The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLUA-07-025_Report 1PARTIES OF RECORD JONES SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIAN Jerome 0. Cohen 4554 California Avenue SW Seattle, WA 98116 (party of record) Durward F. Clare 1818 Jones Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Updated: 06/05/07 LUA07-025, V-A Sal Cohen American Classic Homes PO Box 1830 Renton, WA 98057 tel: (206) 226-7252 eml: salcohen@msn.com (owner/ applicant/ contact) Darrell & Sue Kinzer Kennydale Blueberry Farm 1733 NE 20th Street Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Jean Daniels 1707 Jones Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056-2665 tel: (206) 298-8275 eml: KD7GTE@comcast.net (party of record) (Page 1 of 1) 20' CITY OF RENTON & I N a9·39·20" E L HOUSE ACCESS EASEMENT OVER I LOTS 1, 2 AND 3 PER KC REC. NO.------ 26' PR/VA TE INGRESS, & I EGRESS EASEMENT OVER i LOTS 1, 2 AND 3 256.89' 55.51 . 0 0 -----T -::-:: ------- 2W -------r -=-------- j_ I ~,'' 1 --1 20.82· :.>o. \ / .,---,-- I '\,c ~ . 0 N ...... ~ ,,.soJ. sq.ft I ~ 0 ~.26 ac r es · I 1 ~,o 46.28' -~ ~ LOT 1 ~ I i ~ ~ HOUSE : L _J_! 95.92' 12.09' lLJ • I ~o I 13· • 013• I ~ ... 0 LOT 4 L ~ a I LOT 2 -~ ~ -LOT 3 ~,o ~o f> (\j o~ 0 V) 5,999. sq.ft. 0.13 acres 6,659. sq. ft. 6.664. sq. fi. o[-10'& ---1 01-1d r---1~ : . ~ 1/@t sJ 1'<tHr\6i 55.51 55.55 50.00 · a9•39•21" E 256. 97' CI TY OF RENTON MON #250 INTERSECTION ABERDEED A VE & NE 20th STREET INTER SECTION JONES AVE NE /j & NE 16th STREET I FOUND BRASS DISK w /CROSS IN CONCRETE MON FOUND BRASS DISC W/CROSS IN CONCR ETE MON IN CASE (06/03) N 89'57'48" E 1326.56' (MEAS) IN CASE ( 06 /03) NE 16th STREET 6tt '5 :ASEMENT ~ "'-~ . w 0 0 ... d ~ N ~ ...... ---w Ci:2 : N .v N()~~t,J~rx' f'l&f LAN~ z ~w > ~ ~, z co w ~I W 0 WI Ct: n w .~ (I) ~/ <t: 0 0 z LEGAL DESCRIPTION -· ) SUR\I INSTRUI METHOl DATE c BASIS< BENCHA ~ <CLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND [GRESS IS TO 8[ CREA TED UPON THE SALE OF LOTS SHOWN ON r TH[ OWERS OF LOTS 1, 2, 3, AND 4 SHALL HA V[ AN EQUAL AND UNDIVIDED INTEREST IN THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF TH£ PRIVATE ACCESS ANO UTILITY EASEMENT APPURTENANCES :NANCES AND MAINTENANCE R[SPONSIBIUn[S INCLUDE THE RcPAIR AND MAINT[NANC[ OF TH[ PR/VAT[ ?RA/NAG[ PIPES, AND STORM WA T[R QUALITY AND/OR 0£T[NTION FAC/LITl[S 'MTHIN THIS EASEMENT, THE SOUTH 120 FEET, TRACT 292, C.D.HILLMAN' LAKE WASHINGTON GARDEN OF EDEN DlVJSJON N 4, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDE I lld \/f"\l I IUC-11 f"\C-DI A TC DA l"'C-Q') l"l 1/1"1/" CITY OF RENTON ZONING MAP RESIDENTIAL Ill (RC) Resource Conservation GJ (R-1) Residential 1 du/ac [::=l (R-4) Residential 4 du/ac CJ (R-8) Residential 8 du/ac CJ (RMH) Residential Manufactured Homes CJ (R-10) Resldential 10 du/ac 1111 (R-14) Residential 14 du/ac (RM-F) Residential Multi-Family 11111 (RM-n Residential Multi-Family Traditional CJ (RM-U) Residential Multi-Family Urban Center ---City Limits Map Adopted April 3, 2006 Map Updated Through Ordinance 5243 Effective January 14, 2007 MIXED USE CENTERS ~i (CV) Center Village [:=I] (UC-N1) Urban Center -North 1 [:=J (UC-N2) Urban Center -North 2 1111 (CD) Center Downtown ~ (COR) Commercial/Office/Residential COMMERCIAL E1J (CA) Commercial Arterial 11111 (CO) Commercial Office ~ (CN) Commercial Neighborhood INDUSTRIAL CJ (IL) Industrial -Ligtw CJ (IM) Industrial -Medium 11111 (IH) Industrial -Heavy EXHIBIT A I i r \._._ ---~ l____L..___.__ I I \ 1 f ---· ----l z I r 1.---QJ--:;----1 > .. . I , I \ _,.-, ;--------/ ! _.,J I I ! ' 'I "I l /; I I I _I ,- 1 EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT B -f CITY OF REN'l'ON Inspection Record Permit Number: CPQ4504 Call by 4:00 pm for inspections the following day -Phone 425-430-7202 Call before work is concealed or concrete poured/Do not pour concrete until approved Do not cover until approved/Do not occupy until final inspection is complete Nature of Work: NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE COMBINATION PER.l\1IT Job Address: 1721 NE 18TH PL Lot#/Unit#/Bldg#/Tenant: JONES AVE SHPL, LOT #4 Owner: UBC Type: lie ght: Sq.Ft: 3496 ROUSSO MARC+MEZISTRANO JAY 0 Occupancy: R3 Contractor:AMERICAN CLASSIC HOMES LLC Phone: 206-725-6%7 Inspection Type iDate Inspector Comments UFER Ground -55 'IO [z-ul, /ht,;/ - 171 ,(') 'J <c. ,-, .. t-\ _.,..l:f ~fv-_p.0,5. !/-1--f .J -l6-(Z,-Clb 1vivi--/ I.. 'iA p:,~[de BA:->...u Footing -I 0 ~;Lel ~- I ~i!":?-.._,zn~ iv· e,~ ~~ /~~~I l ,dation -11 tD-(v-d ]!MA' I ~~~ ~~---0.. ;'6 \J.) ?,ID 4 ~ I' ('),/--Rn ~,w t>,,v a/1,;J -~-\C)-\\~ ! Water Servic·; -41 Plumbing Rough-In -53 I -- ! ---- Mechanical Rough-In -54 I ' ~ Electrical Rough-In -2 I L._ --' -------·---~- ' Electrical Service -27 -------- Under Floor -56 1-'<:_ \ _(;, (1 { s iL~r"°lL j),0-4..,;,:>t fi,c.~1,->t 01~ .'},,., l t.-•-1-U> ~ 1,,111 ' , S_u;.,~t'':) fu> J ' ,, fw L,:1W ')J5[{_t~J~.r_ 1-:, <~Lr-' L et>-1-z:, -en Framing --12 ------- I Shearwall -13 i I -- Roof -15 Insulation -14 -~- ' ------- Other -17 I - ~ i ,rical Final -99 -- ------ Final-JOO ' --EXl:UBIT_C_ --- Post this record al .Job sne at all times 55.55 0 0 0 0 O <D N N 50.00 0 0 ci N 4.95'~-l--k,- /-----1 / I I CONCRETE _µ:a / FOUNDATION LOT 3 I No ,-st-0 -o r0-1 o- 0 (/1 ~OT 4 4.92 5.08' I I I _______ _J I L ________ _J I 55.ss I 50.00 LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 4, CITY OF RENTON SHORT PLAT NO. 1_UA03-095-SHPL, RECORDED IN KING COUNTY, WAS\-11NGTON UNDER RECORDING NO. 20050525900037 ual..lo::, 1es -f,. '{ (.,?, 0 fa vw'1 icki 0 qc,/'~{.(Jc. . 0 VMli:m'.t N i 1t A ,,.--r-a{t1NR: · w ::: N tj- ,,--n 0 0 0 L r ?"'1~-; ~AR -~ _'..1-c' RE.CE.\\/E'O EXH1BIT D e9s:01 lo £1 ~d~ REPORT & DECISION Decision Date: Project Name: Applicant: File Number: Project Summary: Project Location: Exis1. Bldg. Area: Site Area: Ci(y of Renton Department of Planning I Building I Public Works ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE LAND USE ACTION April 9th, 2007 Jones Side Yard Setback Variance Sal Cohen American Classic Homes P.O. Box 1830 Renton, WA 98057 LUA07-025, V-A Project Manager: Andrea Petzel, Assistant Planner Application for a side yard setback variance at 1721 NE 18th Place (Lot 4 of the Jones Avenue Short Plat). The parcel is located in the current R-4 zone, but is vested to R-8 development standards. A setback variance for the building's foundation would allow the lot to have a side yard setback area reduced to approximately 4 feet 9 inches. The required interior setback is 5 feet. In addition, the eaves of the fireplace protrusion extend 3 feet 5 inches into the side yard setback area and would require an additional variance for the encroachment. Lot size is 5,999 square feet, and·building lot coverage totals 2,013 square feet or 34%. 1721 NE 18,.Place NIA Proposed New Bldg Area: 3,496 sq. ft. 5,999 sq. ft. Total Building Area: 3,496 sq. ft. t, • d £096 098 90Z City of Renton P/B/PW Department Jones Side Yard Setback Variance REPORT OF APRIL 9TH, 2007 Page 2 of5 A. Type of Land Use Action Conditional Use Site Plan Review Special Permit for Grade & Fill X Administrati~e Variance B. Exhibits The following exhibits were entered into the record: Administrative Report and Decision LUA07·025, V-A Binding Site Plan Shoreline Substancial Development Permit Administrative Code Determination Exhibit No. I: Yellow file containing: application, proof of posting and publication, and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No. 2: Zoning and J\:eighborhood Detail Map Exhibit No. 3: Site Plan Submitted with Variance Application (dated 3/5/2007) Exhibit No. 4: Approved Site Plan Submitted with Building Permit Application CP04504 (dated 12/29/2004) C. Project Description I Background: The subject property is located in the Residential-4 (R-4) zone, but as Lot 4 of the Jones Avenue Short Plat the site is vested to R-8 zoning standards (rezoned as of9/22/2006). Along the parcel's eastern boundary, the property abuts the Kennydale Blueberry Farm, located at 1733 NE 20'" Street. The applicant requested a variance from Renton Municipal Code 4-2-11 OA, "Development Standards for Single Family Residential Zoning Designations." The minimum side yard setback for the R-8 zone that the property is vested to is 5 feet. The applicant submitted a recently surveyed site plan illustrating their request for variance. The site plan showed a reduced interior side yard setback area of 4 feet 9 inches. During a field visit by City staff, the measurement from the foundation of the existing house to the fence (built on the property line) showed a distance of 4 feet 5 inches. In addition to the encroachment by the foundation, the eaves of the fireplace projection also extend into the required setback area. Protrusions into setback areas arc allowed up to 2 feet by IO feet, however, a variance is needed for the additional encroachment of I foot 5 inches of the fireplace and it's associated eave. Lot size is 5,999 square feet, and lot coverage totals 2,013 square feet or 34%. The applicant has a City of Renton approved building plan for a two story, single-family residence (CP04504, issued I l/14/2005). <::onstruction has begun, and the house is nearly framed. A stop work order for construction is currently in place ,vr this lot until a decision on this variance has been reached. £096 098 902 ua400 Il?S City of Renton P/BIPW Deparlment Jones Side Yard Setback Variance ':'PORT OF APRIL gm. 2007 Administrative Reporl and Decision LUA07--025, V-A .... age 3 of5 Findings, Conclusion, and Deciswn Having reviewed the written record in the matter, the City now makes and enters the following: D. 1. 2. 3. 4. 9·d Findings Request: The Applicant, Sal Cohen, has requested approval for an Administrative Variance for his property at I 721 NE 18"' Place. The variance is requested from RMC 4-2-11 OA, which requires a 5 foot sideyard setback from the property line. The applicant is requesting a variance in order to reduce the eastern side yard setback area to approximately 4 feet 9 inches. In addition, the frreplace and it's associated eave encroach 1 feet 5 inches into the side yard setback are,;. An additional variance is needed to allow that protrusion which is in excess of the allowed 2 feet Administrative Variance: The applicant's Administrative Variance application complies with the requirements for information for a variance. The applicant's site plan and other project drawings are entered as Exhibits 2 and 3. Existing Land Use: Land uses surrounding the subject site include: North: R-4 zone, developed as single-family residential; South: R-4 zone, developed as single-family residential; East: R-4 zone, Kennydale Blueberry Fann, with an existing single-family home on site, and; West: R-4 zone, developed as single-family residential. Consistency with Variance Criteria: Section 4-9-250B5 lists fow-criteria that the Zoning Administrator is asked to consider the following four criteria, along with all other relevant information, in making a decision on an Administrative Variance application. The variance criteria are as follows: a. That the applicant suffers undue 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 stn·ct application of the Zoning Code is found to deprive subject property owner of rights and p1ivileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zone classification; Through strict application of the zoning code, the applicant suffers no undue hardship that would merit a variance for a reduced side yard setback. The property is of sufficient size, flat and rectangular. No critical areas exist onsite. The encroachment into the side yard is the result of the foundation being poured incorrectly; there are no special circumstances. The applicant has been granted all the rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity, and the request for a variance is simply the opportunity to compensate for a mistake. As mentioned previously, in addition to the incorrect location of the foundation, the applicant has a fireplace that protrudes 3 feet 6 inches (including the I foot cave) by 10 feet into the setback area. Per RMC 4-2-l 10D4a, protrusions into the setback areas are allowed 2 by 10 feet. The approved building permit (CP04504) contains a specific condition that the protrusion is limited to two feet, including the eave. As mentioned earlier in this report, this additional protrusion would also need a variance. E096 098 902 ess:01 lo El ~d~ City of Renton PIB/PW Department Janes Side Yard Setback Variance Administrative Report and Decision LUA07-025, V-A REPORT OF APRIL g1H, 2007 -:1age 4 of5 E. l. 2. 3. I. • d b. That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or i,ifurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which subject property is situated; Granting the variance would not necessary be materially detrimental or injurious to the property in the vicinity. Kennydale Blueberry Farm is located to the east and shares a property line with the subject lot. No structures belonging to the Blueberry Farm, residential or otherwise, exist in close proximity to the house, and there is plenty of open space on the Blueberry Farm's side of the fence. However, there is possibly the potential for future development on the Blueberry Farm site that could be impacted by a lessened side yard setback. Several letters from the public were submitted, urging the City not to grant the variance due to the fact that a variance is necessary because of builder error, rather than hardship. Instead of presenting an argument for how the variance would be materially detrimental to the public welfare, the letters document a history of ill will between the applicant (the builder), and the neighborhood residents. 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, and; Granting an Administrative Variance in this situation would not necessarily constitute a special privilege. There are some instances where the City would grant this type of variance. For example, if the property was bound by environmental constraints, or if the property was located next to land zoned with a lower density (which, after the rezone, it is). However, it could be argued that approving a variance in this situation would, in fact, constitute special privilege, if financial hardship for the builder were the sole reason for granting the request. d. That the approval as determined by the Reviewing Official is a minimum variance that will accomplish the desired purpose. The applicant submitted materials for a building permit indicating that they intended to meet the required setbacks. However, work in the field resulted in the encroacJ-unent, and while the requested variance is the minimum needed to accomplish the desired purpose of the applicant, there may be other remedies as well. The applicant could approach the abutting property owner to the east to negotiate a lot line adjustment, or other remedy, so that the property can be brought into compliance with the City's zoning code. Conclusions The subject site is located 1721 NE 18'" Place in the R-4 (R-8 vested), single-family residential zone. The City of Renton Development Standards, RMC 4-2-1 I OA requires a 5 foot side yard setback area. The recommendation of staff is to deny the variance request because it does not meet all four of the variance criteria found in RMC 4-9-250B5. Specifically, the applicant has not demonstrated that they suffer undue hardship. £096 098 902 e55:01 lO El Jd~ c;ry of Renton PIBIPW Department Jones Side Yard Setback Variance REPORTOFAPRIL 9TH, 2007 Page 5of5 F. Decision Administrative Report and Decision LUA07-D25, V-A n,eAdrninistraJive Variance for the Jones Side Yard Setback Variance File No. LUA07-025, V-A, is denied. SIGNATURE: '! .'. / /' }--f/1 \/ -v<A &U aA1/~ Neil Watts, Development Services Director TRANSMITTED this flA day of April, 2007 to the applicant a11d owner: Sal Cohen American Classic Homes P.O. Box 1830 Renton, WA 98057 TR.ANSM11TED this 9"' day of April, 2007 to the parties of record: Durward F. Clare 1818 Jones Avenue NE ~enton, WA 98056 Jean Daniels 1707 Jones Avenue, NE Renton, WA 98056 Darrell & Sue Kinzer Kennydale Blueberry Farm 1733 NE 20"' Street Renton, WA 9805 6 TRANSMITTED tliis 9'' day of April. 2007 to the following: Larry Meckling, Building Official Lany Rude, Fire Prevention Jennifer Henning. Current Planning Manager Land Use Action Appeals 111q/02 Date The administrative land use decision will become final if the decision is not appealed within 14 days of the date of approval. An appeal of the decision must be filed within the 14-day appeal period (RCW 43.21.C.075(3); WAC 197-11-680). RMC Title IV, Section 4-8-11.B, governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner and requires that such appeals be filed directly with the Office of the Hearing Examiner. Appeals must be made in writing on or before 5:00 PM on April 23'•, 2007, and must be accompanied by a $75.00 fee and other specific requirements. 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 conununications after the decision/approval date ·,1st be made in writing through the Hearing Examiner. All communications are public record and this permits . 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. E:096 098 902 ua40::, 1es ess:01 l.O El ..Joit1 American Classic Homes LLC April 11, 2007 Re file number LUA07-025, V-A In March of2007 the project at 1721 ne I 8 pl was red tagged. The neighbor complained that she thought the house was too close to her property. I had it surveyed and submitted the survey with the variance request. It is a 40 foot wide house that was to be placed on a 50 foot wide lot. Our foundation sub contractor placed it too close to one property line, and too fur from the opposite side yard line. The total combined side yard setbacks is l 0 feet. The actual distance from the east side line is 4 feet l 1.4 inches, and the rear comer is 4 feet 11.04 inches. The project summary states that we are asking for 4-9 inches of encroachment, this is not accurate. I think the planner read the survey dimensions incorrectly. This encroachment was an error made by the subcontractor, not an attempt to build too wide a home on this lot. I am not asking for the fireplace projection to come into the setback more than the allowed 2 feet. The roof overhang of this projection comes another 12 inches past the allowed two feet, but is to be trimmed so as not exceed the two feet. Again, this extra projection was not being asked to be allowed in my application for variance. This projection can easily comply with the zoning requirements. I have reviewed the four criteria used in evaluating a request for a variance. Criteria a and b : H~ I asked for a variance to encroach into the side yard setback given the size of the lot at application for permit, I would not expect it to be granted because there are no variables that could point to us suffering an undue hardship. 1bis error was made not to circumvent any zoning requirements, but just by mistake. The house is fully framed, and it would be a undue hardship to correct an error that "would not necessarily be detrimental or injurious to the property in the vicinity'' as stated by the planner in her statement of criteria B. Criteria c: The planner states that the approval would grant special privilege. I find it hard to believe that a very small encroachment or departure from lhe code doesn't happen from time to time. I doubt that any inspector, hearing examiner, or the planner that ruled on this, while in the construction of their home made a Y, inch error in placing · their home, would feel that getting a variance for this was a special privilege, but a reasonable, fair and appropriate granting by the city that would otherwise cause them an unnecessary hardship, while not injuring anyone. Im just asking the City to do the same for me, be fair and reasonable. E:096 098 902 Criteria d: Asking for less than an inch is a minimum to accomplish the desired pmpose, and "would not necessarily be detrimental or injurious to the property in the vicinity" In summary, the planner inaccurately stated the variance we are actually asking for. It is not for 4-9 inches, it for between a half and nine tenths of one inch. I believe we meet all criteria for being granted this variance. Sal Cohen Manager American Classic Homes LLC EOSS 098 90G ;:_:~L:.:..,.IL::.;,i.;_;IL;:..::~.=_~f~l;.=.l .:....:; l:..=..~~-~L~L~iUOL~ 11 ''-''-'''ir-,1...,, ....................... ..... 55.55 ()6' ( r 1 ·\'--' .. \...,.rrl(.('\ C)f , /,11(:. '.:> C>f A&:.c. · y ·.,-'c.c: '-' :t :)1Q/rt over Lo-r ~ ,.,.; ;)/ ~ '" i -1 e~-\i.,C.. ~ 100 0 0 0 o o <D N N 50 .00 :· 500 0 0 0 N .,., ... ----T / I I I LOT 3 _______ _J 55.55 1 CONCRETE 5.06 I / FOUNDATION .--o.-1----'->- ~ No ~-..t 0 -o r1 N 0 ..-- 0 (/) 0 T 4 5.08' I I I L ________ _J 50 .00 LE G~.L DESC RIPTION LOT 4, CITY OF RENTON SHORT PLA T NO . LUA03 -095-SHPL, RECORDED IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON UNDER RE CORDING NO. 20050525900037 ~ ~ 1 "=20' ~ 0 0 . 0 N w .... n 0 0 0 z NT PLANNING DE'J~{f~~~ RENToN MAR -5 1007 RECEIVED C) z ~ 0 0 ...J Wt- U) U) :::, w ~s: LL 0 ~ u <( ca FRONT ELEVATION N z 0 ~ > w ...J w 1-z 0 0:::: LL. z 0 ;::: ~ w ..J w a:: <( w a:: w "' :::, :I: ot--::z: Q: u.O Oz w (!) oZ -52 "' 0 t--o ~ ..J 3: wi< U) iC ::, iC 0 ::c ::c t- u. ::, 0~ w (!) Cz u,- t-~ u,O <(o w ..J ~ )> Al m r m < )> --l C) z r-1 It ' I ~ : I I I 1: \ I I t I I . , I ' ~' I ' i ! ' I I ' " ' i, ' ,, I! I I ' ~. ! - I! If 1 I ' I ! I = I I ' ' I! ~ ! '! ii I I I I I . I !i Ii J#;e . I il ! ril 1111! I __, I ·• //;',, ' . •, ··CD :, I , .I ' 11 l !I 11111111, I ' ,1, ! ,( i I i! • . AMERICAN GLA551G HOMES PLAN M218069F-O r m 11 --l m r m < )> --l C) z ' 11 ! l, 11 •I I 1·: 1.1 I ,. I ' I M//A RC HITE CT S IIW NORTHWEST ,., .. ,_,.........,."'""'"" -... ........ .....,.,_.,._ ... ...., .. ,_ -...... ,_..... ... --~-- < " 0· AMERICAN CLASSIC. HOMES ____ I/II/ARCHITECTS ____ 1/W NORTHWEST ... , .. .....,.._,,. ... .....,, .. _._ __ "'-'':',I=-= ::..~ • STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING } AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Daniele M Ledvina, being first duly sworn on oath that she is the Legal Advertising Representative of the Renton Reporter a bi-weekly newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continuously as a bi-weekly newspaper in King County, Washington. The Renton Reporter has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the Renton Reporter (and not in supplement fom1) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a: Public Notice was published on June 9, 2007. The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of$84.00 Legal Advertising Representative, Renton Reporter Subscribed and sworn to me this 21st day of June, 2007. . ~ \, 2 IJ:. ( _:,,/ ! , • ;o' 0:1'~0\ ~ :. •Q ~ ,.-. • -i l'\l'i>\.\C i ,' -' • j) (2n,7__ -. , r--, .. <.I'>.. t):e-= /3 ~k:D? ~~~-.. 0310111'?