Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA-07-092 Report 01STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING } AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Linda M Mills, being first duly sworn on oath that she is the Legal Advertising Representative of the Renton Reporter a bi-weekly newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continuously as a bi-weekly newspaper in King County, Washington. The Renton Reporter has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the Renton Reporter (and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a: Public Notice was published on September 15, 200T The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $79.80. Linda M. Mills Legal Advertising Representative, Menton Reporter Subscribed and sworn to me this 24'h day of September, 2007. _e2 L) B D Canielon ..C,f . i i',s, a �.X Notary Public for the State of Washington; R�s%ding�n Kenl�;�alrfagton P. O. Number: -,, NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REN TON HEARING EXAMINER REN'TON, WASHINGTON A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on September 25, 2007 at 9.00 AM to consider the tbllowing petitions: Administrative Interpretation/ Policy Decision Appeal LUA07-092, AAD Location: Regarding 167 Hoquiam Place NE. Description: Appeal of an administrative determination requiring that elevated decks at least 7 feet from the grade plane at any point be counted. towards the area of the building footprint for purposes of calculating lot coverage. All interested persons are invited to be present at the Public Hearing to express their opinions. Questions should be directed to the Hearing Examiner at 425-430-6515. Published in the Renton Reporter, September 15, 2007. #864104, AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON } } ss. County of King } Nancy Thompson being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states: That on the 8tn day of October 2007, affiant deposited via the United States Mail 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: SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this � s day of �JGC� ° If , 2007. iblic in adfo�r�tate of Washington at , therein - Application, Petition or Case No.: Administration Interpretation/Policy Decision Elevated Deck Appeal LUA 07-092, AAD The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record. HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT October 8, 2007 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION APPELLANT: John Skochdopole Connor Homes 846 108'b Ave NE Bellevue, WA 98004 Administration Interpretation/Policy Decision Elevated Deck Appeal LA-07-092, AAD PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Appellant's written requests for a hearing and examining available information on file, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary o, f the September 25, 2007 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, September 25, 2007, at 9:03 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: Staff file containing the original appeal letter and site information, by reference. Parties Present: Neil Watts, Development Services Director, City of Renton John Skochdopole, Appellant Neil Watts, Director, Development Services stated that the issue today was a determination he issued on lot coverage and the definition of lot coverage. John Skochdopole, 846 1084i Avenue NE, Bellevue, WA 98004 stated that the code is written fairly unequivocally and the positioning of the word "covered" shows the emphasis on decks and porches. The code states that the measurements are within the outside of the exterior walls of all principal or exterior buildings including covered decks and porches. The intent is fairly clear in that all covered decks are to be included in that language. There seems to be some ambiguity in the provisions of the code and the way they intermingle in terms of the difference between references and definitions. It is quite clearly stated that only covered porches and decks are to be included and they have counted on that provision as written. It appears that the interpretation of Mr. Watts is inappropriate in this case. Parties Present: Neil Watts, Development Services Director, City of Renton John Skochdopole, Appellant Neil Watts, Director, Development Services stated that the issue today was a determination he issued on lot coverage and the definition of lot coverage. John Skochdopole, 846 1084i Avenue NE, Bellevue, WA 98004 stated that the code is written fairly unequivocally and the positioning of the word "covered" shows the emphasis on decks and porches. The code states that the measurements are within the outside of the exterior walls of all principal or exterior buildings including covered decks and porches. The intent is fairly clear in that all covered decks are to be included in that language. There seems to be some ambiguity in the provisions of the code and the way they intermingle in terms of the difference between references and definitions. It is quite clearly stated that only covered porches and decks are to be included and they have counted on that provision as written. It appears that the interpretation of Mr. Watts is inappropriate in this case. Administrative Interpretation/rolicy Decision - Elevated Deck Appeal LA-07-092, AAD October 8, 2007 Page 2 They are also interested in what the symptoms are that seem to be leading to this statement by the staff, has there been a problem prior to this