HomeMy WebLinkAbout6117
• s'
,
RetUm Atldress: ' 20081009000106
,AUbUTt1 GI~/ Cle~k , PACIFIC NW TIT MISC 55.00
PAGE001 OF 014
City qf.Aubum ' , 1eie9i20e8 09:53
25 WeSt Main St. KiNG COUNTY, WA
Aubum, WA 98001
RECORDER'S COVER SHEET '
Document Titie(s) (or transactions contained therein): ~ y I
v
Conditional Use Permit (Ordinance No. 6117)
Reference Number(s) of Documents assigned orreleased:
ElAdditional reference #'s on page of document Grantor(s)/Borrower(s) (Last name:firsf, then first name and mitials) Aubum, City of FILED BY PNWT
c~--IO~SC~--1
Grantee/Assignee/Beneficiary: (Last name flrst)
1. Matthew Rusnak
Legal Description (abbreviated: i.e. lot, block, plat or section, township, range)
Lot 2 Aubum Short Plat No. SP-1-81
Z Additional legal is on page, 13' of document.
Assessoes Property Tax Parcel/Account Number 182105-9321
❑ Assessor Tax # not yet assigned
. ~ ~~1 wero l~d
f0~ fBCOrd 6y PatitiC Northwest• Titlp A9.
aCCOmmodatwn only. 11 MA9 n91 gp@R
9Mrtuned as to proper execukq pr
4% M d~ e.'t~Ct aam Ms.
ORDINANCE NO.6 1 1 7
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
AUBURN, WASHINGTON, APPROVING A CONDITONAL USE
PERMIT TO ALLOW A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE WITHIN AN R2
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE AT 119 M STREET NE,
AUBURN WASHINGTON
WHEREAS, Application No. CUP07-0002, dated March 19, 2007, was
submitted to the City of Auburn, Washington by Matthew Rusnak for approval of
a Conditional Use Permit to allow a professional office within an R2 Single
Family Residential Zone at 119 M Street NE in Auburn, Washington; and
WHEREAS, said application was referred to the Hearing Examiner for
study and public hearing theron, along with staff review; and
WHEREAS, the Hearing Examiner held a public hearing to consider said
application in the Council Chambers of the Auburn City Hall, on July 18, 2007,
and the Hearing Examiner recommended approval of the application on August
7, 2007, subject to four conditions; and
WHEREAS, on August 14, 2007, the City Council considered said
application and approved the Hearing Examiner's recommendation and
proposed conditions for the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow
a professional office within an R2 Single Family Residential Zone at 119 M
Street NE in Auburn, Washington; and
Ordinance No. 6117
August 20, 2007
Page 1
WHEREAS, based upon the review given this Conditional Use Permit
application by the Hearing Examiner, the City Council hereby makes and enters
the following: Hearing Examiner's recommendation for Conditional Use Permit
based upon the Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recommendation which are
attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN as follows:
Section 1. Approval. A Conditional Use Permit is hereby
APPROVED to allow for a professional office within an R2 Single Family
Residential Zone at 119 M Street NE (King County Parcel 182105-9321)
identified on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated in this Ordinance by
reference in the City of Auburn, State of Washington, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Use of the project shall be limited to a total of four full-time
employees and/or owners/tenants (or full-time equivalents) for
professional office use as currently defined by ACC 18.04.750.
2. Access shall be limited to either L or M Streets and shall not be
open to both at the same time. Access may be restricted by a gate
or other similar means acceptable to City staff.
3. A building permit application for the change of use shall be
submitted to the Auburn Permit Center within thirty (30) days of the
effective date of the City Council ordinance approving the
Conditional Use Permit.
Ordinance No. 6117
August 20, 2007
Page 2
4. Eight parking spaces shall be provided on site, which meet the
dimensional requirements as established in ACC 18.52.090,
including being served via a minimum 12-foot wide paved
driveway.
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. Recording. Upon the passage, approval and publication of
this Ordinance as provided by law, the City Clerk of the City of Auburn shall
cause this Ordinance to be recorded in the office of the King County Auditor.
Section 4. Implementation. The Mayor is hereby authorized to
implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the
directions of this legislation.
Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect
and be in force five days from and after its passage, approval and publication, as
provided by law.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
APPROVED:
AUG 2 0 2007
AUG 2 0 2007
AUG 2 0 2007
Ordinance No. 6117
August 20, 2007
Page 3
...
