Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-17-2002HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 2002 The meeting of the Auburn Hearing Examiner was held on December 17, 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: David Osaki, ;Jeff Dixon, Sean Martin, Shirley Aird, and Patti Zook Ms. VanDerbeek called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. explaining the order of procedures and swore in staff and those in the audience intending on testifying. Because of the holidays, decision will take longer than 10 days. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. APPLICATION NO. VAR02-0007 Headng Examiner opened the public hearing. Planner Dixon presented the staff report. Chong Kang has requested a variance to reduce the required 10 foot width of Type III landscaping along a portion of the street frontage along 6"` Street NE to 8 feet for property located at 526 M Street NE..The property is zoned RO, Residential Office. The property was rezoned in 2001 and applicant is converting an existing single family residence into a medical office for a denture clinic. The project includes upgrades to current City requirements. He spoke about the landscape requirements for the RO zone: He then reviewed the conclusions contained in the staff report. Staff recommends-approval of the variance request with no conditions. Hearing Examiner asked where the applicant is proposing to reduce the required landscaping. Planner Dixon referred to the cross-hatched are on the site plan. Applicant proposes to put two feet provided in grass-crete, but this does not meet City requirements for parking stall which must be paved. Ron Hankinson, 1213 6"` Street NE, asked if the parking stalls are for employees or clients and the Hearing Examiner believes the stalls are for employees. Parking is already bad at this location. He has problems backing out of his driveway because of the site distance. He spoke about traffic congestion and they do not need additional parking problems. He does not want any additional on-street parking. Planner Dixon acknowledged Mr. Hankinson's concerns about parking on 6"' Street and the issue was raised at the time of the property rezone. It seems that on-street parking is due to commuters and car pool. The parking is exclusively for the clinic's employees. Chong Kang, the applicant, did not know about the parking problems. He wants to make parking for his employees better. The lab is small and does bridge and crown work and no customers visit the clinic. Employees deliver finished product to dentists' offices.. Hearing Examiner closed the public headng and indicated the written decision will be issued in 10 days. 2. APPLICATION NO; CUP01-0005 Hearing Examiner opened the public hearing. Planner Martin presented the staff report. Safeway, Inc., has requested a conditional use permit to allow the construction and operation of a fuel facility at their store located at 101 Auburn Way South. The City evaluated the environmental impacts of the proposal. There are a number of criteria to be met for granting the request. Construction of the fuel facility will displace some parking, but Safeway still meets the parking requirements. He reviewed the conclusions contained in the staff report. One comment letter PAGE 1 HEARING EXAMINER M1NUTES DECEMBER 17, 200? was received which talked about economic effects to their business. Staff recommends approval with one condition. The applicant's renderings are acceptable and in compliance. Hearing Examiner asked about adequate car queuing at the pumps. She has seen as many as 20 cars waiting for the pumps at other Safeway fuel facilities and sees potential conflicts between the cars lining up. Planner Martin said that staff has evaluatedthe queuing impacts and its impact on circulation. The pump islands are structured such that queuing is not impacted into the City's dght of way and site maneuverability will be maintained. The site has been modified by one driveway to be relocated to optimize internal maneuvering. Patrick Mulaney, with Foster Pepper and Sheffelman, introduced Barbara Richardson and two other consultants who will speak. Todd McBrian, prepared the transportation impact analysis. The queuing model that was prepared looked at the PM peak hours and looked at Safeway grand opening for the fuel facility. He spoke about the 95 percentile queue. He pointed to Figure 9 in the report which shows vehicles queued up for the pumps and there is sufficient room for the vehicles. Hearing Examiner requested a copy of the traffic report and Planner Martin will provide it. Hearing Examiner is'concerned about conflicts between the gas pumps and parking lot aisles. Mr. McBrian said the models are conservative and are the accepted methodology for arrivals and departures. Additional ' cars can be accommodated on the site. Mr. McBrian showed a drawing to the Hearing Examiner which depicted 20 vehicles on site which may be how they queue. Hearing Examiner wanted to know how people approach the pumps. She believes that national data is one thing, but real life experiences will be different. Mr. McBrian said that some customers will arrive on-site and off-street. Consumers will go to the first available pump and shortest line. Barbara Richardson, real estate agent for Safeway, spoke about a number of fuel facilities in Seattle and Bellevue. Fred Meyer stores are looking into adding fuel facilities also. Safeway on Bell-Red Road and 140t~ is the latest store to have fuel facility and a maximum of four to five cars are at the fuel facility at any one time. Twenty (20) cars at a fuel facility will not occur. Mr. Mulaney, spoke about the history of Safeway in town. Four years ago Safeway had to determine what it wanted to do with its Auburn business. He spoke, about the Downtown Plan and the City wanting Safeway to remain in town. The fuel facility allows Safeway to be competitive. The fuel facility will be consistent