HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-21-2002HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES MAY 21,200?
The meeting of the Auburn Hearing Examiner was held on May 21, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. in the
Council Chambers of the Auburn City Hall. Those in attendance were as follows:
HEARING EXAMINER: Diane L. VanDerbeek
STAFF: Paul Krauss, David Osaki, Jeff Dixon, Sean Martin, Joe Welsh, Mike Fuess, and
Patti Zook
Ms. VanDerbeek called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. She explained the procedures for the
two public hearing items and swore in staff and those in the audience intending on testifying.
The decisions on the two public hearing items are due Friday, May 31st. The appeal procedures
will be explained later.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. APPLICATION NO. VAR02-0001
Hearing Examiner announced that this case was continued from the April 16 meeting in order to
allow the applicant to speak.
Community Development Administrator Osaki presented the staff report. Curtiss L. Johnson
has requested a variance to allow an existing deck to encroach into the rear yard setback. The
home is located at 5017 Mill Pond Loop SE. A detailed presentation was done at the last
Hearing Examiner meeting. The deck was built without permits. The criteria for allowing a
variance were reviewed. Staff recommends denial of the variance and removal of the 14 foot by
24 foot addition within 90 days of the date of the decision.
Mr. Johnson passed out an exhibit that he marked as exhibits #1 through #13 to staff and
Hearing Examiner. He apologized for not being able to attend last month's meeting. He
apologized for not getting permits, but did not know the permit process. His exhibit shows
several houses that all have similar or larger decks than his and also encroach into the
setbacks. He is concerned about ability of getting a permit and was told he could apply for the
variance, but would not receive it. He reviewed the pictures and pointed out the size and
location of the decks. These houses all have large decks and he wonders why his request is
being denied.
Hearing Examiner said the problem is that the deck encroaches within the required setback. Mr.
Johnson understands the encroachment issue. He pointed out his exhibits again and showed
which ones have decks that encroach into setbacks. He referred to Finding of Fact 1 and said
that the deck is on the main level of his two story house. He referred to Finding of Fact 3 and
said that the deck is no higher than the first floor level of the house. For Finding of Fact 4, the
back yard is small at 25 feet. He wanted to extend the deck the full width of house and does not
understand why request is being denied. He asked the Hearing Examiner to reconsider the
request. Mr. Johnson showed pictures of his deck and said that the deck is high because the
back yard slopes down.
Hearing Examiner acknowledged receipt of document containing a number of pictures, marked
as Exhibits 1 through 13 and referred, to by Mr. Johnson. The entire document is marked as
Exhibit 2. The case file and staff report are Exhibit 1.
PAGE 1
HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES MAY 21,2002
Community Development Administrator Osaki remarked that the issue is not necessarily the size
of the deck, but its encroachment. It is difficult to determine if the decks shown in Mr. Johnson's
photographs are within the rear or side yard setbacks. Staff still recommends denial of the
variance.
There was no public testimony; therefore, the public hearing was closed.
2. APPLICATION NO. CUP02-0002
Planner Martin presented the staff report. Stobie, Trussler, Clair and Hart have requested a
conditional use permit to allow the retail sale of automobiles at 328 37th Street NW, Suite A
which is in the M2 zoning district. This is a multi-tenant building with a variety of uses. He
reviewed zoning adjacent to the site. The retail portion of the business will not cause any
adverse impacts. The City issued a conditional use permit for retail sales of automobiles west of
this site in 1998 by Ordinance 5213.
Hearing Examiner asked how the City proposes to enforce the condition of vehicles being within
the building. Planner Martin mentioned the code enforcement procedures and that Code
Enforcement Official enforces by visual inspections done periodically. The applicant is also
responsible to observe the conditions.
Bill Kost, 22837 Pacific Highway South, Des Moines, appreciates staff recommending approval
of his request. Under finding of fact 3, he does not believe there should be a limit to the
maximum number of vehicles for sale. This limitation will be a hindrance to his business. Under
Conclusion 1, requirement that vehicles be located within the building, he believes this is an
infringement on his business. Condition 1 covers the same thing. The Zoning Code for M2 says
wholesale vehicles can be stored outside and limiting his business to no outside storage is
against the zoning district. Emerald Downs has cars stored on site and space is rented to store
the cars for auction. The application was required for the retail business. He is not intending to
have a full scale dealership, but will have a few cars available for retail sales. He has been in
business for 25 years and has return customers.
Hearing Examiner asked Mr. Kost to describe his business and he replied that his business is
more wholesale versus retail. He is 75 percent wholesale and amount of vehicles outside is
controlled by parking space outside. He is not displaying 50 or 100 cars.
Hearing Examiner asked about requirement for employee and visitor parking. Mr. Kost replied
that if cars are not outside, people do not know what kind of business he runs.
Lucy Mathews, 328 37th Street NW #B, owns the business, Auburn Car Repair, next door to Mr.
