HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-19-2000HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 19, 2000
The meeting of the Auburn Hearing Examiner was held on September 19, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers of the Auburn City Hall. Those in attendance were as follows: O,--...
HEARING EXAMINER: Diane L. VanDerbeek ~" ~''~ ; ii,' ~??~
STAFF: Lynn Rued and Patti Zook
Ms. VanDerbeek called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. explaining the order of procedures and swore in
staff and those in the audience intending on testifying.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. APPLICATION NO. TMP00-0001
Hearing Examiner opened the public hearing.
Assistant Planning Director Rued presented the staff report. George Lyden has requested a
temporary use permit to allow graveled off-street employee parking to be used during conStruction
of an addition to an existing building. The subject parcel is located immediately south of 1102 "D"
Street SE. This will be a temporary parking area only during the construction of an associated
project. He reviewed the Zoning Ordinance requirements. Staff recommends approval with two
conditions.
Hearing Examiner asked if the gravel lot will be lined. Assistant Planning Director Rued replied
no, just a large gravel area. Hearing Examiner inquired about size of the project and the required
bond. Assistant Planning Director Rued said the bond amount is appropriate because proponent
has to remove the gravel from the area and restore to its former condition.
Denny Holt, Holt and Associates, complimented staff and stated he understands the conditions.
He inquired about the demolition permit which his client is anxious to get, and he did not think the
temporary parking situation would preclude them from getting the permit. The project engineer is
available to answer questions.
Hearing Examiner acknowledged the request seems straightforward and did not have questions
for Mr. Holt or his engineer. Assistant Planning Director Rued remarked that the demolition permit
is for the single family homes on site and is not related to parking. He does not think this is an
issue.
There was no public testimony; therefore, Hearing Examiner closed the public hearing. She will
issue the written decision within 10 days.
2. APPLICATION NO. CUP00-0004
Hearing Examiner opened the public hearing.
Assistant Planning Director Rued presented the staff report. The Samoan Assembly of God
Church has requested a conditional use permit to allow the required parking and play areas to be
located in the R-4, Multi Family zones. The proposed parking area is located at 16 G Street SW.
The proposed play area is located at 28 G Street SW. The Church is located at 632 West Main
Street. Additional parking is required as well as the play area. A single family home on the
property will remain and be used as a church parsonage. The parking and play area are allowed
in R-4 zone with issuance of a conditional use permit. Staff recommends approval with one
condition.
PAGE 1
, HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES SEPTEMBER 19, 2000
Hearing Examiner did not have questions. The applicant was present, but did not speak.
Hearing Examiner asked if a bond is required for the landscaping. Assistant Planning Director
Rued said yes, the Zoning Ordinance requires a bond.
Valerie Simpson, 23 F Street SW, and owner of a triplex at 15 F Street SW, wondered how the
request would affect home values. Assistant Planning Director Rued commented that the subject
property and Simpson property are zoned R-4 and parking lots and play areas are typical uses in
R-4 zone. He does not see any impact to home values. He believes a play area would have a
positive impact versus multi-family unit.
There was no further testimony; therefore, the public hearing was closed. Hearing Examiner will
issue the written decision within 10 days.
3. APPLICATION NO. REZ00-0005
Hearing Examiner opened the public hearing.
Assistant Planning Director Rued presented the staff report. Lou Woodford has requested to
rezone a parcel located on the north side of the intersection of T Street SE and Auburn Black
Diamond Road from R-2, Single Family to R-3, Duplex Residential. He gave a history of the
parcel and how it was acquired. Staff recommends approval with one condition..
The applicant was present, but did not speak. There was no public testimony; therefore, the
public hearing was closed. Hearing Examiner will issue the written decision within 10 days.
Hearing Examiner combined the preliminary plat and rezone public hearings.
4. APPLICATION NO. PLT00-000?
5. APPLICATION NO. REZ00-0003
Hearing Examiner opened the public hearing.
Assistant Planning Director Rued presented the staff reports. Swanson Homes Inc., for a
preliminary plat of 20 single family homes on the southern 4.95 acre parcel. The property is
located at 3821 Academy Drive. Swanson Homes, Margaret Wilson, Margaret Darby and Marshal
Bain to rezone their property from the existing zoning of R-l, Single Family to R-2, Single Family.
The combined area of the 5 parcels is 12.83 acres in size and is located west of Academy Drive at
3800 block. Assistant Planning Director Rued used an overhead and pointed out the site and
explained difference between two zoning designations. The rezone is consistent and allows
flexibility. The adjacent properties will do preliminary plat when subdivision is proposed. He
described access to this preliminary plat. Two tracts are to be set aside for a storm drainage
facility. This facility will be designed and built in accordance with single family neighborhood. He
spoke about an easement for the pipeline company. He reviewed condition 3 of the preliminary
plat. He described the traffic improvements and utilities. Staff recommends approval with five
conditions.