with the vision of the Downtown Plan. He spoke about the conditional use permit process: The gas station is an accessory use to the grocery store. If the store disappears then the gas station disappears too. Safeway has worked with the City to reach this point. He then mentioned that he wants interpretation from the Hearing Examiner regarding signage at the fuel facility. He spoke about Condition 10 which says signs are to be on the canopy. Safeway wants to alter their main sign and gave a drawing to the Hearing Examiner. Dave Letrond, 1102 NE 135t~ Place, said the roof canopy will cover uses and showed a colored rendering depicting what the canopy covers and canopy is extended beyond the pump islands. He showed rendering of the Safeway prototype that was used in Orting, Grand View, Yakima, Wenatchee, Sequium, Port Townsend and Kenmore. He has not seen 20 cars lined up at any time at any Safeway facility. Auburn will be proud when the Safeway gas station is put in and it will address all City requirements. Dave Neveu, 1117 3~ Street NE, buys gas at Arco station which has room for fueling and often has 12 cars at a time and cars create confusion in the parking lot. The Safeway lot is always fairly full and what will happen to cars shopping at the store. Planner Martin indicated that the City has not had a chance to review the Safeway sign proposal presented tonight and staff is not prepared to issue a decision in the matter tonight. Staff will need PAGE 2 HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 2002 additional time to review the matter. Hearing Examiner gave the City until December 19 to respond to Safeway's sign proposal, and if the applicant wants to respond to the City, Safeway will submit additional information by December 23. Hearing Examiner will issue the written decision by January 6, 2003. Hearing Examiner closed the public hearing and left the record open for further comments from the City and the applicant's response if necessary. This will allow the City time to interpret the proposed signage's compliance with City regulations. 3. APPLICATION NO. CUP02-0004 Hearing Examiner opened the public hearing. Planner Aird presented the staff report. Kenneth Coddington has requested a conditional use permit to allow a multi-family dwelling (triplex) to be located in a R-3, Two Family Duplex, district. The property is located on the north side of 4th Street NE, west of M Street NE. She described the adjacent land uses. She reviewed the findings and facts and conclusions contained in the staff report. Staff recommends approval with two conditions. Mr. Coddington said he is available to answer questions and did not have any objections to the conditions. Dave Neveu, 1117 3rd Street NE, asked for clarification on what is being decided. Hearing Examiner described the conditional use permit request and the triplex will be used as residences. Mr. Neveu lives on 3~d Street NE and the rear of his house faces 4"~ Street. He spoke about the Century House complex which is vacant. He is concerned that the triplex not be a halfway house or drug rehab house. He spoke about people cutting through his property. Hearing Examiner closed the public hearing and the written decision should be issued within 10 days. 4. APPLICATION NO. CUP02-0005 Hearing Examiner opened the public hearing. Planner Martin presented staff report. Lakeland Town Center LLC has requested a conditional use permit to allow a drive-through facility (McDonald's restaurant) in conjunction with a McDonald's restaurant to be located at the Lakeland Town Center on Lake Tapps Parkway East. The project is located within the Lakeland Hills South Planned Unit Development District. The environmental impacts were considered under the ElS in Pierce County and the impacts are fully covered. He reviewed the findings and conclusions contained in the staff report. Staff recommends approval with one condition. Hearing Examiner asked if the City reviewed the landscape plan. Planner Martin referred to the master landscape plan for the Town Center. The substitution of plant material can be reviewed administratively. Jeff Mann, Apex Engineering, is the representative for Lakeland Town Center, concurs with the staff findings and conclusions. He wants to address the condition and Spoke about the topographic relief between the two sites. An agreement is being developed for the no-build area west of McDonald's and he wants option of landscaping in the no-build area and proposed revision to condition I which he read. Planner Martin said the potential flexibility of language appears to be more contingent on satisfaction of easement requirements. The City's concerns tie to the need to provide for evergreen trees between the queuing and adjacent property. Mr. Mann showed a foam board diagram and pointed out where topography increases from 2 feet to 6 feet and pointed out the no-build area. Planner Martin said landscaping is tied with no build easement and the underling ownership includes language to require landscaping to be maintained as a component of the McDonald's approval. PAGE 3 HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 2007, Hearing Examiner asked Mr. Mann to submit his proposal for an amendment to the City condition by submitting the exact wording of the condition in writing by December 19 for staff to review. The City will respond to the amended condition language by December 23. Headng Examiner closed the public hearing, but will leave the record open for the parties to reword the language of the condition or respond to proposals. The written decision will be issued by January 6, 2003. APPEAL HEARING: 1. CASE NO. HAP02 An appeal filed by Opus Northwest of the Planning Director's decision related to a proposal for a commercial laundry facility for use as a job training program in the M-l, Light Industrial zone. The proposal would be located within in Emerald Corporate Park, Building A, located at 504 42~ Street