Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-06-2006 ITEM II-B-1rm:-�� �IM.u��� n4 AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: Appeal of a Decision of the Hearing Examiner on Date: Application No. VAR05-0013 February 27, 2006 Department: Planning, Building Attachments: Please refer to Exhibit Budget Impact: NA and Community List Administrative Recommendation: City Council conduct the closed record hearing and approve, modify, or reject the Hearing Examiner's decision. Background Summary: The Hearing Examiner denied the Variance as requested, based upon the Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Conditions as outlined. OWNER/APPLICANT: Leopoldo Picazo REQUEST: Variance request to legalize an existing over height fence within a front yard. The existing fence attains a maximum height of 6 ft. 9 inches (81 Inches), whereas the Zoning Code establishes a height limit of 42 inches (3.5 ft.). LOCATION: 1111 291h St. SE EXISTING ZONING: R2, Single Family Residential EXISTING LAND USE: The site is occupied by a single family residence with detached carport, accessing from 291h St. SE. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential SEPA STATUS: Exempt L0306-3 03.10.5 VAR05-0013 Reviewed y Council & Committees: eviewed by Departments & Divisions: Arts Commission COUNCIL COMMITTE S: Building M&O Airport Finance Cemetery Mayor Hearing Examiner Municipal Serv. Finance Parks Human Services Park Board Planning & CD Fire Planning Public Works Legal Police Planning Comm. Other Public Works Human Resources Action: Committee Approval: YesNo Council Approval: HYesLJNoCall for Public Hearing Referred to Until Tabled Until --7--7 Councilmember: Norman Staff: Krauss Meeting Date: March 6, 2006 1 Item Number: II.6.1 AURUM * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: Appeal of Hearing Examiner decision on VAR05-0013 EXHIBIT LIST Exhibit 1 Applicant's appeal Exhibit 2 Hearing Examiner decision Exhibit 3 Vicinity Map Exhibit 4 Application Exhibit 5 Photos of existing fence Exhibit 6 Staff report Date: February 27, 2006 In order to approve a variance, an applicant must demonstrate compliance with the criteria in Auburn City Code Section 18.70.010(A) (1) through (10). Both staff and the Hearing Examiner were unable to determine that the application complied with all of the criteria. e2of2 aFr y.rr ccruu Lu. Y7 L'JJ—OO�i-4L77 r10 imM OL SAFtWAY FEB 14 2006 CITY OF AUBURN CITY CLERKS OFFICE APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION Appeal is filed with the City Clerk Or Deputy City Clerk THE FOLLOWING TO BE COMPLTED BY CITY OF AUBURN Application No.: Date of City Council Hearin : V A -Z a 5-- 6V! 3 Date Filed; Deadline For Filing Appeal: ,=;�- z -1 , jo (o PAGE 02/04 THE FOLLOWING TO BE COMPLETED BY APPELLANT Name of Appeltantts): Appellant Address: Phone: 6Email: Cd e tG1 l A -gent: Agent Address: Phone: 20 3g 0 3 Z 3 E-mail: VlXue yo �o�-sT. �✓ Page 1 of 3 Exhibit 1 GL/ 13/ LGGb Ln: 4J Yb,i-Hb4-41y9 SAFEWAY PAGE 03/04 STATEMENT OF APPEAL The Appellant must Identify clearly and specifically the following: 1. The errors which the Appellant believes were made in the action or decision which is being appealed, or the procedural irregularities associated with that action or decision. 12. Specific reasons why the Cl y's action or decision should be reversed or I modified. 3. The harm which Is expected to be suffered by the Appellant as a result of the action or decision being appealed. If the Appellant is a group or organization, the harm to any one or more members or the group or organization must be stated. 4. The desired outcome of the appeal. IYou may provide your responses here, or preferably; attach a separate typed response to each of the above. Page 2 of 3 I . This is the first time following this kind of procedure and our main error was not us showing up for the hearing; 2. We believe the city of Auburn to be one of the most improving cities within the metropolitan area; one of the reasons is because the city is looking to beautify through its neighborhoods. The fence is very appealing and pretty well made. At the time of building it we did not know any better (construction height -wise). However, the fence does not surpass the 6' high mark. This fence not only adds a good looking view but aggregates the hint of beauty that the city of Auburn in looking forward to. This fence is definitely an asset not only for our house but for the neighborhood and for the city as well. 3. Since we