HomeMy WebLinkAboutGraves Reconsideration Request1
I ; ,.t fi _
September 26, 2017 n'oFRENTp 1
r,
SEP 2 7 2017
City of Renton
RECEIVED -'
Jennifer Henning, Planning Director TY CLERK'S OFFtC
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
Re: Request for Partial Reconsideration [LUA17-000519]
Thank you for your review and determination regarding the submittal of the Administrative
Variances associated with LUA17-000519. I have read the City of Renton's Administrative
Report & Decision, dated September 14, 2017, and it states 2 decisions along with 2 conditions
for one of the decisions. It also states the garage is not eligible for the requested variance as it
is a use-related provision.
The Applicant respectfully requests a partial reconsideration —regarding one of the
decisions:
1. The Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration for approval of the setback
variance - as it relates to the existinq sinqle familv residence (not the garage).
After review of the following evidence of record (along with an explanation of elements of the
evidence of record that may have been innocently judged in error, overlooked as an element of
evidence, or innocently misrepresented due to appearance) the Applicant is in hope the
decision maker will either approve the reconsideration, or, at the very least, take further action,
as deemed proper or request further information from the Applicant - to help analyze the facts
submitted herewith — and, then, have evidence sufficient to compel the decision maker the facts,
in their new light, are found sufficient to amend the original decision and approve the setback
variance.
The following is a recap of the "variance criteria and anlaysis"section
of the Administrative Report and Decision - with the Applicant's
comments interlaced in red font. The applicant wrote most comments
within "Variance Critera "a"" and then references the comments
within the other three sections.
Variance Critera "a"
That the applicant suffers practicai difficulties and unnecessary hardship and the variance is
necessary because of special circumstances applicable to subject property, including size,
shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject property, and the strict application of
the Zoning Code is found to deprive subject property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by
other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zone classification.
Staff Comment:
Lot Width Variance
The applicant contends that the lot width variance is needed because he suffers
practical difficulties that deprive him of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property
owners in the vicinity. When the lots were originally subdivided in the neighborhood, they
were created as 50-foot wide lots. The granting of the variance to allow a 50-foot wide
corner lot would allow the underlying lots to be consistent with the width of the other lots
in the surrounding neighborhood. Not requesting reconsideration.
Staff concurs that the applicant suffer practical difficulties and that the lot width variance
is needed to ensure the applicant is not deprived of rights and privileges enjoyed by
other property owners in the vicinity. Not requesting reconsideration.
Setback Variance REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION
The applicant contends that the requested setback variance is needed for this variance
criteria for the same reason as stated for the lot width variance, and the argument,
which was submitted with the request for variance, is that he contends the requested
setback variance is needed because he suffers practical difficulties that deprive him of
rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity. There are over 10
examples within two blocks of the subject property of homes with setback
encroachments as well as properties with land use approvals allowing the setback
encroachments to continue to exist and/or allowing a new setback encroachment for a
new construction, or allowing the preclusion of alley development due to cost (707 N 2gtn
St, 809 N 29th St, 813 N 29th 2815 Burnett Ave N, 2822 Lake WA Blvd, 2803 N Burnett,
718 N 30t'' St, 806 N 30th St, 1004 N 29t'' St, 1105 N 28th PI, 1209 N 29th St, 2814
Burnett Ave N, 910 N 28th PI, 914 N 28 h PI, 1016 N 33 d St, and 1004 N 33 d St to name
a few) All of these sites were referred to in the facts submitted with the request for
variance, as "There are other lots in the neighborhood which have homes within the side
yard setback..." to allow the... applicant, who is a 95 year old senior citizen, to continue
to live in his home until such time, if he desires or requires to move to a senior housing
facility (it seems it is overlooked as an element of fact of administrative record that the
Applicant is a 95 year old senior citizen, there are elements of the Comprehensive Plan
that support development decisions that allow the aging, and other vulnerable
populations, to have access to stable and supportive housing —and this variance should
consider this error of apqlication of elements of the comprehensive plan...existing
residence to remain temporarilv_on the underlying corner lot and that the residence
would be removed upon City receipt of a building permit application. The applicant also
stated, stronc ly, his intent, 1. In the variance request, 2. In meetings with Chip Vincent
and Jill Ding and, 3. In the applicants rescinded appeal — his intent - that he is 95 years
old and having difficulty with balancing finding a senior living facility, finances, health and
protecting his only real-property asset so as to have the capability to support himself in
the city he has called "home"for the majority of his very long life. The applicant further
proposed the recording of a document that would notify future purchases of the lot that
any future building on the site would not be vested to the current building setbacks, but
would instead be subject to the City's current setback requirements. Material evidence.
