HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA98-103AFFIDAVIT 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