did not know any better in regards to city codes, we invested our daily wages and savings to build this fence. There are some other items that we would like to add on to the house but most of our savings are gone; it would be heart- breaking to lose it along with our savings going down the drain by us removing this beautiful fence. We really like to invest on having a good looking property instead of one that's falling apart. For this purpose (building the fence), we borrowed money from relatives. It would be a disaster having to rake it down, since at this point we are repaying them. 4. We would like the city to reconsider our matter and let us keep the fence. We know we did err; by not showing up at the hearing, by not researching city codes for fence height, but we are regular Auburn residents looking to consistently improve the beauty of the city bit by bit. We believe this fence is an improving asset and neighbors that we have talked to about it have been giving me complacency for what we have done. Wo are looking forward to have this variance approved; so we can keep our fence the way it is. 5. This fence would only make Auburn look a more elegant place. We take pride in out home and how we keep it clean, as well,as to protect out property. The bars in the fence, as contested at previous hearing, in our opinion, would certainly not make the neighborhood look closed ip por are we setting an example of that. It is a perfectly clear view, it is not solid wood nor metal, it is decorative, and it provides a touch of elegance in an othgrwise plain neighborhood. FEB i y 2006 CITY OF CITY CLERISS OFFICE UZI 131 ZU1Jb LI7: 4J ZDJ-UU4-41y9 Signature of Appellan!(s): State of) ss County of SAFEWAY PAGE 04/04 On this day personally appeared before me to me known to be the individuals) describe an who ex scgur edd the Mme as foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that 0 1 free and voluntary -act and deed for the -uses and purposes therein mentioned. Given under my hand and ofFcial seal this : /' � day of 2 006, _'NSE K.C, P..••........ G �, � o��� o� 9.`��'•� Nota ublic in :��the ia�te of co .0 ��.Rr N • �� Residing in N PUBO' :X02 r DO Not Mark Delaw This Line Appeal File Number Assigned by the Cly: Date Scheduled for Hearing: Page 3 of 3 yc, lar cuuo cu. 47 bPrtWAYj PAGE 01/04 Y. PROCEDURE FOR FILING AN APPEAL OF A DECISION BY THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF AUBURN WHO MAY pPPEALL Any person} aggrieved by the ficial decision of the .City's Hearing Examiner may appeal to the City Council. - .APPEAL. FORMS: Any one who files an appeal must do so on forms, provided by the City Clerk. The City Clerk's Office is looted on the first floor of the Auburn City Hall, 25 W. Main St, Auburn WA. 98001. Telephone (2*931-3'039. 2s� APPEAL'SUBMITTAL: Any one who submits an appeal must file it with the City Cie* in a timely manner. The date that an appeal must be filed Is found within the document that is being appealed. Appeals submitted beyond that date will. not be accepted. -HEARINGS SCHEDULED: The City Council ,conducts a closed record hearing on -all appeals of the Hearing Examiner's decisions. Closed record hearings will be scheduled .for the next available City Council hearing. At least 10 calendar days of notice must precede the City Council hearing. HEARINGS CONSOLIDATED: More applicable, the closed record hearing . shall be consolidated with any other hearing that may be related to the proposed action. For' examPle if someone has filed an appeal of the issuance of a Mitigated Determination of Non Significance that is related to rezoning .the, property then the hearing on the rezone: and appeal will be conducted at the same City Council hearing. HEARINGS CONDUCTED: The City Council conducts a dosed record hearing on an appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision. The Council conducts its closed record hearing based upon the record that is established by the Hearing Examiner. This means that the -record Is dosed to new testimony, exhibits, evidence, etc.. that was not presented at the Heating Examiner's hearing. FURTHER INFORMATION: For further information Please contact the Planning - bepartment at 26 W. Main St. Auburn, WA. 98001- Telephone (906) 931-3090. z Ss The completes appeal process can be found within Chapter 18.66 of the Auburn City Code which Is available at either the City Cleric's Office or the Planning Department. . BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF