Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem II-B-1WASHINGTON AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: Appeal of VAR04-0001 Date: April 13, 2004 Department: Planning Attachments: Mr. Kenneth Knott's Appeal Budget Impact: (Submitted 4/2/04); HE's March 29, 2004 decision; HE staff report with Exhibit 1-11; Staff response to Exhibit 11; Applicant's variance application; Hearing Examiner Appeal Attachment 1. Administrative Recommendation: City Council to overturn the Hearing Examiner's decision and grant the variance application. Background Summary: In February 2004, Mr. Kenneth Knott filed a variance application (Case File VAR04-0001) to allow a six foot (72 inch) tall fence in a required front yard setback where a 42 inch in height fence is allowed. The property is zoned R2 ("Single Family Residential"). On March 16, 2004, the Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on the variance request. Ms. Penny Beach, a neighbor that resides at 1912 3rd CT SE (for location, please refer to Hearing Examiner Appeal Attachment 1) provided verbal testimony at the March 16, 2004 hearing. Ms. Beach's testimony opposed the variance request and she noted that construction of the proposed six foot tall fence would block sunlight for her property and create unsafe conditions. Ms. Beach's testimony also addressed safety issues related to traffic and burglary problems in the neighborhood. In addition, the City received a letter (Exhibit 11) from a neighbor's daughter, Ms. Sherry Weber, but was unable to determine the location of her mother's home in relation to the subject property as no address was provided and a return phone number was not listed. Ms. Weber's letter opposes the location of the proposed fence because her mother's driveway is served by 3rd Court SE and she is concerned about the turning radius on this street. L0419-1 A3.23.1 Reviewed by Council & Committees: Reviewed by Departments & Divisions: [] Arts Commission COUNCIL COMMITTEES: [] Building [] M&O [] Airport [] Finance [] Cemetery [] Mayor [] Hearing Examiner [] Municipal Serv. [] Finance [] Parks [] Human Services [] Planning & CD [] Fire [] Planning [] Park Board []Public Works [] Legal [] Police [] Planning Comm. [] Other [] Public Works [] Human Resources Action: Committee Approval: []Yes []No Council Approval: []Yes []No Call for Public Hearing / /__ Referred to Until / / Tabled Until / / Councilmember: Singer Staff: Krauss Meeting Date: April 19, 2004 Item Number: ll.B.1 AUBURN * THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subiect Closed Record Hearing- VAR03-0013 Date: April 13, 2004 Backqround Summary Continued: On March 29, 2004, the Hearing Examiner issued his decision denying the applicant's variance request. On April 2, 2004 Mr. Knott filed an appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision. In accordance with Auburn City Code, the City Council is to hold a closed record hearing on the variance appeal. Analysis: Staff's recommendation was for approval of the Knott variance. The staff report analyzed the criteria for review and determined that the applicant had satisfied criteria 1 through 10 (Auburn City Code Section 18.70.010 (A) (1) through (10)). The basis for the staff recommendation can be found in the Hearing Examiner staff report. The Hearing Examiner's decision was to deny the request for a variance. In the Hearing Examiner's Findings, Conclusions and Decisions report, he determined that the applicant's request did not conform to the following variance approval criteria: 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8. Should the City Council find the reasoning advanced by the staff report and the applicant's appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision is sufficient to satisfy the variance criteria 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8, then there would be basis to overturn the Hearing Examiner's decision and grant the appeal (thereby granting the variance). HE\VAR04-1 APPEAL L0419-1 A3.23.1 Page 2 of 2 APR. 22004 .,='-', oF AO~URN city CLERKS OFFIOE APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION Appeal is filed with the City Clerk Or Deputy City Clerk THE FOLLOWING TO BE COMPLTED I~Y CITY OF ~,UBURN Annlication No.: .......... Date ol~ City Councii'"'Hearina: Date Filed: Deadline'For Filing Anneal: THE FOLLOWING TO BE COMPLETED. I~Y APPELLANT Name of Appellant(s): An rmllant Add mss: Agent': Agent Address: Phone: E-mail: Page 1 of 3 statement of Appeal 1. I believe the following errors were made in the conclusions and finding of facts: The hearing examiner stated in section 1 that my testimony was, "this variance was a matter of desire, not necessity". The testimony I gave x~ras in rebuttal to testimony from Ms. Beach. i stated that regardless of the outcome of the hearing our intent was to put a fence on the property line (42 inch maximum per code). This had no bearing on the variance request, but was only a matter of assuring that Ms. Beach understood that we intend to protect our property line. In section 2 of the conclusions, the heating examiner states that there is no real need for the variance to be in strict harmony with the provisions of AMC 15.64.010. The specific question though does not concern itself with baarmony of this request with the AMC, but in regards to harmony with surrounding properties and use. The very nature of a variance out of harmony with t. he AMC, and so this conclusion is incorrect. The hearing examiner stated in section 3 that the letter from Ms.. Webber created a valid safety concern (mining radius, aec, ess for fire department vehicles), but in the finding of fact, section.9 the hearing examiner