HomeMy WebLinkAboutITEM II-A-1
MAY - D 200S
Appeal is filed with the City Clerk
Or Deputy City Clerk
THE FOllOWING TO BE COMPl TED BY CITY OF AUBURN
Application No.: Date of City Council Hearing:
\f AR C)f:, ~ c?~ 'Z-
Date Filed: Deadline For Filing Appeal:
(h~ ~1.~~ fh~ q 1 'Ue5~
THE FOllOWING TO BE COMPLETED BY APPEllANT
Name of Appellant(s):
t//I(f be- elle~T A-
I?tI It L MiJ
Phone:
Phone: QS8-ta3 - 7~~'
Appellant Address:
ISf~ S{3 f!.1J S~ S~
JIib~/ itJ.A-- 9fCl1 ~
-~
~)ft:7
E-mail: cHe LMne e(!J~ '
Agent Address:
I~ dgefJ~ G-F
~ t()1r980~'7---
E-mail: (IJE<,L~lj f!!f~J,
EXHIBIT 1-
page 1 of 3
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.
2. Specific reasons why the City's action or decision should be reversed or
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 anyone or more members or the group or
organization must be stated.
4. The desired outcome of the appeal.
You may provide your responses here, or preferably, attach a separate typed
response to each of the above.
~~ tlffacL~ rJ~f0 -
.
Page 2 of 3
STATEMENT OF APPEAL
I). On April 8,2006, Saturday, Viktor Chekota and Eva Law received the copy of the
Hearing Examiner's decision. The envelop was dated as per US POST MARK was
APRIL 5.2006.
SEE EXHIBIT A..
2).Viktor Chekota filed the request for reconsideration at the City Of Auburn on
April 12. 2006 which is within the time frame as per ACC 188.66.150, a Request for
Reconsideration must be received "within seven days" from the date of mailing which
was April 5,2006..
So the City's action to dismissed the Request for Reconsideration should be
REVERSED based on the_Item 1 above.
3.) Viktor Chekota, the applicant, request the Request for Reconsideration of the
Examiner's Decision to approve the variance application #V AR06-002 based on the
documents and pictures submitted on the "Request for Reconsideration" .on
April 12, 2006 at the City of Auburn.
.
..
Signature of Appellant(s):
I#~~
Dated: \f\~ ~ \ 2~(,
State of \."-J A }
\ J.... )ss
County of ~ ~ }
On this day perSonally appeared before me hi ~d~1'-R h L~,()
to me known to be the individual(s) described in ani 0 executed the within and
foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that 21--€- signed the same as
~ free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein
mentioned.
Given under my hand and official seal this
2 eole,.
'?>~ day of "fV\ ~
......."....... ~ ,.,. ..'It.\",
~.. ON Iv. 'It.
,:- ~S ............0-<': '..
:- ~...~\~ES .... ~\
f~"'(;y ~ \~,
'0:<: Q:, () d)..,"
: :0 ~ :",1 o~_~
, -. .... ",,' '""""
~a:.~c;; 0 .;) iN~t
~ .i '.~"" " ........ fI'
, Go..?: v ", "o!".;
~ 7': "'~o .....
" '.Jt. '..::J .... <c, .:'
I, .~L.......... t5 ....
f." VO s~ ......
I, ....
",..",.."",
u ,fi...
Do Not Mark Below This Line
Appeal File Number Assigned by the City:
Date Scheduled for Hearing:
Page 3 of 3
RECE'IVED
APR 0 3 2006
PLANNING DB>ARIMENT
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER
OF THE CITY OF AUBURN
In the Matter of the Application of )
)
Victor Chekota )
)
)
Variance from Fence Height Limits )
NO. V AR06-0002
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,
AND DECISION
SUMMARY OF DECISION
A variance to legalize an existing over height fence within the front and street side yard setbacks
is DENIED.
SUMMARY OF RECORD
Requests:
Victor Chekota (Applicant) requested a variance from the fence height limitations in order to
legalize an existing fence within the front and street side yard setbacks on property located at
1540 - 23rd Street SE, Auburn, Washington. The Applicant's proposal seeks to exceed the front
yard fence height limitations by 10 inches and the street side yard fence height limitations by
33.5 inches.