AUBURN In the Matter of the Application of ) NO. VAR05-0013 Leopoldo Picazo ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION For Variance from Fence Height Limits) SUMMARY OF DECISION A variance to allow an existing front yard fence that is approximately 69 inches in height to remain when Auburn City Code 18.48.020(A)(1)(a) limits the height of front yard fences to 42 inches is DENIED. SUMMARY OF RECORD Requests: Leopoldo Picazo (Applicant) requested a variance from the maximum fence height requirements of the City of Auburn in order to legalize an existing front yard fence on property located at 1111 - 29th Street SE, Auburn, Washington. The Applicant's proposal would allow for a fence that exceeds the maximum allowable height by 27 inches. Hearin Date: The Hearing Examiner for the City of Auburn (the City) held an open record public hearing on January 18, 2006. Testimony: The following individuals presented testimony under oath at the open record public hearing: Steve Pilcher, City of Auburn Planner Rolland Kidd, Neighboring Property Owner Victor Chekota, Neighboring Property Owner Exhibits: The following exhibits were admitted at the open record public hearing: Exhibit 1: Staff Report Exhibit 2: Vicinity Map Exhibit 3: Application for Variance including Site Plan Exhibit 4: Notice of Public Hearing Exhibit 2 Exhibit 5: Affidavit of Posting Exhibit 6: Affidavit of Mailing Exhibit 7: Confirmation of Publication of Legal Notice Exhibit 8: Aerial Photograph Upon consideration of the testimony and exhibits admitted at the open record hearing, the Hearing Examiner enters the following Findings and Conclusions: FINDINGS The Applicant requested approval of a variance to allow for a front yard fence to exceed the maximum height requirements set forth in Auburn City Code (ACC) 18.48.020(A)(1)(a) on property at 1111 - 29th Street SE in the City of Auburn. The subject property is identified by King County Tax Assessor Parcel Number 3021059183, is approximately 7841 square feet in size, and rectangular in shape. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Pages 1-2; Exhibit 3, Variance Application; King County Tax Assessor records; Testimony of Mr. Pilcher. 2. The property located within the Urban Growth Area, is zoned R-2 Single Family Residential. Pursuant to the City of Auburn's Comprehensive Plan, it has a land use designation of Single Family Residential. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Page 1; Testimony of Mr. Pilcher. 3. The R-2 zone is intended to "create a living environment of optimum standards for single- family dwellings." ACC 18.14.010. The zoning district permits single-family residences and accessory structures, such as fences. Fences within the R-2 zone must comply with the development standards set forth in ACC 18.48. ACC 18.14.040(11). 4. The Applicant purchased the property in 2004.' There is a small (750 square foot) single family residence on the site and several associated outbuildings. Access to the site is from 291h Street SE, a Minor Arterial. In his application, the Applicant asserted that 29`h Street SE is a busy street that justifies the need for a fence that exceeds regulation. No supporting evidence for this claim was submitted. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Page 2; Exhibit 3, Variance Application; Testimony of Mr. Pilcher. 5. In February 2004, a City of Auburn Code Compliance Office advised the Applicant that a wood fence being constructed within the front yard setback of the subject property exceeded the maximum height allowable under ACC 18.48.020(A)(1)(a), which allows a front yard fence of no more than 42 inches in height. The Applicant reduced the fence height pursuant to this advisement. In October 2005, the Code Compliance Officer conducted a site visit and noticed that the Applicant was installing a wrougt-iron fence that appeared to be 60 inches in height within the front yard setback. ACC 18.48.020(A)(1)(a) permits a maximum height of ' The Applicant purchased the property with two other individuals in January 2004. The Applicant acquired full interest in the property in September 2004. According to King County Tax records, the Applicant is currently the sole owner of the subject property. Picazo Fence Height Variance, VAR05-0013 City of Auburn Hearing Examiner Findings, Conclusion, and Decision Page 2 of 6 72 inches for side and rear yard fences only, reducing that height to 42 inches for the front yard. The Application submitted the pending variance request to legalize the existing fence. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Pages 1-2; Exhibit 3, Variance Application. 6. The fence is constructed with wrought -iron fencing atop a 30 inch tall brick base and has equally spaced 54 inch tall brick pillars capped with metal lights. At its apex, the fence attains a height of 69 inches. The fence has two gates, an electrically operated one that extends across the driveway and another that provides pedestrian access to the residence. A building permit is not required to construct a fence of 72 inches of less. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Pages 2-3; Testimony of Mr. Pilcher. 7. The Applicant asserted that the design of the fence results in a decorative fence that adds value and character to the neighborhood. Exhibit 3, Variance Application. 8. Surrounding properties are similarly zoned for residential development. Property to the South is zoned R-2 Single Family Residential and is developed with single-family residences. Property to the North, East, and West are zoned R-3 Two -Family (Duplex) Residential and are developed with single-family residences as well. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Page 2. 9. The subject property is similar in size and configuration to lots in the surrounding neighborhood. The subject property is level and at grade with the adjoining sidewalk fronting 29`x' Street SE. The residence appears to be setback on the site, providing ample room for a useable rear yard. A site visit conducted by City Staff on January 10, 2006, verified conditions both on the subject property and within the surrounding neighborhood. During the site visit, City Staff noted that although chain-link and wood front yard fences exist in the neighborhood, there are not any other fences of this height within the front yard setback of neighboring properties. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Pages 2-3; Exhibit 8, Aerial Photograph; Testimony of Mr. Pilcher. 10. Testimony was received at the public hearing from neighboring property owners. Mr. Victor Chekota, supporting the Applicant, stated that he had no problems with the Applicant's fence and that he believed it to be a "beautiful fence" that enhanced the neighborhood. Mr. Rolland Kidd, in opposition, stated that aesthetic fences are fences that adhere to the height standards set forth by the ACC. Testimony of Mr. Chekota; Testimony of Mr. Kidd. 11. The Applicant seeks to maintain an existing fence. Approval of the variance would not add dwelling units to the subject property. No surface mining permits, conditional use permits, or contract rezones are in effect on the subject property. The City's Comprehensive Plan would not be adversely affected. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Page 4; Exhibit 3, Variance Application. 12. Variance applications are exempt from SEPA review. WAC 197-11-800 Picazo Fence Height Variance, VAR05-0013 City of Auburn Hearing Examiner Findings, Conclusion, and Decision Page 3 of 6 13. The City provided reasonable notice of the January 18, 2006 public hearing. Notice was posted on-site on January 4, 2006; was mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the affected site on January 6, 2006; and was published in the King County Journal on January 7, 2006. Exhibits 4, 5, 6, and 7- Notice. 14. The Applicant failed to appear at the public hearing held on January 18, 2006. 15. The City Staff recommended denial of the proposal. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Page 4. CONCLUSIONS Jurisdiction The Hearings Examiner is granted jurisdiction to hear and make a decision on a variance application pursuant to AMC Chapter 18.66 and AMC Section 18.70.010. Criteria for Review Auburn City Code 18.70.010 provides criteria for review for variance applications. A variance applications shall only be approved if the Applicant can demonstrate that: 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 result 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 single-family 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 a 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. Picazo Fence Height Variance, VAR05-0013 City of Auburn Hearing Examiner Findings, Conclusion, and Decision Page 4 of 6 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 contracts rezones authorized by the city council. Conclusions Based on Findings 1. The Applicant's property is not subject to unique physical conditions that would cause unnecessary hardship if the development standards where strictly adhered to. The subject property is similar in size and shape to other lots in the surrounding area. No topographical conditions exists that impact adherence to City development regulations. The physical conditions of the property are not unique and do not create hardship. Findings of Fact Nos. 1, 8, and 9. 