The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLUA99-045yk..k L Xi 3 P h o}D offird 1 $ A V 14-a-mw s'ilssiq Irwin') ri1 OL. A4 • foe• PP AvJ 004v it)100Te r iV a , yJ7/ I.i- ?-: •i 4%. i.• = rty ,'r{ t . ice. F ice 4*fir;,: k.- i 1, r ;+ci f j f i A '.. , A..*'• 4. _ d 1 I I a 0th C.Entury Rastics woN6-1.4 vAitiiii4,1GE-1-800-767-0777 STOCK* PPV460-000 LvA gig -Got ili•A II 1 4 4., • 4. . 1141" 14los.%. 46.. t Z '' 41,7.44.. 4/1 i p., 40r, i tl.,.... • ' ' - 4, 4- . ;--, .- ele. I\ I\ le' . •,-. ; - • P' *A I b„,.: 1, il . 1:''''\'''t ' ti 4,044:.pk,,, 1 \ q ift:: 1' f..,„*.it .....0,4:It -.A0(4-17 7.70:7,.....;4-:,• ..t--A.,14 Ii. ott'll• ' s .I Ii.* - 1414 7".1!kvi.... • Li it 1--• ., ',.,I I i,14.iik -— v, s I — I'' r A 1 I . x c dig 4 i.---....,.....,-......-___a UNIMMINEW A1411DI . 10 th Century Plastics A V bet4M_8o* PPV4$o- q i+ '4sA v STOCK* PPV4d0-QpQ r i?" 1 4. •, ^ t 1t b1- A yi if +s s4 p."..4. .4 _, . . 04.,. . ..4.. : • , b... ...,_.,...,, ,...0,7..• ,,,..; ,' ..i.i.7..„ .......,, S. i,..,. .1„,,:...,..,:,,:oto:,....pf N f j i 1 _ - Tr. .i-1 p. „.-;'! . .. 6 4!, f....,,_ i 71 II 4.'• illie.-%---- Jii,-. . 40s.: .le "'ea" efis44,r .. 41r, ,.• -Al J 1 i./ .. .... ,.. ., .,. .• .. ........,. ..... ..„. e., ... .,... f ice`_ k . . 1 tomt. .4 G. k tY eJ yC jt t•.j y 1.- 4 III . 1 r i. 1 , t / J tj,•a file}'. Y i 3 )1.i.011s1AV 1.1 " 4 PIQW ataiter.19 illutna_) rii0•- tTNO-NON-006-t 01.4 4 la. %PP AIM 000-011AVIel af)100TO al i . es,kiir,IP. 4 * ( - .' .4s 7/ ii--- k i I" s-, .,, ...4..": - • , it‘.`• 44,4 okr-•i,'% -.s. At.. •.-. 0 -, ... •. t.-. 4 1•• q . . 0,Ni.. illi - P 4 A. ' 1 , • i slifit t.,„ , 34 .11 ' ••••'row ' , t 0 ' 'li",..t I 0 4-aaNiii2 u , lilt" ‘'4'‘ '' ' 4‘ of •.' . • i • 14. t 4 4... tir... 40 tili • ck' ,„ 't. i a VApit 1• / it etNIo' '4 T ii;.„,,,,c A •4. de, 4% !- 4‘404 •:. , .,\ ' .I' 24.t./Mik„,,t4ilo• V 40. i 1114' 1 '41,• """ r,,i N'",,*.•...YA- rtk .ifF I, r i •f.-ffro'‘,..y-:, 4ii• .4;.:" 0**-.. .44, N'--- . ''',11 C.•- , s. w • i , TP 114. i i' t is,•21%. •••••,.• mt.P o 11114-1V0e.A. i I I JR1110. , I o r,t-X ' I Iir •-• , 41 ' i/ I' •• ii tik o I It iitt.• .. ' di. I e• 414.if‘'.aL:.11 4., .. • it'..• . -4 . . li It 1411 A. ''91:;'''...` . 1 , AK L' 4h 1 40, ,. 1., i1, 7, .. . 0 v,i•:4.- • 4. v iiiik q1,•.. ./.... . 161, • - ; , . ,I- )IA fer t I 0 " • 1 . C•• lk•- i WI6 * ....e.AbA ......, 20th Century Piastic,. WON&-LA VARA^Nc G•1-800-767-0777 STOCK# PPV460-000 LiA dig. 00', V A Y y It ,, II I I i 1 P W lk,r t.....= Ai4;nietAti:‘ ,.. rt ." I t11t1e .f: KR 4 II ili II II r r I v- v, I I 74.41‘ I 4 Is C... a • . jigt •II, 4 4 p 1 . frik r t.111; ---- i1 14-- Ili Id IA .. . 1 4. . I'S 417,— ., k- . 4E.•mg. .4.... : e II I I Ill VI•e " • z, ti.'...` ' . • . ,t P . • ., I i 4 i flit I 4 1 elOCK4 hipA400-000 roV114%.00 A-V J-900-iel-0111 sow caufnal bill2fICe mofrie-ri Awisivoice AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. County of King MARILYN MOSES being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states: That on the 17th day of May ,j999, affiant deposited in the mail of the United States a sealed envelope(s)containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition. Signature: t. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this Mk'7t i day of in 9 1999. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at letiacyt,therein. Application, Petition, or Case No.: Appeal of Wong/Li Variance Denial LUA99-045,AAD The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record ACCIIIA\/IT (lc DI IDI Ir.ATI( Pd errr t• ra.r limo e*NO s 1 e`sa lb Charlotte Ann Kassens first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL 600 S. Washington Avenue, Kent, Washington 98032 NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING RENTON HEARING EXAMINER RENTON,WASHINGTON a daily newspaper published seven (7)times a week. Said newspaper is a legal An Appeal Hearing will be held by the newspaper of general publication and is now and has been for more than six months Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular prior to the date of publication, referred to, printed and published in the English language meeting in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall, 1055 So. Grady continually as a daily newspaper in Kent, King County, Washington. The South County Way, Renton, Washington, on April 27, Journal has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the 1999, at 9:00 AM to consider the following State of Washington for King County. APPEAL The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the South County WONG/LI VARIANCE Journal (and not in supplemental form)which was regularly distributed to the subscribers AAD-99-045 The appellant, Ken Wong, appeals the during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a denial of an administrative variance request for reduction of the required front A eal: Wong/Li Variance yard setback from 20 ft.to 14 ft. The pro- PP g posed project (File No. LUA-99-001,V-A) is for an addition to an existing residence. as published on: 4/16/99 Location:412 Windsor Way NE. Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the Development The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of$34.50, Services Division,sixth floor, City Hall. All charged to Acct. No. 8051067. interested persons to said petitions are 9 invited to be present at the Public Hearing. i ( Publication Date:April 16, 1999 Legal Number 5972 April blliishe dd9.in5t9h72South County Journal ga e , So h my Journa Subscribed and sworn before me on this day of41:11, 19 oo` 1maaao'fweoo`y F.1. F `_wr r;:• Notary Public of the State of Washington Q. , `,oja residing in Renton King County, Washington o— P e‘c c, 2 6 ..?'' a`` i7pu 91 L 1 1 0 0 a AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Charlotte Ann Kassens first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL 600 S. Washington Avenue, Kent, Washington 98032 NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING a daily newspaper published seven (7)times a week. Said newspaper is a legal RENTON HEARING EXAMINER newspaper of general publication and is now and has been for more than six months RENTON,WASHINGTON prior to the date ofpublication, referred to, printed andpublished in the English language Rn Appeal rng Hearing willExaminerb heldi eb the 9Renton Hearing at his regular continually as a daily newspaper in Kent, King County, Washington. The South County meeting in the Council Chambers on the Journal has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the seventh floor of City Hall, 1055 So. Grady StateWashington for KingCounty. Way, Renton, Washington. on April 20,of 1999. at 9:00 AM to consider the following The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the South County petition: Journal (and not in supplementalwhich was regularlydistributed to thesubscribersAPPEALform) WELLS AVE.TOWNHOME VARIANCES during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a AAD-99-040 The appellant, James Gorman. appeals Wells Ave. Townhome Variances the denial of an administrative variance for the Wells Ave.Townhomes project(File No. LUA-98-178,V-A). The proposed variance as published on: 4/9/99 was for reduction of the required 1A foot setback for side yards along streets, to six feet. Location:544 Wells Avenue N. The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of$37.38, Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the Development charged to Acct. No. 8051067. Services Division,sixth floor,City Hall. j i All interested persons to said petitions Legal Number 5941 f are invited to be present at the Public t Hearing. f Publication Date:April 9. 1999 Legal Clerk, Sout COu Journal 1 Published in the South County Journal gyApril 9, 1999.5941 Subscribed and sworn before me on this -day of Ra a 19 c Cl_Q-- -- 12diLleif-- s,a `_ `,' Notary Public of the State of Washington Cti.,,. v residing in Renton E.J 1^r King County, Washington o, Z. i y .•. 2 5 2 •era 7,P 1 eALE10`, °' HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT May 17, 1999 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPELLANT: Ken Wong Administrative Appeal re Denial of Variance File No.: LUA99-040,AAD LOCATION: 412 Windsor Way NE SUMMARY OF APPEAL: Appeals denial of variance for front yard setback PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Appellant's written request for a hearing and examining the available information on file,the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The,following minutes are a summary of the April 27, 1999 hearing. The official record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday,April 27, 1999,at 9:05 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the appeal,Exhibit No.2: Land use file LUA98-178,V-A(by proof of posting and publication, and other reference) documentation pertinent to the appeal. Exhibit No.3: Photographs Exhibit No. 4: Letter from appellant to Ms. Nishihira dated January 7, 1999 Parties present: Ken Wong,Appellant 412 Windsor Way NE Renton, WA 98056 Representing City of Renton Larry Warren,City Attorney Leslie Nishihira,Assistant Planner 1055 S Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Ken Wong Administrative Appeal re Denial of Variance File No.: LUA99-040,AAD May 17, 1999 Page 2 The Examiner explained that the appeal was an administrative appeal held pursuant to Ordinance 3071 and was the only administrative review to occur on the matter. The matter may be submitted back to the Examiner for reconsideration if the parties are not satisfied with the decision. He stated that the appellant had the burden of demonstrating that the City's action was erroneous,and would have to show clear and convincing evidence that the City's determination was incorrect. At that point the City could respond, if they chose to do so. Mr. Wong,appellant herein,stated that he decided to expand his existing home by adding an addition plus a second story. Due to a site constraint of the steep slope at the back on of his property on 4th Avenue NE and the front lot property line, it has been a very difficult challenge to comply with the setback requirements. The current setback proposed for the variance application ranges from 21 feet 11 inches to 14 feet 5 inches due to the front angle property line. Mr. Wong presented photographs of the site and adjacent properties. The steep slope along 4th NE is classified as an environmentally sensitive area as it is greater than 25%. Because of the steep slopes,most of the houses are elevated substantially from the street level. The house at 422 