~ .... ~~ B D Cantelon ~,,,/l: ··--....... S~ ,,' Notary Public for the State of Washington, Residing in Kent, Washingf;l_if \N ~,,,,, P. 0. Number: " 11111 NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING RENTON HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON A Public Hearing will be held hy the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Ch.ambers on the seventh floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on June 19, 2007 at 9:00 AM to consider the following petitions: Jones Side Yard Setback Variance Appeal LUAOH12f>, V-A Loration: 1721 NE 18th PlacP.. Description: Appeal of an Administrntive deci~ion to denv a side yard setback variu.nce at 1721 r,.;-g 18th Place !'Lot 4 of the .Jones Avenue Short Plat). The parcel is located in the current R-4 zone, but is vested to R-8 development standards. Lot size is 5,999 Rquare feet, and building lot coverage totals 2,013 square feet or 34%. All interested persons are invited to be present at the Public Hearing to express their opinions. Questions should be directed to the Hearing Examiner at 425-430-6515. Published in the Renton Reporter ,June 9, 2007. #868538 Page I of I Andrea Petzel -Variance List -------------------:.hnH,ViJ.f;,,,·b,>llk _____________________ _ From: To: Date: Subject: CC: Sal, Andrea Petzel salcohen@msn.com 05/24/2007 12:14 PM Variance List Jennifer Henning Lu A 01-02s Here are the variances for the last two years in spreadsheet format. Any information on these projects can be obtained at the City Clerk's office, by file number (LUA). Andrea Andrea Petzel, Planner City of Renton -Development Services Division Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425-430-7270 ii petzel@J;i.rentQO .wa .J.ta , ',('()/'} , 1:-z -J , '--1~ V , ... -'"' . file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settingslnweil\Local%20Scttings\Temp\GW}OOOOI .HTM 05/24/2007 Project# I Project Title I Location I Variance Activity# I Variance T~eel Submittal Date I LUA07-052 WINDSTONE II VARIANCE 1727 Nile Ave NE P07-078 V-A 09-May-07 LUA07-047 STONEHA VEN LOT#33 VARIANCE 4 726 Burnett Ct S P07-072 V-A 03-May-07 LUA07-013 HANSEN SETBACK VARIAN CE 4005 Park Ave N P07-056 V-A 23-Mar-07 LUA07-032 ROSEWOOD HIGHLANDS PREL PLAT 224 Union Ave NE P07-050 V-H 16-Mar-07 LUA07-032 ROSEWOOD HIGHLANDS PREL PLAT 224 Union Ave NE P07-05 l V-H 16-Mar-07 LUA07-025 JONES SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIAN 1721 NE 18th Pl P07-034 V-A 05-Mar-07 LUA07-022 WINDSTONE IV LOT 7 VARIANCE 5300NE 16th St P07-029 V-A 23-Feb-07 LUA07-021 HAZEN 565 ZONE RESERVIOR W Of Hazen H.S. At NE "corner" Of NE Su P07-027 V-H 20-Feb-07 LUA07-006 MAPLETON DRIVEWAY VARIANCE 652 Blaine Ct NE P07-006 V-A IO-Jan-07 LUA06-140 COLLIER SHORT PLAT 308 SW Langston Rd P06-253 V-A 06-Dec-06 LUA06-151 RICHARDS SETBACK VARIANCE 3605 Lake Washington Blvd N P06-245 V-A 30-Nov-06 LUA06-135 COLEE SPECIAL FENCE VARIANCE 330 Park Ave N P06-226 V-A 19-0ct-06 LUA06-109 GEIGER SETBACK VARIANCES 3415 Burnett Ave N P06-177 V-A 14-Aug-06 LUA06-109 GEIGER SETBACK VARIANCES 3415 Burnett Ave N P06-178 V-A 14-Aug-06 LUJ\06-109 GEIGER SETBACK VARIANCES 3415 Burnell Ave N P06-l 79 V-A 14-Aug-06 LUA06-108 LINN OFFICE CONVERSION FROM SF 337 Park Ave N P06-176 V-H 10-Aug-06 LUA06-016 ALLAN PRELIMINARY PLAT 3629 NE 19th St P06-144 V-H 11-Jul-06 LUA06-083 MT OLIVET EMERGENCY POWER GEN 250 Bronson Way NE P06-139 V-H 30-Jun-06 LUA06-064 COOK SHORT PLAT 3714 Park Ave N P06-l 13 V-A OI-Jun-06 LUA06-051 SYRBU SHORT PLAT 1917 Jones Ave NE P06-095 V-A 03-May-06 LUA06-042 Ada Rosa Lot Line Adjustment 226 S 15th St P06-086 V-A 24-Apr-06 LUA06-048 PRESIDENT PARK SUBSTATION 475 Union Ave NE P06-090 V-H 24-Apr-06 LUA06-040 Vanna Short Plat & Variance 2216 Edmonds Ave NE P06-076 V-A 07-Apr-06 LUA06-038 Foster Short Plat & Variance 1916 Talbot Rd S P06-071 V-A 05-Apr-06 LUA06-024 Provost Shrln & Hght Variance 3 709 Lake Washington Blvd N P06-052 V-H 09-Mar-06 LUA06-024 Provost Shrln & Hght Variance 3709 Lake Washington Blvd N P06-053 V-H 09-Mar-06 LUA06-019 LAKE VIEW SHORT PLAT 3!2S 15th St P06-049 V-H 07-Mar-06 LUA06-024 Provost Shrln & Hght Variance 3709 Lake Washington Blvd N P06-050 V-H 07-Mar-06 LUA06-021 TRAVERSO SHORT PLAT 3802NE 19th St P06-045 V-A 28-Feb-06 LUA06-0l5 BEACH SHORT PLAT 1333 Monroe Ave NE P06-033 V-A 16-Feb-06 LUA05-118 HONEY CREEK VIEW EST A TES 3524 NE Sunset Blvd P06-030 V-H 15-Feb-06 LUA06-0ll MAINT/CLASSRM BLDG VARIANCE 3000 NE 4th St P06-024 V-H 07-Feb-06 LUA05-153 EIKO SHORT PLAT 1710 Talbot Rd S P06-014 V-A 24-Jan-06 LUA05-145 Rutt Short Plat 1317 Aberdeen Ave NE P06-002 V-A 06-Jan-06 LUA05-167 ANNIE'S PLACE II SHORT PLAT 5511 NE 2nd St P05-244 V-A 28-Dec-05 LUA05-164 TALL FIRS HONEY CRK LOT 8,9,10 3400 Block On NE 17th Place ?05-234 V-A 20-Dec-05 LUAOS-164 TALL FIRS HONEY CRK LOT 8,9,10 3400 Block On NE 17th Place POS-235 V-A 20-Dec-05 LUAOS-164 TALL FIRS HONEY CRK LOT 8,9,10 3400 Block On NE 17th Place POS-236 V-A 20-Dec-05 LUAOS-162 RENTON BIBLE CHURCH COND USE 973 Union Ave NE POS-232 V-H 16-Dec-05 LUAOS-155 Rainier Station 601 Rainier Ave N P06-007 V-H 07-Dec-05 LUAOS-155 Rainier Station 601 Rainier Ave N P06-008 V-H 07-Dec-05 LUAOS-155 Rainier Station 60 I Rainier Ave N P06-009 V-H 07-Dec-05 LUAOS-149 Merry Short Plat 2432 Jones Ave NE POS-215 V-A 06-Dec-05 LUAOS-152 FLYNN VARIANCES & SHOREL EXEMP 5301 Ripley Ln N POS-218 V-A 06-Dec-05 LUAOS-134 RILEY SETBACK VARIANCES 412 Mill Ave S POS-189 V-A 3 I-Oct-05 LUAOS-134 RILEY SETBACK VARIANCES 412 Mill Ave S POS-190 V-A 3 l-Oct-05 LUAOS-133 RAINIER A VE VARIANCE 500 Block Of Rainier Ave S POS-188 V-H 28-0ct-05 LUAOS-132 ARMONDO'S SIGN VARIANCES 310 Wells Ave S POS-184 V-A 25-0ct-05 LUAOS-129 ROOT SETBACK VARIANCE 1632 Index Ave SE POS-180 V-A 21-0ct-05 LUAOS-126 VANDERFORD LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 614 S 15th St POS-177 V-A I 2-0ct-05 LUAOS-111 WILLIAMS SIDE YARD VARIANCE 317 Hardie Ave NW POS-154 V-A 16-Sep-05 LUAOS-112 Vu Rear Yard Variance 320 S 20th Pl POS-155 V-A 16-Sep-05 LUAOS-105 BELL SETBACK V ARTANCE 431 Renton Ave S POS-147 V-A 26-Aug-05 LUAOS-103 Fife Yard Variance/Shore! Exem 3613 Lake Washington Blvd '>J POS-143 V-A 23-Aug-05 LUAOS-019 BLESSING SI !ORT PLAT 5224 NE 5th Pl POS-114 V-A 14-Jul-05 LUAOS-078 HANDS SHORT PLAT 5107 NE 5th Pl POS-198 V-A 24-Jun-05 LUAOS-068 TIMES SQUARE SIGN VARIAN CE 500 SW 39th St POS-092 V-B 26-May-05 LUAOS-053 POOL SETBACK VARIANCE 3601 Lake Washington Blvd N POS-073 V-A 22-Apr-05 LUAOS-023 CAMPEN SPRINGS SIGN VARIANCE 4760 Talbot Rd S POS-035 V-B 24-Feb-05 LUAOS-002 WALSER REAR YARD SETBACK 817 Momoe Ave NE POS-002 V-A 06-Jan-05 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. County of King ) Nancy Thompson being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states: That on the 26'h day of June 2007, affiant deposited via the United States Mail 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: SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this Zkr{day of Jun .f7 , 2007. Application, Petition or Case No.: Nota Public in and for the State of Washington Res· ing at ~7 , 6,:x7,,t--d, therein. Jones Side Yard Setback Variance Appeal LUA 07-025, V-A The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record. I HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT REPORT AND DECISION APPELLANT: OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Sal Cohen American Classic Homes 1028 W Ruffner Street Seattle, WA 98119 Jones Side Yard Setback Variance Appeal LUA-07-025, V-A June 26, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Appellant's written requests for a hearing and examining available information on file, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the June 19, 2007 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, June 19, 2007, at 9:01 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: Appeal file containing the original appeal letter and other oertinent information. Exhibit No. 3: Packet of information submitted by Jerome Cohen, Attorney for Annellant Exhibit No. 5: Jones Avenue Short Plat Plan showing Lot 4, subject of this Aooeal. Exhibit No. 7: Tavlor vs Stevens Countv Parties Present: Ann Nielsen, Assistant City Attorney Andrea Petzel, Development Services Exhibit No. 2: Yellow file by reference Exhibit No. 4: Photograph of Side Yard in Question with Firenlace Protrusion Showing and the Fence Exhibit No. 6: Original Site Plan that was approved at the time of the Building Permit (2 sheets) Jerome Cohen, Attorney for Appellant, 4554 California Ave SW, Seattle 98116 Sal Cohen, Appellant, 1028 W Ruffner Street, Seattle 98119 Ann Nielsen stated that no matter how many inches, or feet the actual setback may be, the variance criteria remains the same and that is why the City is present today to defend the decision. Also, this particular parcel is Jones Side Yard Setback Van..nce Appeal LUA-07-025 V-A June 26, 2007 Page 2 vested to the R-8, but it currently has been rezoned to the R-4. The abutting property, the Blueberry Farm, was originally zoned as Resource Conservation Zone, it has since been zoned to an R-4. The R-4 zone does require a 5-foot setback. Upon questioning by Jerome Cohen. Sal Cohen stated that he is one of the owners of American Classic Homes (ACH) and manages some of the projects. He has worked for ACH for over twenty years and in that time he has been involved in the construction of approximately 300-400 homes. American Classic Homes works with a developer, they purchase property from him from time to time, he developed these lots and brought them to ACH's attention and they subsequently bought the lots the first of 2007. They actually started working on the lots in October 2006, but finalized the purchase in early 2007. Using Exhibit 3A, he pointed out the property in question today and the adjacent Kinzer property (Blueberry Farm). The Farm is approximately 3.5 acres with one home with access off NE 20"' Street. The home is approximately 500-feet from the subject property. When construction began in October 2006, there was a cyclone fence between the two properties. The excavator digging the hole and clearing the property crossed the property line and tore down a section of the fence. After discussions, Mr. Cohen agreed with Mr. Kinzer to replace the fence. The Examiner stated that the issue of the fence has no relevance to the setback variance request. Mr. S. Cohen stated that Exhibit 3B and 3B I photographs show the side yards between the Kinzer property and the property in question, they also show the fireplace overhang that is in question as well. The fence is not on the property line, it was constructed just inside the American Classic Home property by a few inches. Exhibit 3D is the inspection report for the foundation. The City inspects to make sure that the appropriate steel and the ground the foundation was poured on was actually bearing soil and that the setbacks, based on the plat plan were adhered to. At the time of the inspection, he did not know that the footings were intruding into the setback area. They were not trying to expand the size of the house. Ifhe had known at the time, the corrections would have been made immediately. Today with all the houses that are being built, he would speculate that they are being built right to the minimum setback line due to the small lot sizes and trying to get as large a house as possible and still remain with the code requirements. When the inspector does his inspection, he only writes notes down when something is wrong, if there are no problems, the inspector will initial it. They do not intentionally make errors, everyone from the sub-contractors down work towards building within the code and guideline limits, however, the potential for that to happen is certainly there. The setbacks on the survey show the northeast side yard to be 4.95 feet, the southeast side yard 4.92 feet the southwest side yard 5.06 feet and the southeast side yard 5.08 feet. He discovered the error when the framing subcontractor called him and told him that they had been red tagged on the job because the inspector thought they might be too close to the side yard setback. He measured the area and thought they might be incredibly close, so he hired a surveyor to measure the property. After that, he went to the City, applied for an Administrative Variance to allow them to continue with the project leaving the side yard setback as it is. The request was denied. He noticed an error on the denial, the City stated that the measurements of the incursion of the setback were more than what the survey said. When he called the City on this he was told that they had gone out and measured, it was more than half an inch into the setback. The City stated that they had measured from the fence. Jones Side Yard Setback Variance Appeal LUA-07-025 V-A June 26, 2007 Page 3 In order to correct the error, the house would have to be jacked up, excavate on both sides of the side yards and then re-pour the foundations and then move the house over and set it back down on the foundations. The old foundation might have to be pulled out, or possibly there would be some way to tie into the new foundation that would be poured next to the old foundation. It most likely would cost somewhere in the area of $30,000 to do that type of work. The Examiner stated that there obviously are some alternatives as to how things could be shifted to fit the requirements. Economics is not usually justification for a variance. It may not be specifically stated in the code, but it is not justification. If there was nothing on this lot right now, it is 50 feet wide and approximately 120 feet deep. It is relatively flat, if someone came in and asked to move the house one inch to the east, is there anything unique about this property that would justify the variance? It is the location, the property and the location that justifies a variance, it is not the fact that someone made a mistake; economics is not a criteria. Upon questioning by Ann Nielsen, Mr. S. Cohen stated that as the owner/applicant, he hired and retained all the workers on the site. The excavator was the person responsible for digging the foundation in October, he also was the person that ran through the fence separating this property from the Kinzers'. The current fence is not sitting directly on the property line. The fence that the excavator ran into was sitting approximately on the property line, but it was not clear as exactly where. The survey was done after the new fence was erected. The property had been surveyed at the time it was short platted, this time was to survey the house to have a record of exactly where it sat relative to the real property line. He wanted to be able to bring to the City the exact measurements. The crew used the survey stakes to measure where the foundation was to be put. The survey crew has special equipment that they use to do a survey, he is not a surveyor and does not know exactly how the process works. The Examiner stated that he would take the numbers as they exist right now into consideration when making his decision. That is the survey that is part of this record, there is not a second or independent survey, and he would not ask any of the City's field engineers to go out and measure the site. If all were to agree, a third party surveyor would be acceptable. The appellant does indicate that the foundation and home do encroach on the required side yard. Continued questioning by Ms. Nielsen, Mr. S. Cohen responded there are no correction notices regarding any setback. He also stated that he was not aware of a Public Duty Doctrine. He is aware of the concept that when a building or development is undertaken, it is his responsibility to make sure that the structure complies with all applicable codes. Prior to having constructed the foundation, the footing could have been shifted approximately a half inch to the west and it would have been in code. The shifting to the west would not have caused a variance or other need on that side. Andrea Petzel, Development Services in response to questioning by Ms. Nielsen gave a summary overview of the project in question. The subject property is located at 1721 NE 18th Place, in the R-4 zone but is vested to the R-8 zoning standards. (The area was rezoned to R-4 on September 22, 2006) The applicant has requested a variance from RMC 4-2-110.a, Development Standards for Single Family Residential Zoning Designation. The minimum side yard setback for this zone is five feet. The lot is 50-feet wide by 120-feet deep, the lot is approximately 4,999 square feet, all which conforms to R-8 zoning requirements. They have an approved building plan for a two-story single-family residence, construction has begun, the house has been framed and there is a stop-work order in place. It did come to the City's attention that a variance was needed, the appropriate and required materials were submitted for the variance. When a variance is applied for there are four decision criteria that are used to review the application, in the report it shows there was no undue hardship or special circumstances on a lot that is 50 by 120 feet, the case just Jones Side Yard Setback Vanance Appeal LUA-07-025 V-A June 26, 2007 Page4 could not be made that would grant a variance in this situation. There must be some unique characteristic to the lot in order for it to make the case. There was a mistake made and that is not cause for special consideration. There could be a couple of ways to fix this situation. If the siding could be moved interiorly, there would be a small lip on the foundation, and then the rest of the house would conform to the setback. If the piece in question is under 18-inches, it is not counted towards lot coverage or towards intrusions into setback areas. Decks and patios, as long as they are under 18-inches do not count towards setbacks or lot coverage issues. If you put a roof over them then it can become a problem. Once the siding is put on, the side of the house would protrude an additional couple of inches. Based on the City codes, some intrusions like that are allowed into the side yard setback areas. Looking at the original plat plan for Jones Avenue Short Plat, of which the subject property is Lot 4. American Classic Homes owns Lots 2 and 3 and 4. There is nothing unusual about Lot 4. Upon questioning by Mr. J. Cohen, Ms. Petzel stated that things like patios and decks that are less than 18- inches in height do not count towards setback requirements. Siding on the house needs to conform to setback requirements. Once additional siding is attached to the walls of the house, the encroachment increases into the side yard setback area and that is not allowed. Siding would not be allowed to protrude into the side yard setback area, the way it currently does and would increase if further siding materials were added to the house. Whatever is put on the building site plan is what the Development Services Division approves. On the plans that are approved, the side of the house is shown as a pencil line, it does not show what type of siding will be used. She does not check the construction plans, she only deals with the site plan. Sue Larson-Kinzer, 1733 NE 20th Street, Renton, WA 98056 stated that she would like to withdraw the photographs and save them for a later date. There does seem to be some conflicting information in regard to the measurements and the re-survey that was done. In the original Administrative Report and Decision, on page 4 of 5 under B, the last sentence states that there is possibility that the potential for future development on the Blueberry Farm site could be impacted by lessened side yard setback. That is her major concern. If this is granted, what happens if they develop or want to build something on the other side of the fence, are they going to be impacted because the variance on the other side is incorrect? Ms. Petzel stated that if one side yard setback were less than 5 feet, the setback on the adjacent R-4 property would be a minimum of 5-feet. The firewall between two adjacent structures is approximately six feet. However, the Blueberry Farm is heavily constrained by other criteria that would impact its plat application. The Blueberry Farm has an on-site wetland and other special circumstances. Mr. Jerome Cohen had some concerns regarding whether or not another survey would be conducted on the lot. Ms. Nielsen assured him that the City has acknowledged the survey on its face. That is the official one in the record, regardless of the amount involved, the issue still remains the same. Ms. Kinzer asked if this matter were to go on to Council, who would make that determination? The Examiner stated that Mr. J. Cohen or Mr. S. Cohen, if the City doesn't prevail and the Examiner decides for the Cohen's, the City could appeal, and herself as a party of interest and owner of the abutting property, she could appeal as well. Upon questioning by Mr. J. Cohen, Mr. S. Cohen stated the they submitted a plat plan showing the setbacks relative to the property, they also submitted a full set of drawings, foundation plans, side sections that show foundation and wood framing, sheathing, and siding for the house, and the roofmg. The decision was made Jones Side Yard Setback Variance Appeal LUA-07-025 V-A June 26, 2007 Page 5 from the plans for a house that was to be built on a 50-foot wide piece of property. The foundation plan was 40- feet wide with 5-foot setbacks on both sides. That is the standards that are commonly done when applying for a permit. Because most lots are very narrow today, most building is done right up to the setback. The plans are approved based on the foundation. Ms. Nielsen asked to enter the Original Site Plan that was approved along with the Building Permit plans. This document was not submitted as part of the variance request. Mr. Jerome Cohen gave closing statement, the applicant is not trying to say that there is no intrusion, a survey was taken that shows the intrusion does exist between a half an inch and just under an inch north and south on the east side of the building. There has never been any concern brought to the applicant that there was any concern that the siding would in any way additionally add to the protrusion. The applicant is not trying to change the use of the property, the applicant is not trying to expand the size of the house than is appropriately permitted for, and the applicant has testified that this is not an uncommon event. The applicant has testified that this is quite common when dealing with rough materials, wood, framing, foundation forms, this half an inch to just under an inch is very common to the industry. The whole matter was brought to the attention of the City because of the fence issue and that was taken care of. The applicant has come forward voluntarily and admitted that there was an error. There has been no testimony that any injury has occurred to anybody because of this half inch to under an inch incursion. The closest home is 500-600-feet away, they could subdivide their property, at that point in time, the City would go out and survey to determine what was allowable, given the fact that if this variance is granted there could be a half inch or inch movement one way or the other, that's all speculation. There is a huge amount ofland on the other side of the property line. The granting of this variance would not convey to the applicant any special privilege inconsistent with other uses of other properties. There has been some information that a half-inch to under an inch is not granting special privilege. The siding is wider than that that would affect the setback areas. The applicant is not trying to expand the size of his house, the whole house has shifted over, he is not trying to get something more than what he is normally entitled to. It was a simple mistake, and he admits that. The applicant is simply asking for the home to remain where it sits, nothing more. The real issue is the first criteria. The City in its case relies on the case of Lewis vs. the City of Medina. The Medina statute has specific language prohibiting the granting of a variance that is caused by the