states in note 2 that "the issue of adequate mining radius is not relevant to the review of the variance". There is no valid reason from the testimony given to believe there is a "valid concern and a detrimem to the adjacent residential development". do In section 5 the hearing examiner states "All property zoned R-2 must comply with the development standards". Although that statement is tree, the variance process is specifically intended to allow the hearing examiner ~md the City the ability to allow changes (non-compliance) with the code. 2. The City's action should be reversed dUe to the following: The City Planning staffhas come up with a number of alternative fence arrangements that would meet the current code. Each one of them would work, but would put an onerous burden either financially or physically to complete the fence. Section 1 specifically addresses this issue, and den)ing the variance would place unnecessary hardship on my family, and would create practical difficulties to this project. At the beginning of this process, our intent was to create a fence that w~ continuous on the property line in question. Our intent was to make this fence aesthetically pleasing, rather than having a number of various heights and compositions offence (which would be the case without the variance). It is our belief that this is the intent of a "reasonable and harmonious use" of our lot. A secondary concern in this matter is the safety of our children, and also the safety of other children in our neighborhood. That is a concern that we were hoping to address with the 72 inch fence. The AMC states that we are required to have a 60 inch fence, but we were interested in going beyond the standard to protect everyone involved. d. Lastly, our situation is not typical in the City of Auburn. There are vet3, few lots that fall in the "through lot" configuration, and SPecifically created due to development such as was done in this case. This is not a traditional front yard setback as was stated in the finding, but is truly our back yard. Due to this situation, the City Planning staffrecommended to the hearing examiner that a variance be allowed. I believe the reasons they made that recommendation are still valid, and so believe that the decision should be reversed. If the decision of the hearing examiner is not reversed, it will create a financial hardship on our family. We feel it important to protect our property lines and will be required to create two fences in the area in dispute rather than one. We will also have to move an existing garden, and existing fruit trees. The desired outcome of the appeal would be the granting of a variance for our L'nce, allowing us to finish this project. Signature of Appellant(a): Stateof )ss On this day pemonally appeared ~fore me ~ ~'B~ ~~ ~ to m~ known to bo th~ ind~idual(~) do,¢ri~od in and ~o ox~tSd ~ ~in and foregoing instrument, and ackno~edged .that ~ sign~ ~e same as ~' frae and .volunta~ a~ and de~ for ~e uses and pu~oses therein mentioned. GNen under my hand and official seal this ~ dayof ~~'/. Notary Public ~-~nd for thee State Residing in I'"'/~._F~ Do Not Ma~ Below This Line Appeal 'File .Number Assigned by the City: Date Scheduled for Hearing: ~/- .~ ~,,,~F/ Page 3 of 3 BEFORE THE HEARINGS EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF AUBURN In the Matter of the Application of Kenneth Knott For Approval of a Variance. NO. VAR04-'0001 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION SUMMARY OF DECISION The request for a variance from the fence height standard as established in AMC 19.48.020(A)(1) is DENIED. The variance would have permitted a 72-inch fence in a front yard setback off3~a Court SE for property located at 1908 - 2"d Street SE in Auburn, Washington. SUMMARY OF RECORD Request Mr. Kenneth Knott (Applicant) requests approval of a variance from the fence height standard established in AMC 19.48.020(A)(1). The variance would allow a 72-inch fence in a front yard setback. The subject property is located at 1908 2"d Street SE in Auburn, Washington and is recorded as Tax Parcel Number 2154000070. HearingDate The Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn held an open record public heating on March 16, 2004. Testimony The following individuals presented testimony under oath at the open record public: hearing: 1. Ms. Mitzi McMahan, City of Auburn Planner 2. Mr. Kenneth Knott, Applicant 3. Ms. Penny Beach Exhibits The following exhibits were admitted at the open record public heating: Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5 Exhibit 6 Exhibit 7 Exhibit 8 Exhibit 9 Staff Report dated March t 1, 2003 Area Map Variance Application dated February 11, 2004 Legal Description of the Subject Property Site Plan Plat Map Vicinity Map Notice of Public Hearing Certificate of Posting dated Exhibit 10 Exhibit 11 Aerial Photo of subject property Comment letter from Ms. Sherry Webber dated March 11, 2004 Upon consideration of the testimony and exhibits admitted at the open record hearing, the Hearings Examiner enters the following Findings and Conclusions: FINDINGS The Applicant requests approval of a variance from the fence height standard as established in AMC 19.48.020(A)(1). The variance would allow a 72-inch fence in a front yard setback on the property off3rd Court SE. The subject property is located at 1908 2na Street SE in Auburn, Washington. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page I: Testimony of Ms. McMahan. The subject property is a large lot of approximately 35,228 square feet. The lot fronts both '2nd Street SE (northern boundary) and 3rd Court SE (southern boundary). The lot is considered a "through lot" (defined in AMC 18.04.590) and has front setbacks off both streets. Testimony of Ms. McMahan. There is an existing residence on the subject property. While the "through lot" has two frontages, its access is off2nd Street SE. The Applicant intends to construct a permanent swimming pool south of the residence, in the southern-half of the subject property. Exhibit 5, Site Plan; Testimony of Mr. Knott. AMC 15.64.010 requires "permanent private outdoor swimming pools" to have a fence or wall with a minimum height of 60-inches. AMC 15.64.010. The subject property is zoned R-2 Single Family Residential and designated as Single Family Residential by the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan seeks to protect residential uses from intrusions of incompatible land uses. Development standards for R-2-zoned properties include a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet; a minimum lot width of 60 feet; a minimum lot depth of 80 feet; a maximum lot coverage of 35 percent; a front yard setback of 20 feet; and, a rear yard setback of 25 feet. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 1; AMC 18.14. 040. The subject property satisfies these development standards for the R-2 zone. Exhibit 1, Staff Report. page 2; Exhibit 5, Site Plan. Fences may be constructed within the setback areas. AMC 18.48. 020(A)(1). The property located south of the subject property was short platted into four lots in 2000 (SPL007-99). As part of the short plat, an access tract known as 3rd Court SE was created to provide access to the four lots. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 3; Exhibit I0, Aerial Photo. 3rd Court SE is a public right-of-way. The creation of 3~a Court SE as part of the short plat changed the designation of the subject property from an "interior lot" to a "through lot."~ Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 3. ~ An "interior lot" is a lot that is neither a comer nor a through lot. A "through lot" is a tot other thant a comer lot, which abuts two streets. AMC 18.04.590. Findings, Conclusions & Decision Hearings Examiner for the Ci0, of Auburn Knott Variance, V.4R04-O001 Page 2 of 6 6. AMC 18.48.020(A)(1) establishes height standards for fences in Auburn. It reads, in part: Fences may be constructed to a height not to exceed the following in each of the required setback areas, as regulated per each zone, or as modified by subsection B of this section: Front yard: 42 inches; Side yard: 72 inches; Rear yard: 72 inches; Street side yard; 42 inches. AMC 18.48. 020(A)(I). ~.The Applicant seeks the variance for the height of the front yard fence. Testimony of Mr. Knott. The subject property presently contains a six-foot fence across approximately half of the southern property boundary. The Applicant requests approval of the variance to complete the fence across the remainder of the property line. Testimony o. fMr. Knott; Exhibit 3, Application. The Applicant testified that he preferred to construct the proposed fence to match the existing fence and satisfy the requirements in AMC15.64.010 (see Finding No. 3). He 'testified that, although he preferred to construct a six-foot fence, he could construct a fence setback further from the property line and still comply with the requirements for swimming pool fences in AMC 15.64.010. Testimony of Mr. Knott. The City received a comment letter from the daughter of a property owner of a parcel located offthe 3rd Court SE short plat south of the subject property. The comments expressed concern about the turning radius of 3~a Court SE and the visual impact the proposed fence would have on the residents of that street. Exhibit 11, Comment Letter.from Ms. Webber.2 10. A resident of the 3rd Court SE short plat testified in opposition to the proposed variance. She voiced safety concerns related to the six-foot fence, stating that her window faces directly into the existing fence, and that construction of the proposed fence would block sunlight for her property and create an unsafe conditions. Her safety issues concerned traffic and recent traffic and burglary problems in the neighborhood. Testimony of Ms. Beach. None of the traffic-accidents have occurred on 3r~ Court SE. Testimony of Mr. Knott. 11. The proposal is exempt from the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). WAC 197-11-800. 2 3~a Court SE is public right-of-way and the issue of adequate turning radius is not relevant to the review of the variance. Findings, Conclusions & Decision Hearings Examiner for the Ci~ of Auburn Knott Variance. VAR04-O001 Page 3 of 6 12. The City provided reasonable notice of the March 18, 2004 public hearing to interested parties. Testimony of Ms. McMahan. The City posted notice on the subject property on March 5, 2004. Exhibit 9, Certificate of Posting. CONCLUSIONS Jurisdiction The Hearings Examiner is granted jurisdiction to hear and make a decision on a variance application pursuant to RCW 36.70.970 and AMC Chapter 18.66 and Section 18.70.010. Criteria for Review Auburn Municipal Code 18.70.010 provides criteria for review for variance applications. Such applications shall only be approved if the Applicant satisfies the following: 1. There are unique physical conditions including narrowness or shallowness of lot size or shape, or exceptional topographical or other physical conditions peculiar to and inherent in the particular lot; and that, as a resu. lt of such unique physical conditions, practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships arise in complying with provisions of this title. 2. Because of such physical conditions, the development of the lot in strict conformity with the provisions of this title will not allow a reasonable and harmonious use of such lot. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the character of the neighborhood, or be detrimental to surrounding properties in which the lot is located. For nonconforming singte-fi~-nily homes, this finding is determined to be met if the features of the proposed variance are consistent with other comparable features within 500 feet of the proposal. 4. The special circumstances and conditions associated with the variance are not at result of the actions of the applicant or previous owners. 5. Literal interpretation of the provisions of this title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district. 6. The approval of the variance will be consistent with the purpose of this title and the zoning district in which the property is located. 7. The variance will not allow an increase in the number of dwelling units permitted by the zoning district. 8. The authorization of such variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive plan. 9. The variance shall not allow a land use which is not permitted under the zoning district in which the property is located. 10. The variance shall not change any regulations or conditions established by surface mining permits, conditional use permits or contract rezones authorized by the city council. Conclusions Based on Findings There are unique physical conditions including narrowness or shallowness of Itt size or shape, or exceptional topographical or other physical conditions peculiar to and inherent in the particular lot; and that, as a result of such unique physical conditions, practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships arise in complying with provisions of this title. The subject property became a "through tot" when the adjacent property to the south underwent short plat review in 1999 and was divided into four lots in 2000. As such, the Findings, Conclusions & Decision Hearings Examiner for the Ci~ of Auburn Knott l~ariance, VAR04-O001 Page 4 of 6 subject property maintains two front yards for purposes of AMC 18.04.930. While this is a somewhat unique situation, the Applicant is not faced with practicaI difficulties or unnecessary hardships because of it. The Applicant testified that the requested variance is a matter of desire rather than necessity, and that he would prefer to construct the six-foot fence to match and complete an existing six-foot fence occupying part of the south property boundary. This does not rise to the level ora practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship that this criterion requires. Findings of Facts Nos. 1, 3, 5, 8. Development of the lot in strict conformity with the provisions of this title will allow a reasonable and harmonious use of such lot. City of Auburn development standards provide alternatives to the proposed fence. The Applicant may construct a fence along the southern property boundary at a height of 42-inches, or construct a fence outside of the setback to comply with fence requirements for swimming pools set forth in AMC 15.64.010. The Applicant testified to his awareness of these alternatives. There is no real need for thc variance not to be in strict harmony with the provisions of this title. Findings of Facts Nos. 8. The variance, if granted, will alter the character of the neighborhood, or be detrimental to surrounding properties in which the lot is located. The four residences located adjacent to the southern boundary of the subject property are in close proximity to one aaaother and surrounding residential uses. This creates a situation where construction and modification of existing structures must be closely scrutinized to ensure that they comply with the provisions of the AMC. In this matter, testimony of safety concerns and authentic consequences were presented in opposition to the requested variance. These created a valid concern and a detriment to the adjacent residential development. Findings of Facts Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. The special circumstances and conditions associated with the variance arc not a result of the actions of the applicant or previous owners. The creation of four resklential Iots during the short plat review process in 2000 (SPL007-99) created a new public street, 3Td Court SE. The presence of 3rd Court SE transformed the status of the subject property from a "interior lot" to a "through lot," and a front yard setback for the southern portion of the subject property, limiting construction of fences to a height of 42-inches. While these are not actions of the Applicant, they do not constitute sufficient circumstances to warrant a variance. Finding of Fact No. 2, 5, 6. Literalinterpretation of the provisions of this title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district. Development regulations for the R-2 zoning district limit the height of fences in front yard setbacks to 42- inches. All property zoned R-2 must comply with the development standards. Findings of Facts Nos. 1-4 Approval of the variance will not be consistent with the purpose of this title, and the zoning district in which thc property is located. Title 18 seeks to promote the health, safety, morals, convenience, comfort, prosperity, and general welfare of thc residents of thc Findings, Conclusions & Decision Hearings Examiner for the Ci.ty of Auburn Knott Variance, VAR04-O001 Page 5 of 6 10. City. Approval of the variance would have a detrimental affect on the safety of surrounding residential uses and contravene the policy of Title 18. Findings of Facts Nos. 1, 4, 9. The variance will not allow an increase in the number of dwelling units permitted by the zoning district. Thc requested variance will