incident, complaints of neighbors or what? The Examiner stated that he had some concerns as well, why a deck on the ground is not coverage and why a deck in the air might be coverage. He can see that a deck in the air becomes similar to a carport, other than its design and function. What happens when someone decides to cover the deck with impermeable surface rather than just the slatted boards? Mr. Skochdopole continued that once you are over seven feet a bulk situation is not really created. Those are open air for the most part. Perhaps something else can be arrived at depending on what staff's actual concerns are. Mr. Watts stated that if the code were clearly written there would be no need for this hearing. Where these issues come into play is out of the Development Standards, residential zoning designations, which states maximum building coverage and limitation, becomes 35% or 2,500 square feet, whichever is greater. The looking at the definitions, there is no definition for maximum building coverage, but there is a definition for lot coverage, the horizontal area measured within the outside exterior walls of all principal and accessory buildings on a lot, including all covered decks and porches. It does not address what happens with raised decks. A ground level deck is listed as impervious surface. What instigated this is there has been a variety of staff trying to interpret this question over the years. The Building Department tends to not include these raised decks in lot coverage and the planning tends to use this as part of the lot coverage. By including the additional area for a raised deck, it pushed it beyond the 35% coverage allowable. The intent of the lot coverage seems to be intent on dealing with the building mass, how it appeared to other people in the neighborhood. A raised deck has as much visual massing as a roof over a porch or a roof over a patio or surface deck. The code does not say what happens to raised decks, it does say what happens with covered decks and porches. He was comfortable with the fact that a surface patio or surface deck that does not have a physical structure over the top of it is impervious surface but not included in lot coverage, but it is not clear in this definition what happens with a raised deck. The Examiner asked if it might be more appropriate to seek an ordinance change? Mr. Watts stated that determinations lead to how things happen and then goes into the docket and will sometime in the future make the definition clearer. The City at this point in not overly concerned about this situation, 35% is a somewhat arbitrary number. He is simply asking for a line to be drawn one way or the other. This is a very unusual decision on his part, generally he would side with his customer, he does not have complaints from neighbors or anybody on this. Connor Homes builds excellent homes, which are a great addition to this community. Lot coverage does not deal with pervious or impervious surfaces, that is not what is being covered here today. Whether the deck becomes solid or is only covered with planks is not a factor, it's the visual picture. _Mr. Skochdopole stated that there is some lack of clarity as to what massing really is, the carport is an unclosed structure and therefore the massing is definitely less than a completely enclosed home that is five feet off of a side yard. Eaves provide coverage, but eaves are not part of the lot coverage calculations. Is it massing, eaves do not create enclosure, there definitely some items in the codes that are put in for a variety of reasons and are Administrative Interpretation/Policy Decision - Elevated Deck Appeal LA-07-092, AAD October 8, 2007 Page 3 not meant to be intertwined in all of this. The arguments can be made both ways, one has got to turn to the letter of the code. The code does say covered porches and decks, it does not make reference to the elevations of those things. One must fall back on the written intents, the clearly written language in the code and they do meet code with the proposed decks. The decks are not encroaching on neighbors and limiting their use of their yards. The massing situation appears to already be in check. The difference between a covered deck and an uncovered deck is the way that the outdoor space is used. The Examiner asked where a solid deck would fit into this situation. it would basically be a carport with a horizontal roof and not necessarily would there be a car underneath it. What is the difference between a solid deck and one that is slats or boards? Mr. Watts stated that that is where the confusion comes, is the last clause; including all covered decks and porches. The clause is found in Lot Coverages, Definitions, 4.11.120. Discussion continued on what the code actually says and what could be implied from the statement. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 9:27 am. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: The appellant, John R. Skochdopole for Conner Homes Company, filed an appeal of an administrative interpretation. 2. The appeal was filed in a timely manner. 3. The Development Services Director, Neil Watts, issued an "Interpretation/Policy Decision" relating to calculating lot coverage. The Director determined that elevated decks which are at least seven feet (T) from grade plane shall be included in building footprint and lot coverage. 