Hearing Date:
The Hearing Examiner for the City of Auburn held an open record public hearing on March 21,
2006.
Testimony:
The following individuals presented testimony under oath at the open record public hearing:
Steve Pilcher, City of Auburn Planner
Victor Chekota, Applicant
Eva Law
V irginia Haugen
Clarice Bryan
Donald Fyles
Tim Blumenstein
EXHIBIT :;:<.
Chekota Fence Height Variance, VAR06-0002
City of Auburn Hearing Examiner
Findings, Conclusion, and Decision
Page 1 of8
Exhibits:
The following exhibits were admitted at the open record public hearing:
Exhibit 1:
Exhibit 2:
Exhibit 3:
Exhibit 4:
Exhibit 5:
Exhibit 6:
Exhibit 7:
Exhibit 8:
Exhibit 9:
Exhibit 10:
Exhibit lOa:
Exhibit lOb:
Exhibit 10c:
Staff Report
Vicinity Map
Application for Variance, dated February 3,2006
Notice of Public Hearing
Affidavit of Posting
Affidavit of Mailing
Confirmation of Publication of Legal Notice
Aerial Photograph
Notice to Correct Violation, Case No. VI005-0998
Site Photographs
Site Photographs
Site Photographs
Site Photographs
Upon consideration of the testimony and exhibits admitted at the open record hearing, the
Hearing Examiner enters the following Findings and Conclusions:
FINDINGS
I. The Applicant requested a variance to legalize an existing over height fence on property
located at 1540 - 23rd Street SE, Auburn, Washington. The subject property is identified
as King County Tax Parcel No. 9500900205. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Page 1; Exhibit 3,
Variance Application.
2. The subject property is zoned R-2 Single Family Residential (R-2). The R-2 zone is
intended to create a living environment of optimum standards for single-family dwellings
at a relatively low degree of density. Design standards for fences within the R-2 zone are
established in Auburn City Code (ACC) 18.48.020. ACC 18.14.010; ACC 18. 14. 040(H);
Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Page 1.
3. The subject property, located within the Urban Growth Area, has a City Comprehensive
Plan land use designation of Single Family Residential. Goals and policies with the
Comprehensive Plan that are applicable to the proposed variance include: Land Use,
Neighborhood Quality, Goal 8 (maintain and protect all viable and stable residential
neighborhoods) and Urban Design, Goal 22, Objective 22.1, Policy UD-l (maintain ...
the existing aethestic character of the community). City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan;
Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Page 1.
4. The subject property is a flat, rectangular shaped comer lot. A single-family detached
Chekota Fence Height Variance, VAR06-0002
City of Auburn Hearing Examiner
Findings, Conclusion, and Decision
Page 2 of8
residence, orientated towards 23rd Street SE, is located on the subject property. The
property has access from two points: a driveway providing access from 23rd Street SE to a
paved parking area and a driveway providing access from "R" Street SE to a detached
garage. The Applicant stated that primary access to the residence was from 23rd Street SE
and that he utilizes the "R" Street SE access point only once or twice a week. Exhibit 1,
Stcif.f Report, Pages 2-3; Testimony of Mr. Pilcher; Testimony of Mr. Chekota.
5. In November 2005, Auburn Code Enforcement Officer Joiner performed a site visit. At
that time, Officer Joiner noted that the fence, which was under construction, exceeded
height limitations set by ACC 18.48.020. Officer Joiner discussed and explained the
height limitations with the Applicant. Despite Office Joiner's instructions, the Applicant
proceeded to complete construction of the fence in violation of the height standards.
Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 2; Testimony of Mr. Pilcher.
6. A Notice to Correct Violation was issued by the City requiring the Applicant to remove
the fence or lower it to the maximum allowable fence height. Compliance was required
by 5:00 pm on January 3, 2006, unless a Request for Reconsideration was submitted, in
writing, to the Planning and Community Development Department by January 6, 2006.
The record does not demonstrate that the Applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration.
