Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA90-102 LIA-) d/v %0 : `': CIT 1 OF RENTON .1 Office of the City Attorney Earl Clymer, Mayor Lawrence J. Warren. c4 rY OF RENTO January 9 , 1991 JAN 1991 Samuel M. Jacobs , Esq. irita Attorney at Law CENgt)FP !DE Loucks & Lamb �°��Cl_tcBK� Washington Federal Building 425 Pike Street, Suite 402 Seattle, Washington 98101-2358 • Re: Withdrawal of Administrative Determination - Sun Pointe Townhomes Dear Sam: This letter is to confirm the fact that the City of Renton has withdrawn its administrative decision concerning the fence located between your client' s condominiums and the apartments on the Earlington/Sun Pointe property. You will be contacted in the near future about scheduling a meeting to try and resolve the issues on recreation. Thank you for your cooperation in trying to resolve this matter short of litigation. Very truly yours, • Lawrence J. Warren LJW:as . cc: Mayor Clymer / . Don Erickson ✓ • A8 . 64 : 64 . • • Pnct RnY 1(1(1 4 7.n 1 Street- Renton_ Washington 98057 - (206) 255-8678 • COI; , CITY OF RENTON • 4, `•R , Hearing Examiner Earl CIymer,.Mayor Fred J.Kaufman • December 18, 1990 • Samuel M. Jacobs Louchs & Lamb Washington Federal Building 425 Pike Street, Suite 402 Seattle, WA 9810.1-2358 • RE: Sunpointe PUD - Fence Appeal File No. AAD-102-90 Dear Mr. Jacobs: The Examiner' s Report regarding the' referenced application which was published October 12 , 1990 has. not been appealed within the 14-day period established by ordnance. : Upon receipt.of correspondence 'from . your office, in my response to-you- on, November 1, 199:0 the appeal period was extended for twenty daysi because your firm was retained at a late date and more time was needed to review the matter. The date of November 21, 1990 has passed and we have received 'Flo further correspondence from you. Therefore, this matter is considered final and is being transmitted to the City Clerk this date "for filing. Please feel free to contact this office if further assistance or information is required. Sincerely, FRED U.. tKAUFMAN HEARING EXAMINER FJK:dk cc: City Clerk � . Building. Division Planning Division �.... ... . .- .. r • nn• I n nnrr Inn/\ nlnc n en, • , Y-e 0 CITY JF RENTON $t Ira Office of the City Attorney 4 �ti{'1v — �, Earl Clymer, Mayor Lawrence J. Warren. 'r November 26 , 1990 'VON NO 96 1990 TO: Don Erickson, Chief, Current Planning off'✓ �r-EIVo© FROM: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney to RE : Sun Pointe Townhomes Dear Don: I am enclosing a copy of a fax letter which I received from Sam Jacobs , the attorney for Sun Pointe Townhomes . Although the letter is rather strongly worded, I still believe it takes us where we wish to be. I would ask that you formally withdraw your opinion letter on the fence. When I receive a copy of that letter my office will undertake to set up a meeting between the homeowners ' association and the city. Lawrence' J. Warren LJW:as . Encl . cc : Mayor Clymer Jim Hanson Capt . Don Persson A8 . 63 : 21 . Post Office Box 626 - 100 S 2nd Street - Renton, Washington 98057 - (206) 255-8678 • NOV 21 '90 12:54 LOUCKS AND LAMB 664 P01 LAW()FECES LOUCKS & LAMB J �,pue,t�F.lp n Lo& pmfgal.n.]w inoci ro vacua ACJSS WASF3INGTOLV FEDERAL BUIIDFNS} ST8FF1gN .KORIANCRIlla,P.S. • 425 PIKE SPREE',St=402 El LAMB SE1ITD. ,WASHINGTON 94AO1-2358 MLAN ALLAN D. OUCKS,TNC,P.S. DONALD MEANS 07 F-24simile(106)684.6839 LARRY B cMULLHN Tdcphone(206)622.3280 • FAX CQVEE LETTEE I • o: (4a)k-enfY - /mil, -epr&r7 .. ROM: SAMUEEL,M�.,,,J(,,A�COBS (Fax No. 684-6839) I/T, ATE: "vA'!Id t 0-1 t IDOCUENT: Int T 7 .. Number of pages (including cover page) 7 • If you experience any problems with this transmission, contact JoAnne at my office. Thank you. • • • • • • 1 • - - NOV 21 '90 12:54 ' ' PUCKS AND LAMB 664 P02 LAW OFFICES TRUCKS & LAMB 5A2,[USL m.JACOBS t truthcbhip p.of•Wivn.l c07.ec464a WASFUNG-roN MURAL BUILDING S71PHIIN K.KORTEMBIDR,P.S. 425 PIKE STREW,SUITE 402 ROBERT H,LAMB SS.Ac,iE,WASH[NGTON 9010I-2358 ALLAN D.LOUCKS,INC.,P,S, DONALD S.MEANS OP COJnSEi. FacyinWe(206)684-6839 I.A,RRX E,McMLTLIFiN Ttkphonc(206)622-3280 November 21, 1990 Lawrence U. Warren Renton City Attorney P. 0. Box 626 100 South Second Street SENT BY FACSIMILE Renton, WA 98057 255-5474 • REF: Sun Pointe Townhomss Dear Mr. Warren: l was initially surprised by your November 16, 1990 letter. Based on our telephone conversation of earlier that week, I had understood that the City had already decided to withdraw the administrative determination regarding the fence, which would eliminate the need for judicial review of the Hearing Examiner's • affirmation of that determination. While I had understood, from our conversation, that the City had concerns about whether various provisions in the POD had been complied with, I had not understood •that the City's withdrawal of the fence determination was in any way conditional. However, after further review of your letter and discussing the matter with you on the telephone, it appears that what your letter is asking for is no more, and no less, than what the law already requires. We assume, without having researched the matter and without acquiescing or agreeing to the City's jurisdiction, that the City has the authority to enforce its zoning laws and conditions of PUD approval. As such, if the City believes that there is a violation of its zoning code or the approved PUD, it might well have the authority to initiate action to seek compliance. While we strongly believe that neither the. Sun Pointe ' Condominium Homeowners Association nor the property is in violation of the zoning code or the PUD, we clearly understand that the City has concerns in this regard. We would be happy to informally discuss this matter with the City to determine if some amicable resolution to the problems that the City believes exist is possible. If this is 'not possible, we obviously intend to participate in any enforcement action taken by the City regarding claimed zoning code, PUD or other violations on our site. • • NOV 21 '90 12:55 - '._JCKS AND LAMB - , 664 P03 • Lawrence J. Warren November 21, 199.0 Page 2 ' There are several points that the, City should weep in mind in •our informal discussions regarding your concerns about PUD compliance as well as -in any formal proceedings 'You may wish to • initiate. First of all, the basis for the. concerns of the City (ie, the propriety of the property segregaltion and the responsibility for the active recreational facilities) involve cations and decisions that, 1 believe, occurred before any of the individual owners bought condominium units. Second; the issues you .raise in your letter not only involve the third phase of the PUD, but also presumably phases one and two as well. As a result, to the extent that the. City perceives problems with PUD compliance and formally or. informally wishes to pursue these problems., it would appear -that it• is essential to involve both Schneider Homes and the owners of phases one and two of the PUD. Whilel, the Homeowners Association intends to protect its rights and the rights of its , members as appropriate, I believe it is the City's1 responsibility to involve, and seek redress from, both Schneider Homes and the owners of the other PUD phases for the problem perceived by the City. These are the parties that are responsible for the factors that the City perceives as problems; .these are the parties that can provide appropriate information or explanation. I . • I am relying upon the fact that the administrative determination concerning the fence will now be withdrawn, making the Hearing ' Examiner's decision affirming the : determination superfluous and making judicial review of that decision unnecessary. Based on this, we are not going tb seek judicial • review', as the Examiner's decision will become a legal nullity. I wish to emphasize, however, that this letter can in no way be interpreted as granting -to the City any authority beyond what it has by law. Neither can this letter be interpretedi as an agreement on the behalf of my client or any owner to do anything or agree to .anything., other than to discuss the City's concerns regarding PUD compliance. In closing, the first and foremost goal of the homeowners in the Sun Pointe Townhomes Condominium is to amicably resolve this matter with the city and to reinforce the sense ofcommunity that they are creating. We will be happy to work with the City to achieve thisgoal. Please contact the undersigned to discuss how we can initiate a process to accomplish this. in addition, I would • . • • I • •r,, = NOV 21 '90 12:56 ' ^LICKS AND LAMB 66,4PO4 Lawrence J. Warren November 21, 1990 Page 3 appreciate receiving the letter withdrawing the administrative determination regarding the fence at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, LOUCKS & LAMB SAMUEL M. COBS SMJ:jau c client • • '4„fi g=-� ' a. CITE' JF RENTON Hearing Examiner Earl Clymer., Mayor Fred J.Kaufman ' I November 1, . 1990 • • • Samuel M. .Jacobs LOUCHS & LAMB Was4ington ,Federal Building 425 Pike Street, Suite 402 Seattle, WA 98101-2358 Re: 1 Request for Consideration Sunpointe II - File AAD-102-90 I I Dear .Mr. Jacobs: I have reviewed your letter of October 25th, 1990 seeking reconzideration of the October 12, 1990 decision for Administrative Appcsa AAD-1102-90. Neither the '.:hange in ownership, the homeowner association status, nor • oth_s.r .matter,; presented in your letter provides any reason to modify the :original decision. The information you have presented was either reasonably available during the initial review, or should have been. • 7 IthoUgh- your request is not justified, this office, understands that you ;were 'retain.ed rather late in the proceedings. Therefore, in an attempt to accommodate further relief, if appropriate; . this office will, provide .an additional 20 days from the date of this letter to • appeal this- decision to Superior Court. If thi s office can be of further assistance please feel free to give us a call. ' I Sincerely, • • • FRED J KAUFMAN • - HEARING EXAMINER cc: All Parties of Record All- Parties of Staff • • • • 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2593 i.,tS ,'.::h,,., RECEIVED 1, t OCT 26 1990 CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION This Request for Reconsideration is submitted under Title IV Chapter, 8, Section 15 of the Renton Municipal Code. It is filed by the Sun Pointe Townhomes Condominium Association through its attorney, Samuel M. Jacobs regarding the decision of the Renton Hearing .Examiner dated October 12 , 1990 in File No. : , E AAD-102-90.', Specifically, we hereby request reconsideration of the, decision by the Hearing Examiner affirming the decision of the administrator, which effectively requires that an existing six-foot high cedar fence be removed. I. INTRODUCTION The Sun Pointe Townhomes Condominium Association (hereafter;, the; "Association") is interested in this matter as it is the' authorized owner-run representative of the owners of the property, I � upon which the fence is constructed. The Hearing Examiner should' note that, the developer of this phase of the PUD, Schneider Homes, ' Inc. , .turned control of the property over to the homeowners on orj�, about.,.