PETER B. LEWIS
MAYOR
ATTEST:
.~ ' .~' ~!(.~1'
l 'L~
Da 'Ile E. Daskam,
City Clerk
City Attorney
PUBLISHED: ~~`` ~ ~--~~-~~
Ordinance No. 6117
August 20, 2007
Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF AUBURN
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
RE: Matthew Rusnak
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
Conditional Use Permit OF LAW AND RECOMMENDATION
CUP07-0002
INTRODUCTION
The applicant has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to convert asingle-family
residence into a law office. The Examiner recommends approval of the request
subject to conditions.
ORAL TESTIMONY
Stacy Borland with the City's Planning Department introduced and summarized the
staff report. She noted that the application is for a conditional use permit for a
professional office building at 119 M Street NE. The lot is zoned Single Family
Residential R2. There already exists a structure on the site that is being used as a
professional office building, and the City currently has an open code enforcement
action against the property. Although the structure is asingle-family home, no one is
living in it, and the entire structure is being used as a professional office for a solo
law practitioner.
Ms. Borland testified that there currently is insufficient off-street parking to meet the
requirement of the code. Design standards, including paving and driveway width,
must be met, and eight spaces must be provided. Applicable driveway standards are
those for commercial properties, which is 24 feet. There are two access points to the
property. One is on M and the other is on L Street. The applicant will need to
request a deviation from City standards from 24 feet to 18 feet for the access point on
L Street because the lot is only 20 feet wide at this point. (The subject lot is a
panhandle lot with the panhandle serving as the access to L Street.)
Ms. Borland clarified for the Hearing Examiner that there is no landscaping
requirement for R2 zoned lots. Furthermore, in this case, staff did not find a need to
impose a landscaping requirement as a conditional use requirement because sufficient
landscaping and fencing is already in place. She also added that the number of
parking spaces required under the City code depended on the square footage of the
subject building.
{ PA0669532.DOC;1/00083.900000/}
Conditional Use
p. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Joe Welsh, the City's traffic engineer, testified that approval of the conditional use
permit would have a negligible impact on traffic. Instead, parking was the City's
main concern. He noted that M Street is an arterial, whereas L Street is residential. It
would be ideal to limit access to the property to M Street, but a secondary access
through L Street could become useful for the property if full access, or left-turn
egress from the property to M Street, were to be restricted in the future.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The applicant testified that the root cause of the code violation stemmed from
misinformation provided by Windermere's professional space property manager, who
assured him that the property was zoned for his intended use. He claimed that there
was no willful intention to violate the code. He noted that there was sufficient space
on the back of the property to provide the required off-street parking. Furthermore,
he testified that a padlocked gate prevented access to and from M Street. Access
would, in practice, be from L Street. It would result in no parking on M Street, and
all of it would be provided off-street. He noted that there was no parking allowed per
City regulations on the portion of M Street abutting the subject property. Although
he was the lessee and not the owner of the property, he testified he had no intention of
changing the outside appearance of the property or affecting the character of the
neighborhood. He noted that there is a strip mall with a grocery store two properties
down the street, and asingle-family residence that was converted to a photo studio
across the street. He apologized and noted that there was no reason to disbelieve
claims made by the property manager at the time he began commercial use of the
property.
Burt Cain, a nearby property owner, expressed concern with the alley access from L
Street. He wondered whether instant approval would open the floodgates to traffic on
the alley. He noted that use of the alley was already at capacity and it could not
handle additional pressure.
The Hearing Examiner noted, and Ms. Borland agreed, that a conditional use permit
runs with the land. Therefore, if new tenants for a professional office building moved
in, which resulted in heavier demand on traffic, they would nevertheless not be
subject to additional conditional use requirements.
Mr. Cain added that the alley was not wide enough to accommodate two-way traffic
and it was often used by children and domestic animals. He also noted that King
County had told him the alley was an open access lot and the padlocked gate was
illegal because it prevented access of public safety vehicles.
Mr. Welsh responded that the alley was 20 feet wide and capable of accommodating
two-way traffic. In addition, the alley was on private property. As for the fence, staff
would review its status.
The applicant responded that he would be willing to give assurances that the gate
would remain locked and that the M Street access would remain closed. The Hearing
{ PA0669532.DOC;1/00083.900000/ }
Conditional Use
p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Examiner noted, however, that future users could take the gate down and use the
property as acut-through. Mr. Welsh replied that ideally, commercial access should
be from M Street (arterial) rather than L Street (residential). However as noted
earlier, full M Street access in the future could be limited. He therefore believed that
maintaining a secondary access through L Street for the subject property would be a
wise precaution.
EXHIBITS
Exhibit Nos. 1 through 7, see page 2 of the July 10, 2007 staff report.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
1. Applicant. The applicant is Michael J. Rusnak.
2. Hearin. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the application at
5:30 p.m. at Auburn City Hall in the Council Chambers on July 18, 2007.
