The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutD_Hopkins Shed Variance_FinalDEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Project Location Map D_Hopkins Shed Variance_v6 A.ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT & DECISION Decision: APPROVED APPROVED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS DENIED Report Date: June 4, 2021 Project File Number: PR21-000076 Project Name: Hopkins Shed Variance Land Use File Number: LUA21-000076, V-A Project Manager: Brittany Gillia, Assistant Planner Owner/Applicant: Susan Hopkins and Marjorie Lynn, 15005 132nd Ave SE, Renton, WA 98058 Project Location: 15005 132nd Ave SE Project Summary: The applicant is requesting an administrative setback variance to retain an unpermitted 420 square foot accessory structure (Exhibit 2) located at 15005 SE 132nd St (APN 9189700125) that has been built between the primary structure and SE 150th St (Exhibit 3). The 0.22 acre property is located in the R-4 zone and currently developed with a single family home and two pre-existing accessory structures. An open code case violation (CODE20-000601) regarding the construction of this accessory structure without permits was opened on December 14, 2020. The site is mapped with high seismic hazard areas, wellhead protection area zones (Maplewood wellfield, Zone 2), and a north east portion of the site is mapped with a special flood hazard area (100 year flood). The applicant proposes to retain nine (9) significant trees on the site. Site Area: 0.22 acres DocuSign Envelope ID: 3BC0104E-E1FF-4A23-8191-C3EE065D147A City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Hopkins Shed Variance Administrative Report & Decision LUA21-000076, V-A Report of June 4, 2021 Page 2 of 9 D_Hopkins Shed Variance_v6 B.EXHIBITS: Exhibit 1: Administrative Decision Exhibit 2: Warning of Violation Exhibit 3: Site Plan and Neighborhood Detail Map Exhibit 4: Public Comment Exhibit 5: Agency Comment Exhibit 6: Site Plan with Flood Boundary Overlay Exhibit 7: Variance Justification Exhibit 8: Septic System As-Built Exhibit 9: Tree Retention Plan and Tree Inventory Exhibit 10: Photographs of the Property Exhibit 11: “Appendix- Neighborhood Examples” Exhibit 12: Applicant Statement of Intent Exhibit 13: Floor Plans C.GENERAL INFORMATION: 1.Owner(s) of Record:Susan Hopkins and Marjorie Lynn 15005 132nd Ave SE, Renton, WA 98058 2.Zoning Classification:Residential-4 (R-4) 3.Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: Residential Low Density (LD) 4.Existing Site Use:Single-family Residence 5.Critical Areas:High seismic hazard areas, wellhead protection area zone (Maplewood wellfield, Zone 2), special flood hazard area (100 year flood) 6.Neighborhood Characteristics: a.North: Single-family Residential (R-4) b.East:SE 150th St; Single-family Residential (R-4) c.South: 132nd Ave SE; Single-family Residential (R-4) d.West:Single-family Residential (R-4) 7.Site Area:9,660 square feet (0.22 acres) D.HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: Action Land Use File No. Ordinance No. Date Comprehensive Plan N/A 5758 06/22/2015 Zoning N/A 5758 06/22/2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: 3BC0104E-E1FF-4A23-8191-C3EE065D147A City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Hopkins Shed Variance Administrative Report & Decision LUA21-000076, V-A Report of June 4, 2021 Page 3 of 9 D_Hopkins Shed Variance_v6 Annexation N/A 5243 01/14/2007 E. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE: 1.Chapter 2 Land Use Districts a.Section 4-2-020: Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts b.Section 4-2-060: Zoning Use Table – Uses Allowed in Zoning Designations c.Section 4-2-110: Residential Development Standards d.Section 4-2-115: Residential Design and Open Space Standards 2.Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts a.Section 4-3-050: Critical Area Regulations 3.Chapter 4 City-Wide Property Development Standards 4.Chapter 9 Permits – Specific a.Section 4-9-250: Variances, Waivers, Modifications, And Alternates 5.Chapter 11 Definitions F.FINDINGS OF FACT (FOF): 1.The Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the above master application for review on March 4, 2021 and determined the application complete on March 4, 2021.The project complies with the 120-day review period. 2.The Planning Division of the City of Renton placed the application on-hold on April 9, 2021 to request additional information and took the project off-hold on May 11, 2021 after receiving updated submittal materials regarding impervious surface coverage and utility usage. 3.The applicant is submitting the administrative variance request as a response to code violation (CODE20- 000601) that was opened on December 14, 2020 (Exhibit 2). 4.The applicant’s submittal materials comply with the requirements necessary to process the administrative variance request (Exhibits 2-11). 5.The project site is located at 15005 132nd Ave SE. 6.The project site is currently developed with an existing single-family home and three accessory structures; two legal structures and one unpermitted structure that is being evaluated in the report below. 7.Access to the site is provided via a driveway off of 132nd Ave SE. 8.The property is located within the Residential Low Density (LD) Comprehensive Plan land use designation. The project complies with the goals and policies of this Comprehensive Plan land use designation. Compliance Comprehensive Plan Analysis  Goal L-P: Minimize adverse impacts to natural systems, and address impacts of past practice where feasible, through leadership, policy, regulation, and regional coordination. DocuSign Envelope ID: 3BC0104E-E1FF-4A23-8191-C3EE065D147A City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Hopkins Shed Variance . Administrative Report & Decision LUA21-000076, V-A Report of June 4, 2021 Page 4 of 9 D_Hopkins Shed Variance_v6  Policy L-28: Minimize erosion and sedimentation in and near sensitive areas by requiring appropriate construction techniques and resource practices, such as low impact development.  Policy L-34: Ensure buildings, roads, and other features are located on less sensitive portions of a site when sensitive areas are present.  Policy L-36: Land uses in areas subject to flooding, seismic, geologic, and coal mine hazards should be designed to prevent property damage and environmental degradation before, during, and after construction.  Goal L-FF: Strengthen the visual identity of Renton and its Community Planning Areas and neighborhoods through quality design and development.  Policy L-48: Address privacy and quality of life for existing residents by considering scale and context in infill project design.  Policy L-50: Respond to specific site conditions such as topography, natural features, and solar access to encourage energy savings and recognize the unique features of the site through the design of subdivisions and new buildings.  Policy L-55: Preserve natural landforms, vegetation, distinctive stands of trees, natural slopes, and scenic areas that contribute to the City’s identity, preserve property values, and visually define the community and neighborhoods. 9.The site is located within the Residential-4 (R-4) zoning classification. 