4. The Director noted that his different divisions were interpreting the code sections that pertained to calculating building footprint and lot coverage and arriving at different conclusions. This led to confusion when applying code. The Building Division has not included raised decks when calculating lot coverage while the Planning Division has included raised decks when making similar decisions. The Director clarified this was not a matter affecting the impermeable surfaces and further noted that this was not a matter of building setbacks or yard dimensions. The Director used the definition of ceiling height, which is seven feet (T) to determine when to include raised decks in the calculations. (see below for Code Definitions) 6. The appellant cited code provisions that show covered decks and porches are specifically covered by Code and noted Code is silent when it comes to raised decks. The appellant did not believe that any ambiguity exists or existed that needed this interpretation or clarification. The appellant noted that if there is some question about this issue it should be addressed by a change in ordinance. The appellant Administrative Interpretation/rolicy Decision - Elevated Deck Appeal LA-07-092, AAD October 8, 2007 Page 4 did agree at the hearing that the structures did have similar visual and structural impacts but maintained that they were defined (or not) differently. 7. Administrative Interpretations do not generally require any notice to the public when they are made (see below). The appellant in this case had a building plan with a raised deck rejected since it apparently violated the footprint provisions. In pressing the case, the appellant asked for a more formal decision. The Director determined that in order to create an appealable decision, he, the Director, would issue the interpretation. The appellant, therefore, had special knowledge that this interpretation was issued. 8. The type of interpretation that the Director made is covered by Sections 4-8-080(G) and (H): 4-8-080(H) Type I — Staff Review without Public Notice: • Building and Grading Permits (SEPA exempt) or SEPA/Land Use Permit process completed • Business Licenses for Horne Occupations without customer visits/deliveries • Deferrals • Lot Line Adjustments • Minor Adjustments (less than I0%) to a previously approved Site Plan • Modifications (administratively approved) of Various Code Standards • Routine Vegetation Management Permits (SEPA exempt) • Shoreline Exemptions • Waivers • Other SEPA Exempt Activities/Actions (Amd. Ord. 4974, G-24-2002) 9. The Director's letter will be included and it includes the specific code sections that the Director found applicable and the cause of the conflicting rulings his staff issued. The entire decision is quoted here: "CITY OF RENTON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION INTERPRETATION/POLICY DECISION MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS: 4-8-120D, 4-11-020, 4-11-120 REFERENCE: IBC R305.1 SUBJECT: Including elevated decks in building footprint for purposes of calculating lot coverage. BACKGROUND: RMC 4-8-120D Submittal Requirements - Site Plan, Single Family/Duplex requires that the "Location and footprint size in square feet of all existing and proposed structures on property including decks, carports, storage sheds, and garages" be provided. RMC 4-11-020 Definitions defines Building Footprint Administrative Interpretation/Po iicy Decision - Elevated Deck Appeal LA-07-092, AAD October 8, 2007 Page 5 as "The area of a lot or site included within the surrounding exterior walls of a building or portion of a building, exclusive of courtyards. In the absence of surrounding exterior walls, the building footprint shall be the area under the horizontal projection of the roof." In RMC 4-2-070, development standards are laid out for all of the zones within the city. One of the categories is `Maximum Building Coverage' which lists the maximum percentage of a lot that can be built upon. RMC 4-11-120 Definitions defines Lot Coverage as "The horizontal area measured within the outside of the exterior walls of all principal and accessory buildings on a lot including all covered decks and porches" IBC R305.1 defines minimum ceiling height as "The minimum ceiling height is 7 feet." JUSTIFICATION: The purpose of regulating the percentage of a lot covered by roofed structures is to create a balance of open and covered space. For this purpose, an elevated deck is more similar to a carport or covered porch than to a deck which rests directly on the ground. The elevated deck becomes, in effect, a roof over a defined space. Although the roof created by the deck is intended to be walked upon, it has the same effect on lot coverage as if it were peaked and shingled. DECISION: When calculating building footprint and lot coverage, any deck which is at least 7' from the grade plane at any point shall be included." CONCLUSIONS: The appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the decision of the City Official was either in error, or was otherwise contrary to law or constitutional provisions, or was arbitrary and capricious (Section 4- 8-110(E)(7)(b). The appellant has failed to demonstrate that the action of the City should be reversed. At the same time this office does believe that amendments to unclear ordinances would be preferable to some interpretations and that the lack of public notice when such decisions are issued can lead to a lack of due process in a number of instances. 