Exhibit 1, Stcif.f Report, Page 2; Exhibit 9, Notice to Correct Violation.
7. A comer lot is a lot situated at the intersection of two or more streets. ACC 18. 04. 590(A).
Pursuant to ACC 18.04.570(A)(2), the front lot line for a comer lot is that lot line that
abuts a designated arterial. For the subject property, the front lot line abuts "R" Street
SE, a minor arterial, and the street side yard lot line abuts 23rd Street SE. ACC
18.04. 750(A) (2); Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Pages 2-3; Testimony of Mr. Pilcher.
8. The Applicant constructed a solid wood fence along 23rd Street SE, a residential street,
which is 52 inches in height and abuts the sidewalk. ACC 18.48.020(A)(I)(a) provides
that fences within the street side yard setback must not exceed 42 inches. The
Applicant's 52-inch high fence is 10 inches over the stated height limitations. ACC
18.48.020(A)(I)(a); Exhibit 1, Stcif.f Report, page 3; Exhibits 10, lOa, lOb, and 10c - Site
Photographs.
9. The Applicant constructed a solid wood fence along "R" Street SE, a minor arterial street,
which is 75.5 inches in height and abuts the sidewalk for most of its length. ACC
18.48.020(A)(l)(a) provides that fences within the front yard setback must not exceed 42
inches. Th~ Applicant's 75.5-inch high fence is 33.5 inches over the stated height
limitations. ACC 18.48.020(A)(I)(a); Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 3; Exhibits 10, lOa,
lOb, and 10c - Site Photographs.
10. The Applicant purchased the property in 2003. The Applicant and Ms. Law stated that
when they moved in to the residence they had repeated problems with unleashed dogs
Chekota Fence Height Variance, VAR06-0002
City of Auburn Hearing Examiner
Findings, Conclusion, and Decision
Page 3 of8
entering their property and endangering their dogs and, they had problems with garbage
being thrown in the yard. In addition, the Applicant noted a lack of privacy because of
two of their three bedrooms proximity to "R" Street. The Applicant asserted that the
height of the fence, especially along "R" Street SE, was intended to alleviate these
problems, provide privacy, and lessen noise and light pollution created by traffic. Exhibit
3, Variance Application; Testimony of Mr. Chekota; Testimony of Ms. Law.
11. The Applicant argued that there are fences of similar and/or greater height within the
front yard setback of properties in the surrounding neighborhood. A site visit to verify
site and neighborhood conditions concluded that the mobile home park to the east of the
subject property maintains a fence greater than 42 inches along its entire frontage with
"R" Street SE but that the fence is setback approximately 6-10 feet from the sidewalk by
a landscaped area. City Staff stated that there are no residences on 23 rd Street SE that
have front yard fences and no other residence within the surrounding neighborhood with
fences exceeding 42 inches in the front yard setback. Mr. Blumenstein, who lives directly
across 23rd Street from the Applicant, has a six-foot high fence facing "R" Street that has
been in place for approximately 30 years. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Pages 4-5; Testimony
of Mr. Pilcher; Testimony of Mr. Chekota; Testimony of Mr. Blumenstein.
12. The Applicant asserted that ACC 18.48.020(A)(1)(b) was applicable to this matter. ACC
18.48.020(A)(1)(b) provides that when a residence has two street frontages with one of
the frontages located on an arterial street and the lot does not have vehicle access to the
arterial, then a fence of up to 72 inches in height may encroach into the setback abutting
the arterial street. This section of the ACC also requires a five-foot wide landscaping
strip between the fence and the abutting arterial. ACC 18.48.020(A)(1)(b) is not
applicable in this situation. The subject property does fronts onto two streets - 23rd Street
SE and "R" Street SE - and "R" Street SE is an arterial. However, the subject property
has vehicle access from both of these streets. In addition, the Applicant's existing fence
abuts the sidewalk on "R" Street SE and the section of the ACC that he asserts is
applicable requires a five-foot wide landscaping strip between the fence and the roadway.
ACC 18.48. 020(A) (1) (b); Testimony ofChekota; Testimony of Mr. Pilcher.