Kost and has been there for over five years. She is not here to complain about the business
going in, but expressed concern about the parking situation. The driveway needs to be kept
clear. There have been wholesale dealers in the past, and a problem was with parked cars.
Delivery trucks frequent her business and others. There will be number of employees and
where will retail customers park.
Planner Martin said the general intent of M2 allows for outdoor storage. Mr. Kost is not being
restricted or precluded from what other M2 businesses can do. He mentioned standards of the
PAGE 2
HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES MAY 21,2002
M2 zone. Creation and use of an outdoor area has to show that it does not render portion of site
unusable that are required for on-site parking or maneuvering. Mr. Kost expressed concern for
his business. Mrs. Matthews also has eight parking spaces and they occasionally obstruct
traffic. It is important that vehicles do not park in front of the mail box or in front of the office.
Delivery vehicles do not park in drive all day. He has been in business since 1972 and is not
intending to do anything he should not.
Hearing Examiner closed the public hearing and will issue the written decision within 10 days.
APPEAL HEARINGS:
Hearing Examiner announced there are four separate appeals relating to the Motorplex project.
She explained the environmental determination process. Only evidence is whether the decision
of the Final Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance was right or wrong. No public
testimony is allowed. She is only permitted to hear the presentations from the Appellants or
presentations from witnesses of the Appellants. Only issues to be heard are whether or not the
decision to not require an ElS is correct or incorrect. There will be no testimony on whether the
project is good or bad; only on the City's alleged incorrect decision. State law sets certain
limitations on appeal hearings and she will let people know if they cannot speak to certain
matters.
Francis "lke" Ikerd asked about providing information that Motorplex does not even exist in the
State of Washington. Hearing Examiner said he can challenge authority of the applicant to
request a permit, but applicant is not on notice of this as your subject.
Hearing Examiner advised that she is required to decide each appeal separately with separate
decisions for each appeal. The Appellants have the legal burden of proof because there is the
legal presumption that Planning Director has made a correct determination. Each Appellant will
present their evidence and then the City will respond. The City will respond only once after all
appeals have been presented.
Hearing Examiner joined for hearing the four appeals, swore in those intending to testify, and
asked Appellants to provide time estimates for their presentations.
1. CASE NO. HAP02-0002
An appeal filed by John Underwood of the
application no. SEP01-0043 - Motorplex.
Planning Director's
environmental decision on
Mark Chavers, 3110 West Lake Sammamish Parkway, Bellevue, Underwood/Chavers
purchased the Parkside East and West retirement facility in 1973 and have been part of the
community for 30 years. The community and Parkside have worked well together. He
expressed concerns about the possibility of an impound lot in their neighborhood because
Motorplex will change the character of their community. One concern is traffic from the project.
Many of Parkside's residents are in wheelchairs and walkers and residents the cross streets and
he is concerned about their safety. He is concerned about the noise of tow trucks working at the
site 24 hours a day. Parkside West is 100 feet away from the site and their residents will be
disturbed by the noise. Another concern is about crime because that type of project attracts
crime. The cars could contain drug paraphernalia. There will be noise from car stereos.
Another concern is the appearance of the project. A six foot high fence with barbed wire will
PAGE 3
HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES MAY 21,2002
look like a prison. Parkside residents deserve the residential community that they have come to
know.
Lisa Suver, 37016 156th Avenue SE, Auburn, is the Facility Administrator at Parkside since
1972. In fact, her mother is a resident at Parkside. The residents will be greatly impacted by the
noise from the Motorplex project. There are also safety issues and noise issues. An article in
the newspaper told about the tow company coming in and told about Motorplex problems in
Maple Valley. This type of project will not be good for their senior community and will have a
devastating effect on Parkside and other residents in the area. Their residents do not want to
live next to Motorplex. She is concerned about the cyclone fence around the project. She is
concerned about noises from the trucks.
Carol Kopp, 815 10th Street NE, is the Activities Director at Parkside and worked there for four
years. Parkside has approximately 160 residents and they are the only retirement home in
Auburn. Parkside is both an assisted living and an independent living facility. She too recently
moved her mother into Parkside. She is concerned about the project's effects on Kindercare
which is also located nearby. Auburn needs to foster children and the elderly equally.
2. CASE NO. HAP02-0003
An appeal filed by Riverpark Homeowners Association of the Planning Director's environmental
decision on application no. SEP01-0043 - Motorplex.
David Brown, 1108 30th Street NE, is President of the Riverpark Estates Homeowners
Association. The Association feels there will be several environmental factors from Motorplex
that will change their neighborhood.