Hearing Examiner did not have any questions.
J.B. Rupert, Rupert Engineering, representative for the applicant, spoke about the natural gas
easement and the reason for location of tracts. Most technicalities dealing with sewers and storm
drainage are resolved. He spoke with the owners located north of this project.
PAGE 2
HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES SEPTEMBER 19, 2000
Marshal Bain, 5307 SE 33RD Street, concurs with staff recommendation. His property is the
northern portion and is not deep enough for R1 zoning.
There was no other public testimony; therefore, the public hearing was closed.
APPLICATION NO. PUD0001-99
Hearing Examiner opened the public hearing.
Assistant Planning Director Rued presented the staff report. Homes by Judi, Inc., has requested
approval of a planned unit development (PUD) to allow 84 detached single family condominium
project. The property is located on the south side of Lakeland Hills Blvd., just east of the
intersection with Oravetz. Road. This is the City's first PUD. A portion of the project is located in
the City of Pacific. He spoke of the site's uniqueness. This property was zoned R4 in 1988 and
approved by Ordinance 4300. A considerable amount of material was removed in late 1970s and
early 1980s. An environmental review was completed and an FMDNS issued which contains 16
conditions of approval. Staff recommends approval of the PUD with seven conditions.
Hearing Examiner inquired about the size of the homes. Assistant Planning Director Rued
indicated the applicant will respond to this.
Judi Roland, 1015 Pike Street NE, is excited about this site and doing a good job. She introduced
her colleagues. Using easels, she pointed out the project on color renderings. Home plans
include loft plans and basement plans to take advantage of site's topography. She brought floor
plans and showed them to the Hearing Examiner. Sizes of homes range from 1,200 square feet
to 2,000 square feet with wide driveways. There will be a homeowners association which will
ensure maintenance of all common areas. All backyards will be fenced. There will be pedestrian
walkways.
Hearing Examiner asked about the price range of the homes. Ms. Roland said there will be a
combination of price ranges starting at $150,000.
There was no public testimony; therefore, the public hearing was closed.
Assistant Planning Director Rued commented that regarding the site's development in phases,
there should be a phasing plan. He suggested that the record be left open for a day or two to
enable parties to come up with language to ensure all amenities are in with the appropriate phase.
This way, all parties can ensure what is expected before building permit applications are
submitted.
Hearing Examiner agreed to the request and record will remain open until 5:00 p.m. on Thursday.
Her written decision will be issued 10 days after that.
APPEAL HEARING:
1. CASE NO. HAP00-0002
Hearing Examiner asked Assistant Planning Director Rued to go first and then Mr. Haueter.
Assistant Planning Director Rued will state why Planning Director's decision is correct and Mr.
Haueter will state why Planning Director's decision is incorrect.
Assistant Planning Director Rued said that an appeal was filed by Roy Haueter appealing the
Planning Director's decision to not allow an expansion of a non-conforming use at 102 Auburn
Way North. He used an overhead to show the site. On lot 9 an automobile repair business has
PAGE 3
HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES SEPTEMBER 19, 2000
been here for a number of years, in fact, several different automobile repair businesses. The C2
zoning district does not auto repair and the business is there under nonconforming use. One
building is on lot 9. Lot 10 is a gravel parking area that historically has been used. The City
recognizes the nonconforming status for the lot which existed prior to City requiring lots to be
paved. He pointed out different lots onan overhead. The lot is gravel and used to store/park cars
in association with auto repair business. In 1989 there was an existing single family home on Lot
11. The City issued a demolition permit for the home and the home was demolished. In 1987,
City issued new zoning code and new zoning map. The property remains C2 today. The City has
clearly established that the home existed after 1987 and that the business has to comply with
regulations. The aerial photo clearly shows the home in place.
Between 1987 and 1989, Hearing Examiner inquired about the home's use. Assistant Planning
Director Rued replied that the home was used as a single family home. Staff has researched City
records and found no evidence that it was used for any purpose other than as a single family
home. No permits were issued for its conversion. All records indicated the structure was used as
single family home.
Assistant Planning Director Rued remarked that regarding nonconforming uses, this is an
expansion of nonconforming use. Zoning Ordinance requires parking area to be paved which is
another issue. The Planning Director's decision should be upheld.
Mr. Haueter: presented some documents to Hearing Examiner, but did not make copy for staff.