13. Public comments were received on the proposal. Neighboring property owners concurred
that traffic noise generated by "R" Street SE was a nuisance and that the neighborhood
did experience problems with garbage and dogs. Neighboring property owners also
stated that although the Applicant's fence was aesthetically pleasing, it was too high and
impacted sight distances at the intersection of "R" Street SE and 23rd Street SE, creating
safety issues for vehicles and pedestrians alike. Testimony of Ms. Haugen; Testimony of
Ms. Bryan; Testimony of Mr. Finer; Testimony of Mr. Blumenstein.
14. City Staff testified that vehicle and pedestrian safety is a key issue and that a fence over
72 inches does not provide a "clear view" triangle necessary to provide for public safety.
ACC 18.48.020(B)(1) states that nothing shall be constructed within the triangular area
Chekota Fence Height Variance, VAR06-0002
City of Auburn Hearing Examiner
Findings, Conclusion, and Decision
Page 4 of8
formed by a line 20 feet along the right-of-way lines of two intersecting streets and the
line connecting the ends of the two 20-foot lines that is between a height of three feet and
10 feet above the established grade. City Staff asserted that the design of the fence
impacted the view triangle and did not provide adequate sight distances for vehicles
entering and exiting the neighborhood and for pedestrian traffic. ACC 18.48.020(B)(J);
Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Pages 4-5; Testimony of Mr. Pilcher.
15. The Applicant seeks only to legalize 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.
16. Variance applications are exempt from SEPA review. WAC 197-11-800.
17. The City provided reasonable notice of the March 21,2006 public hearing. Notice was
posted on-site on March 9, 2006; was mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the
affected site on March 10, 2006; and was published in the King County Journal on March
11, 2006. Exhibit 4, Notice of Public Hearing; Exhibit 5 and Exhibit 6, Affidavits of
Legal Notice; Exhibit 7, E-mailfrom King County Journal.
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.
Chekota Fence Height Variance, VAR06-0002
City of Auburn Hearing Examiner
Findings, Conclusion, and Decision
Page 5 of8
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.
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
I. 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 exist that impact adherence to City development regulations. The
physical conditions of the property are not unique and do not create hardship. Findings of
Fact No.4.
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. The
Applicant seeks to legalize an existing over height fence. A fence is a permitted use within
the R-2 zoning district and, when of legal height, does not require a building permit for its
construction. Fences that are aesthetically pleasing and provide for safety, privacy, and
security are a reasonable and harmonious use of residential property. Fences that adversely
impact the surrounding neighborhood by creating vehicular and pedestrian safety issues are
not a reasonable and harmonious use. Limiting the Applicant to a 42-inch fence height in the
front and street side yard setback would not prevent the Applicant from utilizing the property
in a reasonable and harmonious way. Findings of Fact Nos. 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 14.
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
Chekota Fence Height Variance, VAR06-0002
City of Auburn Hearing Examiner
Findings, Conclusion, and Decision
Page 6 of8
of this height within the front yard setback of neighboring properties with the exception of
the mobile home park to the east. Although the design of the fence may be aesthetically
pleasing, there is a viable concern in regards to the impact on sight distances for vehicular
and pedestrian traffic and, in establishing a precedent for fences that create a "walled off'
appearance within the residential community. Findings ofF act Nos. 2, 3, 8, 9, 11, and 13.
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. A City Code Enforcement Officer previously
advised the Applicant of the City's standards in regards to fence height limitations within the
R-2 zone. Despite this advisement, the Applicant completed construction of the fence at its
present height. Therefore, the existing, non-conforming fence is a direct result of the
Applicant's actions. In addition, the Applicant purchased the residence in 2003 and should
have been fully aware of the traffic volumes on "R" Street SE and the potential impacts from
this traffic. Findings of Fact Nos. 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10.
5. Literal interpretation of the code provisions would not deprive the Applicant of rights
commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district. There are no other
fences of this height within the front yard or street side yard setbacks of neighboring
properties with the exception of Mr. Blumenstein's fence of 72 inches. Adherence to the
height limitations set forth in ACC 18.42.020(A)(l)(a) would not deprive the Applicant of
rights enjoyed by others within the surrounding community. Findings of Fact No. 11.