2. Arbitrary and capricious action has been defined as willful and unreasoning action in disregard of the facts and circumstances. A decision, when exercised honestly and upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances, is not arbitrary or capricious (Northern Pacific Transport Co. v Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, 69 Wn. 2d 472, 478 (1966). 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). An appellate body should not necessarily substitute its judgment for the underlying agency with expertise in a matter unless appropriate. 4. The gist of the Director's decision is his analogy comparing the visual mass or scale of covered decks and carports to the similar appearance (or mass or scale) of elevated decks. Both types of structures are above ground. Both types of structures intrude into the open space. Both types of structures add to the Administrative InterpretationlPolicy Decision - Elevated Deck Appeal LA-07-092, AAD October 8, 2007 Page 6 visual mass of the residence. Both types of structures can provide covered, protected areas below if a deck is a solid surface or converted to a solid surface. The appellant even agreed that there was little to distinguish the structures. As the Director was clear to point out at the hearing, this is not a matter of the amount of impermeable surface but rather one of crowding or the appearance and visual impacts or the lack of openness that occurs whether the structure in question is a carport or a raised or elevated deck. The code does not appear to distinguish in the quoted sections between a carport whose parking surface is paved or just gravel, dirt or grass. In other words, impermeable surface is not the distinguishing feature - it is the above grade structural component that defines its mass and, therefore, inclusion into the footprint calculations. As the Director noted, there really is no difference in the apparent bulk and visual intrusion into the open space on a lot between a flat -roofed carport that is seven feet (T} tall and a deck that is also seven feet tall. 6. The decision, therefore, is not clearly erroneous. While an ordinance Wright be a preferable way to fix the conflicting interpretations by the Director's staff, it is not arbitrary or capricious to address those conflicts in a timely manner by making an interpretation based on the various code provisions that come into play in arriving at "footprint calculations" or "lot area coverage." The clear lack of a real or meaningful distinction between a seven -foot tall carport and a solid surface deck seven feet above grade makes the decision a reasonable one. 7. This office will have to point out for the record that these types of "interpretations" are not widely known or published but can have a profound effect on code enforcement. In this case it appears that it was what might term a "friendly" dispute, which gave this appellant knowledge that the interpretation would be issued, was issued and could be appealed. This means this appellant had the appropriate knowledge and ability to file a timely appeal of the decision but that would not be the case for any other developer or homeowner who could eventually be affected by this decision. It would appear that two issues arising from this appeal should be addressed to the City Council. The first issue would be "how to calculate a footprint." The second would be providing a better method of issuing interpretations and modifications of code provisions. 8. The appellant did not carry the burden necessary to show any clearly erroneous decision making. The decision should be affirmed. DECISION: The decision affirmed. ORDERED THIS 86 day of October 2007. FRED J. KA HEARING EXMAMER Administrative Interpretation/Policy Decision - E levated Deck Appeal LA-07-092, AAD October 8, 2007 Page 7 TRANSMITTED THIS 8" day of October 2007 to the parties of record: Neil Watts John Skoehdopole Development Services Director Connor Homes City of Renton 846 108'b Ave NE Renton, WA 98057 Bellevue, WA 98004 TRANSMITTED THIS 8' day of October 2007 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Renton Reporter Robert Van Horne, Deputy Fire Chief Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 1 OOGof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 .m. October 22 2007. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section i 10, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 .m. October 22 2007. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision -maker concerning the proposal. Decision -makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. ,sY CITY OF RENTON C1 �� City Clerk Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 v 0 425-430-6510 El Cash 6 9 q q:5- Check No. 1 Description: Funds Received From: Name Address k o City/Zip R (/ Pj-)" Jc>kN Is ❑ Copy Fee Appeal Fee ✓ V I C-tl ' C 15 I c7--2- Receipt -.0934 Date <�eis ❑ Notary Service ❑ -- tfe'.-' 1 Amount $ 06 r Sign ure August 17, 2007 Office of the Hearing Examiner City of Renton Seventh Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 f� ENtL) C 0 N N E R Re: Appeal of Administrative Interpretation/Policy Decision dated August 3, 2007, signed by Development Services Division Director Neil Watts. L_ U fl - C' - C ` Z- Y Dear Sirs: ., 3 r.J_V.<:r b� c.G_4 X_L._. C. '74- L�.