%October 19, 1990. The Association immediately retained, counsel ' to 'assist them regarding the fence. The Association was not',involved in the procedure by which the fence was built, nor in!, any :of' the .prior proceedings before the City. Nonetheless, it is! the Association and the homeowners it represents who desire that!. 1 I i ;'ll the :fence, remain and who will be most effected if the fence is removed.: Under these circumstances, we request that the hearing be reopened so that new testimony can be taken and new evidence entered. .explaining our position. Not withstanding the foregoing request, it is apparent that the Hearing Examiner's decision must be reconsidered and reversed under the provisions of Section 4-8- 15• of the Renton Municipal Code, based on the errors of fact, law and judgment specified below: II. LACK OF JURISDICTION The;(Administrator, and therefore the Hearing Examiner, lacks jurisdiction over this matter. It is our understanding that this matter, ,game to the Hearing Examiner as an appeal of the denial by the. :Zoning.;Administrator of a request to construct the fence. It is our. view: that the fence is permitted as a matter of right under the 'pertinent code provisions and that permission of the Zoning Administrator was not necessary. As such, the fence may stand as constructed. The , PUD Ordinance of the City of Renton contains several provisions which specify what is regulated by a planned unit development and what restrictions the granting of a PUD imposes on the, subject property. Fences, especially fences which are r permitted: in the Zoning Code, do not appear to be controlled by the PUD ordinance. Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Section 4-15-11F8a states that a "Final plan approval shall be binding upon property or the.: respective phase(s) with regard to density, open space, - 2 - uses, and other standards. . . " Fences are not listed and there is no ' indication that "other standards" would include fences. Similarly, RMC §4-15-12A indicates that "building permits" must be issued consistent with the PUD final plan. It is my understanding . that a six-foot fence such as the one in question does not require & building permit in Renton. Further, under RMC §4-31-15C, it would appear that this six-foot high fence is permitted in its present .location. While ,the PUD Ordinance states that its provision supercede any , inconsistent provision of the zoning code, we can find no proviiong- the PUD ordinance which regulate the location or , height- of, fences. In this same regard RMC §4-31-15C3b(3) (C) ii ) indiCatet that regulation of fences for, amongst other' things, PUDy's "may vary" from the provisions of the zoning code. After , revibwk tOf -the final PUD decision as well as the PUD ordinance, can find no regulations or requirements about fences at all. Since! . . no inconsistent fence provision exists for PUD Ordinance or in this PUD ,the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn is that the reg4ations, in the zoning code that normally apply to fences apply , to. 'leilees in this PUD. As such, the fence is allowed under city odes and rio request was needed for its construction. The denial of the unnecessary request and the appeal from it have no legal; affect anc,1 the Hearing Examiner should enter an order stating that the Administrator •has no jurisdiction over this matter, as the fence is 'permitted outright under applicable codes. See RMC 11B4b. - 3 - J However, even if the Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction over this matter, the administrative decision must be reversal under RMC §4-8-11B4 a, d, e and f. III. THE FENCE IS, AT MOST, A MINOR ADJUSTMENT It is clear that the fence is not a major modification under the provisions of RMC §4-15-12A, but, at most, a minor adjustment. the fence does not involve any " . . . (significant) revisions to the exact location and configuration of buildings, roadways, open space or other features and (does) not involve any change in density, relative density within the site, intensity, architectural style, housing type or other significant characteristics of the PUD. . . " This provision is non-discretionary: If a change does not violate the listed criteria, it is, at most, a minor adjustment. If it is a minor adjustment, it is to be approved. This is the only criteria that is listed in the PUD Ordinance and the Administrator has no right to use or imply other criteria. (Note that the fence is at the top of a short but steep rise with, for most of its length, ground cover not appropriate for access on the Phase II side and grass and trees on the Phase III side; the fence is not a significant revision to the location or configuration of open space. ) In this case, the fence does not violate any of the listed criteria; as such it is, at most, a minor adjustment, and it is allowed. - 4 - It is illustrative to note that the application requirements of ;RMC.' §4-15-11D2 and §4-15-11F2 appear not to require that proposed- fences be shown on the preliminary . or final PUD applications'. If fences need not be shown, it is not legitimate to say that failure to show a fence on a PUD application or as part of the final PUD means that a fence cannot be built. This bears on :the jurisdictional question described in Section II of this Request for Reconsideration as well as our contention herein that the erection of the fence is, at most, a minor adjustment under the Ordinance. It was arbitrary and capricious and clearly erroneous for the administration not to approve it as such. IV. STAFF'S FIVE ARTICULATED REASONS FOR DENYING PERMISSION TO MAINTAIN THE FENCE ARE CLEARLY ERRONEOUS AND ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS Staff's five articulated reasons for denying permission ' to 'maintain the fence are all clearly erroneous and/or arbitrary and capricious. These will each be discussed briefly below 'following' the numbering used in the staff letter of denial: 1. 'The fence will not violate any conditions established by the: Hearing Examiner (see Section VI, below) . The entire project will still be considered, under city codes, as one complex. To the extent that there are shared amenities, the fence will not inhibit' their,:use. There will be openings in the fence along the access j road-and at the public access trail. Given the location of the active . recreational facilities, the most obvious ways to get from phasethree of the PUD to this facility is via the public access - 5 - trail. Fundamentally, what the fence does along most of its length is separate dwelling units from a parking lot. This appears to us to be intelligent site planning feature and a way to mitigate the potential effects of having cars, including cars at night with their lights on, pulling into parking spaces facing windows and doors of dwelling units. This fence would be appropriate even if the PUD had been developed in one phase and by one developer and managed as one project. 2 ., ,The fence will not reduce the sense of neighborliness, nor increasea:the possibility of crime. There are hundreds of dwelling units. in this PUD. Having discrete area withinI this large a development will probably enhance neighbor recognition and community development, not reduce it. It is a basic tenant of urban sociology that sense of neighborhood must start on a small, human scale and be built upon that foundation. Creating sub- components .within this large a development will assist in creating a serise ,of community. Further, while creating a sense of community within adevelopment is a legitimate and worthwhileigoal, it is no more appropriate to do this in a PUD that in any other housing development. or neighborhood. There is nothing in.the PUD Ordinance nor in 'this PUD which supports the proposition that creating a sense of community is any more a part of PUD development than any other ,type of residential development. There is no reason why this laudable goal of creating a sense of community should supercede � I other legitimate needs of the residents, such as mitigation of site design impacts and crime prevention. - 6 - `- -More fundamentally, however, it is outrageous and presumptuous for the Planning Department to opine on the possibility that leaving the fence could increase criminal activity. The Police Department of the city, in whose jurisdiction crime prevention, • clearly rests, has and does strongly support this fence. (See the, testimony at . the appeal hearing by Penny Bryant of the Crime: Prevention Division of the Renton Police Department) . The Police; Department, the agency with expertise on crime prevention, supports.; ' this fence, it is ridiculous for the Planning Department to oppose it on crime prevention grounds. • 3 . •';The fence will not, in any material way, impair the • . abilityN`of� movement through the project, nor block any light or • air. 1again; fundamentally, the fence separates parking areas from 4 a�;• residential units. The walkways through the development will not be iinpeded 'by the fence and access to the useable amenities and: ' large ',open space areas will not be effected. A fence separating parking :' area from a relatively narrow grass strip behind; residential- units should be applauded by the City, not prohibited. . In 'addition, the distance between the fence and these units, as ' i 4 i wel'1 a's.: the elevation difference, clearly demonstrates the blocking of light and air is not a factor. Frankly, the 'fact that ; restrictions on light and air are cited in the Zoning , Administrator's letter is so ridiculous it casts doubt on his neutrality and the sincerity of his decision. • i' 4, Again, it is the purview of the Police Department and not; the planning department to determine what will prevent and what - 7 - will facilitate crime. The police department strongly favors the fence. The Planning Department must defer to the police department on crime prevention issues. 