HomeMy WebLinkAboutKing County Appeal Letter - LUA-21-0002371
Parks and Recreation Division
Department of Natural Resources and Parks
King Street Center, KSC-NR-0700
201 South Jackson Street
Seattle, WA 98104-3855
206-477-4527 Fax 206-588-8011
TTY Relay: 711
www.kingcounty.gov/parks
January 3, 2022
Hearing Examiner
Renton City Hall - 7th Floor Council Chambers
1055 S Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
RE: Project Number: LUA21-00237 Appeal of Decision for Reconsideration of the
Leighton Administrative Setback Variance (LUA21-000237, V-A)
I. MATTER BEING APPEALED
On December 14,2021 the City of Renton issued and Administrative Report and Decision for
LUA21-00237 V-A granting an Administrative Setback Variance for the Leighton Residence
side yard (attached hereto as Exhibit A and referred to as the “Report and Decision”). On
December 15, 2021, King County Parks requested reconsideration of that decision in a letter
dated December 15, 2021 (attached hereto as Exhibit B). The City denied reconsideration in a
December 21, 2021 letter entitled “Reconsideration of the Leighton Administrative Setback
Variance (LUA21-000237, V-A)” (attached hereto as Exhibit C and referred to as the
“Reconsideration”). King County Parks hereby appeals the City of Renton’s decision to grant the
Administrative Setback Variance because: 1) City’s decision to grant the variance was based
upon erroneous or insufficient information, and 2) the Applicant failed to satisfy the variance
decision criteria set forth in RMC 4-9-250(B)(6).
II. ISSUES ON APPEAL
A. The City’s Decision to Grant the Administrative Setback Variance was Based Upon
Erroneous or Insufficient Information
1. Exhibit 5 to the Report and Decision Contains Insufficient Information
The Geotechnical Report prepared by Geotech Consultants, dated March 2, 2020, and attached as
Exhibit 5 to the Report and Decision contains insufficient information. The first page of the
report states:
DocuSign Envelope ID: FF5E7F33-751E-4FC9-A48D-6BF7101D2BEF
2
No detailed plans were available at the time of this report. From our discussions
with you, we expect that the new residence will be located in the same footprint
as the existing house, but it will be constructed on an entirely new foundation.
The lowest level will be a shallow, west-facing basement, similar to the existing
house. A new attached garage will be constructed off the southeastern corner of
the residence. Vehicle access to the lot will continue from the paved driveway that
extends into the south edge of the lot from Mountain View Avenue North. No
excavation into the short slope that rises eastward to the King County Trail
is anticipated.
If the scope of the project changes from what we have described above, we should
be provided with revised plans in order to determine if modifications to the
recommendations and conclusions of this report are warranted.”
(emphasis added). First, the geotechnical engineer’s assumption that the new residence will be
located in the same footprint as the existing house is erroneous. Based on the Plan Set attached as
Exhibit 3 to the Report and Decision, the residence is being moved an additional eighteen to
twenty feet toward the slope and three to five feet into the setback immediately adjacent to
property line. The geotechnical engineer’s incorrect assumption is readily apparent when
comparing the Site Plan used in the Geotechnical Report to the Site Plan attached as Exhibit 2 to
the Report and Decision.
Site Plan Used in Geotech Report:
DocuSign Envelope ID: FF5E7F33-751E-4FC9-A48D-6BF7101D2BEF
3
Site Plan submitted with Land Use Application:
Second, the geotechnical engineer’s assumption that there will be no excavation into the short
slope that rises eastward to the King County Trail is also incorrect. Based relocation of the new
residence eighteen to twenty feet toward the slope and three to five feet into the setback
immediately adjacent to property line, it is necessary to cut deeply into the existing toe of the
slope, which requires a fifteen to seventeen foot near vertical cut to construct a basement wall
two to three feet from the property line. Due to this new excavation, the three-and-a-half-foot
test pit contained in the Geotechnical Report is insufficient to make an accurate determination of
the soil conditions and slope stability for the project.
Finally, it does not appear that the geotechnical engineer was ever provided with a revised scope
of the project or accurate plans of the new residence, as requested in his report. If so, it does not
appear in the record relied upon by the City in making its decision. Before a determination is
made regarding whether to grant the variance, King County would like the decision maker to
consider an accurate geotechnical report which takes into account the actual project being
proposed, the excavation necessary as part of the project, and the soil conditions and slope
stability in relation to the project and excavation.
DocuSign Envelope ID: FF5E7F33-751E-4FC9-A48D-6BF7101D2BEF
4
2. Finding of Fact 17 on pages 10-11 of the Report and Decision Relies Upon the
Erroneous Geotechnical Report
Finding of Fact 17 of the Report and Decision finds that the project, which is located in a
geologically hazardous area, complies with the Critical Area Regulations set forth in RMC 4-3-
050, however, the City bases this finding on the conclusions set forth in the erroneous
Geotechnical Report. As established above, the report did not rely upon any actual plans of the
project, take into account the move of the new residence from the original footprint, or consider
that excavation into the slope would be part of the project. In fact, the geotechnical engineer
specifically stated in the report that any of those factors may change the report recommendations
and conclusions.
3. Exhibit 3 of the Report and Decision Contains Insufficient Information
The Plan Set, attached as Exhibit 3 to the Report and Decision, contains many details, however,
there are just as many details that are missing. For example, the plans provided by the applicant
provide insufficient information to ascertain the three-dimensional nature of the site and the full
implications of approving any variance in setback requirements. There are no cross-sections of
existing building or proposed new building showing the relationship to the property line. The
site plan on sheet 2 contains no scale bar making exact dimensions difficult. There are also no
scaled detailed drawings or diagrams contained in the plan set showing the relationship of the
required subsurface excavation for the proposal to the property line and the subsequent impacts
on the stability of the adjoining slope. Nor is there a narrative and/or diagrams describing the
proposed means and methods to excavate a fifteen-to-seventeen-foot cut and construct a
basement wall two to three feet from the property line.
4. The Arborist Report, Exhibit 9 of the Report and Decision, Contains Insufficient
Information and Finding of Fact 15 Relies Upon the Faulty Report
The Arborist Report prepared by Lonnson Arbor Care dated May 21, 2021 and attached as
Exhibit 9 to the Report and Decision contains insufficient information. The information in the
report is insufficient because it only lists trees located completely on the Applicant’s property
and fails to address trees along the property line and within the drip line that will be affected if
modifications are made to the slope. Any excavation occurring near the slope can cause
destabilization of trees along the property line and cause injury to trees. Finding of Fact 15 of
the Report and Decision makes conclusions regarding the project’s compliance with the various
zoning development standards. On page 6 of the Report and Decision the City concludes that the
project complies with the City’s Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations (RMC 4-4-130).
In making this conclusion, the City relies upon the opinions set forth in the incomplete Arborist
Report. King County would like the decision of whether a variance is appropriate to be based
upon a more comprehensive report which includes trees located along the property line, in
addition to the trees located on the Applicant’s property.
DocuSign Envelope ID: FF5E7F33-751E-4FC9-A48D-6BF7101D2BEF
5
5. Exhibit 8 to the Report and Decision Contains Erroneous Information
The Project Narrative prepared by H2D Architecture + Design, dated May 3, 2021 and attached
as Exhibit 8 to the Report and Decision contains erroneous information. The fourth paragraph of
the Project Narrative states:
The West property line is a Shoreline along Lake Washington. City of Renton
GIS mapping indicates there is a Landslide hazard area along the East property
line. A Geotech report for the property dated March 2,2020 prepared by Geotech
Consultants, Inc states "We saw no indications of instability on this short slope ...
" (report page 2) and "no buffer or setback from the steep slope is necessary to
protect the planned development from potential slope instability or to prevent
adverse impacts to the stability of the slope" (report page 3). The Geotech Report
has been submitted along with this application.
The Narrative then goes on to state: The new single family residence will be built over a portion
of the existing footprint, with additions to the North and East. 902.6SF of the new structure will
be over the existing footprint with 1, 726.3SF of construction outside of the existing footprint.”
(emphasis added).
The information contained in the Narrative is clearly erroneous. It quotes conclusions from the
Geotechnical Report which do not apply to the project the Narrative supports. As discussed
previously, the geotechnical engineer’s conclusions were based upon the assumption that the
new residence was being built within the existing footprint. The Narrative also describes the
proposed residence as a two-story structure and fails to mention the lower-level basement which
will require further excavation into the slope that is designated as a Landslide Hazard Area. The
Applicant, H2D Architecture and Design clearly failed to read the Geotechnical Report or missed
that the report was prepared based upon the new residence being built entirely within the existing
footprint. Again, King County is requesting a new Geotechnical Report be prepared for review
which takes into account the actual project being built.
6. Exhibit 7 to the Report and Decision Contains Erroneous and Insufficient
Information
The Variance Request Justification prepared by H2D Architecture + Design, dated May 3, 2021,
revised June 24, 3032, and attached as Exhibit 8 to the Report and Decision contains both
erroneous and insufficient information. The Justification states that “the property is relatively flat
except for a short slope that rises upward to the King County Trail along the East of the
property.” Although the Justification recognizes that the City of Renton has mapped this slope as
a “high hazard landslide and protected slope” it again relies on the flawed Geotechnical Report
which has been discussed at length. And quotes that the geotechnical engineer saw “no
indications of instability on this short slope”. These statements are inaccurate and misleading, as
they are based on a geotechnical report that did not take into account the actual project or that fact
that excavation of the slope is necessary.
DocuSign Envelope ID: FF5E7F33-751E-4FC9-A48D-6BF7101D2BEF
6
The Variance Request Justification also contains insufficient information to adequately establish
compliance with the variance criteria required by RMC 4-9-250(B)(5). The Justification does
establish how Applicant suffers unnecessary hardship, or that the variance will not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and
zone. Furthermore, insufficient information to establish that approval of the variance will not
constitute a grant of special privilege. Lastly, the Justification does not provide sufficient
information to show that the approval is a minimum variance that will accomplish the desired
purpose.
Finally, the Variance Request Justification relies upon the Arborist Report which was prepared
only with information regarding trees wholly within the subject property and no information
regarding trees along the eastern property line which will be affected should there be any
disturbance to the slope.