�_.... Please consider this a formal appeal of the above referenced Interpretation/Policy Decision in accordance with the provisions of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Attached please find a copy of the original decision as issued for reference, and the requisite filing fee. Thank you for the opportunity to file. We have had two communities in Renton where two-story decks have been proposed. The first was our Laurelhurst community, in the R-8 zone, at which time we were held to the building setback lines for our decks, with an allowance for a 2" overhang for up to 10 feet in length into the setback, justified as being an extension of the provisions of 4-2- 110D, Condition 4a, the allowance for a stairwell or a fireplace encroachment. The second experience has been on homes at our new Shy Creek community. The interpretation has heretofore been that uncovered decks were allowed at any length to encroach into a building setback by up to 24". The classification evolving to that of an eave in 4-2-110D, Condition 4d. The notion of the defined Lot Coverage of 4-11-120 applied as subject to the rules of Maximum Building Coverage (including primary and accessory buildings), of which there is no definition provided for in 4-11, (note the difference in terms) now being extended to include uncovered decks is the issued policies' aim. The Decision at issue here is to bring lot coverage provisions, no longer just building envelope provisions, into effect for uncovered decks. It is contrary to clearly written code and the Decision reads as issued, as follows: When calculating building footprint and lot coverage, any deck which is at least 7' from the grade plane at any point shall be included. The basis of our appeal is that we do not feel that this interpretation can be used to override clearly written code. The policy decision is inappropriate in this case. Section 4-11-120 Defintions defines Lot Coverage as "the horizontal area measured within the outside of the exterior walls of all principal and accessory buildings on a lot including COVERED decks and porches" (emphasis added}. There is absolutely no ambiguity in the language 846 tO8th A%,enu(! VL ') Scllccue, Washirigton 98004 n 1 I } � 425 455 9280 V 6 i i V 7 � /- f( i/ y'✓i, S Y(� PC 1CT� aw1vYM1.cnnnrrhomcs.com t4 C. ' yc its' � pertaining to decks being a part of lot coverage. Only covered decks and covered porches are part of the coverage, clearly stated and clearly intended by the code authors, and clearly enforced as such, prior to this interpretation. The intent was to include only covered usable spaces in the lot coverage provisions. Decks and porches being the floor of usable spaces, not the covers themselves. Building footprint is another measure and another zoning parameter altogether. And building footprint regulations, i.e. building setbacks, are what control uncovered decks, and always have and justifiably so. If the City wants to go a different direction now, there needs to be a formal code revision, through established procedures. The policy justification statement likens an uncovered deck to a carport. That is not an appropriate comparison. The difference is that a carport is a solid -roofed area, even though it is open -walled and is therefore usable space underneath. A non -solid, traditional deck does not create living space underneath it, regardless of its height. It is not a dry space and is therefore not suitable for living or storage. A carport would be akin to a covered or waterproof deck, and we agree that those are part of lot coverage stipulations. We believe the only code clarification needed by way of a policy decision or a code amendment would be to add waterproof/solid decks above a certain height to the coverage calculations or to include waterproof decks as well in the definition of lot coverage. That would be consistent with the clear intent of and definition given in 4-11- 120, though at the time that code was written, waterproof docks were not a common "coverage". The code is quite clear in its intent. It did not intend for uncovered decks or uncovered porches to be included in lot coverage calculations. There has been precedent established and other parts of the code support this historical handling of uncovered decks, regardless of height. For instance, eaves. Eaves are not part of coverage but are a subject of building envelopes and setbacks. They are partially covered spaces, obviously unenclosed, that are only partially dry underneath and therefore not included in the lot coverage talcs. Heretofore, pervious decks have been handled similarly and should continue to be. Again, thank you for the opportunity to file this appeal letter and for your consideration. We look forward to attending the Hearing. Respectfully Submitted, O NER HOMES OMPANY n R. Skochdopole, P.E. Project Manager U6103/'L997 PRI 15:17 PAX 425a307231 City of Renton oEV SVCS Z002/003 CITY OF RENTON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISJON INTERPRETATION/POLICY DECISION MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS: 4-8-120D, 4-11-020, 4-11-120 REFERENCE: TBC R305.1 SUBJECT: Including elevated decks in building footprint for piuposes of calculating lot covet -age. BACKGROUND: RMC 4-8-120D Suhmillul Requirements - Site Plan, Single Family/Duplex requires that the "Location and footprint size in square feet ofall existing and proposed structures on property including decks, carports, storage sheds, and garages" be provided_ RMC 4-11-020 Definitions defines Building Footprint as "The area of a lot or site included within the surrounding exterior walls of a building or portion of a building, exclusive of courtyards. In the absence of surrounding exterior walls, the building