Francis Ikerd, 3028 M Drive NE, contacted the Secretary of State via the internet and was
informed that Motorplex is on inactive status. The corporation was incorporated in 1994 and
their license expired in 1997. The Secretary of State Office advised that Motorplex corporation
license was dissolved administratively on the grounds of failure to renew or failure to complete
initial reports. The dissolution occurred in 1998. He cited RCW 23B.14.200 which speaks to a
corporation doing business without a license is a gross misdemeanor. The Motorplex
application should be denied because the City erred in not seeing that the Motorplex corporation
existed in the State which he was able to discover this in less than three hours. The City has
responsibility to those seeking an action that they are in fact licensed to do business in the
State. Motorplex should start the process all over again when they are properly licensed in the
State. The RCW also states that tow yards with impound lots must have an attendant on duty
24 hours a day. One appeal noted that 'on call' basis and this is a violation. The Motorplex
project will change the makeup of the community and the City failed to take this into
consideration. The City only looked to see if the zoning was appropriate, not if the zoning was
consistent. (Exhibit H2 is information from Secretary of State Office and portions of RCW).
Hearing Examiner marked Mr. Ikerd's exhibit which is copy of information from the Secretary of
State's internet site regarding the corporate status of Motorplex as Exhibit H2. Exhibit H1 is the
appeal file.
Michael Lamb, MAI, 10908 Rainer Avenue South, Lamb, Hanson, Lamp Appraisal Association,
132 South Spokane Street, Seattle, was asked by Riverpark and Parkside to do a presentation
related to the adverse influences and their effect on property values. The slides were prepared
PAGE 4
HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES MAY 2 I, 2002
by the chief appraiser with Washington Mutual and in fact are a training presentation for
appraisers showing how depreciation or external depreciation outside a specific parcel can
affect that parcel's value.
Hearing Examiner asked Mr. Brown to present Mr. Lamb's credentials (Exhibit H3). She asked
Mr. Lamb to provide information regarding the relevancy of his testimony because she must
determine if the testimony is relevant. Is Mr. Lamb going to testify regarding economic loss?
Mr. Brown said that Mr. Lamb's testimony reflects the change of character that will occur to the
neighborhood because of Motorplex project. Hearing Examiner stressed that the State law is
clear that economic loss is not a matter that is considered in making a decisions on the appeal.
Hearing Examiner called for a five minute recess at 8:00 pm to allow Mr. Brown and Mr. Lamb to
confer with their other witnesses and to determine if Mr. Lamb has any relevant testimony. The
meeting was reconvened at 8:05 p.m. Mr. Lamb was excused from testifying.
Robert Baggett, 3103 M Street NE, spoke about the historical significance of undeveloped
property at the corner of Auburn Way North and 30th Street NE and I Street. The lot contains
two monuments erected by the City in 1919 and dedicated to the memory of Lt. Slaughter and
Corporals Berry and Clarendon. The other monument memorializes the Brannan Massacre. In
fact, Council Chambers has a large picture hanging on the wall showing the dedication
ceremony of the monument. Riverpark Estates feels the memorials' importance and
prominence will be further reduced by a 10 foot high fence surrounding the Motorplex site. It is
sad the history of Brannan Prairie and William Slaughter is forgotten, but to have the further
memorial reduced in significance is a shame. He requested that the Motorplex proposal be
denied.
Vern Needham, 3107 L Street NE, received a call informing him about crime at Motorplex's
location in Maple Valley. Maple Valley Police Department was contacted and reported the
following calls to Motorplex's Maple Valley location: 1999 calls included 3 false burglar alarms,
1 suspicious circumstance, 1 stolen vehicle recovered; calls in 2000 included 11 false burglar
alarms, 6 recovered stolen cars, 1 suspicious circumstance, 1 disturbance call, 3 vandalisms, 1
embezzlement, 2 found property, and 2 larcenies; calls in 2001 included 3 false burglar alarms,
1 drug case where meth lab materials were found inside an impounded car, 5 recovered stolen
vehicles, 2 disturbance calls, 1 found property case and 1 burglary. (The information from
Maple Valley Police Department is Exhibit H5). Using the overhead he showed pictures of the
Motorplex location in Maple Valley. Pictures showed storage of chemicals outside, dirt/gravel lot
inside the fence, no pavement, oils/greases leaking onto the ground, dead and dying
landscaping outside the fence. He is unsure how the leaking liquids are handled and how water
is being protected from contamination. He showed a picture of Motorplex's neighbor which has
an attractive site with clean paved lot. Mr. Needham then showed pictures of Pro Tow's location
in Auburn on I Street NE and pointed out grease spots next to sewer drains, pictures of broken
fencing, dying shrubs, dead and overgrown landscaping and weeds. Top Foods grocery store is
next door and apartments across the street have well manicured properties. Pro Tow even cut
down a number of trees that were located on the side of the building. Their storage area is dirt
and gravel, with some kind of liquid is visible on the gravel. He is concerned about grease and
oil spills into the water system and how contamination to water supply is being prevented. Cars
brought into Motorplex and Pro Tow are not searched, but are brought in 'as is' and who knows
what the cars might contain. I Street has morning and evening rush hours which will be made
worse by tow trucks entering and exiting the Motorplex site. He also hears the car dealerships
PAGE 5
' HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES MAY 21, 2002
on Auburn Way North calling for salesman and expects to hear the same kind of address
system from Motorplex. He also hears the address system from Brannan Park. Mr. Needham
showed a letter from Sharon Carpenter, who was unavailable to speak tonight, and briefly read
a portion from that letter. Her letter expressed concern about mobile meth labs being reported
in tow yards, collection and disposing of hazardous materials and chemicals from those labs.