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. Code provisions provide exceptions
to fence height limitations for residence with two street frontages but only if the property
does not have vehicles access from the arterial and the fence is setback five feet. These code
provisions are intended to not only provide for aesthetically pleasing communities but for
vehicular and pedestrian safety. Since the subject property has vehicle access from "R"
Street SE, permitting the existing fence would be inconsistent with the purpose of the code.
Findings of Fact Nos. 2, 3, 11, 12, and 13.
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 Nos. 1, 3 and 15.
Chekota Fence Height Variance, VAR06-0002
City of Auburn Hearing Examiner
Findings, Conclusion, and Decision
Page 70f8
DECISION
Based upon the preceding Findings and Conclusions, the request for a variance from maximum
allowable front yard and street side yard fence height limitations as set forth in ACC
18.48.020(A)(l)(a) is DENIED. The Applicant shall bring the existing fence into compliance
with the fence height limitations set forth in ACC 18.48.
?{
5q--
---
Decided this~ay of March, 2006.
J es M. Driscoll
ity of Auburn Hearing Examiner
Chekota Fence Height Variance, VAR06-0002
City of Auburn Hearing Examiner
Findings, Conclusion, and Decision
Page80f8
I I I I I I I I I I I
;L 1 :"II 1 :i I :it::
[[1 '1 )1/
I-----i
I I
I' I I
r
" s .-
I
f--
I
~.
~1 !
I
~ T~t-
~- ~I
L= ::
~4" t-
~
:>>1. :"111=
I
___---1
25 H ST
t-~::J .. :::iT. :"II~
S I II tIl I
I =:: I
=-' ?6 -~H ~ st -,
1 ...:t:l Ir ~I-
I .
I \ ~
,
r
i
I
EXHIBIT .3
~
r
I
~~IT
Sl~
1
r I I I.
h I~.
[7r-1 ~I~'
i't~
~, - ~ I
l'Jfg ~~--
~ fJ e;\ \::;yt
VARIANCE APPLICA rlON
. . .
. .
. .' J 3' {!)iz . .. u -- rg
~.:_'~~>";}:;;.::<~~~~... .... .......... ". "............ .. .....:
~~Kn))7'< . fl44~J-'~.t;fVl?~.~ ~~""'-"'-"'>~'~""--""_'/""H""
~lWJ>:~\: -~>'L..fc..<:. \ ". ..'~~',",."',:'" "'''.' ..... " .
.... " . .
- ..".. - ".. '. ,-:' .~;. :. . . .- -". . "... '. . .
zooe:,~~:.:'>..::.':. ""; '.' ,.-'..~~..~___:..:< .:..;~~__:.....:..,...: '.. ~~_~:. '.': .' .'
Heari,ngllafe:' :. .'. .... ,. Staff~::'-.
Information above wll beCOlTipletec;l by staff
COMPlETE THIS FORM WITH ALL ENTRIES BEING TYPED (except sigIIabns) OR NEATLY PRINTED
IN INK. IF ADDED SPACE IS NEEDED, ADD THE ADDITIONAL REQUIRED PAGES TO THIS
APPLICATION.
1. Please give 8 generaf desaiption of your request and. if you wish. provide other Information that you
feel supports Ihe variance.
Variance request to IegaIze Ihe existing over height fence wfttin front yard. The existing fence
provides welfare and safety for cu dog, enjoy our privacy and due to heavy traftic and vehicle lights
Ihe height of Ihe fence eliminate Ihe nuisance of Ihe vehicle lights, Iraffic noise, thus help LIS erjoy
Ihe use of Ihe property .
2. What unique physical conditions, including narrowness or shallowness of lot size or shape, or
exceptional topographical or other physical conditions, are BSsociated.wittJ your property?
Property is located in Ihe comer of 8 heavy arterial Road of R STREET AND 23fID ST SE.
QXHIBIT .!:L
.t:.':;~
3. What phYSical conditions are present that will not allow a reasonable and hannonious use of your
property?