which is implied but not stated and perhaps innocently not discovered, is the fact that
the Applicant only wants the house there for the time he is alive and living in the house
as his primary residence. It was implied that the next purchaser would, of course,
demolish the structures and build to current development regulations. To say that the
proposal is to bring the house into compliance with current building setbacks at a time in
the future when submittal for a new construction building permit is submitted is the
equivalent to savinq that the proposal is to bring the house into compliance with current
building setbacks within a reasonable finite period of time after the applicant
discontinues living in the home...and offering him all due respect to not put an expiration
date on the period of time he can live in the house, but rather put an expiration date on
the period of time after he leaves; for example, "the side yard setback easement and
encroachment shall have a stated duration of 24 months after the date the applicant
either discontinues using the property as his primary residence or sells/transfers the
property." The content of the recorded document would not only state a timeline for the
existence of the variance, but would also state a building requirement for the easterly of
the two lots to have a 6' westerly side yard setback, so the lot will be acquired and not
be materially detrimental or injurious or artificially increase the cost of building a home
on that lot, as the fire standards would be met.
Material evidence not readily discoverable prior to the oriqinal decision includes a
discussion with the submitter of the public comment letter (Paul Gee 929 N 28th PI): The
applicant's friend explained to the submitter, the intent of having the setback variance in
place ONLY for a finite period following the duration of the applicant's primary use of the
house or sale of the house. The submitter of the public comment letter suggested that
this interpretation of the facts of record left him more agreeable to acceptance — knowing
there is a finite time limit on the setback variance.
This variance qualifies as a hardship. It appears based on the submitted application
materials, that the existing residence could be modified but it cannot be modified without
an unprecedented hardship and depriving the subject property owner rights and
privileges enjoyed by other property owners to bring it into compliance with the minimum
5-foot setback requirement from the east property line. It appears that the residential
structure included in the site plan (Exhibit 2 of Variance Request) is set back far enough
from the property line to comply with the 5' setback, except for an approximately 9' wide
bumped-out portion of the building extending into the side yard setback. It also appears,
from the mapping tool used within the City of Renton that the 5' building set back line
would make it relatively simple to modify the existing structure to be compliant. It may
appear just the bump-out could be removed and the bulk of the residential structure
would, then, remain intact, and compliant with existing side yard setback.
But the actual misinterbreted fact is the residential structure was originally built at an
angle (to the property line) and the major portion of the residential structure's depth lies
almost completely within the first couple feet of the side yard setback (at an angle) (as
originally submitted as a fact with the Variance Request - see highlighted Exhibit H).
The Proiect Narrative states the fact: "...a small portion of the existing house...will
encroach into the 5' side-yard setback". This "small portion" is highlighted in Exhibit H.
When a 5' side-yard building setback line is overlaid onto the site plan (for visual clarity
of the submitted facts of administrative record), it is easy to see the small portion of the
existing house encroaching would require BIG changes.
So much of the easterly foundation, easterly wall, and easterly basement wall
would have to be demolished and rebuilf, the cost, of which wou/d be greater than
the value of the structure, itself. And when combined with the other elements of
fact, (such as the applicant's age is 95 years o/d, the applicants intent to just live
out his life in the existing sfructure or move to a senior housing facility, if
availab/e, selling the second/ot to pay for living expenses AND then eliminating
the variance after moving or selling)it is apparent that it shou/d not be modified.