(Pictures were marked as Exhibit H4). (Letter from Sharon Carpenter is Exhibit H6).
Teresa Hendrickson, 3102 L Street NE, spoke about impacts from the tow trucks. She
mentioned OSHA standards which have measured decibels from tow trucks and determined the
levels are harmful to children and the elderly. She is concerned about diesel fumes collecting at
the tow yard and these fumes are detrimental to asthmatics.
Jennice Severson, 1217 30th Street NE, commented that most issues have been addressed. As
an early childhood educator and director of a day care, she knows that day care centers are
sited in strategic locations. Motorplex operations will be an infringement on Kindercare business
and will affect the welfare of children and the elderly at Parkside. She believes toxic waste from
Motorplex will be going into the playground. She is also concerned about fumes from the
Motorplex site. She showed two photographs (Exhibit H7) which were taken from her vehicle
and show afternoon rush hour traffic. The pictures show Pro Tow 18 wheeler offloading seven
vehicles on I Street NE and blocking the entrance to Top Foods. Cars exiting Top Foods could
not see oncoming vehicles. She called 911 and requested that the Police respond to this
blocking vehicle. The pictures were taken in January and February 2002 and both show an 18
wheeler parked on I Street and off loading vehicles. She said that Pro Tow was cited for illegally
loading vehicles. The Police Department should have two police reports about these incidents.
Hearing Examiner marked the two photographs as Exhibit H7.
Abron Moore, 3108 L Street NE, is a new resident of Riverpark and watched the community
grow from its initial development. He has lived nearby Riverpark for 20 years and is proud of its
location and residents. He is concerned about a tow yard coming in and is concerned about oils
leaking from junk cars. Motorplex will be a detriment to the community.
Deanne Gribble, 3104 L Street NE, commented that the City wants to improve Main Street, but I
Street is also important. She sees school buses and kids going to day care every day. An ElS
needs to be done for the welfare of the entire community. She also saw three rats leaving the
complex on I Street.
Lance Morris, 1102 31st Street NE, said his concerns have been addressed already. The MDNS
said 'concerns not significant' and he disagrees with that decision. He works nights and can
sleep during day, but the Motorplex will disturb him, kids at the day care and elders at Parkside.
Nancy Ingram, 1221 31st Street NE, said her concerns have been addressed already. She
spoke about problem traffic problem with a vehicle parked in the Top Foods lot, half in the road
and half on the sidewalk off loading vehicles. She took pictures (Exhibit H8) of Pro Tow trucks
parked in Top Foods lot. The staff report talks about notices mailed and posting of notices, but
people who own the strip mall managed by Schuster Group had no idea that Motorplex project
was happening. She showed a letter (Exhibit 9) she received from the Schuster Group. Valley
Pontiac also did not know about the project. She complained that the posting board was hard to
PAGE 6
HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES MAY 21, 2002
reach and located near a 'no parking' sign. She was concerned about notification of the project
to the community.
Hearing Examiner marked Mrs. Ingram's photographs as Exhibit H8 and Schuster Group letter
as Exhibit H9.
David Brown said they would now conclude their witness testimony. He requested that an ElS
be done to address the unique environmental impacts from the Motorplex project. Issues about
notification to citizens has been raised. The City has not taken into account the Motorplex
project's effect on their community.
CASE NO. HAP02-0004
An appeal filed by CamWest Development Inc., of the Planning Director's environmental
decision on application no. SEP01-0043 - Motorplex.
Sara Slatten, CamWest Development, Inc., showed a foam board of drawings and wanted to
discuss specific concerns about the Motorplex proposal. Their Riverpointe project is located
800 feet to north on I Street. She first heard about the Motorplex project at their Riverpointe
public hearing in March because concerned neighbors brought the Motorplex project to their
attention. She reviewed the Motorplex application and site plan from October 2001 and certain
aspects were not adequately addressed or mitigated. There is inadequate landscaping on I
Street NE and 30t~ Street NE, lack of a traffic analysis, location of vehicle impound yard on I
Street NE. The project will be located in a commercially zoned area, but all along I Street are
established residential communities that will be visually impacted by the lack of landscaping.
She does not believe that the residential property along east side of Motorplex east of property
are compatible uses to this proposal. Additional landscaping should be required.
Hearing Examiner marked these exhibits as Exhibit H10A (small version of CamWest's
interpretation of Motorplex landscape plan), Exhibit H10B (Chapter 18.50 of ACC), Exhibit H10C
(sheet showing PM peak hour trips), Exhibit H10D (Chapter 18.30 from ACC), Exhibit H10E
(Chapter 18.34 from ACC) and Exhibit H10F (large version of CamWest's interpretation of
Motorplex landscape plan).
