Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-21-2002HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2002 The meeting of the Auburn Hearing Examiner was held on October 2;I, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Auburn City Hall. Those in attendance were as follows: HEARING EXAMINER: Diane L. VanDerbeek STAFF: David Osaki,- Sean Martin, Shirley Aird 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. VAR02-0003 Hearing Examiner opened the public hearing. Planner Aird presented the staff report. Joseph Hafner has requested a variance to allow a garden shed to be located within the required rear yard setbacks on his property located at 1122 O Street NE. The shed is already constructed and set back three feet from the rear lot line. The applicant wants the shed set back either three feet or five feet to avoid regrading portions of the yard and to provide access to his yard. The rear yard slops down and placement of the shed to meet the required setback would require extensive regrading. Staff recommends that the variance to reduce the rear yard setback.from 10 feet to 5 feet be granted with one condition. She requested that Hearing Examiner keep the record open until October 25. Hearing Examiner asked why the record is being held open and Planner Aird explained that the Notice of Application has a comment date of October 25, 2002. The City is making this request for all three variance applications. Mr. Hafner acknowledged attendance of some of his neighbors and they support his variance request. At Community Development Administrator Osaki's recommendation, he submitted a petition containing signatures of his neighbors and in support of his request. Hearing Examiner marked the petition in support of the shed's placement as Exhibit 2 to the hearing. Exhibit 1 is the staff report. Mr. Hafner appreciated Community Development Administrator Osaki's help and said Planning staff were helpful too. The staff report shows the hard work of staff. He did not go into the process of building the shed intending to violate the City's process. He asked the City for advice and built the shed in a location that was in violation of the required setback. He is unsure if he was led in the wrong direction or if there was a misunderstanding with staff. He asked Hearing Examiner to consider this additional information. From the corner of the shed to the existing landscaping is five feet-eight inches and access is needed for lawn service. If he moves the shed two feet for five foot setback, access will be limited and inconvenience for the lawn service company. Hearing Examiner asked if lawn service can go around the other side of the shed. Mr. Hafner said there will be hedges and general landscaping in the yard. Two feet will be usable based on the current landscape plan. Moving the shed an additional two feet will not make a difference. Kevin Sheehan, 323 O Street NE, owns property that abuts the applicant's. He is against the variance request. The lot is 11,000 square feet and the shed can be moved. Rules are rules; there is no justifiable reason to approve the variance. The shed encroaches his lot. If he wants to build house, this shed is three feet away. Other houses have sheds. He cares about this variance and wants the shed moved. Hearing Examiner asked how the shed encroaches on Mr. Sheehan's property and he said the shed encroaches now. It is too close to his property, but it is fixable. His lot is 10,320 square feet. He wants to build and he would have checked the setbacks. PAGE I HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2002 Roger Thorardson, 1111 Pike Street NE, said the back corner of his property touches the back corner of Mr. Hafner's property. The shed as currently sited fits in well, is well painted, ties in with the driveway. No changes should be made. The shed does not degrade the neighborhood. Hearing Examiner asked for City's position regarding property owner's suggestion of leaving the setback at three feet. Planner Aird mentioned the criteria _for granting the variance. The difference for this variance is the site's topography. The shed still could be moved without regrading and meet the five foot setback. Hearing Examiner closed the public hearing, but will leave the record open until October 25, 2002. The written decision will be issued 10 days after this date. 2. APPLICATION NO. VAR02-0004 Hearing Examiner opened the public hearing. Planner Martin presented the staff report. Carey L. Colasurdo has requested a variance to allow an existing shed to be located within the required rear yard and side yard setbacks on her property located at 912 17th Street NE. The shed is 196 square feet in size and the shed provides only a one foot rear yard and side yard setback. The lot is fiat with no change in topography. There are no unique characteristics to the property. A chestnut tree is located 17 feet from the rear yard setback and would not preclude placement of the shed in another location of the yard. The tree abuts the side yard property line. The applicant could construct a smaller shed without the need for a variance or construct the shed at another location of the yard without the variance. The applicant submitted comment letters from three adjacent neighbors who are the most affected property owners. An additional comment letter was received from Mr. and Mrs. White. All comment letters are in support of the variance request. Staff recommends that the variance be denied. In response to Hearing Examiner questions, Planner Martin said the chestnut trees appears to be older than the house. Hearing Examiner will include the comment letter from Mr. and Mrs. White with the other comment letters. Ms. Colasurdo received another comment letter from Mr. and Mrs. Cantrell in support of the variance request. Hearing Examiner will make this comment letter part of the record. Applicant commented that she did try to comply when she was notified by the