Windsor Way completed construction last year when appellant moved into the neighborhood. The setback at that location does not meet the required 20 foot setback. There were two alternate suggestions. One was to provide tandem parking to utilize the existing parking space, but because of the additional excavation appellant would be required to remove existing trees. Tandem parking would not be safe as there would always be two cars on the public street at the same time and this is not a wide street. Another suggestion is to move to the other side of the lot,but this would be impacted by existing public improvements. There is an existing utility/light pole which would need to be relocated. If the utility pole was relocated,then one of the garages could be relocated to the other side of the house but appellant would then end up with two driveways. This would be inconsistent with neighboring properties and may not be in compliance with the parking& loading ordinance. Part of the denial of the variance was because of the hazardous condition that may exist because of lack of setback of the garage. The current setback to the center is approximately 15 feet,6 inches. Appellant stated that it would depend on the type and size of vehicle. There are sight distance problems because the garage drops down below grade and any vehicle backing out of the driveway would have to accelerate to get up the grade. Ms.Nishihira,testifying on behalf of the City, stated that there were no variances applied for or building permits issued for the recent addition at 422 and it may be an illegal addition. The other houses are fairly old and have been in existence for quite some time,possibly before the development standards of 20 foot setbacks, so they are considered nonconforming.There was discussion regarding the actual square footage proposed and the lot coverage percentage. A garage could be built on the east side of the house,but would require major excavation or partial demolition of the house. That alternative was proposed by the appellant but it would require relocation of the existing utility pole. Mr. Warren,attorney for the City,argued that granting of the variance would be against the public interest because it would help destroy the visual character of the neighborhood and the sight lines that exist. The topography and the location of this particular house create the situation that leads to the request for the variance and also helps destroy the applicability of the variance criteria to this particular site. The second issue is that although this property technically meets the criteria for lot coverage, it destroys the intent by placing too much structure on the front part of the lot. Although it technically meets the code,not meeting the intent helps to destroy the applicability of the variance criteria. It may be more expensive,but Ken Wong Administrative Appeal re Denial of Variance File No.: LUA99-040,AAD May 17, 1999 Page 3 it is possible to construct into a slope of this nature. The City doesn't deny that this is a difficult site to work with,but this particular application does not meet the variance criteria set forth in City code and therefore should not be granted. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this appeal. There was no one else wishing to speak. The hearing closed at 9:45 a.m. FINDINGS.CONCLUSIONS &DECISION Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1.Ken Wong for himself and Li Wan Li-Wong,hereinafter appellant, filed an appeal of an administrative determination denying an Administrative Variance(File LUA-99-001). 2.The appellant owns a single family home at 412 Windsor Way NE in the City of Renton. The home is located in the Windsor Hills neighborhood. 3.The appellant had proposed a remodel of the existing home that would include an expansion of the current single story house. The addition would include adding a second story and moving the front facade closer to the street. 4.The proposed front yard setback would be reduced from the required 20 feet to 14 feet. 5.The subject site is not quite rectangular in shape. Both Windsor Way and NE 4th run at somewhat of an angle which skews the parcel shape. The site has 60 feet of frontage along Windsor Way NE. The south or rear property line along NE 4th is approximately 45 feet long and is narrower than the front property line. The west property line is 127 feet and the east property line is approximately 113 feet. 6.The subject site slopes upward from Windsor Way to NE 4th Street. The existing home is set into the site on the level northern half of the site. The rear yard slopes upward to NE 4th. 7.A Puget Power transmission line corridor runs along the east side of the subject site. 8.In addition to the transmission line,a normal wooden power pole is located in the public right-of-way near the southeastern corner of the subject site. 9.A bus stop is located along Windsor east of the subject site. 10. The appellant pointed out other properties in the vicinity of the subject site which have garages or other structures that appear to be located in the front yard setback. The applicant did not know if variances had been approved for these properties or if they were done without proper permits. There is no record of whether they may have met earlier standards nor was there information on the extent of their setbacks. 