applicant. The City of Renton statute does not have that language in it, that means that he Hearing Examiner is not constrained by the Lewis vs. Medina case and the Examiner does have the ability to grant the variance, there is no specific condition in the statute that says if the applicant causes the problem, you cannot grant a variance. The City of Renton does allow for variances, this particular situation falls under that statute. It is up to the Examiner to decide if a half inch or inch incursion into that setback is going to harm anyone. The Director signed off on a report that was actually incorrect. It is something for the Examiner to consider, there were mistakes on both sides. If this variance is not granted, there is going to be substantial work to move this structure one way or the other, in the foundation, in the roof structure, siding, wall framing and sheathing has to come off, it is a substantial effort. We have to remember that a half-inch to an inch, public damage, personal/private damage is hard to justify. Ann Nielsen gave closing statement, much has been made about the City's wrongdoing, the City's duty in the issue. The applicant noted that there was nothing that talked about the setbacks, it is in the record, it clearly Jones Side Yard Setback Vanance Appeal LUA-07-025 V-A June 26, 2007 Page 6 speaks for itself. The Examiner has indicated that this is not within the Examiner's purview to consider whether there was any wrong doing on the part of the City. In Taylor vs. Stevens County, a Washington Supreme Court case. The decision states that the duty to ensure that buildings comply with county and municipal building codes rests with individual builders, developers and permit applicants, not local governments. Testimony that has been presented here with respect to whether the building inspectors knew, should have known, came out and inspected, what not, she would move to strike at this point. That is irrelevant to this particular issue as Taylor vs. Stevens County clearly shows the onus is on the builder. There is no duty to the public, to the City, to the Government to ensure that the foundations, stakes or whatever, have been put in the right place. The burden is on the applicants to show that the City made an error in its decision. In examining the evidence that was presented here, the applicants admits that he made a mistake. Looking at the exhibits, the official survey shows that the 4.95 feet at issue is measured from the foundation, not the siding, not any other protrusion,just the foundation to the property line. The code clearly states that there is a five-foot setback requirement. This has been violated. The pivotal criteria are whether there is something unique about this particular property that would justify granting the variance. Neither the applicant nor the City Planner could show anything unique or special about this lot that would justify the granting of this variance. Factors that could be taken into consideration failed to be proven. There is nothing irregular about these lots, they are very standard, conforming rectangular shapes and the applicant testified that even ifhe had moved it over to conform to the five foot setback requirements, there is nothing that would create a hardship or ask for a variance on the opposite side. It is understood that it is a mistake, it is an honest mistake and in fact it most likely would cost a significant amount of money to tear this structure down to rebuild it in order to conform to the setback. Economics is not a factor that the Examiner can consider. There has been no showing here that would even come close to overriding the City's decision to deny this variance. The applicant is not looking to expand the house and so the only issue before the Hearing Examiner is whether this variance is justified or whether the applicant had met his burden. They have failed to meet that burden and it is requested that the Examiner affirm the City's decision to deny the variance. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 11: 11 am. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: I. The appellant, Sal Cohen for American Classic Homes, LLC, hereinafter appellant, filed an appeal of an administrative decision denying a variance for a diminished side yard setback. 2. The appeal was filed in a timely manner. 3. The appellant is developing a home on property located at 1721 NE 18th Place. The lot is Lot 4 of the Jones Avenue Short Plat. The subject site is approximately 5,999 square feet. The subject site is described as flat. The subject site is currently zoned R-4 (4 units per acre) but is vested for development under its former R-8 (8 units per acre) zoning. 4. A complaint was received from the neighbor who suspected that a new home was being constructed too Jones Side Yard Setback Variance Appeal LUA-07-025 V-A June 26, 2007 Page 7 close to their common property line. The City investigated the claim and found that the home was probably out of compliance. The City asked for a survey. 5. A home is being constructed on the subject site and is framed with exterior and roof sheathing in place. A Stop Work Order was placed on the home when it was discovered that it was constructed too close to the east property line. The required side yard for the R-8 Zone is five feet (5'). 6. The side yard in question surveyed as between 4.92 inches and 4.95 inches wide whereas as noted above, five feet is required. The same survey found the opposing side yard on the western side of this new home was between 5.08 feet and 5.06 feet, in other words, more generous than required but a larger side yard is permitted. 7. In this case, the measurements were made from the property line and the foundation. While there had been questions about the validity of the survey, the City accepted the survey for purposes of this review. 8. While not in contention at this point in the review, the roof eave area over a fireplace bump out was overhanging too far into the side yard. The appellant has not sought a variance and will remove the excess overhang. This office could speculate that the eave overhang gave the home the appearance of being too close to the property line and may have generated the neighbor's apprehension and complaint. 9. The Staff Report was dated April 9, 2007. The report reviewed the criteria for a variance (cited below) and found that granting the variance was not justified. The City found there was no hardship created by property constraints. They found the lot was of sufficient size, flat and rectangular and no critical areas (slope, wetland, etc) affected the property. They noted that the only reason a variance was needed was that the "foundation being poured incorrectly" and "the request for a variance is simply the opportunity to compensate for a mistake." 10. The City noted in discussing potential detriment to the public or neighboring property that, "there is possibly (italics in original) the potential for future development on the Blueberry Farm site that could be impacted by a lessened side yard setback." 11. The City also noted that approving a variance to compensate for the mistake due to economic cost could possibly be argued as granting the appellant a special privilege. 12. Finally, the City indicated that the variance requested to allow this slightly reduced side yard is the minimum necessary to permit the home to remain where it is. 13. The adjacent parcel to the east is commonly referred to as The Blueberry Farm. It is currently zoned R- 4 which would permit detached single-family homes. The Blueberry Farm may be constrained by critical areas on its site. No plans for subdivision have been submitted. Staff could not provide any indication about whether that the appellant's reduced side yard, if approved, might have an impact of potential development plans for the Blueberry Farm vis a vis Building or Fire Code issues. 14. Section 4-9-250B(5) provides the criteria for review of variance requests: Decision Criteria: Except for variances from critical areas regulations, the Reviewing Official shall have authority to grant a variance upon making a determination in writing that the conditions specified below have been found to exist: (Amd. Ord. 4835, 3-27-2000) a. That the applicant suffers undue hardship and the variance is necessary because of special circumstances applicable to subject property, including size, shape, topography, Jones Side Yard Setback Vanance Appeal LUA-07-025 V-A June 26, 2007 Page 8 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; 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; 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; d. That the approval as determined by the Reviewing Official is a minimum variance that will accomplish the desired purpose. (Amd. Ord. 4835, 3-27-2000) CONCLUSIONS: I. The appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the decision of the City Official was either in error, or was otherwise contrary to law or constitutional provisions, or was arbitrary and capricious (Section 4- 8-11 O(E)(7)(b ). The appellant has failed to demonstrate that the action of the City should be modified or reversed. The decision of the City is affirmed. 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). An appellate body should not necessarily substitute its judgment for the underlying agency with expertise in a matter unless appropriate. While as noted below this office struggled with the decision, the decision below is not in error and this office is not in a position to substitute its judgment. 4. The appellant's property suffers no unique property conditions. The 50 foot wide lot is flat and rectangular and has no critical areas. If the appellant were to request a variance on such an undeveloped parcel there would be no justification for the variance. The criteria call for a hardship created by a unique property condition. No hardship exists due to the existing lot's characteristics. If the lot were not currently developed with the erroneously placed foundation and framing materials, there is no hardship. The hardship that exists still is not based on an underlying lot constraint. It finds its basis in an error in construction. Staff did not make any error in rejecting the request for variance relief. 5. Frankly, this office has spent considerable time considering the issues in this case. While it normally supports a very strict adherence to the criteria for granting a variance it also had to consider what is or is not a reasonable margin of error when pouring foundations or erecting any kind of structure. This office does not have a great deal of experience in survey methods or actual construction methods but it would expect that employing modern equipment one can get very precise measurements. This office would also expect that employing excellent construction practices forms and foundations come out where they should. Of course, digging, trenching or what-have-you, placing of forms and concrete setting all might create some minor discrepancies. Then again, the appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the City decision was in error. The appellant might have called some additional witnesses to suggest that an inch, plus or minus, is minor in a forty foot ( 40') wide foundation and could be entertained as a reasonable outcome. Jones Side Yard Setback Variance Appeal LUA-07-025 V-A June 26, 2007 Page9 6. The appellant has demonstrated that the error did not result in a more generous footprint -the deviation to the east is accompanied by one on the west, meaning the foundation is still 40 feet wide and not 40 feet wide plus an inch. The foundation was inadvertently shifted less than an inch eastward. This results in an eastern side yard too narrow about approximately an inch and a western side yard that is a bit less than an inch larger than required. But as was pointed out at the hearing a bigger footprint might not always explain why someone may not meet the code. The inch one-way or the other could result in a better view or possibly a higher vantage point, albeit, SLIGHT. 7. This office is also aware of the potential of environmental waste, even ignoring the monetary waste, if materials cannot be salvaged if the home has to be moved less than an inch to the west. Potential waste because of an error of less than one inch. It would appear that when pouring foundations, there might be latitude or margin of error of less than a certain factor? But what should that factor be? Is this office in a position to set that standard? Less than one inch? One inch precisely? Or 1.000009 inches? Therein lies the problem. This office has no gauge to judge whether the fractional error should be blessed. What if another person makes a two-inch error? It is still rather minor in the scheme of things. Three inches? Five inches? 8. This office has to finally conclude that any resolution in the appellant's favor must be sanctioned by the City Council and probably best done with an ordinance change. As was clearly indicated during the course of the hearing, the subject site does not have any unique feature that would otherwise require variance relief. The only reason relief is necessary in this case is that the appellant mistakenly located the home too close to the property line. 9. This office can visualize a process where a construction error is sanctioned by a variance process or something similar. It should clearly consider whether the error appears to be innocent and where the applicant for such a remedy can demonstrate that they did not gain in any substantial manner from the error. In other words, if the structure was enlarged more than a minute amount, it might not be reasonable to allow such "error" to be sanctioned. Also, the impact on abutting property or the public must be considered. If the error would affect a neighboring lot in such a fashion that that neighbor would have to adjust its building or property parameters, the error should not be sanctioned. In other words, if there were a Building Code or Fire Code setback provision that would adversely affect neighboring properties, the application should probably be denied. JO. In conclusion, the City decision below is not erroneous and should not be reversed or modified. A variance in this case is inappropriate given the current criteria for review. The decision below is affirmed. DECISION: The City decision is affirmed and the appeal is denied. ORDERED THIS 26th day of June 2007. HEARINGE Jones Side Yard Setback Va. ._nee Appeal LUA-07-025 V-A June 26, 2007 Page 10 TRANSMITIED THIS 26th day of June 2007 to the parties of record: Ann Nielsen Assistant City Attorney City of Renton Sal Cohen American Classic Homes PO Box 1830 Renton, WA 98057 Durward F. Clare 1818 Jones Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Andrea Petzel Development Services City of Renton Darrell & Sue Kinzer Kennydale Blueberry Farm 1733 NE 20th Street Renton, WA 98056 TRANSMITIED THIS 26th day of June 2007 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker Larry Rude, Fire Marshal Jerome Cohen 4554 California Ave SW Seattle, WA 98116 Jean Daniels 1707 Jones Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services King County Journal Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services Pursuant to Title N, Chapter 8, Section IOOGofthe City's Code, request for reconsideration must be ftled in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., July 10, 2007. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors oflaw 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 N, Chapter 8, Section 110, 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, frrst floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., July 10, 2007. 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. 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. • Jones Side Yard Setback Variance Appeal LUA--07-025 V-A June 26, 2007 Page 11 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. Sal Cohen Manager, American Classic Homes LLC 2806 NE Sunset Blvd. Renton, WA 98056 CITY Re: J9aes Side Ymd Setback V ariat1ce Appeal ~ LUA 07-025, V-A Dear Mr. Cohen: •F RENTON Hearing Examiner Fred J. Kaufman Due to a conflict in scheduling, the appeal hearing on the above matter has been rescheduled for Tuesday, June 12, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. The hearing will take place in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. The address is 1055 S Grady Way in Renton. If this office can provide any further assistance, please address those comments in writing. Sincerely, Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton FK/nt cc: Larry Warren, City Attorney Ann Nielsen, Assistant City Attorney Neil Watts, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Jean Daniels Durward F. Clare ----l-0-55_S_o_u_th_G_r-ad_y_W-ay---R-e_n_to_n_, W-as-h-in-gt_o_n_9_80_5_5---(4_2_5_) 4-3-0--6-5-15 ____ ~ ~ This oaoer contains 50% recvcled material. 30% oost consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE Sal Cohen Manager, American Classic Homes LLC 2806 NE Sunset Blvd. Renton, WA 98056 Re: Jones Side Yard Setback Variance Appeal LUA 07-025, V-A Dear Mr. Cohen: CITY •F RENTON Hearing Examiner Fred J. Kaufman The appeal hearing on the above matter has been scheduled for Tuesday, May 29, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. The hearing will take place in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. The address is 1055 S Grady Way in Renton. If this office can provide any further assistance, please address those comments in writing. Sincerely, J/. 1'#»1-.(z/J, ./.' .• r-· A_ /,,l,I, '/) r . , 0• ,, C (/ Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton FK/nt cc: Larry Warren, City Attorney Ann Nielsen, Assistant City Attorney Neil Watts, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Jean Daniels Durward F. Clare ----l-0-55_S_o_u_th_G_r_a-dy-W-ay_-_R_e_n_to_n_, W-as-h-in-g-to_n_9_8_05-5---(-42_5_) _43-0--6-5-l-5 ----~ AHEAD OF THE CURVE ' CITY OF RENTON 12 APR l>i'.-.2007 American Classic Homes LLC April 11, 2007 Re file number LUA07-025, V-A Jo\\eS S.c0> 'jC'-J RECEIVED CITYt<;:LERK'S OFFICE ~ 10'.(1;.A In March of2007 the project at 1721 ne 18 pl was red tagged. The neighbor complained that she thought the house was too close to her property. I had it surveyed and submitted the survey with the variance request. It is a 40 foot wide house that was to be placed on a 50 foot wide lot. Our foundation sub contractor placed it too close to one property line, and too far from the opposite side yard line. The total combined side yard setbacks is I 0 feet. The actual distance from the east side line is 4 feet 11.4 inches, and the rear corner is 4 feet 11.04 inches. The project summary states that we are asking for 4-9 inches of encroachment, this is not accurate. I.think the planner read the survey dimensions incorrectly. This encroachment was an error made by the subcontractor, not an attempt to build too wide a home on this lot. I am not asking for the fireplace projection to come into the setback more than the allowed 2 feet. The roof overhang of this projection comes another 12 inches past the allowed two feet, but is to be trimmed so as not exceed the two feet. Again, this extra projection was not being asked to be allowed in my application for variance. This projection can easily comply with the zoning requirements. I have reviewed the four criteria used in evaluating a request for a variance. Criteria a and b : Had I asked for a variance to encroach into the side yard setback given the size of the lot at application for permit, I would not expect it to be granted because there are no variables that could point to us suffering an undue hardship. This error was made not to circumvent any zoning requirements, but just by mistake. The house is fully framed, and it would be a undue hardship to correct an error that "would not necessarily be detrimental or injurious to the property in the vicinity" as stated by the planner in her statement of criteria B. Criteria c: The planner states that the approval would grant special privilege. I find it hard to believe that a very small encroachment or departure from the code doesn't happen from time to time. I doubt that any inspector, hearing examiner, or the planner that ruled on this, while in the construction of their home made a Y, inch error in placing their home, would feel that getting a variance for this was a special privilege, but a reasonable, fair and appropriate granting by the city that would otherwise cause them an unnecessary hardship, while not injuring anyone. Im just asking the City to do the same for me, be fair and reasonable. Criteria d: Asking for less than an inch is a minimum to accomplish the desired purpose, and "would not necessarily be detrimental or injurious to the property in the vicinity" In summary, the planner inaccurately stated the variance we are actually asking for. It is not for 4-9 inches, it for between a half and nine tenths of one inch. I believe we meet all criteria or being grl14ted this variance . . ' Sal Cohen Manager American Clas ic I • ""-----~ ... -, D C.Jsh 5J..'Check No. Description: CiIT OF RENTON City Clerk Division 1055South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 425-430-6510 5boo'? D (.;0py Fee lid"Appeal Fee Mm, 0 ~~c-a I Lufl · o 1 =-S _, V-4- Funds Received From: Name Address City/Zip 1./25 -235-(l?3DO Receipt N: .. 0834 Date ___,4 /_I '2---'-_ J 0--'l~ D Notary Service o ________ _ I City St . ' . -· ' . . 1 -,i·' i: ,.-.. ·-· ·. ·, ·, -·,;;,<,,t', .. ·.-, • --......,,---· -c..--'9-... -k--.... s ... -, ""';,.,""'--.... , .,..,rr ,...._,.,, "'-< •>"=, "...... ......."",¥· ....... --• :t\Ji"'"""""·'f:i ... >i>""'-w""'1f-'ttillil··4~-... rhl""'·;i"'Wa1-·· rwetftliiiiWilili: f·""'*'' ~ .... tr.i..+.J.Jd [Nancy Thomeson -POR 07-02t;0d_o~c __ --~------ Parties of Record JONES SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIAN Sal Cohen American Classic Homes PO Box 1830 Renton, WA 98057 tel: (206) 226-7252 eml: salcohen@msn.com (owner/ annlicant / contact) Darrell & Sue Kinzer Kennydale Blueberry Farm 1733 NE 20th Street Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Updated: 03/22/07 LUA07-025, V-A Jean Daniels 1707 Jones Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056-2665 tel: (206) 298-8275 eml: KD7GTE@comcast.net (party of record) Durward F. Clare 1818 Jones Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Pa\je ij (Page 1 of 1) 2063822804 05/2 107 10: 35 #006 P . 002/002 CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER 2 3 IN RE: ADMINISTRATIVE VARIENCE 4 APPEAL of Case No.: LUA07--025, V-A NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 5 AMERICAN CLASSIC HOMES, LLC, a s Washington limited liability company. 7 Appellant 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 TO: CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AND TO: ANN S. NIELSON, CITY ATTORNEY APPELLANT herein, AMERICAN CLASSIC HOMES, L.L.C. appears in this matter through its attorney of record, JEROME 0. COHEN, 4554 CALIFORNIA AVENUE, S.W., SEATTLE, WA 98116, and requests that all papers and pleadings herein be served upon said --0:.:.