2. Restricting the Applicant to strict conformity with the fence height limitations of the code would not prevent reasonable and harmonious use of their property. Although fences provide for a reasonable and harmonious use of residential property, limiting the Applicant to a 42 inch fence height in the front yard setback would not prevent the Applicant from utilizing the property in a reasonable and harmonious way. Findings of Fact Nos. 1, 3, 9, and 10. 3. The proposal would alter the character of the neighborhood. The subject property is located within the urban growth area. The surrounding neighborhood is developed with single-family residences on similarly sized lots. City Staff did not observe any other fences of this height within the front yard setback of neighboring properties. Although the design of the fence may be aesthetically pleasing, there is a viable concern in regards to establishing a precedent for fences greater than 42 inches in height and creating a "walled off' appearance within the residential community. Findings of Fact Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. 4. The special circumstances and conditions associated with the variance are a direct result of the actions of the Applicant. The only special circumstance associated with the variance is the presence of the existing fence. However, the Applicant was previously advised of the City's standards in regards to fence height limitations within the R-2 zone. The Applicant specifically authorized the construction of the fence at its present height. Therefore, the existing, non -conforming fence is a direct result of the Applicant's actions. Findings of Fact Nos. 5 and 6. 5. Literal interpretation of the code provisions would not deprive the Applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district. Although chain-link and wood front yard fences exist in the neighborhood, there are no other fences of this height Picazo Fence Height Variance, VAR05-0013 City of Auburn Hearing Examiner Findings, Conclusion, and Decision Page 5 of 6 within the front yard setback of neighboring properties. Adherence to the height limitations set forth in ACC 18.42.020(A)(1)(a) would not deprive the Applicant of rights enjoyed by others within the surrounding community. Findings of Fact Nos. 8, 9, and 10. 6. Denial of the variance would be consistent with the purpose of the code and the R-2 zoning district. A fence is allowed within the residential zoning district and is consistent with the residential nature of the zone. The purpose of the City's zoning code and development regulations is to facility adequate provisions for, among other things, essential light, air, and open space and, to create and preserve an attractive municipality and environment in which the citizens of Auburn can derive a sense of community. Allowing for fences that exceed the maximum allowable height limits does not create open communities but rather separated, walled, and divided communities. Findings of Fact Nos. 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, and 10. 7. The variance would not allow an increase in the number of dwelling units permitted by the zoning district, will not go against Comprehensive Plan policies, will not allow a land use not permitted under the zoning district, and does not involve regulations or conditions established by surface mining permits, conditional use permits, or contract rezones authorized by the city council. Findings of Fact No. 11. DECISION Based upon the preceding Findings and Conclusions, the Applicant has failed to demonstrate he satisfies the criteria warranting a variance from the City's development regulations. The request for a variance from maximum allowable front yard fence height as set forth in ACC 18.48.020(A)(1)(a) is DENIED. The Applicant shall bring the existing fence into compliance with the fence height limitations set forth in ACC 18.48. Decided this7'day of January 2006. Picazo Fence Height Variance, VAR05-0013 City of Auburn Hearing Examiner Findings, Conclusion, and Decision ;s M. Driscoll of Auburn Hearing Examiner Page 6 of 