10.There are approximately nine (9) trees located on-site and the applicant is not proposing to remove any trees as part of this request. 11.The applicant is proposing to continue construction immediately following land use and building permit approval. 12.The following variances to (regulation[s]) have been requested by the applicant: RMC Code Citation Required Standard Requested Variance RMC 4-2-110B Residential Development Standards (Detached Accessory Buildings) Accessory structures shall not be located between the primary structure and a street. The applicant is requesting to retain an existing unpermitted structure in the secondary front yard setback between the primary structure and SE 150th St. 13.Staff received one (1) public comment letter (Exhibit 4). 14.Staff received (1) agency letter (Exhibit 5). 15.Representatives from various city departments have reviewed the application materials 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 of this report and the Departmental Recommendation at the end of this report. DocuSign Envelope ID: 3BC0104E-E1FF-4A23-8191-C3EE065D147A City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Hopkins Shed Variance Administrative Report & Decision LUA21-000076, V-A Report of June 4, 2021 Page 5 of 9 D_Hopkins Shed Variance_v6 16.Critical Areas: The site is mapped with a high seismic hazard area, wellhead protection area zone (Maplewood wellfield, Zone 2) and special flood hazard area (100 year flood). Project sites which contain critical areas are required to comply with the Critical Areas Regulations (RMC 4-3-050). Compliance Critical Areas Analysis Compliant if condition of approval is met Geologically Hazardous Areas: The site is mapped with High Seismic Hazard areas. Whenever a proposed development requires a development permit and a geologic hazard is present on the site of the proposed development or on abutting or adjacent sites within fifty feet (50') of the subject site, geotechnical studies by licensed professionals, such as a geotechnical engineer and/or engineering geologist, shall be required. Staff Comment: The applicant did not submit a geotechnical report with the variance application. Therefore, staff recommends as a condition of approval, the applicant shall submit a geotechnical report prepared by a licensed professional geotechnical engineer with the building permit application. The required report shall demonstrate the following review criteria can be met: The proposal will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent or abutting properties beyond pre-development conditions; and the proposal will not adversely impact other critical areas; and the development can be safely accommodated on the site. Secondary review of the geotechnical report at the expense of the applicant may be necessary if the submitted report does not clearly and accurately respond to the review criteria.  Wellhead Protection Areas: The site is mapped with Wellhead Protection Area Zone 2 (Maplewood Wellfield). Staff Comment: Per RMC 4-3-050 G.2 there is no structure setback or critical area buffer width for Wellhead Protection Areas. It is not anticipated that the use and/or storage of hazardous materials would occur with the proposed shed improvements.  Flood Hazard Area: The eastern edge of the site is mapped with Special Flood Hazard Areas (100 year flood), FEMA Zone AO. Staff Comment: Per the applicant’s submittal materials, the proposed structure does not lie within the 100 year flood designation that is mapped on site (Exhibit 6) and therefore no habitat assessment or compensatory storage would be required. 17.Variance Analysis: The applicant is requesting an administrative variance from RMC 4-2-110B, Development Standards for Residential Development (Detached Accessory Buildings), to allow an existing, unpermitted detached accessory structure to remain in its location between the primary structure and SE 150th St. The proposal is compliant with the following variance criteria, pursuant to RMC 4-9-250.B.5. Therefore, staff recommends approval with conditions of the requested variance. Compliance Variance Criteria and Analysis Compliant if Condition of Approval is Met a.That the applicant suffers practical 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: The subject property is a 9,660 square foot corner lot located in the R-4 zone that is currently developed with a single family home that operates via a septic system. There are currently three (3) accessory structures on site: a 447 square foot polycarbonate roof covering a 74 square foot shed, a 96 square foot shed, and an unpermitted 420 square foot shed. One of the existing accessory structures is proposed for removal upon permit approval (Exhibit 7). In order to ensure compliance with RMC 4-2-11B maximum number of accessory structures, DocuSign Envelope ID: 3BC0104E-E1FF-4A23-8191-C3EE065D147A City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Hopkins Shed Variance Administrative Report & Decision LUA21-000076, V-A Report of June 4, 2021 Page 6 of 9 D_Hopkins Shed Variance_v6 staff recommends as a condition of approval the applicant remove one (1) existing accessory structure prior to issuance of the building permit. According to the City’s development standards for detached accessory structures in the R-4 zone, setbacks applied to the primary structure also apply to accessory structures and accessory structures shall not be located between the primary structure and a street. The applicant contends that if the setback regulations are applied, the location of the primary residence, septic tank, and drainfield would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity. According to submitted materials, the septic tank is located behind the house and the drain field extends to the northwestern direction of the lot thus removing the ability to relocate the shed to an area behind the home. (Exhibit 8) The applicant also contends that relocating the shed further north would impact several mature trees (Exhibit 9) as well as disturb the natural path of sunlight for both the neighbor and the applicant’s windows to the shed. Staff concurs that the strict application of the zoning code would result in practical difficulties due to the presence of the septic system and drainfield as well as the location of the existing home on the corner lot and the resulting setback requirements. According to the City’s online mapping system (COR Maps), the home is situated along the south-west property line with no visible side yard setback space between the home and the parcel boundary. The north-west side yard appears to be approximately 24.5 feet wide as measured from the property boundary to the roof line. In the R-4 zone, the side yard setback requirements call for a “Combined 20 ft. with not less than 7.5 ft on either side”. The rest of the property that is not considered a side yard, is either considered the required front yard, secondary front yard or is between the primary structure and a street. (Exhibit 3) By this standard, there is no area on this lot that is outside of a required setback for detached accessory structures that could be developed on without the request of a variance to the setback regulations.  