not generate additional dwelling units. Finding of Fact No. ]. The authorization of such variance will adversely affect the comprehensive plan. The Cityof Auburn Comprehensive Plan seeks to protect residential uses from intrusions of incompatible land uses. The requested variance would allow a six-foot fence to be placed within a few feet of an adjacent residence. Testimony from adjacent property owners raised the issue of a diminution in the level of safety should the variance be granted. Approval of the variance request would be direct contravention to the Comprehensive Plan. Findings of Facts Nos. 1, £, 3, 5, 9. The variance will allow a land use which is not permitted under the zoning; district in which the property is located. The variance does not affect permitted land uses of the R-2 zoning district. The property is used for a single-family dwelling, a use permitted within the R-2 Single-Family zoning district. Findings of Facts Nox. 1, 2,4, 5. The variance does not change any regulations or conditions established by surface mining permits, conditional use permits or contract rezones authorized by the city council. Findings of Facts Nos. 1-11. DECISION Based upon the preceding Findings and Conclusions, the request for a variance from the fence height standard of AMC 19.48.020(A)(1) that would allow a 72-inch fence in a front yard setback off3rd Court SE for property Iocated at I908 - 2nd Street SE in Auburn, Washington is DENIED. Decided thi~_~_ day of March 2004. ames M Dnscoll ~~ ringsExa;iner Findings, Conclusions & Dec£~ion Hearings Examiner for the Ci.tv of Auburn Knott Variance, VAR04-O00 I Page 6 of 6 AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM /~' ~ WASHINGTON Aqenda Subjec~t Public Heai-ii~g -ApPlication No. VAR04-0001 Date: .... 3/11/2004 DePartment: Planning Attachments: vicinity map, application, "Budget impact:' site plan, engineer's drawing from short plan, enlarged vicinity map, notice of '-- public hearing notice, certification of postin§ of pu.blic headng notices Admin strative. Recommendation: Hearin~l Examiner to approve the .variance, based u. pon the Findin~ls of Fact and ConcMsions as outlined. Backqround Summary: OWNER/APPLICANT: Kenneth Knott REQUEST: Variance to allow a fence in a yard setback. LOCATION: 1908 2"d Street SE (Parcel Number 2154000070) EXISTING ZONING: R2 ~Single Family Residential" EXISTING LAND USE: Single Family Residence COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: 'Single Family Residential' SEPA STATUS: The variance is SEPA exempt. Reviewed by Council & CornmI~c:.- Reviewed I~y DePartments & I~ivisio~s: [] Arts Commission COUNCIL COMMITTEES: [] Building [] M&O [] Airport [] Finance [] Cemetery [] Mayor' [] Hearing Examiner [] Municipal Serv. [] Finance [] Parks [] Human Services [] Planning & CD [] Fire [] Planning [] Park Board []Public Works EJ Legal [] Police [] Planning Comm. [] Other [] Public Works [] Human Resources Commillee AJpproval: I-lYes []No Council Approval: []Yes []NO Call for Public Headng I I Referred to Until I / Tabled Until / I Co.un6ilmember: Singer I Staff: McMahan Meeting Date: March 16, 2004 .. Item Number: AUBURN · MOrU YOU iMAGINED Agend.a Subi.ec! Public Hearing - Application No. VAR04-0001 Date: 3/11/2004 ZONING AND LAND USE DATA IN THE VICINITY: North South East West R2, Single Family Res. R2, Single Family Res. R2, Single Family Res. R2, Single Family Res.' FINDINGS OF FACT: Existing Land Use Single Family Dwelling Single Family Dwelling Vacant Single Famify Dwelling Comprehensive Land Us~. "Single Family Res~lential" "Single Family Residential" 'Single Family Residential" 'Single Family Residential" '~he applicant, Mr. Kenneth Knott, has applied for a fence variance for property located at 1908 2r~ Street SE. The subject property is zoned R2, "Single Family Residential" and is designated "Single Family Residential" on the Auburn Comprehensive Plan land use map. The subject property is a rectangular lot approximately 35,228 square feet in size and is approximately 301 feet by 117 feet in dimension.' A single-family dwelling exists on the lot. The subject property's north lot line has frontage on 2"a Street SE. Approximately 30 feet of the subject property's south lot line has frontage on 3~ Court SE, a private access tract. Aocess to the subject property is from 2n~ Street SE only. The applicant proposes to erect a six-foot (72 inches) high fence that would enclose the area that functionally serves as the rear yard. Part of the purpose for the fence is that the applicant is constructing a swimming pooi on the subject properly. The applicant is seeking to fence the swimming pool area in part to satisfy City Code requirements. Auburn City Code (ACC) 15.64.0i0 requires permanent private outdoor swimming pools to be surrounded by a fence or wall not less than 60 inches in height. Auburn City Code (ACC) 18,48.020 (A) (1) (a) entitled "Fences" states that fences in the R2 zone may be constructed to a height not to exceed the following in each of the required setback areas: Front yard: 42 inches; Side yard: 72 inches; Rear yard: 72 inches; Street side yard: 42 inches. The applicant is proposing a six-foot tall fence in an area that serves as the required front yard. If granted, the variance would allow a fence 30 inches higher than allowed by code. 3'~ Court SE is an access tract created by City of Auburn Short Plat 007-99 to serve four adjacent lots (bu! not the subject property). Access tracts meet the definition of a street for establishing yard requirements. Specifically, ACC 18.04.870 entitled "Private Street', states, "Private street means any easement, tract, or street which is not a public street. For the purposes of this title a private street will be considered as being public streets for determining setback provisions only." Page 2 of 5 A_.