The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLUA98-103AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. County of King MARILYN MOSES being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states: That on the 24th day of August 1998, affiant deposited in the mail of the United States a sealed envelope(s) containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition. Signature: I" GV k i 6 alJ SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 024/41 day of 1998. Notary Public and fqr the State of Washington, residing at XCa.76a7 , therein. Application, Petition, or Case No.: Appeal of Sharin Carport Variance LUA98-103,AAD The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record. August 24, 1998 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPELLANT: Charles Sharin Appeal of Administrative Determination File No.: LUA98-103,AAD LOCATION: 2213 Aberdeen Court SE SUMMARY OF APPEAL: Appeal of denial of sideyard setback variance PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Appellant's written request for a hearing and examining the available information on file,the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the August 4, 1998 hearing. The official record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday,August 4, 1998,at 9:05 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the second floor of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the appeal,Exhibit No. 2: Zoning map proof of posting and publication,and other documentation pertinent to the appeal. Exhibit No.3: Site plan The Examiner explained that the appeal was an administrative appeal held pursuant to Ordinance 3071 and was the only administrative review to occur on the matter. The matter may be submitted back to the Examiner for reconsideration if the parties are not satisfied with the decision. He stated that the appellant had the burden of demonstrating that the City's action was erroneous,and would have to show clear and convincing evidence that the City's determination was incorrect. At that point the City could respond, if they chose to do so. An administrative variance was requested for a zero setback instead of 5 foot setback as required. The Zoning Administrator denied the variance request and the petitioner has filed a timely appeal. Charles Sharin,2213 Aberdeen Court SE,Renton,Washington 98055, stated that he built this carport in approximately October-November of 1994 after verbally finding out that he would not be able to get a permit at Charles Sharin Appeal of Administrative Determination File No.: LUA98-103,AAD August 24, 1998 Page 2 any rate. Some four years later he violated land use regulations and it was discovered that the carport was not part of the original structure. Jennifer Henning,Development Services Division,City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way,Renton,Washington 98055, stated that Mr. Sharin applied to the City for an administrative setback variance in the R-8 zone. The setbacks required for corner lots such as this are 5 feet for the interior side yard, 15 feet for the corner side yard, 20 feet for the front yard and 20 feet for the rear yard. The house has an attached two-car garage and the carport is located next to that. The carport extends to the neighboring property line. Mr. Sharin applied to the City for the variance in order to legitimize the structure. City staff recommended and the Zoning Administrator's decision reflected that the project application did not meet the four criteria necessary to be granted the variance. One of the criteria is undue hardship and unique situations,and this did not appear to be a unique situation, and there did not seem to be an adverse impact, a unique set of circumstances applying to this property that would deprive the property owner from locating such a structure in another portion of the property and thus meet code. Another criteria has to do with whether or not the granting of the variance was detrimental to the public or injures other properties or improvements in the vicinity. While it did not appear to be injurious, it could be considered by other property owners injurious because it would allow for a construction standard and setback standard that differs from standards applied to all other properties in this zone. Regarding the criteria having to do with granting of a special privilege, it was determined that because this would grant an exception from zoning that limits other properties with the same zone and in the same area that this would indeed be a grant of special privilege. Mr. Sharin questioned the purpose of applying for a variance when it appeared there was no way it was going to be granted. The Examiner explained that he must prove he had unique circumstances. Mr. Sharin responded that he did not,but explained that when the house was being laid out there was supposed to be a 20 foot sideyard setback. But because there were two big pine trees on the