Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6043t _ 2008011600 1658 PACIFIC NW TIT ORD 51.00 PAGE001 OF 010 01/16/2008 15:46 KING COUNTY, WA Return Address: - Auburn City Clerk City of Auburn 25 West Main St. Auburn, WA 98001 RECORDER'S COVER SHEET Document Title(s) (or transactions contained therein): C-1 -? Rezone(Ordinance 6043) Reference Number(s) of Documents assigned or released: ?Additional reference #'s on page of document Grantor(s)/Borrower(s) (Last name first, then first name and initials) City of Auburn Grantee/Assignee/Beneficiary: (Last name first) 1. Parker, Jeramey 2. Parker, April Legal Description (abbreviated: i.e. lot, block, plat or section, township, range) 182105 109 W 1/2 OF FOLG-BEG AT PT 30.05 FT E OF NW COR OF S 1/2 OF NW 1/4 OF SE 1/4 OF NE 1/4 TH N 86-53-34 E 298.08 FT TH S 00-20-00 E 75 FT TH S 86-53-34 W 298.75 FT TH N 00-10-59 E 75 FT TO BEG LESS POR FOR ST ® Additional legal is on page 10 of document. Assessor's Property Tax Parcel/Account Number 1821059109 ? Assessor Tax # not yet assigned Said document(s) were fW for reord by Pacific NorthwQst TWO f6 aoxonodation only. It has not been 3xar nk-* t af, to proper sxaouion or as to its affect uwn title. ORDINANCE NO.6 0 4 3 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, APPROVING A CHANGE OF ZONING FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 220 M STREET NE IN AUBURN, WASHINGTON FROM R2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO RO RESIDENTIAL OFFICE WHEREAS, the City of Auburn received an application for a change in zoning from the existing R2 Single Family Residential Zone (tax parcel 1821059109) to RO Residential Office for the property commonly known as 220 M Street NE (City File No. REZ05-0006); and WHEREAS, on July 18, 2006, the Hearing Examiner conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the matter and on July 25, 2006, issued a decision recommending the City Council approve the rezone, with no conditions; and WHEREAS, final approval is appropriate for City Council action; and WHEREAS, based on the review given this rezone application by the Hearing Examiner, the City Council hereby makes and enters the following: Hearing Examiner's recommendation for the rezone based upon the Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recommendation which are attached hereto as Exhibit "A". NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN as follows: Ordinance No. 6043 August 16, 2006 Page 1 of 3 Section 1. Approval. The request to rezone tax parcel 1821059109 from Single Family Residential (R2) to Residential Office (RO) is APPROVED, with no conditions. The property is identified in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein. Section 2. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are declared to be separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section or portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance, or the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances. Section 3. Recordina. Upon the passage, approval and publication of this Ordinance as provided by law, the City Clerk of the City of Auburn shall cause this Ordinance to be recorded in the office of the King County Auditor. Section 4. Implementation. The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directions of this legislation. Section 5. Effective date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force five days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. Ordinance No. 6043 August 16, 2006 Page 2 of 3 ATTEST: ~~J Da . lie E. Daskam, City Clerk Publication: tJ t.., d 1- MZf tf; Ordinance No. 6043 August 16, 2006 Page 3 of 3 INTRODUCED: Aim 2 1 7006 PASSED: AUG 2 1 2006 APPROVED: AUG 2 1 2006 ~u: PETE~ B. LEWIS " MAYOR BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF AUBURN In the Matter of the Application of ) ) ) ) ) ) NO. REZ05-0006 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDA nON APRIL AND JERAMEY PARKER For Approval of a Rezone Request, R2 to RO SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION The Hearing Examiner recommends the Auburn City Council APPROVE the request to rezone a 0.23-acre parcel of land from Single Family Residential (R2) to Residential Office (RO). SUMMARY OF RECORD Request: April and Jeramey Parker (Applicants) request a rezone of one parcel of land approximately 0.23 acres in area from Single Family Residential (R2) to Residential Office (RO). The subject property is located at 220 M Street NE in Auburn, Washington. Hearing Date: The Hearing Examiner for the City of Auburn held an open record hearing on the request on July 18, 2006. Testimony: The following individuals presented testimony under oath at the open record public hearing: 1. Stacy Borland, City of Auburn Planner 2. April Parker, Owner/Applicant Exhibits: The following exhibits were admitted into the record: Exhibit I Exhibit 2 Exhibit 2a Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5/5a