Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-19-2001HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES JUNE 19, 2001 The meeting of the Auburn Hearing Examiner was held on June 19, 2001 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: Lynn Rued 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. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. APPLICATION NO. MIS01-0003 Hearing Examiner opened the public hearing. Assistant Planning Director Rued presented the staff report. Daniel Hurley on behalf of John Nichols has requested a special home occupation permit to allow a dog grooming business to be located inside a home. The house is located at 11507 SE 318th Place. The Zoning Ordinance allows personal service shops and a dog grooming business is similar to this. Hours of operation, number of dogs serviced, and hours it takes to groom dog were mentioned. The applicant currently has a dog grooming business, but they are moving to a new house. This house is at the end of a private gravel road which provides access to this home and others. A number of similar special home occupation permits have been issued over the years and issues from the neighbors have not been raised. Staff recommends approval with four conditions. After review of the staff report, Ms. Hurley expressed concern about only one dog being allowed on the premises at a time. Assistant Planning Director Rued advised applicant to speak with her neighbors and see if they have concerns. Ms. Hurley, 31922 113th Place SE, obtained a note from the neighbors saying they do not disapprove, but stipulated that customers should be made aware of the 5 mph speed limit. Hearing Examiner asked why applicant is concerned about the one dog limit, and Ms. Hurley Said some customers have multiple dogs, some dogs take hours to dry, and other customers drop dogs off in the morning and pick them up in afternoon. Hearing Examiner asked applicant if she walks dogs during their stay and Ms. Hurley said no because most dogs are stay at home dogs. She also indicated that she has two dogs of her own, and has received licenses from King County. Hearing Examiner asked the maximum number of dogs not counting hers that would be on site and Mrs. Hurley replied that during the holidays 8 to 10 dogs could be on site. Hearing Examiner asked applicant if she had a suggestions of wording for the condition and applicant replied that King County license had language about one dog coming at a time. Once the dog comes, neighbors do not know it is on site. She bathes a dog and places it in a cage, bathes another dog, clips a dog and puts it in cage, etc. Assistant Planning Director Rued asked Ms. Hurley the number of dogs on site at one time and she replied sometimes 6. Assistant Planning Director Rued then said there could be.no more than 6 besides her dogs at any one time and applicant agreed. He then reviewed condition 2, second sentence which is changed to '6 or 7 dogs present at any one time' and applicant will inform customers of the speed limit on the private road. Hearing Examiner marked the letter from the neighbors as Exhibit 2 and the case file is Exhibit 1. There was no public testimony and the public hearing was closed. Hearing Examiner will issue the written decision within 10 days. 2. APPLICATION. NO. REZ01-0003 Hearing Examiner opened the public hearing. Assistant Planning Director Rued presented the staff report. Shelley Lee Watson has requested to rezone property located at 1806 2nd Street SE from R- 1, Single Family to R-2, Single Family. He explained the differences between the two zoning districts. The single PAGE 1 · _~ ' HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES JUNE 19, 2001 Hearing 3. 4. family home on the site will be demolished. There is the potential for the property to be subdivided into four lots. Staff is recommending approval. Ms. Watson wanted to develop five lots, but understands that four lots are feasible. Her project will beautifY the neighborhood. Francine Jorgenson, 205 T Street SE, is concerned about the building of apartments or business because the notice was vague. Hearing Examiner explained that the project is for single family homes. She wants sidewalks on T Street, but was informed by the City that the residents would have to pay for the sidewalks. Donelle Knott, 308 T Street SE, asked about the width of T Street when the project is developed. She asked about contesting the five lots versus four lots when it goes through short plat process. Donald Rippey has noticed the squeeze of houses on V Street and children not having room to play. Bob Kuzman said the adjacent lots are larger lots on a narrow street. Assistant Planning Director Rued advised that single family homes are permitted and potential other uses are also permitted, but they would require the public hearing process. Apartments or businesses are not allowed. The property developer will have improvements to its portion of the.property. There is no public notification process for short plats; however, short plats can be contested and appealed and the process was explained. Hearing Examiner asked about right of way on T Street. Assistant Planning Director Rued said the property was in unincorporated King County for a number of years and was recently annexed. The street is not yet at full 50 foot width. This developer will have to make improvements to its half of the street, including curb, gutter and sidewalks. No other improvements will occur until development occurs. Improvements will be in front of this property. The size of the lots are larger than most single family lots and small plats do not require park or playground dedication. Ms. Watson wanted to know why she must do improvements to the property when there are no other sidewalks in the area. Assistant Planning Director Rued explained that the necessary improvements are part of the short plat requirements. Hearing Examiner closed the public hearing and will issue the written decision within 10 days. Examiner combined the following two cases APPLICATION NO. CUP01-0001 APPLICATION NO. VAR01~0002 Hearing Examiner opened the public hearing. Assistant Planning Director Rued presented the staff report. Chad and Amy Game on behalf of Yvonne Kinoshita Ward have requested a conditional use permit to allow a house to be converted into a professional office. The house is located at 128 - 14th Street SE. Yvonne Kinoshita Ward has requested a variance to allow the required parking to encroach into a side yard setback. The property is located at 128 - 14th Street SE. The conditional use permit was heard in February, meeting continued for applicant to work something out with the church related to parking. The scope of project has been reduced a bit. The number of parking spaces is now 3. City Attorney has reviewed the project and larger issue was providing or not providing handicap parking space. His decision is that it will not be feasible for handicap space. The revised site plan and scope of conditional use permit and variance can be approved. The conditions were reviewed. Ms. Ward requested that Hearing Examiner ruling be received as soon as possible because of delays. Trees were planted for barrier and she does not want to remove trees in back because they provide a barrier. She PAGE 2 HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES JUNE 19, 2001 wants these trees included in the landscaping requirement. Hearing Examiner said it appears from looking at site plan that the trees are to be saved. The June 18th letter and documents attached were marked as Exhibit 2..The case file is Exhibit 1. Ms. Ward again requested that decision be expedited. Assistant Planning Director Rued advised that existing landscaping can supplement the required Type Il landscaping. Regarding permits and standards from the Building Official, he recommended that applicant ask the Official about the requirements and submit for permits any time. Approval will not occur until conditional use permit is approved by City Council. Hearing Examiner closed the public hearing and will issue the decision within 10 days. ADJOURNMENT: With no further items to come before the Hearing Examiner, the meeting was adjourned at 7:35 p.m. HE\AGND\MIN06-2001 PAGE 3