5. The unsubstantial, clearly erroneous and arbitrary and capricious nature of the Zoning Administrator's objection to this fence are perhaps most clearly demonstrated by his objection that since there are going to be openings in the fence, the fence shouldn't be granted. The remainder of his objections seem to be that the fence. is a barrier. Now he objects that the fence is not a complete barrier. He is correct; the fence is not a complete barrier and will allow access through the PUD precisely where access should be--on developed, designated routes. This is not .a reason to object to the fence, rather the city should support the " fend and recognize that it will provide some reasonable privacy and mitigation of site design problems (ie parking areas facing adjacent to residential units) while allowing free access between the open space and amenities portion of the site. This is as it should be. V. WRONG CODE UTILIZED BY THE HEARING EXAMINER Finding number 16 of the Hearing Examiner' s recommendation in File No. FPUD-111-87 indicates that the PUD in question was being processed and reviewed under a prior PUD ordinance and not the one then, or for that matter now, in effect. It would appear that the Hearing Examiner' s determination on this appeal (File No. AAD-102- 90) is based on the present PUD ordinance. Perhaps this appeal - 8 - should be viewed in light of the PUD ordinance under which this PUD was processed. At the very least, the record should be reopened for exploration of this issue. VI. FENCE DOES NOT VIOLATE FINDING 22 OF FILE NO. FPUD-111-87 As stated earlier in this Request for Reconsideration, given the location of the recreation facilities and open space, as well as the location of the trail, the fence in no way violates Finding 22 of the Final PUD (File NO. FPUD-111-87) . The fence does not prevent the sharing of amenities. Similarly, the trail and open space in the PUD are not made inaccessible by the fence. The residents of the various phases in the PUD will still be able to freely cross amongst the phases. A fence which focuses the access points along, roads and paths does not violate a requirement for shared amenities and the accessibility of trails or open space. It is, frankly, beyond the scope of legitimate code interpretation or administration to argue that it does. VII. CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed in this Request for Reconsideration, the decision of the Administrator denying permission to maintain ' the fence,,was error. It exceeded his jurisdiction and was clearly erroneous, arbitrating arid capricious and otherwise improper for ! the reasons stated above. The decision of the Hearing Examiner to affirm the Administrator' s decision is based in the errors of law, ; fact and judgment described above. The Request for Reconsideration - 9 - should be granted and the decision of the Administrator should be reversed. • • RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 25th day of October,, 1990 . LOUCKS & LAMB • SAMUEL M. JACOBS for and behalf of e Sun Pointe Townhomes Condominium Association 10 - RECEIVE? OCT 26 1990 CITY OF RE TON HEARING EXAMINER REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION This Request for Reconsideration is submitted under Title IV Chapter 8, Section 15 of the Renton Municipal Code,. It is filed by the Sun Pointe Townhomes Condominium Association through its attorney, Samuel M. Jacobs regarding the decision of the Renton Hearing Examiner dated October 12, 1990 in File No. : AAD-102-90. Specifically, we hereby request reconsideration of the decision by the Hearing Examiner affirming the decision of the administrator, which effectively requires that an existing six-foot high cedar fence be removed. I. INTRODUCTION The Sun Pointe Townhomes Condominium Association (hereafter the "Association") is interested in this matter as it is the authorized owner-run representative of the owners of the property upon which the fence is constructed. The Hearing Examiner should note that the developer of this phase of the PUD, Schneider Homes, Inc. , turned control of the property over to the homeowners on or about October 19, 1990. The Association immediately retained counsel to assist them regarding the fence. The Association was not involved in the procedure by which the fence wa!s ;built, nor in any of the prior proceedings before the City. Nonetheless, it is the Association and the homeowners it represents who desire that i I ' the fence remain and who will be most effected if the fence is removed. Under these circumstances, we request that the hearing be reopened so that new testimony can be taken and new evidence entered explaining our position. Not withstanding the foregoing request, it is apparent that the Hearing Examiner's decision must be reconsidered and reversed under the provisions of Section 4-8- 15 of the Renton Municipal Code, based on the errors of fact, law and judgment specified below: II. LACK OF JURISDICTION The Administrator, and therefore the Hearing Examiner, lacks jurisdiction over this matter. It is our understanding that this matter came to the Hearing Examiner as an appeal o';f' the denial by the Zoning Administrator of a request to construct the fence. It is our view that the fence is permitted as a matter of right under the pertinent code provisions and that permission of the Zoning Administrator was not necessary. As such, the fence may stand as constructed. The PUD Ordinance of the City of Renton contains several provisions which specify what is regulated by a planned unit development and what restrictions the granting of a PUD imposes on the subject property. Fences, especially fences which are permitted in the Zoning Code, do not appear to be controlled by the PUD ordinance. Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Section 4-15-11F8a states that a "Final plan approval shall be binding upon property or the respective phase(s) with regard to density, open space, - 2 - uses, and other standards. . . " Fences are not listed and there is no indication that "other standards" would include fences. Similarly, RMC §4-15-12A indicates that "building permits" must be issued consistent with the PUD final plan. It is my understanding that a six-foot fence such as the one in question does not require a building permit in Renton. Further, under RMC §4-31-15C, it would appear that this six-foot high fence is permitted in its present location. While the PUD Ordinance states that its provision supercede any inconsistent provision of the zoning code, we can find no provisions in the PUD ordinance which regulate the location or height of fences. In this same regard RMC §4-31-15C3b(3) (C) ii indicates that regulation of fences for, amongst other things, PUD's "may vary" from the provisions of the zoning code. After review of the final PUD decision as well as the PUD ordinance, I can find no regulations or requirements about fences at all. Since no inconsistent fence provision exists for PUD Ordinance or in this PUD, the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn is that the regulations in the zoning code that normally apply to fences apply to fences in this PUD. As such, the fence is allowed under city codes and no request was needed for its construction. The denial of the unnecessary request and the appeal from it, have no legal affect and the Hearing Examiner should enter an order stating that the Administrator has no jurisdiction over this matter, as the fence is permitted outright under applicable codes. See RMC §4-8- 11B4b. - 3 - However, even if the Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction over this matter, the administrative decision must be reversal under RMC §4-8-11B4 a, d, e and f. III. THE FENCE IS, AT MOST, A MINOR ADJUSTMENT It is clear that the fence is not a major modification under the provisions of RMC §4-15-12A, but, at most, a minor adjustment. The fence does not involve any ". . . (significant) revisions to the exact location and configuration of buildings, roadways, open space or other features and (does) not involve any change in density, relative density within the site, intensity, architectural style, housing type or other significant characteristics of the PUD. . . " This provision is non-discretionary: If a change does not violate the listed criteria, it is, at most, a minor adjustment. If it is a minor adjustment, it is to be approved. This is the only criteria that is listed in the PUD Ordinance and the Administrator has no right to use or imply other criteria. (Note that the fence is at the top of a short but steep rise with, for most of its length, ground cover not appropriate for access on the Phase II side and grass and trees on the Phase III side; the fence is not a significant revision to the location or configuration of open space. ) In this case, the fence does not violate any of the listed criteria; as such it is, at most, a minor adjustment, and it is allowed. - 4 - It is illustrative to note that the application requirements of RMC §4-15-11D2 and §4-15-11F2 appear not to require that proposed fences be shown on the preliminary or final PUD applications. If fences need not be shown, it is not legitimate to say that failure to show a fence on a PUD application or as part of the final PUD means that a fence cannot be built. This bears on the jurisdictional question described in Section II of this Request for Reconsideration as well as our contention herein that the erection of the fence is, at most, a minor adjustment under the Ordinance. It was arbitrary and capricious and clearly erroneous for the administration not to approve it as such. IV. STAFF'S FIVE ARTICULATED REASONS FOR DENYING PERMISSION TO MAINTAIN THE FENCE ARE CLEARLY ERRONEOUS AND ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS Staff's five articulated reasons for denying permission to maintain the fence are all clearly erroneous and/or arbitrary and capricious. These will each be discussed briefly below following the numbering used in the staff letter of denial: 1. The fence will not violate any conditions established by the Hearing Examiner (see Section VI, below) . The entire project will still be considered, under city codes, as one complex. To the extent that there are shared amenities, the fence will not inhibit their use. There will be openings in the fence along the access road and at the public access trail. Given the location of the active recreational facilities, the most obvious ways to get from phase three of the PUD to this facility is via the public access - 5 - trail. Fundamentally, what the fence does along most of its length is separate dwelling units from a parking lot. This appears to us to be an intelligent site planning feature and a way to mitigate the potential effects of having cars, including cars at night with their lights on, pulling into parking spaces facing windows and doors of dwelling units. This fence would be appropriate even if the PUD had been developed in one phase and by one developer and managed as one project. 