~nda Subj_ec_._t Public Hearing - Application No. VAR04-0001 Date: 3/11/2004 A required front yard setback therefore applies to that portion of the subject property's :south lot line that abuts 3rd Court SE (the access tract). As noted in Finding #5, fences within the required front yard are limited to 42 inches in height. The property south of the subject property was short platted into four lots (City of Auburn short plat application (SPL007-99)). SPL007-99 was submitted in August 1999 and recorded in October 2000. A requirement of the short plat was the development of 3r" Court SE (access tract) to serve the four lots. Prior to the recording of Short Plat (SPL0007-99), the subject properly was an interior lot. The applicant's south property line was a rear tot line, which would have permitted the construction of a 72 inch (6 foot) tall fence without a variance. 8. The variance application has been reviewed by other City of Auburn departments and divisions. No concerns were raised by other departments/divisions on the proposal. 9. The proposal is SEPA exempt. 10. The case file (VAR04-0001) and its contents are hereby incorporated by reference. CONCLU.SIONS Staff has concluded that the requested variance should be approved as the applicant has met the burden of proof in demonstrating that it is consistent with ail of the following criteria necessary to grant a variance as outlined in Auburn City Code Section 18.70.010(A) (1) through (10). An analysis of the application supporting the variance criteda foIlows. 1. That there are unique physical conditions including narrowness or shallowness of lot size or shape, or exceptional topographical or other physical conditions peculiar to and iriherent in the particular lot; and that, as a result of such unique physical conditions, practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships arise irt complying with previsions of the Zoning Ordinance. The unique situation is that the subject property is a "through lot ". ACC 18.04.590(C) defines a through lot as a lot, not being a corner lot, but which abuts two streets. The subject property became a through lot as a result of the creation of an access easement (3rd CT SE) as part of SPL0007-99. This access easement, however, only serves the four properties created by the short plat, and not the subject property. In addition, the access easement only abuts the subject property's south lot line along a portion of that lot line. That, because of such physical conditions, the development of the lot in strict conformity with the provisions of the Zoning OrdinanCe will not allow a reasonable and harmonious use of such lot. The applicant states that development of the subject property was pursued with the intent that the area south of the house would serve exclusively as a rear yard. The applicant is currently . developing a swimming pool in this area and would like to enhance the area's privacy and security with the placement of a six-foot high fence. Security and privacy for swimming pools is advanced by the placement of appropriate fencing. A siX-foot high fence is reasonable for this purpose. That the variance, if granted, will not alter the character of the neighborhood, or be detrimental to surrounding properties in which the lot is located. For nonconforming single- Page 3 of 5 A~enda' Subject Public Hearing -Application No. VAR04~0001 Date: 3/11/2004 family homes, this finding is determined to be met if the features of the proposecl variance are consistent with other comparable features within 500 feet of the proposal, The 42-inch tall fence height limitation in required front yards is intended, in part, to promote the single-family character and streetscape of neighborhoods by providing greater public exposure to front yards. The fence height limitation in required front yards also is intended to promote safety by allowing for adequate site distance for the entering and backing of vehicles on to prope~. In this case, the fence would screen what is basically the applicant's rear yard. This area does not serve as a front yard streetscape. The house faces the opposite direction. Also,'t13ere is no access from the subject property to the access easement (3'" Court SE) so vehicle site distance concerns are not prom inent. That the special circumstances and conditions associated with the variance are not a result of the actions of the applicant or previous owners. The applicant states that the 42 inch tall fence height limitation results from the developrnent of the four lot short plat on the adjoining property that created the access tract (3~ Court SE). 'l'he applicant is not responsible for this action. Literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district. The applicant notes other properties are able to cite six-foot tall fences to provide securil¥ and privacy in their rear yard area. The area being screened functionarly serves as the property's rear yard, even though it has frontage on a private access tract. The approval of the variance will be consistent with the purpose of the Zoning Code and the zoning district in which the property is located. The intent of the code is to provide for variances in situations where unique circumstances to the property exist. The fayout of the access tract in relation to this property is relatively unique, it is not a typical development situation found in the City of Auburn. The variance will not allow an increase in the number of dwelling units permitted by the zoning district. The variance will not allow an increase in the number of dwelling units permitted by the zoning district. 