Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA99-133I tl i C R,8 N,'40th St R-8 R 8 c N 38th St I._ , R-8 - i- 14H ' N3h co R 8 --8 i , co ,. I ; - . ia) N '36th St i 8 R-8' N R-8 I 35th 'St R_' 8 R-8 i1R-8 N 34th. St ' N 34th St • N z RCSR-s, N 133rd Pl RI 8 i _' I J I ,,x fi i 8 R-8 R- T 8 b3 i — R-8 R-8 Id 3310 3t I i; 1:t J ul R-8 E , , R-8 a R-8 N 32nd St R-8 N 32nd St. r cp N 190 R-8 R-8 E R-8 R-8 N 31st 3L R—8St a) '/ R-8 C CR— :co Er R-8 FR_8N 30th St R-8 R-1C CC lau : 1:LR-s CC N 29th St R-8 1C G G R-8 R-8 a-20t-Ir- R-8 - R—8 R-8 N 28th St R- R_1 G a, R-8 oo W N26th. St. i,R-1 e, cL a R-= i R-8 0 1( Y O r.Q2° 4Y0 C 344 ZONING 1 °° Piarnw TECHMCAL SERVICES 31 T24N R5E E 1/212/07/98 i•l AFFIDAVIT 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 1st day of November ,1999, 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: CV/1 Sr( _7 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this /5+ day of 999. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at p.P,l,,tok- ,therein. Application, Petition, or Case No.: Ritualo Variance Appeal File No. LUA99-133,AAD The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record 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 Chambersn the AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION second floorHall,of City Renton, Washington, on October 12, 1999 at 9:00 AM to consider the following petitions: Charlotte Ann Kassens first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the RITUAL°VARIANCE AAD-99-133 The appellant, Mr. & Mrs. Ritualo, appeal SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL the denial of a variance by the City of Renton for the Ritualo Variance project(file 600 S. Washington Avenue, Kent, Washington 98032 no. LUA-99-111, V-A). The Ritualo's had proposed a variance from the maximum permitted lot coverage in the R-8 zone. a daily newspaper published seven (7)times a week. Said newspaper is a legal Location:701 North 30th St. Legal descriptions of the files noted newspaper of general publication and is now and has been for more than six months above are on file in the Development prior to the date of publication, referred to, printed and published in the English language Services Division, Third Floor, Municipal continually as a daily newspaper in Kent, King County, Washington. The South County Building, lAl interested persons to said petitions Journal has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the are invited to be present at the Public State of Washington for King County. Hearing. 2, The notice in the exact form attached, waspublished in the South CountyPublication Date: October o myPublishedintheSouthCounty Journal Journal (and not in supplemental form)which was regularly distributed to the subscribers October 2,1999.6664 during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a Ritualo Variance as published on: 10/2/99 The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of$34.50, charged to Acct. No. 80510 . Legal Number 6664 Legal Clerk, S u ty Journal Subscribed and sworn before me h thj day of Q CI—, 19 q 9 1p E. .H y`` 50 gsio"IVt*r•90/, c° 9:` Notary Public of the State of Washington NOTAfY ` r\ = residing in Renton King County, Washington N?q AVBLit, 'Nil 41-7 NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING RENTON HEARING EXAMINER RENTON,WASHINGTON An Appeal Hearing will beheld by the AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Rentonn Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall, Renton, Charlotte Ann Kassens first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the Washington, on October 12, 1999 at 9:00 AM to consider the following petitions: SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL RITUAL-1 VARIANCE 1 1 AAD-99-133 The appellant, Mr. & Mrs. Ritualo, appeal 600 S. Washington Avenue, Kent, Washington 98032 the denial of a variance by the City of Renton for the Ritualo Variance project(file no. LUA-99-111, V-A). The Ritualo's had a daily newspaper published seven (7)times a week. Said newspaper is a legal proposed a variance from the maximum newspaper ofgeneral publication and is now and has been for more than six months permittedco lot coveragektin the R 8 zone. Location:701 North 30th St. prior to the date of publication, referred to, printed and published in the English language Legal descriptions of the files noted continually as a daily newspaper in Kent, King County, Washington. The South County above are on file in the Development Journal has been approved as a legal newspaper order of the Superior Court of the Building,s entoion, Third Floor, Municipal PP 9by P Building, Renton. State of Washington for King County. All interested persons to said petitions The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the South County are He invited to be present at the Public Hearing. Journal (and not in supplemental form) which was regularly distributed to the subscribers Publication Date: October 2,1999 during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a Published in the South County Journal October 2, 1999.6664 Ritualo Variance as published on: 10/2/99 The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of$34.50, charged to Acct. No. 8051067. Legal Number 6664 (' Le al Clerk, South County Journal Subscribed and sworn before me on his day of 0C0fr---19_`'I flu t` • N y /4 p ssioN it txp'G,p ' Notary Pu•lic of the State of Washington c° F': residing in RentonNp7ARy King County, Washington N: pU 81 C O•:= N 9 WI SN.• HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT November 1, 1 9 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPELLANTS: Randy and Linda Ritualo Administrative Appeal re Denial of Variance File No.: LUA99-133,AAD LOCATION: 701 N 30th Street SUMMARY OF APPEAL: Appeals denial of variance for maximum permitted lot coverage PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Appellants'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 October 12, 1999 hearing. The official record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday,October 12, 1999,at 10:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. 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: Land use file LUA91-111,V-A(by proof of posting and publication,and other reference) documentation pertinent to the appeal. Exhibit No.3: Vicinity map Exhibit No. 4: Photographs(4) Exhibit No.5: Site plan of adjacent property Parties present: Randy and Linda Ritualo,Appellants 14926 165th Place SE Renton,WA 98059 Representing City of Renton Larry Warren City Attorney Leslie Nishihira,Assistant Planner 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Randy&Linda Ritualo Administrative Appeal re Denial of Variance File No.: LUA99-133,AAD November 1, 1999 Page 2 The Examiner explained that the appeal was an administrative appeal held pursuant to Ordinance 3071 and as the only administrative review to occur on the matter. The matter may be submitted back to the Examiner i reconsideration if the parties are not satisfied with the decision. He stated that the appellant had the burde f demonstrating that the City's action was erroneous,and would have to show clear and convincing evidence at the City's determination was incorrect. At that point the City could respond, if they chose to do so. Mr. Ritualo, appellant herein, stated that the issue was whether they should be allowed to exceed the 35 perk nt lot coverage in building their house. A building permit was issued based on plans submitted,which represe ed 34.9 percent lot coverage. The request for variance was to build a larger deck than was included in the orig. al permits,that would increase the size of the existing deck from 223 square fee to 530 square feet. The larger deck would increase the lot coverage from 34.9 percent to 38.9 percent,a 3.9 percent increase over the maximum lot coverage allowed by the statute. There are four conditions which appellant must meet in order to receive a variance,and Mr.Ritualo reviewe the City's position and his arguments against those positions. The first criteria included undue hardship bas= on the subject property including size, shape,topography and location. The property in question is a 7,550 square foot corner lot bordered by three streets and one residential lot. The adjacent house and the subject o are at the maximum lot setbacks. Mr. Ritualo stated that this property did not allow them to build what they would like and thus created an undue hardship. At the time of application for a building permit,the original size of the deck exceeded the lot coverage maximum. The appellants decided to reduce the size of the deck • obtain a building permit and proceeded with building the house. The City was notified that a variance would be requested to obtain the larger deck size. In the second criteria,the City acknowledges that the granting of a variance will not be materially detriment. to the public welfare,but contends that increasing lot coverage by 3.9 percent would be injurious to the surrounding property improvements because it allows construction that differs from standards. The appellan believe their house will be an improvement visually and environmentally,as well as to the public safety. Allowing an increase in the deck of 307 square feet does not allow construction that differs from other standards in the area. The appellant submitted a site plan of an adjacent house which exceeded the lot cover. - maximum, setting a precedent for the area. Regarding the third criteria of granting of a special privilege,appellant responded that a deck 3.9 percent ove the maximum lot coverage is not excessive,and that if one citizen is allowed to exceed 35 percent lot covera in the vicinity,then consideration has to be given to them. As to the minimum variance criteria,the appellant does not have the opportunity for a lot line adjustment. Regarding the City's suggestion that appellant modify or redesign the house, appellants took a calculated risk I seek a variance and also did not want to go through the permit process again. E In conclusion,appellant stated that the granting of this variance would allow them a larger deck with an exit, would not be an impervious surface,and no damage would be done to the site or to the neighbor's property, Ms.Nishihira,testifying on behalf of the City and regarding the adjacent property, stated that staff had check: its records. The only thing on record was an approved building permit,but no variance application was submitted. She further stated that the maximum lot coverage provision had been a part of the R-8 zone development standards for quite some time. Randy&Linda Ritualo Administrative