11. The appellant cited the steep rear slope which prevents access from NE 4th. He also noted other constraints including the skewed front property line,the location of the wooden power pole and the bus stop. Ken Wong Administrative Appeal re Denial of Variance File No.: LUA99-040,AAD May 17, 1999 Page 4 12. Since the structure would be located within the required twenty(20)foot front yard setback, the City determined that a variance would be required to construct the addition. 13. The appellant applied for the variance. It was subject to administrative review. The variance was denied and the appellant filed a timely appeal. 14. The addition would reduce the front yard setback to 14 feet at its closest point to Windsor Way. The applicant calculated that at the center of the new garage door,the setback would be 15 feet 6 inches(15' 6"). The applicant maintains this distance is sufficient to allow a"normal" passenger car to back out of the garage and not intrude into the sidewalk or street as it prepares to fully exit the site. 15. The applicant has also altered the landscaping and rockery to provide additional sight distance for pedestrians. 16. Lot coverage was calculated to be approximately 28.3 percent or approximately 1,789 square feet. Lot coverage is permitted to be 35 percent. There was some discrepancy between these figures. 17. The applicant proposes an approximately 2,677 square foot addition to the existing 1,297 square foot residence,nearly tripling the size of the current home. 18. The rear yard would remain at approximately 47 feet deep. 19. Other properties in this area have similar rear yard slopes. Other properties in this area which is very hilly are constrained by the slopes in one fashion or another. 20. Staff contacted Puget Sound Energy. It appears that they would probably be able to relocate the wooden power pole if the appellant paid the costs of doing do. 21. Staff pointed out that new code provisions actually allow some primary residences to be set back 15 feet but still require that the garage be set back 20 feet in order to provide adequate parking and back- out room and sight distances. 22. Staff noted that a consistent front yard setback line is intended for both aesthetic reasons and for safety. The common setback provides a clean,neat streetscape. It also provides a visual buffer between homes and the street. As noted,a 20 foot setback provides reasonable parking and maneuvering room for vehicles entering and leaving garages,and permits pedestrians as well as other passing vehicles a clear view of the sidewalk, street and driveway. 23. Staff further noted that even if some homes in the area violate the required setup,that should not justify furthering the unsafe conditions that this would create. CONCLUSIONS: 1.The appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the decision of the Zoning Administrator was either in error, or was otherwise contrary to law or constitutional provisions,or was arbitrary and capricious Section 4-3011(B)(1)(b). The appellant has failed to demonstrate that the action of the Administrator should be modified or reversed. The decision of the Administrator is affirmed. Ken Wong Administrative Appeal re Denial of Variance File No.: LUA99-040,AAD May 17, 1999 Page 5 2.Arbitrary and capricious action has been defined as willful and unreasoning action in disregard of the facts and circumstances. A decision,when exercised honestly and upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances, is not arbitrary or capricious(Northern Pacific Transport Co. v Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, 69 Wn.2d 472,478 (1966). 3.An action is likewise clearly erroneous when,although there is evidence to support it,the reviewing body,on the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. (Ancheta v Daly, 77 Wn.2d 255,259(1969). 4.The appellant has failed to demonstrate that the decision was founded upon anything but a fair review of the variance criteria as they pertain to the proposed alteration. The appellant has failed to demonstrate with cogent evidence that a mistake was made. 5.The major limitation of this lot really is the location of the existing home vis-a-vis the remainder of the lot. Self-created hardship, including actions by the appellant's predecessors in interest(those who first constructed the home), is not a justification for the variance. What we have is a neighborhood of originally modest homes located centrally side-to-side and within the normal 20 foot setback or with a 20 foot front yard. It appears that there other options, some perhaps not as desirable,to redevelop the subject site. Appropriate and not unreasonable engineering could be utilized to design an addition that would work without harming the community or jeopardizing public safety. It appears that the Zoning Administrator took this information into account when making the decision. 