7. Minimum Construction Setback Requirement is Based Upon Insufficient
Information
The Reconsideration states that it contacted the Applicant’s architect to determine the minimum
setback that could accommodate the proposed residence, while not impacting the abutting King
County Parks property. The Applicant’s architect stated that an eighteen inch setback would
allow for the construction of the proposed residence without impacting King County Parks
property. However, the Applicant’s architect has not communicated with King County Parks to
verify whether this statement is accurate. Absent a discussion with the County regarding
potential impacts of construction of the proposed structure so close to the railbanked corridor, the
Applicant’s architect lacks a sufficient foundation upon which to credibly represent that an
eighteen-inch setback would result in no impact to the County’s property. Indeed, while the City
chose to grant a two foot minimum construction setback, the County believes that anything short
of the five-foot construction setback will be insufficient space to realistically allow the applicant
to perform construction and maintenance in a manner that does not impede the County’s
property. The specific reasons that the County believes the City’s two-foot variance is
insufficient includes the following:
As noted in the section regarding the incomplete Plan Set above, the Applicant has not
provided King County with any surveyed cross sections of the site nor have they
provided an adequate geotechnical engineering report and analysis based on the design as
submitted. They have also not provided any design cross sections to validate the impacts
of their planned construction on the County’s adjoining property.
The Applicant’s architect, in promulgating the eighteen-inch setback, would have the
City believe that the construction is relatively straight forward to build up to the property
line. The facts are that it is not an easy construction even with the required five-foot
setback given the elevation difference of a minimum of ten or more feet between the two
properties. This elevation difference creates a steep slope between the Leighton’s
property and the adjoining County Property complicating construction even within a five-
DocuSign Envelope ID: FF5E7F33-751E-4FC9-A48D-6BF7101D2BEF
7
foot setback and necessitating temporary or likely permanent shoring be installed at or
near the property line.
The minimum footing width for a two-story plus basement structure and necessary
footing and wall drainage pipes will necessitate excavating to the property line creating a
steep fifteen to seventeen foot near vertical cut.
Excavating to the property line will not allow for any required layback of the excavation
and the depths will exceed four feet thereby requiring engineered temporary or permanent
shoring in order to meet state safety requirements. This shoring will require an additional
three to five feet or more to allow workers to safely install the required subsurface
drainage and basement waterproofing materials on the wall.
Excavating the toe of a steep slope to the property line could significantly undermine the
short- and long-term stability of the Eastrail Corridor, the existing utilities within the
corridor, and the City of Renton roadway and utilities located above Eastrail and the
Applicant’s property. Not having the required setbacks at the toe of a steep slope only
serves to exacerbate the likelihood of a future failure.
Since it is located below an existing railbanked and utility corridor, the retaining wall for
the proposed residential building located at the property line would not be a typical
residential wall. Rather it would be required to support the existing imposed surcharge
loading of the hillside, along with the anticipated current and future loading associated
with the current use (rail, trail including vehicle, and utilities) given the railbanked status
of the corridor.
The Applicant’s previous request to the County that it grant five feet of required
construction access on County property clearly indicates the need for more space for
construction.
Furthermore, with the structure two to three feet from the property line, it is impossible to
access the structure for future maintenance without continued access across King County
property. King County anticipates that such access across its property will be required in
the future and given the narrowness of the corridor at this location, cannot be
accommodated by the County and easement holders without significant unmitigated
impacts to the essential public facilities planned or anticipated for this corridor.
B. The Record Does Not Support A Finding That The Applicant Has Met The City’s
Variance Criteria Conditions.
RMC 4-9-250 (B) provides that the City’s “Administrator shall have the authority to approve,
approve with conditions, or deny applications for variances from the development standards of
the [….] Code … .” The City’s conditions for granting a variance require that the Applicant’s
proposal be compliant with the City’s variance criteria. The record does not support a finding
that the Applicant has met the variance criteria.
DocuSign Envelope ID: FF5E7F33-751E-4FC9-A48D-6BF7101D2BEF
8
Specifically, in its Administrative Report and Decision, the City’s “Finding of Fact 18.
Variance Analysis” states:
The applicant is requesting an administrative side yard setback variance from the
east property, the proposed setback would range from 0 feet to 3 feet, 9 inches.
The proposal is compliant with the following variance criteria, pursuant to RMC
4-9-250.B.5. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the requested variance.
The City then listed the following four “Variance Criteria and Analysis.” For the reasons
discussed below, the record does not support a finding that the Applicant met the City’s variance
criteria.
1. The Applicant Failed to Support a Finding of Variance Criteria #1
The City first sets forth the following variance criteria and “staff comment” analysis:
a. [Criteria:] 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 applicant contends that they suffer practical difficulties due
to the shape of the lot and the presence of a Shoreline of the State (Lake
Washington) along the west property line. “
“Staff has reviewed the request and concurs that practical difficulties exist due to
the narrow shape of the lot and the required twenty-five (25)-foot setback
required from Lake Washington. In addition, the proposal to shift the residence to
the east outside of the required shoreline setback would make it difficult to
accommodate the proposed residence outside of all required setback areas. “
The record does not support that Applicant met this criterion because nothing addresses, much
less establishes, how the strict application of the Zoning Code deprives Applicants “of rights and
privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zone
classification.” The mere fact that the size of Applicant’s proposed residence is not suitable for
the lot does not establish a deprivation of rights and privileges.
Moreover, even if an oversized structure could constitute a deprivation of rights, the City was not
provided with a complete understanding of the actual size of the residence to be constructed. The
City mentions a 2-story building with a basement residence. More importantly, the plans do not
provide sufficient detail regarding the proposed excavation (or the potential impact to the
property line and the subsequent impacts on the stability of the adjoining slope).
DocuSign Envelope ID: FF5E7F33-751E-4FC9-A48D-6BF7101D2BEF
9
The applicant also failed to show a sufficient necessity for a variance reduction. The request to
reduce the required minimum 5-foot side yard setback to accommodate excessive residential
space is not warranted when the applicant could simply reorient their rooms, reduce the patio
depth, etc., and use property to the north and south rather than expanding eastward into the
setback. Alternatively, individual spaces could be narrowed or scaled back to meet the required
setbacks.
2. The Applicant Failed to Support a Finding of Variance Criteria #2
The City’s second variance criteria and “staff comment” analysis states:
b. [Criteria:] 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 requested variance would not be
materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties in the
vicinity. […] Construction and maintenance at the property line will not disturb
the functionality of the adjacent property.
The Applicant has not met this criterion because granting the variance will in fact be detrimental
to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity.
Specifically, besides the County’s ownership of the corridor, this corridor is also a federalized
railbanked corridor and in addition, is subject to easements held by Sound Transit, Puget Sound
Energy and King County Wastewater for current and future essential public facilities that are
required to serve regional growth demands. Any interference with the use of the corridor
requires review and approval from all easement holders. King County anticipates the need to use
the full width of their thirty (30) foot wide rail corridor at this location in its future development
of the Eastrail project. Additionally, current easement holders in the Eastrail Corridor, including
Puget Sound Energy, Sound Transit, and King County Wastewater Treatment Division, need the
entire width of the corridor for current and future development of their respective projects and
infrastructure. Construction at the property at even the new recommended setback will
compromise the use of the corridor by King County and the current easement holders.
In particular, allowing the setback variance to 2 feet to 3 feet-9 inches risks compromising the
slope, which is designated by the City as a High Hazard Landslide.1 Excavating the toe of a
steep slope to the property line could significantly undermine the short and long-term stability of
the Eastrail Corridor, the existing utilities within the corridor, and the City roadway and utilities
located above Eastrail and the Applicant’s property. Not having the required setbacks at the toe
1 Although the City’s High Hazard Landslide designation was dismissed by the Administrator based on the Geotech
Report submitted by the Applicant, as discussed above, the Geotech Report was based on the new residence being
built within the existing footprint. A new Geotech Report must be prepared using the updated detailed plans as
requested by the Geotech Consultants in their report as the project design is substantially different than was
proposed in the Geotech Report.
DocuSign Envelope ID: FF5E7F33-751E-4FC9-A48D-6BF7101D2BEF
10
of a steep slope will exacerbate the likelihood of a future failure. Further, if Applicant installs a
typical residential wall at the property line below the existing railbanked and utility corridor, it
may not support the existing imposed surcharge loading of the hillside, much less the anticipated
current and future loading associated with the Eastrail Corridor (rail, trail including vehicle, and
utilities).
Additionally, addressing Applicant’s drainage issues would necessitate impacting the County’s
property. Specifically, accommodating the existing natural drainage path would necessitate a
plan for dealing with both the surface water and subsurface waters inherent with the location of
this project at the bottom of a hill and adjacent to a slope site. No provisions have been
identified for dealing with this legal and technical requirement and would be nearly impossible in
the remaining setback without using or impacting County property. Further, the roof drainage
shown on Sheet 7 of the plan sheet indicates two roofs directing water and snow in the direction
of the County’s property. The impacts of this could be detrimental to the County’s use of its
property and compromise or undermine the stability of the slope.
The County’s property will also necessarily be impacted because it is nearly certain that
encroachment during construction would occur with anything less than 5 feet. Furthermore, with
the structure two to three feet from the property line, it is impossible to access the structure for
future maintenance without continued access across King County property. As can be seen in
the attached plan provided by the architect as part of their Special Use Permit application
(Exhibit D), the architect requested a five (5) foot temporary construction access over King
County’s property. This request is essentially an acknowledgment by the Applicant’s architect
that at minimum 5 feet of required construction access on County property is necessary space for
construction. King County anticipates that such access across its property will be required in the
future. Yet, given the narrowness of the corridor at this location, Applicant’s needs cannot be
accommodated by the County and easement holders without significant unmitigated impacts to
the essential public facilities planned or anticipated for this corridor.
3. The Applicant Failed to Support a Finding of Variance Criteria #3
The City’s third variance criteria and “staff comment” analysis states:
c. [Criteria:] 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 the approval would not constitute a
grant of special privilege. The requested variance would not adversely impact
views or accessibility of any neighboring properties. The applicant further
contends that neighboring properties in the area, particularly the single-family
residences south of the project site typically averages around 4,000 sq. ft. of
living space with many going upwards of 4,800 sq. ft. The proposed design, which
includes 3,937.8 sq. ft. of living space, would be consistent in the size and design
of the neighborhood and surrounding properties.