Appeal re Denial of Variance File No.: LUA99-133,AAD November 1, 1999 Page 3 Floyd Hewitt,23644 SE 137th Street,Issaquah, Washington 98027,appellant's contractor,reiterated that th- site was bordered on three sides by streets which is quite unusual. Because of the long narrow lot,the setba.ks further limited the project. The proposed extension to the deck was not excessive,but only made it more useable. He further responded to the fact that no negative comments had been received by neighbors to this project. In closing argument,Mr. Warren stated that this was a sizeable house that had been put on a small lot, and t t necessarily brings certain limitations with it. The first criteria had not been met as the appellant suffered a hardship because of the size of the structure. They chose to keep the size of the house which was over the City's lot coverage requirement,and thus created their own hardship. He also responded regarding the minimum variance,and stated that there had been no testimony that this was the minimum variance that is necessary. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this appeal. There was no one else wishing to speak. The hearing closed at 10:50 a.m. FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS&DECISION Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1.Randy and Linda Ritualo,hereinafter appellants, filed an appeal of an administrative determination denying an Administrative Variance(File LUA-99-111). 2.The appellant owns a single family home at 701 North 30th Street in the City of Renton. The home i located in the Kennydale neighborhood. The home is located on the southeast corner of North 30th Street and Lake Washington Boulevard North. An alley is located along the east boundary of subjec site. 3.The parcel is a trapezoid where Lake Washington Boulevard runs at a slight northwest angle in front if the site. The parcel is 54.01 feet wide(east to west)which is also the dimension of the east or alley property line. The 30th Street frontage is 146.50 feet. The Lake Washington Blvd.frontage is 55.42 feet. The south property line is 133.09 feet. 4.The parcel is 7,550 square feet in area. 5.The appellants are constructing a new home on the subject site. The existing plans were approved by the City and meet code requirements. 6.The existing plans would erect a home with a footprint or lot coverage of 2,632 square feet. This plan results in a lot coverage of 35 percent of the 7,550 square foot lot. 7.The applicant proposes modifying the plans to add a deck,or actually enlarge the deck that is propose in the current plans. The addition would add 306 square feet to the building's gross square feet. This Randy&Linda Ritualo Administrative Appeal re Denial of Variance File No.: LUA99-133,AAD November 1, 1999 Page 4 would increase the gross square footage to 2,938 square feet. This would increase the lot coverage o 38.9 percent. 8.The subject site is in the R-8(Single Family;Lot size-4,500 square feet)Zone. This zone limits 1. coverage to 35 percent for lots over 5,000 square feet in area. The home without this proposed new addition just meets this limitation. 9.The background for this proposal shows that the appellants originally proposed the larger home and deck. When review showed it did not meet the regulations and would require a variance,the appell. is reduced the home to meet code to move ahead with their plans. 10. The building with or without the addition meets the Zoning regulations in all other particulars exce the lot coverage limitation. It would meet front,rear and sideyard setbacks as well as the height limitations of the R-8 zone. 11. The appellants claim the addition would make better use of the site,be economically justified and create a better appearance. Apparently some neighbors in the vicinity did not object to the proposal. 12. The appellants also claim the adjacent home to the south exceeds the lot area standards. There is no record of when the home was erected and if it was modified and whether it may have met earlier standards. They noted other larger decks in the area but only referenced their size,not that they are rt of conforming structures. 13. The appellants allege that the subject site is constrained by the two roadways,Lake Washington Blv. and 30th Street,and the alley. They claim this diminishes the utility of the parcel. It was pointed ou by staff that the development meets the setbacks from the two streets and the alley and that lot cover .e is a separate criterion. 14. The appellant pointed out other properties in the vicinity of the subject site which have garages or of r structures that appear to be located in the front yard setback. 15. The appellants applied for the variance for the larger deck. It was subject to administrative review. The variance was denied and the appellant filed a timely appeal. 16. Staff noted limiting the lot area coverage is intended for aesthetic reasons and to provide certainty fo the neighbors and the community. 19. Staff further noted that even if some homes in the area violate the required provisions, that should no justify voiding the limitations and creating an unhealthy precedent. 