Exhibit 6/6a Exhibit 7 Exhibit 8/8a Staff Report, dated July 13,2006 Site Plan received October 25, 2005 Parcel Map Conditional Use Permit and Rezone Application, received October 25,2006 Notice of Application, no date Notice of Public Hearing, no date Affidavit of Posting dated and posted July 7, 2006 Affidavit of Mailing, no date, mailed July 7, 2006 Confirmation of Publication of Legal Notice dated July 5, 2006 Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City of Auburn April Parker Rezone, REZ05-0006 Page 1 of5 Exhibit 9 Exhibit 10 Exhibit 11 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 13 Exhibit 14 Exhibit 15 Exhibit 16 Exhibit 17 Aerial photograph, no date Comment Letter from Henry E. Severson dated December 21, 2005 Comment Letter from Walter E. Russell received December 23,2005 Letter from Paul Krauss, City of Auburn, to Henry E. Severson dated January 10, 2006 Letter from Paul Krauss, City of Auburn, to Walter Russell dated January 10, 2006 Comment Letter from Henry E. Severson dated January 26, 2006 Letter from Paul Krauss, City of Auburn, to Henry E. Severson dated February 15,2006 City Department Comment Sheet, no date, last revision June 7, 2006 Geotechnical Report by Jason Engineering and Consulting Business, Inc. dated May 20, 2006 Upon consideration of the testimony and exhibits admitted at the open record hearing, the Hearing Examiner enters the following Findings and Conclusions: FINDINGS 1. The Applicants request a rezone of one parcel of land approximately 0.23 acres in area from Single-Family Residential (R2) to Residential Office (RO). The subject property is located at 220 M Street NE in Auburn, Washington.! Exhibit 1, pages 1-2; Exhibit 2a; Exhibit 3, pages 6, 8-9. 2. The rezone request is made in conjunction with an application for development of the site. The Applicants purpose in seeking the rezone is to facilitate a change in use of the existing building from a residence to a day spa. Additional parking and landscaping would be provided when the use is changed. Exhibit 1, page 1; Exhibit 3; Testimony of April Parker. 3. The purpose of the R2 zone is to create a living environment of optimum standards for single-family dwellings. It is further intended to limit development to relatively low degrees of density. The purpose of the RO zone is to accommodate business and professional offices, medical and dental clinics, banks and similar financial institutions at locations where they are compatible with residential uses. Some retail and personal services may be permitted if supplemental to the other uses allowed in the zone. This zone is intended for those areas that are in transition from residential to commercial uses along arterials. The City of Auburn Comprehensive Transportation Plan classifies M Street NE as a principal arterial. Auburn City Code (ACC) 18.14.010,18.22.010. Exhibit 1 page 3. 1 The site is owned by the Applicants, April and Jeramey Parker, and is referred to as King County Tax Parcel #1821059109. Exhibit 2a. Parker Rezone REZ05-0006 City of Auburn Hearing Examiner Findings, Conclusion, and Recommendation Page 2 of5 4. The City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan designates this parcel as "Office Residential." Exhibit 1, page 4. 5. The area surrounding the parcel is transitioning from residences towards businesses. The parcel immediately to the north of the subject parcel is already zoned RO and there are additional businesses along M Street NE, Harvey Road, and East Main Street. Exhibit 1, pages 3-6; Exhibit 3, page 7. 6. Area residents Henry E. Severson and Walter E. Russell expressed concern about the changing nature of their neighborhood and the possibility of the proposed rezone opening the door for intensive redevelopment of the property. Paul Krauss, Director of Auburn's Department of Planning and Building & Community, explained in his reply letters that many of the concerns about the property's use are best addressed at the permitting stage when a specific use is proposed. Building permits will be required for significant changes to the structure on the property and Conditional Use permits will be required for government and other special uses of concern to the writers of the comment letters. Exhibits 10,11,12,13,14, and 15. 7. The SEPA Responsible Official issued a Final Determination of Non-Significance for this rezone on January 12,2006. Exhibit 1, page 4. 