DocuSign Envelope ID: FF5E7F33-751E-4FC9-A48D-6BF7101D2BEF
11
The Applicant has not met this criterion because it has not shown that it is not receiving a special
privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity. While the
Applicant asserts that granting a setback variance to accommodate a 3,937.8 sq. ft. residence is
not a grant of special privilege because anecdotally there are similar sized homes in the area,
Applicant fails to mention whether the other similarly sized homes have been placed on a lot
similar in size and configuration to the Applicant’s. Had the Applicant established that similarly
sized and configured lots contained similarly sized homes, Applicant would have met its burden.
Applicant failed to make this showing.
4. The Applicant Failed to Support a Finding of Variance Criteria #4
The City’s fourth variance criteria and “staff comment” analysis states:
d. [Criteria:] That the approval is a minimum variance that will accomplish
the desired purpose. (Amd. Ord. 4835, 3-27-2000; Ord. 5675, 12-3-2012).
Staff Comment: The applicant contends that the requested side yard setback
variance is the minimum necessary to accomplish to desired purpose of
constructing a single-family residence in the subject property that meets the needs
of the property owners and accommodates the required twenty-five (25)-foot
setback from the shoreline.
The Applicant has not met this criterion because the City’s Reconsideration Decision Letter
indicates its finding is based in part on the Applicant’s conclusion that an 18 inch setback is
sufficient for construction purposes. However, the Applicant’s conclusion is unsupported by any
evidence or reasoning.
Moreover, the City in its Reconsideration Decision Letter states that the boundary between the
applicant’s property and the abutting King County Parks property is similar to the boundary
between a private lot and a public sidewalk. However, the boundary area adjacent to the
proposed residence is not akin to a flat public sidewalk along a property line. Instead, the two
foot setback area would consist of unusable sloped terrain. The applicant’s construction and
maintenance of a two-story structure within a flat two-foot setback is unrealistic, but when the
sloped nature of some of that space is considered, it is impossible. The applicant would not even
be able to install a ladder between the fence at the property line and the building wall in order to
perform construction or any future routine maintenance without encroachment or use of King
County’s property.
III. CONCLUSION AND RELEIF REQUESTED
King County Parks receives many requests to utilize or alter public property throughout our
32,000 acres of trails and open space which are managed for recreation and conservation. As
stewards of public property, our mission is to protect our vast trail and open space system for the
use and enjoyment of the public. As noted above we also share the use of this narrow corridor
with three other easement holders who have plans for their current and future use of the
DocuSign Envelope ID: FF5E7F33-751E-4FC9-A48D-6BF7101D2BEF
12
property. Allowing this impact to our corridor is not in keeping with the public interest, and
therefore, King County seeks the following relief:
1. Deny the variance reducing the setback and require the Applicant to prepare an updated
geotechnical report that addresses the actual site and planned improvements contemplated
by the project. In addition, require the revised geotechnical engineer’s report to analyze
and address the soil conditions down to the proper level of the proposed basement
excavation; analyze and address the surcharge loading on the basement, above grade
retaining walls, and planned rockeries, including weight of soil and existing rail corridor
loading (this may require hiring a structural engineer); analyze and address the need for
temporary or permanent shoring for the excavation in order to preserve the stability of the
slope; and provide for safe construction access for workers installing basement drainage
and waterproofing. The County requests that all roof drainage, gutters, and downspouts
be adequately sized and directed away from the slope and County property to prevent any
erosion and preserve the stability of the existing slope. The County also requests that the
Applicant be required to install survey markings and fencing at the property line before
undertaking construction in that proximity and provide scaled detailed diagrams and a
narrative for the planned construction means and methods proposed to accomplish
construction of the planned work without impacts to the County property.
2. In the alternative, if the above noted denial of the variance is not granted, the County
requests at a minimum that the Hearing Examiner remand the decision back to the City
and that all the other requirements identified above be required of the Applicant to
provide the City, the Hearing Examiner, and the County with sufficient information to
ascertain that the Applicant has a clear demonstrated plan for construction of the
proposed improvements within the space provided by the setback while protecting the
essential public facilities located above and eastward of the proposed improvements
before granting any variance to the setback
If this appeal does not provide sufficient detail to explain our request then please contact us and
we can provide more information about the impacts of this proposed new residence on our
property. If you have any questions, please contact Patty Ruiz via email at
paruiz@kingcounty.gov our Real Property Agent on Eastrail.
Respectfully submitted,
Frank D. Overton
Capital Improvement Program Section Manager; King County DNRP
Attachments: A, B, C, D
Cc: Patty Ruiz – Property Agent IV, King County DNRP
Trishah Bull – Capital Planning Program Supervisor, King County DNRP
DocuSign Envelope ID: FF5E7F33-751E-4FC9-A48D-6BF7101D2BEF
Exhibit A
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Project Location Map
D_Leighton Residence_FINAL
A. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT & DECISION
Decision: APPROVED APPROVED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS DENIED
Report Date: December 14, 2021
Project File Number: PR19-000119
Project Name: Leighton Residence
Land Use File Number: LUA21-000237, V-A, SME
Project Manager: Jill Ding, Senior Planner
Owner: Lisa and Steve Leighton, 3307 Mountain View Ave N, Renton, WA 98056
Applicant: Heidi Helgeson, H2D Architecture and Design, 23020 Edmonds Way, Suite 113,
Edmonds, WA 98020
Contact: Lisa Montalvo, H2D Architecture and Design, 23020 Edmonds, Way, Suite 113,
Edmonds, WA 98020
Project Location: 3307 Mountain View Ave N (parcel no. 3124059077)
Project Summary: The applicant is requesting an administrative side yard setback variance and a
shoreline exemption for the demolition of an existing single-family residence and the
construction of a new single-family residence located along Lake Washington Reach
E within the Shoreline Residential Designation. The project site is zoned R-8 and totals
29,236 sq. ft. in area. The standard shoreline setback would be 25 feet as the lot
depth is less than 100 feet. The proposed residence would have 3,938 sq. ft. of living
space, 322 sq. ft. of garage area, 272 sq. ft. of deck, and 659 sq. ft. of terraced patio.
The existing single-family residence is setback approximately 15 feet from the
Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of Lake Washington. None of the footprint of
the new residence would be located within the shoreline setback area, however the
proposed deck would maintain a setback of 16 feet, 10 inches from the OHWM within
the footprint of the original single-family residence. The applicant is requesting an
administrative side yard setback variance from the east property line, the proposed
setback would range from 0 feet to 3 feet, 9 inches. Access to the site would remain
via the existing driveway access off of Mountain View Ave N. A high and moderate
landslide hazard area, and sensitive slopes are mapped on the project site.
Site Area: 29,236 sq. ft. (0.67 acres)
DocuSign Envelope ID: C2B7C75A-907A-4E44-8395-DD44254F0C59
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Leighton Residence
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA21-000237, V-A, SME
Report of December 14, 2021 Page 2 of 15
D_Leighton Residence_FINAL
B. EXHIBITS:
Exhibit 1: Administrative Decision
Exhibit 2: Site Plan
Exhibit 3: Architectural Plan Set
Exhibit 4: Building Renderings
Exhibit 5: Geotechnical Report prepared by Geotech Consultants, dated March 2, 2020
Exhibit 6: Lake Study prepared by Altman Oliver and Associates, LLC, dated December 13, 2018
Exhibit 7: Variance Justification
Exhibit 8: Project Narrative
Exhibit 9: Arborist Report prepared by Lonnson Arbor Care, dated May 21, 2021
Exhibit 10: Public Comment and City Response
Exhibit 11: Aerial Photo of Project Vicinity
Exhibit 12: Site Photographs
C. GENERAL INFORMATION:
1. Owner(s) of Record: Lisa and Steve Leighton
3307 Mountain View Ave N
Renton, WA 98056
2. Zoning Classification: Residential-8 (R-8)
3. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: Residential Medium Density (MD)
4. Existing Site Use: The site is currently developed with a single-family
residence proposed for removal.
5. Critical Areas: The site is mapped within the Shoreline Residential
Designation of Lake Washington, Reach E. In addition,
a high and moderate landslide hazard area, and
sensitive slopes are mapped on the project site.
6. Neighborhood Characteristics:
a. North: Single-family residential, R-8 and zone
b. East: King County Parks, R-8 zone
c. South: Single-family residential, R-8 and zone
d. West: Lake Washington
7. Site Area: 29,236 sq. ft. (0.67 acres)
D. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND:
Action Land Use File No. Ordinance No. Date
Comprehensive Plan N/A 5758 06/22/2015
DocuSign Envelope ID: C2B7C75A-907A-4E44-8395-DD44254F0C59
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Leighton Residence
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA21-000237, V-A, SME
Report of December 14, 2021 Page 3 of 15
D_Leighton Residence_FINAL
Zoning N/A 5758 06/22/2015
Annexation N/A 1791 09/09/1959
Leighton Residence
Bulkhead Repair
Leighton Residence Dock
Repair
LUA19-000052
LUA21-000225
N/A
N/A
03/26/2019
06/28/2021
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
b. Section 4-3-090: Shoreline Master Program
3. Chapter 4 City-Wide Property Development Standards
4. Chapter 6 Streets and Utility Standards
a. Section 4-6-060: Street Standards
5. Chapter 9 Permits – Specific
a. Section 4-9-250: Variances, Waivers Modifications, and Alternates
6. 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 June 28,
2021 and determined the application complete on June 30, 2021. Project review was placed on hold on
August 9, 2021 and was taken off hold on November 16, 2021. The project complies with the 120-day
review period.
2. The applicant’s submittal materials comply with the requirements necessary to process the administrative
variance request (Exhibits 2-9).
3. The project site is located at 3307 Mountain View Ave N (parcel no. 3124059077).
4. The project site is currently developed with and existing single-family residence proposed for removal and
replacement.