Substantive:
3. Site/Proposal Description. Michael Rusnik has applied for a Conditional
Use Permit to convert a 2,280-square-foot single-family residence into a single law
office. He is already using the property as a law office because he was not aware that
a conditional use permit is required. The site contains asingle-family home and an
attached garage and carport. The property is accessed off of L Street NE to the west
via a 20-foot-wide gravel driveway, and accessed off of M Street NE to the east via a
10-foot-wide concrete driveway. The M street access point is gated and not currently
used for access. The site is large enough to accommodate the eight parking spaces
required by the Auburn City Code. Asix-foot-high fence runs along the western
property line of the property.
4. Characteristics of the Area. The project site fronts a heavily congested
arterial in an area predominantly zoned R2 but primarily characterized by commercial
use along M Street. The property is surrounded on three sides by single-family
developments and on the south side by asingle-family home currently under review
for a professional office building. See Cruze Conditional Use Permit, CUP07-0001
(hereinafter "Cruze"). To the south of the proposed professional office building is a
commercial shopping center. In contrast to the commercial development that
predominates along M Street, the property to the west is a quiet single-family
neighborhood. A church, camera shop, and gas station as well as other commercial
uses are all within a couple blocks of the project site.
{ PA0669532.DOC;1l00083.900000/}
Conditional Use
p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
5. Adverse Impacts. No significant adverse impacts are associated with the
proposed use of the building for a single law office with gated access to M Street.
However, it is recognized that a blanket approval of this conditional use permit
application would allow the conversion of the building to a significantly more intense
use of the building for professional office space without further conditional use
permit review. The building is only slightly smaller than the building in the Cruze
application. As demonstrated in the Cruze application, the parking required by the
City Code may not be adequate to serve professional office buildings along M Street
when the buildings are used to house a maximum number of tenants. A neighbor also
raised concerns about the use of the lot for through access between L and M streets.
Given the congestion on M Street, this is a valid concern. For these reasons it is
recommended that the number of tenants and the access to L and M Streets be limited
in the conditions of approval. Dual street access or an increase in the number of
allowed tenants could be requested through another conditional use permit
application.
The residence to the west is separated from the subject property by asix-foot-high
fence, which is adequate buffering for the proposed use. The property to the south
will also be used for professional office space, so buffering is not necessary. Both
homes to the north and east front on heavily congested M Street and are already
surrounded by commercial uses. Additional buffering would not make any
appreciable difference in this high intensity environment.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Procedural:
1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. ACC 18.64.020(A) grants the Hearing
Examiner with the authority to review a request for a Conditional Use Permit and
make a recommendation to the City Council.
Substantive:
2. Zoning Desi ng ation. The property is zoned R2, Single-Family
Residential.
3. Review Criteria and Application. Professional office buildings are
permitted within an R2 zone if the criteria for a conditional use permit are met. See
ACC 18.14.030(H). Chapter 18.64 ACC governs the criteria for a conditional use
permit. Those criteria are quoted below and applied by corresponding conclusions of
law.
ACC 18.64.040(A): The use will have no more adverse effect on the health, safety or
comfort of persons living or working in the area and will be no more injurious,
{PA0669532.DOC;1/00083.900000/}
Conditional Use
p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
economically or otherwise, to property or improvements in the surrounding area than
would any use generally permitted in the district.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4. The primary permitted use in the R2 zone is asingle-family dwelling. See
ACC 18.14.020(A). The primary adverse impacts of concern are noise, light and
traffic. As discussed in the Findings of Fact, the fencing along the west property line
provides adequate mitigation for these types of impacts, given the context and
location of adjoining residential uses. Eight parking stalls for a solo law practice
should be more than sufficient to handle parking demand. Given the nominal impacts
of the project, as mitigated, the project should not generate any adverse impacts that
would materially exceed those of asingle-family home.
ACC 18.64.040(B): The proposal is in accordance with the goals, policies and
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
5. As noted in the staff report, the Comprehensive Plan designation for the
site is "office residential" which encourages the reservation of areas to accommodate
professional offices for expanding medical and business services, while providing a
transition between residential and more intensive uses and activities. The low-
intensity office use proposed for the site combined with the fact that the building is a
single-family residence is clearly consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation
for the site.
ACC 18.64.040(C): The proposal complies with all requirements of this title.