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 is situated. Staff Comment: The applicant contends that the presence of the shed offers no threat to the safety of the applicants, to other structures on the property, or to neighboring properties. The applicant points out that the shed does not intrude into clear vision areas or the septic drainfield, and the placement does not obstruct the view of the neighboring properties. It has also been pointed out that the shed will be painted to match the existing home. (Exhibit 7) Staff concurs that granting the request would not be detrimental to public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity. The granting of this variance would not result in a structure that is architecturally incompatible or significantly different than that of the existing properties in the neighborhood. Due to the existing improvements and trees on site the accessory structure would not be directly or completely visible from the street (Exhibit 7, Exhibit 10). Staff recommends as a condition of approval that the subject property must retain the existing vegetation that is currently screening the structure from the street. Compliant if Condition of Approval is Met 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 applicant contends that approval of the variance would not be considered a special privilege due to the fact that there are multiple properties in the immediate area that have detached accessory structures between the primary residence and a street (Exhibit 11). Further, the applicant has stated that the structure will be used as a shed and will not be habitable space, nor will it be an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) at any point (Exhibit 12) which further supports the justification that there shall not be special privilege of granting habitable space through this variance request. DocuSign Envelope ID: 3BC0104E-E1FF-4A23-8191-C3EE065D147A City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Hopkins Shed Variance Administrative Report & Decision LUA21-000076, V-A Report of June 4, 2021 Page 7 of 9 D_Hopkins Shed Variance_v6 Staff has reviewed the materials submitted by the applicant and concludes that due to the limitations of development presented by the required yard setbacks for this lot regarding accessory structures in the R-4 zone as well as the location of the septic drainfield on site, there would be no alternative location to place the structure and therefore no granting of special privilege by the approval of this variance. Staff notes that there are very few areas of the lot that are not encumbered by setback requirements or the septic drainfield. It is likely that development of an accessory structure, which is a rightful privilege enjoyed by most residential property owners, would require an additional land use action if placed on most areas of the subject property. The submitted floor plans note a room in the structure labeled “storage closet” that has a sink fixture as well as a second sink on a countertop in the main room of the structure (Exhibit 13). Staff contends that these utilities imply the structure may be used as habitable space, and granting additional habitable space in a front yard setback may constitute special privilege. To ensure that the applicant’s shed structure does not meet the definition of habitable space and does not meet the definition of an ADU staff recommends, as a condition of approval, that the applicant remove all plumbing fixtures from the structure.  d.That the approval is a minimum variance that will accomplish the desired purpose. Staff Comment: The applicant contends that this request is the minimum variance needed because the structure does not encroach into any of the required setback standards aside from the placement between a structure and a street. Staff agrees that this is the minimum variance needed to develop an accessory structure on this lot based on the staff analysis done in FOF 17.a of this report. As stated above, a variance would be needed to develop an accessory structure anywhere on the lot due to placement of the primary structure on the corner lot and the resulting setback requirements. G.CONCLUSIONS: 1.The subject site is located at 15005 132nd Ave SE and is in the Residential Low Density (LD) Comprehensive Plan designation and complies with the goals and policies established with this designation, see FOF 8. 2.The applicant is requesting approval of a setback variance from RMC 4-2-110B to locate a detached accessory structure between the primary dwelling and the street to retain an existing unpermitted structure. 3.The proposed Hopkins Shed variance application complies with the Critical Areas Regulations provided the applicant complies with City Code and conditions of approval, see FOF 16. 4.The requested variance with recommended conditions of approval meets the four (4) criteria to be considered in making a decision on a variance request as specified in RMC 4-9-250.B.5. The analysis of the proposal according to variance criteria is found in the body of the Staff Report, see FOF 17. H. DECISION: The Hopkins Shed Variance, File No. LUA21-000076, V-A, as depicted in Exhibit 3, is approved and is subject to the following conditions: 1.The applicant shall submit a geotechnical report prepared by a licensed professional geotechnical engineer with the building permit application. The required report shall demonstrate the following review criteria can be met: The proposal will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent or abutting properties beyond pre-development conditions; and the proposal will not adversely impact other critical areas; and the development can be safely accommodated on the site. Secondary review of the geotechnical report at the expense of DocuSign Envelope ID: 3BC0104E-E1FF-4A23-8191-C3EE065D147A City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Hopkins Shed Variance Administrative Report & Decision LUA21-000076, V-A Report of June 4, 2021 Page 8 of 9 D_Hopkins Shed Variance_v6 the applicant may be necessary if the submitted report does not clearly and accurately respond to the review criteria. 2.The applicant shall remove one (1) existing accessory structure prior to issuance of the building permit to demonstrate compliance with the maximum number of accessory structures allowed via RMC 4-2-110B. 3.The applicant shall retain the existing landscaping that is currently located between the accessory structure and the street to provide a vegetative screen of the shed. If the property owner would like to amend this landscaping now or in the future an alterative proposal shall be submitted to the City for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager. The landscaping vegetation shall be well maintained and in good health to meet the definition of a vegetative screen. 