5. Access to the site would be provided via existing driveway access off of Mountain View Ave N.
6. The property is located within the Residential Medium Density (MD) Comprehensive Plan land use
designation. The project complies with the goals and policies of this Comprehensive Plan land use
designation.
DocuSign Envelope ID: C2B7C75A-907A-4E44-8395-DD44254F0C59
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Leighton Residence
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA21-000237, V-A, SME
Report of December 14, 2021 Page 4 of 15
D_Leighton Residence_FINAL
Compliance Comprehensive Plan Analysis
✓
Goal L-U: Preserve, protect, and enhance the quality and functions of the City’s
sensitive areas including: lakes, rivers, major and minor creeks, intermittent stream
courses and their floodplains, wetlands, ground water resources, wildlife habitats, and
areas of seismic and geological hazards.
✓
Policy L-29: Protect the integrity of natural drainage systems, existing land forms, and
maintain wildlife habitat values by preserving and enhancing existing vegetation and
tree canopy coverage to the maximum extent possible and by restoring hydrological
flows and improving the condition of shorelines.
✓ Goal L-BB: Maintain a high quality of life as Renton grows by ensuring that new
development is designed to be functional and attractive.
✓ 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-54: Protect public scenic views and public view corridors, including Renton’s
physical, visual and perceptual linkages to Lake Washington and the Cedar River.
7. The site is located within the Residential-8 (R-8) zoning classification.
8. There are approximately five (5) trees located on-site, all of which are proposed for removal.
9. The site is mapped within the Shoreline Residential Designation of Lake Washington, Reach E (a
shoreline exemption would be issued at the time of Building Permit issuance). In addition, a high and
moderate landslide hazard area, and sensitive slopes are mapped on the project site.
10. The applicant is proposing to begin construction in summer 2022 and end in fall 2022.
11. The following variances to (regulation[s]) have been requested by the applicant:
RMC Code Citation Required Standard Requested Variance
RMC 4-2-110A
Residential
Development
Standards
5-foot side yard setback The applicant is requesting an administrative
side yard setback variance from the east
property line, the proposed setback would
range from 0 feet to 3 feet, 9 inches.
12. Staff received one public comment email regarding public access to the Lake Washington shoreline
located to the south of the project site (Exhibit 10). To address public comments the following report
contains analysis related to public access.
13. No other public or agency comments were received.
14. 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.
15. Zoning Development Standard Compliance: The site is classified Residential-8 (R-8) on the City’s Zoning
Map. Development in the R-8 Zone is intended to create opportunities for new single-family residential
neighborhoods and to facilitate high-quality infill development that promotes reinvestment in existing
single-family neighborhoods. It is intended to accommodate uses that are compatible with and support a
DocuSign Envelope ID: C2B7C75A-907A-4E44-8395-DD44254F0C59
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Leighton Residence
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA21-000237, V-A, SME
Report of December 14, 2021 Page 5 of 15
D_Leighton Residence_FINAL
high-quality residential environment and add to a sense of community. The proposal is compliant with
the following development standards, as outlined in RMC 4-2-110.A, if all conditions of approval are met:
Compliance R-8 Zone Develop Standards and Analysis
N/A
Density: The allowed density range in the R-8 zone is a minimum of 4.0 to a maximum of 8.0
dwelling units per net acre. Net density is calculated after the deduction of sensitive areas,
areas intended for public right-of-way, and private access easements.
Staff Comment: Not applicable, no subdivision is proposed.
N/A
Lot Dimensions: The minimum lot size permitted in the R-8 zone is 5,000 sq. ft. A minimum lot
width of 50 feet is required (60 feet for corner lots) and a minimum lot depth of 80 feet is
required.
Staff Comment: Not applicable, no subdivision is proposed.
Compliant if
condition of
approval is
met and
variance is
granted
Setbacks: The required setbacks in the R-8 zone are as follows: front yard is 20 feet, side yard is
5 feet, secondary front yard (applies to corner lots) is 15 feet, and the rear yard is 20 feet.
Staff Comment: In accordance with RMC 4-3-090D.7.a, a total of twenty-five (25)-foot setback
(ten (10)-foot wide conservation buffer plus a fifteen (15)-foot building setback) from the
Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of Lake Washington (west pro perty line) as the property
has a lot depth less than 100 feet. A Lake Study prepared by Altman Oliver and Associates, LLC,
dated December 13, 2018 (Exhibit 6) was included with the project application materials. The
submitted Lake Study included a planting plan that would vegetate the ten (10)-foot wide
vegetation conservation buffer along the OHWM to the north and south of the proposed
residence, outside of the existing paved patio area. The vegetation conservation buffer would be
planted with native plants and shrubs as identified on the proposed planting plan (Exhibit 6).
Staff recommends as a condition of approval that the ten (10 - foot vegetation conservation
buffer be planted prior to issuance of a final building inspection for the proposed residence. To
ensure compliance, the applicant shall schedule a buffer planting inspection with the Current
Planning Project Manager prior to scheduling a final inspection.
The front yard area of the lot would be oriented towards the south, facing Mountain View Ave
N, with the rear yard along the north property line and the side yard along the east property line.
The existing single-family residence located on the project site, proposed to be removed, is non-
conforming with respect to the required twenty -five (25)-foot shoreline setback. The existing
deck structure is setback nine (9) feet two (2) inches from the OHWM and the existing residence
is setback approximately sixteen (16) feet from the OHWM. The proposed residence would
provide an approximately 203-foot front yard setback and an approximately sixty-seven (67)-
foot rear setback. The applicant is requesting an administrative side yard setback variance from
the east property, the proposed setback would range from 0 feet to 3 feet, 9 inches, see further
discussion below under FOF 18.
✓
Building Standards: The R-8 zone has a maximum building coverage of 50% and a maximum
impervious surface coverage of 65%. Within the Shoreline Residential Designation (RMC 4-3-
090D.7.a), a maximum building coverage of 25% and a maximum impervious surface coverage
of 50% is permitted.
In the R-8 zone, a maximum building height of 2 stories with a wall plate height of 24 feet is
permitted. Roofs with a pitch equal to or greater than 4:12 may project an additional six (6)
vertical feet from the maximum wall plate height. If the height of wall plates on a building are
less than the states maximum the roof may project higher to account for the difference, yet the
combined height of both features shall not exceed the combined maximums. Common rooftop
features, such as chimneys, may project an additional four (4) vertical feet from the roof surface.
Non-exempt vertical projections (e.g., roofs pitched less than 4:12, decks, railings, etc.) may
extend up to six (6) vertical feet above the maximum wall plate height if the projection is
DocuSign Envelope ID: C2B7C75A-907A-4E44-8395-DD44254F0C59
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Leighton Residence
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA21-000237, V-A, SME
Report of December 14, 2021 Page 6 of 15
D_Leighton Residence_FINAL
stepped back one-and-a-half (1.5) horizontal feet from each minimum building setback line for
each one (1) vertical foot above the maximum wall plate height.
Wall plates supporting a primary roof surface that has only one (1) sloping plane (e.g., shed
roof) may exceed the stated maximum if the average of wall plate heights is equal or less than
the maximum wall plate height allowed.
Staff Comment: Within the Shoreline Residential Designation (RMC 4-3-090D.7.a), a maximum
building coverage of 25% and a maximum impervious surface coverage of 50% is permitted. The
proposed residence would have a building footprint that totals 2,910.8 sq. ft., which would result
in a building coverage of 9.9% on the 29,236 sq. ft. project site and would comply with the
building coverage requirements in the R-8 zone and Shoreline Residential Designation.
The proposed project would result in a total impervious surface coverage of 10,100.7 sq. ft.,
which would result in a total impervious surface coverage of 34.5% on the 29,236 sq. ft. project
site, which would be less than the maximum impervious surface coverage requirements of the
R-8 zone and Shoreline Residential Designation.
The proposed residence would have a pitched roof with a maximum height of 29’-2 1/8” and two
(2) stories, which would comply with the maximum height requirements permitted in the R -8
zone and Shoreline Residential Designation.
Compliance
not yet
demonstrated
Landscaping: The City’s landscape regulations (RMC 4-4-070) require ten feet (10') of on-site
landscaping is along all public street frontages, with the exception of areas for required
walkways and driveways and those zones with building setbacks less than ten feet (10'). In those
cases, ten feet (10') of landscaping shall be required where buildings are not located. Any
additional undeveloped right-of-way areas shall be landscaped unless otherwise determined by
the Administrator. Where there is insufficient right-of-way space or no public frontage, street
trees are required in the front yard subject to approval of the Administrator. A minimum of two
trees are to be located in the front yard prior to final inspection for the new S ingle-Family
Residence.
Staff Comment: The project site does not have frontage along a public right -of-way and would
therefore not be required to provide the onsite ten (10)-foot landscape strip. Two (2) trees would
be required to be provided within the front yard area of the proposed residence. A conceptual
landscape plan was not included with the project application materials. Compliance with this
requirement would be verified at the time of Building Permit Review.
Compliance
not yet
demonstrated
Tree Retention: The City’s adopted Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations (4-4-130)
require the retention of 30 percent of trees in a residential development.
Significant trees shall be retained in the following priority order:
Priority One: Landmark trees; significant trees that form a continuous canopy; significant trees
on slopes greater than twenty percent (20%); significant trees adjacent to critical areas and their
associated buffers; and significant trees over sixty feet (60') in height or greater than eighte en
inches ( 18") caliper.
Priority Two: Healthy tree groupings whose associated undergrowth can be preserved; other
significant native evergreen or deciduous trees; and other significant non- native trees.
Priority Three: Alders and cottonwoods shall be retained when all other trees have been
evaluated for retention and are not able to be retained, unless the alders and/ or cottonwoods
are used as part of an approved enhancement project within a critical area or its buffer.
A minimum tree density shall be maintained on each residentially zoned lot. For detached
single-family development, the minimum tree density is two (2) significant trees for every five
thousand (5,000) square feet. The tree density may consist of existing trees, replacement trees,
trees required pursuant to RMC 4-4-070F1, Street Frontage Landscaping Required, or a
combination.
