aesthetic impact than the triplex proposal. 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 project is consistent with Auburn Comprehensive Plan Policies LU-12 and LU-14 in that the project adds to the mix of housing types and is under the six-unit-per-acre density cap recommended by Policy LU-14. ACC 18.64.040(C): The proposal complies with all requirements of this title. 6. As noted previously, the proposal satisfies the R2 criteria for multiple- family dwelling by exceeding 18,000 square feet in area for a triplex. The proposal also meets the off-street parking requirement of ACC 18.52.020(A)(3) by providing two parking stalls per each three-bedroom triplex dwelling unit. There is nothing within the record to suggest noncompliance with any other requirements of the City's Zoning Code. 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. {PA0680241.DOC; V00083.900000/} Conditional Use p. 9 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 7. The criterion abo~~c i~ the most rcic~ant and dii~ticult to apply to the subject property. It is unlikely that there would be any neighborhood in the City of Auburn where a triplex would be more out of place than the one in this application. As noted in the Findings of Fact, if the applicant were just proposing an unmitigated box-like triplex, there would be no question that the proposal would not be harmonious or appropriate in design, character and appearance with the surrounding neighborhood. It is likely that if the size of the triplex was compared to the size of the surrounding homes and also that the percentage of lot coverage were compared that a person could objectively conclude that the triplex is not harmonious in scale with the surrounding community. However, when the actual design of the project is taken into account as well as the mitigation as discussed in the Findings of Fact, the project is acceptably harmonious with the surrounding community. In arriving at this conclusion, it must be recognized that the City is severely limited in its discretion to impose code criteria such as "harmonious" and "appropriate." The Washington State Supreme Court has invalidated design regulations as being unconstitutionally vague due to design criteria such as "interesting" and "harmonious." See Anderson v. City of Issaquah, 70 Wn. App. 64 (1993). As noted by the Anderson court: The statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men [and women] of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, violates the first essential of due process of law. 70 Wn. App., at 75. In applying this constitutional standard to the design requirements of the City of Issaquah, the Court was critical of the fact that "in attempting to interpret and apply this code, the Commissioners charged with that task were left with only their own individual, subjective 'feelings' about the 'image of Issaquah' and as to whether this project was 'compatible' or 'interesting."' Given the Anderson Decision, the City of Auburn must be very careful how it applies vague standards such as "harmonious" and "appropriate." If it applies these terms too broadly, to the point where the determination is based on the feelings of the decisionmaker, the interpretation (and application) will be struck down as unconstitutional. Consequently, even though many, if not all, residents of the surrounding neighborhood may "feel" that the project as designed and mitigated is still not compatible with their neighborhood, it is likely that others (such as the applicant) may reasonably conclude to the contrary. The fact of the matter is that the R2 zoning district does authorize triplexes within single- family homes. If a triplex is reasonably mitigated to the extent that it is arguably compatible with surrounding uses, the City does not have much latitude to find noncompliance with the criterion above. ACC 18.64.040(E): The proposal will not adversely affect the public infrastructure. {PA0680241.DOC;1/00083.900000/} Conditional Use p. 10 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 8. As noted in the Findings of Fact, as proposed, the project will be served by 1 adequate traffic and stormwater infrastructure. Traffic and stormwater infrastructure 2 will not be adversely affected by the project. There is no evidence in the Record to suggest that other public infrastructure would be adversely affected by the project. 3 ACC 18.64.0400: The proposal will not cause or create a public nuisance. 4 9. As noted in the staff report, the proposal involves a residential use in a S residential zone that expressly authorizes triplexes through a conditional use 6 permitting process. Given these factors, the proposal will not cause or create a public nuisance. 7 DECISION 8 The Hearing Examiner recommends approval of CUP07-0003, subject to the 9 following conditions: 10 1 prier to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall submit for 11 City for review and .approval a landscaping plane for the installation of a five-foot wide Type l:[I landscaping along the eastern and northern property lines that includes 12 vegetation that will grow to at least six feet in height. The substitution of the required shzub and groundcover layers of the Type l17 landscaping of the sod lawn served by 13 an automatic irrigation system per ACC 1s.50.060(E) will not allowed. prior to final .inspection of the triplex, the landscaping shall be completed. Any fencing 14 subsequently added to the property shall require an amendment to this, conditional use 15 permit. 16 ` 2. The design of the proposal shall substantially conform to the site plan 17 Introduced into the record as Exhibit No. 2. Trees shall. also be retained as indicated in the site plan. 18 ! ~`, '~~Dated this ~~~ day of <~~=-_ _ _ , 2007. 19 ~- r 21 ~ "~ ' ~~ Phil Olbrechts 22 City of Auburn Hearing Examiner 23 . 24 25 {PA0680241.DOC;1/00083.900000/} Conditional Use p. 11 Findings, Conclusions and Decision CITY OF_ A~~~RN y WASHINGTON Ex6lbit ®_,..,~ Namber of P~ AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: Public Hearing Application No. CUP07-0003 Date: 10/10/2007 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 u on the Findin s of Fact, Conclusions, and Condition as outlined below. Background Summary: OWNER: GLG Homes, Inc. APPLICANT: Leonard Gazhenko REQUEST: Allow a triplex at 504 H Street NE on property zoned R2, which requires a Conditional Use Permit. LOCATION: The property is located at the southeast corner of H Street NE & 5~h Street NE and is addressed as 504 H Street NE. EXISTING ZONING: R2, Single Family Residential District EXISTING LAND USE: Single family home (to be removed). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential 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: Norman Staff: Borland Meetin Date: October 17, 2007 Item Number: ~-UBZT~N * M(JRE THAN YOV IMAGINED Agenda Subject: Application No. CUP07-0003 Date: 10/10/2007 The Comprehensive Plan designation, zoning designation and land use of the surrounding properties are: Comprehensive Plan Zoning Land Use North Single Family R2, Single Family Single family residential Residential Residential District South Single Family R2, Single Family Single family residential Residential Residential District East Single Family R2, Single Family Single family residential 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, received 8-31-07 Exhibit 2a Site plan (revised), received 10-3-07 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. Leonard Gazhenko has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a triplex at 504 H Street NE in the R2 (Single Family Residential) zone. Pursuant to Auburn City Code (ACC) 18.14.030. F, multiple family dwellings (triplex) may be permitted when a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) has been issued pursuant to ACC 18.64. 