Allowing the variance keeps the Appiicant, a senior citizen, in his home for as long as he
can live there. He couldn't afford to do what the City is requesting of him. Several key
omissions of fact regarding the Comprehensive Plan that exist and support this variance
for a senior citizen, but are underutilized in the decision include: To ensure a variety of
housing types are available within the City that meet the needs of the PRESENT without
compromising the needs of future generations (Goal HHS-B) and to Implement
inclusionary zoning provisions...to address the housing needs of all people at all staqes
of life, includinq vulnerable populations (Policy HHS-6).
And On a side note, it was stated in a meeting at the city, recent/y, that two
separafe SF homes current/y being built at 1004 N 33rd St and 1016 N 33'd St DlD
NOT submit for a request fo not have alley/oad garages—they currently are being
built on a property served bv an allev but they were not required to develop the
alley. The Department head indicated conceded that if they did submit for the
request to nof have the alley load garages, they would have been granted it
because, among other fhings, the cost to deve/op the alley ha/f way into the b/ock
wou/d have been "high". The point is, cost, inf/uenced the administration's
subjective decision, to justify the preclusion of a deve/opment condition in this
neighborhood. And it, therefore, seems cosf shou/d subjective/y inf/uence a
portion of the adminisfration's decision for this reconsideration as well.
Here are several key omissions of fact regarding the Comprehensive Plan and RMC that are
appropriate to support the variance, but are underutilized in the decision:
The City of Renton promotes efficient land utilization...and utilizes multiple strategies to
accommodate residential growth... (Goal L-H and Goal L-I),
The City of Renton addresses...quality of life for existing residents by considerinq scale
and context in infill project design (Policy L-49).
Relationship and consistency of the variance with the Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 4-1
RMC).
Ensure a variety of housing types are available within the City that meet the needs of the
PRESENT without compromisinq the needs of future qenerations (Goal HHS-B)
Implement inclusionary zoning provisions...to address the housinq needs of all people at
all stages of life, including vulnerable populations (Policy HHS-6)
Staff is requested to reconsider the facts, as compliance can be demonstrated,
to concur that the applicant dose suffer practical difficulties and that the
setback variance is needed to ensure the applicant is not deprived of rights
and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity.
Variance Critera "b"
That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which subject property issituated.
Staff Comment:
Lot Width Variance
The applicant contends that the granting of the requested lot width variance would not
be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties in the
vicinity. The required variance would allow the corner lot to remain at a width of 50 feet,
which is consistent with other lot widths in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Not
requesting reconsideration.
Staff concurs that the requested lot width variance would not be materially detrimental to
other properties in the vicinity. Not requesting reconsideration.
Setback Variance REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION
The applicant contends that the granting of the requested setback variance would not be
materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties in the vicinity.
The required variance would allow the existing residence to
remain in place until a finite period of time after the applicant moves or sells (see
ABOVE in Variance Criteria "a" for details)
The applicant hopes the Staff does concur that the granting of the setback variance
would not be detrimental to the public welfare. There is a guarantee that the existing
residence would be brought into compliance with the required setbacks at a later date.
There is a guarantee, (see ABOVE in Variance Criteria "a"for details) (or as
recommended by staff to affect a reconsideration) Furthermore, a new home could not
be constructed in compliance with the 5 ft. side yard setback requirement on the newly
segregated lot to the east, resulting in two homes with a 5 ft. separation. Pursuant to fire
code, a minimum of 6 ft. is required to construct a home without a one hour fire wall. And
a 6 ` side yard setback on the easterly lot will be included in the language (see ABOVE
in Variance Criteria "a" for details) As such, approval of the setback variance would
NOT be injurious to the property in the vicinity as it would NOT artificially increase the
cost of building a home by requiring the new home to comply with fire code standards
that would not be required if the setbacks were met.
Staff is requested to reconsider the facts, as compliance can be demonstrated,
to concur that the applicant's setback variance would not be materiallydetrimentaltootherpropertiesinthevicinity.
ti
f 4
Variance Critera "c"
That approval shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation
upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated.