6 ��r ! � �� ' ' • �'�'� � ' 0�� * 1, G��eiO�i� :; 0 0 �� ELMA WEN APPLICATION NO.: VAR05-0013 APPLICANT: Leopold Picazo REQUEST: Request for a variance to legalize an existing overheight fence LOCATION: 1111 29th Street SE Exhibit 3 • VARIANCE APPLICATION Information above will be completed by staff COMPLETE THIS FORM WITH ALL ENTRIES BEING TYPED (except signatures) OR NEATLY PRINTED IN INK. IF ADDED SPACE IS NEEDED, ADD THE ADDITIONAL REQUIRED PAGES TO THIS APPLICATION. I. Please give a general description of your request and, if you wish, provide other infonnation that you feel supports the variance. our eLDra�l n1Ne iurQ ire a" a. var��v�� fo r a o -Fron+- rd , -wasputtto our a'Etenhbb \ t11 +-our�TVR� is 2. What unique physical conditions, including narrowness or shallowness of lot size or shape, or exceptional topographical or other physical conditions, are associated with your property? 0,0 S\)sti S7 -"&T Exhibit 4 Variance Application Page 3 of 6 Revised 1213w2W4 i4PpLICfiTf0N NUMBER Af''PL1C S NA'IIR Variance for: 7777 Received by: Site. pla n (7 ropio " Seo. TWp Area Code Zone. District Comp plan: Hearing Date: _ Staff Lead: Information above will be completed by staff COMPLETE THIS FORM WITH ALL ENTRIES BEING TYPED (except signatures) OR NEATLY PRINTED IN INK. IF ADDED SPACE IS NEEDED, ADD THE ADDITIONAL REQUIRED PAGES TO THIS APPLICATION. I. Please give a general description of your request and, if you wish, provide other infonnation that you feel supports the variance. our eLDra�l n1Ne iurQ ire a" a. var��v�� fo r a o -Fron+- rd , -wasputtto our a'Etenhbb \ t11 +-our�TVR� is 2. What unique physical conditions, including narrowness or shallowness of lot size or shape, or exceptional topographical or other physical conditions, are associated with your property? 0,0 S\)sti S7 -"&T Exhibit 4 Variance Application Page 3 of 6 Revised 1213w2W4 3. What physical conditions are present that will not llCb allow a reasornla�blQ and harmonious use of ; I In your property? di e, i1� t- (�"w- �l w4 ' hM *AI will - hal- - kiloo o remon ab► e axe Wrnor zw uj .-a f- OL - pr o pert 4. How will the variance not alter the character of the neighborhood, or be detrimental to surrounding properties in which your property is located? Wt n e *)M LI 1t1Wt on1A_ M" � dek' mental 40 the, SU pl flper l'a lo� tk M It ada Po aesfhetit,i� i h Advo e-f� he gWWr OOA due fv fhe �t�rah't� lure- of the te axJ 9a4f, r 5. Are there special circumstances and conditions associated with the variance request that may be the result of the actions of the applicant or previous owner? ftl lJ►x are ( Ye ©�) x ' "S tho#* UpC the rrori���fibw�P u��j . Variance Application Page 4 Of 6 Revised 17130(2064 ALL PROPERTY OWNERS INCLUDED IN THIS APPLICATION MUST BE LISTED BELOW - OPPOSITE A "PARCEL NUMBER" WHICH IS ALSO SHOWN ON THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND INDICATES THE PROPERTY OWNED BY EACH APPLICANT. YOUR SIGNATURE ALSO INDICATES YOU HAVE READ AND UNDERSTOOD THE CONTENTS OF THIS APPLICATION AND ITS ATTACHMENTS RIGHT OF ENTRY: BY SIGNING THIS APPLICATION, I GRANT THE CITY AND ITS AGENTS THE RIGHT TO ENTER UPON THE PROPERTY FOR PURPOSES OF CONDUCTING NECESSARY INSPECTIONS TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS, CODES AND REGULATIONS, UNTIL SUCH TIME THE VARIANCE PROCESS IS COMPLETED. PARCEL NAME, ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER NUMBER (Please Print) S o t loS9183 L w K U j V i GDJto - 4 ���fh 5T Sf hubkryN j A A200-1 1 17-0411\ Fax number SIGNATUR DATE d _ 0-"%- E-mail /'i E-mail address 11� {��LpY p- IC S r%AAr,o�- ST J AJ€.-7— Fax number E-mail address DESIGNATED CONTACT PERSON:L►6'' Name: ,jUAYI L• Ol' Al'y�QIP % iii. A �(za`t � Address: Phone: Fax: 380 37 3 9 Variance Application Revised i2rdor2w4 Page 5 of 6 Please circle the best method to contact you: regular mail; fax- a -mail LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Lot Area 7,841 SgFt (0.18 acres)Access Record Number PUBLIC Section/Township/Range NE 30 21 5 Street rface Su PAVED Assessor Legal Description Records: Account Number 302105918304 Record Number 302105183 LOT 2 OF AUBURN SHORT PLAT SP 12-77 REC AF #7708300883 SD PLAT DAF BEG AT SE COR OF NW 1/4 OF NE 1/4 ALSO BEING CIL OF NXN OF S 356 TH ST 81 M ST SE TH S 89-28-22 W 20 FT ALG C/L SD 356 TH ST TH N 00-06-17 E 30 FT TO TPOB'TH CONTG N 00-06-17 E 200.82 FT ALG W MGN SD M ST SE TH S 89-26-48 W Legal Description 143.68 FT TH N 00-03-03 E 100 FT ALG E LN OF W 500 FT OF S 1/2 