HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppellant's Brief 8.28.20
APPELLANT’S BRIEF - 1 of 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LAW OFFICES
GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP
520 Pike Street, Suite 2350
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-4185
(206) 676-7500 - FACSIMILE (206) 676-7575
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON
IN RE:
Vann Lanz
Administrative Appeal
NO. LUA20-000064
Appellant’s Pre-Hearing Brief
Appellant Apex Development, LLC submits this brief as permitted in prior
correspondence and the revised scheduling order.
I. Property Description
This matter involves property known as parcel nos. 182305-9005 (“Lot 1”) and
182305-9078 (“Lot 2”). The two parcels are vacant undeveloped lots that are zoned
R-8. Property in the R-8 zone is intended to be developed with a minimum net
density of 5 dwelling units per net acre, but only allows 1 primary dwelling unit per
legal lot. RMC 4-2-110A. Lot 1 is approximately 1 acre in size and Lot 2 is greater
than 1 acre in size. Thus, the lots at issue are much larger than generally allowed by
the RMC in the R-8 zone.
Additionally, each lot does not meet the general requirements and minimum
standards for residential lots in that they each violate the maximum lot dimension
APPELLANT’S BRIEF - 2 of 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LAW OFFICES
GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP
520 Pike Street, Suite 2350
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-4185
(206) 676-7500 - FACSIMILE (206) 676-7575
ratio. RMC 4-7-170E (“no residentially zoned lot shall have a depth-to-width ratio
greater than four-to-one (4:1)”). Lot 1 is roughly 85’ wide and 520’ deep. Lot 2 is
roughly 115’ wide and 520’ deep.
Finally, the lots contain a remarkably difficult feature. A nearly 70’ rock cliff
runs north/south through the parcels completely separating the east and west
portions of the parcels from one another. The eastern portion of the lots fronts
Stevens Ave NW, but the western portions of the lots above the cliff have no access
to a public street. While the owner of the property can easily access the eastern
portion of the parcels, there is no way to access the western portion of the parcels
without either scaling a 70’ cliff or trespassing through neighboring properties.
II. Development Intent
Appellant seeks to develop the two lots in a logical fashion within the
parameters of the RMC. Appellant ultimately seeks to construct one single family
home on each lot on eastern portion of the lots fronting Steven Ave NW. Lot 2 as
presently configured has no suitable home site between required lot line setbacks
and steep slope critical areas extending from the cliff face toward Stevens Ave NW.
To construct a home on Lot 2 as currently configured would require construction of a
home within the critical area and its buffer. On the other hand, Lot 1 has ample
suitable terrain over the eastern portion of the lot. If the lot line between Lot 1 and
Lot 2 were shifted north by 25 feet, both lots would have room for home sites without
the need to encroach into critical areas.
III. Intent of Lot Line Adjustment
APPELLANT’S BRIEF - 3 of 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LAW OFFICES
GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP
520 Pike Street, Suite 2350
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-4185
(206) 676-7500 - FACSIMILE (206) 676-7575
Appellant designed a lot line adjustment that moved the lot line between Lot 1
and Lot 2 north 25’ to provide the desired home sites. Additionally, lot lines would be
adjusted to transfer the portion of the parcels above the cliff to a neighboring
property owner. This would have the effect of reducing the current non-conformity of
Lot 1 with respect to the maximum 4:1 depth-to-width ratio and eliminating the non-
conformity of Lot 2.
The lot line adjustments as proposed also solved a significant problem. The
lack of access to the western half of the lots by the owner (or future owners of the
homes) is extremely detrimental. The owner has no effective way to use or monitor
the property. As a result, at least one neighboring owner has begun encroaching into
western portion of the properties in an apparent land grab. Aside from the difficulty in
monitoring the property for trespassers, the owner similarly has little to no ability to
monitor or correct hazardous or dangerous conditions that may develop on the
western portion of the property (ex: hazard trees). The logical solution is that the
western portion of the parcels, unreachable from the eastern portion, and without any
public access of its own, should be transferred to a neighboring property owner with
the ability to safely access, monitor, and care for the property.