8. Proper notice of both the application and the hearing for this rezone was given by the City of Auburn. Exhibits 5a, 6a, 7. CONCLUSIONS Jurisdiction The Hearing Examiner is granted authority to make a recommendation to the Auburn City Council on rezone applications pursuant to RCW 35.63.130 and ACC 18.68.170. Criteria for Review For a rezone application to be approved, the Applicant must show the following: 1. The rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; 2. The rezone was initiated by someone other than the City; and 3. Changes or modifications to the rezone by the Hearing Examiner or City Council will not result in a more intense zone than the one requested. ACC 18.68.030 and 18.68.050. In addition to the criteria set forth in the Auburn City Code, the rezone application must be consistent with state law. In the decision Parkridge v. Seattle, 89 Wn.2d 454 (1978), the Washington Supreme Court identified the following general criteria for rezone approval: 1. There is no presumption of validity favoring the action or rezoning; Parker Rezone REZ05-0006 City of Auburn Hearing Examiner Findings. Conclusion, and Recommendation Page 3 of5 2. The proponents of the rezone have the burden of proof in demonstrating that conditions have changed since the original zoning; 3. The rezone must bear a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare. In more recent decisions, the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals have identified an exception to the second Parkridge criterion that is relevant to this case. In Bjarnson v. Kitsap County, 78 Wash. App. 840, 846 (1995), the court held that "where the proposed rezone ... implements policies of the comprehensive plan, changed circumstances are not required." The court adopted the rationale from an earlier decision (Save Our Rural Environment v. Snohomish County) where the Supreme Court stated that: If such implementation were not allowed to occur until physical or developmental circumstances in the area had changed, the new comprehensive plan might never be fulfilled: if an area is presently undeveloped and newly amended comprehensive plan calls for industrial development, no industrial development may occur until alleast one rezone has been granted. Bjarnson, 78 Wash. App. at 846 (quoting Save Our Rural Environment v. Snohomish County, 99 Wash.2d 363, 370 (1983)). Because the City of Auburn criteria for rezone approval require that the rezone be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, no analysis of changed circumstances is required. Conclusions Based on Findings 1. The proposed rezone would be consistent with the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan designation of the subject property is Office Residential. The requested RO zoning would implement this designation. The Comprehensive Plan provides justification for an assertion of "changed circumstances." Findings 3, 4, and 5; Bjarnson v. Kitsap County, 78 Wash. App. 840 (1995) 2. The City of Auburn did not initiate the proposed rezone. The property owners initiated the proposed rezone of the subject property. Findings 1 and 2. 3. No modification of the proposed rezone is required. The requested RO zoning would be compatible with the mixed residential and residential office zoning of surrounding properties and the Comprehensive Plan. Neither the City Staff nor the Hearing Examiner is recommending any modifications to the proposed rezone. Findings 3, 4, and 5. 4. The proposed rezone bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare of the community. The subject property is in an area characterized by residential use and emerging business development. The proposed rezone would allow future business development consistent with existing land uses in the vicinity and with the land use designation for the site. The contemplated use would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. Site specific development conditions would be addressed during site plan review of the any development to ensure that the public health, Parker Rezone REZ05-0006 City of Auburn Hearing Examiner Findings, Conclusion, and Recommendation Page 4 of5 safety, and welfare is not adverse impacted. Findings 3, 4, and 5; Parkridge v. Seattle, 89 Wn.2d 454 (1978). RECOMMENDATION Based upon the preceding Findings and Conclusions, the request to rezone one parcel of land approximately 0.23 acres in area located at 220 M Street NE in Auburn, Washington from R2 to RO should be APPROVED. RECOMMENDED this _day of July 2006. THEODORE PAUL HUNTER, Hearing Examiner Parker Rezone REZ05-0006 City of Auburn Hearing Examiner Findings, Conclusion, and Recommendation Page 5 of5 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF AUBURN In the Matter of the Application of ) ) ) ) ) ) NO.. REl05-0006 APRIL AND JERAMEY PARKER FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION For Approval of a Rezone Request. R2 to RO SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION The Hearing Examiner recommends the Auburn City Council APPROVE the request to rezone a 0.23-acre parcel ofland from Single Family Residential (R2) to Residential Office (RO). SUMMARY OF RECORD Request: April and Jeramey Parker (Applicants) request a rezone of one parcel ofland approximately 0.23 acres in area from Single Family Residential (R2) to Residential Office (RO). The subject property is located at 220 M Street NE in Auburn, Washington. Hearing Date: The Hearing