footprint shall be the area under the horizontal projection of the roof." Tn RMC 4-2-070, development standards are laid out for all of the zones within the city. One of the categories is 'Maximum Building Coverage' which lists the maximum percentage of a lot that can be built upon. RMC 4-11-120 Def7nituon.s defines Lot Coverage as "The all principal and accessory buildings on a lot including all covered dccks and porches" TBC R305.1 defines minimum ceiling height its "The•minimurn ceiling height is 7 feet." JUSTIFICATION: The purpose of regulating the percentage of lot covered by roofed Structures is to create a balance of open and covered space. For this purpose, an cicvated deck is more. similar to a carport or covered porch than to a deck which rests directly on the ground. The elevated deck becomes, in cffcct, a roof over a defined space. Although the roof created by the deck is intended to be walked upon, it has the same effect on lot coverage as if it were peaked and shingled. 08/03I2007 FRI 15:17 FAX d2541307231 City of Renton DEV SVCS 14003/093 DECISION; When calculating building footprint and lot coverage, any deck wlxich is at least 7' from the grade plane at any point shall be included. DTVTSI(ON HEAD APPROVAL: DATE: �� � , 2yy7 APPEAL PROCESS: This determbiation will be final unIms a written appeal of this administrative determination is tiled with the City's Hearing Examiner within 14 days of the date of this decision. See Section 4-8-110 of the Renton Municipal Cade for further information on the appeal process_ Hldi visioiilde reloptnecluerviCrs/lnldelcrminulioris:D 101 CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING September 25, 2007 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: Administrative Interpretation/Policy Decision - Elevated Deck Appeal PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-97-092, AAD PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Appeal of an administrative determination requiring that elevated decks at least 7 feet from the grade plane at any point be counted towards the area of the building footprint for purposes of calculating lot coverage. HEX Agenda 9-25-07.doc NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RENTON HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on September 25, 2007 at 9:00 AM to consider the following petitions: Administrative Interpretation/Policy Decision Appeal LUA07-092, AAD Location: Regarding 167 Hoquiam Place NE. Description: Appeal of an administrative determination requiring that elevated decks at least 7 feet from the grade plane at any point be counted towards the area of the building footprint for purposes of calculating lot coverage. All interested persons are invited to be present at the Public Hearing to express their opinions. Questions should be directed to the Hearing Examiner at 425-430-6515. Publication Date: September 15, 2007 Account No, 51067 HEX Appeal Publication 07-492.doc r ��JTY OF tRE1 TON August 17, 2007 Office of the Hearing Examiner City of Renton Seventh Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 AUG 17 2007 RECEIVED CRY r:I..ERK's OFF!cp, CO \NER Re: Appeal of Administrative Interpretation/Policy Decision dated August 3, 2007, signed by Development Services Division Director Neil Watts. Dear Sirs: Please consider this a formal appeal of the above referenced Interpretation/Policy Decision in accordance with the provisions of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Attached please find a copy of the original decision as issued for reference, and the requisite filing fee. Thank you for the opportunity to file. We have had two communities in Renton where two-story decks have been proposed. The first was our Laurelhurst community, in the R-8 zone, at which time we were held to the building setback lines for our decks, with an allowance for a 2" overhang for up to 10 feet in length into the setback, justified as being an extension of the provisions of 4-2- 110D, Condition 4a, the allowance for a stairwell or a fireplace encroachment. The second experience has been on homes at our new Shy Creek community. The interpretation has heretofore been that uncovered decks were allowed at any length to encroach into a building setback by up to 24". The classification evolving to that of an eave in 4-2-11OD, Condition 4d. The notion of the defined Lot Coverage of 4-11-120 applied as subject to the rules of Maximum Building Coverage (including primary and accessory buildings), of which there is no definition provided for in 4-11, (note the difference in terms) now being extended to include uncovered decks is the issued policies' aim. The Decision at issue here is to bring lot coverage provisions, no longer just building envelope provisions, into effect for uncovered decks. It is contrary to clearly written code and the Decision reads as issued, as follows: When calculating building footprint and lot coverage, any deck which is at least 7' from the grade plane at any point shall be included. The basis of our appeal is that we do not feel that this interpretation can be used to override clearly written code. The policy decision is inappropriate in this case. Section 4-11-120 Defintions defines Lot Coverage as "the horizontal area measured within the outside of the exterior walls of all principal and accessory buildings on a lot including COVERED decks and porches" (emphasis added). There is absolutely no ambiguity in the language 846 l OSth :lvenuc NE Bellevue, Washmgwn 