2. The site is flat and contains a single family home built in 1941 which is proposed to be removed prior to construction of the triplex. The property is at the southeast corner of the intersection of 5cn Street NE and H Street NE. The triplex would be accessed off of H Street NE via a 12' wide paved driveway. Surrounding development includes an older single family residential neighborhood and institutional uses (church and school). The subject property is located one residential property north of Messiah Lutheran church, which is in the process or expanding and remodeling their facility. Directly south of the church is Auburn High School. The subject property is located one residential property east of the high school football field. On-street parking is available along either side of 5~h and H Street. 4. Per ACC 18.52.020.A.3, the off-street parking requirement for a triplex is based upon the number of bedrooms in the units. Each unit will contain three bedrooms and each will have a 2 stall attached garage, which satisfies this requirement. The site plan indicates there will be paved areas for backing and on-site maneuvering. 5. Landscaping may be required in accordance with a CUP, as stated in ACC 18.50.050.A, Page 2 of 5 Agenda Subject: Application No. CUP07-0003 Date: 10/10/2007 "A. R-R, R-S, LHRS, R-1, LHR1, R-2, LHR2, R-3, and LHR3 Districts. Landscaping shall only be required in conjunction with a conditional use permit. The type and amount to be determined at that time the CUP is approved." As shown on the site plan, a row of shrubs are proposed to be planted along H Street NE, and with the exception of 6 trees to be removed, the remaining existing mature landscaping will be retained. Site distance must be maintained at the driveway entrance and at the street intersection, which means nothing can grow into the triangle between a height of 3 feet and 8 feet. 6. The R2 (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. The proposal is in compliance with these regulations. 8. In accordance with ACC 18.64.030.C, the site plan shall be adopted and made part of the permit. Subsequent building permits and construction activity (including tree removal) shall be in accord with the approved site plan. The site plan is included as Exhibit 2a. 9. The Single Family Residential Comprehensive Plan designation is intended to "designate and protect areas for predominantly single family dwellings. This category includes those areas reserved primarily for single family dwellings. Implementing regulations should provide for an appropriate range of lot sizes and in the highest density of these zones allow, as conditional uses, duplexes and limited multi-family housing." This comprehensive plan designation is implemented via the RS, R1, or R2 Single Family Residential designations. The R2 zone applicable to this site has the potential to be the densest of the three implementing zones (RS, R1, and R2). 10. In the City of Auburn Comprehensive Transportation Plan, both 5th Street NE and H Street NE are classified as local residential streets. 11. The proposed development falls below the SEPA categorical exemption thresholds; therefore, a SEPA checklist and environmental determination are not required for the proposed triplex. 12. Staff conducted a site visit on October 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: 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. Page 3 of 5 Agenda Subject: Application No. CUP07-0003 Date: 10/10/2007 The R2 zone allows for single family residential development permitted outright while a triplex requires review and approval of a conditional use permit. According to King County records the project site is .53 acre (23,116 sq. ft.) in size and contains a residence. The proposed project density will therefore be 5.66 du/ac. Development of the property will involve removal of the residence and construction of the triplex and attached garages, along with the paved driveway and landscaping along H Street NE. A traffic study was not required for the triplex. The site is currently built out with sidewalk, road, curb, and gutter on H Street NE. Since site access will occur to H Street NE, no further transportation improvements are necessary. 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 demolition of the existing residence and construction of the triplex requires a building permit be obtained from the Auburn Permit Center. Staff finds the proposal to be consistent with this criteria. 2. The proposal is in accordance with the goals, policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Chapter 3 (Land Use) of the Comprehensive Plan contains a goal, objective, and policies that directly relates to this proposal. Goal 7 addresses Residential Development and contains the following policies: "LU-12 The City should promote the provision, preservation and maintenance of adequate housing for the city's residents by encouraging a balanced mix of housing types and values appropriate to the income levels and lifestyles of area residents..." (page 3-14, ACP) "LU-14 Residential densities in areas designated for single family residential use should be no greater than 6 units per acre. In areas with good transit availability (1/4 mile or less to a route with at least half hour service). Accessory dwelling units should be permitted to allow increased densities. The bulk of the single family residential community should be developed at a density of between 4 and 6 dwelling units per acre." (page 3-14, ACP) This appears to be a suitable location for a triplex, to act as a transition in intensity between the abutting single family residential uses and nearby more intensive institutional 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). The R2 zone allows multiple family dwellings, provided that 6,000 square feet of lot area is provided for each dwelling unit and is limited to no more than four dwelling units per structure. The applicant is applying fora 3 unit structure, which requires an 18,000 square foot lot. The subject parcel is 23,116 square feet in size, which more than meets the required size. The proposal meets required property line setbacks and includes required parking (2 spaces per unit). Per ACC 18.50.050.A in the R2 zone, landscaping is only required in conjunction with a conditional use permit. The type and amount of landscaping is to be determined at the time the CUP is approved. The applicant has proposed landscaping on the property along H Street NE and a 6' cedar fence along 5'h Street NE. The existing landscaping is mature and staff does not find the need to require landscaping in excess of what is proposed by the applicant. The proposed use meets all Zoning Code standards regarding minimum lot area, setbacks, parking, and landscaping. Page 4 of 5 Agenda Subject: Application No. CUP07-0003 Date: 10/10/2007 Given the 110' length of the east side of the triplex structure, staff recommends the 6' cedar fence proposed for 5th Street NE be extended along the eastern property line in lieu of the existing 4' chain link fence. No signage is proposed at this time for the triplex. If in the future a sign is desired the site will be subject to ACC Section 18.56.040.A. Staff finds the proposal to be consistent with this criteria and recommends the project be conditioned to require a 6' wooden fence be placed along the eastern property line. 