NE. Hearing Examiner instructed the audience in the procedures for the appeal hearing. The Appellant has the burden of proof and the Appellant does their presentation first and then the City responds. In reviewing the appeal, the Hearing Examiner would like information to help her determine whether or not Appellant proposes any additional vocational rehabilitation services other than the association with commercial laundry. Donald Marcy, Caimcross & Hempelmann, said this matter involves a proposal by Opus NW to lease space to Northwest Center. NW Center operates a number of programs for people with disabilities and the job training program is important. They own property in Seattle and plan a relocation of some their operations to Auburn. They gave a brief background leading to the appeal. Section 18.32.020 permits job t['aining and vocational rehabilitation is a permitted use in the M-1 zone. Job training is the primary purpose of NW Center. The commercial laundry is a means to accomplish tl~eir pdmary purpose. Job training is not dependent on commercial laundry. This is a useful means for job training of people with disabilities. These people need job opportunities that are simple. They presented a video explaining NW Center's operations and mission to assist those with disabilities and paths for clients to achieve happiness and success. , NW Center will testify about the job training function, and information about the relocation of their facility and its impacts from the program. The Hearing Examiner marked the video as Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 1 is the staff report. John Mautz, 1600 West Armory Way, Seattle, is the representative for Northwest Center. Northwest Center has social entrepreneurial mix and model with businesses that provide job education assistance with nine different businesses that employ 500 people with disabilities. The businesses are small in size and provide services such as custodial maintenance. They utilize a labor force of people with disabilities. The businesses are labor intensive. The training is generic and specific and client can move from business to business. He described the types of genedc training. They match the skills and interests of clients with businesses. The assess the skills and capabilities of clients. NW Center's skilled staff is focused on finding employment for their clients. The laundry operation provides a wide range of job skills training. They are operating a business in Seattle at Interbay and will be moving to Auburn. The Auburn location brings them closer to their customers some of which are military. These contracts were procured under Federal law. He spoke about a preferential procurement law and contracting with the government. There will be about 32 people employed in the laundry business and these individuals will transition out to competitive employment. Hearing Examiner asked about competitive employment in commercial laundry. Mr. Mautz said clients work in the laundry to obtain work hardening skills. Employees use laundry work as a means to prove their capabilities. Another business of NW Center that is moving with laundry business is the assembly and packaging business. These business are more typical of what you find in warehouse like Emerald Corporate Park. The packaging/assembly will employ about 15-20 clients. Most of their clients are from south King County. The disabled community has a high unemployment rate. PAGE 4 HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 200'2, The Hearing Examiner referred to Appellant's letter that talks about the operations including warehousing, storage of laundry and retail trade of products on site. What does the Appellant mean by 'warehousing' and if NW Center processes four million pounds of laundry, where is it stored? Mr. Mautz said that storage is not a large component of their operation, but storage does occur and they have a certain amount of stock on hand and they do warehouse some linen. Headng Examiner asked how many square feet are devoted to the commercial laundry operation. Mr. Mautz said the commercial laundry is 25,000 square feet and this leaves reom open for expansion. The video shows a multi-pocket machine and they have two of those, the warehouse has six or seven washing machines. The laundry comes through in small batches and a variety of sizes of machines are used from 400 pound machine to 75 pound machine. The Hearing Examiner asked about the hospital linen laundry work from Madigan Army Hospital that NW Center processes. Mr. Mautz spoke about packing and treating of the articles, packing and repacking, breaking apart containers and recontainerizing. They will have about 12,000-15,000 square feet for packaging. In response to Hearing Examiner questions, he provided information about packaging. They have a contract with Precore who makes exercise equipment. They pack nuts and bolts, etc., for the equipment in specific configurations. The box of nuts/bolts is shrink wrapped and sent to Precore so that they can be sent out with the exercise equipment. They also package miscellaneous items for board games such as the boards, game pieces, etc. Hearing Examiner wondered about retail sale of products on site and Mr. Maulz said there may be retail sales in the future in relation to the laundry, but nothing is for sale now. Mr. Mautz said there will not be any uses outside the building. Trucks for transportation will be in and out, but no outside activity or storage. Hearing Examiner inquired if the NW Clients arrive via public transportation and Mr. Mautz said their clients arrive on public transportation and this location will be a shorter commute for them. They also come via Access vans. He presented a brochure which contained an overview of NW Center and' described services provided. Headng Examiner marked the brochure as Exhibit 3. Terra VilI-Spinosa, 915 118~ Avenue SE #300, Bellevue, represents Opus NW and described