City. However, the shed is bolted down and was built about seven years ago in the same location as a previous shed. She figured the new shed was an improvement over the previous shed. She did not foresee this new shed would be a problem. The letters from adjacent property owners are supportive of keeping the shed in its current location. Planning staff says there are other locations on the site where the shed could be located. However, she has an existing raised back flower/vegetable garden and an apple tree. Moving the shed would require removing the flower bed and tree. Middle of the back yard is inconsistent with neighboring properties and would decrease the value of the property and limit yard space and use of the yard. If the shed is placed five feet from opposite neighbor's fence, five feet from the tree, it would be inconsistent with neighbors' yards. It would be close to the front property line and visible from the street. There is also a gas line easement. She understands the reasons for the rules and regulations. Eleven properties near hers have sheds which do not appear to adhere to setbacks and she wonders why they are allowed. Hearing Examiner asked who built the shed and why no building permit was obtained. CC was unaware a building permit was needed. The existing shed has been in place for seven years and was not an issue. She referred to the pictures attached to her application and said the chestnut tree is a factor. The other shed, about six feet by six feet will be removed if the current shed can stay. Hearing Examiner will make all comment letters part of the record. There was no public testimony. Planner Martin did not have additional comments. Hearing Examiner closed the public hearing, but will leave the record open until October 25, 2002. The written decision will be issued 10 days after this date. PAGE 2 HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES OCTOBER 21 2002 3. APPLICATION NO. VAR02-0006 Hearing Examiner opened the public hearing. Planner Aird presented the staff report. Vinicio Maragno has requested a variance to allow an existing carport to remain in the required side yard setbacks on his property located at 3318 20th Street SE. The carport was built nine years by a contractor without permits. The carport supports, are one feet from the property line, .and there are overhanging eaves at the property line. The applicant has met five of the required 10 criteria; however, the other five criteria are not met. Staff recommends denial of the variance request. If the applicant can provide information that the other five criteria can be met, staff then has a recommendation of approval, with conditions. Correspondence from the next door neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. DeBoo, in opposition to the variance, was received. Mr. Maragno commented that Mike Dunbar, Code Enforcement Officer, told him that he had broken a law or building code and had to remove the carport within a certain amount of time or be fined. He wrote to Paul Krauss, a meeting was held, and he was told one option was the variance process. The carport was built for a trailer. He hired a carpenter and he believed the carport was built to code. He was satisfied that carport was built to code. He asked carpenter to make carport as wide as possible. He talked to the Mr. DeBoo who had no objection to the carport other than water runoff concerns. Carport has gutters and downspout. The carport was installed 10 years ago. He was unaware of regulations otherwise he would have asked for the variance then. Citizens do not know the law or code and most just hire someone to do the job. The carport has never been a problem before. The carport does not pose a dangerous situation. It does not make sense for the carport to be a problem now and have to be removed. The carport was built professionally. Hearing Examiner advised Mr. Maragno that in order for the variance to be granted, he must meet all 10 criteria, but he only meets five of the criteria. Has Mr. Maragno thought about how he can meet the other five criteria? Are there any unique physical conditions of the lot or topography of the lot that provide a hardship in complying with the Zoning Ordinance provisions? Has he thought about proving any unique conditions of the property? Mr. Maragno said the carport was built without any intent to commit a crime. Hearing Examiner advised applicant that the carport is a violation of civil'law, not criminal law. Mr. Maragno wants the carport to remain because removing the carport is a very expensive project according to the carpenter and he is on limited income. John DeBoo, 3402 20th Street SE, lives next door to the subject property. He was told nine years ago that a carport was being built; however, he was not told the height, length or width of the carport. He assumed the carport would be built to code and with permits. No information on setbacks was provided by Mr. Maragno. A friend of his mentioned that the carport did not appear to be up to code. They are in the process of getting their house ready for sale and were told by real estate agent that they will have to make disclosure about the carport. He is concerned about losing potential buyers because of the carport. He is unsure how the carport was built and wonders if it is safe. It presents a fire hazard and could cause property damage or injury. The carport has gutters so runoff has not been an issue. Community Development Administrator Osaki commented that applicant needs to satisfy all 10 criteria in order for the variance to be granted. If the other five criteria cannot be met, staff recommends denial of the variance request. Hearing Examiner closed the public hearing, but will leave the record open until October 25, 2002. The written decision will be issued 10 days after this date. With no further items to come before the Hearing Examiner, the meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. HE~AGND\MIN 10-2002 PAGE 3