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 will involve removal of the existing residence and construction of the triplex and attached garages, along with the paved driveway, landscaping along H Street NE, and installation of the fence along 5th Street NE. The neighborhood already consists of a mix of single family residential development, a large church, and Auburn High School. The triplex units will be two- story. Homes in the immediate vicinity are mostly single story, however along nearby 8th Street NE, north of the subject property, there are two-story residences. 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 negatively affected by the proposal, and permits will be required to ensure city design and construction standards are met. Additionally a traffic study was not required for the triplex and the required number of parking stalls will be provided. 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 residential use in a residential zone. Nearby and adjacent uses include residential housing, a church, and a high school. The triplex should not have an adverse impact on the surrounding developed neighborhood. There is no evidence that the proposal will cause or create a public nuisance. 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 Use Permit with the following condition of approval: 1. In conjunction with construction of the triplex, the developer shall install a 6' wooden fence along the eastern property line. Staff reserves the right to supplement the record of the case to respond to matters and information raised subsequent to the writing of this report. Page 5 of 5 1 L TAEr` ~ K_ tNG__C0. ,_:_._~ r-3 ~ "`$ a dr 3S N~ N Atl € t 3S Atl ONZST N H H146I ZIP SEE 747 ~' ~ ~ ~ M 3S pl ® ~ ~- "t G h 35 rO g ~ ~ A XIKi r^ ~ U I i-` ~ ~ Y ~. ~ 015[ EI ~ ~ ~ ~ AY 15TSt ~ z G ~ m wst ~ a ~ N109i AY H169t G w ~ Z /(L i N 3S h 1n HlbbT ~ .~~ ~~ UETAFL ~ -- ~ Qp N r" gS r ~~~~ r_ ~' 3S AV ~ ~ ,n ~ ~~ ~ i" o S ~ ~ ~~ 3S ld 1SSbT N W M 3S ~~° ~ /O O ~--I Pb++ ~ o Atl H104T M y „ ,~ ~II,r- " _ ~I.-_ ~ ` Atl N £T ~ ~ ~ ' ~~ a i I C, 3S ~ N K 3S Atl H HlL£T W ~ y~( 'fd sP ~T `~'C .,tom ;f~'1,.~ • w' 1 Soon ~A~V W ~ o ~ oYC ! _ ~ ~ 4 krypjv F a ° J a ~ $ -Nan~,~ oN ~ ~ AY ~; ~ kjg G ~ W ~ R N b y rt ~~ s Av £r ~ , N1Ki 'f/` In.c m 3S AY H19 T O ~ i AV ~ ~ C ~ wt 8 d ~ H ~ N N w ~ i ~ - a o r 2 =3S Atl aNZ£T _- - ~ 3=,d 1 ~~ v m2zE1 ~~ ~ ,~ '"~ / 5 w 3S A O NZ£ ~ 3 Atli H10£T ^. h ,~3~ ~ ~ 1~ V SE 6 ~` MM.~ ~ A 35 A 1NNxiy ~ ~ d~ ~ 6 r c'ri~ ti u ~' M ~ ,xmx V /7 ,'~`"sE ~' ~ ~ LLEY ~ . W N ^ 35 ld NlSZI ~ ` ~y~ ~ ~ ARE VA ~ {T~ aoboE j ~y o N I 3S AY H14Z ~ ~;; am ~ ~ ~ ~i~~ . ~ ® ~ ` ~- g ti - m a,a ~ s n x I ~ vrar _ •.. V ~ / M ti x n _ mrt 3 ~ 35 tl AV IS y ° $ ® / r ~, ~ _ - . I _~ / r o' A 1R xtRt m ~ ~ to w .~ ° S~ 2 / ~' / fn3 ~ [, `n ( , I ~ _'-, ~~ I C1 Y. ~ y~» ~: NWI ~ ~ & ~ 0 4~~ 35 c ( i o0026Z I 0020E ~ m -. f ~ € w W ^~ ~. ~ tam ~ ^ . H10ii >d ~ w un < 2 S Sz ~ w ,n td y6t " ( m 3S ( AY'~ ~ H18tt N r~ asE ~ ~.~• ~ Ar ~ $ ~ ': N ' ~ _ ~ .. . aaale `"~ 1 ~. oz~~ ° "V' "' 3S AY IT 41n e xu[ 1s .^.e ... \' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C3..1 N 35 M1V - ~ "~F ~ ' 114T to 5 w ld x!A[i to H n € ld °n Tt J ~ ~ ld Nt511 Z m ~ NLKI ,~ o M N x rn ~ nstt ° ° ~ ri. ~ Z ~ i` k g \ : u+ ~ v °, ~ m ~~~ _ ~ r ~ ~ I ~ '^ s .~+ 35 ~ ~ ~ N Vli E 11 3'. N x ~l .. H H ~ _ ~ AV Nlf[i ,~ 7 T'i NLPjj . . \ ~ -'i" ~ ^ 3S a G ~ zF ~ 3S ld ~ fi b ~ ~ XlEti d ,0. o € W = °, N d /~ '" 2jj V .` „ ~ ~" : - 15 N13 davooP 3'. N 3S "' Atl 1ZTT s4' nxsE ~oo9oc oonE ~ °E AV ,,, 3S °° ~ t, H1atT P ' z ,n .. In u,~ 3S ~ H-{t`t 3S ld r^ . 3S TT ~ ~ ~ ~. ~' g .^, to ~ ~., wort w "r mrtr ld Wt~ J ~02E ° " ~ ' >s G, ~ 3 t s n~ 3s F~ ~A~n`~h ~ x o HIQOTT 3S ~ M1V ,~ wxnimt ~ Hl TS € ~ ~~ ~ > ~ W N r 1 ~~ on ti N ~v H ~ 9 ,n gi ~ ~ ~ ., ~ ~ ~ S) ° ° 7 t $ ~ 3su IuPO~ E wr wbol ~ hr" , ~ r Atl + i N / ' t ' 3S y AY H180I k AV SE _ 3S ld ~T G ~'~~ p 1081H AV LE) I ~ of '` ''S ximi I .>'j. °~ ~.b x x .r Wm ~ H1LOT ~ ~ + ' I f' N G ~ Qdr ro t ~ r S~° NI ~ OREEIl. ---~ ~t , ~SZH $ w ~ AY H1LOT i ~~3S `~' m °~' ~~' p ^ y1pOf` (Y 30I5"3AIN) 1 >>Iy PE e° to rbwu xib ~ d ' g ry i a~ ~ ~ ~ r._ - --~- - t x,nv W/Oi H ~: n- ~ .P 35 j w+ p ~' R 4 ~tVEN ~ OR cv~` € ~ lz n^ I ~ A VI t" , i t•, ' ss a v E ,` ~ o 1,1 1 `~ ~ ~ amt RlVEP a+ V ST NE Ij401 . - i ~' > u ~~ tEl a 3S SE ~. +E~,e nrs, 1 15 ds y, ~ I -J jt 1 ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ `J9' ° I '~' z zia nz W x, AV ~0 102"0 I z t, r^ ~~ ~ ~„ 35 SS ~f ~ . ¢ .. ° 1 W ..~ ti ~ r ~ ~ OOb ~ 1S a 3S N d ' z ~ n to 3x is ~ a4 Oa ~e ( __\ ~ .. .. >~ ti 3N c ~s I ; ~ ~ , ,(~ 9 3,1rb tlE ~~ 3N 15 ~ 3NId t' ~4 l i 4 ,2 p 006 m N is o x = \ ` ~ i~ . _ NOl `,ybf ~ ~ 0~~~ , , , di 1 - N ,tl~ ~'" / . 3N 1S HN . o PL ti, H - _. ~ < 3N 15 0 ~ ~ ~ PIAE °~~°:. __ U ~ m " W N a $ N ff ~n ,,yo • ~ " ~ ~ 15 N OOE ~ ENE ~ N u ~ ooT " aoT 004 ~ 3s as n3navN 3S 3 5 u z d• '/_.: i~ ` ~\~ ~~; z. ` A 3N ' ~ €: N 3N lS z x m ~ (~ ~ z z o0 , „ ~• W u 3S 1 l ~G~ ~ ~~ _ _u 35'54 lw ~ "' `~ 4l m • N T': &' m w pE ¢ z i , ~ o i _ 3N 1 S " ,,, w z z ~- N in w z C H ~{ ~ ~ ~ N '^"®~•, i3 iy 15 35 15 $ r-I 3S 1S o ` 1 ~ A E i z w __~ A z 311 u '•~ i 1S l 15 l Ci ~ °fl 3 1S w 3N 1S wit ~ ~ 3S 1 1f N ~ H ~ ~ N„ ~x w N v. m.~~~ r ~ 35 1S C ® ~ 3N 15 A m 3x u r ~ z 15" c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~" P z 3N 3 1S C 351N C `y 3 ar ` N 3S 15 t ~ rn ... G ~ ` s u ux ~ m .. r .°. ~ OOb y ~~ 1-+ 3S 1S ~ ~^ 3w 15 iN ~ 3N 1~ r PJ~ r ~ ~ 35 1S O ~ N W w 15 1 3N 1S 1° ~ T = 3N 1S ~ ~ 009t•+ [ z ,~ 1. ~ ., $ g ~ -_.,.~~ ~ E.1 3515 0 ~ 35 15 °' ,s~ i ~W x 3S 15 j i 3515 G m ®~ ~-' g w i 0092 ~ 1 Naf19(1V Z 3N ; Abo i ~s~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~ vp 3s is 3 Sr NE ^ 1$ 3 Z: ~ ~ m !o ~ 3s u 3 ~ X i ~~+p ^ ~ ~ ti m N ~ ~' 3N 1S 3 N ~ ~ r . ~ ~ -_ 3N 15 3 35 s~~ i ,d. `:-~ N 5~ a 3S N S 0 35 1S„ 3S » ~ 35. 0 13 N~ S1 SE v~ l z M ~ _---- 3N 1S 3 4 3N 15 ~ 0 ~ ~ b' ~t d p.~ U ~ N OOT ~ W ~ ~ u) 3s Tex 2 G t^ G ~ r')G T H 3N 1S 3 ~{ $ ~ 3N 0- - ~ d z ~ 3y'~ ~ G ®$3515 B v Y ~ 35 ~ ~ ~ 15 r ~ e s ~ °o 7u IS ~ - n ,., ,. ~ r' ~ s " 3S b ~^a ~ € 3N .rr ~ 8 ~ .'t o_ r _ _ - - ~ Leonazd Gazhenko GLG Homes, Inc. ~~~ 3702 W Valley Hwy, Ste 102 Auburn, WA 98001 ~,~_I(; ~ ~ 2Q07 August 28~', 2007 ~t.,4~iR~I~S~ ~cP~~~~~~~ RE: GLG Homes Conditional Use Permit To Whom It May Concern: The application submitted is a request to allow construction of a triplex on properly which is zoned primarily for single family use. Per the requirements of the Conditional Use Permit Application, this narrative documents the manner in which the proposal meets the requirements of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The subject property is 23,116 squaze feet. The zoning for the property is R-2, which permits lots as small as 6,000 square feet. The subject property is located in an older downtown neighborhood and the structure currently on site was built in 1941. Given the size of the property and the desire for higher density development in older neighborhoods, three dwelling units on this site is