20. Finally,the City noted that there is no standard to judge whether this would be the minimum variance needed to provide relief. Why is the additional coverage the appellants requested needed in this case Why not slightly more or slightly less coverage? Why does the deck have to be 12 feet wide and not feet or 10 feet? Randy&Linda Ritualo Administrative Appeal re Denial of Variance File No.: LUA99-133,AAD November 1, 1999 Page 5 Why not slightly more or slightly less coverage? Why does the deck have to be 12 feet wide and ne 8 feet or 10 feet? CONCLUSIONS: 1.The appellants have the burden of demonstrating that the decision of the Zoning Administrator 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 appellants have failed to demonstrate that the action of th • Administrator should be modified or reversed. The decision of the Administrator is affirmed. 2.Arbitrary and capricious action has been defined as willful and unreasoning action in disregard of t facts and circumstances. A decision,when exercised honestly and upon due consideration of the fa.... and circumstances, is not arbitrary or capricious orthern Pacific Trans'ort Co. v Washin. on Util es 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 appellants have failed to demonstrate that the decision was founded upon anything but a fair review of the variance criteria as they pertain to the proposed alteration. The appellants have failed t. demonstrate with cogent evidence that a mistake was made. 5.The major problem in this case is that the appellants have completely and very recently created and designed their own hardship. They originally submitted plans for a larger home with the larger deck now proposed. It was withdrawn after it was found not to meet code. The appellants went ahead wit a design that filled out the entire 35 percent lot coverage. The home is being constructed at this very time. Now the appellants are claiming a hardship. The only hardship is not being able to erect a ho e they want. That has nothing to do with code limitations. The hardship is not created by the applicati n of the code provisions. The original plans could have been altered to pull back a room or facade element and allow a larger deck,and therefore a footprint that met the code limitation. 6.As the Zoning Administrator noted, "the lot coverage provision is intended to provide for a consisten residential aesthetic by limiting the percentage of a site that can be covered with connected or stand- alone structures." 7.Even if the adjacent home does not comply with the standard,this does not necessarily justify approv 1 of this variance. If this variance were to be approved without any justification and actually in light o the design decisions the appellants only recently made,the lot coverage provision would become meaningless. No resident in the R-8 zone could be assured that large homes with excessive lot coverage would not crop up next door or across the street. Since there is no real hardship,approval o the appellants' request would eliminate any real standards and all similar requests would have to be approved or others would claim the appellants received unjust consideration. 8.The juxtaposition of the various streets and alleys also do not create any hardship. Those facade features that might be affected by street setbacks are not affected by the proximity or number of stree . Randy&Linda Ritualo Administrative Appeal re Denial of Variance File No.: LUA99-133,AAD November 1, 1999 Page 6 The home meets the setbacks. Front, rear and sideyard setbacks are separate and apart from lot area coverage. 9.The City also noted that there is no standard available in this case to judge whether the requested variance is the minimum necessary for relief. Since a reasonable home can be constructed without e variance,there does not seem to be any way to determine what more would be needed to make this home and site use reasonable. If the appellants believed that the current home would not provide a reasonable residence,they could have altered the plans before proceeding. While there does not api ar to be any legal hardship that justifies a variance, any hardship perceived by the appellants was self- inflicted. 10. While it appears that another property may have excessive coverage,there is nothing in the record t« demonstrate whether this was sanctioned by other standards or if they were done without proper approval. It does not justify approval of the variance requested for this property. For a variance to 6 granted the specific conditions of the subject site are at issue and the site does not appear to suffer a y conditions warranting variance relief. 11. As noted by the City in other variance reviews: It may also be considered injurious to property improvements in the vicinity and zone because it would allow for construction that differs from the standards that generally apply to all property in the R-8 Zone. This would set a precedent and create uncertainty about maintaining zoning standards which have been adopted to protect and enhance residential neighborhoods." 12. Since the burden of demonstrating error is on the appellant,this office can only reach the conclusion that the Administrator made the correct determination. The decision below must be affirmed. 