Staff Comment:
Lot Width Variance
The applicant contends that the granting of the requested lot width variance would not
constitute a grant of special privilege and many existing lots in the surrounding
neighborhood have widths of 50 feet. Not requesting reconsideration.
The granting of the variance would allow the property to be segregated into two existing
lots with widths of 50 feet, which is consistent with the widths of the surrounding lots. Not
requesting reconsideration.
Staff concurs that the granting of the lot width variance would not be a grant of special
privilege as it allows the existing site to be segregated into its underlying lots and the
widths of both underlying lots would be consistent with the widths of other lots in the
vicinity. Not requesting reconsideration.
Setback Variance REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION
The applicant contends that the granting of the requested setback variance would not
constitute a grant of special privilege, as many of the existing lots in the surrounding
neighborhood have permanent variances, including setback encroachments as either an
element of a land use decision or an existing structure (similar to the applicants—see list
included in Variance Criteria "a" ABOVE), the encroachment would be temporary and
would be corrected upon expiration of the timeline for removal (see details in Variance
Criteria "a" ABOVE)
Tesir e ses en;: Staff should reconsider, as there is a timeline for the removal of
the residence and future purchasers of the lot may not elect to keep the existing
residence.
Staff is requested to reconsider the facts, as compliance can be demonstrated,
that granting of the setback variance would not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon uses of other properties in the
vicinity.
I
r
i .
Variance Critera "d"
That the approval is a minimum variance that will accomplish the desired purpose.
Staff Comment:
Lot Width Variance
The applicant contends that the requested lot width variance is the minimum necessary
to allow for the approval of the segregation of the site into its two underlying lots and that
the widths of the lots would be consistent with the widths of other lots in the immediate
vicinity of the project site. Not requesting reconsideration.
Staff concurs that the requested lot width variance is the minimum necessary to allow
the applicant to segregate the project site into the existing underlying lots. Not
requesting reconsideration.
Setback Variance REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION
The applicant contends that the requested setback variance is the minimum necessarytoaccomplishthedesiredpurpose—to leave the existing house in its current position for
a 95 year old senior citizen having difficulty with balancing finding a senior living facility,finances, health and protecting his only real-property asset so as to have the funds to
support himself. and that
any future building on the site would be required to comply with all required setbacks.
as set forth in the explanation of the misrepresentation of fact due to appearance of the
facts explained in Variance Criteria "a" ABOVE)
Staff is requested to reconsider concurrence that the requested setback variance is the
minimum necessary to accomplish the desired purpose of retaining the existing
residence as the residence could not be modified without a hardship so extensive that
the senior citizen applicant would not be able to comply (see ABOVE in Variance Criteria
a"for details)
As previously recommended above, Staff is requested to reconsider the facts, as
compliance can be demonstrated, to concur that the temporary setback
variance, is the minimum variance necessary to accomplish the applicant's
desired purpose, as stated in the facts.
In conclusion, after your review of my reconsideration letter, please support the approval of my
setback variance.
Most Sincerely,
La rne Graves
Property Owner at 905 N 28t" Place Renton, WA 98056
G i a i3a
w
k
f
t
t"t,-} f;
c'
A ,: 1. 1
a .r .-,—1 Y
j F I g r- i ,'v
r ' tr_..__._._._ _ _ _ . _ _ _
y i_ _
f 1:.
i
j +
f
e ._.,_ _
f_ j
m.
t " wy
f
a i 4
a . _t_.._____-. i t
j t i QQ'i1
t- k tt
r'l
1 S t
t a.``'r j 1
M
i
y1
z
r
s v,Id q
J t
R3t
i f-Caflp
v„" r i'} NDtJ S ti
F i
4
j F
i t
n __ w. ,.. .:__ _....,..-..--i--- ----+,-» y
rn.
e....
t g
i, M
t o S F
w
m ; -{_
1 °
6
QS
t 1 1 o
a
n .