quite similaz to three dwelling units on separate sites. The Comprehensive Plan states that "Its provision for multifamily development as a conditional use makes redevelopment of these older azeas possible if they begin to degrade. Application of this zone should be considered for areas considered appropriate for a mix of housing types..." The neighborhood is a mix of single and multifamily homes, churches, offices, schools, etc. Within a block of the subject property are single family homes, one large church, and a six unit multifamily structure. Just beyond the one block radius are more multifamily structures, offices and Auburn High School. The proposed design of the triplex is of a high quality that will compliment the neighborhood, rather than be of any adverse effect. The units aze two story, three bedroom, two and a half bath homes, of more than 2,000 square feet each. The developer is providing anover-sized two caz garage for each unit which serves as separation between the units, giving the project a "single family feel". As a result of our research, we believe that construction of a triplex of our design to be the highest and best use. of this property. It meets the goals of the Comprehensive Plan for the area and is compatible with the current zoning. The size of the property allows for prime traffic flow and control, access to and circulation within the property. and off street pazki~- and loading. ak CITY OF ._ y WASHINGTON Peter . Lewis, oyor 25 West Main Street * Auburn WA 98001-4998 * www.auburnwa.gov * 253-931-3000 ~a~6ibff ~c~rc2b~r ®f Pages , This is a record of public comment letters received on behalf of the Hearing Examiner for the Gazhenko case: CUP07-0003. These letters were received by the deadline set by Mr. Olbrechts 11/7/2007 before 5:00 p.m. 1. October 29, 2007 2. October 26, 2007 3. November 1, 2007 4. November 3, 2007 5. November 5, 2007 6. November 5, 2007 7. October:24, 2D07 Pat Byrne & Clarence Wells Donald A. Rottle Jennifer Isham Charlie & Candance Maxwell Donald Anderson Loren Libadia Sara Meier Documented by Kirsten Reynolds, Planning Secretary for the City of Auburn AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Ea6ibit ~,. IVa~bs~ of ~a~~~ CLARENCE WELLS PATRICIA BYRNE 634 H Street N.E. Auburn, WA 98002 Home: (253) 833-1454 Cell: (253) 740-4874 Email: bymeunc@comcast.net October 12, 2007 City of Auburn Planning Department 25 W. Main Street Auburn, Washington Planning Department Attn: Stacy Borland ~~~~ OCT .~ ,~ 2t~~i PLANNING DEi~A~RTM~t~T In 1997, my husband and I purchased our home after relocating from California. We feel very fortunate to be part of our H Street N.E. neighborhood and. community. We wonder how many Planning Department staff and. Gity Council. members five in this. neighborhood. Surely if you did you would also be against Application No. CUP07-0003 to provide a conditional use permit to construct a triplex at 504 H Street NE. The property zoned R2, Single Family Residential is accurate and should negate the conditional use permit. We understand the owners of 504 H Street N.E. submitted a comprehensive plan for a conditional use permit to the City of Auburn Planning Department. You and the Planning Department must have evaluated. the plan and decided to move. it forward. If this was an economic-based decision (more tax revenue for the City of Auburn),. it was a shortsighted decision. Allowing a triplex to be constructed at 504 H Street N.E.. wilt result in the following: • Destroy the aesthetics of the property and the neighborhood • Increase traffic flaw on H Street N.E. • Increase the potential for speeding on H Street N.W. which is a constan# hazard to the residents • Decrease the stability of H Street N.E. Due to the soft soil in this area our homes have increased. foundation. problems and interior ccadcs. • Decrease the stability of the sidewalks which desperately need repair • Decrease our property value The H Street N.E. residents have a history of coming together when we feel the need to defend our neighborhood against poor decisions by the City of Auburn management and staff. Our voice is one of aft H Street N.E. and D. Street N.E. residents. We are united in ours#and against constructing a triplex at 504 H Street N.E. Chronological summary of action by H Street N.E. residents: 1. August 23, 1999: Petition submitted to Mayor Charles Booth to request action to reduce speeding on H Street N.E. We were told a reader board would. be installed and the police would monitor the traffic at random. That did not happen. 2. September 19, 2003: Several meetings over the year with The Honorable Pete Lewis resulted in submitting a petition (37 signatures) to the City Council regarding speeding and school bus #raffic. This resulted in adding stripping. to H Street N.E. but the speeding has increased again. The bus traffic was stopped. and at the Mayor's request we document the bus number and inform the Mayor of any bus traffic violations. Respectively, i Pat Byme Ex61-bi~ lb Number of P~ To: Auburn Planning Department 25 West Main Auburn, WA 98001 10/10/07 Re: Proposed Land Use Action, H St NE Rezoning Application N. CUP07-0003 As a home owner at 635 H St NE in Auburn I'm strongly apposed to the approval of the reference rezoning application. In my opinion, the approval of this request will adversely affect the delicate quality of life that currently exists on H St NE and surrounding side streets. H St NE is a small street between 4t" St NE and 8t" St NE, and is currently bordered on the east and northwest side by very larger apartment complex's. These units are generally well maintained but much traffic congestion is generated, parking is at a premium, and trash and litter is a constant eye sore in many instances. My neighbors and I moved into this area because of the attractiveness of the neighborhood, the very well maintained homes, and the appearance that generates a real small town atmosphere in the midst of wide spread urban sprawl. Adding additional multi family dwellings to the neighborhood is not in our neighborhoods best interest but is nothing more than a profit driven venture by the builder and subsequent landlord. I fear that if any more apartment complexes are allowed to be intermingled in our neighbor, the value of our properties will decrease and the attractiveness that previously existed will be lost. The area is already highly congested...Auburn Senior High School borders the street on the south end of H St NE.. 8t" street NE on the north end of the street is a major cross street leading to the Fred Meyer shopping area to the west, and is a very busy thoroughfare for access to Porter Bridge, Green River Community College, and to the Lea Hill area of Auburn. Auburn Memorial Stadium hosts many school and non school athletic events, Messiah Lutheran Church adds to the congestion somewhat on Sundays and during special occasions such as funerals and weddings. Many times the availability of apartments attracts lower income families, and in many cases multi family occupancy, which comes with additional cars, outdoor children's play equipment, yards full of weeds, and yards that are not mowed as necessary. Please, we don't need any more high occupancy areas on/near H St NEB ~~~~ ~v~`1~,~ Donald W. Anderson Phone (253) 939-6428 ~~v~ '1 ~~' r l t~ ? (~ f ~ 7 ~'~.~Ni~4N~ ~EPARTMENI` Ea6ibit ~ ~~~b~~ ~f i~~~~~ :~; ~_ .~~ /a~- it-off ~o N~~~~~~~ ~x~~ ~ N~~ ~~ e f~-~PZiC~}T) Dn, ~ Cup©"?