DocuSign Envelope ID: C2B7C75A-907A-4E44-8395-DD44254F0C59
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Leighton Residence
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA21-000237, V-A, SME
Report of December 14, 2021 Page 7 of 15
D_Leighton Residence_FINAL
Staff Comment: An Arborist Report prepared by Lonnson Arbor Care, dated May 21, 2021
(Exhibit 9) was included with the project application materials. There are seven (7) trees located
on the project site. Of the seven (7) existing trees two (2) have been identified as diseased and
were not included as significant trees. Of the five (5) remaining trees, two (2) are located within
the twenty-five (25)-foot shoreline setback area. Based on the thirty percent (30%) retention
requirement within the R-8 zone, the applicant would be required to retain 1.5 or two (2) trees.
All of the existing trees are located within or adjacent to the proposed building footprint and
would not be suitable for retention. To comply with the tree retention requirements, the
applicant would be required to plant twelve (12), minimum two (2)-inch caliper or six (6)-foot
tall evergreen trees on the project site.
A minimum tree density of two (2) trees per 5,000 sq. ft. of lot area is required within the R -8
zone. Based on a lot size of 29,236 sq. ft., the project site would be required to provide a total of
six (6) trees on the project site to comply with the minimum required tree density. The trees that
would be required to be retained or replaced for compliance with the tree retention requirement
may be counted towards the minimum tree density requireme nts.
Compliance with this requirement would be demonstrated at the time of Building Permit Review.
✓
Parking: Parking regulations require that a minimum of two parking spaces be provided for
each detached dwelling.
Driveway cuts are required to be a minimum of 5 feet from property lines and new driveways
may be a maximum of 16 feet in width at the property line. Maximum driveway slopes shall not
exceed fifteen percent (15%); provided, that driveways exceeding eight percent (8%) shall
provide slotted drains at the lower end with positive drainage discharge to restrict runoff from
entering the garage/residence or crossing any public sidewalk.
Staff Comment: The proposal would include sufficient area to provide the required two (2) onsite
parking spaces. According to the submitted site plan (Exhibit 2), the topography of the proposed
driveway would be flat and would not exceed the fifteen percent (15%) maximum permitted
slope.
16. Design Standards: Residential Design and Open Space Standards (RMC 4-2-115) are applicable in the R-4,
R-6, R-8 zone. The Standards implement policies established in the Land Use Element of the
Comprehensive Plan. Compliance with Site Design Standards must be demonstrated prior to approval of
the subdivision. Compliance with Residential Design Standards would be verified prior to issuance of the
building permit for the new single-family homes. The proposal is consistent with the following design
standards, unless noted otherwise:
Compliance Design Standards R-8 and Analysis
N/A
Lot Configuration: One of the following is required of preliminary plat applications:
1. Lot width variation of 10 feet (10’) minimum of one per four (4) abutting street-
fronting lots, or
2. Minimum of four (4) lot sizes (minimum of four hundred (400) gross square
feet size difference) for street-fronting lots, or
3. A front yard setback variation of at least five feet (5’) minimum for at least
every four (4) abutting street fronting lots.
Staff Comment: Not applicable, no new lots are proposed.
N/A Lots shall be configured to achieve both of the following:
DocuSign Envelope ID: C2B7C75A-907A-4E44-8395-DD44254F0C59
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Leighton Residence
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA21-000237, V-A, SME
Report of December 14, 2021 Page 8 of 15
D_Leighton Residence_FINAL
1. The location of stormwater infiltration LID facilities is optimized,
consistent with the Surface Water Design Manual. Building and property
line setbacks are specified in the Surface Water Design Manual for
infiltration facilities.
2. Soils with good infiltration potential for stormwater management are
preserved to the maximum extent practicable as defined by the Surface
Water Design Manual.
Staff Comment: The proposal would direct discharge into Lake Washington.
✓
Garages: If an attached garage is wider than twenty six feet (26’), at least one (1) garage
door shall be recessed a minimum of four feet (4’) from the other garage door.
Additionally, one of the following is required:
1. The front porch projects in front of the garage a minimum of five feet (5’),
and is a minimum of twelve feet (12’) wide, or
2. The roof extends at least five feet (5’) (not including eaves) beyond the
front of the garage for at least the width of the garage plus the porch/stoop
area, or
3. The garage is alley accessed, or
4. The garage entry does not face a public and/or private street or an access
easement, or
5. The garage width represents no greater than fifty percent (50%) of the
width of the front façade at ground level, or
6. The garage is detached, or
7. The garage doors contain a minimum of thirty percent (30%) glazing,
architectural detailing (e.g. trim and hardware), and are recessed from the
front façade a minimum of five feet (5’), and from the front porch a
minimum of seven feet (7’).
Staff Comment: The proposed garage would have a width of fifteen (15) feet, and would
comprise forty percent (40%) of the thirty seven and a half (37.5’)-foot ground floor
façade, which complies with option five (5) above.
✓
Primary Entry: The entry shall include a porch or stoop with a minimum depth of five
feet (5') and minimum height of twelve inches (12") above grade.
Exception: in cases where accessibility (ADA) is a priority, an accessible route may be
taken from a front driveway.
Staff Comment: The primary building entrance would have a depth of eleven (11) feet,
three (3) inches, and would exceed the minimum depth required of five feet (5’). There
are five (5) proposed steps leading up to the porch, which would exceed the minimum
required height of twelve inches (12") above grade.
✓
Facade Modulation: One of the following is required:
1. An offset of at least one story that is at least ten feet (10') wide and two feet
(2') in depth on facades visible from the street, or
DocuSign Envelope ID: C2B7C75A-907A-4E44-8395-DD44254F0C59
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Leighton Residence
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA21-000237, V-A, SME
Report of December 14, 2021 Page 9 of 15
D_Leighton Residence_FINAL
2. At least two feet (2') offset of second story from first story on one street facing
facade.
Staff Comment: The front façade, facing Mountain View Ave N, includes modulations
that would comply with the ten- foot (10’) by two- foot (2’) dimensional requirements
to add visual interest to this elevation.
Compliant of
condition of
approval is
met
Windows and Doors: Windows and doors shall constitute twenty-five percent (25%) of
all facades facing street frontage or public spaces.
Staff Comment: The south façade (facing Mountain View Ave NE) and the west façade
(facing Lake Washington) would be facades facing public spaces. The east-facing façade
could be considered to front a public spaces as this façade would face the existing trail
located on the King County Parks-owned property. However, the elevation of the
residence at this location would sit ten feet (10’) lower than the elevation of the trail. In
addition, mature vegetation exists on the King County Parks property between the
property line and the trail. The combination of the existing vegetation as well as the
elevation difference would result in this elevation being screened from public view and
would not require window and door opening. The applicant did not provide calculations
demonstrating that the south and west building elevations would include windows and
doors that constitute twenty-five percent (25%) of the façade. Staff recommends, as a
condition of approval, that the applicant demonstrate, as the time of Building Permit
Review, that the south and west facades include windows and doors openings that
constitute twenty-five percent (25%) of these facades or this element is satisfied via the
guidelines of the section as determined by the Current Planning Project Manager.
N/A
Scale, Bulk, and Character: A variety of elevations and models that demonstrate a
variety of floor plans, home sizes, and character shall be used. All of the following are
required:
1. A variety of elevations and models that demonstrate a variety of home sizes,
character, and a diverse streetscape.
2. Abutting, adjacent, and diagonal houses must have differing architectural
elevations.
Staff Comment: Not applicable, as no subdivision is proposed.
N/A
Roofs: A variety of roof forms appropriate to the style of the home shall be used.
Staff Comment: Not applicable, as no subdivision is proposed.
✓
Eaves: Both of the following are required:
1. Eaves projecting from the roof of the entire building at leasttwelve
inches (12") with horizontal fascia or fascia gutter at lest five inches
(5") deep on the face of all eaves, and
2. Rakes on gable ends must extend a minimum of two inches (2")
from the surface of exterior siding materials.
Staff Comment: The proposed residence includes eaves that would project a minimum
of twelve inches (12") with horizontal fascia at least five inches (5") in depth.
DocuSign Envelope ID: C2B7C75A-907A-4E44-8395-DD44254F0C59
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Leighton Residence
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA21-000237, V-A, SME
Report of December 14, 2021 Page 10 of 15
D_Leighton Residence_FINAL
Compliant if
condition of
approval is
met
Architectural Detailing: If one siding material is used on any side of the dwelling that is
two stories or greater in height, a horizontal band that measures at least eight (8)
inches (8”) is required between the first and second story.
Additionally, one of the following is required:
1. Three and one half inch (3 1/2") minimum trim surrounds all windows and
details all doors, or
2. A combination of shutters and three and one half inches (3 1/2") minimum
trim details all windows, and three and one half inches (3 1/2") minimum
trim details all doors.
Staff Comment: Trim is proposed around all window and door openings. The east façade
has a long expanse that does not include window or door openings, to break up this
façade, staff recommends, as a condition of approval that a revised elevation of the
east façade be provided at the time of Building Permit Review. This revised elevation
shall include a horizontal band that measures at least eight inches (8") between the first
and second story or this element is satisfied via the guidelines of the section as
determined by the Current Planning Project Manager.
N/A
Materials and Color: For subdivisions and short plats, abutting homes shall be of
differing color. Color palettes for all new dwellings, coded to the home elevations, shall
be submitted for approval.
Additionally, one of the following is required:
1. A minimum of two (2) colors is used on the home (body with different color
trim is acceptable), or
2. A minimum of two (2) differing siding materials (horizontal siding and shingles,
siding and masonry or masonry-like material, etc.) is used on the home. One
alternative siding material must comprise a minimum of thirty percent (30%)
of the street facing facade. If masonry siding is used, it shall wrap the corners
no less than twenty-four inches (24").
Staff Comment: Not applicant, no subdivision is proposed.
17. Critical Areas: Project sites which contain critical areas are required to comply with the Critical Areas
Regulations (RMC 4-3-050). The proposal is consistent with the Critical Areas Regulations, if all conditions
of approval are complied with:
Compliance Critical Areas Analysis
✓
Geologically Hazardous Areas: Based upon the results of a geotechnical report and/or
independent review, conditions of approval for developments may include buffers and/or
setbacks from buffers. A standard 15-foot building setback is required for all structures from
Protected Slope areas.
A 50-foot buffer and 15-foot building setback are required from Very High Landslide Hazard
Areas.