-::.:::;,ooth;, No,;oo( lJdl Notice of Appearance -1 J10ME 0. COHEN, WSBA #5071 Jerome 0. Cohen, Attorney at Law 4554 California Avenue SW SealUe, WA 98116 ( 206) 621-9095 Fax ( 206) 382-2904 0 06"'Y)•)no4 L ,JIJ.:_LO 05/; 107 10:35 #006 P.001/002 Jerome 0. Cohen Attorney at Law 4554 California Avenue SW Seattle, WA 98116 (206) 621-9095 Fax: (206) 382-2904 To: City of Renton Hearing Examiner From: Jerome 0. Cohen Fax: 425430--6523 Phone: Re: Appeal LUA 07-025, VA D Urgent D For Review Pages: 2 Incl. Cover Date: CC: D For Your Use NOTICE 5/24/2007 Ann Nielson, City Attorney 425-255-547 4 0 Please Reply 0 Please Recycle THE INFORMATION IN THIS FACSIMILE IS PRIVILIGED AND OR CONFIDENTIAL IT IS INTEDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. IF THE READER OF THIS TRANSMITTAL SHEET IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION OR ANYH OF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEVIED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THIS OFFICE BY TELEPHONE AT (206) 621-9095 AND RETURN THIS FACSIMILE TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIAMAIL. • Comments: Notice of Appearance for Appellant American Classic Homes, LLC : ' Hear/11:J ExamlrteY- CITY '--"'F RENTON ~~: 1, -;-Kathy Keolkcr, Mayor ·l:,','\•·f'--~Y'--...;..-....;.....;. _______________________ _ City Clerk Bonnie I. Walton May 10, 2007 Sal Cohen American Classic Homes 2806 NE Sunset Bl. Renton, WA 98056 Re: Variance Request -LUA07-025, V-A Dear Mr. Cohen: Your letter regarding your project at 1721 NE 18th Place has been received by Renton City Council members, who thank you for sharing your concerns. On behalf of City Council, please know that the one of the purposes of the Hearing Examiner system, as established by City ordinance, is to reassure citizens of fairness in the land use permit approval process. The hearing examiner is a professionally-trained individual who makes objective quasi-judicial decisions that are supported by the record and that are free from political influences. The hearing examiner system helps to ensure that roles are clarified, conflicts are avoided, and decision-making is improved through procedural fairness. In other words, you are at the right place in the process, and will be heard by a professional, with a law degree, acting similar to a judge, whose appointment to office has been confirmed by the City Council. The Hearing Examiner's schedule currently shows that your appeal hearing will be held on June 12, 2007. After the report and decision is issued by the Hearing Examiner there will be a 14-day period during which an appeal to City Council could be filed if desired. Under City Code, if such appeal to City Council were filed, no additional public hearing would be held and no new or additional evidence or testimony could be accepted by the Council. The Council decision would be rendered after consideration of the existing record. We hope this information is helpful and that your issue can be soon resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Sincerely, Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk cc: Members, City Council Mayor Kathy Keolker Jay Covington, CAO 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, Washington 98057 -(-4-25_)_4-30---65_1_0_/_FAX--(4_2_5_) 4-3-0--6-5-16-~ @ Th1spapercam,11•",s Uh, :,:c 1,,:,'c'J ·nalerial. 30% post consumer AHEAD Of' THJ.. CLIJtVE --- / May 9 2007 American Classic Homes LLC Denis Law Renton City Council Dear Councilman Law May 9 2007 American Classic Homes LLC Marci Palmer Renton City Council Dear Councilman Palmer May 9 2007 American Classic Homes LLC Don Persson Renton City Council Dear Councilman Persson CllY OF RENTON MAY O 9 2007 RECEIVED OfTY Cl..eRK'S OFFICE CITY OF RE:NTON MAY O 9 2007 RECEIVED OITY Cl..eRK'S OFFICE CllY OF RENTON MAY O 9 2007 RECENED OITY Cl.eAK':S or=FICE I am a homebuilder, and have done a lot of work in the city or Renton , in the last several years. I believe our company to have a good reputation, and good standing regarding the 1 . 1 . 1 • ,1 •, JI \ • . ' May 9 2007 American Classic Homes LLC Denis Law Renton City Council Dear Councilman Law CITY OF Rl=NTON MAY O 9 2007 RECEIVED ~Ty QER!('$ OrFICE I am a homebuilder, and have done a lot of work in the city or Renton , in the last several years. I believe our company to have a good reputation, and good standing regarding the work we have done in the city. We were recently red tagged on a project located at 1721 ne 18 pl. The house is framed. A neighbor complained that they thought our house was too close to their property, based on their measuring the house from fence posts that we installed. I had the home surveyed by a licensed surveyor. It was one half of one inch too close on one comer. And nine tenths of an inch on the far corner of the house. Our foundation sub contractor simply made a slight error when he placed the foundation, there is the extra Yi to .9 inches of side yard on the other side. The complaining neighbor is the Kinzers. who own the "blueberry farm". I submitted this survey, along with a variance request. The planner who reviewed it wrote in her analysis, that it was 5 to 9 inches too close, again based on her measurements from fence posts, that were inside of our property, and 5 inches thick, and totally ignoring the survey. I waited 5 weeks for this to come back. I then applied for a hearing. I was told to have my attorney contact the city attorney, and that often, in cases like this, something can be negotiated without having to take the time of a hearing examiner. We did contact the attorney who is handling this, and after checking with the staff, told us that it needed to go to the hearing examiner. she could do nothing. Please see my attached variance, and request for a hearing. I frankly assumed that because the distance was so minute, that a request would be almost automatic, routine. Because lots are getting so small, most new homes get built to the maximum limit of the side yard setbacks. An error like this must occur often, and come to someone's attention occasionally. I cannot believe that administrative variances for accidental mistakes as inconsequential as this end up resulting in the city asking a property owner to move a full house. There must be some precedence for granting a variance for a minor mistake that was made. The planner who handled this did not feel moving a full house was a "undue hardship". Apparently, she has never tried to move a whole house. I do not know if there is any additional political issues going on in regard to the Kinzers that is making the staff have such a hard time with this issue. This home has been dead in the water for 90 days, unroofed, unsided, windows sitting in garage. and I am expecting a delay of another 30+ days to get to the hearing examiner. We lost the sale we had on this home, after the buyers were told the initial request for an administrative variance was denied. Any help in this matter, or thoughts on how I might handle this would be appreciated. I have attached the hearing request application letter. Sincerely Sal Cohen I • .. " ./ American Classic Homes LLC April 11, 2007 Re file number LUA07-025, V-A In March of 2007 the project at 1721 nc 18 pl was red tagged. The neighbor complained that she thought the house was too close to her property. I had it surveyed and submitted the survey with the variance request. lt is a 40 foot wide house that was to be placed on a 50 foot wide lot. Our foundation sub contractor placed it too close to one property line, and too far from the opposite side yard line. The total combined side yard setbacks is I 0 feet. The actual distance from the east side line is 4 feet 11.4 inches, and the rear corner is 4 feet 11.04 inches. The project summary states that we are asking for 4-9 inches of encroachment, this is not accurate. This encroachment was an error made by the subcontractor, not an attempt to build too wide a home on this lot. Im an not asking for the fireplace projection to come into the setback more than the allowed 2 feet. The roof overhang of this projection comes another 12 inches past the allowed two feet, but is to be trimmed so as not exceed the two feet. Again, this extra projection was not being asked to be allowed in my application for variance. This projection can easily comply with the zoning requirements. I have reviewed the four criteria used in evaluating a request for a variance. Criteria a and b : Had l asked for a variance to encroach into the side yard setback given the size of the lot at application for permit I would not expect it to be granted because there are no variables that could point to us suffering an undue hardship. This error was made not to circumvent any zoning requirements, but just by mistake. The house is fully framed, and it would be a undue hardship to correct an error that "would not necessarily be detrimental or injurious to the property in the vicinity" as stated by the planner in her statement of criteria B. Criteria c: The planner states that the approval would grant special privilege. I find it hard to believe that a very small encroachment or departure from the code doesn't happen from time to time. I imagine that if any planner, inspector, or hearing exan1iner, in the construction of their home made a Y, inch error in placing their home, they would feel that getting a variance for this was not a special privilege, but a reasonable fair and appropriate granting by the city that would otherwise cause them an unnecessary hardship, while not injuring anyone. Im just asking the City to do the same for me, be fair and reasonable. Criteria d: I think that asking for less than an inch is a minimum to accomplish the desired purpose, and "would not necessarily be detrimental or injurious to the property in the vicinity" In summary, the planner inaccurately stated the variance we are actually asking for. It is not for 4-9 inches, it for between a half and nine tenths of one inch. I believe we meet all criteria for being granted this variance. Sal Cohen Manager American Classic Homes LLC .. / \. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 CITY OF RENTON .JUN 1 4 2007 c.tM"1 RECEIVED "J lfSf CITY Cl.ERK'S OfflCf BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON 8 RE: ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 9 ONES SIDE YARD SETBACK ARIANCE APPEAL NO. LUA-07-025 V-A 10 11 APPLICANT AMERICAN CLASSIC HOMES PREHEARING BRIEF 12 ll---------------) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 I. FACTS The subject property is located at 1721 NE 18 1h Place (Lot 4 of the Jones Avenue hort Plat) in Renton, WA. This parcel abuts the Kennydale Blueberry Farm a parcel that s approximately a 3.4 acre tract, zoned as RC -Resource Conservation. A copy of the ity of Renton Zoning Map showing the subject and adjacent properties is apptached ereto as Exhibit A. The closest structure to the property line in question is approximately 00 to 600 feet away. The Applicant, American Classic Homes, LLC, Sal Cohen, anager, began construction of a two story, single-family home on the property in the first eek of October, 2006. Prior to start of construction there existed an old dilapidated arbed wire fence along the east property line between this property and the Kennydale lueberry Farm owned by Mr. and Mrs. Kinzer. During construction the Applicant's ubcontractor damaged the Kinzer' s fence. Mr. Cohen was in contact with Mr. Kinzer and PPLICANT'S PREHEARING BRIEF -I Jerome 0. Cohen 4554 California S.W. Seattle, WA 98116 (206) 621-9095 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 sked what he needed to make the situation right. Mr. Kinzer on two occasions said he as going to document the damage and his demands in a certified letter. The letter was ever sent. Mr. Cohen finally arranged a meeting with Mr. Kinzer on the property. The nly thing Mr. Kinzer wanted was a new fence. Per agreement the Applicant erected a ew six foot high cedar fence within two weeks of the meeting. A picture of said fence is ttached hereto as Exhibit B. Any delay in the erection of the fence was because the pplicant was waiting for Mr. Kinzer' s letter. The City of Renton inspected the location of the footings and foundation prior to heir installation October 12, 2006. The City Inspector signed off on the permit to allow the ootings and foundation to be poured where they now exist on October 12'11 and October J 8· 2006. A copy of the Inspection Record is attached hereto as Exhibit C. Work roceeded on the project and as of the institution of the stop work order in late February, 007, it had been framed, and the exterior and roof sheathed. A picture of the state of onstruction of the home as it looks today and as of the stop work order is attached hereto s Exhibit D. The applicable side-yard setback for this property is 5 feet. The neighboring roperty owner complained that the home encroached into the setback area. The setback or the neighboring property is 25 feet under the RC zoning. A copy of RMC 4-2-11 OA evelopment Standards for Single Family Homes is attached hereto as Exhibit E. How the 23 neighbor was able to determine that there was such a minimal encroachment is unknown. 24 The City of Renton staff person who inspected the property and prepared the report 25 erroneously stated that the encroachment is approximately three inches. This is not the 26 27 28 29 30 PPLICANT'S PREHEARING BRIEF -2 Jerome 0. Cohen 4554 California S.W. Seattle, WA 98116 (206) 621-9095 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ase. The encroachment represents less than an inch. The Applicant commissioned a rofessional surveyor lo locate the home in relation to the property line. The survey shows hat the south side of the eastern edge of the foundation is 4 feet, 11.04 inches from the roperty line, an incursion into the setback of. 96 of an inch. The northern side of this oundation is shown to be 4 feet, 11.4 inches from the property line, an incursion of .6 of inch. A copy of the surveyor's report is attached hereto as Exhibit F. The Applicant as unaware of any improper incursion into the setback area until a complaint was made. his is an inadvertent and de minimus mistake by the Applicant's subcontractor. Testimony will show that to require the Applicant to move the home back Yz to I · nch will require demolition of the entire eastern side of the house and roof, demolition and emoval of the steel reinforced concrete footings and foundations, repouring the footings nd foundations, refran1ing of the wall and roof and resheathing of these structures. The ost of this work will be over $40,000. The fireplace protrusion intrudes into the setback area. However, pursuant to RMC -2-1 IOD (4)(a) fireplace protrusions may intrude into the setback area 24 inches if they do ot exceed ten feet in width. The fireplace projection into the setback conforms with the ode. The eaves of the fireplace projection extend an additional 12 inches into the setback. he Applicant is not requesting a variance for this incursion because he has agreed, upon lifting of the stop work order, to cut the eaves back so as to limit the intrusion to that allowed by the code. 23 24 The Applicant timely appealed this decision to the City's Hearing Examiner. The 25 hearing is scheduled for June 19. 2007. 26 27 28 29 30 PPLICANT'S PREHEARING BRIEF -3 Jerome 0. Cohen 4554 California S.W. Seattle, WA 98116 (206) 621-9095 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 II. ISSUES Does the Applicant meet the criteria to justify a variance. III. ARGUMENT The Applicant agrees that the variance criteria in this matter is set forth in RMC 4- 9-2508. Applicant also agrees with the City Attorney's analysis that this is a request for an area variance as opposed to a use variance and that under Hoberg v. City of Bellevue, 76 Wn. App 357, "Relief from setback is a classic example ofan area variance, as opposed to a use variance." The Applicant also agrees that, under Hoberg, the interpretation of the code's variance criteria is a matter of law which the appellate court reviews de novo. However, the Applicant does not agree with the City's analysis that the Lewis v. City of Medina, 87 Wn.2d 19, case is controlling in this matter. The facts here show that 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 the Applicant clearly meets the criteria set out in RMC 4-9-2508(5). Under subsection ( 5)(b) of that code, the granting of the variance for incursion of Yi to less than one inch of the side yard will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated. The property adjoining is a blueberry farm of approximately 3.4 acres. The closest home is approximately 500 to 600 feet from the property line. The sideyard setback requirements for the neighboring property under the Resource Conservation zone is 25 feet as indicated on Exhibit E. There has been no offer of proof nor can there be a reasonable argument that the minimal incursions into the side yard that APPLICANT'S PREHEARING BRIEF -4 Jerome 0. Cohen 4554 California S. W. Seattle, WA 98116 (206) 621-9095 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 s being requested 'Nill in any way be detrimental to the neighbors or anyone else in the ea. Under subsection (5)(c) the granting of this variance will not convey upon the pplicant a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations of uses of other properties. his is not a use variance but an area variance. As such no special privilege or use is being equested. It is shown on the survey, Exhibit F, that to the extent the foundation protrudes nto the setback on the east side it is away from the property line on the west side. The ome dimensions fit within the setback requirements so no expansion of lot coverage xists. Again, no inconsistent limitation of use is being requested. Under subsection (5)(d) the Applicant is asking for the very minimum variance to llow his home to remain where it has been constructed, Y, inch to just under 1 inch inside he five foot setback. It is under subsection (S)(a) that the Applicant's initial variance request has been enied. Testimony will show that placing of the foundations of the home .6 to .96 of an nch inside the setback area was through innocent mistake, not intent. In fact the city of enton building inspector signed off on the location of the placement of the footings and oundation. Testimony will also show that this type of minimal error is not uncommon in he construction industry when dealing with imprecise materials such as the earth, wooden orrns, liquid and very heavy concrete and rough framing lumber. Testimony will dditionally show that in order to conform to the exact setback line the entire framed and heathed side of the house and roof structure must be removed, the concrete footings and oundations that are reinforced with re-bar steel must be demolished and removed, the PPLICANT'S PREHEARING BRIEF -5 Jerome 0. Cohen 4554 California S.W. Seattle, WA 98116 (206) 62 I -9095 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ootings and foundations reformed, re-bar replaced and re-poured with concrete and the ouse reframed, roof structure replaced and sheathed on the entire eastern side. The cost f doing this is estimated at over $40,000. This can certainly be considered an undue ardship given the minimal intrusion that exists, the mechanism to grant the variance vailable and the absence of any form of damage to anyone if is granted. The City Attorney argues that under Lewis v. City of Medina the variance should be enied because the situation was the result of the Applicant's own action. However, an mportant distinction exists between the Lewis case and the current matter. In Lewis the ity of Medina ordinance specifically provided that of the conditions necessary for the ariance to be approved: "2. That the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances which are not the general condition of the neighborhood, and are not the result of the owner's action;" Emphasis added) Medina Ordinance No. 159, Lewis at 23 here is no such specific language in RMC 4-9-250B(5). As such the Hearing Examiner is ot constrained to follow the ruling of l,ewis. There is another doctrine under the law that the Applicant asserts and the Hearing xaminer is urged to consider, de minimis non curat lex. The law does not care for, or take notice of, very small, or trifling matters. Black's Law Dictionary. The Applicant submits that this is exactly the situation here. The incursion into the setback of .5 to . 96 of an inch 23 24 is di minimis. The Applicant is not requesting any different use. No damage relating to the 25 minimal incursion exists. The adjoining property is over 3.4 acres with no residence or 26 27 28 APPLICANT'S PREHEARING BRIEF -6 29 30 Jerome 0. Cohen 4554 California S. W. Seattle, WA 98116 (206) 621-9095 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ther structure within 500 to 600 feet of the property line. Given the Resource onservation zoning the neighboring sideyard setback must be 25 feet. The tiny incursion n the Applicant's property cannot be said to offend or injure the neighboring property in y way. The cost to remove and replace the structure will be substantial, over $40,000. his fact situation is exactly what the doctrine of de minimis non curat lex was created for d which should be applied here. IV. CONCLUSION The case of Lewis v. City a/Medina is not controlling here because of the specific 10 statutory language in the Medina city codes. There is no restriction contained in the 11 12 13 Renton ordinance criteria that specifically removes this matter from consideration because of an inadvertent and minor error by the Applicant. The Applicant meets the criteria under all of the Decision Criteria contained in RMC 4-9-250B(5) and the Hearing Examiner has 14 15 full authority to grant the area variance requested. The Applicant respectfully requests the l6 Hearing Examiner to consider the di minimis doctrine and grant the requested area 17 variance. 18 DATED: June .cf__, 2007 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 APPLICANT'S PREHEARING BRIEF -7 -------- ome 0. Cohen, WSBA #5071 ttorney for Applicant Jerome 0. Cohen 4554 California S.W. Seattle, WA 98116 (206) 621-9095 CITY OF RENTON ZONING MAP RESIDENTIAL -(RC) Rssourca Conaarvation -(R-1) Residential 1 du/ac [>.{'.I (R-4) Residential 4 dulac LJ (R-8) Residential 8 du/ac D (RMH) Residential Manufactured Homes D (R-10) Raaldantial 10 du/ac -(R-14) Rasldantial 14 du/ac -(RM-F) RaaldanUal Muhl-Family -(RM-n Raaldantlal Mulli-FIITlily Traditional WF;';:I (RM-U) Residential Multi-Family Urban Center ---City Limits Map Adopted April 3, 2006 Map Updated Through Ordinance 5243 Effective January 14, 2007 Thi$ document Is o 9rq:,hfc representation, not guaranteed to survey occurocy, l'ltendect for city purposes only ond based on the best information QV(liloble O!I of the dote shown. This map is for display purposes only. MIXED USE CENTERS -(CV)CenlllrVlllage ~m (UC-N1) Urban Canter-North 1 D (UC-N2) Urban Center-North 2 -(CD) Canter Downtown -(COR) Commercial/Oflice.Residantial COMMERCIAL (CA) Commercial Arterial -(CO) Commercial Office -(CN) Commerclal Neighborhood INlUSTRIAL D (IL) lnduatrial -Ughl D (IM) Industrial -Medium -(IH) Industrial -Heavy EXHIBIT A II 1 ! 1 . i I I I I ! z t ~ _L_____j ---r-, ~_______j___ -., ---} ~---1 d I I \ I lI N ature o f W o rk: • CITY OF RENTON Inspection Record Permit :\'um be r : CPQ4504 Call by 4 :00 pm for inspectio ns the foll owing day -Phone 425-430-7202 C all before work is concealed or c oncrete p ou red/Do not pour concrete until approved Do not cove r until approved/Do not o c cupy until final inspection is comple te NEW SIN GLE F A MILY R F.S[l)L\'C E C OMBI:\'ATION PERMlT -------------------- Job Addre ss : 1721 i\E 18TH PL Lo t#tU n itff 1 B IJgr'1r renant: .JON ES A V E SHPL. LO"f fq Owner : l 'l3l . I ypc : Sq . Ft: 3496 ROUSS O MARC+~tEZC S TRAl'l;O JAY He ght: 0 O c cupancy: R3 Con t ractor :A\1ER1C Al\ CLASSI C H0\1ES LLC Phone : 206 -725 -6967 -------------------- IJns pcction T y pe iDa te Jlns pe cror 1C onHfants l ~~Gr::=~-F-° -~~JG f~F-~;._;;,:~=,;r=-;i£~-=--0v=--~-====~ 11=_00 ~1L_l_Q_ _____ ~--+ \;6_S-_'.'