6.It appears that the utility pole can be moved. The alteration could be reduced somewhat in scope, or alternate design schemes could create tandem parking or parking on the other side of the home. 7.While it appears that other properties have intrusions in their front yards,there is nothing in the record to demonstrate whether these properties received variances based on actual demonstrated unique site characteristics,true undue hardships,or in fact are improper and therefore illegal additions done without permits. In any event, for a variance the specific conditions of the subject site are at issue and the site does not appear to suffer any conditions warranting variance relief. 8.As noted by the City in the underlying review: It may also be considered injurious to property improvements in the vicinity and zone because it would allow for construction that differs from the standards that generally apply to all property in the R-8 Zone. This would set a precedent and create uncertainty about maintaining zoning standards which have been adopted to protect and enhance residential neighborhoods." 9.In addition,staff noted that intruding even only 6 feet could create safety issues for both pedestrians and passing motorists. Sight distances would be lessened and maneuvering room constrained. Variance relief is not available if the public safety might be compromised. 10. Since the burden of demonstrating error is on the appellant,this office can only reach the conclusion that the Administrator made the correct determination. The decision below must be affirmed. 11. At the same time,the City should investigate the other properties to determine whether the intrusions noted by the appellant are appropriate. Inappropriate or illegal alterations generate animosity since citizens such as the appellant and others are not legally permitted alterations while those who violate the rules seem to benefit improperly. Ken Wong Administrative Appeal re Denial of Variance File No.: LUA99-040,AAD May 17, 1999 Page 6 DECI SION: The appeal is denied. ORDERED THIS 17th day of May. FRED J.KAUF HEARING EXA ER TRANSMII"1'ED THIS 17th day of May to the parties of record: Ken Wong Larry Warren Leslie Nishihira 412 Windsor Way NE 1055 S Grady Way 1055 S Grady Way Renton,WA 98056 Renton,WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 TRANSMI ITED THIS 17th day of May to the following: Mayor Jesse Tanner Gregg Zimmerman,PlanBldg/PW Admin. Members,Renton Planning Commission Jana Hanson,Development Services Director Chuck Duffy, Fire Marshal Mike Kattermann,Technical Services Director Lawrence J. Warren,City Attorney Larry Meckling,Building Official Transportation Systems Division Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer Utilities System Division Councilperson Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Sue Carlson, Econ. Dev.Administrator South County Journal Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 15 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m..June 1. 1999. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure,errors of law or fact,error in judgment,or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen(14)days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant,and the Examiner may, after review of the record,take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV,Chapter 8, Section 16,which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk,accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department,first floor of City Hall. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants,the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. Ken Wong Administrative Appeal re Denial of Variance File No.: LUA99-040,AAD May 17, 1999 Page 7 The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte(private one-on-one)communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. I I I ii' 011.3 i illl1. —I 1 Is li I6 — Z 1 iel: 4 • o 1 iiIf4 —e.J.... 1 . I 1 4-•---.0 I•••• iil1 •,'1...:,/ .;1 1 i , 4*--- ft. '14°./ 1 I 1 73 1/14 .1tftil ik 1 I i o I 1&\ l'h--- . *I• i_•phiqiii Ism.- g Ij) 110i'o 45 i .•.:.;,.--------1. ,,... :,,,----- li - -4,TogQ,- I I1 i4o I 1/147414111111nOrMliM rt tl ii 'rilillinE -1 I; , i 144 - I , o I: algoa o 0 1 ji 1 4> Mill 4aii1ti0iq 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 Onir1-1 1 a i 0 e li111111Q rri P* * Pg ig=a i 5* *A q 0 i i ; 1 1— i i i 1 1 ! ! ! !! ! ! 1 , i , F.1 , , ii , i , ! ; 7------i i iiiiiiii ! 4....... , • • 1 : . : , I / i I I iiiii0r1 q 47 Iill 1 . ." [511" il 1 I rk..„:, I Hid • ii \ a„„....,L_J /i I ! i : , , , I i ,I LL, I i ! I ! i I i I I I !•:1ITTtft• i 4.4 i t i fft'f'-'1- I I i 4 I ! ! ! ! ! 1i: f i I ! It i it I I I I 1 111 l.•-. i' li*Cc—ifIIIvliIIiL1H7_DIEP Ii iii,•• !i1i•, 1 1,,i4 4i1i, lt• i•- 11l+ I 1 1 4! l, l- 1.• i,! 1i, 41. l. i, 41i1l•.- il, 1l, i i l 1i I • 1 ! • " , , ,Ii . „ , 1 I iiii 1 IIIIIIII t ‘L__J i 1 t I i i 1 11 ' • il ' iiiiIIt ‘ il t i f 1 I 1 iitiliiii \ 1 L. C. PkO.ELT Ma SITE PLANS/iSENLIPLAL NOTES PROW'1.11K,MI K DRAM WY.R194 11,110 (AMMO WY MI PO 12/./.10 AMMO POR OM/1MM APIRK,V. I2/3VM KM.IYISID P0ADDITON / REMODEL SMT1112 PaR MOM MN?010 GenTIO MO NV 0 412 WINDSOR W. 1. E. Wong / Li EstE areowwwerno cameo.. i124RENTON, WASHING1_.. 98056 MOMGM.GOMM A.IPALT MM.* ii\ 11MRTIZO POK YMINCE di di Or i 1NIri :1 il f N I$N:8• • :1113 3 zi 1 l• i 4 a 5 1.... i.. ilii1atet, 1 n l' a;'N,k ,,,,,,plIyi'i'v'i'i'rs'rIIr '$t'; o-,'p;;l;::7Vllijjii`mm N ' pp Ill A ± jitii 1 oZ3ZII I o 0 1111111 1111 Willi I I . :yl €i li IIIHill1111" III111` ' 111'1 11111• i ' i'I,' I ; Ili I I 11: Iii Ib.( i;l; . 