8. The authorization of such variance will not adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan. The authorization of such variance witl not adversely affect the comprehensive plan. 9. The variance shall not allow a land use that is not permitted under the zoning district in which the property is located. The variance does not affect permitted land uses of the zoning district. The property is used as a single-family dwelling. Single Family Dwellings are a permitted use in the R2, Single Famiily Residential Zoning District (ACC 18.14.020(A)). 10. The variance shall not change any regulations or conditions established by surface mining permits, conditional use permits or contract rezones authorized by the City Council.. Page 4 of 5 Agenda Subiec_t Public Hearing - Application No. VAR04-0001 Date: 3/11/2004 Not applicable. RECOMMENDATION Based on the applicant's submittal and on the Facts and Findings and Conclusions of the staff report, staff recommends that the vadance request to allow a six-foot high (72 inch) fence in the required yard setback area for a single-family residence be granted. HE~P~STRV04.~I Page 5 of 5 APPLICATION NO.: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: VAR04-0001 Kenneth Knott Request for a variance to allow a fence in yard setback 1908 2nd Street SE VARIANCE APPLICATION APPLICANT'S NAME ' APPLICATION NUMBER Sec. Twp. Rng.: Zone Existing: Area Code: Variance for: ~?[. ~./ Date of Hearing Examiner Public: ~ '~1 ~"//~ ~ Staff Project Coordinator:_. ~,~, ~ ('~ Do Not Write Above This Line AP.P. UCAN~: COMPLETE THIS FORM WITH ALL ENTRIES BEING TYPED (except sirgnatures) OR NEATLY PRINTED IN INK. IF ADDED SPACE IS NEEDED, ADD THE ADDITIONAL REQUIRED PAGES TO THIS APPLICATION. 1. VVhat unique physical conditions, including narrowness or shallowness of lot size, or shape, or exceptional topographical or other physical conditions, are associated with your property? The short plat to the south of our property changed our lot into a thru ac~.ess lot, creating a 20 foot setback on both the front and back of our property. We are currently in the process of installing an in-ground pool and need to fence the back lard and have found ourselves unable to have a fence higher than 3 1/;! feet vithin 20 feet of the property line. The UBC requires a fence height of a minimum of 4 feet. 2. What physical conditions are present that will not allow a reasonable and harmonious use of your The neighbor adjacent to the back property line of our home has a 6 foot fence installed that currently covers approximately 1/2 of our rear property. Nc) other neighbor in our area has the same limitation for a side or back yard. Va~mca Appi~cation ~ ~ Page 2 of 6 3. How will the variance not alter the character of the neighborhood, or be detrimental to surrounding properties in which your property is located? As currently stated the neighbor adjacent to the rear property line cum~ntly has a 6- foot fence, and the proposed fencing would match this fence. Fencing, the property with a 6 foot fence would have no significant impact on the neighborhood. 4. Are the special circumstances and conditions associated with the variance a result ol~ the actions of the applicant or previous owner? No. The action causing this request are associated with the this variance am due to the actions of the developer that placed the private street behind our property. Please give a general descripfi(~ of your request and, if you wish, provide other inf~ which you feet supports the variance. il am requesting to continue 'the current fence on the rear property line and enclose the entire back yard with a 6 foot fence. This fence would match the existing Ifence, and allow me to comply with the UBC for the in-ground pool we are ~currenfly installing. The vadance is for the approximately 50 feet of proparty currently not covered by a 6 foot high fence. Page 3 of 6 ALL PROPERTY OWNERS INCLUDED tN THIS APPLICATION MUST BE LISTED BELOW OPPOSITE A "PARCEL NUMBER" WHICH IS ALSO SHOWN ON THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION AN[3 INDICATES THE PROPERTY OWNED BY EACH APPLICANT. YOUR SIGNATURE ALSO INDICATES YOU HAVE RE. AD AND UNDERSTOOD THE CONTENTS OF THiS APPLICATION AND ITS ATTACHMENTS PARCEL NAME, ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER SIGNATURE NUMBER (Please Print) 21540OOO70 Kennelh J, Knot 1908 2nd St SE Auburn, WA 98002 (253) 7'35-2804 DESIGNATED CONTACT PERSON: Name: Kermeth Knott Address: 1908 2nd St SE City/Phone: Aubum,,Wa 98002 (253) 735-2804 Variance App~icatJo~ ~ ~r,~,~ Pege 4 of 6 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY 4 3EAST AUBURN GARDEN TRS Commonly known as: 1908 2nd St SE Auburn, WA 98002 FEE PAYMENT: Cashier's Initials: $206,00 for residential; $525.00 for other Date Received: T.R. #: Page 5 of 6 .