Staff Comment: A high and moderate landslide hazard area, and sensitive slopes (slopes
with grades between 25 and 40 percent) are mapped on the project site. Due to the
DocuSign Envelope ID: C2B7C75A-907A-4E44-8395-DD44254F0C59
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Leighton Residence
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA21-000237, V-A, SME
Report of December 14, 2021 Page 11 of 15
D_Leighton Residence_FINAL
18.
Variance Analysis: The applicant is requesting an administrative side yard setback variance from the east
property, the proposed setback would range from 0 feet to 3 feet, 9 inches. The proposal is compliant
with the following variance criteria, pursuant to RMC 4-9-250.B.5. Therefore, staff recommends approval
of the requested variance.
Compliance Variance Criteria and Analysis
✓
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 applicant contends that they suffer practical difficulties due to the shape of
the lot and the presence of a Shoreline of the State (Lake Washington) along the west property
line. The project site is a narrow rectangular shaped lot with the westerly property line abutting
Lake Washington and a depth of approximately 61 feet. In accordance with RMC 4-3-090D.7.a,
a total twenty-five (25)-foot setback (ten (10)-foot wide conservation buffer plus a fifteen (15)-
foot building setback) from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of Lake Washington (west
property line) is required as the property has a lot depth less than 100 feet. The front yard area
of the lot would be oriented towards the south, facing Mountain View Ave N, with the rear yard
along the north property line and the side yard along the east property line.
The existing single-family residence located on the project site, proposed for to be removed, is
non-conforming with respect to the required twenty-five (25)-foot shoreline setback. The existing
deck structure is setback nine (9) feet, two (2) inches from the OHWM and the existing residence
is setback approximately sixteen (16) feet from the OHWM. The proposed structure is a two
story, 3-bedroom Single Family Residence with 3,937.8 sq. ft. of living space, a 322.2 sq. ft.
garage, 272.3 sq. ft. deck, and a 658.8 sq. ft. terraced patio. While the proposed residence would
not be located within the Shoreline setback area, a portion of the proposed deck would extend
into the shoreline setback, in the location of the footprint of the existing single-family residence.
mapped landslide hazards and sensitive slopes, the applicant submitted a Geotechnical
Report prepared by Geotech Consultants, dated March 2, 2020 (Exhibit 5) with the
project application materials.
According to the submitted report, sub-surface explorations were conducted onsite
through the excavation of two (2) test pits. Test pit 1 was excavated on the
southwestern corner of the project site. Soils within this pit were comprised of loose,
uncompacted silty sand fill that contains chunks of concrete. Below this was another
two (2) feet of loose, gravelly sand that appears to be old lake sediments. At a depth of
approximately four (4) feet, dense, silty sand was encountered that appears to have
been glacially compressed. Test pit 2 was excavated to the northeast of the existing
residence. This exploration also encountered fill within the first two (2) feet of soil,
however chunks of concrete were not present. The underlying soils were similar to soils
encountered in test pit 1.
The geotech report concluded that the onsite soils were sufficient to support the
construction of a single-family residence with conventional foundations and floor slabs
and would not be subject to liquefaction. The report also analyzed the onsite sensitive
slope areas and did not recommend any buffers or building setbacks from the slope.
Additionally, the report did not identify any landslide hazard mitigation needed with
the project scope.
DocuSign Envelope ID: C2B7C75A-907A-4E44-8395-DD44254F0C59
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Leighton Residence
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA21-000237, V-A, SME
Report of December 14, 2021 Page 12 of 15
D_Leighton Residence_FINAL
At its most non-conforming point, the proposed deck would maintain a setback of sixteen (16)
feet, ten (10) inches from the OHWM within the original footprint of the single-family residence.
To accommodate an increased setback from the shoreline for the proposed residence, and in
accordance with RMC 4-3-090D.7.a which states that “a zoning variance from the front and side
yard standards may be granted administratively if needed to meet the established shoreline
buffer or setback from OHWM”, the applicant is proposing to shift the residence to the east,
further away from Lake Washington, and into the required five (5)-foot side yard setback the
proposed setback would range from 0 feet to 3 feet, 9 inches.
Staff has reviewed the request and concurs that practical difficulties exist due to the narrow
shape of the lot and the required twenty-five (25)-foot setback required from Lake Washington.
In addition, the proposal to shift the residence to the east outside of the required shoreline
setback would make it difficult to accommodate the proposed residence outside of all required
setback areas. Moreover, in accordance with the Shoreline Non-Conforming Regulations for
single family residences (RMC 4-10-095F.2) alterations or replacement of lawfully-constructed
single-family homes, their appurtenances, and impervious area built or installed before the
adoption of the Shoreline Master Program (October 24, 2011) subject to certain compliance
standards. The proposal would result in the addition of more than 1,000 sq. ft. of building
footprint, and would therefore be considered a major alteration or an existing non -conforming
single-family residence. A major alteration is required to Install site improvements that protect
the ecological functions and processes of the shoreline, consisting of either:
1. Full compliance with Vegetation Conservation provisions of RMC 4-3-090F1, Vegetation
Conservation, consisting of revegetation of a native community of the full required*
buffer, or 100% of the area between an existing building and the water’s edge if the full
buffer cannot be planted, or
2. An alternate mitigation proposal prepared by a qualified professional and approved by
the Administrator that would provide at least equal protection of ecological functions
and processes as the full required* setback and buffer.
The submitted Lake Study and planting plan (Exhibit 6) includes the installation of the full ten
(10)-foot vegetation conservation buffer along the Lake Washington shoreline, except for in
areas where there is an existing patio or boat ramp access to Lake Washington. In addition, the
submitted Lake Study (Exhibit 6) concluded that the proposed plantings within the Vegetation
Conservation buffer would result in an enhancement of ecological functions on the project site.
Compliant if
condition of
approval is
met
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 requested variance would not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties in the vicinity. To comply with
the code required twenty-five (25)-foot shoreline setback, the applicant is requesting a side yard
setback variance that would range from zero (0) feet to three (3) feet, nine (9) inches. The
exterior walls and roof within this side yard setback would be fire-rated to meet current code
standards and have no openings. At the location of the zero (0) foot setback, the structure would
not have eaves projecting over the property line. Maintenance and construction would be
completed with as minimal impact to the neighboring property to the east as possible and any
disturbance to the groundcover would be replaced and replanted. The abutting property to the
east is owned by the King County Parks Department. The project site sits at an elevation ten (10)
feet lower than the King County property (Exhibits 2 and 7). The project site is also fourteen (14)
feet lower than Lake Washington Blvd (Exhibits 2 and 7), which is to the east of the King County
Parks property, and approximately twenty-eight (28) feet lower than the nearest existing single-
family residence uphill of the project site, which is located approximately 140 feet to the east.
Construction and maintenance at the property line will not disturb the functionality of the
adjacent property. There are not anticipated to be any direct impact to views of uphill residential
uses from the proposal.
DocuSign Envelope ID: C2B7C75A-907A-4E44-8395-DD44254F0C59
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Leighton Residence
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA21-000237, V-A, SME
Report of December 14, 2021 Page 13 of 15
D_Leighton Residence_FINAL
Staff has reviewed the request and concurs that the requested side yard setback reduction is not
anticipated to adversely impact other properties in the vicinity. Staff received no comments from
the King County Parks Department during the 14-day public comment period. To ensure that the
applicant has permission to encroach on the King County Parks property during construction of
the proposed residence, staff recommends, as a condition of approval that the applicant obtain
a temporary construction easement from the King County Parks Department prior to the
issuance of a Building Permit.
Staff did receive one (1) public comment (Exhibit 10) with regards to public access during the 14-
day public comment period. In addition, based on the exhibit included with the comments, it
appears that the comment applies to an area of publicly-owned right-of-way that extends to the
shoreline to the south of the project site and does not apply to the subject property. Public access
is not a requirement across residentially-zoned properties under the City’s Shoreline Master
Program, therefore, public access would not be required on the applicant’s property (RMC 4-3-
090D.4.b).
✓
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 the approval would not constitute a grant of special
privilege. The requested variance would not adversely impact views or accessibility of any
neighboring properties. The applicant further contends that n eighboring properties in the area,
particularly the single-family residences south of the project site typically averages around 4,000
sq. ft. of living space with many going upwards of 4,800 sq. ft. The proposed design, which
includes 3,937.8 sq. ft. of living space, would be consistent in the size and design of the
neighborhood and surrounding properties.
Staff has reviewed the request and concurs that the requested side yard setback variance would
not be a grant of special privilege. There are neighboring properties to the south of the project
site that have single-family residences constructed with reduce front or side yard setbacks (see
Exhibit 11). In addition, the applicants’ proposal to shift the residence to the east, away from the
Lake Washington shoreline would be consistent with the intent of the City’s Shoreline Master
Program, which allows the City to consider front and side yard setback variances in exchange for
a larger setback from the shoreline (RMC 4-3-090D.7.a).
✓
d. That the approval is a minimum variance that will accomplish the desired purpose .
Staff Comment: The applicant contends that the requested side yard setback variance is the
minimum necessary to accomplish to desired purpose of constructing a single-family residence
in the subject property that meets the needs of the property owners and accommodates the
required twenty-five (25)-foot setback from the shoreline.
Staff has reviewed the request and concurs that th e requested side yard setback variance is the
minimum necessary to allow the applicant to construct a single-family residence on the narrow
upland portion of the project site. The requested variance would allow the applicant to construct
a residence with an adequate width as well as accommodating the required shoreline setback.
G. CONCLUSIONS:
1. The subject site is located in the Residential Medium Density (MD) Comprehensive Plan designation and
complies with the goals and policies established with this designation, see FOF 6.
2. The subject site is at 3307 Mountain View Ave N (parcel no. 3124059077) located in the Residential-8 (R-
8) zoning designation and complies with the zoning and development standards established with this
designation provided the applicant complies with City Code and conditions of approval, see FOF 15.
DocuSign Envelope ID: C2B7C75A-907A-4E44-8395-DD44254F0C59
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Leighton Residence
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA21-000237, V-A, SME
Report of December 14, 2021 Page 14 of 15
D_Leighton Residence_FINAL
3. The proposed residence complies with the Residential Design and Open Space standards provided the
applicant complies with City Code and conditions of approval, see FOF 16.