2 . The fence will not reduce the sense of neighborliness, nor increase the possibility of crime. There are hundreds of dwelling units in this PUD. Having discrete area within this large a development will probably enhance neighbor recognition and community development, not reduce it. It is a basic tenant of urban sociology that sense of neighborhood must start on a small, human scale and be built upon that foundation. Creating sub- components within this large a development will assist in creating a sense of community. Further, while creating a sense of community within a development is a legitimate and worthwhile goal, it is no more appropriate to do this in a PUD that in any other housing development or neighborhood. There is nothing in the PUD Ordinance nor in this PUD which supports the proposition that creating a sense of community is any more a part of PUD development than any other type of residential development. There is no reason why this laudable goal of creating a sense of community should supercede other legitimate needs of the residents, such as mitigation of site design impacts and crime prevention. - 6 - ( I More fundamentally, however, it is outrageous and presumptuous for the Planning Department to opine on the possibility that leaving the fence could increase criminal activity. The Police Department of the city, in whose jurisdiction crime prevention clearly rests, has and does strongly support this fence. (See the testimony at the appeal hearing by Penny Bryant of the Crime Prevention Division of the Renton Police Department) . The Police Department, the agency with expertise on crime prevention, supports this fence, it is ridiculous for the Planning Department to oppose it on crime prevention grounds. 3. The fence will not, in any material way, impair the ability of movement through the project, nor block any light or air. Again, fundamentally, the fence separates parking areas from residential units. The walkways through the development will not be impeded by the fence and access to the useable amenities and large open space areas will not be effected. A fence separating a parking area from a relatively narrow grass strip behind residential units should be applauded by the City, not prohibited. In addition, the distance between the fence and these units, as well as the elevation difference, clearly demonstrates the blocking of light and air is not a factor. Frankly, the fact that restrictions on light and air are cited in the Zoning Administrator's letter is so ridiculous it casts doubt on his neutrality and the sincerity of his decision. 4. Again, it is the purview of the Police Department and not the planning department to determine what will prevent and what - 7 - will facilitate crime. The police department strongly favors the fence. The Planning Department must defer to the police department on crime prevention issues. 5. The unsubstantial, clearly erroneous and arbitrary and capricious nature of the Zoning Administrator's objection to this fence are perhaps most clearly demonstrated by his objection that since there are going to be openings in the fence, the fence shouldn't be granted. The remainder of his objections seem to be that the fence is a barrier. Now he objects that the fence is not a complete barrier. He is correct; the fence is not a complete barrier and will allow access through the PUD precisely where access should be--on developed, designated routes. This is not a reason to object to the fence, rather the city should support the fence and recognize that it will provide some reasonable privacy and mitigation of site design problems (ie parking areas facing adjacent to residential units) while allowing free accest between the open space and amenities portion of the site. This is as it should be. V. WRONG CODE UTILIZED BY THE HEARING EXAMINER Finding number 16 of the Hearing Examiner's recommendation in File No. FPUD-111-87 indicates that the PUD in question was being processed and reviewed under a prior PUD ordinance and not the one then, or for that matter now, in effect. It would appear that the Hearing Examiner's determination on this appeal (File No. AAD-102- 90) is based on the present PUD ordinance. Perhaps this appeal - 8 - should be viewed in light of the PUD ordinance under which this PUD was processed. At the very least, the record should be reopened for exploration of this issue. VI. FENCE DOES NOT VIOLATE FINDING 22 OF FILE NO. FPUD-111-87 As stated earlier in this Request for Reconsideration, given the location of the recreation facilities and open space, as well as the location of the trail, the fence in no way violates Finding 22 of the Final PUD (File NO. FPUD-111-87) . The fence does not prevent the sharing of amenities. Similarly, the trail and open space in the PUD are not made inaccessible by the fence. The residents of the various phases in the PUD will still be able to freely cross amongst the phases. A fence which focuses the access points along roads and paths does not violate a requirement for shared amenities and the accessibility of trails or open space. It is, frankly, beyond the scope of legitimate code interpretation or administration to argue that it does. VII. CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed in this Request for Reconsideration, the decision of the Administrator denying permission to maintain the fence was error. It exceeded his jurisdiction and was clearly erroneous, arbitrating and capricious and otherwise improper for the reasons stated above. The decision of the Hearing Examiner to affirm the Administrator's decision is based in the errors of law, fact and judgment described above. The Request for Reconsideration - 9 - • should be granted and the decision of the Administrator should be reversed. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 25th day of October, 1990. LOUCKS & LAMB --4/€41/1/16e161lf"(--) SAMUEL M. JACOBS for and behalf of e Sun Pointe Townhomes Condominium Association - 10 - LAW OFFICES LOUCKS & LAMB �vsa a partnership including professional core t p__ I�; /� �j, SAMUEL M.JACOBS [qb'�m 9�16 SHINGTON FEDERAL BUILDING STEPHEN K.KORTEMEIER,P.S. 425 PIKE STREET,SUITE 402 ROBERT H.LAMB SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101-2358 ALLAN D.LOUCKS,INC.,P.S. OCT 29 1990 DONALD S.MEANS OF COUNSEL. CITY OF 511E TO''I Facsimile(206)684-6839 LARRY E.McMULLEN • HEARING EXAMINER Telephone(206)622-3280 October 26, 1990 Renton Hearing Examiner Sixth Floor 200 Mill Avenue South SENT BY FACSIMILE Renton WA 98055 235-2513 REF: Request for Reconsideration in File No. AAD-102-90 Dear Sir or Madame: Earlier today you received from this office a Request for Reconsideration in File No. AAD-102-90 filed by the undersigned on behalf of our clients, Sun Pointe Townhomes Condominium Association. We inadvertently omitted our address and telephone number from the Request for Reconsideration already filed. Please be advised that our address is 425 Pike Street, Suite 402, Seattle, Washington 98101, telephone number 622-3280, and our facsimile number is 684-6839. Thank you very much for your courtesy in adding this information to the file. Sincerely, LOU& S & LAMB OVA/W#4/1 SAMUEL M. JA BS SMJ:jau . OCT 26 '90 16:32 LOUCKS AND LAMB 552 P01 \ftr , LAW ofricEs LOIJCKS & LAM" SAMUEL M.JACOL S a panaerhip mdu3iuy, WASHINGTON FEDERAL BUILDING STEPHEN K KORTEMEI1R ?.' 425 PIKE STREET,SUITE 402 ROBERT H.LAMB RECEIVED SEA?TLE.WASHINGTON 98101•2358 ALL.AN i.')UC'K!, it v' p DONAL), MEANS OFCOM1 OCT 2 9 1990 Facsimile(206 684-6839 LARRY E u�.nn; CITY OF RENTON Tctcphone(206�6zz•3z80 HEARING EXAMINER • • • :e.�I11155 on, 40 Ul IG 7� 1b:.3t' LUUI K5 Hncr��9Pls ^^ nnz rat LAW C ICES LOUCKS & LAMB SA.MUEL M JA(O 3s a La,., hu ir,J,,tmg yr„i. s aI{.rimr•w ,. STEPHEN ic KiiRTEMFtt_u, , 5 WASHINGTON FEDERALBUILi?ING ROJ3ERT H LAto 425 PUCE STREET,SUITE 402 ALLAN[3 I.Ut it. SEAI'ILE,WASHIN(;TON 9610I-2958 D)NAJ1)S n+r cw:.H t:.t1 Facsimile(206)684-683.9 :wN.*; t A:..•`'--' Telephone(206)622.3280 t for !Itcct on . phone Please this OCT 26 '90 16: 15 LOUCKS AND LAMB 550 P01 r LO''C S .4 I - N1►� ti c *:,, •" ASFIINGToN FEDERAL BUILDING 425 PIKE STREET.SUITE 402 G1. rn 'IEAT11E.WASHING TON 98101,2358 i'i_.w. U, tin ' ' a._simile(206)684.6839 Telephone(206)622-3280 mission, • Ul.I Cd 7C1 ld 10 LUULIND MINI) LF11'ID LAW OFFICES LOUCKS & LAMB STIIPHFN�' r WASHIN(,'TON FEDERAL BUILDING ROE RI Ij t+!,Ih ALIAN I 425 PIKE STREET,SUITE 402 I : 5I ATTLE, WASHINGTON 98I01-2358 DONAI1> , Fac_.iimilc(206)684-68)9 L.._it l' f li'• 1 Tc1Hrhone(206)622-3280 C�jV oc Clry T 261990 MEARIQ SENT oN 'LINER .L,z'o e4 ryr) for -.7 i fined on n. We ;yin the i.,5cd that ::1 sii ington ,r is 684- ,,4 this AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss. County, of King ) Dotty Klingman , being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states: That on the 12th day of October , 1990 affiant deposited in the mails of the United States a sealed envelope containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition. SUBSCRIBED AND , SWORN to before me this day of CC' 10-2N' , 1990. Notary Pub c in an for the State of Washington, residing a klylo therein. I Application, Petition, or Case ��• AAD-102-90 - SCHNEIDER HOMES, INC. (Phase III ) (Fence) (The minutes contain a list of the parties of record.) October 12, 1990 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPELLANT: SCHNEIDER HOMES; INC. Sunpointe Phase III File No: AAD-102-90 LOCATION: SW 5th Street, west of Stevens SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Appeal of an administrative decision by the Planning Department to deny a six foot high cedar fence along the east boundary line of Sunpointe III which currently separates the individually owned townhomes and apartment community. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Appellant's written request for a public hearing and examining available information on file, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the matter as follows: MINUTES The hearing was opened on October 2, 1990 at 9:00 A.M. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit #1 - Yellow File containing application, proof of posting and publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit #2 - Site Map There currently exists on this property both apartments and individually owned townhomes. A six foot solid cedar fence separating these two communities is currently in place. On August 7, 1990 the Zoning Administrator responded to a request by the appellant to construct the subject fence, setting out reasons why staff felt the request should be denied. One of the reasons given was staff's belief that the addition of the fence was a major change to the already approved PUD for Sunpointe as well as a fundamental change in the intended design and operation of the recreational facilities for the project. Mr. Murray Dick, representative of Schneider Homes Inc., 6510 Southcenter Blvd., Tukwila 98188 was the first to testify. Mr. Dick explained the Sunpointe Townhomes are separate from the rental community next door and does not feel the fence is in violation of the original PUD approval. Schneider Homes stands behind the townhome owners who were in favor of the fence for reasons of privacy, safety and aesthetics. He requested that the fence be allowed to remain. He read into the record a letter to the Hearing Examiner from Carl Bloss of Schneider Homes, dated September 16, 1990. Mr. Dick said the recreation center that is provided for all of the residents of the Sunpointe complex is not being utilized by the Homeowners Association for the townhome residents (by their choice), and they are not paying dues associated with its use and maintenance at this time. The facilities are available should they decide to change their mind - and they would just pay additional dues. It is not felt light and air are affected by the inclusion of a fence, nor should there be any added concern about additional crime because of the fence. He said he is not aware of any condition in the PUD that would deny the applicant the right to erect and maintain a fence on the property. PENNY BRYANT of the Crime Prevention Division of the Renton Police Department read testimony into the record supporting the applicant's use of a fence. She mentioned the heavy crime rate in the subject complex and surrounding area and feels even though it will not disappear in the near future, the fence would help to possibly isolate some of the problem, which in turn could help crime prevention goals for the area. Pride in the community, safety, and more common open space were also cited as support for the fence. RICHARD WOODARD of 833 S.W. Sunset Blvd. #F-28, Renton 98055, resident of Sunpointe addressed the use of public facilities and common open space. He said when he purchased his unit he did not Schneider Homes, iuc: (Sunpointe Phase III) AAD-102-90 October 12, 1990 Page 2 know there were recreational facilities available and did not want facilities. Restriction of light and air are not a concern as the location of the fence separates the units from the parking lot and assists in eliminating auto emissions. He said the townhomes are much taller than the six foot fence. He supports the use of the fence and requested that it be allowed to remain. Property owner JUANITA GRANT. 833 SW Sunset Blvd. #A-6. Renton 98055 stated because her unit is on the end she is subjected to heavy traffic movement and criminal elements, and feels removal of the fence would be unfair to the homeowners and impede her safety. DON ERICKSON. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR from the city's Planning Division said it is staff's position that this is considered a major change in the original approval given the PUD for this site. Staff does not question whether there is a social problem at this complex, but a PUD is for the life of a project unless it is returned for a hearing to consider changes. Erickson said the suggested manned security gates are felt to substantially change the design and open space requirements; staff did not know the fence was in the process of construction, and if they had, they would have issued a stop- work order. Mr. Erickson said staff feels the recreation areas and common open space areas were intended to be utilized by both the apartment and townhome residents, and again expressed concern that those areas would now be closed off to a portion of the complex. He said staff could envision changes in ownership of the townhouse units, and an individual new owner's wish to participate in recreational facilities and all of the common open space only to find the homeowners association does not concur. He said a PUD concept is to pull together all residents and facilities on a site and have them all interact to create a sense of community, not to segregate by fences or other means. Social problems may be evident, but it is not felt that fencing can be a part of the cure for the problem. Erickson said the city's trail system runs through the complex, goes along the Black River, and provides for free pedestrian movement along the trail - but if a portion of the residents are going to be fenced off then staff feels the approval of the original PUD with provisions for recreation and open space for everyone will stand in violation. Richard Woodard spoke again stating when he purchased his property he was under the impression that the common area identified in Sunpointe III was divided up and distributed to the townhome owners, making that property the possession of the homeowners association for the townhome owners. He said it is also his understanding that that portion of the property is a restricted common area and only the homeowners can use it. He acknowledged that the homeowners association is not paying for any of the maintenance and expense of the tennis courts and swimming pool, etc. as it is his understanding of the by-laws of the association they have the option of whether or not to do so. The Examiner refrained from commenting on this statement noting the possibility that the by-laws of the association may be in violation of the underlying PUD and city's approval of the entire PUD as it was first formulated. Mr. Woodard said he did not feel the city had a very good plan for this area of the city when it permitted renters and homeowners under one approval. MURRAY DICK concluded referring again to the fence and stated it does have a gate as required by the Parks Department which permits the trails to be accessed by both phases of this project. He feels having open space next to a parking lot, without a fence, is unsafe for everyone. He again requested the fence be permitted to remain in place. FINDINGS: 1. The appellant, Schneider Homes, Inc., filed an appeal of an Administrative Determination by the City of Renton's Zoning Administrator. 2. The appellant had asked permission to erect a solid six (6) foot high cedar fence along the east boundary of its property generally located south of Sunset Boulevard and west of Stevens Avenue. The city denied the appellant permission to erect the fence but the appellant proceeded to erect the fence anyway. The facts do lead one to question the order of events since it appears that while the appellant was seeking approval for the installation of the fence, the appellant was in fact installing it. 3. The administrative determination was issued on August 7, 1990. The letter appealing that determination was filed with the Hearing Examiner's Office on August 21, 1990. The appeal was filed in a timely manner. 4. The appellant is the developer of the third phase of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) that encompassed approximately 46 acres. Each phase of the PUD has been developed by a separate ownership. 5. The appellant's development, Phase III, is termed Sunpointe Townhomes. It is a condominium, where the units are individually owned. It is the westernmost phase of the PUD. Phase II was called Sunset Terrace. It consists of rental apartments. Schneider Homes, nc. (Sunpointe Phase III) AAD-102-90 October 12, 1990 Page 3 6. Phase I was the most southeasterly of the phases. The units in it are also rental units. 7. The original PUD required common open space. Shared recreational amenities were also required between the phases to accomplish the original conditions imposed on the PUD. A public recreation trail runs through the various phases, and links the phases and other open space. 8. Staff concluded that the fence did not meet the original objectives of the PUD. The letter from the city cited the following reasons: "1. The proposed fence, by bisecting the development and limiting free access will violate those conditions which the Hearing Examiner established in consideration of the entire PUD as a single complex, with shared amenities (such as the recreation center). 2. Segregation of selected sections of the property will decrease the neighbor-recognition and reduce sense of community, thereby possibly, increasing the criminal activity. 3. The construction of a solid fence will result in a physical barrier, which will impair the ability of residents to move through the project area, and which may restrict light and air to some of the closer residential units. 4. The construction of a solid fence also provides potential places for would-be criminals to hide and surprise unaware victims, as well as providing a venue for graffiti. 5. A fence which separates portions of the site, but which does not segregate the planned trail would not be effective in preventing pedestrian intrusion in any event." 9. The city has had a continuing crime problem in this area of the city. The fence was suggested as a potential remedy or ameliorating factor. 10. Petitions that were submitted in support of the fence do not constitute evidenciary facts. 11. Finding 22 of File Number FPUD-111-87 adopted by the City Council states: "Recreational facilities have been provided in earlier phases and shall be shared with this last phase. Similarly the trail and open space on this phase are accessible to all residents of the entire PUD complex." 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 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 255, 259 (1969). 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). The appellant has failed to demonstrate that the decision was founded upon anything but a fair review of the PUD Ordinance or Council decision as it pertains to the proposed action - or in this case the completed action. The appellant has failed to demonstrate with cogent evidence that a mistake was made. The decision must be affirmed since the appellant clearly failed to demonstrate that the determination was in error. 3. Staff suggests that the fence divides two phases of what was clearly intended to be one PUD, with shared amenities including open space, recreational facilities and trails. The fence creates a barrier where one was not intended to be located, and obviously modifies the streetscape. The phasing of the development was never intended to create discrete developments but merely to permit build-out to respond to market conditions. Schneider Homes, (Sunpointe Phase III) AAD-102-90 October 12, 1990 Page 4 4. Distinctions in ownership between the phases have little place in this discussion. Staff notes that many condominiums are rented to tenants by their individual owners. The original decision indicated that ownership patterns were not an issue in the determination. 5. While the parties may have a sincere desire to segregate these properties, that desire alone is not sufficient. The appellant has the burden of demonstrating error or arbitrary and capricious action. The reviewing body should not substitute its judgment for that of the original body with expertise in the matter, unless the reviewing body has the firm conviction that a mistake has been made. If there is any basis for upholding staffs decision then it must be upheld. The appellant has failed to demonstrate with sufficient evidence any reversible error. 