In summary, the purpose of the LLA is to:
1) Improve lot design of Lots 1 and 2 by providing two home sites that do not
require encroachment into critical areas and by reducing the present non-
conformity of Lot 1 and eliminating the non-conformity of Lot 2;
2) Improve access with respect to the portion of the property above the cliff by
transferring it to Lot 3 so that there is access to the property where there
presently is none; and
3) Improve public health, safety, and welfare, by eliminating the need for future
encroachments into critical areas and providing ownership of the upper
APPELLANT’S BRIEF - 4 of 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LAW OFFICES
GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP
520 Pike Street, Suite 2350
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-4185
(206) 676-7500 - FACSIMILE (206) 676-7575
property to a neighboring owner with safe access and the ability to monitor
and properly maintain the property.
IV. City Unlawfully Denies LLA
The City’s Notice of Lot Line Adjustment Decision was singularly focused on
the area above the cliff to be provided to Lot 3. The Decision did not even bother to
address the adjustment to the lot line between Lots 1 and 2 to accommodate
reasonable development and wholly ignored the clear improvements to Lots 1 and 2.
The City essentially relied on its desire to keep the area above the cliff landlocked in
denying the Appellant any reasonable use of Lots 1 and 2.
The City’s basis for denying the application distills down to nothing more than
a generalized complaint that it would result in Lot 3 having an irregular shape, which
is not prohibited by the RMC. The City cites to its “Principles of Acceptability” in
denying the application, but under each principle, the City simply pointed back to the
generalized concern about the shape of Lot 3.
The City incorrectly claims that the proposal increases the non-conformity of
Lot 3 because it increases the number of corners on the lot. While it is true that the
number of corners will increase, there is no code provision limiting the number of
corners a lot may have. The City instead points to RMC 4-7-170A, which states
“Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial to
curved street lines.” First, the portions of the lot lines of the proposed Lot 3 that
intersect with a street adhere to RMC 4-7-170A by running radially from the cul-de-
sac. After the proposal, there will be no additional lot lines intersecting with the
street, and therefore no side lot lines running afoul of the preference for radial or
APPELLANT’S BRIEF - 5 of 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LAW OFFICES
GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP
520 Pike Street, Suite 2350
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-4185
(206) 676-7500 - FACSIMILE (206) 676-7575
perpendicular side lot lines. The new portion of lot 3 is effectively a rear yard to
existing Lot 3 and such lot lines do not contain the same preference as stated in
RMC 4-7-170A. However, to the extent the lot lines might be considered additional
side lot lines, they remain aligned parallel and perpendicular to Steven Ave NW as
the case may be.
Second, RMC 4-7-170A is clearly prefaced with “insofar as practical,” meaning
the RMC does not mandate any particular side lot line arrangement and Lot 3 would
not become non-compliant or non-conforming if it had side lot lines that departed
from the ordinary. In fact, the RMC specifically contemplates and allows “irregular”
shaped lots. See e.g., RMC 4-11-120 (Definition of “Lot Measurements”). The RMC
contains no actual maximum on the number of allowable corners for any lot to be
considered compliant. Put simply, while proposed Lot 3 is irregularly shaped, it
complies with the RMC.
The only specific concern raised by the City regarding the irregular shape is
that the existing Lot 3 will connect to the new property at a point 17’ wide. While
admitting that it is not a “flagpole” lot, the City explained that the proposed Lot 3
creates “the same undesirable effect of having a portion of a lot only accessible to a
street via a narrow width.” However, the City ignores the obvious improvement that
the 17’ width represents. There is presently no access to western portions of Lots 1
and 2. The proposal would provide access 17’ wide where none currently exists—a
clear improvement.
Significantly, while focusing solely on the irregular shape of Lot 3, the City
ignores the unique characteristics of the property and the goal of promoting the
APPELLANT’S BRIEF - 6 of 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LAW OFFICES
GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP
520 Pike Street, Suite 2350
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-4185
(206) 676-7500 - FACSIMILE (206) 676-7575
public health, safety, and general welfare in its lot line adjustment decision. See
RMC 4-7-010B. The proposal as a whole reduces the non-conformity of Lot 1,
eliminates the non-conformity of Lot 2, eliminates the need to construct a home within
critical areas on Lot 2, and improves access to the western portion of the current lots
so that they can be safely monitored and maintained. These obvious improvements
greatly outweigh any concerns about creating an irregular shaped lot that would
otherwise remain compliant with the RMC.
Appellant respectfully requests a reversal of the lot line adjustment decision
because it is unlawful and is also arbitrary and capricious.
Dated this 28th day of August, 2020.
GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP
By:
Ryan C. Espegard, WSBA No. 41805
Attorney for Appellant