~~-~1, vi-2ffit,_Jl5:_,,e,:X cl,,, '5:;,~(6 . ~ -Bk,!L __ J r--________ _ ____ _! __ jf;_L _ J~:'.~~ i v · Bzj. ~;-c___ I A~8~_j ~nd:1l ion -l__!_ ______ i lD -(~_{6~_/.'f'_! _?s~ A:P-~--U. :0 '<V ?, tt.> 4 ~j L_____ r-----' l l,_.,F +:ttt ~u ~ ~~ _\._9 ··\\::-_o~ c~~::.~---:1----t-l i -----------------------------------j !Plumbing Rough-In -5 3 j--------, ___ : ___ --·---j ;Mecha ni c al Ro ug h-In ~ ~ ;-------- I :------·: I--------------, Elec tn c al Ro ug h-In -21 1 , 1 I ----~----,---..., --------------J-j r::-;---·-·· !__ -----· --- ~al Scr~ice -27 I i______ _ -----~ ,Unde r F-lo_o_r ::-s6--i i'3.\-G7 -U'LL>-~~~~_,;,~L_J2i~~.?.1(/,.:.l (.'t ~ .1,,,.'/-~.:1'.LI~ ~ j.;:)1 L =J +-------1---S1~,-:_:~--,--~--fo~L J.,l!--1 :1:r;du~ t 1) "iid_L _.2l)-L:Z~ .1,7 ~ ~ng -12 L I _J _ ____ _ ________________________________________ ; ~~~---13 -~~=-~ _ -~-----------===-=----====-_:J d nsulation -1-l l l : , i--------------r-----r-----: -------------------------------: f-:::-:.-; ; ' ------------------------------------1 lOth e r -_~?_-==---+--+~==-i ~=-== _____ -~~~---j !Elect n ca l Fin a l -99 : -------1--_ J ______ -__ ------~~ij . I ,Fma l -10 0 , -----EXHIB IT-C L ----------· . --------------------------------- f----------~- Pos t this r ec m l "' j v l > sit , a t ,tll tlm ,·s A EXHUllT U .. . . 4-2-110 RESIDENTIAL DEVE' "PMENT STANDARDS Page 1 of 33 TOC < > 4-2-110A DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS (Primary and Attached Accessory Structures) RC R-1 R-4 R-8 DENSITY (Net Density in Dwelling Units per Net Acre) Minimum Housing Density 4 dwelling units for proposed short None None None per net acre.1 • 2 plats or subdivisions 1 dwelling unit per 1 net acre except that in designated Urban Separators, Maximum 1 dwelling unit per density of up to 1 4 dwelling units 8 dwelling units Housing Density 2• 1 O net acres. 5 unit per gross acre per 1 net acre.13 per 1 net acre. 14 may be permitted subject to conditions in RMC ±c.3-11Q, Urban Separator Overlay. NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS PER LOT Maximum 1 dwelling with 1 Number per legal 1 dwelling unit. 1 dwelling unit. 1 dwelling unit. lot 2 accessory unit. . LOT DIMENSIONS 1 acre. 8,000 sq. ft.11 • 13 4,500 sq. ft. for Minimum Lot Size except where parcels greater for lots created 10,000 sq. ft. for small lot clusters 10 than 1 acre. after November 10, O acres. cluster are allowed, R-8 5,000 sq. ft. for 2004 development. 3 standards shall parcels 1 acre or apply. less. 75 ft. for interior lots. 85 ft. for corner 70 ft. for interior lots. lots. Minimum Lot 150 ft. for interior Except for 80 ft. for corner 50 ft. for interior Width for lots lots. clustered lots.11 · 13 lots. created after 175 ft. for corner development within Except where 60 ft. for corner November 10, lots. designated Urban small lot clusters 10 lots. 2004 Separators, R-4 are allowed, R-8 standards shall standards shall apply for both apply. interior and corner lots. Minimum Lot 80 ft.11 · 13 except http://www.codepublishing.com/W A/Renton/renton04/renton0402/renton040211 O.html E'I.H •1?11" t 6/4/2007 ., 4-2-110 RESIDENTIAL DEVE' "PMENT ST AND ARDS Page 2 of33 •• Depth for lots where small lot created after clusters 10 are November 10, 200 ft. 85 ft. allowed, R-8 65 ft. 2004 standards shall apply. 12,.c_ SETBACKS 4 'K-'{ 30 ft.12· 13 except 15 ft. for primary where small lot structure. clusters 10 are 20 ft. for attached allowed, R-8 garages accessed standards shall from front or side apply. yard street. Unit with Alley Unit with Alley Access Garage: Access Garage: Minimum Front 30 tt.6 30 ft. 6 The front yard The front yard Yard setback of the setback of the primary structure primary structure may be reduced to may be reduced to 20 ft. if all parking 10 ft. if all parking is provided in the is provided in the rear yard of the lot rear yard of the lot with access from a with access from a public right-of-way public right-of-way or alley.6 or alley.a 15 ft.7 for the 20 ft. 12· 1 3 except primary structure Minimum Side where small lot and 20 ft. for Yard Along a 30 ft. 7 20 ft. 7 clusters 10 are attached garages Street allowed, 15 ft. is which access from the front and side allowed. yard along a street. 15 combined ft.12· 13 is allowed with Minimum Side a minimum of 5 ft. Yard 25 ft. 15 ft. for any side yard, 5 ft. except where small lot clusters 10 are allowed, 5 ft. 25 ft. Minimum Rear 35 ft. 25 ft. Where small lot 20 ft. Yard clusters 10 are allowed, 20 ft. In no case shall a In no case shall a In no case shall a In no case shall a structure over 42 structure over 42 structure over 42 in. in height structure over 42 in. in height in. in height Clear Vision Area intrude into the 20 in. in height intrude intrude into the 20 intrude into the 20 ft. clear vision into the 20 ft. clear ft. clear vision ft. clear vision vision area defined area defined in in RMC 4-11-030. area defined in area defined in RMC 4-11,030. RMC 4-11-030. RMC 4-11-030. Minimum 10 ft. landscaped 10 ft. landscaped 10 ft. landscaped 10 ft. landscaped setback from the setback from the setback from the Freeway Frontage street property setback from the street property street property Setback line. street property line. line. line. BUILDING STANDARDS Maximum I I I I http://www.codepublishing.com/W A/Renton/renton04/renton0402/renton040211 O.html 6/4/2007 ,.. 4-2-110 RESIDENTIAL DEVEL rrnMENT ST AND ARDS Page 3 of33 Building Height 2 stories and 30 ft. and Number of for standard roof. Stories, except for 2 stories and 30 ft. 2 stories and 30 ft. 2 stories and 35 ft. 2 stories and 30 ft. uses having a for roofs having a "Public Suffix" (P) pitch greater than designation 9 3/12. Maximum Height for Wireless See RMC 1:4-See RMC 4-4-See RMC 4:1: See RMC 4-4- Communication 140G. 140G. J'1-QG. 140G. Facilities Lots 5 acres or more: 2%. An additional 5% of the total area may be used for agricultural Lots greater than Lots 5,000 sq. ft. Maximum buildings. Building Lots 10,000 sq. 5,000 sq. ft.: 35% or greater: 35% or 2,500 sq. ft .• or 2,500 sq. ft., Coverage ft. to 5 acres: 35%. whichever is whichever is (Including primary 15%. On lots greater. greater. and accessory greater than 1 buildings) acre, an additional Lots 5,000 sq. ft. Lots less than 5% of the total or less: 50%. 5,000 sq. ft.: 50%. area may be used for agricultural buildings. Lots 10,000 sq. ft. or less: 35%. All dwelling units shall provide vertical facade modulation at Vertical Facade least every twenty Modulation horizontal feet (20'), including front, side and rear facades when visible from a street. LANDSCAPING AND OPEN SPACE 5 ft. wide irrigated 5 ft. wide irrigated Minimum Off-Site or drought or drought Landscaping resistant resistant Abutting Non-landscape strip; landscape strip; Arterial Public provided, that if provided, that if Streets for Plats there is additional there is additional and Short Plats undeveloped right-undeveloped right- Submitted on or of-way in excess of-way in excess after November 10, of 5 ft., this shall of 5 ft., this shall 2004 also be also be landscaped. landscaped. 10 ft. wide 10 ft. wide irrigated or irrigated or drought resistant drought resistant Minimum Off-Site landscape strip; landscape strip; Landscaping provided, that if provided, that if Abutting there is additional there is additional http://www.codepublishing.com/W A/Renton/renton04/renton0402/renton0402 l l O.html 6/4/2007 55.55 ;io· e,;.+S!,.,d• ~'11m u+. i,-/;c."" ._, \Ct::c·"'Y<'O=<::In0-rr over Lc,-t·=- 1/.:i, '.J ci 4 Pe.-\i,Q.. Pee 106 0 0 0 0 ci <J) N N 0 _,-. 500 50.00 4.95' 0 0 ci N ..,.-----T / I I ~ LOT 3 N '<I" ~ ri 0 0 VJ I 0 0 0 C'-1 ~ CONCRET£ / FOUNDATION 5.0 OT 4 4.92 5.08' I I I _______ _J L ________ _J 55.55 50.00 LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 4, CITY OF RENTON SHORT PLAT NO. LUA03-095-SHPL, RECORDED IN KING COUNTY, WAS1-11NGTON UNDER RECORDING NO. 20050525900037 1"a=20' f,'/(,3 0 foVW~ l'ik\ 0 '1 (;/' ~o!!A'-- 0 va,vitwlt N i '1 .( ,.--r-ai l.lf.,.f=t . w ::. N -tj- ..--n 0 0 0 z -..-NT pJ'i"·ir...n\~:.G ,.c:-,;ELOPM~F-~'E ivbi --Ci1YC n- ¥.AR -5 2\1u"i RECE.\\IED '· 1 2 3 II 5 6 7 INRE CITY OF RENTON MAY 3 1 ?Ou? RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON 8 JONES SIDE YARD SETBACK g VARIAN CE APPEAL NO. LUA-07-025 V-A CITY OF RENTON'S PREHEARING BRIEF 10 11 12 I. FACTS 13 The subject parcel is located at 1721 NE 18 1 h Place (Lot 4 of the Jones Avenue 111 Short Plat) in Renton, WA. This parcel abuts the Kennydale Blueberry Farm. The owner 15 of this property, Sal Cohen ("Applicant") began construction for a two story, single-family 16 residence. There is a stop-work order currently in effect pending resolution of this matter. 17 18 19 20 21 This area is currently zoned to an R-4, but the subject parcel is vested to the R-8 development standards. Under R-8 zoning, the applicable side yard setback is 5 feet. According to Applicants, their survey plan shows an encroachment of approximately one inch. A field visit by City Staff determined that a greater encroachment exists.1 City Staff 22 also found: "In addition to the encroachment by the foundation, the eaves of the fireplace 23 projection also extend into the required setback area." Administrative Report and 211 25 26 27 28 1 According to a survey submitted by Applicants. the encroachment to the north is approximately '!, an inch and to the south, approximately I inch. Applicant notes that the City misread this survey in its calculations for making its decision, and based on this clarification, seeks to justify the variance. The City acknowledges that this survey is the only registered survey in the file. However, the City nonetheless maintains its denial of the variance, even based on these figures. CITY OF RENTON'S PREHEARING BIJU DG Eis co PY WARREN BARBER & FONTES, P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOO SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFRCE BOX 626 RENTON, WASHINC.ION 98057 PHONE (4251 ZSS,8678 • FAX (4.tS) l55-S474 1 2 3 II 5 Decision, Jones Side Yard Setback Variance, LUA 07-025 V-A ("Admin. Decision") at 2. Staff further determined that an additional variance would be required for the encroachment of the fireplace and its associated eave. Applicant Sal Cohen ("Applicant") requested a variance from this setback 6 requirement pursuant to RMC 4-2-I I OA. The Zoning Administrator reviewed the matter 7 and determined that Applicant's situation did not meet the variance criteria set forth in 8 RMC 4-9-250(8)(5) and denied the request. Applicant timely appealed this decision to the 9 City's Hearing Examiner. That hearing is scheduled for June 2, 2006. 10 11 12 13 111 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 II. ISSUE Does the Applicant meet the criteria to justify a variance? III. ARGUMENT The City's variance criteria is set forth in RMC 4-9-2508. The Zoning Administrator must consider four factors to determine whether or not to grant the request: 1) undue hardship; 2) not materially detrimental to public welfare or property; 3) not a special privilege; 4) is the minimum necessary to accomplish the purpose. The Hearing Examiner is well versed in the City's variance code and therefore, the City will not belabor the criteria factors. The Zoning Administrator reviewed the application and found that it did not meet the four variance criteria necessary to grant the variance. In particular, the Zoning Administrator found that the Applicant failed the undue hardship criteria. Admin. 23 211 Decision at 4. In his April 11, 2007, appeal letter, the Applicant admits that he would not 25 have an undue hardship claim, but for the error that was made in constructing the house. 26 "The house is fully framed, and it would be an undue hardship to correct an error." The 27 City does not disagree that having to remove the framework and reconstruct it at this stage 28 CITY OF RENTON'S PREHEARING BRIEF -2 WARREN BARBER f:J FONTES, P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 SOUTH SECOND STRE'ET • POST omCE BOX 626 JI.WTON, WASHINGTON 980S7 PHONE (4lS) 2H-667A • FAX 1425) 255-547,t 1 2 3 would create an undue hardship upon the Appellant. However, the difficulty lies in assessing how to evaluate the undue hardship criteria when the hardship is self-created by 11 the Applicant. 5 "Interpretation of the code's variance criteria is a matter of law, which the appellate 6 court, like the trial court, reviews de novo under the contrary to law standard." Hoberg v. 1 City of Bellevue, 76 Wn. App 357, 359, 884 P.2d 1139 (1994). An analysis of Washington 8 caselaw is somewhat muddled on this issue. On the one hand, the type of variance 9 10 11 12 13 111 requested by Applicant here ("area" versus "use") is the very type for which variances are intended: Relief from setback is a classic example of an area variance, as opposed to a use variance. An area variance is one which does not change the specific land use but provides relief from dimensional requirements such as setback, yard size, lot coverage, frontage or height restrictions. Hoberg v. City of Bellevue, 76 Wn. App 357, 360, 884 P.2d 1139 (1994). In Hoberg, the 15 1 6 Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's decision that the City "must grant a variance to 17 (Applicants] allowing them to build a house on their nonconforming lot." Id. at 358. The 1 8 Hoberg Court further explained that "the very purpose of a variance ordinance is to allow 19 20 21 22 exceptions, typically to area requirements, so that in appropriate circumstances, nonconforming lots can be developed." Id. at 362. Arguably, Applicant's case is the very type of area variance contemplated by the Hoberg decision. In fact, like Hoberg, Applicant Cohen's seeks a variance from the City's 23 211 setback requirements. The difference however, is that Cohen, unlike Hoberg, has a self 25 created undue hardship claim which was brought about by a physical action taken by the 26 Applicant. 27 28 CITY OF RENTON'S PREHEARING BR!Ef -3 WARREN BARBER 6' FONTES, P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • f'OST OFFICE BOX 6l6 RENTON. WASHINGTON 980.~7 PHONE f4Z5l 255-8678 • FAX (425) 255.541.+ 1 2 3 On the other hand, the City of Medina's refusal to grant a variance was upheld in Lewis v. City of Medina, 87 Wn.2d 19, 548 P .2d 1093 (1976). A series of events involving 11 successors in interest and conveyance of an additional tract eventually led to Lewis seeking 5 a variance from the City's zoning requirements. In doing so, Lewis claimed a financial 6 hardship and a related takings argument against the City. But, the Lewis Court specifically 7 pointed out that "[ e ]conomic hardship cannot usually be urged as a reason for the 8 invalidity of an otherwise valid statute or ordinance ... " Id. at 22. 9 10 11 The respective variance criteria in Hoberg and Lewis both contain similar language regarding special and unique circumstances and the provision that the circumstances are not self created: 12 13 The special circumstances of the subject property are not the result of the actions of the applicant. Hoberg, 76 Wn. App at 361. 111 15 16 17 18 * * * That the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances which are not the general condition of the neighborhood, and are not the result of the owner's action. Lewis, 87 Wn.2d at 22-23. (emphasis in original.) Though the two cases produced opposite results, the City can reconcile the cases by pointing to the facts of each case as it related to the circumstance factor of the respective 19 20 21 City's ordinances. Unlike Hoberg, the Court in Lewis found that the Lewis' situation "was the result of their own action. They had failed, thereby, to meet one of the essential criteria 22 for the granting of the variance." Lewis, 87 Wn.2d at 23. 23 The City acknowledges that Applicant's variance here is the type of area variance 211 contemplated in the Hoberg decision. The city even concedes that having to tear down and 25 reconstruct the framework would be an undue hardship for the Applicant. Moreover, the 26 City believes Applicant that the encroachment was in error and unrealized until after the 27 28 CITY OF RENTON'S PREHEARJNG BRIEF -4 WARREN BARBER & FONTES, P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 616 RENTON, WASHINGTON 98057 PHONE (-4251 255•8678 • FAX ( ... l~) iSS•S-474 1 2 3 framework was constructed. The fundamental problem, however, is that the Applicant created the very problem for which he now seeks a variance. Hence, Applicant's situation 11 more closely fits the Lewis conclusion that the self-created hardship would negate the 5 criterion for granting the variance. 2 6 7 8 9 10 11 IV. CONCLUSION Although the City finds both cases applicable to the Applicant's case, the primary problem lies with the self-created nature of Applicant's property. Regardless of whether the alleged encroachment is one inch or five inches, the problem remains the same. The 12 Zoning Administrator carefully contemplated all these issues prior to its decision denying 13 the variance. Unless Applicant can show other legal basis to overcome the City's 111 decision, the denial of the variance must be affirmed. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 211 25 26 27 28 DATED this 31st day of May, 2007. WARREN BARBER & FONTES, PS ~G?4~ Ann Nielsen, WSBA #31425 c•,CLiN.T:r,,1 Assistant City Attorney I HEREBY DECLAHC, U.;~DCH f(ii.A'....TY r:,~ f'~:"1.,LJ,?Y PUFISUANr ro THE lft.WS OF 11-;r:,. ·sr1:Tt OF WASHINGTON. THAT I M/\11.ED A V)f'Y o, THiS DOCUMENT TO All ATIOSNEYS OF :'l:C'~\;[) AND ALL PARTIES, IF ANY, NOT REPRES1;;1TED 3Y COJNSEL ON 5 31_/o 7. -.,;::;..t....,::.;,,_,L· ...:C:....!__, PD,TAGE PREPAID. 2 The City believes that the owner of property abutting the Applicant, Ms. Sue Larson Kinzer will be testifying at the schedule June 2, 2007 hearing. Although the City is not calling Ms. Kinzer as a witness, the City believes that Ms. Kinzer will likely testify that the encroachment has caused damage to her property and granting the variance will be detrimental to both her property and others in the area. CITY OF RENTON'S PREHEARJNG BRJEF • 5 WARREN BARBER & FONTES, P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 SOUTH SliCOND STRl:ET • POST OFFlCE BOX 626 RENTON, WASHINGTON %OS? PHONE (•I.ZS) 2SS-8678 • FAX (•f2SI 2ss-s•1• !RENNAN I• r, 884 P.2d 1343 ,ct preliminary hea, 1 oncurrent with the the peace in their r, · , ~pp. at 474 (quoting mcluded that districl superior courts to is,.1.· trench upon superirn elony cases. 44 Wn. ,\: 1e trial court's reason 11 tion in superior court , 1 on over the "matters c, · "but does not depriv,· '' ,n to issue warrants. I 1 urt's authority to issu<' r 10.14.150 is essentiali ttock, 44 Wn. App. at I, 1atter of issuing a sear, '· e. r Const. art. 4, § 6 (am,·, 1 i jurisdiction over the L ~ction orders, and the I ' § 10 (amend. 65) by r:1 ' ' issue such orders througi' 1• rassment order issued I. /\'as void ab initio bee"" -0 issue the order. Bri·1·• , order therefore must I, Court is reversed. J., concur. 6 (amend. 65) was amended in l!l'.1 lrrent jurisdiction over cases in ('q,, issue civil antiharassment proteri 1 Const. art. 4, § 6 (amend. 871. HOBERG v. BELLEVUE 76 Wn. App. 357,884 P.2d 1339 · ... :i:3125-6-1. Division One. December 15, 1994.) 11·,m HOBERG, ET AL, Respondents, v. THE CITY OF BELLEVUE, ET AL, Appellants. 357 " 1 ·,11i4·ipal Corporations -Ordinances -Construction - ·~·" ·,lion of Law or Fact. The interpretation of a local ordi- ,. i:--an issue of law. \l,,,1it·ipal Corporations -Ordinances -Construction - tt , 1 1 •· w -Standard of Review. An appellate court reviews a ,·1iurt's interpretation of a local ordinance de novo under , ,nt rary to law standard. ,111lt~s -Construction -Administrative Construction - ''· ,,.,·,,nee to Agency -Ambiguity-Necessity. A court will >11·1• considerable deference to the construction of a statutory 1 .. 1on by the agency charged with its enforcement unless the 1·,1on is ambiguous. ..,,,liult~s -Construction -Administrative Construction - .' I .. ,.,.,., Ultimate Responsibility. Although a court will give •• 1 .J,•rable deference to the construction of an ambiguous 1 • -.,. .• ,,11,)r_y provision by the agency charged with its enforcement, -"· , ,d1.11nately for the court to determine the purpose and mean- , .1 t lw provision. _f,.,1111K -Variance -Area Variance -What Constitutes. ·•-,1 ('ll variance is one that does not change the specific land _,· "'"' ',11 r provides relief from dimensional requirements such as 11·k. _yard size, lot coverage, frontage, or height restrictions. •t~"""'K -Variance -Area Variance -Conditions -Use ~•mil -Status as Use Variance. An area variance does not , ,,,w u use variance merely because it is conditioned on the owner's obtaining a further permit from a different #, ~,111l,{ -Variance -Area Variance -Purchase With Inn'\~ lt•dge of Area Restrictions. The fact that a purchaser \ 1 pmperty with actual or constructive knowledge of area . t 1orn-1 does not, by itself, justify the denial of a variance. ;•t11 d1aser acquires no less right to a variance than held by , I lpr· unless the claimed hardship arose out of the purchase -~t', "'' ,d ~~ Disposition of Cause -Matters Considered. An 'J .. ~"' \Lili• court need not decide all the issues raised by the par- ·:7Mt~ , i ,1 ppeal, but only those that are determinative. 