4. The proposed variance application complies with the Critical Areas Regulations provided the applicant
complies with City Code and conditions of approval, see FOF 17.
5. The requested variance 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 18.
H. DECISION:
The Leighton Residence, File No. LUA21-000237, V-A, SME, as depicted in Exhibit 3, is approved and is subject
to the following conditions:
1. The ten (10)-foot vegetation conservation buffer as depicted in Exhibit 6 shall be planted prior to issuance
of a final building inspection for the proposed residence.
2. The applicant shall provide calculations at the time of building permit review, that demonstrate the south
and west facades include windows and doors openings that constitute twenty-five percent (25%) of these
facades or this element is satisfied via the guidelines of the section as determined by the Current Planning
Project Manager.
3. A revised architectural elevation of the east façade shall be provided at the time of Building Permit Review.
This revised elevation shall include a horizontal band that measures at least eight inches (8") between the
first and second story or this element is satisfied via the guidelines of the section as determined by the
Current Planning Project Manager.
4. The applicant shall obtain a temporary construction easement from the King County Parks Department
prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
DATE OF DECISION ON LAND USE ACTION:
SIGNATURE:
Vanessa Dolbee, Planning Director Date
TRANSMITTED on December 14, 2021 to the Owner/Applicant/Contact:
Owner: Applicant: Contact:
Lisa and Steve Leighton
3307 Mountain View Ave N
Renton, WA 98056
Heidi Helgeson
H2D Architecture and Design
23020 Edmonds Way, Suite 113
Edmonds, WA 98020
Lisa Montalvo
H2D Architecture and Design
23020 Edmonds, Way, Suite 113
Edmonds, WA 98020
TRANSMITTED on December 14, 2021 to the Parties of Record:
Marlene Winter
2731 Mountain View Ave N
Renton, WA 98056
marlene@marlenewinter.com
DocuSign Envelope ID: C2B7C75A-907A-4E44-8395-DD44254F0C59
12/14/2021 | 12:48 PM PST
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Leighton Residence
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA21-000237, V-A, SME
Report of December 14, 2021 Page 15 of 15
D_Leighton Residence_FINAL
David Malik
kennydaltown@gmail.com
TRANSMITTED on December 14, 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
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 December 28, 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 the ongoing state of emergency enacted by
Governor’s Proclamation 20-05, the City Clerk’s Office is working remotely. For that reason, appeals must be
submitted electronically to the City Clerk at cityclerk@rentonwa.gov or delivered to City Hall 1st floor Lobby Hub
only on Tuesdays and/or Wednesdays. The appeal fee, normally due at the time an appeal is submitted, will be
collected at a future date if your appeal is submitted electronically. 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.
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: C2B7C75A-907A-4E44-8395-DD44254F0C59
CITY OF RENTON
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT & DECISION
EXHIBITS
Project Name:
Leighton Residence
Land Use File Number:
LUA21-000237, V-A, SME
Date of Report
December 14, 2021
Staff Contact
Jill Ding
Senior Planner
Project Contact/Applicant
Lisa Montalvo
H2D Architecture and Design
23020 Edmonds, Way, Suite
113, Edmonds, WA 98020
Project Location
3307 Mountain View Ave
N (parcel no. 3124059077)
The following exhibits are included with the Administrative report:
Exhibit 1: Administrative Decision
Exhibit 2: Site Plan
Exhibit 3: Architectural Plan Set
Exhibit 4: Building Renderings
Exhibit 5: Geotechnical Report prepared by Geotech Consultants, dated March 2, 2020
Exhibit 6: Lake Study prepared by Altman Oliver and Associates, LLC, dated December 13, 2018
Exhibit 7: Variance Justification
Exhibit 8: Project Narrative
Exhibit 9: Arborist Report prepared by Lonnson Arbor Care, dated May 21, 2021
Exhibit 10: Public Comment and City Response
Exhibit 11: Aerial Photo of Project Vicinity
Exhibit 12: Site Photographs
DocuSign Envelope ID: C2B7C75A-907A-4E44-8395-DD44254F0C59
Exhibit B
Parks and Recreation Division
Department of Natural Resources and Parks
King Street Center, KSC-NR-0700
201 South Jackson Street
Seattle, WA 98104-3855
206-477-4527 Fax 206-588-8011
TTY Relay: 711
www.kingcounty.gov/parks
December 15, 2021
Jill Ding
City of Renton
1055 S Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
RE: Project Number: LUA21-00237 – 3307 Mountain View Ave N, Renton, WA
Dear Ms. Ding,
King County Parks would like to take this opportunity to respond to the Notice of Application
for the above referenced project number. The application is requesting a setback variance from
the east property which would range from zero feet to 3 feet 9 inches. The applicant recently
submitted plans to King County in support of a Special Use Permit and upon review, King
County has concluded that it cannot issue the permit due to the proximity of the proposed single-
family residence to the Eastrail. The location of the new residence is at a zero-side yard property
line which interferes with the future development of the Eastrail. Also, any maintenance of the
residence at the zero-side yard will consistently require access onto King County property.
Therefore, King County cannot support the issuance of a Special Use Permit for this residence as
designed nor will it support the reduction of the city required land use setbacks to zero lot lines
and we would also ask that the City uphold the zoning setback requirements.
King County and our other current easement holders anticipate the need to use the full width of
our 30-foot-wide rail corridor at this location in our future development of the Eastrail project. If
you have any questions, please contact Patty Ruiz via email at paruiz@kingcounty.gov our Real
Property Agent on Eastrail.
Thank you,
Frank D. Overton
Capital Improvement Program Section Manager; King County DNRP
Cc: Patty Ruiz – Real Property Agent IV, King County DNRP
Trishah Bull – Capital Planning Program Supervisor, King County DNRP
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3F1C9FDE-8EDF-4C48-9499-4A2193B60DDB
Exhibit C
December 21, 2021
Frank Overton
King County Parks and Recreation
201 S Jackson St
Seattle, WA 98104
SUBJECT: Reconsideration of the Leighton Administrative Setback Variance (LUA21-000237, V-A)
Dear Mr. Overton:
We received your timely request for reconsideration with regard to the Leighton Administrative Setback
Variance. The Leighton Administrative Setback Variance approved a side yard setback reduction from
the required five (5)-foot setback (RMC 4-2-110A) to a side yard setback that would range from zero (0)
feet to three (3) feet, nine (9) inches with four (4) conditions of approval. Condition #4 states “4. The
applicant shall obtain a temporary construction easement from the King County Parks Department prior
to the issuance of a Building Permit.” In your request, you note that a Special Use Permit was requested
from King County for temporary construction access for the construction of the proposed single -family
residence. The requested Special Use Permit was denied by King County Parks as it was determined that
full use of the trail corridor would be anticipated at a later date. You further request that the requested
setback variance be denied and that the required five (5)-foot zoning setback be upheld.
Staff has reviewed the request, as King County Parks has denied the applicant’s application for a Special
Use Permit, it would seem that Condition #4 is not applicable and should be stricken from the decision.
With regards to the requested denial of the setback variance, City staff have been in contact with the
applicant’s architect to determine the minimum setback that could accommodate the proposed
residence, while not impacting the abutting King County Parks property. The applicant contends that an
eighteen (18)-inch setback would allow for the construction of the proposed residence without impacing
King County Parks property. The boundary between the applicant’s property and the abuting King County
Parks property is similar to the boundary between a private lot and a public sidewalk. In accordance with
RMC 4-6-060, a two (2)-foot setback is required between the back of sidewalk and the property line,
therefore, staff concludes that minimum two (2)-foot setback would provide adequate separation
between the proposed residence and eastern property line.
Recipient
Page 2 of 2
December 21, 2021
In addition, RMC 4-2-110E.4 includes allowed projections into setbacks, however as this Administrative
Setback Variance allows the residence to project into the required side yard setback, staff recommends
that all aspects of the home (i.e. eves, bay windows, fire place structures, etc.) be required to comply
with the two (2)-foot setback.
Decision: Therefore, Condition #4 of the Leighton Residence Administrative Variance, LUA21-000237
should be removed. In addition, the Leighton Residence Administrative Variance, LUA21-000237, should
be amended to approve a side yard setback variance from the east property line that would range from
two (2) feet to three (3) feet, nine (9) inches and that all aspects of the home would be required to
comply with the minimum two (2)-foot setback.
This decision to amend the original Leighton Residence Administrative Variance Decision is subject to a
14-day appeal period. The above decision will become final if not appealed in writing together with the
required fee to: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 by 5:00
pm on Tuesday, January 4, 2022. RMC 4-8-110 governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner and additional
information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk’s Of fice, Renton City Hall
- 7th Floor, CityClerk@rentonwa.gov or (425) 430-6510.
Sincerely,
Vanessa Dolbee
Planning Director
cc: C.E. “Chip” Vincent, CED Administrator
Matthew Herrera, Current Planning Manager
Jill Ding, Senior Planner
Steve and Lisa Leighton / Owners
Heidi Helgeson, H2D Architecture and Design / Applicant
Lisa Montalvo, H2D Architecture and Design / Contact
Parties of Record
Exhibit D
APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT
Applicant/organization name:
Mailing address:
City: Zip: Telephone: (Day) (Eve)
E-mail address: Fax:
Agent for applicant:
Mailing address:
City: Zip: Telephone: (Day) (Eve)
E-mail address: Fax:
Location/address of proposed use/alteration (include vicinity map, showing cross-streets):
Parcel Number: Section: Township: Range: Kroll Page:
Precise description of proposed use/alteration (Be specific, attach additional pages if necessary)
Proposed start date and end date of project: Begin End
Public Private Is the proposed use/alteration for public or private purposes?
Yes No Is the proposed use/alteration for commercial purposes?
Yes No Does the proposed use/alteration provide a mutual benefit for King County?
If yes, please explain.
Yes No Are there any Local, County, State or Federal permit applications pending?
If yes, please list permit or application numbers:
Yes No Are there any known sensitive areas, drainage features, erosion problems or
unique site conditions in or near the proposed use?
If yes, please explain.