Ms. Slatten is requesting additional landscaping along 30th Street NE and I Street NE. She
spoke about the lack of a traffic analysis for this project. She gave a copy of the traffic study to
her traffic engineer who was puzzled at the conclusions. She spoke about requirements as
stated in the ITE Manual. Thirty-six parking stalls are required, but the applicant is proposing 63
stalls which is a 100% more parking than required. CamWest believes that significantly more
traffic will be generated by the Motorplex project. Each impounded or towed vehicle requires
five traffic trips. The 39 stalls within gated area are not including the actual impound yard. They
believe there will be 195 trips per day. The project needs to have a traffic analysis prepared by
a licensed engineer to clearly describe the anticipated operations as well as with the towing
operation. There needs to be realistic traffic counts for PM peak hours then decide if additional
traffic mitigation fees are required.
Ms. Slatten expressed concern about location of the vehicle impound yard and storage area
along I Street. There are issues related to the location of the impound yard on the site. She
pointed out requirements in Chapter 18.50, Landscaping and Screening, Chapter 18.30, C-3
Heavy Commercial District and Chapter 18.34, M-2 Heavy Industrial District. CamWest does
PAGE 7
HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES MAY 21, 2002
not believe that the egress meets City standards. A traffic mitigation plan is needed. The City
should also look at the proposed detention facility. Based on impacts outlined, there should be
additional reconsideration of the Motorplex proposal. The applicant will provide a landscape
plan at a later date, but the plan should be reviewed earlier in the process and allow public
comment. The plan should show quantities of plants, locations, types, etc., including perimeter
landscaping. Landscaping as currently proposed is not adequate. A licensed engineer should
prepare a traffic analysis based on what is actually proposed for the site and evaluate tow truck
operations and 24 hour business. Also, reconsider relocating the impound yard where the
detention pond is shown.
CASE NO. HAP02-0005
An appeal filed by Keith Lewis of the Planning Director's environmental decision on
application no. SEP01-0043 - Motorplex.
Hearing Examiner directed Mr. Lewis to speak in support of his appeal. The City will then
respond to all presentations. Motorplex will be allowed a brief response.
Mr. Lewis wants opportunity to engage in business practice within State law, City codes and
Comprehensive Plan. He read a portion of RCW 43.21C.060 (highlighted in yellow from his
Exhibit H11). Some of the conditions imposed do not correlate to RCW or City Codes, but are
covered in the generic Comprehensive Plan. RCW 43.21C.120 says that mitigation shall be
reasonable' and he wants the City to respond with exact code that requires SEPA conditions #6,
#9 and #10. Mr. Lewis read a definition of the word 'adjacent' and spent time researching the
word. The word means 'nearby' and property across the street is not adjacent. R-4 zoning is
located to the east street front and across the street and is not adjacent to his property. Section
ACC 18.50.050 E says C-3 street frontage requires five foot width of Type III. The City changed
from its February ruling to the March ruling and changed the landscaping amounts. Section
18.50.060 G says outdoor storage yards visible from a street or adjacent to residential property
shall be screened by five-foot width of Type I landscaping. On street frontage and abutting
requires five-feet Type I not 10 feet of Type I. City response references urban design policy UD-
1 as response, but did not say which Comprehensive Plan policy was referenced.
Mr. Lewis read Condition 9 regarding overhead doors and read definition of 'outdoor storage'.
He asked why is the City going against the definition. He referred to Section 18.30.010, Intent of
the C-3 zoning district and read a portion of it. His additional concern about the condition is
summarized in a letter as part of his exhibit. He referred to a City letter from 1997 to Redondo
Heights towing.
Hearing Examiner marked his document as Exhibit H11 to the appeal hearing. Hearing
Examiner inquired if the vehicles at Motorplex are licensed and capable of being operated on
the streets. Mr. Lewis said that Condition 9 goes beyond this. The impound yard is only an
outdoor storage yard; outside storage is outside the walls. He has oil collecting equipment and
compressor located outside, and various pieces of equipment. The City has prohibited outdoor
activities such as steam cleaning. Hearing Examiner asked if the air compressor will be
operated outdoors and Mr. Lewis replied that air compressor tanks for collecting oil equipment is
stored outside. The City is taking this out of context. There might be a clarification issue of what
is permitted and not permitted. The City needs to clearly define what noise pollution is and that
the definition is based on what is already written. He read portion of Section 18.58.020
regarding noise and pointed out phrase 'shall not exceed those standards' and cited WAC 173-
PAGE 8
HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES MAY 21, 2002
60-030 regarding noise. The definition from State law cannot be taken arbitrarily. City needs to
clarify what noise requirements are. The City needs standards of what is noise pollution and
what is not noise pollution. What benefit is there to citizens in preventing him from steam
cleaning?