As stated in #2, Vehicle lights due to heavy traffic, no privacy, danger to our dog from dog deceases,
and dog bites from other dogs walking Will NOT allow us to live reasonable and harmonious use
of our property.
4. How will the variance not alter the character of the neighborhood, or be detrimental to surrounding
properties in which your property is located?
The variance ,if granted, will not alter the character of the neighborhood, or be detrimental to
surrounding properties in the property is located. There are fences in the surrounding neighborhood
with this height and or higher within front yard setback.
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?
That the special circumstances and conditions associated with the variance are not a result
Of the actions of the applicant or previous owners.
ifiance Application
"Iised 1111712005
Page 4 of6
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
NUMBER
NAME, ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER
(Please Print)
SIGNATURE!
J DATE
~\~~
O~ O~, O~
~).Of. VlK\O~C~
~~"?T.~E.
f\-\.\!) u e-tJ ( W f\ q good-
,
Fax number :><...
E-mail address r "~\(U\W ~ eoMca.~,. \J c'".
Fax number
E-mail address
DESIGNATED CONTACT PERSON:
1'i{~~C\\6-~\~ . , .,', '. .
(~?))~~~~k\e-~SX~b3)?tD-~~4;L~ .
Fax: ' (e:eLb- V4\~<3CtJ~
E-mail address: C\\ c~LM.u ~ c...em ~T \ ~ E:.~ .
.
Name:
Address:
Phone:
Variance Application
Revised 11/1712005
Page 5 of 6
Please circle the best method to contact you: regular mail; fax; e-mail
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
LU\ ~ '\ bL~.:J,.
WOLfE~ -A L Md.
Variance Application
Remed 11N712OO5
Page 6 of6
~
EXHIBIT S CL-
EXHIBIT S- j
EXHIBIT I-c.
AUBURN
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
WASHINGTON
Aqenda Subiect Public Hearing Application No. VAR06-0002
Department: Planning
Attachments: Please refer to Exhibit
List
Date:
3/16/2006
Budget Impact: NA
Administrative Recommendation:
Hearing Examiner to deny the Variance as requested, based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions
as outlined.
Backqround Summary:
OWNER/APPLlCANT:
Viktor Chekota
REQUEST:
Variance request to legalize an existing over height fence within a front
yard and side street side yard setback. The existing fence is approx. 5 feet
in height, whereas the Zoning Code establishes a height limit of 42 inches
(35ft )
. .
LOCATION: 1540 23rd St. SE I
I
EXISTING ZONING: R2, Single Family Residential
EXISTING LAND USE: The site is occupied by a single family residence facing 23rd St., with a
detached garage accessing off R St. SE. I
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential
SEPA STATUS: Exempt I
!
Reviewed by Council & Committees: i ReViewed by uepartments & Divisions:
~ArtS Commission COUNCIL COMMITTErs ~ Building ~ M&O
Airport ~ Finance Cemetery Mayor
Hearing Examiner Municipal Serv. Finance Parks
Human Services Planning & CD Fire Planning
Park Board Public Works Le al Police
Planning Comm. Other I Pu%lic Works Human Resources
Action:
Committee Approval: BYes BNO
Council Approval: Yes No Call for Public Hearing _1_1-
Referred to Until I I I
Tabled Until I_I
Councilmember: Norman I Staff: Pilcher
Meeting Date: March 8, 2006 I Item Number:
EXHIBIT i.-
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED
Staff Report
Vicinity Map
Application
Notice of Public Hearing
Affidavit of Posting
Affidavit of Mailing
Confirmation of Publication of Legal Notice
Aerial Photograph
Notice to Correct Violation
Photos of fence
006
rrounding properties
Land Use
ingle Family Home
ingle Family Home
ingle Family Home
Mobile Home Park
ingle Family Home
nd detached garage
hed garage facing 23rd
ing space. A driveway
, 2005, At the time, the
till not completed,
applicant at his
e contrary to the
tly issued on January 3,
City of Auburn, but
line is to be considered
Aqenda Subiect Public Hearing VAR06-0002
Date:
3/16/2
The Comprehensive Plan designation, zoning designation and land uses of the su
are:
Comprehensive Zoning
Plan
Site Single Family R2 Single Family
Residential Residential
North Single Family R2 Single Family
Residential Residential
South Single Family R2 Single Family
Residential Residential
East High Density RMHP Residential
Residential Mobile Home Park
West Single Family R2 Single Family
Residential Residential
EXHIBIT LIST
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 4
Exhibit 5
Exhibit 6
Exhibit 7
Exhibit 8
Exhibit 9
Exhibit 10
S
S
S
S
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The applicant's site is occupied by a single story single family residence a
that faces R St. SE. The residence appears that it may have had an attac
St. SE at some point in time that has subsequently been converted into liv
accessing 23rd extends from the street to the house.