358 HOBERG v. BELLEVUE Dec. 1994 76 Wn. App. 357, 884 P.2d 1339 Nature of Action: Property owners sought judicial re- view of a city's denial of a variance to allow them to build a house on their property. Superior Court: The Superior Court for King County, No. 91-2-25989-5, Peter Jarvis, J., on June 24, 1993, entered a judgment requiring that the city issue a variance subject to certain conditions. Court of Appeals: Holding that the plaintiffs' applica- tion satisfied the area variance criteria established by the city code, the court affirms the judgment. Richard B. Sanders, for respondents. Patrice C. Cole, for appellants. BECKER, J. -We affirm the Superior Court's decision that the City of Bellevue must grant a variance to Chester and Janice Hoberg allowing them to build a house on their nonconforming lot. The denial of the variance by the City's Board of Adjustment resulted from an interpretation of the Bellevue Land Use Code that is contrary to law. I Under the Bellevue Land Use Code (BLUC), the minimum lot size for single-family medium density housing is 10,000 square feet. In July 1990, the Respondents (Hoberg) pur- chased a nonconforming triangular-shaped vacant lot mea- suring 7,391 square feet on Bellevue Way S.E., where they planned to build a house. The code requires a front yard setback of 60 feet and a rear setback of 25 feet. The small size, atypical shape and sloped terrain, in combination with the setback requirements, constrict the buildable area of Hoberg's lot to a triangle of 624 square feet. What Hoberg could build on his lot, without a variance, would be a narrow 3-story tower, inconsistent with the character of surround- ing houses. The front yard setback is not subject to variance. Hoberg applied to the City's Design and Development Department for a variance reducing the rear yard setback from 25 to 15 _,';., Dec. 1994 HOBERG v. BELLEVUE 359 76 Wn. App. 357, 884 P.2d 1339 feet. The requested variance would virtually double the buildable area on the lot. The buildable area would then extend into slopes at the back of the lot. These slopes fall within the City's designation as "protected area" because of their steepness or potential instability. The Design and Development Department approved Hoberg's application for the 10-foot reduction in the rear setback. One condition of its approval of the variance was that Hoberg obtain a permit from the Storm and Surface Water Utility, a different department, to exempt part of the slopes on his lot from protected area status. Such an exemp- tion may be obtained if the applicant meets certain require- ments to assure long-term slope and soil stability with min- imum maintenance. Because citizens submitted objections, the application went on to the City's Board of Adjustment for a public hear- ing. The code requires the board to vote, publicly, on each of eight criteria for variances set forth in the code. On October I. 1991, the board denied the variance after failing to :,chieve a majority vote on two of the eight criteria, A and E. Hoberg sought a writ of review challenging the board's ienial of his variance application. The Superior Court held a hearing on August 12, 1992, and remanded the matter to the board for entry of specific findings on criteria A and E. On June 23, 1993, the court again reviewed the board's proceedings, including the specific findings, and ordered the City to grant Hoberg's variance application subject to the conditions initially recommended by the Design and Devel- opment Department. It is from this order and decision that the City appeals. II [1, 2] Interpretation of the code's variance criteria is a matter oflaw, which the appellate court, like the trial court, reviews de novo under the contrary to law standard. Free- burg v. Seattle, 71 Wn. App. 367, 371, 859 P.2d 610 (1993); RCW 7.16.120(3). [3, 4] The City urges us to defer to the board's interpre- tation of the variance ordinance. Considerable judicial defer- 360 HOBERG v. BELLEVUE Dec. 1994 76 Wn. App. 357, 884 P.2d 1339 ence should be given to the construction of an ordinance by the agency charged with its enforcement. Citizens for a Safe Neighborhood v. Seattle, 67 Wn. App. 436, 440, 836 P.2d 235 (1992), review denied, 120 Wn.2d 1020 (1993). But this rule of statutory construction applies only when the law being interpreted is ambiguous, and even then, the agency's interpretation is not "absolutely controlling" on the court. Hama Hama Co. v. Shorelines Hearings Bd., 85 Wn.2d 441, 448, 536 P.2d 157 (1975). It is ultimately for the court to determine the purpose and meaning of the law. Overton v. Economic Assistance Auth., 96 Wn.2d 552, 555, 637 P.2d 652 (1981). Having given due weight to the board's construction of the variance ordinance, we conclude crite- ria A and E are not susceptible to the board's interpreta- tion of them. Criterion A permits a variance if it will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and Land Use District in which the property on behalf of which the application was filed is located[.] BLUC 20.30G.140(AJ. [5] Criterion A restricts the granting of use variances. The City argues that relief from setback is among the use variances that criterion A prohibits. This interpretation is contrary to law. Relief from setback is a classic example of an area variance, as opposed to a use variance. An area vari- ance is one which does not change the specific land use but provides relief from dimensional requirements such as set- back, yard size, lot coverage, frontage or height restrictions. 3 Robert M. Anderson, American Law of Zoning § 20.07 (3d ed. 1986); 4 Washington State Bar Ass'n, Real Property Desk- book § 80.40, at 80-25 (2d ed. 1986); see, e.g., Douglass v. Spokane, 25 Wn. App. 823, 826, 609 P.2d 979, review denied, 94 Wn.2d 1006 (1980). In seeking relief from a dimensional requirement, Hoberg was not proposing a use inconsistent with the single-family medium density classification for his property. The board's own findings state that Hoberg's proposed residential use is consistent with the City's comprehensive plan, "encouraging Dec. 1994 HOBERG v. BELLEVUE 361 76 Wn. App. 357, 884 P.2d 1339 development which is of residential scale and character along Bellevue Way S.E." [6] The City further argues that the words "limitation upon uses" in criterion A include the protected area status of the slopes at the back of the lot. Criterion A cannot be read as authorizing the board to reject a variance in order to protect the slopes. Allowing the buildable area to extend into the slopes grants Hoberg no special privilege as com- pared to neighboring property owners. Under the code, any property owner may seek an exemption from protected area status from the Storm and Surface Water Utility. This pro- cedure is separate from a variance application. The Storm and Surface Water Utility, not the board, has the responsi- bility of deciding whether to permit construction on the slopes of Hoberg's lot. An area variance does not become a use variance, forbidden by criterion A, merely because it is conditioned on obtaining a further permit that depends on the stability of soils at the building site. In short, Hoberg's application did not propose a use vari- ance. The board erred in denying Hoberg's application as contrary to criterion A. Criterion E permits a variance if [t]he special circumstances of the subject property are not the result of the actions of the applicant[.] BLUC 20.30G.140(El. Criterion E applies to circumstances such as those in Lewis v. Medina, 87 Wn.2d 19, 548 P.2d 1093 (1976). In Lewis, the court upheld the denial of a variance where the hardship was self-inflicted because the owners of the prop- erty had participated in the subdivision that created the substandard parcel. Lewis, at 23. Here, the Board concluded that the lot's special circum- stances resulted from Hoberg's actions because it found he either knew or should have known about the setback re- quirements in 1990 when he bought the lot. [7] Buying a lot with awareness of its special circum- stances does not, by itself, cause those special circum- stances. If it did, the purchaser of a nonconforming lot could J 362 HOBERG v. BELLEVUE Dec. 1994 76 Wn. App. 357, 884 P.2d 1339 never be granted an area variance. Yet, the very purpose of a variance ordinance is to allow exceptions, typically to area requirements, so that in appropriate circumstances, nonconforming lots can be developed. Real Property Desk- book § 80.35, at 80--20; § 80.39, at 80--25; see, e.g., RCW 36. 70.020(14). The law further recognizes that if the prior owner would have been entitled to a variance at the time . . . the zoning ordinance restriction was enacted, the right is not lost to a purchaser simply because he bought with knowledge of the regulation. In other words, because a pur- chaser of property acquires no greater right to a variance than his predecessor, he should not be held to acquire less. (Footnotes omitted.) 3 Arden H. & Daren A. Rathkopf, Zon- ing and Planning§ 38.06, at 38-75 (4th ed. 1988). Accordingly, we hold the mere fact that a purchaser buys with actual or constructive knowledge of area restrictions does not, without more, justify the denial of a variance. A subsequent purchaser can stand in the shoes of the original owner with respect to a variance, so long as the claimed hardship does not arise out of the purchase itself. E.g., Mar- lowe v. Zoning Hearing Bd., 52 Pa. Cornrow. 224, 233, 415 A.2d 946, 950--51 (1980). Whether criterion E should require the denial of a vari- ance to a purchaser from an unrelated vendor whose action caused the lot to be nonconforming is a question not before us. In the present case, there is no evidence that either Hoberg or his predecessors subdivided the lot from a larger parcel under the present code, or did anything to create the lot's special circumstances. Neither the requirement for a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet nor the setback requirements were in effect when former owners created the lot in 1946. The board erred in denying Hoberg's application as con- trary to criterion E. The City does not dispute that the ap- plication met the six other criteria.' 1The ordinance provides, "The decision maker may approve or approve with modifications an application for a variance from the provisions of the Land Use f I I ,--',. i "'. ~ ; ,. t i r f € ~ .,J, l .i t ,} "' I-t-111'.i s· {, J:. ~' ~: I *' ' ·'f ,- ):: ~. .B ,i/c: Dec. 1994 HOBERG v. BELLEVUE 363 76 Wn. App. 357, 884 P.2d 1339 III Both parties claim procedural irregularities. Hoberg as- signs error to the board's meeting to draft findings in exec- utive session with the City's attorney. The City objects to the trial court's order that permitted Hoberg to inquire into the proceedings of the executive session. [8] Our decision in favor of the variance rests on the merits of the Board's decision, not the procedural aspects. It does not depend upon how the executive session was con- ducted, who was present there or what was said. The court is not obliged to decide all the issues raised by the parties, but only those that are determinative. Schmidt v. Corner- stone Invs., Inc., 115 Wn.2d 148, 165, 795 P.2d 1143 (1990). Accordingly, review of the claimed procedural errors is un- necessary. Hoberg's request to dismiss the City's appeal for an insuf- ficient record is denied. The trial court's order requiring the board to issue the variance subject to the conditions initially recommended by the Department is affirmed. Hoberg, as the party who has substantially prevailed on appeal, is awarded costs pursuant to RAP 14.2. PEKELIS, C.J., and GROSSE, J., concur. Code ... ". BLUC 20.300.140. The City agrees that the use of "may" rather than "shall" in the ordinance does not give the City discretion to deny a variance arbitrarily when the application meets all eight criteria. TTLE (Apr. 1976 .1ts or where the nt domain princi- ilable. argument on the .as abandoned its 655, 657, 521 P.2d >ctrine protects a n, 1is right to enJ • 1ent of his ere. See Restate- W. Prosser, Law :!ismissal of both e affirmed. rrt. , BRACHTENBACH, ., concur. }. :4th ed. 1971). The of the defendant's JTtland Cement Co., ~ays "'ppears to be ed asonable in nee ires a balancing of the interfering use W. Prosser, supra he neighborhood in in v. Johnson, 49 iommunity depend- . Therefore, courts •tentially great tort after a decision to ge sums of money in operation. Kra- ·oposai for Federal .... "-;,- if:;\·;· ' " 1. ,,, .. 1 ... {.· : ·/); -Ji .• 11•. l~ I,:; .. :: .. \i, ' ~r 'f~' IJ: i· Apr.1976] LEW!Sv.MEDINA 87 Wn.2d 19, 548 P.2d 1093 [No. 43965. En Banc. April 15, 1976.J G. HARLAN LEWIS, ET AL, Appellants, v. THE CITY OF MEDINA, Respondent. 19 [l] Zoning-Validity-Financial Hardship. Zoning requirements consti- tute a constitutionally permissible exercise of the police power and the validity of a zoning ordinance is not affected by the fact that financial hardship may result from its application. [2] Zoning-Variance-Judicial Review-Scope, In reviewing a board of adjustment's action on an application for a variance, the review- ing court determines whether such action is within the guidelines of the applicable zoning ordinance, and will overturn the board's determination only upon a showing that it is arbitrary, capricious, er contrary to law. Appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals, May 12, 1975, 13 Wn. App. 501. Affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed a judgment of the Supe- rior Court for King County, No. 750249, Charles R. Denney, .J. Fto Tern., entered August 14, 1973. The respondents (pe- titioners) appealed to the Supreme Court. Action to compel the issuance of a city building permit. -n:e respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals from a judgment in favor of the petitioners. Philip P. Malone, for appellants. Benson, Chadwick, Stege & Wines, Stephen F. Chadwick, J,-., and Kirk R. Wines, for respondent. WRIGHT, J.-This action involves the refusal of the City , c Medina to issue a building permit. The Superior Court >,ceed a writ of mandamus requiring the City to issue the :-s:mit. The Court of Appeals reversed and the property ··.·-,ers have appealed. Due to the changing positions of the parties as to being . ·-102-ilants or respondents, we find it more clear and con- . ::·:e,1t to refer to G. Harlan Lewis and Harry G. Lewis as ·:-:-, intiffs" and the City of Medina as "defendant." "1~iniifi's' parents owned all of tract G of DeVries Lake 20 LEWIS v. MEDINA [Apr. 1976 87 Wn.2d 19, 548 P.2d 1093 Washington Tracts in 1942. Some time thereafter they sold the northerly 75 feet of tract G, which was triangular in shape. The parents had built a home near the center of the tract. Later the father died and his widow, Melita G. Lewis, with the cooperation of her sons, plaintiffs herein, sold the home. In the sale there was conveyed, for a consideration of $45,000, not only the land on which the house was located, but also a triangular-shaped tract bounded on the east by 84th Avenue N.E. with a 75-foot frontage on said avenue. The conveyance of that tract left Mrs. Lewis owning an odd-shaped tract, sometimes referred to as a trapezoid, with an area of approximately 5,150 square feet. Mrs. Lewis desired a small house on the land which remained in her ownership. She employed an architect, Roland W. Wilson, who prepared plans for such a house. Through some misunderstanding, Mr. Wilson did not know of the conveyance of the triangular tract, but thought it was merely an easement. The plans which he prepared called for a substantial part of the house to be on the land which had been conveyed. The City of Medina had not been formed at that time and Mr. Wilson went to the King County engineer's office to get a building permit. The employee in the engineer's office relied upon the plans presented by Mr. Wilson, including the statement that the area which in fact had been conveyed was only an easement. In such reliance the building permit was issued in April 1952, although no construction was undertaken. In 1955 the City of Medina was incorporated. Mrs. Lewis died, leaving the plaintiffs herein as the owners of the 5,150 square feet of property. In February 1972, plaintiffs applied to the City of Medina for a building permit. The matter was referred to the Board of Adjustment. The board held two hearings, re- ceived reports from the planning commission and members of the board personally made an inspection. After that, the Board of Adjustment made extensive findings of fact and supplemental findings of fact and entered a detailed deci- it-.· ·S,J'.,_._· .. ~ -.-~ Iii: ll!- ~t I i~; t: I. '·'·' Apr.1976] LEWIS v. MEDINA 21 87 Wn.2d 19, 548 P.2d 1093 sion. The Board of Adjustment denied the application for a building permit. Prior to the incorporation of the City of Medina, the King County requirement for a single family residence was 6,000 square feet (minimum lot size). After the City was incorporated, ordinances were adopted calling for sizes of lots for single family residences to be at least 16,000 square feet. After incorporation, the City of Medina adopted certain ordinances relative to zoning. One of those ordinances con- tained what has been referred to as a "grandfather clause." It reads: 5-1.15 Separate Ownership Exception: Lot Size and Frontage. Where a parcel of land was in separate ownership at the time of the adoption of the City's applicable residen- tial land use density regulations and such parcel would have qualified as a building site under minimum lot size and f~~ontage regulations applicable at the time of its 2-cquisition by such o,vner, said parcel sha11, \vithout the necessity of a variance, when possessed of frontage equal tD ;;t ]ea~t 85:f of that othcnvise required, q1..:alify as a s;_ngle building site notwithstanding otherwise applicable let size and frontage regulations, but shall in all other respects be subject to land use regulations of the district of its location. Medina ordinance No. 148 § 1-1963. Plaintiffs base their claim upon that ordinance, upon the 1952 building permit, and upon the constitutional prohibi- tions against the taking of property without due process of law. The constitutional argument rests upon the undisputed fact that without a building permit plaintiffs' land had little, if any, value. [11 First, we shall discuss the constitutional question. It is a well-settled law that zoning is a constitutionally per- missible exercise of the police power. State ex rel. We- natchee Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses v. Wenatchee, 50 Wn.2d 378, 312 P.2d 195 (1957). State ex rel. Mi!ler v. Cain, 40 Wn.2d 216, 242 P.2d 505 (1952). Although the plaintiffs herein might suffer considerable financial loss-a 22 LEWIS v. MEDINA [Apr. 1976 87 Wn.2d 19, 548 P.2d 1093 frequent situation in zoning matters-that would not ren- der the zoning ordina;oces invalid. We said in Bitts, Inc. v. Seattle, 86 Wn.2d 395, 544 P.2d 1242 (1976) at 400: Economic hardship cannot usually be urged as a reason for the invalidity of an otherwise valid statute or ordi- nance enacted under the police power. Wiegardt v. Bren- nan, 192 Wash. 529, 73 P.2d 1330 (1937); State v. Dexter, 32 Wn.2d 551, 202 P.2d 906, 13 A.L.R.2d 1081 (1949). [2] Second, we shall consider the scope of review of the de~is!o•, of Le Board of Adjustment. The rule is well estab- lished that a judicial review of the action of a Board of Adjustment is limited to an inquiry of whether the action of the board is "arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law." Reiger v. Seattle, 57 Wn.2d 651, 359 P.2d 151 (1961); Household Fin. Corp. v. State, 40 Wn.2d 451, 244 P.2d 260 (1952>: D•,rocher v. Kinq County, 80 Wn.2d 139, 492 P.2d 547 (1972); Li!!ions v. Gibbs, 47 Wn.2d 629, 289 P.2d 203 (1955). o,·erruled on other grounds in Fleming v. Tacoma, 81 Wn.2d 292, 502 P.2d 327 (1972). 'f\on r·1'n i, ,• ,'•,·1 ,·.-. L M Pike-", Srn Inc V Wate1·fo1·d L'--~--'~-, .. ~.l---• C, .-• (.)'.. ,_)) •• • J 130 Vt. 432,434,296 A.2d 262 (1972): A board of adjustment is only permitted to grant a variance from a zoning ordinance within the guidelines set forth in t!12t zoning ordinance. Thomson Methodist C!wrc'L ,·. Z: r 'n:1 Bocrd of Review, 99 R.I. 675, 210 A.2d 138, 141 r 2965,. The action of th, Board of Adjustment herein was in accordance with the ordi ,ance of the City of Medha. The ordinance provides: [T]he Board shall not nll',. any of the rules, regulations, or provisions of the zcc,ing o,·clinances unless it shall find, after public hearing, tlnt celI of the following conditions exist in each case of cc1 application for a variance: 1. That the land and/or structure in question cannot be reasonably used, aNi. canr:ot yield a reasonable return, if used only for the purposes permitted and in accordance with other requirements in the land use district in which the land and/or structure is located; 2. That the plight of the owner is due to unique cir- t :'f "-"i;;' Apr.1976] LEWIS v. MEDINA 23 87 Wn.2d 19, 548 P.2d 1093 cum.stances which are not the general condition of the neighborhood, and are not the result of the own- er's action; 3. That the use requested by the applicant, if estab- lished, will not be of a general classification differing from the essential use provisions of the land use district in which the land and/or structure is lo- cated. (Italics ours.) Medina ordinance No. 159 ( covering use of land, section 1-21.05). The present owners of the land, plaintiffs herein, had participated in the sale of the home and the tracts of land which went with the home. They had joined with their mother in the conveyance. The situation in which they found themselves, therefore, was the result of their own action. They had failed, thereby, to meet one of the essen- tial criteria for the granting of a variance. That reason alone is adequate to support the action of the Board of Adjustment. We will, however, state briefly a number of other reasons which support the action of the coard and clearly demon- strate such action was not arbitrary and capricious, nor was it contrary to law. The plaintiffs can claim no right under the 1952 building permit. It was issued under a mutual mistake of fact. There is no reason to believe the architect, Roland W. Wilson, acted other than in the utmost good faith. He did, however, act under an erroneous understanding of the facts and so did the county engineer's office in issuing the permit. The permit went unused for 20 years. Actually plaintiffs appear not to have relied on the 1952 permit; they applied to the City of Medina for another permit which clearly indicates that they recognized they could not proceed under the old county permit. The plaintiffs can claim no right under the grandfather clause. The relevant provision contains the words "would have qualified as a building site." The subject property would not have qualified under King County standards which required a minimum of 6,000 square feet. The sub- -.. c "-~--~,-~ 24 LEWISv. MEDINA [Apr.1976 87 Wn.2d 19, 548 P.2d 1093 ject property contained 5,150 square feet, more or less. The subject property never "would have qualified" to gain ben- efit from the grandfather clause. We find it wholly unnecessary to discuss set-back re- quirements and a number of other requirements. Such a discussion would only be cumulative and would needlessly extend the length of this opinion. We express no opinion on matters not before the court. Herein we deal with an application for a permit to con- struct a building which would encroach upon the land of another, and which also failed to meet other requirements. An application without the faults of the application con- sidered herein would present new questions upon which we are not now passing. For the reasons stated, we affirm the majority opinion of the Court of Appeals, reverse the trial court, and reinstate the decision of the Board of Adjustment. STAFFORD, C.J., and RosELLINI, HuNTER, HAMILTON, UTTER, BRACHTENBACH, and HOROWITZ, JJ., concur. Apr.1976] DOMINICK v. CHRISTENSEN 87 Wn.2d 25,548 P.2d 541 [No. 44083. En Banc. April 15, 1976.J JACK R. DOMINICK, Appellant, V. WALTER CHRISTI ET AL, Respondents. [1] Statutes-Construction-Legislative Intent. The primary statutory construction is giving effect to the intent of tt ture without reading in matters which are not there or the statute by construction. [2] Statutes-Construction-Exclusion and Inclusion. The e: clusion of one item in a statute excludes those whicJ mentioned. [3] Statutes-Construction-Meaning of Words-Ordinary The rule that the words of a statute are to be given their ordinary meaning is not applicable to words which are f defined in the statute. [ 4] Animals-Injuries by Anlmals-Statutes---"Lawfully on -Social Visitor. The provisions of RCW 16.08.050 wh what persons are "lawfully" on another's property for p recovering damages under RCW 16.08.040 for a dog bit on such property are exclusive. A social visitor does not statutory duty as required by RCW 16.08.050 and is tht cavered by RC\V 16.08.040. Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court f Harbor County, No. 65346, John H. Kirkwood, J., June 13, 1975. Affirmed. Action for damages. The plaintiff appeals fron mary judgment in favor of the defendants. J. K. Hallam, for appellant. Davies, Pearson, Anderson, Seinfeld, Gadbow, Johnson, by John C. Kouklis, for respondents. This opinion was prepared by the late Justice J Finley. It is adopted by the undersigned J ustic, opinion of this Court. This is an appeal from an order entered by t Harbor County Superior Court granting defendan1 for a summary judgment. The order, insofar as denied the plaintiff father's claim, as guardian ac 1 2 3 II 5 6 7 INRE 3:J/,L,10 S,)!<131:) Al/:J 03/113:)3<! LODZ I & A\/~ N01N3~ ~O All::> BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON 8 JONES SIDE YARD SETBACK g VARIAN CE APPEAL NO. LUA-07-025 V-A CITY OF RENTON'S PREHEARING BRIEF 10 11 12 I. FACTS 13 The subject parcel is located at 1721 NE 18th Place (Lot 4 of the Jones Avenue 111 Short Plat) in Renton, WA. This parcel abuts the Kennydale Blueberry Farm. The owner 15 of this property, Sal Cohen ("Applicant") began construction for a two story, single-family 16 residence. There is a stop-work order currently in effect pending resolution of this matter. 17 18 This area is currently zoned to an R-4, but the subject parcel is vested to the R-8 development standards. Under R-8 zoning, the applicable side yard setback is 5 feet. 19 20 21 According to Applicants, their survey plan shows an encroachment of approximately one inch. A field visit by City Staff determined that a greater encroachment exists.1 City Staff 2 2 also found: "In addition to the encroachment by the foundation, the eaves of the fireplace 2 3 projection also extend into the required setback area." Administrative Report and 211 25 26 27 28 1 According to a survey submitted by Applicants, the encroachment to the north is approximately Y, an inch and to the south, approximately I inch. Applicant notes that the City misread this survey in its calculations for making its decision, and based on this clarification, seeks to justify the variance. The City acknowledges that this survey is the only registered survey in the file. However, the City nonetheless maintains its denial of the variance, even based on these figures. CITY OF RENTON'S PREHEARING BRIEP -I () R I G '1 ~-! "1 L ') \I ',l\/'"'\ WARREN BARBER & FONTES, P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 616 RENTON, WASHINGTON 98057 PHONE ('425) 255-867R • FAX (42S) ZS5,Sat,74 1 2 3 II 5 Decision, Jones Side Yard Setback Variance, LUA 07-025 V-A ("Admin. Decision") at 2. Staff further determined that an additional variance would be required for the encroachment of the fireplace and its associated eave. Applicant Sal Cohen ("Applicant") requested a variance from this setback 6 requirement pursuant to RMC 4-2-11 OA. The Zoning Administrator reviewed the matter 7 and determined that Applicant's situation did not meet the variance criteria set forth in 8 RMC 4-9-250(8)(5) and denied the request. Applicant timely appealed this decision to the 9 10 11 12 13 111 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 City's Hearing Examiner. That hearing is scheduled for June 2, 2006. II. ISSUE Does the Applicant meet the criteria to justify a variance? Ill. ARGUMENT The City's variance criteria is set forth in RMC 4-9-2508. The Zoning Administrator must consider four factors to determine whether or not to grant the request: 1) undue hardship; 2) not materially detrimental to public welfare or property; 3) not a special privilege; 4) is the minimum necessary to accomplish the purpose. The Hearing Examiner is well versed in the City's variance code and therefore, the City will not belabor the criteria factors. The Zoning Administrator reviewed the application and found that it did not meet the four variance criteria necessary to grant the variance. In particular, the Zoning Administrator found that the Applicant failed the undue hardship criteria. Admin. 23 211 Decision at 4. In his April 11, 2007, appeal letter, the Applicant admits that he would not 25 have an undue hardship claim, but for the error that was made in constructing the house. 26 "The house is fully framed, and it would be an undue hardship to correct an error." The 27 City does not disagree that having to remove the framework and reconstruct it at this stage 28 CITY OF RENTON'S PREHEARING BRIEF -2 WARREN BARBER f'J FONTES, P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE ROX 626 REl'•tl"ON, WASHINGTON 980S? PHONE (4lS) lSH~678 • FAX (US) Z.SS,i-474 1 would create an undue hardship upon the Appellant. However, the difficulty lies in 2 assessing how to evaluate the undue hardship criteria when the hardship is self-created by 3 11 the Applicant. 5 "Interpretation of the code's variance criteria is a matter oflaw, which the appellate 6 court, like the trial court, reviews de novo under the contrary to law standard." Hoberg v. 1 City of Bellevue, 76 Wn. App 357,359, 884 P.2d 1139 (1994). An analysis of Washington 8 caselaw is somewhat muddled on this issue. On the one hand, the type of variance 9 10 11 12 13 111 15 16 17 requested by Applicant here ("area" versus "use") is the very type for which variances are intended: Relief from setback is a classic example of an area variance, as opposed to a use variance. An area variance is one which does not change the specific land use but provides relief from dimensional requirements such as setback, yard size, lot coverage, frontage or height restrictions. Hoberg v. City of Bellevue, 76 Wn. App 357, 360, 884 P.2d 1139 (1994). In Hoberg, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's decision that the City "must grant a variance to [Applicants] allowing them to build a house on their nonconforming lot." Id. at 358. The 18 Hoberg Court further explained that "the very purpose of a variance ordinance is to allow 19 20 21 22 exceptions, typically to area requirements, so that in appropriate circumstances, nonconforming lots can be developed." Id. at 362. Arguably, Applicant's case is the very type of area variance contemplated by the Hoberg decision. In fact, like Hoberg, Applicant Cohen's seeks a variance from the City's 23 211 setback requirements. The difference however, is that Cohen, unlike Hoberg, has a self 25 created undue hardship claim which was brought about by a physical action taken by the 26 Applicant. 27 28 CITY OF KENTON'S PREHEARING BRIEF -3 WARREN BARBER & FONTES, P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW l 00 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 6Z6 RENTON, WASHINGTON 980.57 PHONE (HS) H5-867R • FAX (•R.5) 255-s.474 1 2 3 On the other hand, the City of Medina's refusal to grant a variance was upheld in Lewis v. City of Medina, 87 Wn.2d 19, 548 P.2d 1093 (1976). A series of events involving successors in interest and conveyance of an additional tract eventually led to Lewis seeking II 5 a variance from the City's zoning requirements. In doing so, Lewis claimed a financial 6 hardship and a related takings argument against the City. But, the Lewis Court specifically 7 pointed out that"( e ]conomic hardship cannot usually be urged as a reason for the 8 invalidity of an otherwise valid statute or ordinance ... " Id. at 22. 9 10 11 The respective variance criteria in Hoberg and Lewis both contain similar language regarding special and unique circumstances and the provision that the circumstances are not self created: 12 13 111 15 16 17 18 The special circumstances of the subject property are not the result of the actions of the applicant. Hoberg, 76 Wn. App at 361. * * * That the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances which are not the general condition of the neighborhood, and are not the result of the owner's action. Lewis, 87 Wn.2d at 22-23. (emphasis in original.) Though the two cases produced opposite results, the City can reconcile the cases by pointing to the facts of each case as it related to the circumstance factor of the respective 19 20 21 City's ordinances. Unlike Hoberg, the Court in Lewis found that the Lewis' situation "was the result of their own action. They had failed, thereby, to meet one of the essential criteria 22 for the granting of the variance." Lewis, 87 Wn.2d at 23. 23 211 25 26 The City acknowledges that Applicant's variance here is the type of area variance contemplated in the Hoberg decision. The city even concedes that having to tear down and reconstruct the framework would be an undue hardship for the Applicant. Moreover, the City believes Applicant that the encroachment was in error and unrealized until after the 27 28 CITY OF RENTON'S PREHEARING BRIEF -4 WARREN BARBER l'J FONTES, P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFlCE BOX 626 RENTON, WASHINGTON 980Si PHONE (42S) 255-8678 • FAX (4.U) 2S5•HH 1 2 3 framework was constructed. The fundamental problem, however, is that the Applicant created the very problem for which he now seeks a variance. Hence, Applicant's situation more closely fits the Lewis conclusion that the self-created hardship would negate the 4 5 criterion for granting the variance.2 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 IV. CONCLUSION Although the City finds both cases applicable to the Applicant's case, the primary problem lies with the self-created nature of Applicant's property. Regardless of whether the alleged encroachment is one inch or five inches, the problem remains the same. The Zoning Administrator carefully contemplated all these issues prior to its decision denying 13 the variance. Unless Applicant can show other legal basis to overcome the City's 14 decision, the denial of the variance must be affirmed. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DATED this 31st day of May, 2007. WARREN BARBER & FONTES, PS ~:C?>ftlL Ann Nielsen, WSBA #31425 c,,cvf,<,.T:("·! Assistant City Attorney I HEREBY DECLA.c;t;, iJ:-!Gd"i F'Eii.':._'fy C>' Ff:";JUiW PURSUANT TO THE LAWS OF Ti:,, S f,HE OF WASHINGTON. THAT I MAILED A. Vf"/ GF THIS DOCUMENT TO ALL ATTORNEYS OF :":,<c:·;D AND ALL PARTIES, IF ANY. NOT REPRESENTED :li COJNSEL ON 5 .3/ , POST/,GE PPi:PAID. T 2 The City believes that the owner of property abutting the Applicant, Ms. Sue Larson Kinzer will be testifying at the schedule June 2, 2007 hearing. Although the City is not calling Ms. Kinzer as a witness, the City believes that Ms. Kinzer will likely testify that the encroachment has caused damage to her property and granting the variance will be detrimental to both her property and others in the area. CITY OF RENTON"S PREHEARING BRIEF . 5 WARREN BARBER & FONTES, P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 626 RENTON, WASHINGTON 980S7 PHONE (ilS) lSS-8678 • FAX (425) 2,5.5,47,4 Page I 1 of 3 DOCUMENTS :~ Caution As of: Jun 07, 2007 Harry Taylor, et al, Petitioners, v. Stevens County, et al, Respondents, American Pa- cific Realty, Inc., et al, Petitioners No. 53817-4 SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON 111 Wn.2d 159; 7.'i9 P.2d447; 1988 Wash. LEXIS 174 July 15, 1988, Filed CASE SUMMARY: PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Petitioner buyers and respondents realtor and sellers sought review of an order from the Court of Appeals (Washington). which affirmed the dismissal of the buyers' negligence action against the realtor and sellers for defects in a house purchased by the buyers, and the dismissal of the realtor and sellers' cross- claim for indemnity from respondent county. OVERVIEW: The buyers purchased an unfinished home from the sellers. The sellers had constructed the house themselves without first obtaining a building per- mit. The bnilding pennit was issued shortly before the sale of the house to the buyers, and no defects were noted at that time. Two years after the sale of the house. the buyers noticed defects in the house's construction and requested an inspection by a county building inspector. The inspector discovered numerous violations of the county's building code. The buyers filed an action against the sellers, the realtor involved in the sale of the house. and the county. The sellers and the realtor filed a cross- claim against the county for indemnification in the event they were found liable to the buyers. The trial court dis- missed the claim and cross-claim against the county. The buyers, realtor, and sellers sought review, and the appel- late court affirmed the dismissal. On review. the court found that the county owed no actionable duty to the buyers, sellers, or realtor for any negligence in issuing a building permit. OUTCOME: The court affirmed the appellate court's decision. LexisN exis(R) Headnotes Governments > State & Territorial Governments > Li- censes Real Property Law > Zoning & Land Use > Building & Housing Codes [HNI] The State Building Code Act, codified at Wash. Rev. Code § 19.27, requires counties to adopt the enu- merated codes, however, a county may amend the codes provided certain minimum performance standards and objectives are not diminished. Governments > Local Governments > Ordinances & Regulations Real Property Law> Zoning & Land Use > Building & Housing Codes [HN2) Under Stevens County, Wash. Building Construc- tion Code§ 30l(a) (1979), a building permit is required before beginning construction of a honse, and under § 302(a)(4) and § 302(b), the permit application shall in- clude plans, diagrams, computations and specifications of the proposed work. Governments> Local Governments > Licenses Governments > Local Governments > Ordinances & Regulations [HN3] Stevens County, Wash. Building Construction Code § 303(H) provides that no building permit shall be issued to any applicant or person who fails to provide Page2 111 W112d 159, *; 759 P.2d 447, **; 1988 Wash. LEXIS 174, *** sufficient evidence of compliance with all laws and regu- lations relating to the use of land and the construction or improvements of structures thereon. Torts > Negligence >Duty> General Overview Torts > Public Entity Liamlity > Immunity > General Overview Torts > Public Entity Liability > Liability > General <herview [HN4] The threshold determination in a negligence ac- tion is whether a duty of care is owed by the defendant to the plaintiff. Whether the defendant is a governmental entity or a private person, to be actionable, the duty must be one owed to the injured plaintiff, and not one owed to the public in general. This basic principle of negligence law is expressed in the public duty doctrine. Under the public duty doctrine, no liability may be imposed for a public official's negligent conduct unless it is shown that the duty breached was owed to the injured person as an individual and was not merely the breach of an obliga- tion owed to the public in general, i.e., a duty to all is a duty to no one. Torts > Public Entity Liability > Liability > General Overview [HN5] The public duty rule ofnonliability does not apply where the legislature enacts legislation for the protection of persons of the plaintiff's class. Liability can be founded upon a municipal code if that code by its terms evidences a clear intent to identify and protect a particu- lar and circumscribed class of persons. Governments > State & Territorial Governments > Li- censes Real Property Law> Zoning & Land Use > Building & Housing Codes [HN6] The purpose of the State Building Code Act, Wash_ Rev. Code § 19.27, is to provide building codes throughout the state. This chapter is designed to effectu- ate the following purposes, objectives and standards: (I) To promote the health, safety and welfare of the occu- pants or users of buildings and structures and the general public. Real Property Law> Zoning & Land Use > Building & Housing Codes Torts >Negligence> Duty> General Overview [HN7] The court rejects the contention that building codes impose a duty upon local goverllments to enforce the provisions of such codes for the benefit of individu- als. The duty to issue building permits and conduct in- spections is to protect the health and safety of the general public. Accordingly, the court continues to adhere to the traditional public duty rule that building codes impose duties that are owed to the public at large. Torts > Negligence > Duty > AJJirnu,m,e Duty to Ad > Special Relationships > Government Officu,ls Torts > Public Entity Liability > Liability > General Overview [HN8] The special relationship exception to the public duty doctrine is a focusing tool used to determine whether a local government is under a general duty to a nebnlous public or whether that duty has focused on the claimant. A special relationship arises where (I) there is direct contact or privily between the public official and the injured plaintiff which sets the latter apart from the general public, and (2) there are express assurances given by a public official, which (3) gives rise to justifiable reliance on the part of the plaintiff. Governments > Local Governments > Licenses Torts > Negligence > Duty > AJJirnu,m,e Duty to Ad > Special Relationships > Government Off,cials Torts > Public Entity Liability > Liability > General Overview [HN9] The special relationship exception to the public duty doctrine has been broadened by eliminating the re- quirement of express assurances. A plaintiff may rely on inherent assurances in a duty vested in a public official. The issuance of a building permit inherently implies that the issuing agent has verified that the proposed structure is in compliance with applicable code provisions. Build- ing permit and inspection requirements create a duty of care owed to a limited class of citizens, the builders. Governments > State & Territorial Governments > Li- censes Real Property Law> Zoning & Land Use > Building & Housing Codes (HNIOJ lssuance of a building permit does not implicitly imply that the plans submitted are in compliance with all applicable codes. Nor do periodic building code inspec- tions implicitly imply that the construction is in compli- ance with all applicable codes. Building permits and building code inspections only authorize construction to proceed; they do not guarantee that all provisions of all applicable codes have been complied with. Governments > Local Governments > Claims By & Against ' Page 3 111 Wn.2d I 59. •; 759 P.2d 447. **: 1988 Wash. LEXIS 174. *** Real Property Law> Zoning & Land Use > Building & Housing Codes Torts > Negligence > Duty > Affirmative Duty to Act > Special Relationships > Government Offtcials [HNII] No duty is owed by local govenuucnt to a claimant alleging negligent issuance of a building permi 1 or negligent inspection to determine compliance with building codes. The duty to ensure compliance rests with individual pennit applicants, builders and developers. Accordingly, the special relationship exception to the public duty doctrine has no application where a claimant alleges negligent enforcement of building codes because local government owes no duty of care to ensure comp li- ance with the codes. Torts > Public Entity Liability > Imnumity > General Overview [HN12] The concept of duty is a reflection of all those considerations of public policy which lead the law to conclude that a plaintifl's interests are entitled to legal protection against the defendant's conduct. The existence of a duty is a question of law. Governments> State & Territorial Governments> Li- censes Real Property Law> Zoning & Land Use > Building & Housing Codes [HN13] The primary purpose of building permits and building code inspections is to secure to local govern- ment consistent compliance with construction. zomng and land use ordinances. Governments > St.ate & TerritoriaJ Government.f > Li- censes Real Property Law> Zoning & Land Use > Building & Housing Codes [HNI 4 J Placing the burden on local government to en- sure compliance with building codes is unreasonable in light of budgetary and personnel constraints. Penni! ap- plicants, builders and developers are in a belier position to prevent hann to a foreseeable plaintiff than arc local governments. Thus, it is more equitable to impose on such individuals the duty to ensure compliance. Governments > Local Governments > Claims Ry & Against Governments > State & Territorial Governments > Li- censes Real Property Law> Zoning & Land Use > Building & Housing Codes [HN 15] The approval of construction plans and satisfac- tory inspections do not absolve a builder from the legal obligation to comply with statutes. Governments > State & Territorial Governments > Li- censes Real Property Law> Zoning & Land Use > Building & Housing Codes [HN16] Imposing liability on individuals for noncompli- ance with building codes is consistent with the state's zoning vested rights doctrine. Generally, the doctrine protects an applicant's right to develop land, despite changes in the zoning laws, only if the applicant has filed a complete and timely building permit application that is in full compliance with zoning and building codes in existence at the time of the application. Governments > State & Territorial Governments > Li- censes Real Property Law > Zoning & Land Use > Building & Housing Codes [HNI 7] The burden to comply with building codes is on the builder. The burden should be the same in cases where a plaintiff seeks damages for the negligent issu- ance of a building permit. Governments > Local Governments > Claims B.v & Against Real Property Law> Zoning & Land Use > Building & Housing Codes Torts > Public Entity Liability > Liability > General Overview [HN 18 J Requiring local government to indemnify an individual for losses resulting from the negligent admini- stration of building codes imposes substantial costs on local government with little or no corresponding benefit. The policy underlying the public duty doctrine is that legislative enactments for the public welfare should not be discouraged by subjecting a governmental entity to unlimited liability. Local govermnents may be subjected to virtual unlimited liability. This potential exposure to liability can only dissuade public officials from carrying out their public dnty. Governments > Local Governments > Claims B.v & Against Governments > Local Governments > Employees & Officials Real Property Law> Zoning & Land Use > Building & Housing Codes Page4 111 Wn.2d 159, *; 759 P.2d 447, **: 1988 Wash. LEXIS 174. *** [HNl9] The holding that there is no duty owing to an individual in the routine handling of building permits and building code inspections does not absolve local gov- ernment from all liability and responsibility for the en- forcement of building codes. A duty of care may arise where a public official charged with the responsibility to provide accurate information fails to correctly answer a specific inquiry from a plaintiff intended to benefit from the dissemination of the information. Real Property Law > Zoning & Land Use > Building & Housing Codes Torts > Negligence > Duty > Afftrmati,,e Duty to Ad > Special Relationships > Government OfjiciaJs Torts > Public Entity Liability > Liability > General Overview [HN20] The liability of one who is under a public duty to give the information extends to loss suffered by any of the class of persons for whose benefit the duty is created, in any of the transactions in which it is intended to pro- tect them. In this narrow situation, a special relationship 1s created because: (I) there is direct contact between the public official and the plaintiff, (2) the official, in re- sponse to a specific inquiry, provides express assurances that a building or structure is in compliance with the building code, and (3) the plaintiff justifiably relies on the representations of the official. The creation of a spe- cial relationship between the plaintiff and the public offi- cial gives rise to a duty to use reasonable care when fur- nishing information. Once the existence of duty is estab- hshed, the plaintiff may proceed in tort against the local government. Governments > Local Governments > Claims By & Against Real Property Law > Torls > Inherently Dangerous Activities Real Property Law> Zoning & Land Use > Building & Housing Codes [HN2 l J As to the performance of building code inspec- tions, a duty shall continue to be recognized where a public official knows of an inherently dangerous and hazardons condition, and is therefore under a duty to correct the problem and is liable upon fuilure to meet this duty. SUMMARY: [***!) Nature of Action: The purchasers of a house that did not comply with applicable building regulations sought damages from the sellers, the sellers' realtor, and the county which had issued a building permit to the sellers and inspected the structilre prior to the sale at the request of the realtor. The realtor and sellers cross- claimed against the county. Superior Court: The Superior Court for Stevens County, No. 84-2-00171-1, Larry M. Kristianson, J., entered a judgment in favor of the county on July 2. 