13. The City should investigate the other properties to determine whether the intrusions noted by the appellant are appropriate. Inappropriate or illegal alterations generate animosity since citizens such . the appellant and others are not legally permitted the variance while those who violate the rules seem to benefit improperly. DECISION: The appeal is denied. ORDERED THIS 1st day of November, 1999. FRED J.KAUF HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMI Fl ED THIS 1st day of November, 1999 to the parties of record: Randy&Linda Ritualo Administrative Appeal re Denial of Variance File No.: LUA99-133,AAD November 1, 1999 Page 7 Randy&Linda Ritualo Larry Warren Leslie Nishihira 14926 165th P1 SE 1055 S Grady Way 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 Floyd Hewitt Emily Kjobach Susan Miller 23644 SE 137th Street 807 N 30th 806 North 30th Issaquah,WA 98027 Renton,WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 TRANSMI i hD THIS 1st day of November, 1999 to the following: Mayor Jesse Tanner Gregg Zimmerman,Plan/Bldg/PW Admin. Members,Renton Planning Commission Jana Hanson,Development Services Director Chuck Duffy,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 Betty Nokes,Economic Development Director 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.,November 15, 1999. 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. Th 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$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of Cit Hall. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants,th executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte(private one-on-one)communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. Randy&Linda Ritualo Administrative Appeal re Denial of Variance File No.: LUA99-133,AAD November 1, 1999 Page 8 The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING OCTOBER 12, 1999 AGENDA COMMENCING AT 9:00 AM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7TH FLOOR, RENTON CITY HALL The application(s) listed are in order of application number only and not necessarily the order in"which they will be heard. Items will be called for hearing at the discretion of the Hearing Examiner. PROJECT NAME:Appeal - Ritualo Variance PROJECT NUMBER: AAD-99-133 (LUA-99-111,V-A) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The appellant, Mr. & Mrs. Ritualo, appeal the denial of a variance by th$ City of Renton for the Ritualo Variance project (file no. LUA-99-111,V-A). The Ritualo's had proposed a variance from the maximum permitted lot coverage in the R-8 zone. The proposal would involve a 30 square foot addition to a deck and house for a total building footprint of 2,631 square feet. The proposal would result in a lot coverage by buildings of 38.9% - exceeding the maximum 35% permitted. Location] 701 North 30th Street. PROJECT NAME:Pierre Grade and Fill PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-99-113,SP,ECF PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposal for a Special Fill and Grade Permit to raise the existing site) grade up to street elevation in preparation for site development. The site is presently three to five feet' below surrounding street elevations and the applicant estimates approximately 1,500 cubic yards of soil material would have to be imported to bring the site up to a compatible elevation with adjacent streets. A four to six foot deep drainage channel traverses the site in an east/west direction. The existing drainage ditch would be enclosed in two 48-inch CMP pipes and the channel filled. An abandoned railroad grade on the north part of the. site is 10 to 12 feet above the remainder of the site and it would be graded to blend with the finished elevation. The site requires cleanup of contaminated soils in the drainage channel and removal is being proposed as part of a separate grading license. Contaminated material will be removed under Model Toxic Control Act, Method A cleanup levels Agnda 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, Renton,Washington, on October 12, 1999 at 9:00 AM to consider the following petitions: RITUALO VARIANCE AAD-99-133 The appellant, Mr. & Mrs. Ritualo, appeal the denial of a variance by the City of Renton for the Ritualo Variance project (file no. LUA-99-111,V-A). The Ritualo's had proposed a variance from the maximum permitted lot coverage in the R-8 zone. Location: 701 North 30th St. Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the Development Services Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton. All interested persons to said petitions are invited to be present at the Public Hearing. Publication Date: October 1, 1999 Account No. 51067 aadpublication CIT OF RENTON Hearing Examiner Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred J.Kaufman September 27, 1999 Mr. and Mrs. Randy Ritualo 14926 165th Place SE Renton, WA 98059 Re: Appeal of Administrative Determination Variance Request, File No. LUA99-111,V-A Appeal File No. LUA-99-133,AAD Dear Mr. and Mrs. Ritualo: Your letter of appeal in the above matter has been received and a date and time for said hearing have now been established. The appeal hearing has been set for Tuesday, October 12, 1999, at 10:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall, at 1055 S Grady Way in Renton. Should you be unable to attend, would you please appoint a representative to act on your behalf. We appreciate your cooperation, and if you have any questions,please contact my secretary. Sincerely, Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner FJK:mm cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Jay Covington, Mayor's Executive Assistant Larry Warren, City Attorney Leslie Nishihira, Project Manager Karen Codiga, Development Services 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)430-6515 CITY OF RENTON SEP 1 7 19'99 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE RANDY & LINDA RITUALO 14926 165TH PLACE SE RENTON, WA 98059 PHONE 425-271-2882 Fred J. Kaufman, Hearing of Examiner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 Re : Appeal of Ritualo Variance Project, File # LUA-99-111, V-A Dear Mr. Kaufman: Randy & Linda Ritualo, hereby are filing an appeal of the City of Renton' s Zoning Administrator' s denial of the aforementioned variance request . Information submitted as fact with our initial request for a variance was not justification in the eyes of Zoning Administrator' s staff to allow the variance . We are citizens who are trying to build a house for the first time and do not work with jurisdictions such as the City of Renton Planning Department on a regular basis . We were unable to locate a professional to conduct the request for a variance process for us, because the job was "too small" . Therefore we are attempting to work with the City of Renton on our own. Our ignorance in the entire construction process is relying on people from whom we sought advice. We are extremely disappointed in the designer who prepared the plans for the home. Our engagement with the planner provided us with the assurance that the plans for the house he was designing for us would be sufficient to obtain a building permit . In our opinion, the designer did not take into consideration RMC section 4-2-110A that limits lot coverage by buildings to a maximum of 35% . This is not the only item overlooked by the designer. The designer also failed to review water flow requirements for our lot, which resulted in the City of Renton Fire Marshall to deny a building permit . This issue was finally resolved after substantial research discussions and negotiations . We also relied on information from the City' s planning department in understanding the variance process as well as preparing information for submission of the variance. When contacting the planning department about submitting a variance I was but in contact with Roy Publico. I was never able to talk directly to planner or a person who would make a determination. Mr. Public. had difficulty answering my questions, and always would have t.• consult a planner. Mr. Publico gave me the impression that as . property owner I am entitled to enjoy the same rights an. privileges enjoyed by other property owners . I interpreted this t. mean that if one property owner was able to build a home in an R- : zone and exceed lot coverage by 35%, than I would also be allowe.' to do the same .Therefore, we submitted the variance . considered this the critical element for my variance and did no. elaborate on the undo hardship, other than comparing the othe neighbors decks to the small deck my building permit allows . This again demonstrates our lack of knowledge of the building an.; variance process by relying on other people whom we felt knowledgeable for accurate information. The Zoning Administrator and or her staff mentions numerous times in the denial notice, as well as in a telephone conversation as recently as this morning, that "the applicants created their own hardship" . We take exception to this statement . First, we would not intentionally create a hardship for ourselves, as seems to be implied by the Zoning Administrator. Secondly, the hardship that the Zoning Administrator feels we created is somewhat different than we would have endured had we not taken the calculated approach to obtaining the building permit that we did. I will explain what we have been through to get to the point of the building permit process and the decisions that had to be made by us . We bought the property with a 900 square foot former drug house on it in March of 1997, at a cost of $170, 000 . We put $40, 000 down and obtained a variable rate mortgage with a starting interest rate of 9 . 5%, due to the fact that the property would not be owner occupied, and the value of the land exceeded the value of the house . The interest rate was scheduled to increase in May of 1999 to 10 . 5% We bought the property to demolish the existing home and construct a new one . Due to the width of the lot a "book shelf" plan was not available . Thus we had to start from scratch. The actual house design took us from May of 1997 until May of 1999 working with the designer who guaranteed us that his plans would get us a permit . Our goal was to be living in the house by December of 1998 . Financing for both construction and permanent financing was arranged in December of 1998 , at a rate beginning at 6 . 