- pct®3 ~. W i l~C. 8 ~ ~ l,cT o~ Ta ~N ©,v '"fiK E N EH-R ~ ~ 1~l~ci'E., ~~~ ~~v~ t~~v~.~ N~~~ sfNC~ 19.9.5., w~EN '~c~Yi~uGf t ~5`z" W ~ G i-t ~S~ ft u t3 U ~ N ~ t3~~.~4~$~ ~~ i TS .LaGAI lb~S ~1.I~D_ 111~IC~k~aQ~laoD SErtf l ~~ ~ ~ Nlct ~-(4M~ri + `(~4RD5~ ~ K 15 'W ©tc 4-D 1~ E.c.2E~5 ~ ~ K 0?'i~ ~ ~' V R ~ u~5 ®~ "tuts. hf~~BtX-~Hc~~ . ~ 14.t~.REfl~~' ~`ttE ~1~~~!c~ ~~f` _ NvN1~_ 15 F'OR_ 51~t~~~ ~ _ _ _ - _ . Ih Y _. IV ~,6~11&!-R~ _ A ~~ l t~Tn__ ~ A~R~~.S~N~ ~'~~i ' V~{~iA~~ CL~N'DSG#t~1~~ ~~vb Non1~ ,A~P~evF/''-r:N7's Qc~RS__ ~ ~ ~_~©o ~~TCa-t~~u A.~D-o n~ ~nt_D ~` ~a,~o $f~T1~~0~M ~~M~~L '~}~ ~. ~~.~' ,~~ TU_ 141'1' T~ 1 i~l„")'~ TC? ~ B u i Zr i ~ ~`1.1tS_ (~~1~~B9R}-1~O~D , ~ i,~~~1T ou~N SRS) )voT !. ~ ~ _.l~SSU~~...'. _-., ~ ~ _tV.~t~N~oR~tooa ~- ~.NvREr-~lu~~,, - - `CH Est Pr~ rVOT co~sD off, '~ ,h ~ it9 i~ -v'C ~ U~~ i~ R ~ 'fi0 rVoT. L~S~, ~5 ~'Ee fA LLY 1 ~ 7'N~ ~wtv~~ cvA,v~'S ~J t~.~ E L.L.J N ~ ~ ~ T S~auL ~ i ~~ nroT ~ 7~N~n~~ivT IYJ~ ~I~I~1f13oR!-f~L~ ~ t3~ ~~~ To ~-- U~ ,~. FaR c~~~?©L ~t~va,. i~ot,~ ~ou,L~ ~{ou ~ tk~ T~ is T~'1 ~i~x ~rCG~05~s T}-~~ Si'2~E~ ~R~1 ~ou~ NOI+~~~'' 'l ~ C14N T1-l~ ~ ~ b'F ~ n ~.~,~se~ty . T 1-[A i T~tS ~t LL ~_~N~.~~T N1~' 4U~1~H~oRl~©~~. RESP~t-r~~,c~c,Y + ~~I~ ~~.~, . ~U i L.S_ FA~r.RC.u'v~ __ _ - - _ 1v1~5 fi `~_~8oi~~H ~t?~~i~-Rt-c~ND 80~ S }" St. ~~, ~~~~.R~ t~~• ~N; 253.-$a~_~~38' f °e$O~~ Exhibit ~~ ~~~mt~r° crf E~~ CLARENCE WELLS PATRICIA BYRNE '634 H Street N.E. Aubum, WA 98002 Home: (253) 833-1454 Cell: (253) 740-4874 Email: bymeunc@comcast.net October 12, 2007 City of Aubum Planning Department 25 W. Main Street Aubum,. Washington Planning. Department Attn: Stacy Borland ~~~~~ C~CT I ~ Z~t~~ PLANNf NG QEPARTM~~1T In 1997, my husband and 1 purchased our. home after relocating from California. We feet very fortunate to be part of our H Street N.E. neighborhood and community. We wonder how many Planning Department staff and Gity Council. members live in this neighbofiood. Surely if you did you would also be against Application No. CUP07-0003 to provide a conditional use permit to construct a triplex at 504 H Street NE. The property zoned R2, Single Family Residential is accurate and should negate the conditional use permit. We understand the owners of 504 H Street N.E. submitted a comprehensive plan. for a conditional use permit to the City of Aubum Planning Department. You and the Planning Department must have evaluated the plan and decided to move it forward. If this was an economic-based decision (more tax revenue for the City of Aubum),. it was a shortsighted decision. Allowing. a triplex to be constructed at 504 H Street N.E. will result in the following: • Destroy the aesthetics of the property and the neighborhood • Increase traffic flow on H Street N.E. • Increase the potential for speeding on H Street N.W. which is a constant hazard to-the residents • Decrease the stability of H Street N.E. Due tothe soft soil in this area our homes have increased founds#ion problems and interior cracks.. • Decrease the stability of the sidewalks which desperately need repair • Decrease our property value The H Street N.E. residents have a history of coming. together when we feel the need to de€end our neighborhood against poor decisions by the City of Auburn management and staff. Our voice is one of all H Street N.E. and D. Street N.E. residents. We are united in our stand against constructing a triplex at 504 H Street N.E. Chronological summary of action by H Street N.E. residents: 1. August 23, 1999: Petition. submitted to Mayor Charles Booth to request action to reduce speeding on H Street N.E. We were told a reader board would be installed and the police would monitor the traffic at random. That did not happen. 2. September 19, 2003: Several meetings over the year with The Honorable Pete Lewis resulted in submitting a petition (37 signatures) to the City Council regarding speeding and school bus traffic. This resulted in adding stripping. to H Street N.E. but the speeding has increased again. The bus traffic was stopped and at the Mayor's request we document the bus number and inform the Mayor of any bus traffic violations. Respectively, '~~ Pat Byme October 12th, 2007 Sara A. Meier, CPH Kyle B. Meier 803 5~' St NE Auburn, WA 98002 saraannmeier(a~ comcast. net 253-931-5361 ~~hnbl~ 1 J Piunnber ®f P~~ Steve Pilcher, Development Services Coordinator Planning, Building and Community 25 West Main Street Auburn, WA 98001 PPiccher o,auburnwa. Gov 253-804-3111 Dear Mr. Pilcher, We are writing you to voice our concerns regarding the proposed triplex to be located at 504 H Street NE, Application No. CUPO7-0003. We believe that the following issues should be discussed in further detail: Storm water drainage system on H Street NE, parking, proposed fence, and character of the neighborhood. The storm water drainage system, as it currently exists along the entire length of H Street NE and 5~' Street NE, does not do a proper job of draining the existing levels of storm water away after a rain. The street floods a great deal on the corner of H and 5~` Street NE, and after a particularly hard rain (even for a short duration) we experience what we call `The Lake'. Drainage of standing water can take the better part of a day after the rain has subsided. We have photos of the drainage issues on the corner if you are interested. We are concerned with the storm water drainage issue in itself and particularly concerned that a large structure, such as the triplex will only add an immense amount of runoff. The proposed structure alone will more than triple the current structures footprint of impervious surface area. Additionally three two car garages and a twelve foot wide paved driveway will only add to the impervious surface and drainage problem. If much of the existing vegetation is removed, in particular the large trees, we fear that the two streets will be flooded deeper and for longer durations. The existing shrubs, trees, groundcover, and gravel driveway are permeable surfaces that help deal with the rainwater, most all will be lost with the development of the lot. If the structure is built as planned some method of storm water mitigation is necessary and should be provided by the developer. Parking is at a premium on our streets as many of the driveways and garages are small. When'the high school has a function (e.g. a football game) it is impossible to find a space on the streets. When school is in session it can also be difficult. When the Lutheran Church holds services or an event the parking overflows their lot. If each unit has two to three cars that will add to the pazking dilemma as most people do not park in their garages and use them instead for extra storage. The simple twelve foot wide driveway will not accommodate six (plus) cars and they will overflow the lot. A six foot cedar fence is proposed to run the North and East side of the property. The front of our home directly faces the proposed North fence. The fence is a good idea as we do not wish to look at a large, out of scale structure and three families coming and going from our front window. However, we are concerned with this as it will act as a large billboard for our already out of control graffiti problem. We have many photos of the graffiti in our neighborhood, on fences, light poles and mailboxes. One resident had their gazage door, and another had their fence spray