Hearing Examiner Yoshi Kumara on May 20 heard a conditional use permit application from OSHA Design LLC proposing a three‑unit common‑wall residential building at 659 Sunset Avenue NE to be subdivided so each unit can be individually owned.

Marshall Reed, lead city planner, presented the staff report and recommended approval with conditions, saying the proposed three‑unit building is a permitted use in the R‑5 zone and that the conditional‑use question is whether subdividing the underlying parcel for individual ownership is consistent with the comprehensive plan and zoning. Reed described applicable municipal code density and parking rules, the requirement for an approved storm‑drain plan, landscaping, and system development charges.

Public commenters focused on street‑level parking congestion on Sunset Avenue. Lauren Taylor, a nearby resident, said Sunset Avenue is “a very narrow 2 lane road” and described repeatedly encountering vehicles parked at the street edge late at night that force drivers to swerve; she offered to provide photographs documenting the conditions. Other commenters said that earlier subdivisions on Sunset have placed buildings closer to the street but that more recent projects have been set back to provide additional on‑site parking.

The applicant’s representative, Larry Butler, concurred with staff and noted he has several projects on Sunset and is aware of parking conditions on the north end of the street; he said construction‑period parking can be disruptive but that newly completed subdivided lots he has seen did not create persistent on‑street parking. Reed and a project representative discussed access and said vehicle access for the proposed units will be from Sunset Avenue; Reed noted the city generally does not permit vehicle access from the Dolphin side of such parcels unless extenuating circumstances apply.

Reed reiterated that the zoning allows multifamily at the site and that the conditional use process is limited to whether the subdivision for individual ownership is consistent with code and the comprehensive plan. As with the earlier matter, the hearing examiner admitted staff exhibits, heard testimony and left the record open for written comments through the end of the day. The examiner said he intends to issue his written decision within 10 business days of the close of the record. No final decision was made at the hearing.

Authorities cited in the hearing included the Ocean Shores municipal code sections referenced by staff on conditional uses in R‑5 zones, density and parking, storm drainage and system development charges.