Hearing Examiner expressed concern about what exactly is the proposed use. First it is a tow
yard, now auto repair facility with air compressor, etc. It is not clear exactly what the applicant's
use will be. Mr. Lewis said Motorplex is clearly an auto repair facility and towing company and
again referred to a letter from 1997. The towing yard is small component of their overall project
and City is inhibiting the primary use of the facility which is auto repair. He then referred to WAC
sections regarding noise pollution and decibel levels which are clearly defined in WAC sections.
The process for measuring noise pollution is also clearly defined. He then pointed out WAC
173-60-040 and WAC 173-60-110 and read portions from the sections.
Regarding Condition 10, Mr. Lewis believes there is no existence in ACC for this requirement.
The requirement has no existence in Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Code and is purely done to
appease neighbors' appeal. The neighboring use had a conditional use permit granted in '90.
The Underwood appellant are attempting to place burdens on his uses that are an outright
permitted use. They are being required to increased the amount of landscaping and fencing and
that requires clarification. He read a portion of the ordinance for the conditional use permit for
the nursing home. They offered generous setbacks which was to allow the City to give them the
conditional use permit for the apartment complex in a heavy commercial zoning district. He
wants a fair opportunity to conduct his business per City code without prejudice. He said he is
refraining from reading the letter from Paul Krauss to Alan Poe regarding Motorplex zoning
interpretation. He is also refraining from reading the letter from Paul Krauss to Redondo
Towing.
As stated in the appeal, Mr. Lewis said the desired outcome is that Condition 6d should be
removed and combined with Condition 10. Condition 10 should be revised to read as stated in
his appeal. Condition 9 should also be revised to read as stated in his appeal. He then
referenced a letter dated March 27. He spoke about flexibility to create an amicable relationship
with fence and landscaping. The City cannot arbitrarily increase the landscaping and fencing
requirements without a connection to the Code.
City Rebuttal
Planner Dixon advised that the staff reports provide details leading to the SEPA decision. The
PMDNS was issued on January 29, 2002, and a Notice of Application was also issued. The
PMDNS was published in the South County Journal, posted on 4 foot by 8 foot land use posting
sign, and copies mailed to 11 other government agencies and to adjacent property owners
within 300 feet of the project and as listed on the King County tax rolls. During the 15-day public
comment period, three comment letters were received: one from Underwood, one from
residents of Riverpark Estates and another from a citizen. No comment letters were received
from any State, Federal or local agencies who have expertise in environmental matters.
The City wrote a letter to the applicant on February 15, 2002 regarding clarification from of the
proposal related to the comments received related to nature of operation, location of on-site
operations, noise activities, and activities outside the building. On February 22 the City received
response from Mr. Lewis with the additional information. This information was again
PAGE 9
HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES MAY 21, 2002
independently reviewed. After reviewing and evaluating the public comments received and the
applicant's response, the City on March 6 issued the FMDNS. The City also provided separate
written responses to the issues raised in the comment letters. The final MDNS incorporated and
relied on information from the applicant's February 22"d clarification letter. The site is zoned C3,
Heavy Commercial and can accommodate a wide range of uses. He read Section 18.30.010,
Intent. The proposal is consistent with C3 uses. He explained zoning and land uses adjacent to
the proposal.
Under RCW 36.70B for regulatory reform the City is limited to review for consistency with
zoning density, and availability and adequacy of public facilities as identified in the
Comprehensive Plan. RCW 36.70B.030(3) states the City cannot reexamine or hear appeals to
the above mentioned items if the items are in conformance with adopted plans. Appeals cannot
reexamine land use adequacy or public facilities. SEPA rules provide the City with the ability to
provide conditions to mitigate impacts. The City can impose conditions if certain test is met.
The conditions must be related to environmental impacts and the mitigation measures must be
reasonable.
WAC 19711-660 requires the City to consider whether local, State or Federal authorities would
mitigate the impacts. It also stipulates requirements to impose the conditions. The
requirements include basing the conditions on adopted policies of the City, related to specific
environmental impacts, and mitigation measures shall be reasonable and capable of being
accomplished by the developer, and mitigating measures must be imposed only to the extent
attributable to the adverse impact of the proposal.
The City relies on its Comprehensive Plan as the substantive basis for conditioning the project.
The specific policies are contained in the FMDNS. The Responsible Official correctly followed
the process based on laws. The Responsible Official independently reviewed the checklist,
considered and required appropriate mitigation measures. The Responsible Official carefully
considered the environmental impacts, contacted numerous local, State and Federal agencies
and sought their opinions. The Responsible Official concluded that the proposal would not have
a significant adverse environmental impact and that an ElS is not required. All public notice
requirements were met. The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is capable
of meeting the zoning requirements and the design and construction standards. The mitigating
measures of the MDNS ensure that impacts are mitigated. The MDNS was issued in
accordance with the laws of the State and the Regulatory Reform Act, SEPA rules and City
authority. The Appellant has not provided evidence that the City's decision to issue the MDNS is
inconsistent with any relevant laws of the State. Pursuant to RCW 42.21.075(3)(d) the decision
of the Responsible Official shall be entitled to substantial weight.