painted with graffiti recently. The chazacter of the neighborhood can be described as quaint, cozy and cottage like. Whatever structure(s) to be built on the lot in question should fit in with the chazacter of the neighborhood and not detract from it. We purchased an older home in an older neighborhood for the charm, privacy, and community, and so that we would not have to live next to a huge box like structure. We have photos of all of the homes on H Street NE and Sa' Street NE if you would like them for reference. Although there is an older duplex on Sa` Street NE, and an older small apartment building on H Street NE, the neighborhood is zoned single family residential. There are numerous multi-family dwellings in Auburn, not to mention many condos for sale on Lea Hill. The downtown area neighborhoods do not need to be transformed from a community of neighbors to high density living where everyone hides indoors because there is no longer any outdoor space. Thank you for taking the time to read our concerns. If you have any questions or would like us to send you pictures (digital), you can reach us at the above contact information. Regards, ~ ~~~ Saza A. Meier, CPH Kyle B. Meier 0 0 N t c"O O O 0 ao rn E .c w Z N O C N C C O 0. tll d H .. s 'a~ c~ a~ L ++ L O U 'O ~ II ,O _ C m O ~ °~ °~ ~ ~. m m m m m m N ~ c c c 0 0 0 ~ U 0 >, >, o c C C ~ o ~ O O O ~ .a ~ "cp 'c6 'cp tfl~rOl~m ~ L U U V NNrstrN N N - N O ~ .G .O ~N+O.. W t~Q W ~ ~+_L+~ ~M- c000s~Y ~..y...~.. co v1 N OiAONOODO ~O~i O "~<MtnO AO tU0 O O OL Z to M d' ~ ~' ~ •~ N m r ~p r r sr ~ N ~ vL- ~ ~ cC N fl- O G. ~ ~ O ca Q ~ ~ ~ O ~ :N :~ Q U ~ h .O C C O N N ~ N ~ N Q 'C ~ O ~ t0 _ ~ t0 ~ ~ ~ fl. ~ C L O W fl. O_ L O ~ j ~ ~ E ~ U ~ fl. fl. Z~~~O~~na~o~Ec~cco `~~ aoiaoi o"-' asvocami-~• ~-o~o~~acnN~oyao.~rn ~Q wca m ~ a~ a~ ~ E ~ ~ ~ L ~ a~ ~'~ a~ ~ ~ inac°na¢QCi~aaci~¢ci¢ cia vv a~ a L ~ ~ m CA ~ ~ .Q ~ 7 fl. N 0 0 0 0 °~ °~ U~ ^S' a~ U Q, y"' L Q~ A c N u, a~~~ ~~ E ~» ~~~ °' ~~U c ~ o cv ~~ N J N tV ~~~ N t+-A N N C O O N O O N U 0~ m m Z d 0 0 0 X~~ LL C9 Q U J Q= J r r r r r r st M r r N r N r M '~' r~ r N C O 7 O V 'a C 0 C7 w C C a v m ~ °n °a . ~s . s t w ~ ~ 'm c 'a~ c w w o ~ a ~ ~ ` ~ 0 0 ~ L ~ 0 0 s 0 0 " p ~ 0 ~" C W a 'p C~ O O N~ ~ L C O O ~Q W~ 0 0 ~ O~ O N ZZ Z~ mfn .n(AnZ ~ c a~ t v ~_ c ~, ~ E o EE ~ ~ °E~ °' Z ~ °-~ o °- ~ ~ N a i > U~ N 'L ~ C~ C. O Q U U 'w 4_- U ~ ~ ~ ~ O O ~ ~d U F n2 W~ ~ - >~ f 3 3 0 O ~~ `~ m O 3 .-. .~ C N O m 7 N ~ _ -p O C ~ C C C '^ V/ ~ L Q) ~ ~ E >, ~ :c O~ O OV- E~ ... ~ v- c ~' C t N E ~' ~'O O U o3 O ~ ` 3v c c .-.... ~- v ~ ~ c ~ ~~ Utn •L? ~~ ic o a aU ~c i a ='SQO c~ r~ + ~ .- L .r c O ~ Q Q. ~ ca L +' ~ ~ cv fl.. iii n rn ~ 7 7 ~ ~ ,,0,, to (n O U U ~ O O Z L c~ cM ~ v Z 1- H ~i~~~~ , ~1HII~l~e~° ~~ Stacey Borland From: David Osaki Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 2:05 PM To: Stacey Borland Cc: Kirsten Reynolds; Cindy Baker; Steven Pitcher; Jeff Dixon Subject:. Fw: Conditional Use Permit fora Triplex at 504 H Street NE Stacey, For the record/public hearing tonight. Please reply to me so that I know you received this email. Then also reply to Mr. and Ms. Meier letting ,them know their email will be provided to the Hearing Examiner. Thanks. David Osaki -----Original Message----- From: gmeier@ritehite.com <gmeier@ritehite.com> To: David Osaki Sent: Wed Oct 17 13:55:27 2007 Subject: Conditional Use Permit for a Triplex at 504 H Street NE As an 18 year resident of the area near this property I am concerned about. the proposal to grant this Conditional Use Permit. There are so many apartments and condominiums. in Auburn I don't see why these should be allowed in an area that is zoned R-2 and is a very stable, established neighborhood. This particular piece of property is a beautiful lot with mature trees and plants that contributes greatly to the overall appearance of the street. I have to question what the impact is going to be of covering the majority of the land on the lot with buildings and driveways since right now there is only one home which is set back from the street and has a gravel driveway. I know of two multifamily. dwellings in the nearby vicinity but they have both been there for many years and are on large lots with plenty of open area. Parking on both H and 5th Streets can be extremely full during school and/or church activities and I question where any. visitors to this new triplex would park. While I understand that we cannot stop .progress and change is inevitable I don't think that it is in the best overall interest of our area to grant this request. Sincerely, Bruce and Gail Meier 653 I Place NE Auburn, WA 98002 (253) 735-0557 1 c' 3~~.,. °` ~~,~ Nu~t~a° ®f 1'a Residents of H Street N.E. and 5~' Street NE, Auburn, WA Petition: Against Application No. CUP07-0003 October 2007 As residents of H Street N.E. and 5th Street N.E., Aubum, WA, we submit this petition to disapprove the Conditional Use Permit for a triplex at 504 H Street N.E on property zoned R2, Single Family Residential. Reasons for disapproval: • H Street N.E and 5~' Street N.E. is asingle-family neighborhood • Traffic already at high volume • Drivers repeatedly speed and race side by side • Speeding vehicles create a hazardous neighborhood ~ Residence at 504 H Street N.E has been part of the neighborhood for 50 + years • Poorly maintained streets and sidewalks • Poor drainage system • Quality of life in our neighborhood • Stability of the community and potential- increase of 18 more residents and vehicles l/ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~•• ~~~ ~ ~_ `: 1.Jc.~QJ - ~~ ~~~~1~j,o,~ ~p 3 s ~ s"r ~ ~ ~ ~" lei-.~.~_ ~~rV W ~ q8o~ ~t~-'i - o~l .,rte ~ t ~~ ~- 1 ~' ~~~ti ~pj-f~G u~ f~ ~V I ~S F,/}G ~R (, ~ ~d ? S~ St N ~ ~ o - q . 0 7 De6oR~F{ Fi~~~l,c~ qos sls S~ N,~' ~ ~o -~ 0 7 jr~.~~ GJ/~ g~A02 f¢v U ~rLL~~i l~rl'~ ~~S ''J~ ~T 'V~ {~~.bKm, W~ q~~OZ ~~ ~ ~ 0~ f. ~~~ . ~ ~ /9 la 7 ~U~a~' ~d ~~I - ~ ~"N ~ ~ °/9~a ? ~~• ~. - ~\ ~'O~ 6 ~ `~(~ .sc~ ~b`~ ~~ f ~ f\ ~. ~~ 02~`~ ~ /2.~ ca 1,,~ r9 T~ o cti1 ~~ vas anti ~ c.-~ ~ ~ ~ ag ~ ~QoZ ~~ (,j / ~ g~~ ~ 1 ~an~ ~ ~a-~ ~ ~ Z~ H-s7~ ~. ~ ~ r ~ /~u~r~ W~; ~~ ~ b ~ ~ ~ 2~ ~t ~~- t`I , ~ ~ d 5 ~~~M ~J~- ~~~ b7 ll ` ~ Ca ~ t ~-~ ~~' ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ie--_ "~~-'1-'~ ~~-~C" ~1 ~- ~ ~1 ~~~ ~~'~-11-~~"n , ~Jl~~ ~~ G~' ~ ~v ,yr sr iJ~ ~a ~ e~ ,q v,6 v I~~ ~~ o~ ~ x u •.• - ~~ J vin LUa- ~~~~ ~ ~. - ~ ~~9 9~~~~ ~~~?~ 6 ~o ~ -~f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 67 ~w ~~fS L ~~ ~~~~ 73~ s~ ~. ~- 1 ~~ P' a ~~ ~u~r~ ~¢ ~8~ o~.~~~~ ~3~ ~`~ . ~~~ /a~~` o~ ~,~~~ 1~a~e~r- rya ~ st N~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~u~bwr , c~ ~ of $ ~Z ~~~ ~ ~~ ~~la~.c,G( (,t ~ ~ ~sr '~ . a 1~~5~7 ~ ~,,~,J ~1 /~ 9~ ~~• - ~. - ~~ ~,3~0~1 ~. ~ qas'~ ~ ~., ~ o ~ l~o~a 7 n ~D4 b4 `n , W ~. ~$ao ~~`~- ~~~.-~'~°'~- ~ 3 a ~-~ s~ ~~ /a~~~~ G~-~"~J ~r/~. ~~a ~ z. t~~ +~ ~ n~ U ~~`r~~ ~~ `~ ~pa- e ~ Y1 50/ ~~.~~ ~n ~ a 7 ~~~~r~ Gc% ~I~a n~~~,e-S ~ b ~ ~ ~-~l~t~~-- v~1,~- ° ~D ~ !D t~ t~7 C~ I - C~b (ice Me-f ~ ~5~ ~ ~~-'~ . to ~ pt~~.e~.- ~, w ~4 ~~~ t n l ~3~~ ~ ~~l~ts - ~ ~3 s~ ~ Ib 1~ 07 ~ ~ f~/ 1 -~ ~ ~~2 ~ o nn 2. 1-~cohwq~/ ~ ~a8 '~~~ ~~ ~/ Io I ~'f ~~7 ~ylc. ~ti Soy s~ srN~ ~d~i~1~~~ '~ean~.