6. Finally, this office will not be drawn into sociological issues that have no place in an administrative appeal. The decision is merely directed at the fence and.whether it was appropriately 'reviewed by staff. Again, upon that basis, there is no reversible error. DECISION The determination of the Zoning Administrator is affirmed. ORDERED THIS 12th day of October, 1990. FRED J. KA MAN HEARING E AMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 12th day of October, 1990 to the parties of record: Murray Dick Schneider Homes, Inc. 6510 Southcenter Blvd., Suite #1 Tukwila, WA 98188 Penny Bryant Crime Prevention Renton Police Department Richard Woodard 833 S.W. Sunset Blvd. #F-28 Renton, WA 98055 Juanita Grant 833 S.W. Sunset Blvd. #A-6 Renton, WA 98055 TRANSMITTED THIS 12th day of October, 1990 to the following: Mayor Earl Clymer Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator Lynn A. Guttmann, Administrator Members, Renton Planning Commission Jim Hanson, Development Services Manager Glen Gordon, Fire Marshal Ronald Nelson, Building Director, Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Jay Covington, Mayor's Executive Assistant Transportation Systems Division Valley Daily News Utilities System Division 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. October 26, 1990. 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. Any appeal is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 11, which requires that such appeal be filed with the Superior Court of Washington for King County within twenty (20) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. Schneider Homes, hie. (Sunpointe Phase III) AAD-102-90 October 12, 1990 Page 5 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. CITY OF RENTON OCT U 2 1990 ke.CEIVED, AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION CITY CLERK'S o6 Kathleen Hoover ,being first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Chief Clerk of the VALLEY DAILY NEWS • Kent Edition • Renton Edition • Auburn Edition Daily newspapers published six (6) times a week. That said newspapers EARING NOTICE legal newspapers and are now and have been for more than six NOTICE HEARINGF R HAMINE gRENTON EXAMINER months prior to the date of publication referred to, printed and published RENTON, WASHINGTON in the English language continually as daily newspapers in Kent, King A Public Hearing will be held by the Ren- ton, Washington. The ValleyDailyNews has been approved as a legal Hearing uEncmCer at his on the second meet- County g PP g ing in the Council Chambers the second newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for floor of City Hall, Renton, Washington, on King County. October 2, 1990 at 9:00 a.m. to consider the following petitions: Sunpointe PUD, Phase III, AAD-102090 The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the Kent Edition Applicant is appealing an administrative XX , Renton Edition XX , Auburn Edition XX , (and not in determination to deny the segregation of an existing PUD with a six foot high cedar supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers fence along the east boundary line of Sun- during the below stated period. The annexed notice a Public Notice pointe Phase III. That project is located at 833 SW Sunset Blvd. (Notice of Public Hearing) 4662 All interested persons to said petitions are invited to be present at the Public Hear- ing on October 2, 1990 at 9:00 a.m. to Sept . 20 , 1990 express their opinions. was published on Published in the Valley Daily News Sep- tember 20, 1990. 4662 The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of$ 2 4 9R • {CLU () Subscribed and sworn before me this 25 t h day of Sept . 19 90 .tee, o( g a Notary Public for the State of Washington residing at Auburn, King County, Washington VDN#87 Revised 4/89 . / _ - a . _ . ,,----a--67 3-._;?.....7d 1 1• /yi ;•r.4:.'IE'•-i"••.i, /b 17 a_.a4-1, i., --7/— 7 8/ (/ , r ., I/ .,- / • : 4 il / Iii •; 411111e 17:104 It' 7-1 amel,e aill• ...mialligl%. iri . . c.• . i •ek, ow_iii ,iii,,,.. . 1. ..' .. .:. L../i/r- af/) . - -_,.., la i' / .".;4:./.'i: 1 - '70..1.1riVil' '...... ., 0/7) I • :," :•.,, ,,_ 1 a'-vigtritimila • " •, ,.. 1 _ ,7 ----mk.up , /u / t 7 ----- - - , 4,, ,. A • • - - -\__. 1 . ". 11014/• 't.'P RS-- k\. .17. '''vC,It 1. ;,., ,/ iepz-g.,,,•,,,,0 :: ri'* ---.._424:tit‘vi--.J-. . - -7 41L i ij ' •:/,.11-,.,114-1.4g ., • l'e, ,,,-7,4 ..--., . . -.,--:-.• i•,;,:orp..1,..,, ., • ,.., i ; ..; • . ::,...,,46,1,,,,,.‹ 6, , .,,,--0:,.4 A.,‘ ‘...\:s\a / •k..' .r*.1^'''t . 'NI- -.......„ \. : 81' ' ' ,.....j.:,___/: °Iii , „.• ., ,...„„ s„..5 ,...„.•, VVI.;'5...V .1 471) _., t....„..• , -' "' . ....„.., ---.. . ", ...,_:.::2...rri, ' .i , . ,.,.., zr..:.,5,4,..-.,-, • • ,-.; -...-7--._ • ?,...1.:,_.1.4, '1 ,••, -:.1-----I .../ ----,Akit I-._ "ezR;;:,''p . West Par„cel -. „ •- // ( '-'. 4g4--i.;f.i..t l'''._1,;<,.. • - ---'', *-1t::"' 1:. s ' eitis -,r1 I .,/ ,: ‘;'11411)1r,Iit! T.. /i .., . 7/ !/A..• ,-. .,4174,,/,,,,,,v,... .)7 1 - - --ia.„----Ht,_,..• 7 y....11 ,.._,.Ally ,F., , I , - .. p b---7. •,-; .... '; •e•,,,ii*, ••••it,..,•,fi--' -:-. l's, II / ,1 , ,. 4,..,41, , ,/-.• li . /41.-•-iir .,•• .. '; , ,• ; - • ,./,. 7 -i•,,i...:i v• ,,t..' -i I ' ; I : :::y 4. ,a...' \ d'irfr47.:.:1, - •'•'. : i• • ..,,.:ih„„:„.. , ki ! .. .• ,•, , , \ lb- ; ;-. ! .I •:•• r i., lr, iip'...4,./. Y',"1-‘ /,',;',1 . , , L .. .... :16., ./40-4,7.:.• \ -. c'; . A, : '! .el _ 4,411,7 4r,,,A •: •,, /al,': \ !. q .,:-.:.,• ,,, ii.. . !. : ...,,,.,.. t ,. 41,44-iv.4:0,-,-,-, i• .,,.1 \I I.,. .... _: ...t7.---:' 40" -.Q— .. .----- .i._ 2-- -i'::. ..:•• /; ,. "9.7.,.. i . • '.7 ....- --.--------- --....„ •:•••:,',..,,;,; e. 1 :;,„ . ,.. ,.. - `-7 •'• ,.----- - WI i -, , ,02:1-, tz. -itio r--_,_,.. . :•, - 3' ' . .• ..!‘. , . ,1 ,4"</telo (' ''. _, • --.,-.--,/, './ , "4. :: •• *7_4%1111 .... ./,'"'' .'"' ' .. / • ,k \ ... r.- -- _, ..., // ' •.___ _ . , . • , _, . . • , , - . . , • ' ...- z • .4 -A..4,1 -.. : —,, - •..,, ,.....• ,„, . \ ,.:::.2.,..*:, .._ .,!. r:.\\ 4';,!"-NV:V0,0,111,, '••• li• ' ---,..-''''``e. ..'. • „ .......... . , • , A:.,,, iiiiWiii;,11*4-•,,:-:. 17 i ' \' I . ' '-I illNe:••••;.'>%.. •1.g# tat"' I --,-,-N,/ • -) I . ---. rifilirli ', I , .• ..._. . , -•:"•-• 1 . Ns\''' 4:41 eZE t ''''''..Z4)•.:•.' -tt"...•‘'•"\' .,4' i .r I ! 1 •\.\^=i;,..il:::,,,..,,...,47.L.4:,'• , ..),..:,,,r,:+41./...!.,........:.A.. , 1 ..,- r A 1\:tip g...4,\,.1 j\-,- '.. /::"..:****:1--• / • .1 I i 1, ' i\•k-4..t...k••41•/ ', _...'. .,..•..---..—_\,,iZ.7.---- -) i--,ag... -_ ..,:::-.. ..---,s.-...‹..-• . t East Parcel ,) / ..1 1 SITE PLAN :t1\ • • __ _..... . .....,....., ,,, , .---- 1 ..-.1 \ \ . ---"•• '-:0,# , i i. I 1 0 UV \ \ • tIltVIti&`-*LS 1.1:vi *. . \11111'4111,1\1::,11, /.41731 `IA\%\kl•-•\;'Il% '1AW: 11°) I 111111. •im 'AI \\‘ .i7vH,..- . .'-'''. . '1 Vb'''''' ' , . ii• 01in:' ' N.,\ \\4 I-1 illior „3,t., ,,,,,,, , .,,,,tr ., , i tut... 4to,... 2 II . • _ cr/P \a\,\''. c.';',7k. Rev,,,,, I * NN e....,.,‘ •.? 1 g qv*elk, ,i,ti 1• _- -Alai, . \#.1:414,, , . ifor , . \,, ..,) \\,-: -.,..._,.- \\,\,,,1 a kr _„..,I , . i \ tk -1\ \kl ' ' --". ..• '. • t .. ,iikz" / , ..., EXHIBIT NO. A ITEM NO. 0944 - a--:7 Alw •----.. •' ''.' ., \\*1 N?L "0,, 1k ,100 ,i.11Yof,t-goo; 833 SW Sunset Blvd E24 NEP Renton, WA 98055 September 16, 1990 Mr . Fred J . Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Re : Sunpointe PUD, Phase III Fence Appeal File No . AAD-102-90 Dear Mr . Kaufman : As a first—time homeowner at Sunpointe III Townhomes, and father of a three month old infant son, I am extremely discouraged by the City of Renton' s apparent disregard for the plight of young families . The safety and comfort of my family is my top priority and concern . The indicated cedar fence gives me peace of mind and will someday afford my little boy a secure play area . I grew up in Renton, and hope to raise my family here . It is the young aspiring families, such as those living in Sunpointe III, which can rejuvenate an area in decay. You must decide whether or not responsible, concerned citizens are still desirable to the City of Renton . Accepting our existing cedar fence would be encouraging . Sincerely yours, Paul Garton cc : Marshall A. Johnson Kappes Miller Mgmt CROIL ANDERSON LAW OFFICES WILLIAM RUTZICK WILLIAM S.BAILEY SCHROETER, GOLDMARK& BENDER, P.S. SIDNEY STILLERMAN SWAN JAMES D.HAILEY BRIAN A.TSUCHIDA KRISTIN HOUSER 500 CENTRAL BUILDING PAUL W.WHELAN YVONNE HUGGINS-McLEAN THIRD&COLUMBIA MICHAEL WITHEY J.MURRAY KLEIST SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98104 MATTHEW G.KNOPP JOHN GOLDMARK DOUGLAS D.McBROOM Telephone:(206)622-8000 (1917-1979) JUDY I.MASSONG FAX:(206)682-2305 DEAN BENDER KIRK I.MORTENSEN (1933-1988) JANET L.RICE FROM BREMERTON(TOLL FREE) Of Counsel JEFFERY P.ROBINSON 479-1271 DAVID DANELSKI VIRGINIA M.ROBINSON PAUL O'NEIL LEONARD W.SCHROETER RECEIVED September 14, 1990 • SEP 1-8 1990 Fred J. Kaufman CifY OF RENTON Hearing Examiner HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON 200 Mill Ave. S. Renton, WA 98055 Dear Mr. Kaufman: Re: Sunpointe PUD, Phase III Fence Appeal File No. : AAD-102-90 • I recently purchased a. townhome at the Sunpointe Townhomes in Renton. I am opposed to the City of Renton wanting to remove the cedar fence separating the Sunpointe Townhomes from the Sunset Terrace Apartments. Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the hearing set for October 2 at 9: 00 a.m. to express my views further. • For security reasons, I think the cedar fence should remain where it is. Why .incur additional expense by removing it? The fence does not alter the appearance of the two complexes in any way; it merely separates the townhomes from the apartments. I cannot understand why the City of Renton would want to take it down. I hope my views will be considered along with the views of all other owners at the Sunpointe Townhomes. Very truly yours, MARILYN KHALIFE 833 S.W. Sunset Blvd. , #E25 Renton, WA 98055 cc: Marshall A. Johnson, Project Manager �o 0 _ _ _ �� ,f� 1._:- +-+RT '-1-1F.c.; f,6.,1.1t. -- '-1 • ' �� ' t� Mil*. ee0• - i 1 , - �`�. ti ,` ns .. - .1 1; r a. At - �4 O• a4:;si� gr /I a' L \I� •�_ j I t ' u R i gi . A A tp!re hj N 13°25'4 s_ to t ( 1�:J` % z,:f."; 07,,,,!L /n • 1Z'1r!h�/�i�d�Q t }1r]- 'SL v I Tom. 1-1 L.L�. . - ,C• ! ..-"— C'l. ter __.t y\I Q', — �ie /ma - ` I ` - • i V. /i' ' • ler- Apair:2 . ./ . .. ----- .. • • . CC CC \ 1 O ,ln i / ? t o/�c. ST t F �J 7 4--....:•77k.i° . / L j T! j _ ' "'r , ���1 ark . 1, ,,. , , . ,„, „di, 6 '-/- ie/ ;7', .6_,:••• - I r...u. '0.tie4 A.,: 1.' irl•144,4.4_ '+' 4 1110 1. • 1). '')) •17 77 1,t.'-‘•?i' ,.• . "1 1 . .._:....zz--,' il. s t 8 , 6 . B 13 F • U 1 g6ri li j I 9,ti / ,` ,N.8:;(r27'51"E-- _ . ,` 1 •1 �^•. __� I 1 t _ � _ C 7 - -. onieV4_- ;1 -,.. 1 J e1 i ` Jy' ' [ — \ p t ,f / , - .0-'.- . tea, 4, to/014--/1.--'4" ----..------_____________.... s - " 1 s if_ .o e 1 . • • 3sI. ' •- _ S- -_ Ili I t ' - + + s1 A I A 1 l I {TV•, N 13°25'4 C i` •i 1� II + `fir,. F �� c1:.. 20.b0 I Y; • : .• \`��j�� L1 au.I -1 I. pa 8 �� ' �r\ �' PF-fN1i vE4•r<-U:AR• t.,. - .•;.t, 0. ►' V ' / iJ rti•6 ;' *'e'ham,9Acr �.,..xzr, ••{: - tW` , / .web tcA3'S�. T•, 1.-1 1..Ly. (- � ) V t '� / t . 1 • '• - ti 1- f / ` e may' •yi V f ,, / • i' C s.f 6- . , ) car.- .. -...1 r•.1 0"/ i -... • — . 4 I C C .` /.'o' 4. c C Cam;C y t-_I / 7 •,�C ::.` ;,-0, r '. _ fie Q ,�E:e'� '` _� �. 6 I ) 8 8 8 1f. / 1 4 8\i r) :�a VC`�•1G. : ,.l�." i .; ..yf. ! !-A,J Y..* - •— ' * / /` .., „.51 / riBil 8 8 - 8 F ..