opposite side of the house that the contractor chose to save,he moved the house 10 feet to the north, shortening the sideyard setback from 20 feet to 10 feet. The back yard has decks across it and is not very accessible without putting in some kind of a conspicuous driveway off 22nd SE. All the alternatives to building a garage were financially and aesthetically impractical because the side street is where 98 percent of the traffic is going as opposed to 2 percent that live in the cul-de-sac. If he cut down the trees on the side of the house and built any structure there, it would have been legal but would have been conspicuous and unsightly. He built the carport in the most logical place,next to the existing garage and driveway where the outside wall of the carport is constructed of cedar fence boards. That adjacent neighbor did not object to this carport. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this appeal. There was no one else wishing to speak. The hearing closed at 9:25 a.m. FINDINGS: 1.Charles Sharin,hereinafter appellant, filed an appeal of an administrative determination denying an Administrative Variance(File LUA-98-103). Charles Sharin• Appeal of Administrative Determination File No.: LUA98-103,AAD August 24, 1998 Page 3 2.The appellant owns a single family home at 2213 Aberdeen Court SE in the City of Renton. The home is a corner lot located on the northeast corner of the intersection of SE 22nd Place and Aberdeen Court SE. The home is located in the City's Rolling Hills neighborhood. 3.The appellant constructed a carport in October 1994. The appellant admitted he first sought a permit for the construction. He was informed that a variance probably would be required but when told it probably would not be approved,he went ahead and constructed the carport without permits. 4.The carport is attached to the north side of an existing home in what is the required north sideyard. The carport is connected to the attached two-car garage. 5.The City discovered the nonconforming,non-permitted carport while investigating other complaints it had received regarding improper use of the appellant's single family residence for incompatible,non- residential purposes. 6.The R-8 Zone in which the subject property is located requires a corner lot to maintain a minimum 15 foot sideyard along the street which is the non-frontage street,and a minimum 5 foot sideyard for the interior sideyard. In addition,the R-8 Zone requires a 20 foot setback for both its front and rear yards. 7.The structure is located within the required five foot(5')north sideyard and is built to the property line, meaning it has a zero(0)setback. This reduction of sideyard to zero would require a variance. 8.The record is not clear about the appellant's application process. Whether the City encouraged the applicant to apply for a variance or the applicant chose that route rather than immediately remove the illegal structure does not matter to this proceeding or the one below. A variance was applied for and after analysis of the appropriate criteria,the Zoning Administrator,James Hanson,denied the variance. 9.After the denial of the variance the appellant filed a timely appeal. 10. Staff noted that there appears to be room on the subject site for the carport in a location that does not require a variance,or that in any event the appellant has reasonable use of the subject site. The home is currently served by a two-car garage. 11. The appellant claims that there are topographical constraints that would make access problematical and that mature trees would have to be removed to accommodate the carport elsewhere on the site. The yard is approximately two feet higher than the street. 12. The carport as noted is located on the appellant's north property line meaning that is is located on the neighboring parcel's south property line with none of the required separation. 13. The Uniform Building Code requires a minimum separation of 3 feet for fire safety. Any lesser separation requires special construction consisting of a one-hour fire wall. The Administrator noted that if the variance were approved,the one-hour fire wall would be required or the appellant would need to seek another variance from Building Code provisions. This office would have to observe that since life safety and property would be jeopardized, such a variance probably would be difficult to achieve,but any variance from the fire wall would have to be reviewed by the appropriate authority. 