Examiner for the City of Auburn held an open record hearing on the request on July 18, 2006. Testimony: The following individuals presented testimony under oath at the open record public hearing: 1. Stacy Borland, City of Auburn Planner 2. April Parker, Owner/Applicant Exhibits: The following exhibits were admitted into the record: Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 2a Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5/5a Exhibit 6/6a Exhibit 7 Exhibit 8/8a Staff Report, dated July 13,2006 Site Plan received October 25, 2005 Parcel Map Conditional Use Permit and Rezone Application, received October 25,2006 Notice of Application, no date Notice of Public Hearing, no date Affidavit of Posting dated and posted July 7, 2006 Affidavit of Mailing, no date, mailed July 7,2006 Confirmation of Publication of Legal Notice dated July 5,2006 Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation Hearing Examiner for the City of Auburn April Parker Rezone, REZ05-0006 Page 1 of5 EXHIBIT .J1. Exhibit 9 Exhibit 10 Exhibit 11 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 13 Exhibit 14 Exhibit 15 Exhibit 16 Exhibit 17 Aerial photograph, no date Comment Letter from Henry E. Severson dated December 21, 2005 Comment Letter from Walter E. Russell received December 23,2005 Letter from Paul Krauss, City of Auburn, to Henry E. Severson dated January 10, 2006 Letter from Paul Krauss, City of Auburn, to Walter Russell dated January 10, 2006 Comment Letter from Henry E. Severson dated January 26, 2006 Letter from Paul Krauss, City of Auburn, to Henry E. Severson dated February 15,2006 City Department Comment Sheet, no date, last revision June 7, 2006 Geotechnical Report by Jason Engineering and Consulting Business, Inc. dated May 20, 2006 Upon consideration of the testimony and exhibits admitted at the open record hearing, the Hearing Examiner enters the following Findings and Conclusions: FINDINGS I. The Applicants request a rezone of one parcel of land approximately 0.23 acres in area from Single-Family Residential (R2) to Residential Office (RO). The subject property is located at 220 M Street NE in Auburn, Washington. I Exhibit 1, pages 1-2; Exhibit 2a; Exhibit 3, pages 6, 8-9. 2. The rezone request is made in conjunction with an application for development of the site. The Applicants purpose in seeking the rezone is to facilitate a change in use of the existing building from a residence to a day spa. Additional parking and landscaping would be provided when the use is changed. Exhibit 1, page 1; Exhibit 3; Testimony of April Parker. 3. The purpose of the R2 'zone is to create a living environment of optimum standards for single-family dwellings. It is further intended to limit development to relatively low degrees of density. The purpose of the RO zone is to accommodate business and professional offices, medical and dental clinics, banks and similar financial institutions at locations where they are compatible with residential uses. Some retail and personal services may be permitted if supplemental to the other uses allowed in the zone. This zone is intended for those areas that are in transition from residential to commercial uses along arterials. The City of Auburn Comprehensive Transportation Plan classifies M Street NE as a principal arterial. Auburn City Code (ACC) 18.14.010, 18.22.010. Exhibit 1 page 3. I The site is owned by the Applicants, April and Jeramey Parker, and is referred to as King County Tax Parcel #1821059109. Exhibit 2a. Parker Rezone REZ05-0006 City of Auburn Hearing Examiner Findings, Conclusion, and Recommendation Page 2 of5 4. The City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan designates this parcel as "Office Residential." Exhibit 1, page 4. 5. The area surrounding the parcel is transitioning from residences towards businesses. The parcel immediately to the north of the subject parcel is already zoned RQ and there are additional businesses along M Street NE, Harvey Road, and East Main Street. Exhibit 1, pages 3-6; Exhibit 3, page 7. 6. Area residents Henry E. Severson and Walter E. Russell expressed concern about the changing nature of their neighborhood and the possibility of the proposed rezone opening the door for intensive redevelopment of the property. Paul Krauss, Director of Auburn's Department of Plarining and Building & Community, explained in his reply letters that many of the concerns about the property's use are best addressed at the permitting stage when a specific use is proposed. Building permits will be required for significant changes to the structure on the property and Conditional Use permits will be required for government and other special uses of concern to the writers of the comment letters. Exhibits 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15. 7. The SEPA Responsible Official issued a Final Determination of Non-Significance for this rezone on January 12, 2006. Exhibit 1, page 4. 