In Mr. Lewis's arguments he indicated that the City erred by erroneously imposing conditions
beyond Code authority. He appears to misunderstand that the City can rely on general policy
guidelines to impose mitigation measures beyond Code requirements to address impacts from a
project. While these conditions might not be in the Zoning Code requirements, the conditions
can go beyond to address specific impacts. Mr. Lewis says the City exceeded authority in
Zoning Code because SEPA rules and City rules allow the project.
The Underwood and Riverpark Estates appeal expressed concerns about noise and auto use,
and these were addressed by Condition 9 of the MDNS regarding requirements of doors to be
kept closed. Hearing Examiner does not believe that Motorplex will keep the doors down in the
PAGE 10
· HEARiNG EXAMINER MINUTES MAY 21,2002
summer, and wondered how this condition will be enforced. Planner Dixon commented that
applicant in his February 22nd letter said he intends to keep the doors closed, due to heating and
air conditioning in the building. The City will rely on the Code Enforcement Officer to respond to
complaints and make observations. The Underwood and Riverpark Estate appeals speak to
noise from tow truck operations. The State noise code as sited by Lewis is specific to industrial
uses and does not apply in this case. The City recently adopted noise provisions that will apply
to this project. Regarding potential crime from the impound yard, the Police Department did
review the proposal and they are familiar with Mr. Lewis's existing operations. The Police
Department did not express any specific crime concerns.
Hearing Examiner wondered about concerns related to portable meth labs and if this was
considered by the Police. There is the potential of health hazards or potential explosion from
these labs and if the Police considered this. Planner Dixon said the Police are concerned with
the issue of meth labs generally in the City, but not specific to this project. They did not site
specific concerns for the proposal.
Regarding appearance of the facility, Planner Dixon said the City has Zoning Code requirements
about the type of landscaping around the perimeter and the City has gone beyond these
requirements by requiring additional landscaping to screen and imposing Condition 10 about
fencing around the south property line to address visual impacts.
Riverview Estates expressed concern about the historical markers. Area to the west is City right
of way for Auburn Way North. The landscaped area is not proposed to be affected. There is a
dense hedge and a six foot fence along the east and property will not change visual character of
the area containing the historic markers. Regarding the issue of contaminants affecting
adjacent properties, Planner Dixon believes these are sufficiently addressed by the City's
development standards. The lot for vehicles and the storage yard will be paved, and runoff is
directed to the storm system. Water quality and quantity requirements are in place and are
consistent with those in the City's Design and Construction Manual.
Regarding concerns about public notification, Planner Dixon said Kindercare did not receive
notice because the property owner is not the owner of the day care. All property owners within
300 feet of the proposal were notified as they are listed on the King County Department of
Assessor records. Regarding concerns about City increasing the landscaping and fencing
requirements, the City can require additional amounts of both. The site plan is for illustrative
purposes only and does not adequately depict what will be approved by the City.
The City's two transportation engineers are available to answer issues regarding the driveway
and relation to the Code requirements. Joe Welsh, City Traffic Engineer, will speak regarding
traffic issues as discussed by CamWest representative. Regarding the issue of licensing of the
business, this is an issue that the City was unaware of and the applicant can address.
Regarding issue of requirement of property attendant at all times, the State does not have
separate license for tow truck business and this is separate and distinct authority from the City's.
As stated in the staff report, staff recommends that Hearing Examiner issue a decision to uphold
the SEPA Responsible Official's decision and deny the appeals.
Hearing Examiner mentioned that CamWest is concerned about Motorplex doubling the amount
of required parking. She will ask Motorplex to provide more information why they are providing
PAGE 11
HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES MAY 21, 2002
the additional parking. Planner Dixon said the excess parking spaces are for storage of vehicles
awaiting repair.
Joe Welsh, City Traffic Engineer, said the City could not require traffic study when there is
likelihood that that development will not have an unusual impact. The project will not result in
more than 30 trips in PM peak hour to an arterial and therefore a traffic study is not required
under City policies. Staff looks at the proposal and sees how it fits the rate of trip generation as
described by ITE Manual. Staff used auto care centers as defined in ITE including office and
towing component. The site will generate 39 trips in PM peak hour and would not have an
impact on Auburn Way North or I Street. Therefore, the City did not require traffic study.
Hearing Examiner asked how the figure of 39 was determined because the Motorplex building is
large, multi-cars at one time with visitors to the site and Traffic Engineer Welsh said that national
studies generated the figure of 39 trips. This amount also includes impounded cars. He said
that towing drops off during the day and is measured during the PM peak hours as the worst
time. People pick up cars from repair in the evening. Cars are impounded 24 hours a day.
Trucks associated with warehouses delivery occur during off peak hours.
Hearing Examiner asked if the figure of 39 trips includes those customers getting cars out of
impound and Traffic Engineer Welsh said the rate applied has significant retail element and
assumption was closest to replicate the arrival amounts. Hearing Examiner spoke about the
traffic problems in the northwest region and wants to ensure that staff has looked closely at any
possible traffic impacts. She wants to confirm that in Traffic Engineer Welsh's professional
opinion that no more than 39 trips in PM peak hours will occur at this site. Traffic Engineer
Welsh said there will be 39 trips on the corridor with statistical likelihood that 30 trips would not
require traffic improvements.