11, I7 1111111111111111111111111111 g 11111 1 1 q$ 11 ' 111 i 1 • 4." iii it it ilil 311ViPAiP I 1441 O i1 ; ':+1i;'?r,:,•,1a;1,1,1;1i ;1i:};;I;4,}, I aIMP iiiimi l l!;y''111111 r x,. r.. :'x,r,. INI iiiti•••rat_t ni riy III7 D I Ill;{tiIIIou!uI:l:;;ll ;r;lp D iinluimu. I Z 0 1 :Hill II10 jli I i'i;, s,'?IIi,li;i ;,iiiIiii;iii }rail Ili'''. I ri llalliiiiiii'iii x.==3__•' r;,;,;,''it'x,3 ; tihril,rl:'Iprt IU•rIII;';:,:a l iii•:,,;;II;III;.se ial3s. 'II:?Issi I:,.I a ii Mil I Ii '! ;L.i_R! IIIErn : I ilill; lli MUM' !r5,'rl¢;I;I: I 4. I 1u 1ln u 1n 1 III ' 111,\/1 1 S III f 1 rMt?rill 1nn u I l. ar ? iai ii Ia!!!.a1s!itiivi ti i? I 1i4i1 i:il'}''i',i y5 .,ti;33:'/,,,yyyy'i, a' III 1 I AO.Ct N. EXTERIOR CLCVATIO'tl nx.w•.a 1,15.1rw rw rwro P.M ADDITON / REMODEL m' "^""" "'•a. tD 412 WINDSOR WAY N. E. Wong / Li Estate ram.. a. 41tXkvarl1 II WA :b RENTON, WASHINGTON 98056 h, . MEM NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING RENTON HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON An Appeal Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on April 27, 1399, at 9:00 AM to consider the following petition: APPEAL WONG/LI VARIANCE AAD-99-045 The appellant, Ken Wong, appeals the denial of an administrative variance request for reduction of the required front yard setback from 20 ft. to 14 ft. The proposed project File No. LUA-99-001,V-A) is for an addition to an existing residence. Location: 412 Windsor Way NE. Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the Development Services Division, sixth floor, City Hall. All interested persons to said petitions are invited to be present at the Public Hearing. Publication Date: April 16, 1999 Amount No. 51067 A/,DPUB.DOC a° CIT OF RENTON Hearing Examiner Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred J.Kaufman March 23, 1999 Mr. Ken Wong 412 Windsor Way NE Renton, WA 98056 Re: Appeal of Administrative Variance LUA99-001,V-A Appeal File No. LUA99-045,AAD Dear Mr. Wong: We received your appeal dated March 14, 1999, and the hearing will be scheduled for Tuesday, April 27, 1999, at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Should you have any further questions,please contact this office. Sincerely, Fred J.Kauf Hearing Examiner cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Larry Warren, City Attorney Jana Huerter 1055 South Grady Way- Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)430-6515 1 10 1111 APR 1 9 1999 ijj3 C4HEARINGEXAMINERON BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER 5 OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON 6 7 In Re: Appeal of Denial of NO. LUA-99-045, AAD Administrative Variance by Ken Wong 8 BRIEF OF THE CITY OF RENTON IN 9 OPPOSITION TO APPEAL OF DENIAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE 10 11 12 I.FACTS 13 Ken Wong appeals from a denial of a variance which would benefit his property 14 located at 412 Windsor Way,N.E. The requested variance is a reduction in the front yard 15 16 setback from the required 20 feet to 14 feet in order to construct an addition to the 17 existing single-family residence. 18 The property in question backs onto N.E. 4th Street and fronts on a curved section 19 of Windsor Way, N.E. The property rises significantly as it approaches N.E. 4` h. The 20 applicant contended in the variance application that the variance was necessary due to of 21 the lot's irregular shape because of its frontage along Windsor Way N.E. and because of 22 3 the slope to the rear of the property. The applicant also claims that the location of an 24 existing bus stop and light pole in front of the northeast corner of the property was an 25 additional basis for the variance. In his appeal Mr. Wong argues that the decision denying 26 the variance request is erroneous in at least three ways: 27 28 ORIGINAL.WARREN BARBER BRIEF OF THE CITY OF RENTON - Page 1 DEAN&FONTES, P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW ISO SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 626 RENTON,WASHINGTON 98057 PHONE(425)255.8678 • FAX(425)255-5474 1 1. There is no hazard to pedestrians and vehicular traffic as discussed in the 2 decision, 3 4 2. That utilizing the space of the existing garage to meet the required setback 5 would require extensive soil excavation which might destabilize the slope, 6 and 7 3. Moving the light pole would result in a design of the garage which would 8 be inconsistent with other properties in the vicinity and that moving the 9 10 light pole might be inconvenient to the local community. 11 For the reasons argued below none of these arguments provide any reason to 12 reverse the decision to deny the variance. 13 II. VARIANCE STANDARDS AND DISCUSSION FROM DECISION TO DENY 14 The criteria to grant the variance are set forth in section 4-31-19.F.3, recodified as 15 16 4-9-250.B.5 of the Renton City Code. There are four variance criteria which are listed 17 below with a short synopsis of the analysis of those criteria from the decision to deny the 18 variance. 