4.The applicant shall remove the plumbing fixtures from the structure prior to the building permit’s final inspection. DATE OF DECISION ON LAND USE ACTION: SIGNATURE: Vanessa Dolbee, Planning Director Date TRANSMITTED on June 4, 2021 to the Owner/Applicant: Owner/Applicant: Susan Hopkins and Marjorie Lynn 15005 132nd Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 TRANSMITTED on June 4, 2021 to the Parties of Record: Robert H Johnson 15016 131st Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 Andrew Grueter ecotours@duwamishtribe.org David James 15004 132nd Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 TRANSMITTED on June 4, 2021 to the following: Chip Vincent, CED Administrator Brianne Bannwarth, Development Engineering Manager Amanda Askren, Property Services Matt Herrera, Current Planning Manager Anjela Barton, Fire Marshal DocuSign Envelope ID: 3BC0104E-E1FF-4A23-8191-C3EE065D147A 6/4/2021 | 9:11 AM PDT City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Hopkins Shed Variance . Administrative Report & Decision LUA21-000076, V-A Report of June 4, 2021 Page 9 of 9 D_Hopkins Shed Variance_v6 I. LAND USE ACTION 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 June 18, 2021. An appeal of the decision must be filed within the 14-day appeal period (RCW 43.21.C.075(3); WAC 197-11-680). Due to Governor Jay Inslee’s Proclamation 20-25 (“Stay Home, Stay Healthy”), the City Clerk’s Office is working remotely. For that reason, appeals must be submitted electronically to the City Clerk at cityclerk@rentonwa.gov. The appeal fee, normally due at the time an appeal is submitted, will be collected at a future date. Appeals to the Hearing Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk’s Office, cityclerk@rentonwa.gov. If the situation changes such that the City Clerk’s Office is open when you file your appeal, you have the option of filing the appeal in person. EXPIRATION: 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: Within 14 days of the decision date, any party may request that the decision be reopened by the approval body. The approval body may modify his decision if material evidence not readily discoverable prior to the 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 action must file a formal appeal within the 14-day appeal time frame. THE APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS 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. DocuSign Envelope ID: 3BC0104E-E1FF-4A23-8191-C3EE065D147A CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT & DECISION EXHIBITS Project Name: Hopkins Shed Variance Land Use File Number: LUA21-000076, V-A Date of Report June 4, 2021 Staff Contact Brittany Gillia Assistant Planner Project Contact/Applicant Susan Hopkins and Marjorie Lynn 15005 132nd Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 Project Location 15005 132nd Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 The following exhibits are included with the Administrative report: Exhibit 1: Administrative Decision Exhibit 2: Warning of Violation Exhibit 3: Site Plan and Neighborhood Detail Map Exhibit 4: Public Comment Exhibit 5: Agency Comment Exhibit 6: Site Plan with Flood Boundary Overlay Exhibit 7: Variance Justification Exhibit 8: Septic System As-Built Exhibit 9: Tree Retention Plan and Tree Inventory Exhibit 10: Photographs of the Property Exhibit 11: “Appendix- Neighborhood Examples” Exhibit 12: Applicant Statement of Intent Exhibit 13: Floor Plans DocuSign Envelope ID: 3BC0104E-E1FF-4A23-8191-C3EE065D147A Warning of Violation Armondo Pavone Mayor Community & Economic Development C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Issued To: Lynn Marjorie 15005 132nd Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 Date: December 14, 2020 Code Case No: CODE20-000601 Owner (Tax-Payer): Lynn Marjorie Violation Address: 15005 132nd Ave SE Renton, WA 98058-2862 An inspection of the above premises revealed violation(s) of the City of Renton Municipal Code and Ordinances listed below. Compliance or corrective action must be completed by 12/29/2020. If voluntary compliance is not achieved, a Criminal Citation MAY be issued. The violation(s) listed below are deemed a Class 1 Civil Infraction pursuant to Chapter 7.80 RCW, and any such person shall be assessed a monetary penalty of up to two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) per violation. Each day or portion of a day the violation(s) remain shall constitute a separate offense. VIOLATION 1: No Building Permit Investigation Date 12/14/2020 Violation Note: Code Cited:International Building and Residential Codes RMC 4-5-060 Construction Administrative Code Code Text:The City of Renton Municipal Code requires building permits to be applied for and obtained by any person, firm, or corporation to erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert or demolish, use, occupy or maintain any building or structure in the city. Corrective Action:Immediately stop construction and apply for a building permit within 15 calendar days of the date of this notice. Respond to all plan review comments within 15 calendar days of request. Obtain the building permit within 15 calendar days of permit approval. Call for inspection within 15 calendar days of permit issuance. Respond to all correction notices within 15 calendar days of notice and call for re-inspection. Obtain additional permits as needed. Issued By:Kevin Louder Code Compliance Inspector 425-430-7277 klouder@rentonwa.gov Page 1 of 1Exhibit 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: 3BC0104E-E1FF-4A23-8191-C3EE065D147A 1''=20'Scale: 15005 132nd Ave SE Renton, WA 98058DrivewayDeck Property Line 91.40'62.89'95.66'138.17'Se 150th St132nd Ave SE Vicinity map Project: Hopkins Shed Variance Shed #2 74 ftDate: 2/9/2021 Proposed S h e d Carport House Covered patio Shed #1 14.00'17.50'4.25'17.50'25.00 ' 22.00'30.00' 12.00'8.00'8.00'1.00'19.00'47.10'3 0 . 0 0 ' 22.00'20.00'14.70'24.00'36.70'44.00'9.64'3.97'9.64' 13.66'3.26'1.43'24.45'25.38'25.00'25 . 0 0 ' 22.79'39.97'15.00'11.00'14.00'Newly built shed (Proposed for Removal) (Proposed for Removal) Exhibit 3 DocuSign Envelope ID: 3BC0104E-E1FF-4A23-8191-C3EE065D147A Neighborhood Detail Map Project Name: Hopkins Shed Variance Owners / Applicants: Susan Hopkins and Marjorie Lynn Project Location: 15005 132nd Ave., SE, Renton, WA 98058 Reference: CODE20-000601 DocuSign Envelope ID: 3BC0104E-E1FF-4A23-8191-C3EE065D147A Exhibit 4 DocuSign Envelope ID: 3BC0104E-E1FF-4A23-8191-C3EE065D147A 1 Brittany Gillia From:Andrew Grueter <ecotours@duwamishtribe.org> Sent:Thursday, March 18, 2021 12:43 PM To:Brittany Gillia Subject:PR21-0000076 Attention: Brittany Gillia RE: PR21-0000076 RESPONSE: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. Based on the information provided and our understanding of the project we have no substantive comments to offer pertaining to archaeological sites at this time since there will be no further construction. However, please be aware that if the scope of the project or the parameters for defining the APE change, we reserve the right to modify our current position. Thank You, DUWAMISH TRIBE 4705 W. Marginal Way SW, Seattle, WA 98106-1514 206 431.1582 Duwamish Tribe Cultural Preservation John Boddy, johnboddy@duwamishtribe.org James Rassmussen, james@duwamishcleanup.org The Duwamish Tribe of Indians Chairwoman, Cecile Hansen Tribal Council Members CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Exhibit 5 DocuSign Envelope ID: 3BC0104E-E1FF-4A23-8191-C3EE065D147A Site Plan with Flood Boundary Overlay Project Name: Hopkins Shed Variance Owners / Applicants: Susan Hopkins and Marjorie Lynn Project Location: 15005 132nd Ave., SE, Renton, WA 98058 Reference: CODE20-000601 The flood zone classification for this property was changed in 2020 from “AE” (high risk) to “X” (minimal flood hazard) and thus we are no longer required to carry flood insurance as a condition of our home loan. FEMA Elevation Certificate is attached. Since purchasing the property in 2002, the ground level has been raised. We brought in over 140 yards of soil and compost so that the land was tillable. The soil has settled and is responsible for the elevations that can be seen in the attached photo. 