the location and pointed out where Northwest Center will be located. She spoke about the zoning of.adjacent properties and mentioned specific businesses. Opus NW has been working with Northwest Center fOr 12 months. They have done multi-site visits and talked about the business plan. Northwest Center is consistent with the adjacent uses and it is in the best interests of all to have consistent uses. Mr. Marcy said the commercial laundry is one means for Northwest Center to conduct job training of people who do not learn easily. The jobs present a challenge to Northwest Center clients who derive satisfaction from their jobs. The commercial laundry is a good vehicle for doing this and offere a variety of skill levels and tasks for their clients to utilize. Northwest Center clients need on the job training in order to learn skills to go out into the world and be productive. Job training is consistent with the M-1 provisions for job training. Commercial laundry as a primary use is not permitted, but ACC allows it as a secondary use. The commercial laundry use is compatible with the job training use. He reviewed the purpose/intent section of the M-1 zone. The operation Northwest Center is including in its commercial laundry job training is consistent with this purpose and intent. The M-1 zone seeks to avoid outdoor storage and outdoor activity and NW has neither of these. There are no hazardous materials, no air or water pollution and their use occurs indoors. There will be no adverse glare or impacts to adjacent property. The commercial laundry will not have any adverse impacts and will not establish an undesirable precedent. 75 percent of the disabled population is unemployed. He requested that the Hearing Examiner overturn the Planning Director's decision. City Rebuttal: Planner Martin referred to the staff report which contains and findings and conclusions that focused on identifying the primary use of the site and making a determination. Staff has seen more detail and uses PAGE 5 HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 2002 being proposed tonight at the site than originally described or disclosed. Many of the uses appear to be consistent with the M-1 zone. It is the conclusion of the City that job training is permitted in the M1 zone. City interpreted that commercial laundry is not permitted in the M-1 zone. The commercial laundry is defined in the M2 zoning district. Planning Director's use of 18.320.020b allows the Director to interpret uses not previously described. Planning Director rarely extends this to permit a more intensive use than is allowed in the less intensive zone. M2 is a zone that the City recognizes as having more intense uses and this is the appropriate location for a commercial laundry facility. Regarding the City recommendation, staff concur that job training is permitted in M1 zone, however a commercial laundry is not. Planning Director reviewed the Appellant's proposal and in light of 18.32.020b determined that a commercial laundry is not a similar use. With four million pounds of laundry being processed, Northwest Center wants to run commercial laundry and employ staff through the use of disabled people and job training. Operating a commercial laundry is not a permitted use in the M-1 zone. The staff recommendation remains the same and staff requests that Headng Examiner deny the appeal and affirm the Planning Director's decision. Hearing Examiner inquired if City's position changed based on the Appellant's testimony on sUccessful employee turnover in the facility; that Northwest Center trains clients how to do a job and transition them out and Planner Martin replied that the City's position remains the same. . Headng Examiner asked when Northwest Center processes hospital waste, what are the requirements for treatment of waste water. Planner Martin advised there will be additional requirements for the laundry to provide discharge. There is no indication that the facility would potentially address or handle biohazard material. If Hearing Examiner makes interpretation that the use is a permitted use or Northwest Center seeks to locate in M2, this will be an issue if storm drainage and sanitary sewer and appropriate measures will have to be taken. Mr. Mautz spoke about special requirements for handling hospital waste and they will meet the requirements. Regarding disposal of water, the waste waster is sanitized during the process with bleach and no additional treatment will be required before disposal. There are a number of laundries that process hospital waste. They have government contracts and their standards are higher than competing businesses because they are a training facility. They have a rigorous track record of employment. Mr. Marcy said the Northwest Center is not a truly completive commercial laundry, but a training program. The govemment contract requires that 75% of the work be performed by those with disabilities and with the training program. Their turn over rate is 25%. In looking at the M1 code and the purpose/intent section, he is baffled that commercial laundry is not permitted in the M1 zone. Today, all commercial laundry operations are indoors. This is not a heavy industrial use and is compatible with the M1 zone. Northwest Center is a job training program and should be permitted. Planner Martin reiterated the City's original interpretation and staff recommendation that a commercial laundry is the principal use of the site. Appellant presented additional information beyond what was originally disclosed to the City. Commercial laundry is not a permitted use in the M-1 zone. The City's concerns are still valid. Hearing Examiner closed the hearing and indicated that the decision time period is extended to January 6, 2003 in order to have sufficient time for review. ADJOURNMENT: With no further items to come before the Hearing Examiner, the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. HE~AGND~IIN 12-2002 PAGE 6