--- 4,.....:___••14.,._,____,74.••,...._,..01 -. . ..... , . . , ......41.ril , 111411 ' -. . 27 VI' / -N 890-7•51'T- _ f • `.� ,., 4-1 F-E: f: -'tlk; - �.: ��. S ti — �� . • �__`` —� La2s9 ��. .2- 1 , ...... '''•Cla It !!! B 1 • A Q �' A • 111 ,,I� '• `I `` 'I r l�� .•--- ---- N 23°25'4 4 ./ 20.60 • 11-42,46,1 C... •., - _ •_ 1 - .'! \`oa aY /r�I'� 'YD 70 iS�I. w//:.APr1� c: ! , ;-,ra- , ! {' 1. • ' ti `` Q ,` - -----itiL C .;` C� / � / • . I •..- ./. . "T -- - / . _ I - f;" 6 / r- • s47, 01 WI ,• • ,„ ..........V ,_._ __' _,I t.,,.: 4 ; c c - _ 1:-a 1,-.....ir et-II-,, 7-If; •,: F:.. 11.s.1 -''''' . 1 t . "'g.I., I . • _ — - - . .•%F.--- -/ 0r; r: --- ti• . 7,1 �f :_.� .: _ PHA -- -__ __ I 't ` CITY OF RENTON i Hearing Examiner Earl Clymer, Mayor Fred J.Kaufman September 5, 1990 H. C. Bloss Manager of Development & Construction Schneider Homes, Inc. 6510 Southcenter Blvd. , Suite #1 Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Sunpointe PUD, Phase III Fence Appeal File No. AAD-102-90 Dear Mr. Bloss: The date for a public hearing to appeal the decision of the Planning Department to deny a six ft. high cedar fence along the east boundary line of Sunpointe Phase III has now been set for Tuesday, October 2 , 1990. Hearings on that day will begin at 9 : 00 A.M. and will be held in the council chambers located on the second floor of the Renton Municipal Building. If you have any questions please feel free to contact this office. Sincerely, FRED J. UFMAN HEARING EXAMINER FJK/dk cc: Lawrence Warren, City Attorney Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator Lenora Blauman, Senior Planner Glen Gordon,- Fire Marshal Penny Bryant, Crime Prevention Coordinator inn a,r:n n„on„o Cnnth - Rantnn W,chincrtnn 9R(155 - T15-9591 • schnelder homes, Mo. 6510 Southcenter BoulevardoSuite#1 oTukwila,WA 981880(206)248-247.1 oFAX 09 REcEt 16VJI1 AUG 211990 August 21, 1990 �r Y, OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER Mr. Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton 200 Mill Ave. S. Renton, WA 98055 Subject: Sunpointe PUD Phase III File No. 111-87 Dear Mr. Kaufman: I am appealing the planning department's administrative decision to not allow a solid 6' high cedar fence along the east boundary line of Sunpointe Phase III. The fence, which is in place, as shown on the attached drawing, was installed at the request of the residents of Sunpointe III and the property manager of Sunset Terrace. The City's decision considered five points, as described in Mr. Erickson's letter to Jerry Davenport and dated August 7, 1990. In response I am offering the following arguments: 1) The owners on each side of the fence have expressed their desires to have the fence. The communities are distinct and different, with renters on one side and single-family homeowner's on the other. Recreation centers are still available. 2) Neighborhood recognition and a greater sense of community will increase, NOT decrease and will give a little more privacy to 'the residents living on both sides of the proposed fence. 3) Living units located near the fence are higher than the fence; There is no loss of light, air or views due to the fence. 4) The fence is in clear view from both sides and well 'lighted. It would not be a good hiding place. 5) A 36" wide gate has been provided at the fence intersection with the trail system. I understand the gate will satisfy the recreation department's concerns. The following letters are attached for your information: 1) Letter from Sunset Terrace dated 8/20/90. SC-HN-E1-245 P8 Schneider Homes, Inc. August 21, 1990 Page 2 2) Letter from Penny Bruant dated 6/26/90. 3) Letter from Jerry Davenport dated 7/16/90. 4) Letter from Donald Erickson dated 8/7/90. 5) Letter from Christopher Phillips dated 8/16/90. 6) Letter from Mariah Ybarra dated 6/25/90. 7) Petition signed by 55 Sunpointe III homeonwers. Sincerely, (-C?Cla' H.C. Bloss Manager of Development and Construction SCHNEIDER HOMES, INC. HCB/jc Attachments CyCk(4. e/Fi/zacici' • TO: Olen G. Gordon - Fire Marshall DATE: 6/25/90 FROM: Mariah - Property Manager RE: Fire Lane Gate • Dear Mr. Gorden, I am writing in reguards to two request: 1 . Recently the fire lane was finished and opened between the new Sunpointe Townhomes and this property. As I had suspected it has become a short cut passageway for traffic from Sunset Boulevard to Stevens Ave ' SW. I am sure you are fully aware of the problems that 'Sunset Terrace Management now faces with its ' many (7 ) entrances onto the property that currently exist from Stevens Ave . SW.- In an effort to more effectively control additionally unwanted problems with undesireable factions from the surrounding area I am requesting approval for a traffic barrier of some description to be installed on the property line. One that would continue to ensure your entrance onto the property without jeopardizing response time for an emergency. The management of Sunpointe Townhomes shares my 'concerns as well . I have currently order the installation of "Private Property" and "No Trespassing" and speed signs to be posted at the new entrance. 2 . My 2nd request is for the approval of locations on our private property to install speed bumps. Nearly 300 children reside at Sunset Terrace. I often receive complaints from concerned residents about cars speeding through the property inspite of the speed signs posted at every entrance. With summer here and warmer weather the children are in eminent danger of, being hit. A-510 Stevens Avenue S.W. Renton,Washington 98055 Telephone:(206)255-5180 i Managed by: SHELTER AMERICAN HOLDINGS.INC. ( 2) • I am urging you to act immediately on these two request so that Sunset Terrace management can ensure added safety for it ' s residents . Please feel free to contact me between the hours of 9am and 5pm Monday thru friday to discuss the matter further. Yours Truly, Marl Ybarra Property Manager cc; Dan Edwards • • 4I ' " ,�. CITY OF RENTON "LL POLICE DEPARTMENT Earl Clymer, Mayor Alan L. Wallis, Chief June 26, 1990 Jerry Devenport Schneider Homes 6150 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Dear Jerry, This letter is a follow-up to our conversation last week about the possibility of constructing a fence at the Sunpointe Townhomes site. The police department would support the construction of such a fence. I understand that access to the proposed City of Renton trail was a condition of the granting of the PUD and that the fence that you would like to construct may be in conflict with that access. After talking with Sam Chastain, from the Parks Department, he indicated that he didn't anticipate a problem with the construction of a fence. However, you cannot restrict the easement to the trail. The installation of a gate would fulfill this requirement, allowing movement from the Sunpointe project to the trail. If you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to call me at 235-2571, or Sam Chastain at 277-5526. Sincerely, ALAN L. WALLIS, CHIEF OF POLICE • pA,G(4, 13140titi--- Pennyant Y Crime Prevention Coordinator cc: Sam Chastain 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 '11A1 schneider homes, inc. 6510 Southcenter Boulevard•Suite#1•Tukwila,WA 98188•(206)248'2471•FAX(206) 242-4209 July 17, 1990 Lenora Blauman Senior Planner Community Development Department City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Dear Lenora, I request that you consider our proposal to construct a six foot high cedar fence at the east property line of Sunpointe Townhomes and a pair of chain link gates at the vehicular link between phase II (Sunset Terrace Apartments) and phase III Sunpointe Townhomes. 4 ' I make this request due to concerns raised by the management of Sunset Terrace and by many of our home buyers . I have talked to the management at Sunset Terrace and they expressed concern that no physical separation had been planned for between the two complexes. One issue they raised was that the vehicular link would provide one more access to an area that is now experiencing security problems due to too many unrestricted entrances . Many of the homebuyers at Sunpointe Townhomes, several of whom were former tenants at Sunset Terrace, have also expressed concern over the lack of a physical separation between the two complexes. Their concerns were related to the current number of police calls in the grid that includes Sunset Terrace. I discussed their concerns with Penny Bryant of the Renton Police Department and believe those concerns merit your attention. Your prompt consideration of our proposal would be greatly appreciated. Sincere Ja.,0ale :—T— • 40 erry Devenport Site Superintendent ------------...`A Fin f:S-L:.1-•' �0 �` °. CITY ^F RENTON Department of Plan:m:g/Building/Public Works Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann, Administrator August 7, 1990 Jerry Devenport Schneider Homes, Inc. 6510 Southcenter Blvd, Suite#1 Tukwila,Washington 98188 SUBJECT: Sunpointe Townhomes Dear Mr. Devenport: This letter is written in response to your request for an administrative determination from The City of Renton with respect to your plan to construct a six foot high cedar fence at the east property line of Sunpointe Townhomes and chain link gates at the roadway which connects Sunpointe Townhomes (Phase III) with Sunset Terrace Apartments (Phase II). The proposed fencing plan has been reviewed by staff and submitted to the Technical Advisory Committee and the Environmental Review Committee in order to determine the best method for providing an attractive, safe living environment not only on this portion of the site, but over the whole PUD and protecting public safety/welfare In the area. Following consideration of this request,the City has determined in favor of the provision of chain link gates to prevent through-traffic on the roadway between Phase II and Phase III of the Sunpointe Planned Unit Development.The request for the six foot cedar fence, however, is not approved for the following,reasons: 1) The proposed fence, by bisecting the development and limiting free access, will violate those conditions which the Hearing Examiner established in consideration of the entire PUD as a single complex,with shared amenities (such as the recreation center). 2) Segregation of selected sections of the property will decrease neighbor-recognition and reduce sense of community,thereby, possibly, Increasing criminal activity. 