Hearing Examiner looked at documents entitled Hearing Examiner cover sheet, a two page
document that has a number of things attached to it and marked as 1 through 11. The cover
sheet is Exhibit A with other exhibits following numerically 1-11. Mr. Haueter continued by saying
that before he purchased the property, he went to the City to find out what he could or could not
do. He was given a map, showed a lot to be graveled (item 1). He asked if he needed a permit to
clean up two lots and regravel the lot and was told no. After these concerns were satisfied he
purchased the property, cleaned up the building by painting, removal of junk from lots 11 and 10,
and applied for a business license. He then received a letter from City, nothing asked about
parking or lots 10 and 11. His exhibit 3 is his response to City's letter. He received an
administrative decision and told to cease using the property. His interpretation of the decision
was that it addressed lots 10 and 11. His next exhibit is notice to correct violation which
demands removal of vehicles from behind the building. His exhibit 7 is response to this
requirement. Mr. Haueter then contacted prior owner of property regarding his pdor use of lots 10
and 11. That person said that lot 10 and 11 were used for auto business, auto storage and office.
He read portion of correspondence from Walt Austin, previous owner, on use of lots 10 and 11
and also talked to Austin by telephone regarding this appeal. He then contacted prior tenants and
their story was almost identical to Austin's. He then read a portion of correspondence from Lewis.
Hearing Examiner advised Mr. Haueter there is no need for him to read the statements because
he gave her a copy of the statements. Mr. Haueter then said that correspondence in his exhibits
shows they concur that two lots east were used for parking for customers, and that house torn
down was used for auto parts storage and for offices. He spoke with owners of license agency
who indicated their customers park in the lot and got an indication that agency used for many
years. Contractor who regravelrd 10 and 11 was also contacted because Mr. Haueter wanted his
professional opinion. He asked the contractor if the lot looked like a parking lot or a vacant lot.
Contractor said usually vacant lots have a layer of top soil; this lot had packed gravel.
Hearing Examiner is familiar with the site and asked why the cars have for sale signs. Mr.
Haueter said that no sale signs are on any vehicles. He spoke about the warranty signs in the car
windows. There are warranty signs in the windows, not for sale signs. Hearing Examiner
reiterated that she observed several cars just last Saturday with for sale signs, also observed this
two-three weeks prior, and again six months prior. She is not mistaken in what she observed. Mr.
PAGE 4
. 'HE~ARING EXAMINER MINUTES SEPTEMBER 19, 2000
Haueter stated again that he does not have cars for sale. Maybe someone parked a car here. He
then spoke about the amount of work auto garages are supposed to perform each day which he is
not doing. Cars have to be parked somewhere when they are finished.
Hearing Examiner asked Mr. Haueter for detail of his business. Mr. Haueter said they repair and
detail automobiles. Minor repairs such as tuneups, mufflers, exhaust systems, shocks, and
detailing are performed. No major repairs such as transmission repair is done. They do safety
checks for dealers and auto reconditioning. In order to operate, he needs to have parking area
and without use of lot 10 and 11 he will be forced to have employees/customers park on the
street. He spoke about congestion at license agency. If they are not allowed to park behind the
building it will impact the block significantly. He believes that his use is not an expansion of
nonconforming use but a is continued use. Site has been used for auto repair for 11 years with
storage before adoption of ordinance. Prior owner and tenants have stated what uses have been.
He believes use is grandfathered because use has been continuous.
Hearing Examiner will make copy of the exhibits for the City and will leave the record open for
responses.
City Rebuttal:
Assistant Planning Director Rued reiterated that the issue is lot 11 and its current use. In order to
gain nonconforming rights the use needs to be a legally established use on the site in order to
have nonconforming rights. Walt's Radiator might have stored parts in the house, but this did not
give legal nonconforming rights. The City does not have a business license for used car lot or its
office at this site. The City does not have a certificate of occupancy for these uses. The home
was removed in 1989 and became a vacant lot. Prior to this in 1980, City required parking areas
to be paved and this dates back before 1987 Zoning Code. No evidence was produced that
establishes that legal nonconforming use is on lot 11 to allow establishment of unpaved parking
area on lot 11. Mr. Haueter can pursue to have the lot paved in accordance with City's
requirement to pave, landscape, etc. Parking lots are permitted in the C2 zone, but it must meet
applicable standards. Lot 10 did preexist the requirement for paved lots.
Mr. Haueter remarked that if house was torn down, owner said he got necessary permits, and
owner said used for parking, why does he now have to stop using. The owner said he was using
for a number of years prior to demolition and wondered why he was not required to pave then.
Hearing Examiner advised that Assistant Planning Director Rued has already answered the
question in his presentation. Mr. Haueter wondered if there is a way to find out if the single family
home was used as a single family home. LR stated again the only permits the City has are to
build the home and demo the home.
Hearing Examiner instructed that she will leave the record open until September 22 if Assistant
Planning Director Rued wants to submit any additional information. Mr. Haueter can present any
further information by September 28. Hearing Examiner expects to issue the written decision on
or before October 6, 2000.
ADJOURNMENT
With no further items to come before the Hearing Examiner, the meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
HEWGND~/IIN09-2000
PAGE 5