~r ~c,'r ~,.t~ lO.,-I'- ~ ~FL oo-'7 -qq East A~burn Garde~ Tracts' Volume 18, page 98 Lo~ 3 I Lot 4 i Lot ,5 N W E ~ S D~O I. SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE: 1HIS MAP CORRECTLY REPRESENTS A SURVI~' MADE BY ME OR D R Y C! 0 , Incorporated Surveying SUMNER,1271~ VAL~A g~goAVENUE 253-~6-0300 F~ 253-82~-9703 GRApHIc SCALE 1"=50' 0 50 t00 i50 - VAR04-O001 WASHINGTON NOTICE OF PUBLIC; HEARING Please be advised that the AUBURN HEARING EXAMINER on March 16, 2004, at 7:00 4~.m. ~11 conduct a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request: APPLICATION NO. VAR04-000 ! The request of Kenneth Knott for a variance to allow a fence in a yard setback. The property is located at 1908 Street SE. The public hearing will be held in the Council Chambers, Auburn City Hall, located at 25 West Mafia Street. Thc public is invited to attend to exprea8 comments or opinion& Written comments may be submitted prior to the hearing to the Auburn Planning Department, 25 West Main, Auburn, WA. 98001. If you have fuflher comments or questions, please call the Planning Department at (253) 931-3090. For citizens with speech, sigM or he4xring disabilities wishing to review documents pertaining to this hearing, should contact the City of Aubt~n within 10 calendar days prior to the meeting, as to the type of service or equipment needed; Each request will be considered individually according to the type of request, the availability of resources, and the 'financial ability of the City to provide the requested services or equipment. For the location of the property, refer to the cross-hatched area on tbe map below. CERTIFICATION OF POSTING CERTIFICATION FOR THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS TAKEN PERTAINING TO: APPLICATION NO. VAR04-0001 LOCATED AT: 1908 2nd Street SE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICES POSTED: This date i certify that I did post a minimum of 3 public heating notices in conspicuous places within 300 feet of the subject property. These notices are required to be posted at least 10 days prior to flae public hearing :as required by Chapter 18.68.040(B){IXa) of the Auburn Zoning Ordinance. The public hearing date is scheduled tbr March 16, 2004. Date: Name: Tu Nguyen, Planning Department Peter B. Lewis, Mayc- ~ I 25 ~;'~,~ Maifi Street ~ Auburn WA 9~C~!-499~ ~k www. ci.(~x~m.wa.u~ ,k 253-931-300~ March 23, 2004 Sherry Weber 21818 SE 236t~ PL Maple Valley, WA 98038 Re: Variance Application VAR04-0001 - Request to allow a fence in a yard setback Dear Ms. Weber: I am in receipt of your letter dated March 12, 2004 which was received in my office on March 16, 2004. I tried to contact you prior to the hearing scheduled for the evening of March 16, 2004, but unfortunately you did not include your telephone number in the letter and your telephone number appears to be unlisted. Your letter was included as an exhibit for the Hearing Examiner. In your letter you stated that you were concerned about the location of the fence, Please be advised that the applicant's proposed fence location did not trigger the need for a variance. The feature that required a variance was the proposed fence height, Tlhe applicant is proposing a six-foot tall (72 inch) fence in an area that serves as the required front yard. If granted, the variance would allow a fence 30 inches higher than allowed by code. I have attached the staff report that was provided to the Hearing Examiner. If you wish to receive a copy of the Hearing Examiner's Decision. please contact me at (253) 804- 5031 and I will forward once the decision is rendered, Sincerely, Mitzi McMahan Planning and Community Development Encl. Staff Report (VAR04-0001) AUBURN · MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED March 1 lth, 2004 Auburn Planning Department 25 West Main Auburn, WA 98001 RE: Kenneth Knott fencing Variance request Property Address 1908 2nd Street SE Application #VAR04-0001 To Whom it May concern: We have concerns about this request. I am Sherry Weber, the daughter of an elderly resident who's property will be directly affected by where Mr. Knott's fence will be placed. As her property line adjions p.artially to Mr. Knotts backyard. We are not concerned so much about his fence, as we are about where it's placed. Where he places his fence will directly impact the street my mother lives on - 3rd ,CT SE. This street is very small, it's more like a long driveway, that services 4 homes. It h~ only wide enough for traffic to flow one car at a time. It also doesn't help that the driveways to these 4 homes are very small, for which one home owner, parks several cars along the side of the street to which Mr. Knotts wishes to place his fence. My mother's driveway connects to the m'e~ directly and to her neighbors driveway. So, to backout of these 'homes, you either back all the way out to the end of the street, use a vacant neighbors driveway or we use the easement, to which Mr. Knotts property sits. So, we'd like great considersation given to how the fence placement of Mr. Knott would impact the homeowners living on 3rd CT SE. If he's given a set back for which to place his fence, it will greatly impact the use of these homes. Please send me more detailed documentation of Mr. Knotts request. The Public hearing notice doesn't tell where exactly he has requested to place his fence. Thank-you! Sherry Weber 21818 SE 236th PL Maple Valley, WA 98038 Variance VAR 04-0001 Hearing Examiner Appeal. Attachment 1 Mr. Kenneth Knott - 1908 2nd ST SE Ms. Penny Beach - 1912 3rd CT SE Exhibit 11 - Ms. Sherry Weber's mother's residence kc go,,v,~fpar, ce v ewerlV ewerlKincJ~0?!ylViewer!asp?,App=Parcels65earchFor=:Addsl:art S )King County Parcel Viewer ~t~[~i~a~ard ModeB~l~=~,¢--~,!~ Current Tool: Identify : !1~ ~ 18 ~ 21 540GGG 4 ~ ~ 2 M IDJ,5,T. / ~ ST SE 18 matches found. Please select a Parcel link: I~ Search Menu IParcel Number Address [] Show Legend 0809001830 1908 2ND AV N 6673050240 ..................................................................... 1908 SE 21 ST PL ~11 OV Map 8132100130 1908 NE 24TH ST (~ Zoom~n 1498302830 1908 23RD AV S (~ Zoom Out 1498304065 1908 29TH At/S I~ Full r~ap 24o sooo3o e. ack ~ Pen 1 Parcels Found: [] Identify 4:~ Clear Record 1 Parcel Number 2154000087 Addre~ ~ Zipcode ~r.×payer BEACH RONNIE D Large Map Property Report Available Districts Report Available King County I GISrNews [ Services I Comment__s I ,Search ODES Permits Available ~ Links to external site~ do not con~itute endorsements by King County.