2”x6” treated wood boards are set end to end inside the fence perimeter to retain the raised border as well as to allow our dogs a running path. As a side effect, the raised elevation protects against any flooding incident that may occur. Site plan below shows flood hazard boundary. Estimated distance from structure to flood boundary is 18’ minimum and 45’ maximum. Exhibit 6 DocuSign Envelope ID: 3BC0104E-E1FF-4A23-8191-C3EE065D147A DocuSign Envelope ID: 3BC0104E-E1FF-4A23-8191-C3EE065D147A Ground level elevation DocuSign Envelope ID: 3BC0104E-E1FF-4A23-8191-C3EE065D147A Variance Request Justification Project Name: Hopkins Shed Variance Owners / Applicants: Susan Hopkins and Marjorie Lynn Project Location: 15005 132nd Ave., SE, Renton, WA 98058 Reference: CODE20-000601 Please provide a written statement separately addressing and justifying each of the issues to be considered by the City. The burden of proof as to the appropriateness of the application lies with the applicant. In order to approve a variance request, the R eviewing Official must find ALL the following conditions exist: 1) The applicant suffers practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship and the variance is necessary because of special circumstances applicable to subject property, including size, shape, topography, and 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; 2) 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 is situated; 3) The approval shall not constitute a gran t of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated; and 4) The approval is the minimum variance that will accomplish the desired purpose. With respect to Condition 1) we, the Applicants, submit that strict adherence to the setback requirements regarding placement of the shed on the lot (i.e., not granting a variance) would deprive us of privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity. The shape of the lot, with the location of the primary residence, septic tank and drainfield, eliminates the possibility of placing the shed in the rear yard. The subject property is a pie -sliced shaped lot with a 970 square foot, one story rambler built in 1966. The septic tank is located behind the house, with the drain field lying partially beneath a concrete pad and extending beyond it in a northwestern direction abutting the western boundary. The house is less than ten feet from the southern boundary, and all el ectrical and water utilities are located on that side. Most of the property is open space. It was suggested that the shed could be relocated at the western perimeter of the property. This move would present multiple difficulties: a) Location of the septic drainfield. b) Tree removal and risk of damage. Removal of several mature trees would be required at the fence line: Cotinus, Stewartia and 3 Arborvitae. Impact on morning sunlight and tree detritus add to conflicts with this placement. Each of our two neighbors has a mature Prunus at their fence lines, deciduous trees Exhibit 7 DocuSign Envelope ID: 3BC0104E-E1FF-4A23-8191-C3EE065D147A which are well recognized for susceptibility to disease and insects. Prunus typically begins to decline after 10 to 15 years, and these trees were here when we purchased the property 18 years ago. Weak branches, limbs and leaves drop on our side of the fence every year, putting the shed at risk for damage. c) The structural integrity of the building is at risk for this type of move. d) Our neighbors’ enjoyment of their view, morning sunlight for their mature plantings, as well as privacy for all parties would be affected. e) Relocation would make the entry door and windows on the west side of the shed unusable and impossible to maintain. Its use as an art workspace requires maximum natural light. The shed is situated in its current location to optimize natural lighting while being mindful of setback areas and distance from the house. Given that relocating the shed is impractical for these reasons, and that the lot is fronted by two str eets, we contend it is necessary in this case for placement of the shed to be in its current location, the side yard between the house and street. Since the configuration of neighboring lots typically includes a usable rear yard, those property owners have more freedom as they can easily make use of their large back yards for additional structures, whether for storage, entertaining or other uses. They can have outbuildings and expanded garages that include workspaces, along with an expectation of privacy, a nd we have a right to it as well. We are asking for a small portion of our side yard to be considered the equivalent of a rear yard for this purpose and contend that strict application of the code would deprives us of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity. With respect to Condition 2), we believe that granting 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 the subject property is located. The presence of the shed offers no threat to t he safety of the applicants, to other structures on the property, to our neighbors or to their properties. The shed does not intrude into clear vision areas. It is clear of the septic drainfield. It is situated on the lot as far from the front and side streets as possible, while maintaining enough distance from the back property line so as not to impact the neighbors’ view and enjoyment of their properties. It has been painted to attractively match our house. We expect that this improvement will increase p roperty values, from ours to our neighbors to the City’s. We have obtained a statement, attached, from our neighbor, David James, who has the least obstructed view of the shed. David would not have provided the statement if he believed that the value of his property would be harmed by granting of a variance. Although not included in the statement, we’ve had informal conversations as to how the outbuilding might be beneficial to property values. See “Appendix - Statement from David James.” With respect to Condition 3), we believe that approval of the variance would not be considered a special privilege since there are multiple properties in our immediate neighborhood with accessory structures between the primary residence and street. We’ve identified and hav e included photographs of six (6) of them as examples, per the attached “Appendix - Neighborhood Examples.” We contend that the proposed variance will allow us to maximize the value and usage of our property while remaining within required setbacks for the R-4 zone. Accordingly, no special privilege would be granted. DocuSign Envelope ID: 3BC0104E-E1FF-4A23-8191-C3EE065D147A With respect to Condition 4) The requested variance is to allow for the shed to remain in the side yard between the house and street for the reasons stated above. As it does not encroach into front, side or rear yard setbacks, and exceeds the required distance from the house, only the minimum variance is requested. For at least the above