2, A Code Enforcement action was initiated for this property on November 3
existing fence was under construction. In mid-November, with the fence s
Enforcement Officer Joiner discussed the fence height limitations with the
residence. The applicant later proceeded to continue constructing the fenc
information provided to him. A Notice to Correct Violation was subsequen
2006.
3. Building permits for fences 6 ft. or less in height are not required within the
there are Zoning Code standards that regulate fence height.
4. Whenever a lot fronts on an arterial street, the Zoning Code states that lot
the front lot for the lot:
18.04.570 Lot lines.
"Lot lines" means the lines bounding the lot.
A. Front lot line:
Page 2 of 6
Aqenda Subiect Public Hearing VAR06-0002
Date:
3/16/2006
1. For an interior lot, the front lot line shall be that lot line which abuts the street right-of-way.
2. For a corner lot, the front lot line shall be that lot line(s) which abuts a designated arterial
If neither or both is/are a designated arterial, the builder/owner shall at the time of applying for a
permit have the option of selecting which lot line shall be the front lot line, the other line lot
abutting the intersecting street shall become a street side yard.
5. The following provisions of the Zoning Code determine the maximum height for a fence within the
various yard setback areas on a lot:
18.48.020 Fences.
A. Height Regulations. The minimum or maximum height requirements as stipulated
throughout this chapter shall be considered to be met if the height of the fence is within six
percent of the height required. The height of the fence shall be determined from the existing,
established grade on the property
1. The following regulations shall apply in the R-S, LHRS, R-1, LHR1, R-2, LHR2, R-3,
LHR3, R-4, LHR4, R-MHP, LHRMHP, RO, RO-H, I, LHI, CN, C-1, LHC1, and C-2 districts:
a. 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.
b. Fences shall comply with the regulations of subsection (A)(1 )(a) of this section, except
within residential subdivisions with lots that have two street frontages. One of the street frontages
must be an existing or planned arterial street and the lots do not have vehicle access to said
arterial In such cases a fence that is taller than 42 inches and up to six feet high may then
encroach into the yard setback abutting the arterial street subject to the following: if such a fence
is proposed it must be for all or a majority of the arterial street frontage the subject lots abut
Individual fences, taller than 42 inches, on independent lots will not be permitted in the required
setback area. A five-foot width of landscaping, including deciduous trees planted at an average
spacing of 25 to 30 feet, is required between the fence and the abutting arterial A homeowners'
association, or similar organization, is required and shall perpetually maintain the fence and the
landscaping. The developer and/or homeowners' association shall provide evidence of such
perpetual maintenance. The planning director shall approve of the fence material, landscaping
and evidence of the homeowners' association maintenance and the timing of the installation of
fence and landscaping.
6. Per the Zoning Code standards noted above, the R St. SE frontage of the applicant's lot would be
considered the front line and the 23rd St. SE frontage a side street yard. In both instances,
maximum fence height is limited to 42 inches,
7. The fence height along the 23rd St. SE frontage is 52 inches in height and located directly in back
of the sidewalk. In order to avoid a large tree located at the lot corner at R St. SE, the fence "cuts
the corner" beginning at a point approx. 17 ft. west of the R St. SE sidewalk and the angling to a
point approx. 24 ft. south along R St. from its intersection with 23rd. From this point to the
driveway accessing the detached garage, the fence is 6 ft. 3.5 inches in height. The height of the
fence then decreases when it turns back into the lot and extends along the side of the driveway.