8. Proper notice of both the application and the hearing for this rezone was given by the City of Auburn. Exhibits 5a, 6a, 7. CONCLUSIONS Jurisdiction The Hearing Examiner is granted authority to make a recommendation to the Auburn City Council on rezone applications pursuant to RCW 35.63.130 and ACC 18.68.170. Criteria for Review For a rezone application to be approved, the Applicant must show the following: 1. The rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; 2. The rezone was.initiated by someone other than the City; and 3. Changes or modifications to the rezone by the Hearing Examiner or City Council will not result in a more intense zone than the one requested. ACC 18.68.030 andl8. 68. 050. In addition to the criteria set forth in the Auburn City Code, the rezone application must be consistent with state law. In the decision Parkridge v. Seattle, 89 Wn.2d 454 (1978), the Washington Supreme Court identified the following general criteria for rezone approval: 1. There is no presumption of validity favoring the action or rezoning; Parker Rezone REZ05-0006 City of Auburn Hearing Examiner Findings, Conclusion, and Recommendation Page 3 of5 2. The proponents of the rezone have the burden of proof in demonstrating that conditions have changed since the original zoning; 3. The rezone must bear a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare. In more recent decisions, the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals have identified an exception to the second Parkridge criterion that is relevant to this case. In Bjarnson v. Kitsap County, 78 Wash. App. 840, 846 (1995), the court held that "where the proposed rezone ... implements policies of the comprehensive plan, changed circumstances are not required." The court adopted the rationale from an earlier decision (Save Our Rural Environment v. Snohomish County) where the Supreme Court stated that: If such implementation were not allowed to occur until physical or developmental circumstances in the area had changed, the new comprehensive plan might never be fulfilled: if an area is presently undeveloped and newly amended comprehensive plan calls for industrial development, no industrial development may occur until alleast one rezone has been granted. Bjarnson, 78 Wash. App. at 846 (quoting Save Our Rural Environment v. Snohomish County, 99 Wash.2d 363,370 (1983)). Because the City of Auburn criteria for rezone approval require that the rezone be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, no analysis of changed circumstances is required. Conclusions Based on Findings 1. The proposed rezone would be consistent with the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan designation of the subject property is Office Residential. The requested RO zoning would implement this designation. The Comprehensive Plan provides justification for an assertion of "changed circumstances." Findings 3, 4, and 5; Bjarnson v. Kitsap County, 78 Wash. App. 840 (1995) 2. The City of Auburn did not initiate the proposed rezone. The property owners initiated the proposed rezone of the subject property. Findings 1 and 2. 3. No modification of the proposed rezone is required. The requested RO zoning would be compatible with the mixed residential and residential office zoning of surrounding properties and the Comprehensive Plan. Neither the City Staff nor the Hearing Examiner is recommending any modifications to the proposed rezone. Findings 3, 4, and 5. 4. The proposed rezone bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare of the community. The subject property is in an area characterized by residential use and emerging business development. The proposed rezone would allow future business development consistent with existing land uses in the vicinity and with the land use designation for the site. The contemplated use would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. Site specific development conditions would be addressed during site plan review of the any development to ensure that the public health, Parker Rezone REZ05-0006 City of Auburn Hearing Examiner Findings. Conclusion, and Recommendation Page 4 015 safety, and welfare is not adverse impacted. Findings 3, 4, and 5; Parkridge v. Seattle, 89 Wn.2d 454 (1978). RECOMMENDATION Based upon the preceding Findings and Conclusions, the request to rezone one parcel of land approximately 0.23 acres in area located at 220 M Street NE in Auburn, Washington from R2 to RO should be APPROVED. RECOMMENDED this2S- ~ay of July 2006. ~~ THEODO~L HUNTER, Hearing Examiner Parker Rezone REZ05-0006 City of Auburn Hearing Examiner Findings, Conclusion, and Recommendation, Page 5 of5 EXHIBIT B LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY 182105 109 W 12 OF FOLG-BEG AT PT. 30.05 FT E OF NW COR OF S 12 OF NW Yt OF SE Yt OF NE Yt TH N 86-53-34 E 298.08 FT TH S 00-20-00 E 75 FT TH S 86-53-34 W 298.75 FT TH N 00-10-59 E 75 FT TO BEG LESS POR FOR ST.