Signature of Applicant: Date:
RENTON WA 98056W
76023245
MDE DNO
43
A
2 3
H D
020 EDMONDS Y
,9 8 0 2 0
P
DATE: 9/23/2021
ihwwcd2 mewco
A R C H I ET C T U R E
D E S I G N
+
a r h t c t s
S
WA ,#113LEIGHTON RESIDENCEPERMIT SET
2 3307 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE NHEIDI MICHELLE HELGESON
STATE OF WASHINGTON
9716 REGISTERED
ARCHITECT
02
SITE PLAN20'-0"REQ'D FRONT YARD SETBACK5'-
0
"
RE
Q
'
D
SI
D
E
Y
A
R
D 20'-0"REQ'D REAR YARD30
'
-
0
"
16'-
1
0
"61'-5 7/8"PROP'D REAR YARD187'-11"99'-0"61'-5 1/2"3'-1
0
1/2
"
1,726.29 sq ft
902.60 sq ft
281.86 sq ft
LTFIRE HYDRANT
26 343624
" CU
L
V
E
R
T
12" CU
L
V
E
R
T
S59°28'15
"E
P.L. = 11
9
.27'
N 58 °48 '51 "E
170 .30 '(FORMERLY NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD)BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROADEXI
S
T
I
N
G
DO
C
K
EXI
S
T
I
N
G
DO
C
K
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
DO
C
K
OHWM
3634323028323 0
28
2 6
2 4 20222 4
3230222026202224MOUNTAINVIEW AVE NN29°57'59"E P.L. = 319.19'S59°28'15
"E
P.L. = 60.98'N38°04'21"EWMSSCOWM9°46'23"R=1557.21L = 265.62PPG
A
T
ELAKE WASHINGTONLINE OF 25' SHORELINE SETBACKLINE OF OHWMLINE OF 25' SHORELINE SETBACKLINE OF EXISTING
FOOTPRINT
LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD3307
MOUNTAIN
VIEW AVE N
RENTON, WA 98056
ADDITION
REBUILD
OVER
PORTION OF
EXISTING
FOOTPRINT
LINE OF DEMO
OF EX DECK
AND STAIR
LINE OF DEMO
OF EX DECK
AND STAIR
LINE OF NEW
ON GRADE
PATIO AND
RETAINING
WALLS
DEMO
EXISTING
RETAINING
WALL AND ON
GRADE
PATIOS
EXISTING GRAVEL DRIVEWAYEX STAI
R EX STAIR EX RET.WALLEX RET.WALLDEMO
EXISTING
WALKWAYSEX PATIOEX PATIOLINE OF 10' VEGETATED BUFFERLINE OF 5' VEGETATEDBUFFER IN FRONT OFEXISTING RESIDENCEHATCH OF
PROPOSED
FOOTPRINT
EX 10.8"
SWEETGUM
EX 29.7"
AUSTRIAN
PINE
EX 12.6"
OREGON
ASH
DEMO EX
14.2" (2)
MAPLE
DEMO EX 11.6"
HONEY
LOCUST
EX 7.1"
HEMLOCK
DEMO EX 14.4"
SWEETGUM
PROPOSED 670SF
AREA OF SHORELINE
MITIGATION. DESIGN TO
BE SUBMITTED WITH
BUILDING PERMIT
APPLICATION
NEW DECKREBUILD
DEMO
EX SHED
DEMO EX
20.2" (3)
HORNBEAM
NEW 2" MIN
CALIPER
NATIVE
TREE (5)
NEW 2" MIN
CALIPER
NATIVE
TREE (4)
NEW 2" MIN
CALIPER
NATIVE TREE,
TYP (9)ACCESS EASEMENT PERRECORDING #200002220004705' WIDE AREA OF
TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION
ACCESS
N
SCALE: 1" = 20'
SITE PLAN
PROJECT INFORMATION
PROJECT OWNER:STEVE AND LISA LEIGHTON
3307 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE N
RENTON WA 98056
PROJECT ARCHITECT:
PROJECT DESIGNER:
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:NEW CUSTOM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
PROJECT ADDRESS:3307 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE N
TAX LOT NUMBER:3124059077
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:POR OF SE 1/4 31-24-05 DAF- COMM AT SE OF SD SEC 31 TH
N01-48-16E ALG EAST LN A DIST OF 1675.55 FT TH N 88-11-44 W
362.42 FT TO A CASED MONUMENT IN C/L OF LAKE WASH BLVD
TH S 61-20-10 W 152.90 FT TO NXN WITH A LN PLW & DIST 20.00
FT AS MEAS AT R/A FR THE C/L OF BN & SF RAILWAY CO
SEATTLE BELT LINE MAIN TRACK AS NOW LOCATED &
CONSTRUCTED UPON OVER AND ACROSS SD SEC 31 & THE TPOB
OF PARCEL HEREIN DESC - TH N 59-28-15 W A DIST OF 65.84 FT
TO NXN WITH SELY LN OF MOUNTAIN VIEW AVENUE TH N 22-57-59
E ALG SD SELY LN FOR A DIST OF 12.23 FT TH N 24-57-59 E ALG
SD SELY LN FOR A DIST OF 319.19 FT TH S 59-28-15 E 119.27 FT
TO NXN WITH SD PLL LN OF SD RAILWAY CO TH SWLY ALG SD
PLL LN OF SD RAILWAY CO BEING THE ARC OF A CRV HAVING A
RAD OF 1557.21 FT THRU A C/A OF 09-45-21 & ARC DIST OF
265.15 FT TH CONT ALG SD PLL LN OF SD RAILWAY CO TANGENT
TO PRECEDING CRV S 38-04-21 W FOR A DIST OF 65.36 FT TO
POB ACDG TO BDRY SURV UNDER REC NO 9904129002
LAND USE CODE COMPLIANCE STATISTICS
ZONE:R-8
LOT COVERAGE:LOT AREA:29,236 SF
EXISTING HOUSE TO BE DEMO'D:
EXISTING DECK TO BE DEMO'D:
NEW HOUSE OVER EXISTING FOOTPRINT:
NEW HOUSE OVER NEW FOOTPRINT:
TOTAL PROPOSED HOUSE FOOTPRINT:
NEW DECK OVER EXISTING FOOTPRINT:
PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE W/I 100' OF
OHWM:
ALLOWED LOT COVERAGE W/I 100' OF
OHWM:
(1393.2 SF)
(444.5 SF)
902.6 SF
1726.3 SF
2628.9 SF
281.9 SF
2910.8 SF (9.9%)
29236 SF X 25% = 7309 SF...OK
REQ'D SETBACKS:FRONT:
REAR SETBACK:
SIDE SETBACK:
SHORELINE BUFFER:
20'
20'
5'
25'
PARKING:2 PARKING SPACES PROVIDED
BUILDING HEIGHT
INFORMATION:
ALLOWED: MAXIMUM 2 STORIES
BUILDING HEIGHT LIMIT = 24' TO WALL PLATE, 30' MAX HEIGHT 4:12 AND
ABOVE PITCH ROOF
35' MAX HEIGHT PER RMC SECTION 4-3-090 TABLE 4-3-090D7a
REFER TO SHEET A2.0 AND A2.1 FOR DETAILED HEIGHT INFORMATION
HEIDI HELGESON
LISA MONTALVO
H2D ARCHITECTURE + DESIGN
23020 EDMONDS WAY, #113
EDMONDS, WA 98020
CRITICAL AREA:SHORELINE - LAKE WASHINGTON REACH D
LANDSLIDE HAZARD
REGULATED SLOPES
CIVIL ENGINEER:
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER:
AVERAGE GRADE ELEVATION
NORTH CORNER= 20.29+19.99/2 = 20.14
EAST CORNER= 25.22+26.1/2 = 25.41
SOUTH CORNER= 26.4+27.7 = 27.05
WEST CORNER= 20.0+21.05/2 = 20.52
20.14+25.41+27.05+20.52 = 93.12/4 = 23.28'
MAX T.O. PLATE =47.28'
MAX T.O. RIDGE = 53.28'
EXISTING GRAVEL DRIVEWAY TO REMAIN:
EXISTING CONCRETE STAIRS TO REMAIN:
EXISTING PATIO TO REMAIN:
NEW HOUSE & ROOF:
NEW DECK:
NEW PATIOS & STAIRS:
NEW WALKWAYS:
TOTAL PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS SURFACE:
TOTAL ALLOWED IMPERVIOUS SURFACE:
PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS SURFACE:
4859 SF
102.5 SF
915.2 SF
3441 SF
49.1 SF
603.4 SF
130.5 SF
10,100.7 SF (34.5%) ...OK
29236 SF X 50% = 14,618 SF...OK
TOTAL REPLACED IMP. SURFACE W/IN 25' SHORELINE BUFFER:
TOTAL PROPOSED IMP. SURFACE W/IN 25' SHORELINE BUFFER:
TOTAL NEW/REPLACED IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ON SITE:
EXISTING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE:
EXISTING GRAVEL DRIVEWAY:
EXISTING CONCRETE STAIRS:
EXISTING PATIO:
EXISTING WALKWAYS:
EXISTING HOUSE & ROOF:
EXISTING DECK:
TOTAL EX IMPERVIOUS SURFACE WITHIN 25' SHORELINE BUFFER:
TOTAL EXISTING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ON SITE:
5301 SF
102.5 SF
1449.4 SF
728.9 SF
1555.8 SF
245.7 SF
2,697.4 SF
9,383.3 SF
1,889.5 SF
404.2 SF
4,224 SF
NOTES:
1. REFER TO ARBORIST REPORT FOR TREE VIABILITY AND REMOVAL FOR TREES NOTED "DEMO"
2. INSTALL MINIMUM 36" TOTAL DIAMETER TREES TO COMPLY WITH TREE DENSITY
REQUIREMENTS. TREES TO BE NATIVE SPECIES MINIMUM 2" CALIPER DECIDUOUS OR CONIFER
TREE AT LEAST 6FT IN HEIGHT. SPECIES & LOCATIONS TO BE SUBMITTED WITH BUILDING
PERMIT APPLICATION. ALL VEGETATION TO BE SELECTED FROM THE KING COUNTY NATIVE
PLANT GUIDE.