-~ ~~~n 5~5 ~- sr ~~. ~o _~~07 }~,v~ ~,b~5c~ 5oa ~1 St N~ ~o~iyla, ., u..l~ ~ t~t~5e v~ 5 o a H Sr ~ ~ ~ o~~~l ~ o-i ~vrP-1,~,~~q `i~l I~ ~ ~l~ ib~~y/d7 ~,A~„ ~, U-- ~ qoe 5~'' ~t~ ~R ~0~~~07 I ~ °1o3-S~sT r~~ ~oli4~~~ has. 9~Sf ~. ~ . ~~ y~_a 1, ~~Il ~ls~ ~ ~ ~0-l~ 7 CLARENCE WELLS PATRICIA BYRNE 634 H Street N.E. Auburn, WA 98002 Home: (253) 833-1454 Cell: (253) 740-4874 Email: byrneunc@comcast.net October 29, 2007 uaabe~ of P ~EI~'EC~ 0 C i 3 CD 2007 City of Auburn Planning Department 25 W. Main Street Auburn, Washington Planning Department Attn: Stacy Borland PLANNING DEPARTMENT I submitted a letter to you dated October 12, 2007. I submitted another letter dated October 17, 2007 to correct an error highlighted below (D Street N.E. to 5"' Street N.E.) Please verify the Hearing Examiner and the City Council has the corrected version dated October 17, 2007. I am enclosing another copy if needed. Corrected verbiage: Our voice is one of all H Street N.E. and 5th Street N.E. residents. We are united in our stand against constructing a triplex at 504 H Street N.E. I very concerned about the impact a multiplex would have on our neighbofiood. Our storm and sewer drainage system is insufficient for the curren# residents. What will happen with potentially 18 more residents? The table below illustrates the potential occupancy growth. 504 H Street N.E. Tri lex Occu anc Table Bedroom 1 1 2 2 2 Bedroom 2 1 1 2 2 Bedroom 3 1 1 1 2 Total Occu nts 9 12 15 18 This type of growth is better suited in an area designed for growth. I believe a triplex at 504 H Street N.E. is the first step in destroying our single-family neighbofiood. Respectively, Pat Byrne CLARENCE WELLS PATRICIA BYRNE 634 H Street N.E. Aubum, WA 98002 Home: (253) 833-1454 Cell: (253) 740-4874 Email: bymeunc@comcast.net October 17, 2007 City of Aubum Planning Department 25 W. Main Street Aubum, Washington Planning Department Attn: Stacy Borland In 1997, my husband and I purchased our home after relocating from California. We feel very fortunate to be part of our H Street N.E. neighbofiood and community. We wonder how many Planning Department staff and City Council members live in this neighbofiood. Surely if you did you would also be against Application No. CUP07-0003 to provide a Conditional Use Permit to construct a triplex at 504 H Street NE. The property zoned R2, Single Family Residential is accurate and should negate the Conditional Use Permit. We understand the owners of 504 H Street N.E. submitted a comprehensive plan for a Conditional Use Permit to the City of Aubum Planning Department. You and the Planning Department must have evaluated the plan and decided to move it forward. If this was an economio-based decision (more tax revenue for the City of Auburn), it was a shortsighted decision. Allowing a triplex to be constructed. at 504 H Street N.E. will result in the following: • Destroy the aesthetics of the property and the neighbofiood • Increase traffic flow on H Street N.E. • Increase the potential for speeding on H Street N.W. which is a constant hazard to the residents • Decrease the stability of H Street N.E. Due to the soft soil in this area our homes have increased foundation problems and interior cracks. • Decrease the stability of the sidewalks which desperately need repair • Decrease our property value The H Street N.E. residents have a history of coming together when we feel the need to defend our neighborhood against poor decisions by the City of Aubum management and staff. Our voice is one of all H Street N.E. and 5th Street N.E. residents. We are united in our stand against constructing a triplex at 504 H Street N.E. Chronological summary of action by H Street N.E. residents: 1. August 23, 1999: Petition submitted to Mayor Charles Booth to request action to reduce speeding on H Street N.E. We were told a reader board would be installed and the police would monitor the traffic at random. That did not happen. 2. September 19, 2003: Several meetings over the year with The Honorable Pete Lewis resulted in submitting a petition (37 signatures) to the City Council regarding speeding and school bus traffic. This resulted in adding stripping to H Street N.E. but the speeding has increased again. The bus- traffic was stopped and at the Mayor's request we document the bus number and inform the Mayor of any bus traffic violations. Respectively, Pat Byme ~~~~~ i~1~~ar ~~ ~~~. firT 3 12007 PLANN1~iG DEPARtM- Dear Members of Planning Dept. Donald A. Rottle 911 5~' NE Auburn, WA 98002 October 26, 2007 Re: Hearing examiner Oct 17 I am opposed to the conditional use permit planned for 504 H street NE The building does not meet the standard of the surrounding houses and constitutes Spot Zoning. We never received an answer whether this building constitutes condominiums or multiple housing on a relatively small lot, violating the R2 zoning and if these units will be owned by absentee landlords. Why can this builder who is not an Auburn citizen get special dispensation. Staff never explained what the statutes are ,staff relied on, which the builder has to comply with. I believe traffic studies and storm and sewer drainage studies have not been performed. Sincerely ~~~u~ Donald A. Rottle P~ ~ ~~ ~~, ~ . ~.~,' Dear Mr. Olbrecht, November 1, 2007 ~ ~ ~~~ I would like to thank you for the fair and equitable manner in which you conducted the October 17th hearing examiner's meeting. I especially appreciate your extra time and effort you showed by visiting the proposed site of the triplex in our North Auburn neighborhood. As a lifelong Auburn resident, and a resident of this very neighborhood all of my early life and my recent adult life, it is with much sadness that I see the influx of apartments, multiplexes and condominiums into older established neighborhoods. But such is progress, and I am certain my neighbors' and my emotional disappointment are not grounds for preventing the spread of that to our street. However, there are several legitimate concerns brought up at our meeting worth reexamining. 1) The storm drain problem was presented with outstanding clarity and documentation by our neighbors Kyle and Sara Meier. The board did respond to this problem, although I was not entirely convinced that the drain system intended to meet the needs of the proposed triplex will be adequate. Perhaps further investigation would be advantageous. 2) It is obvious that the board did not understand the sign'rficance of the traffic ooncem. Parking, congestion and. vision clearance at the corner of Fifth and H St NE are imperative issues which were not properly addressed. I do not know what a LOS B (?) study is, (a type of traffic study referenced at the meeting), but just for fun, maybe we ought to get one. 3) Finally, please consider what the real purpose and meaning of a "conditional use permit" is. Doesn't the very term imply that unique conditions exist making what might otherwise seem like a bad idea, indeed a worthwhile operation? I ask you to evaluate the conditions in this situation, and if they truly do merit exception. Can you in good conscience recommend allowing this building to be built? For me, the answer is obvious. Thank you for your time. Jennifer Isham 905 5th St NE Auburn, WA 98002 253-804-4406 Eshibft ~ I Number of Pages 2-' -. From: Loren Libadia 631 H St. NE Auburn, WA 98002 To: City of Auburn Hearing Examiner Planning Commission ~~~~~ ~ '2007 PLANNING DEPARTMEl~'t My name is Loren Libadia. I live at 631 H St. NE in Auburn. I am opposed to building the proposed triplex on the corner of Sa' St. NE and H St. NE in my neighborhood for the following reasons: 1. As you drive down H Stree