14. Neighbors have objected to approval of the variance citing homeowners covenants and aesthetic concerns. The neighbor most affected,the appellant's northerly neighbor,did not appear to comment. Charles Sharin Appeal of Administrative Determination File No.: LUA98-103,AAD August 24, 1998 Page 4 15. The appellant noted that other properties in the area have similar intrusions into their respective sideyards. Nothing in the record demonstrates whether these properties have variances or were constructed under differing code standards. Other illegal additions cannot serve as justification for code discrepancy. CONCLUSIONS: 1.The appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the decision was either in error, or was otherwise contrary to law or constitutional provisions,or was arbitrary and capricious(Section 4-3011(B)(1)(b). The appellant has failed to demonstrate that the action of the City should be modified or reversed. The decision of the City is affirmed. 2.Arbitrary and capricious action has been defined as willful and unreasoning action in disregard of the facts and circumstances. A decision,when exercised honestly and upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances, is not arbitrary or capricious(Northern Pacific Transport Co. v Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, 69 Wn.2d 472,478(1966). 3.An action is likewise clearly erroneous when,although there is evidence to support it,the reviewing body, on the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. (Ancheta v Daly, 77 Wn. 2d 255,259(1969). 4.The appellant has failed to demonstrate that the decision was founded upon anything but a fair review of the variance criteria as they pertain to the proposed carport. The appellant has failed to demonstrate with cogent evidence that a mistake was made. 5.The approximate two feet change in elevation is minor and could easily be accommodated by an appropriate driveway design. The use of the parcel for a single family residence with a two-car garage is a reasonable use of the subject site. The applicant has similar use of the site as neighboring properties. Use of the site is reasonable and denial of a variance to permit the carport would not deny the applicant of reasonable use of the site. 6.Although it appears that other properties have intrusions in their sideyards,there is nothing in the record to demonstrate if these properties received variances based on actual demonstrated unique site characteristics,true undue hardships. The record also does not disclose if these cited uses are proper or improper,and therefore illegal additions done without permits like the current addition under consideration in this case. 7.Staff noted that approving the variance for a site without undue hardships would create a precedent and make development standards in the R-8, single family zone,uncertain. Staff also noted that creating a zero lot line could have an impact on the adjacent lot besides the fire safety issue. 8.Inasmuch as the burden of demonstrating error is on the appellant,and no such error was demonstrated, this office can decide that staff made the correct determination. The decision below must be affirmed. DECISION: The appeal is denied. Charles Sharin Appeal of Administrative Determination File No.: LUA98-103,AAD August 24, 1998 Page 5 ORDERED THIS 24th day of August, 1998. FRED J.KAUF41\ (4211),k HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 24th day of August, 1998 to the parties of record: Charles Sharin Jennifer Henning Kevin Osborne 2213 Aberdeen Court SE 1055 S Grady Way 2008 SE 22nd Place Renton, WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 Dan Magnusson Jim Tobin Fay Lynn Dow 2111 Monterey Court SE 2103 SE 22nd Place 15152 65th Avenue NE Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 Bothell,WA 98011 Joe Gregg Solomon Alemayehn 2307 SE 21st Street 2103 Aberdeen Court SE Renton,WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 TRANSMITTED THIS 24th day of August, 1998 to the following: Mayor Jesse Tanner Gregg Zimmerman,Plan/Bldg/PW Administrator Members,Renton Planning Commission Jim Hanson,Development Services Director Art Larson,Fire Marshal Mike Kattermann,Technical Services Director Lawrence J. Warren,City Attorney Larry Meckling, Building Official Transportation Systems Division Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer Utilities System Division Councilperson Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Sue Carlson,Econ.Dev. Administrator South County Journal Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 15 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m..September 8. 1998. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure,errors of law or fact,error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen(14)days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record,take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV,Chapter 8, Section 16,which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk,accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. Charles Sharin Appeal of Administrative Determination File No.: LUA98-103,AAD August 24, 1998 Page 6 If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants,the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte(private one-on-one)communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. 1 N ' v r tl V 104 N NSLE;1a6 h ;P •. > ; i T—--iii sr___\r\ . I E--_--_--1. ', i '. 