19 a.That the applicant suffers undue hardship and the variance is necessary 20 because of special circumstances applicable to subject property including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject property, 21 and the strict application of the Zoning Code is found to deprive subject property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners 22 in the vicinity and under identical zone classification: 23 24 There are a number of properties in the vicinity that have these 25 characteristics. Therefore, there are no unique or special circumstances. 26 Staff contacted Puget Sound Energy and found that the relocation of the 27 utility poles is a strong possibility and would permit a redesign which 28 WARREN BARBER BRIEF OF THE CITY OF RENTON - Page 2 DEAN&FONTES, P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 626 RENTON,WASHINGTON 98057 PHONE(425)255.8678 • FAX(42.5)255-5474 1 would fall within Code provisions. Buildable portions of the rear yard 2 could be used to eliminate the variance. 3 4 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 5 and zone in which the property is situated: 6 The front yard setback is intended to provide a continuous setback fronting 7 streets in residential neighborhoods to provide an aesthetic street scape as 8 well as a visual buffer. Reduction would create a hazard to both pedestrian 9 and vehicular traffic due to insufficient backout distances. The variances 10 11 are considered injurious to property improvements in the vicinity and 12 would create an undesirable precedent. 13 c.That approval shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent 14 with the limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated: 15 This criterion is not applicable to setback variances pursuant to Hoberg v. 16 17 Bellevue, 76 Wn. App. 357, 884 P.2d 1339 (1994). 18 d. That the approval as determined by the Zoning Administrator is a minimum 19 variance that will accomplish the desired purpose: 20 It is possible to redesign this structure to satisfy the Code provision by 21 either reducing the size of the garage or utilizing the buildable area of the 22 rear yard. The relocation of the utility poles to allow for an alternative 23 24 design of the structure is also an option. 25 26 27 28 WARREN BARBER BRIEF OF THE CITY OF RENTON - Page 3 DEAN or FONTES, P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 626 RENTON,WASHINGTON 98057 PHONE(425)255.8678 • FAX(425)255.5474 1 III. ISSUE 2 HAS THE APPELLANT SATISFIED THE DECISIONAL CRITERIA FOR 3 GRANTING OF A VARIANCE? 4 City Code section 4-9-250.B.5 requires the reviewing official to grant a variance 5 upon making a determination, in writing, that the four criteria for the variance, previously 6 7 set forth, have been found to exist. Pursuant to the case of Moberg v. Bellevue, supra, 8 criterion c. is not applicable to area variances. A setback variance is an area of variance. 9 Therefore,the reviewing official needs to weigh the three remaining criteria. 10 The burden of proof on an appeal from a decision granting or denying a variance is 11 on the appellant. Messer v. Snohomish County Board of Adjustment, 19 Wn. App. 780, 12 13 578 P.2d 50 (1978) and Martel v. Vancouver, 35 Wn. App. 250, 252, 666 P.2d 916 14 (1983). The decision of the Board of Adjustment must be upheld unless the Board's 15 action was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Lewis v. Medina, 87 Wn.2d 19, 554 16 P.2d 1093 (1976) and Martel v. Vancouver, supra, at 252. Personal hardship cannot 17 justify a variance,Martel v. Vancouver, supra, at 256. 18 Mr. Wong has not shown that he can satisfy the criteria for granting of the 19 20 variance. There are other steps available to him that would allow him to build an addition 21 to this house without violating the setback requirements of City Code. While this might 22 require moving a light pole or doing additional excavation, such steps must be undertaken 23 before seeking a variance. Appellant has not shown that these steps are impractical or 24 impossible, nor has he attempted to limit the size of the addition to the house so as to 25 26 eliminate or minimize the requested variance. 27 28 WARREN BARBER BRIEF OF THE CITY OF RENTON - Page 4 DEAN&FONTES, P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 626 RENTON.WASHINGTON 98057 PHONE(425)255-8678 • FAX(425)255.5474 1 IV. CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons stated above, the decision to deny the variance must be upheld. 3 The appealed decision is not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. 5 DATED this 19th day of April, 1999. 6 Respectfully submitted, WARREN, BARBER, DEAN& 8 FONTES, P.S. 9 10 11 17lLawrence J. Watr7 WSBA#5853 Attorney for City of Renton 12 3.27:07:as. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WARREN BARBER BRIEF OF THE CITY OF RENTON - Page 5 DEAN&FONTES, P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 626 RENTON,WASHINGTON 98057 PHONE(425)255-8678 • FAX(425)255.5474 1 2 3 4 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER 5 OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON 6 7 In Re: Appeal of Denial of NO. LUA-99-045, AAD Administrative Variance by Ken 8 Wong 0 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 9 10 I, Anne Santos, an employee of Warren, Barber, Dean & Fontes, P.S., attorneys 11 12 for the City of Renton, do certify as follows: 13 That I am now, and at all times mentioned herein was, a resident of the state of 14 Washington and over the age of eighteen years. 