reasons, Applicants believe that the variance request is justified. DocuSign Envelope ID: 3BC0104E-E1FF-4A23-8191-C3EE065D147A Project Narrative Project Name: Hopkins Shed Variance Owners / Applicants: Susan Hopkins and Marjorie Lynn Project Location: 15005 132nd Ave., SE, Renton, WA 98058 Reference: CODE20-000601 This application is being submitted to request approval of an Administrative Variance from the provisions of the Renton Municipal Code in the Residential -4 (R-4) zone regulating minimum setbacks. The purpose of the variance is to allow for a newly built, 420 square foot outbuilding (storage shed with daylight workshop space) at 15005 132nd Ave., SE, Renton, WA 98058, with an easing of regulations for the shed to remain in its current location between the house and the street. The lot at the project location is 9,660 square feet in area. The footprint of existing structures includes a single-family home, 970 square feet; a 447 square foot polycarbonate roof which covers a 74 square foot shed (identified on the site plan as Shed #1); a 96 square foot shed (ide ntified on the site plan as Shed #2); and the newly built 420 square foot shed. R -4 zoning requires a maximum building coverage of 35% and maximum impervious surface area of 50%. Including all structures, total building coverage is significantly less at 20%, with impervious surface area also significantly less at 20%. The 447 square foot polycarbonate roof, and the 74 square foot shed it covers are proposed for removal following successful completion of the variance request and building permit processes. The lot is situated at the intersection of SE 150th Street and 132nd Ave SE. Due to the shape of the lot and placement of the house, septic tank and drainfield, the optimal location of the newly built shed is between the north side of the house and SE 150th Street. There is no encroachment on front, side or back yard setbacks and the minimum distance to the structure significantly exceeds the required six feet. Applicants are requesting this variance to allow the shed to remain in its current location. The following responses are to items requested in the narrative: A. Project name, size and location of site Project Name: Hopkins Shed Variance Size: Lot size is 9,660 square feet. The newly built shed is 420 square feet. Location: 15005 132nd Ave., SE, Renton, WA 98058 B. Zoning designation of the site and adjacent properties The zoning designation is R-4. DocuSign Envelope ID: 3BC0104E-E1FF-4A23-8191-C3EE065D147A C. Current use of the site and any existing improvements Single -family residence. Existing improvements include a cedar privacy fence and a shed. In addition, existing improvements include a polycarbonate roof covering a shed, used as a combined storage and outdoor craft area and which are proposed for removal pending successful completion of the variance request and building permit process. D. Special site features (i.e., wetlands, water bodies, steep slopes) Not applicable E. Statement addressing soil type and drainage conditions Soil type is glacial till, with good drainage. F. Proposed use of the property and scope of the proposed development (i.e., height, square footage, lot coverage, parking, access, etc.) Addition of a detached shed in the side yard of the property. The purpose of the shed is to provide storage and a daylight workspace. The shed was not purchased as, nor will b e used as an Accessory Dwelling Unit or any other type of livable space. Construction is wood frame, with a foundation of concrete block piers and earthquake reinforcement braces. The external dimensions of the 420 square foot shed are 14’x30.’ Wall plate height is 10’1.” Lot coverage is currently at 20% with impermeable coverage also at 20%. There are no changes to the existing parking arrangement or access to the property. G. Proposed off-site improvements (i.e., installation of sidewalks, fire hydrants , sewer main, etc.) Not applicable H. Total estimated construction cost and estimated fair market value of the proposed project Construction cost is $46,027. Fair market value is not assessed. I. Estimated quantities and type of materials involved if any fill or excavation is proposed Not applicable J. Number, type and size of trees to be removed Not applicable K. Explanation of any land to be dedicated to the City Not applicable L. For shoreline applications only Not applicable M. The proposed number, size, and density of the new lots, for subdivision applications only Not applicable DocuSign Envelope ID: 3BC0104E-E1FF-4A23-8191-C3EE065D147A Location of Existing Septic System Project Name: Hopkins Shed Variance Owners / Applicants: Susan Hopkins and Marjorie Lynn Project Location: 15005 132nd Ave., SE, Renton, WA 98058 Reference: CODE20-000601 Exhibit 8 DocuSign Envelope ID: 3BC0104E-E1FF-4A23-8191-C3EE065D147A DocuSign Envelope ID: 3BC0104E-E1FF-4A23-8191-C3EE065D147A DocuSign Envelope ID: 3BC0104E-E1FF-4A23-8191-C3EE065D147A DocuSign Envelope ID: 3BC0104E-E1FF-4A23-8191-C3EE065D147A Exhibit 9DocuSign Envelope ID: 3BC0104E-E1FF-4A23-8191-C3EE065D147A Significant Tree Report – Legend for Site Map Project Name: Hopkins Shed Variance Owners / Applicants: Susan Hopkins and Marjorie Lynn Project Location: 15005 132nd Ave., SE, Renton, WA 98058 Reference: CODE20-000601 Tree# Species Caliper 1 Acer circinatum 11 2 Acer palmatum 'Shishigashira' 8 3 Cercidiphyllum 10 4 Cercis canadensis “Forest Pansy” 1 5 Cercis canadensis “Pink Heartbreaker” 1 6 Cotinus 9 7 Cydonia oblonga 4 8 Ficus Carica 5 9 Malus domestica 'Stayman' 11 10 Malus pumila 8 11 Prunus cerasus 2 12 Stewartia pseudocamellia 3 13 Syringa vulgaris 17 14 Thuja occidentalis 9 15 Thuja occidentalis 9 16 Thuja occidentalis 8 17 Thuja occidentalis 8 18 Thuja occidentalis 8 19 Thuja occidentalis 7 20 Thuja occidentalis 7 21 Thuja occidentalis 6 22 Thuja occidentalis 6 23 Thuja occidentalis 6 24 Thuja plicata 5 25 Thuja plicata 5 DocuSign Envelope ID: 3BC0104E-E1FF-4A23-8191-C3EE065D147A Caliper 17 11 11 10 9 9 9 8 8 8 8 8 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 5 4 3 2 1 1 DocuSign Envelope ID: 3BC0104E-E1FF-4A23-8191-C3EE065D147A Tree Species Caliper Lilac Syringa vulgaris 17 Apple Stayman Winesap Malus domestica 'Stayman' 11 Vine Maple Acer circinatum 11 Katsura Cercidiphyllum 10 Smoketree Cotinus 9 Arborvitae Thuja occidentalis 9 Arborvitae Thuja occidentalis 9 Maple shishigashura Acer palmatum 'Shishigashira' 8 Apple Jonagold Malus pumila 8 Arborvitae Thuja occidentalis 8 Arborvitae Thuja occidentalis 8 Arborvitae Thuja occidentalis 8 Arborvitae Thuja occidentalis 7 Arborvitae Thuja occidentalis 7 Arborvitae Thuja occidentalis 6 Arborvitae Thuja occidentalis 6 Arborvitae Thuja occidentalis 6 Evergreen Thuja Plicata Thuja plicata 5 Evergreen Thuja Plicata Thuja plicata 5 Fig in barrel Ficus Carica 5 Quince Cydonia oblonga 4 Stewartia Stewartia pseudocamellia 3 Cherry Prunus cerasus 2 Redbud Forest Pansy Cercis canadensis “Forest Pansy” 1 Redbud Pink Heartbreaker Cercis canadensis “Pink Heartbreaker” 1 Species Caliper Syringa vulgaris 17 Malus domestica 'Stayman' 11 Acer circinatum 11 Cercidiphyllum 10 Cotinus 9 Thuja occidentalis 9 Thuja occidentalis 9 Acer palmatum 'Shishigashira' 8 Malus pumila 8 Thuja occidentalis 8 Thuja occidentalis 8 Thuja occidentalis 8 DocuSign Envelope