3) The construction of a solid fence will result in a physical barrier,which will Impair the ability of residents to move through the project area, and which may restrict light and air to some of the closer residential units. • 4) The construction of a solid fence also provides potential places for would-be criminals to hide and surprise unaware victims, as well as providing a venue for graffiti. • • 5) A fence which separates portions of the site, but which does not segregate the planned trail,would not be effective In preventing pedestrian Intrusion In any event. As this decision is an administrative determination, it may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner, under Title IV of the City Code. The appeal must be submitted in writing, by no later than 5:00 p.m. on August 21, 1990. The appeal should cite specific errors of fact and/or law, errors In Judgment or erroneous procedures and must be accompanied by a filing fee of$75.00. if you have questions, or would like additional information, please contact me at 235-2550. Donald K. Erickson, AICP • Zoning Administrator 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2631 NEW CONCEPT SECURITY SERVICES 600 S.W. 5th Court Suite C-304 Renton, WA 98055 • August 16, 1990 City of Renton • Re: Fence located between Sunset Terrace Apartments and Sunpointe Townhomes To whom it may concern; • NEW CONCEPT SECURITY SERVICES currently provides an officer foot patrol service to Sunset Terrace Apts. , Sunpointe Apts. , and Jeff Reed Construction, Inc. It, has come to my attention that the developer of Sunpointe Townhomes has received an order instructing him to remove the newly constructed fence seperating Sunpointe Townhomes from Sunset Terrace. I would like to voice my concern regarding this order. Due to the events that have been occurring at Sunset Terrace, I feel that removal of this fence will be detrimental to the new Sunpointe Townhome owners. , Documentation regarding the nature of events that occur at Sunset Terrace are obtainable from the Renton Police Department. You will discover that this whole residential area requires a large amount of police intervention. Total RPD calls to this community alone have been over 900 to date. Examining the facts, I strongly urge you to reconsider your order of removing the fence which separates the two properties located at the west boundary of Sunset Terrace Apts. If you have any questions regarding my. comments,. please, feel free to contact me at home (206) 235-1182.. I will be glad to provide any additional information that you may require. I appreciate your prompt attention regarding this issue. Sincerely, Christopher E. Philips President kk 151174tOrj : �IIII� r#i/tAq/CeJ AM` M Donald K. Erickson, AICP August 20, 1990 Zoning Administrator City of Renton 200 Mill Ave So. Renton, Wa 98055 RE: Sunpointe Townhomes Dear Mr. Erickson, This letter is written in response to the administrative decision to deny Schneider Homes the construction of a six foot cedar fence between Sunpointe Townhomes and Sunset Terrace Apartments. Shelter American Holdings Inc. , the owner and management corporation of Sunset Terrace Apts. is a totally separate entity from Schneider Homes, builder of the Sunpointe Townhomes. The townhomes are owner occupied and Sunset Terrace is a 356 unit rental property. • Although we understand your desire to create community and neighbor recognition, the following concerns have been brought to our attention: 1 . Residents of both complexes are concerned about additional foot and auto traffic between the properties. As it is, Sunset Terrace has an average of 300 children of various ages and it is our desire to restrict them as much as possible to our property. 2. It makes management of both projects much easier when there are clearly defined boundaries, marking each property "private" . 3 . The homeowners, who have invested financially and emotionally in the purchase of their homes prefer the feeling of privacy and exclusivity that the fence denotes. This is compared to the more transient, less invested nature of ' apartment renters. 4. The high number and variety of incidents that require Police intervention at Sunset Terrace as a result of the multi ingress and egress to the property is another concern. Many of these occurrences result from undesirable factions from outside our community, but nevertheless require management and Police attention. This is a well known concern to the new homeowners, as well as an ongoing problem for Sunset Terrace management. A-510 Stevens Avenue S.W. Renton,Washington 98055 Telephone:(206)255-5180 Managed by: SHELTER AMERICAN HOLDINGS,INC. 1:45;4(alq74: . 7:1e;//4q/Cej IUi \sci,.,,,•l•Ul b._/ Page 2 RE: Sunpointe Townhomes We do not feel that a sense of overall community will be lost by the construction of an attractive cedar fence. The location of the nearest townhomes to Sunset Terrace is on a hillside and the view is completely unobstructed and none of the residential units will experience any light or air restriction. The desire and need for privacy is much more of a concern to the homeowners as well as Shelter American Holdings Inc. We urge the reconsideration of this decision on behalf of both properties . If you have any other concerns or questions, or would like additional information please contact me at 255-5180, Monday thru Friday, 9am to 5pm. Yours Truly, Mari Ybarra WOCL.A.A....A ___) Property Manager Sunset Terrace Apartments Shelter American Holdings Inc. mm/lr A-510 Stevens Avenue S.W. Renton,Washington 98055 Telephone:(206)255-5180 Managed by: SHELTER AMERICAN HOLDINGS,INC. PETITION WE, THE UNDERSIGNED HOMEOWNERS AT SUNPOINTE PHASE III, HEREBY PETITION THE CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER TO ALLOW THE CEDAR FENCE SEPARATING PHASE II AND III OF SUNPOINTE TO REMAIN AS BUILT. WE FEEL THAT THIS FENCE IS ESTHETICALLY MUCH MORE PLEASING THAN A "CHAIN LINK" FENCE WOULD BE, AS HAS BEEN SUGGESTED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. WE ALSO. FEEL THAT THE CEDAR FENCE OFFERS MUCH MORE PRIVACY TO THE HOMES AT SUNPOINTE THAN WOULD A CHAIN LINK FENCE. WITH A CHAIN LINK FENCE, HOMEOWNERS WOULD HAVE NO PRIVACY AT ALL ON THEIR PATIO AREAS - IT WOULD BE LIKE SITTING IN A "FISHBOWL" , RATHER THAN AN OUTDOOR EXTENSION OF LIVING SPACE. PEOPLE LIVING IN AS CONCENTRATED AN AREA AS A TOWNHOUSE PROJECT NEED TO HAVE SOME PRIVATE AREAS THAT ARE NOT VISIBLE AT ALL TIMES TO. THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD. AS NEW HOMEOWNERS, WE HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF PRIDE IN SUNPOINTE III, AND FEEL THAT OUR SENSE OF COMMUNITY WILL BE ENHANCED BY THE FENCE. THE FENCE, WHICH HAS BEEN PROVIDED WITH A 36" WIDE GATE AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE TRAIL SYSTEM, WILL NOT "DIVIDE" THE COMMUNITY, BUT RATHER WILL "DEFINE" SUNPOINTE III AS A TOWNHOME COMMUNITY, RATHER THAN AN "APARTMENT HOME COMMUNITY" . THERE IS ADEQUATE ACCESS BETWEEN PHASE II AND III WITH THE GATE. PEDESTRIA7 TRAFFIC BETWEEN THE TWO PHASES WOULD ONLY BE "CHANNELED" THROUGH THE GATE, NOT "BLOCKED" BY THE FENCE. WE DO NOT FEEL THAT THE SOLID FENCE WOULD PROVIDE ,HIDING PLACES FOR CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES, AS IT IS VERY VISIBLE FROM BOTH PHASE II AND III AND IS WELL LIGHTED ON BOTH SIDES. WE HOMEOWNERS WOULD CERTAINLY NOT ALLOW GRAFITTI TO EMBELLISH OUR FENCE, ANY MORE THAN YOU WOULD AT YOUR HOME. PLEASE CONSIDER OUR REQUEST, AS WE ARE THE INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE PURCHASED HOMES HERE, AND WE ARE THE ONES WHO WILL BE LIVING IN AND MAINTAINING OUR HOMES AT SUNPOINTE III. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. SIGNED BY THE BELOW LISTED HOMEOWNERS OF SUNPOINTE III: - PLEASE SEE ATTACHED - e. J d NAME - PRINTED SUNPOINTE III UNIT # SIGNATURE fir► A-e.n (r r Eay l J bct)T-ta-IU '" 'c o Gay arbtt,a,,,,,i.,th,_ ,,,c, 0 . ,,,,,„ r as --/-2 . tar",k,j, sc)ap,; V,}0kv..kv-E-.,--- 'c\---%. -2,5 %,kk•Na\ 620.Nat& . Mac\Lew Y, Pw -\- - E�; A v) isiutaa.AD At-, 1_/<44_ ' 1_ en . 4_. 14 7: in / i :1 . -6-64-91.Th k 5 75 ,I. ....4i„,,,-- i- r_tic V4 f 0 - / 14 - / - / 4 - - °h / \ th' v / � ',ksc y1s/ Ott Cyr lk GIA' -2a-cl ot,fia V 3-1/-1 C',r c1`.1 R 67 A P rri a(O r- i -/ 6r. WAA.12,4, V-1 �u�r , a A) A -,2 -X° 9 > _ fr.. A l Y Shor i NV Lare-h lr-`1 li-\6mi I c ne, �1 P/�(Qi ��' L-Lay2y ' tyLlG��.Qx��V1Cd�G� ja4 J% 11 i e- (i(-4n-i- ff - Co L�.�c..�, MiAlfr (1, N N 16 1;G- IoU- M-5-9 64 tz. AL S . C-x7 L-57 . • a,r 5507 ( 6o L-57 ilfcuv(,� f . _Airy ry 10 .(40k n 1 ' . 6 - S 7 al,.- — iver , . NAME - PRINTED SUNPOINTE III UNIT ; RE o -L - - / -fr- tdfrO-460/ 2.)- (7/0 44-6-4.44 �3'iI I Rr D / ,1---r--,r C l T e - 1t et 1. , r� doH O / " c - / (o _ £' • Arno, a, /3v ti3 13 -i/ dA,ppiew,, Eicla 4..n /5- "..." F1444 LA-le— (0 V,a - IOcohkvin/ 13 _g .f d- . a "1 PETITION• • WE, THE UNDERSIGNED HOMEOWNERS AT SUNPOINTE PHASE III, HEREBY PETITION THE CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER TO ALLOW THE CEDAR FENCE SEPARATING PHASE II AND III OF SUNPOINTE TO REMAIN AS BUILT. WE FEEL THAT THIS FENCE IS ESTHETICALLY MUCH MORE PLEASING THAN A "CHAIN LINK" FENCE WOULD BE, AS HAS BEEN SUGGESTED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. WE ALSO FEEL THAT THE CEDAR FENCE OFFERS MUCH MORE PRIVACY TO THE HOMES AT SUNPOINTE THAN WOULD A CHAIN LINK FENCE. WITH A CHAIN LINK FENCE, HOMEOWNERS WOULD HAVE NO PRIVACY AT ALL ON THEIR PATIO AREAS - IT WOULD BE LIKE SITTING IN A "FISHBOWL", RATHER THAN AN OUTDOOR EXTENSION OF LIVING SPACE. PEOPLE LIVING IN AS CONCENTRATED AN AREA AS A TOWNHOUSE PROJECT NEED TO HAVE SOME PRIVATE AREAS THAT ARE NOT VISIBLE AT ALL TIMES TO THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD. AS NEW HOMEOWNERS, WE HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF PRIDE IN SUNPOINTE III, AND FEEL THAT OUR SENSE OF COMMUNITY WILL BE ENHANCED BY THE FENCE. THE FENCE, WHICH HAS BEEN PROVIDED WITH A 36" WIDE GATE AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE TRAIL SYSTEM, WILL NOT "DIVIDE" THE COMMUNITY, BUT RATHER WILL "DEFINE" SUNPOINTE III AS A TOWNHOME COMMUNITY, RATHER THAN AN "APARTMENT HOME COMMUNITY" . THERE IS ADEQUATE, ACCESS BETWEEN PHASE II AND III WITH THE GATE. PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC BETWEEN THE TWO PHASES WOULD ONLY BE "CHANNELED" THROUGH THE GATE, NOT "BLOCKED" BY THE FENCE. WE DO NOT FEEL THAT THE SOLID FENCE WOULD PROVIDE HIDING PLACES FOR CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES, AS IT IS VERY VISIBLE FROM BOTH PHASE II AND III AND IS WELL LIGHTED ON BOTH SIDES. WE HOMEOWNERS WOULD CERTAINLY NOT ALLOW GRAFITTI TO EMBELLISH OUR FENCE, ANY MORE THAN YOU WOULD AT YOUR HOME. PLEASE CONSIDER OUR REQUEST, AS WE ARE THE INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE PURCHASED HOMES HERE, AND WE ARE THE ONES WHO WILL BE LIVING IN AND MAINTAINING OUR HOMES AT SUNPOINTE III. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. SIGNED BY THE BELOW LISTED HOMEOWNERS OF SUNPOINTE III: - PLEASE SEE ATTACHED - NAME — PRINTED SUNPOINTE III UNIT GN URE Verttioliabourt G5 Co ---, a./ tOcirklyod-07(afq--`e4 `016/- co-AP®s J - qq ,G °,. C a2 f� C , 04y-1 cJ' —3`1 tuhA 0, 3Ye \AA-4c_ E 4nq Ua (�� I er W cc 6-1 /Pal, I Mark A . t4 C G ee r- 3 G /7i,�1e1� C- CITY OF RENTOh1CITY TREASURER TREASURER REG!RCFT . 02-10323 0$-21-1590 CASHIER ID . C: 2:23 ,M 7016 HEARING EXAMINER $•75.00 000.000.00.338.58.00.000000 TOTAL DUE $7 5.00 RECEIVED FROM: St.HNEIDER HOMES, INC:. CHECK y75.00 TOTAL TENDERED $75.00 CHANGE DUE $0.00