sr d u
1''! t r fC'1 1''` '
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY CITY OF
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Rentan
A. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT&DECISION
DECISION LOT APPROVED APPROVED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS DENIED
WlDTH VAR/ANCE:
DECIS/ON SETBACK APPROVED APPROVEO SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS DENIED
VAR/ANCf:
REPORT DATE: September 14, 2017
e
Project Name: Dobson Variance
Owner: laverne Graves, 905 N 28`h Place, Renton,WA 98056
Applicant/Contact: Steve Dobson, 1016 N 33 d Place, Renton,WA 98056
Project File Number: PR17-000406
Land Use File LUA17-000519,V-A
Number:
Project Manager: lill Ding,Senior Planner
f
ProjectSummary: The applicant is requesting an Administrative Variance to the minimum lot width
requirements for a corner lot,a side yard setback Variance for the existing single family r
residence and garage, and a Variance to allow the garage to remain on the newly
segregated (ot as part of a proposed lot segregation.The project site is located within
the Residential-8(R-8j zone,which requires a minimum lot width of 60 feet for corner
lots and a side yard setback of 5 feet. The applicant is proposing a corner lot with a
minimum width of SO feet and a side yard setback of 0 feet for both the existing single
family residence and garage. The applicant proposes to retain the existing residence
and garage in their current location until such time as the existing structures are
removed,and a permit is obtained for new single family residential structures,the new
residences would be required to comply with the required setbacks. A Wellhead
Protection Area,zone 2 and a sensitive slope are mapped on the project site.
Project Cocation:905 N 28th Place
Site Areo: 11,151 sq. ft. (0.26 acres)
d1
Project Locotion Map
Report Admin
i
City of Renton Department of Community&Economic Development Administrative Report&Decision
DOBSON VARIANCE LUA1 7-0 0051 9, V-A
5eptember 14, 2017 Page 3 of 7
5. Chapter 9 Permits—Specific
a. Section 4-9-250:Variances,Waivers, Modifications, and Alternates
6. Chapter 11 De nitions
F. APPLICABLE SECT/ON5 OF THE COMPREHENS/VE PLAN:
1. Land Use Element
G. F NDINGS OF FACT(FOF):
1. The Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the above master application for review on August
3,2017 and determined the application complete on August 21,2017.The project complies with the 120-
day review period.
2. The project site is located 905 N 2gtn PI
3. The project site is currently developed with an existing single family residence and garage.
4. Access to the site would be provided via driveway access off of N 28th PI.
5. The property is located within the Residential Medium Density Comprehensive Plan land use designation.
6. The site is located within the R-8 zoning classification.
7. A Wellhead Protection Area,zone 2 and a sensitive slope are mapped on the project site.
8. The applicant has requested a variance to allow a stand alone detached garage to remain on one of the
lots until such time as a building permit is applied for to construct a new single family residence. In
accordance with RMC 4-2-1106 Accessory structures shall only be allowed on lots in conjunction with a
primary use. Per RMC 4-2-ilOD Use-related provisions are not variable. Use-related provisions that are
not eligible for a variance include: building size, units per structure/lot, or densities. The requested
variance to allow a stand afone garage to remain on one lot is a use-related provision and is not eligible
for a variance.To allow for the segragation of the lots,staff ecommends,as a condition of approva!that
the detached garage be removed prior to the approval of the lot segregation. :
9. The applicant has requested a lot width variance to allow a corner lot with a 50-foot width,which is 10
feet less than the 60-foot minimum width required in the R-8 zane.
10. The applicant has requested a setback variance to allow the existing residence to project into the 5-foot
side yard setback required from the east property line.
11. Staff received one public comment letter{Exhibit 3). Staff provided a written response to the public
comments received (Exhibit 4).To address publiccomments the following report contains analysis
related to the retention of the existing residence:`
12. Representatives fram various city departments have reviewed the application materia s to identify and
address issues raised by the proposed development. These comments are contained in the official file,
and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the appropriate sections ofthis report and
the Departmental Recommendation at the end of this report.
13. Variance Analysis:The applicant has requested a variance fram the minimum lot width requirements to
allow a corner lot with a minimum width of 50 feet in the R-8 zone.The applicant has also requested a
setback variance to allow the existing residence to project within the required 5-foot side yard setback
along the east property line. The proposal is partially compliant with the follawing variance criteria,
pursuant to RMC 4-9-250. Therefore,staff recommends partial approval of the requested Variances.