98004 cc,' + f jrT ) � r� � � 425 455 9280 eI i W% J �t f/ 5YtjG S o'Pck--- w-%wconnerhonies.com 0 pertaining to decks being a part of lot coverage. Only covered decks and covered porches are part of the coverage, clearly stated and clearly intended by the code authors, and clearly enforced as such, prior to this interpretation. The intent was to include only covered usable spaces in the lot coverage provisions. Decks and porches being the floor of usable spaces, not the covers themselves. Building footprint is another measure and another zoning parameter altogether. And building footprint regulations, i.e. building setbacks, are what control uncovered decks, and always have and justifiably so. If the City wants to go a different direction now, there needs to be a formal code revision, through established procedures. The policy justification statement likens an uncovered deck to a carport. That is not an appropriate comparison. The difference is that a carport is a solid -roofed area, even though it is open -walled and is therefore usable space underneath. A non -solid, traditional deck does not create living space underneath it, regardless of its height. It is not a dry space and is therefore not suitable for living or storage. A carport would be akin to a covered or waterproof deck, and we agree that those are part of lot coverage stipulations. We believe the only code clarification needed by way of a policy decision or a code amendment would be to add waterproof/solid decks above a certain height to the coverage calculations or to include waterproof decks as well in the definition of lot coverage. That would be consistent with the clear intent of and definition given in 4-11- 120, though at the time that code was written, waterproof docks were not a common "coverage". The code is quite clear in its intent. It did not intend for uncovered decks or uncovered porches to be included in lot coverage calculations. There has been precedent established and other parts of the code support this historical handling of uncovered decks, regardless of height. For instance, eaves. Eaves are not part of coverage but are a subject of building envelopes and setbacks. They are partially covered spaces, obviously unenclosed, that are only partially dry underneath and therefore not included in the lot coverage talcs. Heretofore, pervious decks have been handled similarly and should continue to be. Again, thank you for the opportunity to file this appeal letter and for your consideration. We look forward to attending the Hearing. Respectfully Submitted, K /�' O/nR.ER HOMES OMPANY Skochdopole, P.E. Project Manager rxi 15:11 FAX 425aJQ7231 City of Renton nev SVC& C1TY OF RENTON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION INTERPRETATIONTOI.,ICY DECISION MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS: 4-8-120D, 4-11-020, 4-11-120 REFERENCE: 1BC R305.1 SUBJECT: Including elevated decks in building footprint for purposes of calculating lot cover -age. BACKCROLTND: RMC 4-8-120D Submittal Requirements - Site 1'lan, Single Family/Duplex requires that the "Location and footprint size in square feet of all existing and proposed structures on property including decks, carports, storage sheds, and garages" be provided. RMC 4-11-020 Deflnitions defines Building Footprint as "The area of a lot or site included within the surrounding exterior walls of a building or portion of a building, exclusive of courtyards. In the absence of surrounding exterior walls, the building footprint shall be the area under the horizontal projection of the root." In RMC 4-2-070, development standards are laid out ror all of the zones within the city_ One of the categories is `Maximum Building Coverage' which lists the maximum percentage of a lot that can be built upon. RMC 4-1 1-120 Definitions defincs Lot Coverage as "The all principal and accessory buildings on a lot including all covered dccks and porches" TBC R305.1 defincs minimum ceiling height is "The.minimum ceiling height is 7 feet_" JUSTIFICATION- The purpose of regulating the percentage of a lot covered by Tooted structures is to create a balance of open and covered space, For this purpose, an cicvatcd deck is more. similar to a carport or covered porch than to a deck which rests directly on the ground. The elevated deck becomes, in effect, a roof over a deFned space. Although the roof created by the deck is intended to be walked upon, it has the same effect on lot coverage as if it were peaked and shingled. U002/003 vor W�f Lvu r ZnL 1D: x 4 can UL04JV;ZS1 c;lty oT eanton DEv 6vcs U003/003 ' • DECISION: When calculating building footprint and lot coverage, any deck which is at least 7' from the grade plane at any point shall be included. DIVISION READ I ; -' I� APPROVAL: ! 'V-A ' DATE: 3 2 oo % APPEAL PROCESS: This determination will be final unless a written appeal of this administrative detcr inination is bled with the City's Hearing Examiner within 14 days of the date of this decision. See Section 4-8-] I0 of the Renton Municipal Code for further information on the appeal process. Hldivision/develapmcrrLscrvicca/ln/ddlcrminnliunr: D 107 i Y CITY 4F RENTON G +s City Clerk Division * + 1055 South Grady bray Renton, WA 98055 425-430-6510 11 Cash ❑ Copy Fee I�Check No. [Appeal Fee /Description: 4,/? Ile,, , , , De' c\5rc�- , Funds Received From: Name Address City/Zip rL)U0 l.1/1"! 0' 500 JV kVx Is r_�W oeo / e Receipt N 0934 Date <�erO ❑ Notary Service El Amount $ City r Sign ure