Northeast you would see many single family homes that are owned by well established families whose children have gone through the Auburn School System. The homes along this road aze nice homes with well manicured yards. You often see the neighbors out during the weekends working in their yards. Many of the owners of these single family homes aze retired. A triplex in this neighborhood does not fit in with many of the homes in the area. 2. There are already many multifamily dwellings in our azea. There is the Park Terrace Apartments to the west of H St. NE., apartments to the south of me near Auburn High School, aprtment buildings to the east of H St. NE on I St: NE. and there aze also more apartments on 8a' Street NE. We do not need another multifamily dwelling in this neighborhood. Building a triplex in this area will lower our property values as well as increase the possibility of vandalism and crime in the neighbarhood. Low income families tend to move into such dwellings. Many times more than one family move into a single residence creating more traffic and parking congestion. These families usually da not stay long and don't take an interest in caring for their yards or their Names. When you consider the density of the people living in the area due to the many multifamily dwellings in this area, the population in this neighborhood is one ofthe highest in Auburn.. 3. Vandalism and crime in this neighborhood is of great concern to me. Since I have lived in my home on H St. NE, I have had my motorhome broke into, the tires of my motorhome slashed, the top to my convertible car sliced open in an attempt to steal it, and just this last summer after coming home from a camping vacation, I discovered that my house was broken irrto, my computer and digital camera gone as well as my car stolen. Ail or most of this vandalism and crime directly points to the multifamily apartments in this area., particularly the Park Terrace Apts. In behind me. Building another multifamily dwelling in the area that attracts lower economic families will not help towards lowering this problem of vandalism and malicsious crime in the area. 4. The storm drainage in this area is of concern: As you look down H St. NE after a heavy rain you will see the storm dazainage system does not handle the buildup of water on the streets now. In from of my home the level of water on the street is up to the top of the curb on the street after a thunder storm. I have had people park in from of my house a few days after a rain storm during holdays and have been unable to get out of their car because the storm drain is higher that the level of the street. The garbage truck workers will often refuse to wade through the mini-lake in from of my home to empty the garbage containers. If they do empty it, they will throw the garbage containers into the water so I have to wade out to retrieve them when I get home from work. Building a triplex in this area will overload the already taxed the drainage system that can't handle the existing storm water now. I urge you to put yourself in our place. How would you feel if a triplex was to built right next door to you. Please do not recommend approval of this triplex proposal. .Sincerely, A concerned citizen of Auburn ,.... (~`~-. 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 ~ ~ ~ Number ~~ BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF AUBURN Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner RE: Leonard Gazhenko Order on Reconsideration Conditional Use Permit CUP07-0003 The City of Auburn received a timely Request for Reconsideration from 41 property owners for the above-referenced case on December 17, 2007. The request asserts that the Findings of Fact did not address all the concerns raised by project opponents. The Request does not provide any examples of concerns that were not addressed, and the Examiner could not find anything that could be further mitigated or that would justify project denial. The project has been mitigated to the maximum extent allowed under the Auburn City Code and applicable state and federal constitutional provisions. There was some excellent testimony presented on the trees that would be lost as a result of the project. However, none of those trees are specifically protected by the Auburn City Code. The broad criteria for a conditional use permit provide no notice that atwenty-year-old dogwood is to be protected as opposed to an eighteen-year-old dogwood. As discussed in Conclusion of Law No. 7, permit applicants must be able to anticipate what they are allowed to do with their property by reading the Code. There is nothing within the Code that provides any meaningful guidance on what type of vegetation must be retained. Further, constitutional due process and takings provisions would not allow the City to prevent development solely in order to protect trees that are not endangered as a species. The most that one could ascertain from the Code criteria is that the character of the vicinity is "park-like" and that trees surrounding the development should be retained in order be harmonious with that character, as required by ACC 18.64.040(D). As to parking and traffic, the project meets City parking and traffic standards. There is nothing to suggest that there is something unique about the neighborhood that would render these standards insufficient. In this context the Examiner must defer to the legislative finding of the Council that is embodied in its adoption of parking and traffic standards. School events may occasionally create unusual parking and traffic conditions, but these conditions do not merit additional parking and traffic mitigation. There were some comments about existing stormwater problems. Auburn cannot constitutionally require the applicant to fix existing problems. The additional stormwater generated by the project is addressed in Finding of Fact No. 5(A). { PA06835~~.DOC;1 /00083.900000/ } Reconsideration Order p. 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 r3~~~o~ic~ she is~u~s ~ibo~~~. ~~~~ Examiner ~, h~ud-{~rc,~cd to thiill: of <it7~thin« ~~~~,, ii,e public would like addressed since the Request for Reconsideration provides no specific guidance. The Examiner appreciates the significance of the large number of persons who have expressed concern about this project. However, in project review, the City is legally required to limit its consideration to the application of pertinent Code criteria. The number of people in opposition to a project is helpful in assessing the scope and severity of adverse impacts as they relate to Code criteria, but beyond this the courts do not find the size of the crowd relevant. The Auburn City Council has already made the legislative decision to allow multi-family development in the R2 Zone as a conditional use. That can always be revisited by the public in amendments to the Auburn Zoning Code where the political pressure of a large crowd can make a difference. However, the wisdom of the R2 zoning standards and limitations cannot be revisited during permit review. The Examiner is bound by the Code criteria, and as noted previously, the project has been conditioned as much as the Code criteria allow. Decision The Decision in this case is affirmed. Dated this day of ~ -> - y ~~~~ > ~.- ~, -2008. ,; _~~__ ~; - Phil Olbrechts City of Auburn Hearing Examiner { PA0683555. DOC;1l00083.900000/ } Reconsideration Order p. 2