15 That on April 19, 1999, I deposited in the U.S. Mail, First-Class, a properly 16 addressed and stamped envelope containing a true and correct copy of the BRIEF OF 17 18 THE CITY OF RENTON IN OPPOSITION TO APPEAL OF DENIAL OF 19 ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE to: 20 Mr. Ken Wong 412 Windsor Way,N.E. 21 Renton, Washington 98056. 22 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of Washington that 2 3 the foregoing is true and correct. 24 DATED this 19th day of April, 1999. 25 26 3.27:10.:as. Anne Santos 28 WARREN BARBER ORIGJN,AL DEAN 6 FONTES, P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW IOU SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 626 RENTON,WASHINGTON 98057 PHONE(425)255.8678 • FAX(425)255.5474 EVEELOPMENT PLANN! CITY OF RENTON March 14, 1999 MAR 16 1999 Jana Huerter,Acting Zoning Administrator RECEIVEDMunicipalBuilding—6'Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton,Washington 98055 CITY OF RENTON Re: Wong/Li Estate Addition& Remodel LUA-99-001,V-A 412 Windsor Way N.E. MAR 1 6 1999 Renton,Washington 98056 RECEIVED Dear Jana Huerter: CITY CLERKS OFFICE I am writing to you in regards to the above Administrative Variance Application. 1 received the Report& Decision for the Administrative Variance Application stated the variance is denied. The Report&Decision Document was reviewed and found that the"Findings"stated are incomplete and mislead. The following are the brief summary of the issues,which I brought up during the pre-application process and verbally during the variance application process. I believed these issues have not been reviewed thoroughly by planning technician: 1. There is property located at 412 Windsor Way NE that had construction in recent years. This property has similar design of double garages facing Windsor Way NE. It has two stories height of double garages at ground level with living space directly above,and has less than 20'-0"setback from public sidewalk. 2. Design Option#2 is possible if the existing utility/light pole and existing bus stop relocate to another location. One side of the garage which is having difficulty meeting the 20'-0"setback could be located at the northeast corner of the site. The separation of the garages cause inconsistent with other properties in the vicinity. The fmal location of the utility/light pole and bus stop after relocation remains unclear. It is required to relocate the utility/light pole to adjacent property to allow access to the site. There is possible inconvenience to local community could result from Design Option#2. 3. Planning technician suggested utilizing the space at the existing garage to allow two(2)cars deep garage to meet the required setback would require extensive soil excavation to lower the existing garage. The additional soil excavation calculated of approximately 66 cubic yards could unstable the hill slope at the back of the properties and causing land slide in the future. 4. The issue of hazard to both pedestrian and vehicular traffic had discussed and addressed during the pre- application process. Structure(garage and living space above)originally designed for 5'-0"setback revised to 14'-0"setback at corner. The revised clearance between public sidewalk and the garage door which is closer to the property line is 15'-6",which according to automobile industry standard, is sufficiency and safe for back-out distance for driver. I concluded that the planning technician's suggestions could impose potential hazards and possible lawsuits in the future. I am requesting an appeal for the above application. I have enclosed the$75.00 fee. Please forward other specific requirements mentioned in the report to the project address stated above. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Ken Wong Property Owner rd s4-4 3 a r j rl-rr A, I r ..,til,v y'.. . y',L1 WAN•t i-WOtdl c`' ' 19 Q10.3251 L sJ jr. t.t o'''-';,;'' ''''' 't '' ' ,-. ' ' '' 1-' ' '- --''';' '' '."-: Al'' /907 ,f 1 r ,, S r x 6a1 ' ion j i,.. -.rf. ' 'r.- . < jf s'-C-- OLLAKS ' 1i;. ?, .WA I ON UT •L SAVINGS BANK r..;s`3 . . UNION FINANCIAL-OtNTER 041 X.c A v:1401'FIFTH AVE.. . ' t1 i4 • $ EA7TLE,WA•98101 •' r, Z re,V/rA 1' r. 1: 3250 0 ?601. 4Lnl388 9L..Ign. ? 5L °'a:. alf C4es'65',e" a.a :' . • ds., a, ;' of ra+ r'R a .66 a . ,._ NOTES ECEIPT DATE 3)lb/CCf NO. 4451. F \ RECEIVED FROM ken rin 0- c.,\'C Or ADDRESS FOR of pad & LLt p - clei-c21 CI . C01 ACCOUNT HOW PAID AMT.OF CASHACCOUNT AMT. CHECK 16 0oPAID yyBALANCEMONEYBY1(1' WJy`„, ,\CGS-\. DUE ORDER 111 a ..y..a. 0 .Y98M1 Ii®IFORM®tlLeOz 0 41 January 7, 1999 Lesley Nishihira, Planning Technician Development Services Municipal Building—6`h Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 Re: Wong/Li Estate Remodel &Addition 412 Windsor Way N.E. Renton, Washington 98056 Dear Ms. Nishihira: Attached please review information for the above referenced project File No. LUA99-001. 7. Per your request, total building area calculated as the following: 1 i 1 I Proposed basement(garages) 477 sq. ft. - Existing first floor 1,297 sq. ft. ''He le Proposed first floor 3 sq. ft. - - r Proposed second floor 0.8)sq. ft. Total building 3,974 sq. ft. Please do not hesitate to contact myself at(425) 602-4939 regarding this manner. Thank you very much. Sincerely, c______ 70 ligl Ken Wong Property Owner