785% . Plans were not ready and thus the project was continually delayed. Interest rates began creeping upward. In May of 1999, after receiving complaints from the neighbors, regarding the condition of the house, we applied for a demolition 1 permit as well as a building permit . All proper surveys fo demolition and removal of asbestos were performed. On June 5, 199 demolition began and was completed within one week. On June 9, we were notified that the fire marshall required us to provide water lines and fire hydrants to the neighborhood, the planning department requested that we install a larger exhaust fans, and change the address to the property to obtain a buildin• permit . We worked with the City of Renton to get better wate service to the neighborhood and agreed to install a sprinkle system in the house to meet the fire marshall concerns . Large • exhaust fans were put into the plans, and we changed the address to the property. Our bank financing with a favorable rate had been locked in Januar of 1999 . The bank was kind enough to keep extending the rate of 7 . 125% until June when we could not get the permit . Calls wer= made to obtain the permit . We were notified on July 7, 1999 tha not all requested information had not been provided. There wen:- supposedly two pages of Review comments but we only received one . Thus one month later we received a request for the lot coverag. which had been provided to the city with our original plans, but was not to the City' s required scale of 1"=20 ' . We submitted a site plan of 1"=10 ' . By shrinking our drawing on a copy machine b 50%, the plan reviewer would have had his desired site plan. It was at this time that we as home owners became aware of the fact that our plans exceeded the required lot coverage of 35% . Thus we faced a decision on whether to halt the entire process, go back to the designer that had created problems for us in the first place to redesign the house, or start all over with a different designer and/or architect which would substantially delay the project . In making the decision we had the following to consider. First our construction financing could not be secured until a building permit was received. Without a building permit, how long would the bank guarantee us an interest rate of 7 . 125% when interest rates for our type of a loan were now above 8% . The threat of the mortgage on the property had the risk of being called because it was a residential loan and there was no house on the property. Continue making payments on a 10 . 5% loan. Prolong the entire process and run the risk of loosing out on the real estate market in which to sell our current residence. Another factor to consider was our personal live style. I am a tax accountant with my own practice in Renton. I prepare annually in excess of 400 income tax returns . The majority my work is performed between January and April of each year. Delaying the beginning of the construction process beyond June pushes the occupancy of the new home into the early months of the year 2000 . Professionally, for an accountant who specializes in taxation, occupancy of a new home during the tax filing season creates unneeded stress at this time of the year. These are the factors we had to consider in making the decision w= did in obtaining our building permit #CP99081 . The decision wo made was to avoid a serious long term financial risk. Thus t. avoid having to continue paying on a high interest loan and run th_ risk of the loan being called, to obtain a construction loan an. permanent financing at a favorable rate of 7 . 125% when prevailing. rates were above 8 . 0%, to avoid the loosing out on the "hot" rea estate market, and to eliminate undue stress in the first fou months of 2000, we made the calculated decision to obtain the building permit as soon as possible . To obtain the building permit we submitted revised plans that removed from the deck nine feet of width as well as stairs exiting the deck. This decision was made after discussing the matter in detail with our builder and with Jim Jacques who is a member of the City of Renton Advisory board. This board advises on land coverage and use issues . Both gentlemen gave us the impression that obtaining the permit and requesting a variance for the larger deck would be a well calculated approach. The information submitted here, justifies the decision we made to obtain the building permit . Had we not made this decision we would have encountered substantial long term financial hardship. It is for this reason that we disagree with Zoning Administrator' s opinion that we created our own hardship and that not having a 12 foot deck vs . a 3 foot deck does not create a hardship. The day the permit was received Jan Conklin and Roy Publico of the City of Renton were both notified that a variance would be requested by myself . I further requested that notations be made in our file that a variance would be filed. This notification was done to prevent City Employees from creating adverse opinions of our intentions . We entirely plan on complying with all rules and regulations . We are merely requesting that we are entitled to enjoy the same rights and privileges of the neighbor to the south of our property located at 2908 Lake Washington Blvd South. The house located at 2908 Lake Washington Blvd. South, exceeds the 35% lot coverage. The City states, " there are no records on file for this address (the City is not required to retain building permits for single family homes) , staff was unable to confirm the lost coverage that was approved for the site . " It may be true that the City does not maintain such records . That is precisely why II provided the City with a site plan of the property located at 2908 Lake Washington Blvd. If the City is not convinced by my