8. The fence is a solid wood fence with no openings.
9. R St. SE is classified as Minor Arterial Street according to the City's Transportation Plan Average
daily traffic counts along this stretch of R St. were approx. 11,200 in 2005.
Page 3 of 6
Aqenda Subiect Public Hearing VAR06-0002
Date:
3/16/2006
10. Both R St. SE and 23rd St. SE have sidewalks separated from the street by a planter strip that
consists of lawn.
11. Game Farm Park, a major park facility in the City, is located approx. % mile to the south along R
St. SE and is potentially a primary pedestrian destination for residents within the area.
12. The mobile home park to the east features a fence taller than 42" located along its entire frontage
with R St. SE. The fence is located behind approx. 6-10 feet of landscaping, which in turn is
located behind the integral curb and sidewalk.
13. Staff conducted a site visit on March 3, 2005 to verify site and neighborhood conditions.
14. On March 6,2006, the Auburn City Council overturned the Hearing Examiner's decision to deny a
fence height variance request (VAR05-0013, Picazo) and directed staff to draft proposed
amendments to the Zoning Code to allow higher fences along lot lines abutting streets.
15. The case file (VAR06-0002) and its contents are hereby incorporated by reference.
CONCLUSIONS:
Staff has concluded that the requested variance should be denied as requested, 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). However, the
Examiner may choose to favorably consider a modified fence design that does not cause potential safety
hazards.
An analysis of the application supporting the variance criteria follows.
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 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 to others found in the area. Being on the valley floor, topography
is not a relevant factor. The lot is located along R St. SE, a Minor Arterial street. Traffic on the street
could adversely impact outdoor activities in the applicant's yard from both a noise and privacy
standpoint.
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.
Other homes along the west side of R St. SE either do not have fences, or have fences that conform
with the height limitations of the Zoning Code. Staff understands the desire to provide privacy fencing
around a back yard when it is adjacent to an arterial street. However, it is important to maintain
visibility where a driveway enters the street. It also appears unnecessary to have a 4.5 ft. tall fence to
separate a front yard from the street (23rd St. SE) in order to allow a reasonable use of the property.
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-
Page 4 of 6
Aqenda Subiect Public Hearing VAR06-0002
Date:
3/16/2006
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.
Staff is concerned with establishing a precedent for fences greater than 42 inches in height that could
establish a "walled-off" appearance in residential neighborhoods where homes face a street. Staff is
not as concerned with the desire to erect a taller fence to screen what would be considered the
"private" outdoor space of a yard from an arterial street. However, the current fence height presents a
sight distance hazard adjacent to the driveway entering onto R St. SE.
Staff did not observe any other fences of this height within front or side street yard setbacks in the
surrounding neighborhood.
4. That the special circumstances and conditions associated with the variance are not a result
of the actions of the applicant or previous owners.
Based upon the records of the code enforcement officer, the applicant apparently completed
construction of the fence with full knowledge of the limitations of the Zoning Code.
5. 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.
Owners of lots not located at street corners are allowed to fence their back yards with 6 ft tall
fences. Current City regulations typically do not allow fences greater than 42 inches in height when a
lot line abuts a street.
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 purpose 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."
The City's Transportation Planner has noted that the fence along R St. SE "presents a sight distance
problem which could endanger the safety of both the property owner and the public walking or
driving nearby. Recommend reducing the fence height to no higher than 42 inches."
There are no particular statements within the purpose section of the R2 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.
Page 5 of 6
- -- -- I - - -
3/16/2006
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 as requested by the applicant. Should the Examiner decide to approve
the variance in part, staff recommehds the fence height be reduced to 42 inches along the 23rd St. SE
frontage and continuing along R St. SE to a point parallel with the front of the house. The fence should
also be required to be reduced in height to no more than 42 inches within the sight distance triangle
adjacent to the driveway, per the direction of the Traffic Engineering division.
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.
Page 6 of 6