7\. t7):__ ____ t___ j 1114 P — 1 v' A \ a• 47SE18thi Rt11, i- 8 — - i i....\\ 7/ Y 8 43 - ' - i i.... 4,- % ii:_ i. •\ lb: 14 t R 8 ie..,,,wisi RN/8 •Nil /7.. i , mi-o 1 4 R M — I --- - 1-.. R- i* I')\ Lrl 1..:<<•.. 2 \x ?'i t N. 0 W I p yf. i 1 '_ v--,. ........ . -----064.-- li4,:kti Dr.i. . 1,' i \ Ns.. 6 C l ( 8' i' ,E !21t isf fts i:.\----- N___1 - -----i 1 1 iiii II 1 i ii_i_ 4-11(- JJ 22 Pi R - O i iR.'sp — -1 —1—Th 1 1.__±,LJ_.3 I _ _1- IL 4 1.7...............__________ ___ H 49 M — I 7-7 Iill1-,, 4., ,,,,...._ C= o H4 - 29 T23N R5E E 1/2 z.0 4 0 e * ZONING V - 1:4800 G4ANP/B PW TECHNICAL SERVICES Nz° 6/98 1401-T1-1 20 T23N R5E E 1/2 31'-6" 29'-6" 16'-9" y ROCKERY TAPERS TO +10" EXIST'G ROCKERY MAX. I-IT. +4'-0" EXIST'G CABLE 77.74' TV BOX e- 6 7112q..... • N I O.•O...•00 cs),_ iiiiiiii0•iii• iiiiiiiii•Oii• GRAVEL• 44 44'.W44 4% •4,4,O 4. EXISTING i•iiiii• CONC. DRIVEWAY 0 E X I ST I G iiiiiiiiiiiii r- FENCE ! iiiii•Oiiiiiii 1\z EXIST'G GONG. O CURB It SIDEWALK iiiiii•+•+•iiiii 11— Q. O A — ii•+•iii•+•i i•+•i•61 z W c! 1'36'-" 25'-0" 22'-0" V ti 0 I 6.) 0 l2,) EXISTING r. PINE TREES CO 6 8b — r PROPERTY L..-i_ 0 iL!_tn1E,,:TYP.. CITY 59.00' 22ND FL. SE SITE FLAN N SCALE; I" = 20'-0" 140Fril IN _I. 2 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Charlotte Ann Kassens first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL 600 S. Washington Avenue, Kent, Washington 98032 NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING RENTON HEARING EXAMINER RENTON,WASHINGTON a daily newspaper published seven (7) times a week. Said newspaper is a legal An Appeal Hearing will be held by the newspaper of general publication and is now and has been for more than six months Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular prior to the date ofpublication, referred to, printed andpublished in the English language meeting in the council Chambers on the 9 second floor of City Hall,200 Mill Ave.So., continually as a daily newspaper in Kent, King County, Washington. The South County Renton,Washington.on August 4, 1998 at Journal has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the 10:00 AM to consider the following State of Washington for King County. APPEAL The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the South County SHARIN CARPORT VARIANCE 03 Journal and not in supplemental form) which was regularly distributed to the subscribers AAppeal HearingPPYAppealHearing for requested side yard during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a setback variance.Location:2213 Aberdeen Court SE. Legal descriptions of the files noted Appeal: Sharin Carport Variance above are on file in the Development Services Division,6th Floor,City Hall, 1055 So.Grady Way, Renton.as published on: 7/24/98 All interested persons to said petitions are invited to be present at the Public The full amount of the fee chargeded for said foregoing publicationPaisthesumof$32.91 Hb is.Published in the South County JournalLegalNumber4956July24, 1998.4956 Lega Clerk, Sout ounty Jo al kk Subscribed and sworn before me on this ac, day of f .011, 19 C; 1,1 Al alrly' Notary Public of the State of Washington C' ‘ IoTary Cr)s residing in Renton c' o—King County, Washington Puno 6 ' 2 ••. 0 i'i p W a s t,` .‘` CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING AUGUST 04, 1998 • AGENDA COMMENCING AT 9:00 AM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS, SECOND FLOOR, RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200•MILL AVENUE SOUTH The application(s) listed are in order of application number only and not necessarily the order in which they will be heard. Items will be called for hearing at the discretion of the Hearing Examiner. 8:30 AM PROJECT NAME:Impound Hearings PROJECT NUMBER: Case 98-5642 and Case 98-6090 PROJECT NAME:10:00 AM APPEAL Sharin Carport Variance PROJECT NUMBER: AAD-98-103 (LUA-98-065,A) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Appeal of administrative determination. Applicant requests side yard setback variance for an existing attached carport located adjacent to the side yard property line. Instead of the required five-foot (5') setback, the applicant requests a zero-foot (0') setback on the north. AGNDA.DOC NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING RENTON HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON An Appeal Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall, 200 Mill Ave. So., Renton, Washington, on August 4, 1998 at 10:00 AM to consider the following petitions: APPEAL SHARIN CARPORT VARIANCE AAD-98-103 Appeal Hearing for requested side yard setback variance. Location: 2213 Aberdeen Court SE. Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the Development Services Division, 6th Floor, City Hall, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton. All interested persons to said petitions are invited to be present at the Public Hearing. Publication Date: July 24, 1998 Account No. 51067 AADPUB.DOC