ID: 3BC0104E-E1FF-4A23-8191-C3EE065D147A Thuja occidentalis 7 Thuja occidentalis 7 Thuja occidentalis 6 Thuja occidentalis 6 Thuja occidentalis 6 Thuja plicata 5 Thuja plicata 5 Ficus Carica 5 Cydonia oblonga 4 Stewartia pseudocamellia 3 Prunus cerasus 2 Cercis canadensis “Forest Pansy” 1 Cercis canadensis “Pink Heartbreaker” 1 DocuSign Envelope ID: 3BC0104E-E1FF-4A23-8191-C3EE065D147A Exhibit 10 DocuSign Envelope ID: 3BC0104E-E1FF-4A23-8191-C3EE065D147A DocuSign Envelope ID: 3BC0104E-E1FF-4A23-8191-C3EE065D147A DocuSign Envelope ID: 3BC0104E-E1FF-4A23-8191-C3EE065D147A DocuSign Envelope ID: 3BC0104E-E1FF-4A23-8191-C3EE065D147A DocuSign Envelope ID: 3BC0104E-E1FF-4A23-8191-C3EE065D147A DocuSign Envelope ID: 3BC0104E-E1FF-4A23-8191-C3EE065D147A APPENDIX – Neighborhood Examples Project Name: Hopkins Shed Variance Owners / Applicants: Susan Hopkins and Marjorie Lynn Project Location: 15005 132nd Ave., SE, Renton, WA 98058 Reference: CODE20-000601 Properties with outbuildings between house and street, side yard, corner lot: 1) 14807 135th Ave., SE Exhibit 11 DocuSign Envelope ID: 3BC0104E-E1FF-4A23-8191-C3EE065D147A 2) 14914 134th Ave., SE DocuSign Envelope ID: 3BC0104E-E1FF-4A23-8191-C3EE065D147A 3) 15041 133rd Ave., SE DocuSign Envelope ID: 3BC0104E-E1FF-4A23-8191-C3EE065D147A Properties with outbuildings between house and street, front yard: 4) 969 Shelton Ave., SE DocuSign Envelope ID: 3BC0104E-E1FF-4A23-8191-C3EE065D147A 5) 13401 SE 151st St. DocuSign Envelope ID: 3BC0104E-E1FF-4A23-8191-C3EE065D147A 6) 13323 SE 151st St. DocuSign Envelope ID: 3BC0104E-E1FF-4A23-8191-C3EE065D147A 1 Brittany Gillia From:Susan Hopkins <suehopkins49@icloud.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 5, 2021 12:43 PM To:Brittany Gillia Cc:Vanessa Dolbee; Kevin Louder; Nathan Janders; AAAMarjiLynn; PermitTech; Rick Lee; suehopkins49 @icloud.com Subject:Re: Hopkins Shed Variance/LUA21-000076 Attachments:Proposed - Hopkins Shed Variance - Site Plan with Impervious Surface Detail.pdf; Existing - Hopkins Shed Variance - Site Plan with Impervious Surface Detail.pdf Brittany, First, we have decided there will be no water hookup in the shed. Please update the file to "not applicable." Second, attached are the requested current and proposed site plans updated with impervious surface detail. Surprisingly, you've become very informative in ways we have not experienced thus far. From refusing to reach out to us as your supervisor requested (because "I'm used to people coming to me, I don't contact them") to telling us, mistakenly, that we could waive many of the variance application requirements, the only choice you gave us to describe our structure was either a shed or ADU. Now, weeks into this experience you mention a third possibility, a "habitable" structure, such as a detached home office or workshop. Despite our consistent statements that the structure does not, and cannot, meet ADU energy codes, you've pushed us to describe it as an ADU without offering alternatives. We have been honest with you and have acted in good faith, but you've shown no initiative to help us to understand the options and requirements that would have eased our way as novices in this process. For example, we missed the description of gravel as an impervious surface. You had the application in front of you including photos of the gravel and could have notified us that we missed that clearly obvious item. We had no clue that a proposed, small deck needed to be added to our plan. All we knew was that something of that size and height did not require a permit per the code. You never told us that the water hookup was the key issue in the difference between a shed and an ADU. You brought permit-related concerns into the variance process, the very same issues that you now claim as beyond your purview. You do not appear to have an organized plan. We find you unhelpful and confusing. We had no idea that there was an option to describe our structure as "habitable," as you now claim, nor do we know what that means for the variance and permit approval processes. You could have provided us with Nathan Janders’ contact information; instead I had to hunt his contact information down via another department. You have still not answered the questions in my last email. What does it take to get an honest and helpful response from the City of Renton? Please get us to someone with more experience, initiative, and empathy to help us complete this process. Sue Hopkins and Marji Lynn On April 29, 2021 at 1:28 PM, Brittany Gillia <BGillia@Rentonwa.gov> wrote: Hello Sue, CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Exhibit 12 DocuSign Envelope ID: 3BC0104E-E1FF-4A23-8191-C3EE065D147A 2 Per our other email, I understand your request to communicate via email rather than phone call so I will address your questions below and please let me know if any of these replies need clarification. Planning is the first step in many development projects. When we write decisions, they often come with “conditions of approval” to ensure that the project will meet the intent of code. If I do not know the full extent of your project while I am evaluating it, there may be a possibility that a decision could be issued that could contradict your proposal’s end goal. I am requesting this additional information so that I can understand the full scope of your project and tailor the decision I write to correlate with your end goal, not to hinder it. Once a decision is issued and the appeal period is over, any conditions in the decision are final so I’d like to make sure we are working together to get your decision lined up with your intention for the project. The project is currently on hold while we are waiting for you to gather the requested information from the “On Hold Letter” that was sent to you on 4/9/2021 . Once you have compiled those materials, I can review them and take the project off hold to resume processing. As stated in the on hold letter and follow-up email on 4/9, we are looking to get updated information on your impervious surface coverage and to get your intended utility plan. Over the phone, you had mentioned that you were planning to remove the utilities, and so we need information to state that in your project file. It sounds like you have since changed your proposal and are pursuing a hook up to your septic system. To be clear, if you are proposing to remove your utilities your proposed utilities would be “not applicable” and we would need that in writing so that it is documented with your project. Due to the two conflicting proposals, please confirm if you plan to have utilities hooked up to the structure or not so that it is clear to me which direction you are taking and then I can help you from there. Regarding the term “habitable”- to the Building Department, this just means that people will spend time inside of the structure. Habitable does not automatically imply or insinuate an ADU; it is relating to the safety of the structure to ensure it complies with code for a person to be inside of it. An example of this could be a detached home office or workshop that does not qualify as a dwelling unit. I had brought this up for your benefit at the beginning of your project so you could understand that the different paths would lead to different amounts of work