Planning Director Krauss advised that Hearing Examiner has heard testimony from some
Appellants that staff did not go far enough and one Appellant said staff went too far. Mr. Lewis's
comments are a concern as is his apparent claim that it is inappropriate to use SEPA to solicit
comments. Staff does understand what the impacts are and he takes exception to Mr. Lewis'
comment that staff does not understand what the impacts are. The City conducted its review in
a manner appropriate with State law.
Motorplex Rebuttal
Mr. Lewis is attempting to understand what the policies are and does not want an adversarial
relationship with the City. He has a clear right to know what the policies are. He spoke about
the frivolous nature of the comment letters received. He is trying to proceed by the City's Code
and is concerned about departures from the City. He believes he is allegedly being accused of
things not based on facts. Hearing Examiner cautioned Mr. Lewis that letters from citizens are
not frivolous. She stressed the importance of public comment on land use actions and she
appreciates the public's participation in the process.
Alan Poe, Poe Engineering, explained that 36 stalls are required and they are providing 55
stalls. The drive location was restricted in order to line up with driveway across the street. The
depth of the property is 100 feet and they restricted there also. The project is the best use of
property.
PAGE 12
HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES MAY 21, 2002
Hearing Examiner is still concerned about the trip calculation and Traffic Engineer Welsh said
they used the national study rate. Auto uses have an element of retail and the ITE Manual is the
guideline. Hearing Examiner inquired why cars are impounded and Mr. Lewis replied that cars
are impounded due to accidents, stolen, recovered, disabled, driving under influence, driving
under suspended license. Hearing Examiner asked about percentage of redeemed vehicles
that are in working order and Mr. Lewis said they would have keys if the car was involved in an
accident. It would be speculation to say what percentage of vehicles are operable versus
inoperable because that figure is not tracked. Square footage of the site is larger than required
because of the nature of the business. They are making the whole site impervious.
Mr. Lewis said that requirement of 24 hour staff person is false statement. Site will be manned
8:00 am to 5:00 pm, one hour lunch with the exception of Saturday and Sunday. Security
measures will be taken. He met with Assistant Police Chief and discussed how to make site
more secure and was told about detraction methods. The size of the building dictates the traffic
mitigation requirements. Regarding portable meth labs and said that Police Department will take
responsibility. They will remove waste, quarantine, etc. He again reiterated wanting to know
exactly which policies allow City to require additional conditions.
Mr. Poe wants City to define what 'environment' is related to setbacks and landscaping and
believes the benchmark should be C3 zoning requirements. Mr. Lewis believes the noise
control factor mentioned by Planner Dixon is over and above what is required by WAC.
Planner Dixon read a portion of WAC 197-11-660 which speaks to the conditions being based
on one or more policies, plans, rules or regulations contained in Comprehensive Plan or ACC.
These policies and rules are sited in the final MDNS. Regarding noise control, these policies
from the Comprehensive Plan are restated on page 5 of the MDNS. These general policies,
though broad in the Comprehensive Plan, tranSlate to conditions imposed upon the specific
development. The SEPA rules provide a definition of what is an 'environment'.
Appellants' Rebuttals
David Brown wondered about the business being in violation of new noise control ordinance.
Site may have C3 zoning, but the area is residential and Motorplex use is incompatible with the
area. The City cannot do anything to fully mitigate impacts from Motorplex project. They are
providing parking spaces well in excess of the requirement and he wonders about the
secondary use of the site. There needs to be an objective review of the project's impacts. The
City probably followed all guidelines, but for notification did not use common sense. The project
is not a good fit for the area. All drainage from the site needs to directed toward some type of
facility for treatment. He objects to lack of a traffic analysis because the true impact of the
project is unknown.
Francis Ikerd, reiterated that an impound yard needs to have 24 hour security. Deanne Gribble
wanted to know where the big rig be sitting when it is waiting for loading.
Sara Slattern, CamWest Development, said that their traffic analysis shows the retail use
separated from the office use and asked why the ITE is only counting one. Traffic Engineer
Welsh said the ITE takes into account wide range of uses encompassing both. He then
described Shucks and different land uses there. This facility is a Shucks-type or retail sales
component.
PAGE 13
HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES MAY 21, 2002
Hearing Examiner marked the appeal Exhibits presented at the appeal hearings as H1 through
H11 to designate that these exhibits are from the Hearing Examiner meeting.
Hearing Examiner closed the hearing on the four appeals. She is extending the period of time
for consideration of the evidence presented and does not intend to issue a decision within 10
days. The decision will be issued not later than June 12.
With no further items to come before the Hearing Examiner, the meeting was adjourned at 10:35
p.m.
HE~,GND\MIN 05-2002
PAGE 14