Report Admin
City of Renton Deportment of Community& Economic Development Administrotive Report&Decision
DpBSON VAR/ANCE LUA27-000519, V-A
September 14, 2027 Page 5 of 7
artificiolly increase ti e cost of building a home by requiring the new i ome to comply
with fire code srondards that would not be required if the setbacks were met.
Therefore, as previously conditioned above, staff recommends, that the 'existing
residence be brought into compliance with the required setbacks prior to the approval
of the lot segregation.
c. That approval shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the
limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the
subject property is situated.
Staff Comment: The applicont contends that the granting of the requested lot width
varionce would not constitute a grant of special privilege and many existing lots in the
surrounding neighborhood have widths of 50 feet. The gronting of the variance would
atlow the property to be segregoted into two exrsting lors with widths of 50 feet, which
is consistent with the widths of the surrounding lots.Staff concurs that the granting of
Partial the lot width variance would not be a grant of special privilege as it allows the existing
Compliance site to be segregated into its underlying lots and the widths of both underlying /ots
Demonstrated would be consistent with the widths of other lots in the vicinity.
The applicant contends that the granting of the requested setback variance would not
constitute a grant of special privilege, as the encroachment wauld be temporary and
would be corrected upon the removal of the existing house and the construction of tf e
new residences on the site.Staff does not concur,as there is no timeline for the removal
of the residence and any future purchasers of the lor may nat elecf to remave the
existing residence.As conditioned above,staff recommends that the existing residence
be brought into compliance with the reguired setbocks prior to the approval of the lot
segregation.
d. That the approval is a minimum variance that will accomplish the desired
purpose.
Staff Comment: The applicant contends that the requested lot width variance is the
minimum necessary to allow for the opprova(of the segregation of the site inLo its two
underlying lots and thot the widrhs of tf e lots would be consistent with the widths of
other lots in the immediace vicinity of the project site.Staff concurs ihat the requested
lot width varionce is the minimum necessary to allow the applicant to segregare the
Partiol project site into the existing underlying lots.
Compliance
Demonstrated The applicant contends that the requested setback variance is the minimum necessary
to ollow for the retention of the existing single family residence and that any future
building on the sire would be required to comply with all required setbacks.Staff does
not concur that the requested setback variance is the minimum necessary to
accomplish the desired purpose of retaining the existing residence as it appears thot
the residence could be modified such that it could be braught into comptiance with all
required setback areas.As previously recommended above,staff is recommending that
the exrsting residence be b ought into compliance with all required setback oreas prior
to the approval of the lot segregation.
H. CONCLUSIONS:
1. The requested variance to allow a standalone detached garage on one of the lots is not a variable item
and is not eligible for a variance; therefore no analysis of this request was provided in this decision.
Report Admin
City of Renton Department of Community&Economic Development Administrative Report&Decision
DOBSON VARIANCE LUA17-000519, V-A
September 14, 2017 Page 7 of 7
J. LAND USE AG7/ON APPEALS,REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION, &EXPIRATION:
The administrative land use decision will become final if the decision is not appealed within 14 days of the
decision date.
APPEAL:This administrative land use decision will become final if not appealed in writing to the Hearing
Examiner on or before 5:00 PM on September 28,2017: An appeal of the decision must be filed within the
14-day appeal period (RCW 43.21.C.075(3);WAC 197-11-680),together with the required fee to the Hearing
Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98Q57. RMC 4-8-110.6 governs appeals to the
Hearing Examiner and additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City
Cterk's Office, (425)430-6510.
EXPlRATiON:The Variance decision will expire two (2)years from the date of decision.A single one (1)year
extension may be requested pursuant to RMC 4-9-250.
RECONSIDERATION:'Withir 14 days of the decision date,any party may request that the decision be reopened
by the approval body.The approval body may modify lais decision if n ter d e not eadily discoveCable
prior to
rthe
original decision is found or if he finds there was misrepresentation of fact.After review of the
reconsideration request, if the approval body finds sufficient evidence to amend the original decision,there will
be no further extension of the appeal period.Any person wishing to take further actian must file a formal
appeal within the 14-day appeal time frame.