OF SE 1/4 OF NW 1/4 OF NE 1/4 TH S 89-26-48 W 499.94 FT ALG N LN SD S 1/2 SD LN BEING ALSO S LN OF ARMSTRONG MAPLEWOOD ADD TH S 00-03-03 W 300.54 FT ALG W LN OF SE 1/4 OF NW 1/4 OF NE 1/4 TH N 89-28-22 E 643.43 FT ALG N MGN S 356 TH ST TO TPOB Variance Application Revised 12/30r2004 Page 6 of 6 wocom ���� 2 9 �� s /lvav" WA 98oa2 PArcce- fir._ 3o 3 BY DATE JOB DESCRIPTION f- v N i s N cE SHEET OF SHEETS CALCULATION FOR Ju A c_ L -0A iz o S 4704 go 7 IZ07 G% CHECKED BY DATE i t M 5fi SE P, CPa=.r uoogle Local - 1111 29th st SE, auburn WA, 98002 a= Page 1 of 1 http://maps.google.com/ 10/22/2005 wig 6 i 71.v i C17YOF _ WASHINGTON AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subiect Public Hearing Application No. VAR05-0013 Date: 2/28/2006 Department: Planning Attachments: Please refer to Exhibit Budget Impact: NA List Administrative Recommendation: Hearing Examiner to deny the Variance as requested, based upon the Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Conditions as outlined. Background Summary: OWNER/APPLICANT: Leopoldo Picazo REQUEST: Variance request to legalize an existing over height fence within a front yard. The existing fence attains a maximum height of 6 ft. 9 inches (81 Inches), whereas the Zoning Code establishes a height limit of 42 inches (3.5 ft.). LOCATION: 1111 29th St. SE EXISTING ZONING: R2, Single Family Residential EXISTING LAND USE: The site is occupied by a single family residence with detached carport, accessing from 29h St. SE. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential SEPA STATUS: Exempt eviewe y ouncil & Committees: Arts Commission COUNCIL COMMITTE eviewed by Departments & DivisFwnsT: S: Building M&O Airport Finance Cemetery Mayor Hearing Examiner Municipal Serv. Finance Parks Human Services Park Board Planning & CD Fire Planning Planning Comm. Public Works Other Legal Police E Public Works Li Human Resources Action: Committee Approval: Council Approval: YesNo BYesLJNo Call for Public Hearing Referred to Until Tabled Until-- - 7- Councilmember: Norman Staff: Pilcher Meetin Date: January 18, 2006 Item Number: Exhibit 6 AUBURN* MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject Public Hearing VAR05-0013 Date: 2/28/2006 The Comprehensive Plan designation, zoning designation and land uses of the surrounding properties are: EXHIBIT LIST Exhibit 1 �rn� nsf Exhibit 2 L atnd Use Site Medium Density0. R3 Duplex Famly Home Exhibit 5 Residential Residential ::S:in:g:1eFamily North Medium Density R3 Duplex Home Residential Residential South Single Family R2 Single Family Single Family Home Residential Residential East Medium Density R3 Duplex Single Family Home Residential Residential West Medium Density R3 Duplex Single Family Home Residential Residential EXHIBIT LIST Exhibit 1 Staff Report Exhibit 2 Vicinity Map Exhibit 3 Application Exhibit 4 Notice of Public Hearing Exhibit 5 Affidavit of Posting Exhibit 6 Affidavit of Mailing Exhibit 7 Confirmation of Publication of Legal Notice Exhibit 8 Aerial Photograph FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The site is currently occupied by a single family residence and detached carport structure. According to King County records, the applicant jointly purchased the property on 1/31/2004 and then apparently purchased the interest of the other co-owners on 9/28/04. 2. The property contains a 750 sq. ft. single family home and several outbuildings. The site is 7841 sq. ft. in area and fronts on and obtains access from 29th St. SE, a Minor Arterial street. 3. Building permits for fences 6 ft. or less in height are not required within the City of Auburn. However, there are Zoning Code restrictions regarding fence height that must be observed. 4. In February 2004, the applicant was advised by a City Code Enforcement Officer that a wood fence under construction within the front yard was too tall to comply with zoning requirements. The applicant subsequently lowered the height within the front yard setback to the satisfaction of the Code Enforcement Officer. 5. In October 2005, a City Code Enforcement Officer passed by the site and observed a new, wrought -iron fence as high as 6 ft. in height under construction within the front yard setback area. He also observed electrical work being conducted without the requisite electrical permit. The applicant was advised of the code violations and reminded there was a previous violation for the same over height issue in 2004. Nage Z OT 4 Agenda Subiect Public Hearing VAR05-0013 Date: 2/28/2006 6. The fence is a mixture of wrought -iron with a 2.5 ft. tall brick base and approx. 