6. The primary code issues are parking, landscaping, storm drainage,
frontage improvements and street access. Staff have determined that there is
sufficient space on the site to accommodate the eight parking stalls required by ACC
18.52.020(B)(12). No landscaping is required in the R2 for professional office space,
except for what may be found necessary in the conditional use permitting process. As
noted in the findings of fact, the existing six-foot fence is sufficient to meet the
buffering needs of the project and no additional landscaping is needed. The City's
stormwater standards, which will be implemented at building permit review, are
sufficient to address the stormwater impacts of the project. Staff also testified that
frontage improvements may be required at building permit review for M Street. ACC
12.64.020 specifically requires frontage improvements to be assessed and required
during building permit review.
The street access is the most problematical of all the code compliance issues. Staff
testified that the access width for a commercial use property is 24 feet. The property
currently accesses L Street with a 20-foot-wide panhandle. The applicant will have to
acquire a modification to continue the use of the L Street access point, which
according to staff, would be acquired at the building permit stage of review. ACC
12.20.050 provides that driveway width is governed by the Auburn Design and
Construction Standards and that deviations may be granted by the Public Works
{PA0669532.DOC;1/00083.900000/ }
Conditional Use
p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Committee of the City Council. If the applicant fails to acquire a deviation, he can
simply access M Street, where his property has the required width: This access point
is currently gated closed and not used. Given the options available to the applicant to
provide code compliant street access, it is appropriate to conclude at this stage of
review that access can be adequately addressed during building permit review.
ACC 18.64.040(D): The proposal can be constructed and maintained so as to be
harmonious and appropriate in design, character and appearance with the existing or
intended character of the general vicinity.
7. The proposed use will be housed in a single family residence, which is, of
course, consistent with the single-family character of the vicinity. The paved parking
(to be located on the west side of the property) is more intense than the single-family
uses to the west, but this will be buffered by asix-foot-high fence.
ACC 18.64.040(E): The proposal will not adversely affect the public infrastructure.
8. Staff testified that the traffic generated by the project is too nominal to
make any measurable difference to the level of service for M Street. Staff also found
that all other public infrastructure is adequate to meet the needs of the project.
ACC 18.64.040(F): The proposal will not cause or create a public nuisance.
9. The site abuts an area of the M Street NE arterial that is heavily congested
and is surrounded by intense commercial uses such as a commercial shopping center,
a church, and other smaller commercial facilities. The project does border a quiet
residential community to the west, but the screening and relatively low intensity of
the proposal prevent any incompatibility that may rise to a level of a public nuisance.
DECISION
The Hearing Examiner recommends approval of the recommended Conditional Use
Permit and adopts the recommended conditions of approval listed in the July 10, 2007
staff report. The Examiner also adds the following recommendations:
1. Use of the project shall be limited to a total of four full-time employees
and/or owners/tenants (or full-time equivalents) for professional office use as
currently defined by ACC 18.04.750.
2. Access shall be limited to either L or M streets and shall not be open to
both at the same time. Access may be restricted by a gate or other similar means
acceptable to City staff.
{PA0669532.DOC;1/00083.900000/ }
Conditional Use
p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
/f~
Dated this 6 day of , 2007.
Phil Olbrechts
City of Auburn Hearing Examiner
{ PA0669532.DOC;1/00083.900000/}
Conditional Use p. 7 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
EXHIBIT B
LOT 2 AUBURN SHORT PLAT NO SP-1-81 RECORDING NO 8102020562 SD SHORT PLAT
BEING A POR OF SW 1/4 NE 1/4 STR 18-21-05 DAF: BEG NE COR LOT 18 BLK 7 FRENCH'S
ADD TO TOWN OF SLAUGHTER TH N 120 FT TH W AT R/A PLW S LN SD BLK 7 DIST 127 FT
TH S 120 FT TO N LN LOT 14 SD BLK 7 TH E 127 FT TO POB TGW POR VAC FRENCH'S
ADD TO TOWN OF SLAUGHTER & OF VAC STS & ALLEYS THIN DAF -- BEG NW COR LOT
10 BLK 7TH ELY ALG SLY LN OF ALLEY IN SD BLK 7 TAP 7 FT WLY OF NE COR LOT 14 IN
SD BLK 7TH NLY ON LN PLT E LN "L" ST NE 120 FT M/L TO SLY LN JEFFERSON ST (VAC)
TH 127 FT M/L TO WLY LN "M" ST NE TH NLY ALG SD WLY LN "M" ST NE 70 FT M/L TO N
LN JEFFERSON ST (VAC) TH WLY ALG NLY LN JEFFERSON ST (VAC) 270 FT M/L TO E LN
"L" ST NE TH SLY ALG ELY LN "L" ST NE 190 FT M/L TO POB LESS POR TAKEN FOR
WIDENING OF "M" ST (REC #2496213) & LESS WLY 1/2 VAC JEFFERSON ST