THE APPEARANCE OF FAIRNE55 DOCTRINE: provides that no ex parte(private one-on-one}communications
may occur concerning the land use decision. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial decision, but to Appeals
to the Hearing Examiner as well. All communications after the decision/approval date must be made in writing
through the Hearing Examiner. All communications are public record and this permits all interested parties to
know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence in writing. Any
violation of this doctrine could result in the invalidation of the appeal by the Court.
Report Admin
r.,_
s ` 1+
95 _,. i ,,,.,-' }
izJ.8 3
4
v.s i
I.
o t ;''t I
i`l
r w ,........ _ .. _ ..
t-
i
1 - . i. ` 4.,..,,,b ;
3 1e I ' J1
r'
r . f . .. 1,- :._ :., i'I J C11j
rt,..._....--s
n t +
3M
t
v c noli Y
E
z .
7 i T .
iag (
p`l f H
1
f .. Iin.\i
Q
r
f
1 ' .
n.-
r
1
I ' Y ...+,.
yr'.. .
r.r r+
v i
t 5.1.I ty( N s , . . .. ,_
aatt
r.
1 1 .. . , • . , + - . , . _ .
r 1 . . ,
t . , a .. _ .. _.
I ' .ti_..
i_ .._..'. . - .Fa......__;.....` ._ ._., _
s C'- .. j
1 f -
4.
5 _ . . . , . .
w _ k_
i
h i/d i
I
1,t-X'
W
t
1 t7'J i r4 ,>n J$ i
1' _.Z- :-s-`
ic -,} N ' (p
z
Ta:JiH Ding, Senior Planner
Depa tment of Community 8 Ecanomic Develapment cin oF Nr
1055 South Grady Way RECE111 G
Renton, WA 9805?
SEP 5 2017
Subject: Dobson Variance (LUA17-000519)
Date: September 5, 2017 DEVELGPtv1EN1
sERvic s
Heilo, Jill.
Please accept the following contments regarding the subject proposed variance.
Most importantly, the minimum required lot sizes and setbacks exist far a reason. This proposai
has no compelling reason to warrant a variance to the requirements. VVe are not fans of
packing in more houses than the code allows.
Wiien considering the proposed side yard variance, allawing a side yard setback of zero feet
may seem benign for as long as the existing structures remain "as is". However, future owners
may cFtoase options o#her than a tear down when it comes to prope ty improvements. For
example, a future owner of the east lot could remodel the garage into a single family dwelling
resulting in a side yard setback of fess#han 5 feet. There are many examples of this in the
Seattie area, where houses or garages have a gtandfathered in sefback of less than 5 feet. As
long as you don'#tear the structure dawn, you can remodel and keep it where it is.
It is our hope that the city will decfine the Dobsan variance equest. Hawever, if the city is
inclined to approve the Dobson variance, please consider the addition of language that requires
the removal of all existing structures. This would negate any future issues regarding a zero foot
side yard variance.
Respectfully,
Paul Gee and Diane Handa
929 N 28'h P!'
Renton, WA 98056
EXHIBIT 3
Denis Law Mayor
Community&Economic Development C.E."Chip"Vincent,Administrator
September 13, 2017
Paul Gee and Diane Honda
929 N 28th Place
Renton,WA 98056
RE:Dobson Variance(LUA17-000519,V-A)
Dear Mr.Gee and Ms. Honda:
Thank you for your comments regarding the Dobson Variance. I have included your comments in the
official file for consideration by the decision maker. I have also added you as a party of record for this
project. Once a decision is issued for this project, a 14-day appeal period will commence, during which
you may appeal the City's decision, should you so choose.
If you have additional questions,feel free to contact me at(425)430-6598 or iding@rentonwa.ov.
Sincerely,
7't, ,fj.
Jill Ding
Senior Planner
EXHIBIT 4
1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057• rentonwa.gov