that you may need to do to get the structure permitted after land use. As we discussed in a previous phone conversation- if there is no water hookup, it can be treated as a storage shed. If there is a water hookup, the building will need to meet additional requirements to ensure it meets building code for life safety concerns. If you choose one route or the other, it will be permanently reflected in the Variance decision so you should be aware of the full scope. If you have further questions on this, please let me know and I can refer you to the building department; I have been relaying information to you so that you can keep it in mind as you settle on your scope of work but you may need to go straight to the source if you need further clarification. DocuSign Envelope ID: 3BC0104E-E1FF-4A23-8191-C3EE065D147A 3 If you receive an approved land use decision, your next step will be to work with our permit services group on your building permit application. Here is the webpage that you can review to see what may be required, but this division has different processes than Planning so I would recommend reaching out directly to them at permittech@rentonwa.gov with any questions. https://rentonwa.gov/cms/One.aspx?portalId=7922741&pageId=9669435 Hopefully that addresses your questions but please let me know if any of it was unclear. Thank you, Brittany Gillia, Assistant Planner City of Renton | CED | Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way | 6th Floor | Renton, WA 98057 Office Phone: (425) 430-7246| bgillia@rentonwa.gov Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, I am working from home and will respond quicker to calls on my cell number than my desk phone. COVID-19 UPDATE City Hall is currently closed to the public but we are still available to assist you. I can be reached via cell at (503)985-8621. · Pay Invoice and Apply for Over-the-Counter Permit: Permitting Portal · Schedule an Inspection: Permitting Portal -OR- Building: 425-430-7202; Civil/Site: 425-430-7203 · Contact Staff: o Building or General Permitting: permittech@rentonwa.gov or 425-430-7200 o Planning: planningcustomerservice@rentonwa.gov or 425-430-7294 o Public Works Permitting: pwpermitting@rentonwa.gov or 206-402-8626 o Code Compliance: Renton Responds or 425-430-7373. From: Susan Hopkins <suehopkins49@icloud.com> Sent: Friday, April 23, 2021 4:45 PM To: Brittany Gillia <BGillia@Rentonwa.gov> Cc: Vanessa Dolbee <VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov>; Kevin Louder <KLouder@Rentonwa.gov>; Nathan Janders <NJanders@Rentonwa.gov>; AAAMarjiLynn <marjilynn@msn.com> Subject: Re: Hopkins Shed Variance/LUA21-000076 DocuSign Envelope ID: 3BC0104E-E1FF-4A23-8191-C3EE065D147A 4 Dear Brittany, Regarding your request for an updated Utilities Plan, we have spoken with Ken Elliott from King County and are following his advice to reach out to a County-licensed maintainer for the septic system. The lead time for response is expected to be three weeks and, following their recommendations, we will know if water can be plumbed to the shed. In addition to the updated utility plan we will also finalize the site plans with updated impervious surfacing detail, which still be well below the maximum allowable limit. We met with Bev Spears of the Maplewood Water Co-Op today. She will test our water usage and send you a letter of acceptance when she has gathered those results. The purpose of the variance request is stated as "Retain newly built accessory structure in its current location between the primary residence and SE 150th St." It's been seven weeks since our application was accepted. What is the status of that request? We're entirely confused that you have brought in concerns from departments that we expected to be addressed later in the permitting process. Please advise as soon as possible on any remaining concerns that have come up since our application, as the current approach of one issue at a time is wasteful and frustrating. We'd appreciate detailed contact information for any referrals ahead of time, and to have your process in this effort laid out more clearly. Regarding your reference to and usage of the term "habitable" the shed does not and has never fit that category. Please remove any mention of ADU in your communications with us. We have repeatedly communicated, verbally and in writing, that the structure does not qualify, nor do we have any intention or desire to convert it to an ADU. Your perception that this is a potential ADU project has been an exercise in confusion and frustration, needlessly delaying completion of the project. Additionally, any guidance you can offer regarding the path to approval for a "Shed Over 200 SQ FT," described as a work type in the Renton permit application, will be greatly appreciated. CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. DocuSign Envelope ID: 3BC0104E-E1FF-4A23-8191-C3EE065D147A 5 Thank you, Sue Hopkins and Marji Lynn On April 16, 2021 at 3:14 PM, Nathan Janders <NJanders@Rentonwa.gov> wrote: Hi Sue, Thanks for reaching out. For the water service you will need to provide an acceptance letter from the Maplewood Addition Water Co-Op indicating that the additional water service is acceptable, Beverly Spears, 206.714.7773, is who we have on file as the manager for the Co-Op. You will need to contact King County Department Of Health regarding the septic to ensure that the existing system is able to accept the additional flows from the fixtures and provide a letter from them confirming, the website is here: https://kingcounty.gov/depts/health/environmental-health/piping/onsite-sewage- systems.aspx Regards, Nathan Janders | Civil Engineer II Community & Economic Development Department | Planning Division City of Renton | 1055 S. Grady Way | Renton WA 98057 NJanders@Rentonwa.gov COVID-19 UPDATE City Hall is currently closed to the public but we are still available to assist you. . Pay Invoice and Apply for Over-the-Counter Permit: Permitting Portal . Schedule an Inspection: Permitting Portal -OR- Building: 425-430-7202; Civil/Site: 425- 430-7203 . Contact Staff: o Staff Hours: Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. o Building or General Permitting: permittech@rentonwa.gov or 425-430-7200 o Planning: planningcustomerservice@rentonwa.gov or 425-430-7294 o Public Works Permitting: pwpermitting@rentonwa.gov or 206-402-8626 o Code Compliance: Renton Responds or 425-430-7373 -----Original Message----- From: Susan Hopkins <suehopkins49@icloud.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 2:23 PM To: Nathan Janders <NJanders@Rentonwa.gov> Subject: Hopkins Shed Variance/LUA21-000076 CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Hi Nate, I understand from Brittany Gillia that you are the best person to provide a contact with King County about our water hookups and gray water disposal. Please help us with DocuSign Envelope ID: 3BC0104E-E1FF-4A23-8191-C3EE065D147A 6 names and numbers so that we can continue our efforts to successfully resolve the variance issue. Thank you so much for your assistance. Regards, Sue Hopkins and Marji Lynn Sent from my iPhone DocuSign Envelope ID: 3BC0104E-E1FF-4A23-8191-C3EE065D147A Exhibit 13 DocuSign Envelope ID: 3BC0104E-E1FF-4A23-8191-C3EE065D147A DocuSign Envelope ID: 3BC0104E-E1FF-4A23-8191-C3EE065D147A