analysis they should go out into the field and measure the property to see for themselves that the lot coverage on this property exceeds 35% . I think by ignoring our analysis of the adjacent property the City has committed an error. In obtaining the Fire Marshall permission to build, we also had to convince him that he should drive to the site to identify the proximity of all fire hydrants as oppose to the ones he was able to locate on a map. That field trip exposed an error by the fire marshall in his initial decision to deny our building permit . The issue is not the 3 ' deck vs . the 12 foot deck, or a compariso. of the size of the decks in the neighborhood. The issue is th:: house located at 2908 Lake Washington Blvd. , exceeds 35% lo. coverage. We hereby request that we be allowed to exceed the 35' lot coverage . As previously, stated in our variance request a deck is a impervious service and has absolutely no detrimental effects to ou , property or the surrounding properties, such as concrete does . I calculating the 35% lot coverage concrete driveways and walkway- are not consider. To take full advantage of the views, our house was designed with a 11 ' crawl space. A crawl space as opposed to a basement was use. to avoid unneeded living space . With such a high exposed crawl space the appearance of the exterior of the house did not and doe- not look very appealing. Thus the original larger deck desig helped to improve the street appearance of the house . For thi- reason we feel that the larger deck to improve the overal appearance does add value to the house and to the property, contrary to the Zoning Administrators opinion. With such a high crawl space and high off of the ground deck thz. need for an access and entrance was deemed necessary. With th. smaller deck no exit from the deck will exist . In the event of . fire that will represent an 11 to 12 feet leap to the ground. Furthermore, only two exists from the house will exits without risking injury by jumping from off the ground structures . The Zoning Administrator makes the following statement : "The lot coverage code provision is intended to provide for a consistent residential aesthetic by limiting the percentage of a site that can be covered with connected or stand alone structures .The restriction serves to eliminate the potential for "super structures" and encourages the construction of buildings which are in proper proportion to site areas as well as in character with the surrounding neighborhood. " Who is a better judge of how a home looks in a neighborhood than the people in the neighborhood. Over 35 property owners were notified of this variance, all of which live within 1000 feet of our property.Only two calls were made on property.My understanding both calls were not inquiring about the size of the deck or the size of the house . They were inquiring about the height of the house, which is not an issue . Not one resident has suggested that our house represents a "super structure" . We presume increasing the size of our deck by 223 square feet, and exceeding lot coverage by 4% would not put our house in to the "super structure" category. The American College Dictionary defines superstructure, (one word) as : 1 . all of an edifice above the basement or foundation. 2 . an structure built on something else . 5 . anything erected on .. foundation or basis. Assuming the Zoning Administrators use of the term super structure is the same superstructure as defined in th American College Dictionary every house in the City of Renton tha is built on a foundation is a "super structure" . The lot coverag- code provision as interpreted by the Zoning Administrator is ver ambiguous and contradictory. Mr. Kaufman we feel the City has committed an error in it ' s denial of our variance request and hereby request your consideration. Sincerely yours, 44fC.l t Cl C/ n P Randy inda Ritualo NOTES RECEI PT DATE 9' /'/- 9'Y No. 4407 RECEIVED FROM I?4'1'.di `i of l 1e_,.. L .41 ZA i ADDRESS /7` 9 LEA, /6 5--m /-pc7 A ./f Y.141- •r' .s9 1 • ` j° FOR fi 717.4,/ Gl/9 - ? 9-/l/ 1/ ACCOUNT HOW PAID AMT.OF CASH ACCOUNT PAID CHECK 6-0 N BALANCE MONEY BV )/ it `--T'•-/ ! J/o- ". - DUE ORDER m ggg REdFORM®8Lg02 mayanimismin T- 2061 TAX CONSULTING & SERVICES, INC. PH. 425-271-2882 2300 EAST VALLEY ROAD STE. A-1 r98-7087/ ••1 RENTON, WA 98055 DATE QTOTHE ( Q-G/f' ZSCC7 ORDER OF Y 1- e_A: 6-.-. - j,-A- 6.-2- A-.-. G ° C./ o DOLLARS " - I FIRST I F ST SAVINGS BANK SAVINGS of Renton MAIN OFFICE BANK Wells Avenue So.,Renton,Washington 98055 7c5 n 425)Pg 255-4400 425)277-8610 Cn/.J\ FOR FiL 4y - 9-la, f'A R I 4i-o 0A,4,tx Ce POO 206 LP I: 3 2 5 L 708 ?-?i: 0 LIII40694004 Fes_=---• . 4 NOTES RECEIPT DATE No. 4407 RECEIVED FROM 4'4444 Y.Letz66_ ADDRESS=4- /e Sm /?/w Jc f roS9 FOR Lug ACCOUNT HOTIMMII AMT.OF CASH ACCOUNT ANT. PAID 3i CHECK ldp BALANCE MONEY BY ` Ice., DUE ORDER 01998 REDIF01111®8L802 t«4Y 111 q1, 1 1 ;..;:.:.ti le:11 P,: 1:t ...-1•bl'- 1. ''a 1ifk.._1k": i 44ilI .- * 1t 1 ,.... : , 1 Af ---.----- A I' 14?3r a '‘III'l:•:11; 11.:,;,,,,'; t i . . k. •,. 7.01 (N, f k - • i• I P PIP, id 1 I14(1 1111, T• -- 111 4ii, II l't 111C, ' :11 V ' j I ' l'- • •. if , , 0 f.._,... 1 4 4 1 et 1 i , 1 * r a- r x. 4 •Nlim, 1 T, . • g T 1 \ I. 141, 1 I Elljyvek - , Tyvek l'' 11( i 40 w I > r ' i ' I #4' t• l'i so is i V E-4 w