4.5 ft. tall brick pillars, capped with metal lights. The arching wrought -iron portion of the fence attains a maximum height of 69 inches. 7. A gate extends across the driveway and is apparently electrically operated. Another gate provides separate pedestrian access to the residence. 8. The applicant's lot is not located a corner of intersecting streets, nor are there any driveways accessing 14th St. SE from the abutting lots. 9. Staff conducted a site visit on January 10, 2005 to verify site and neighborhood conditions. 10. The case file (VAR05-0008) and its contents are hereby incorporated by reference. CONCLUSIONS: Staff has concluded that the requested variance should be denied, as the applicant has not met the burden of proof in demonstrating that it is consistent with all of the following criteria necessary to grant the variances as outlined in Auburn City Code Section 18.70.010(A) (1) through (10). An analysis of the application supporting the variance criteria follows. 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 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 the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant's lot is similar in size and configuration to many other lots in the area. The lot is essentially level and at grade with the adjoining sidewalk. There appears to be ample room behind the house for a usable back yard. 2. 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. As noted in #1 above, the site does not appear to have any unique physical limitations as opposed to other properties in the area. 3. 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- family 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. This particular fence may be considered by some as quite attractive and a favorable addition to the neighborhood. However, staff is concerned with establishing a precedent for fences greater than 42 inches in height within front yard setbacks that could establish a "walled—off" appearance in residential neighborhoods. At this time, Auburn City Code generally does not have any restrictions on the types of materials used in fence construction in residential areas. 4. That the special circumstances and conditions associated with the variance are not a result of the actions of the applicant or previous owners. Page 3 of 4 Agenda Subject Public Hearing VAR05-0013 Date: 2/28/2006 There are no apparent special circumstances associated with this request. In fact, the property owner was made aware in 2004 of the fence height limitations within front yard setbacks and apparently chose to construct this type of fence anyway. S. 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 front yard fence height limitation is common throughout the R3 zone district. There are numerous other front yard fences in the neighborhood, both of chain-link and wood construction, which appear to be code -compliant. 6. 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 stated purposes of the regulations of the Zoning Code (ACC 18.52.010) are to "enhance and maintain the aesthetic character, to promote the public health, safety and general welfare, and to increase the effectiveness of visual communication within the City. This chapter is also intended to avoid visual clutter that may adversely impact traffic and pedestrian safety, or be adverse to the property values, business opportunities and the City's appearance and to prevent and abate public nuisances." There are no particular statements within the purpose section of the R3 zone that apply to this proposal. 7. The variance will not allow an increase in the number of dwelling units permitted by the zoning district. Not applicable. 8. The authorization of such variance will not adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan. Not applicable. 9. The variance shall not allow a land use that is not permitted under the zoning district in which the property is located. Not applicable. 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. There are no other regulations or conditions that apply. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the application and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of the staff report, Staff recommends the requested variance be denied. Staff reserves the right to supplement the record of the case to respond to matters and information raised subsequent to the writing of this report. rage -4 yr '+