1985. Court of Appeals: Holding that the public duty doc- trine applied to protect the county, the court affirmed the judgment at 47 Wn. App. 134. . Supreme Court: Holding that none of the excep- tions to the public duty doctrine applied and that, in any event, the county had no duty to enforce the building code, the court affirms the judgment HEADNOTES: WASHINGTON OFFICIAL REPORTS HEADNOTES [1) Government -Torts -Public Doty Doctrine --In General A duty owed by a governmental entity to the public in general does not support a cause of action by an individual against the entity for failure to perform the duty. [2) Government -Torts --Public Duty Doctrine -- Legislative Intent -Uniform Building Code RCW 19.27.020, which provides that the purpose of the State Building Code Act is to promote the health and safety of occupants of buildings, does not create a special class intended to be protected in addition to the general public. [3) Government --Torts --Public Duty Doctrine - Special Relationship -Building Inspections and Permits. By issuing a building permit and by inspecting a construction project, a governmental entity has no con- tact or privily with, makes no assurances to, and gives no right to rely to the occupants of the building or the per- sons requesting the inspection that would constitute a special relationship and provide an exception to the pub- lic duty doctrine. [4] Building Regulations --Building Codes --Duty of Complianee The enactinent of building codes and other laws that regulate construction activity is intended to enhance the public welfare generally but does not create a governmental duty to ensure compliance. The duty of compliance lies with applicants for building permits and those constructing the building. Issuing a building per- mit and making inspections does not constitute an assur- ance or indication that work complies with applicable regulations. ( J & B Dev. Co. v. King Cy., JOO Wn.2d 299, is overruled insofar as it is inconsistent) • Pages 111 Wn.2d 159. *; 759 P.2d447, **; 1988 Wash. LEXIS 174, *** COUNSEL: Ms. Helen Dee Hokum, Colville. Washing- ton, for petitioners Taylor. Lukins & Annis, P.S., by Mr. Terence R. Whitten, ids. Erika Balazs, Spokane, Washington, for petitioners American Pacific Realty, et al. Mr. Frederick J. Dullanty, Jr., and Winston & C'ashall. Spokane, Washington, for respondents. Honarable Kenneth Eikenberry, Attorney General, Mr. Gordon [***2] Crandall, Asst., Amicns Curiae for City of Seattle. JUDGES: En Banc. Dore, J. Andersen, Callow. Good- loe, and Durham, JJ., concnr. Dolliver, J., concurs in the result only; Utter, J., Pearson, C.J., and Brachtenbach, J .. concur by separate opinioIL OPINION BY: DORE OPINION [*161] [**448] We hold that Stevens County can- not be held liable for its alleged negligence in adminis- tering its building code. The duty to ensure that buildings comply with county and municipal building codes rests with individual builders, developers and pemrit appli- cants, not local government. Facts Plaintiffs Harry and Robin Taylor in I 981 purchased a house in Stevens County from Harry and Man-Murray with the assistance of realtor American Pacific Really. Inc. The buyers claim that the sellers built the house without first obtaining a building pemrit They claim that before the sale was completed they inquired and were assured by the realtor that a building pemrit would be obtained prior to closing. On November 30, 1981, the sellers submitted a building pemrit application to Stevens County winch indicated that the house was "unfinished". The realtor alleges that it prepared the building pemrit for the sellers. Before issuing a building pemrit, a [***3] 1**4491 county building inspector entered the following notation: The basic structure appeared to be of adequate construction although cosmetic considerations were somewhat lacking. Overall the bldg appeared to be average of what may be expected in this area. Clerk's Papers, at 84. The County then issued a building pemritonDecember7, 1981. On December 8, 1981, the buyers and the sellers en- tered into an "Execntory Contract of Sale of Real Estate". The sales agreement noted tliat the house was not fully completed and the buyers acknowledged that they had examined the prenrises and accepted it "as is". By 1983, the buyers had discovered defects in the construction of their [*162] house. At the buyers' request for inspec- tion, a county building inspector found numerous viola- tions of the county building code. The buyers brought this action against the sellers, the realtor and the County. The sellers and the realtor cross-claimed against the County seeking indenurity should they be found liable to the buyers. On CR l 2(b)(6) motions, the trial court disnrissed the buyers' claim and the sellers' and the realtor's cross claims against the County. The Court of Appeals affirmed, Tay- lor v. Stevens Cy, 47 Wn. App. 134, 142, 732 P.2d 517 (1987), [***4] whereafter we granted the buyers' and the realtor's petitions for discretionary review. We affirm. Stevens County Building Code In 1974, the Legislature enacted the State Building Code Act, codified at RCW 19.27. Laws of 1974, 1st Ex. Sess., ch.%,§ I, p. 212. The Act adopted by refer- ence several nationally recognized uniform codes, in- cluding the Uniform Building Code. See RCW 19.27.031(1). [HNI] The Act requires counties to adopt the enumerated codes, however, a county may amend the codes provided certain minimum performance standards and objectives are not diminished. See RC W 19. 2 7. 031 and .060(1 ). In March 1980, Stevens County enacted ordinance 01-1980 adopting, with amendments, the 1979 edition of the Uniform Building Code. [HN2] Under the Stevens Collllty building code, a building pemrit is required be- fore beginning construction of a house. Uniform Build- ing Code § 30l(a) (1979). It further provides that the pemrit application shall include plans, diagrams, compu- tations and specifications of the proposed work. Uni- form Building Code § 302(a)(4), (b) As to the issuance of building pemrits, [HN3] the code provides: No building permit shall be issued to any applicant or person who fails to pro- vide [***51 sufficient evidence of com- pliance with all laws and regulations relat- ing to the use of [* 163 J land and the construction or improvements of struc- tures thereon. Clerk's Papers, at 88; Stevens County Building Construc- tion Code § 303(H). Where construction has com- ) Page6 111 Wn.2d 159, *; 759 P.2d 447, **; 1988 Wash. LEXIS 174, *** menced without first obtaining a building pennit, a "spe- cial investigation" is required before a pennit may be issued for such work. Clerk's Papers, at 89; Stevens County Building Constmction Code § 304(E). Public Duty Doctrine In essence, the buyers and the realtor claim that the County was negligent for having issued the building permit because consummated plans, required by the county building code, did not accompany the pennit ap- plication. They further allege that the County negligently performed the "special investigation" in that the inspec- tor failed to discover that the house had not been built in compliance with the building code. The County denies liability, claiming that under the "public duty doctrine" it owed no duty to the buyers or the realtor. [HN4] (1) The threshold determination in a negli- gence action is whether a duty of care is owed by the defendant to the plaintiff. Whether the defendant is a goverrunental entity or a [* **6) private person, to be actionable, the duty must be one owed to the injured plaintiff, and not one owed to the public in general. J & B Dev. Co. v. King Cy., JOO Wn.2d 299, 304, 669 P.2d 468, 41 A.LR.4th 86 (1983). This basic principle of neg- ligence law is expressed in the "public duty doctrine". Under the public duty doctrine, [**450] no liability may be imposed for a public official's negligent conduct unless it is shown that "the duty breached was owed to the injured person as an individual and was not merely the breach of an obligation owed to the public in general (i.e., a duty to all is a duty to no one)." J & B Dev. Co., at 303; Chambers-Castanes v. King Cy., JOO Wn.2d 275, 284, 669 P.2d 451, 39 A.LR.4th 671 (1983); 18 E. McQuillin, Municipal Corporations § 53.04b (3d ed. 1984). [*164) Legislative Intent [HN5) The public duty rule of nonliability does not apply where the Legislature enacts legislation for the protection of persons of the plaintiff's class. In Halvorson v. Dahl, 89 Wn.2d 673, 676, 574 P.2d JJ90 (1978) we stated that "[l]iability can be founded upon a municipal code if that code by its terms evidences a clear intent to identify and protect a particular and circum- scribed class [***?] of persons.• &e Baerlein v. State, 92 Wn.2d 229, 231-32, 595 P.2d 930 (1979); see also IA C. Antiean, Municipal Corporation Law § 11.32 ( 1987). [HN6] [2] The purpose section of the S1ate Build- ing Code Act, RCW 19.27, in pertinent part provided: (' The purpose of this chapter is to pro- vide building codes throughout the state. This chapter is designed to effectuate the following purposes, objectives and stan- dards: (I) To promote the health, safety and welfare of the occupants or users of build- ings and structures and the general pub- lic. (Italics ours.) Laws of 1974, 1st Ex. Sess., ch.%,§ 2, p. 212 (former RCW 19.27.020). The buyers contend that the clear intent of the statute is to protect them individu- ally. [HN?] This court and the Court of Appeals have on numerous occasions rejected the contention that building codes impose a duty upon local governments to enforce the provisions of such codes for the benefit of individu- als. E.g., Halvorson, at 676; Rosen v. Tacoma, 24 Wn. App. 735, 740-41, 603 P.2d 846 (1979); Georges v. Tu- dor, 16 Wn. App. 407, 409-10, 556 P.2d 564 (1976); see also Haslund v. &attle, 86 Wn.2d 607, 611 n.2, 547 P.2d 1221 (1976). These cases recognize that building codes, the [* **8) issuance of building permits and building inspections are devices nsed to secure to local govern- ment the consistent compliance with zoning and other land use regulations and code provisions governing the design and structure of buildings. See Haslund, at 611 n.2; Georges, at 409; 9A E. McQuillin, Municipal Cor- porations §§ 26.200, 26.200.05. As such, the duty to issue [*165] building permits and conduct inspections is to protect the health and safety of the general public. Accordingly, we continue to adhere to the traditional public duty rule that building codes impose duties that are owed to the public at large. The buyers argue that under Halvorson the public duty rule does not apply to them because of their status as "occupants" of the house. In Halvorson, we acknowl- edged the traditional rule that a local goverrunent is un- der no duty, ascertainable in tort, to ensure compliance with its building code. We held, however, that the City of Seattle could be liable for failure to enforce the Seattle Housing Code becanse the code, in its declaration of purpose, evidenced the "clear intent" to protect building occupants. Halvorson, at 676. That purpose was to iden- tify "conditions and circumstances [***9) [which) are dangerous and a menace to the health, safety, morals or welfare of the occupants of such buildings and of the public, ... "(Italics ours.) Halvorson, at 677 n. l. The "clear intent" to protect occupants found in Halvorson is not present here. The purpose section of the Seattle Housing Code focuses on substandard hous- ing that is unfit for human habitation. The primary pur- pose of the Seattle Housing Code is necessarily more focused on the public health and safety of occupants of , Page7 Ill Wn.2d 159. *; 759 P.2d447, **; 1988 Wash. LEXIS 174. *** substandard buildings. On the other hand, tl1c purpose of the State Building Code Act is much broader. While the Act promotes the welfare of occupants, its primary pur- pose [**451 J is to require that minimum performance standards and requirements for building and construction materials be applied consistently throughout the state. Additionally, Halvorson requires that an injured plaintiff show "culpable neglect regarding, or indilTcr- ence to" violations of the building code. Halvorson. at 678; see Hartley v. State, 103 Wn.2d 768, 7113, 691! P.2d 77 (1985). The requirement was met in Halvorson nith allegations that the [*166] City had actual and long- standing knowledge of noncompliance with the Seattle Housing Code. [***!OJ There is no evidence of such culpability in the present case. The State Building Code Act's building pcnnit and inspection requirements impose a duty which is owed to the general public as a whole. We find no legislative intent that the Act was intended to protect the class of building occupants in addition to the general public. Special Relationship Exception The buyers and the realtor argue that the County owes them an actionable dnty under the "special relation- ship" exception to the public duty doctrine. The bu)'ers contend they come within the special relationship excep- tion by virtue of their status as the first occupants of the house and because they relied on the County's inspection and issuance of the building permit. The realtor also claims a special relationship because it prepared tire permit application for the sellers and relied on the in- spection in closing the sale. [HN8] (3] [4] The special relationship exception is a "focusing tool" used to determine whether a local gov- ernment "is under a general duty to a nebulous public or whether that duty has focused on the claimant." J & B Dev. Co. v. King Cy., 100 Wn.2d 299, 304-05. 669 P. 2d 468, 41 A.LR.4th 86 (1983). A special relationship [*** l I] arises where (I) there is direct contact or privily between the public official and the injured plaintilT which sets the latter apart from the general public. and (2) there are express assurances given by a public offi- cial, which (3) gives rise to justifiable reliance on the part of the plaintiff. J & B Dev. Co., at 307; Chambers- Castanes v. King Cy., JOO Wn.2d 275, 286-87, 669 i'.2d 451, 39 A.LR.4th 67/ (1983); see Bailey v. Forks, IOii Wn.2d 262, 268, 737 P.2d 1257 (1987). In J & B Dev. Co., King County issued a building pernrit to a developer. The approving official and a later inspection failed to note that the building plans did not provide for part of the roadway adjacent to the property. The developer alleged that the County negligently issued the permit [*167] and performed the inspection. Al- though the developer alleged negligence, we held that a special relationship existed between the County and the developer because the developer dealt directly with the County's agent and had justifiably relied upon the permit and inspection. J & B Dev. Co., at 306-07. J & B Dev. Co. was influenced by the simultaneous ruling in Chambers-Castanes. There, a special relation- ship was found where a [*** 12] crime victim made 11 calls to the police for help. Some of the calls were met with express assurances from the police dispatcher that help was on the way, but the police did not arrive until I hour and 20 minutes later. J & B Dev. Co. broadened [HN9] the special relationship exception to the public duty doctrine by eliminating tl1c requirement of express assurances. J & B Dev. Co. held that a plaintiff may rely on inherent assurances in a duty vested in a public offi- cial. The coort stated: "The issuance of a building permit inherently implies that the issuing agent has verified that the proposed structure is in compliance with applicable code provisions." (Italics ours.) J & B Dev. Co., at 3 06. The court then found that building permit and inspection requirements create a duty of care owed to "a liruited class of citizens, the builders." J & B Dev. Co., at 307. J & B Dev. Co. assumed, incorrectly, that the issu- ance of a building permit is an official action by which a local government implicitly approves a builder's plans to erect a structure of the type and at the place approved. [HNJO] Issuance of a building [**452] permit does not implicitly imply that the plans submitted arc in compli- ance with all [***13] applicable codes. Nor do periodic building code inspections implicitly imply that the con- struction is in compliance with all applicable codes. Building permits and building code inspections only au- thorize construction to proceed; they do not guarantee that all provisions of all applicable codes have been complied with See 9A E. McQuillin, Municipal Corpo- rations§§ 26.200, 26.200.05 (3d ed. 1986); !OJA C.J.S. Zoning and land Planning § 218_ ( 1979). [*168] J & B Dev. Ca., in effect, held that local government is under a legal duty to verify that a permit application and the construction of a building is in com- pliance with all applicable codes. The court. however, imposed this duty without evaluating relevant public policy considerations. We now engage in a weighing of public policy considerations. In doing so, we find no alternative but to overrule J & B Dev. Co. We hold that [HNll] no duty is owed by local gov- ernment to a claimant alleging negligent issuance of a building permit or negligent inspection to detennine compliance with building codes. The duty to ensure compliance rests with individual permit applicants, builders and developers. Accordingly, the special rela- tionship exception to 1***14] the public duty doctrine Page8 111 Wn.2d 159, *; 759 P.2d 447, **; 1988 Wash. LEXIS 174, *** has no application where a claimant alleges negligent enforcement of bnilding codes because local government owes no duty of care to ensure compliance with the codes. [HN12) The concept of duty is a reflection of all those considerations of public policy which lead the law to conclude that a "plaintiff's interests are entitled to le- gal protection against the defendant's conduct" W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, R. Keeton & D. Owen, Prosser and Keeton on Torts§ 53, at 357 (5th ed. 1984); see Haslund v. Seattle, 86 Wn.2d 607, 611 n.2, 547 P.2d 1221 (/976). The existence of a duty is a question of law. Pedroza v. Bryant, IOI Wn.2d 226, 228, 677 P.2d 166 (/984). Sev- eral policy considerations compel our conclusion that it is the duty of individuals, not local government, to en- sure compliance" with building codes. First, [HN13) the primary purpose of bnilding per- mits and bnilding code inspections is to secure to local government consistent compliance with construction, zoning and land use ordinances. See Haslund, at 611 n.2; Georges v. Tudor, 16 Wn. App. 407, 409, 556 P.2d 564 (/976); see also 9A E. McQuillin, Municipal Corpo- rations§§ 26.200, 26.200.05. As one commentator sug- gests: Provisions [***15) for permits and in- spections are to enable enforcement of the laws; they are not a benefit to a [* l 69} private developer. Instead of conferring a benefit, zoning and bnilding codes act as a limitation on the ability of a landowner to develop his or her property. Comment, Municipal Tori Liability for Erroneous Issu- ance of Building Permits: A National Survey, 58 Wash. L. Rev. 537, 556 n.90 (/983). We have already indicated that bnilding codes are designed to protect the public safety, health and welfare, not to protect individuals from economic loss caused by public officials while carrying on public duties. Second, [HN 14] placing the burden on local gov- ernment to ensure compliance with building codes is unreasonable in light of budgetary and personnel con- straints. Permit applicants, bnilders and developers are in a better position to prevent harm to a foreseeable plaintiff than are local governments. Thus, it is more eqnitable to impose on such individuals the dnty to en- sure compliance. Third, [HN 15) the approval of construction plans and satisfactory inspections do not absolve a builder from the legal obligation to comply with statutes. See An.not., Liability of Municipal Corporation for Negligent Performance [***16] of Building Inspector's Duties, 41 A.L.R.3d 567, § 5, at 571 (1972). Here, for example, the permit on its face stated that it may be revoked if the work was not done in compliance with the County's building code. Fourth, [HN16] imposing liability on individuals for noncompliance with building codes is consistent with this State's zoning vested rights doctrine. Generally, the doctrine protects an applicant's right to develop land, despite changes in the zoning laws, only if the applicant has filed a complete [**453] and timely bnilding permit application that is in full compliance with zoning and bnilding codes in existence at the time of the application. See Comment, Washington's Zoning Vested Rights Doc- trine, 51 Wash. L. Rev. 139, 143 (1981). In Nolan v. Blackwell, 123 Wash. 504, 212 P. 1048 (/923), a public official issued a building permit to the plaintiff to construct a garage. Neither the plaintiff nor the [* 170] public official realized that the structure was not in compliance with a zoning ordinance. The court held that the noncomplying permit was void and that no rights vested in the plaintiff even though the public offi- cial was partially responsible for the noncompliance. Nolan, at 506; accord, [*** 17] Eastlake Comm'ty Coun. v. Roanoke Assacs., 82 Wn.2d 475, 483, 5/3 P.2d 36, 76 A.L.R.3d 360 (/973). Thus, in the context of vested rights, [HN 17} the burden to comply with building codes is on the builder. The burden should be the same in cases where a plaintiff seeks damages for the negligent issu- ance of a bnilding permit. Finally, J & B Dev. Ca. has caused local government to become guarantors of each and every construction project J & B Dev. Ca. has shifted the risk of erroneous permit issuance and inspections from individuals to local governments. This shift in responsibility provides an economic disincentive to private contrac- tors to conduct their own examination of the building and zoning codes. Instead, developers can rely on the municipality to insure that the permit application com- plies with all relevant codes and ordi- nances, secure in the knowledge that if the public official failed to discover all the er- rors in the submitted application, the de- veloper would be indemnified for any re- sulting losses. (Footnote omitted.) 58 Wash. L. Rev. at 560. [HN18J Reqniring local government to indemnify an individual for losses resulting from the negligent administration of ' ' Page 9 111 Wn.2d 159. *; 759 P.2d 447, **; 1988 Wash. LEXIS 174. *** building codes imposes substantial [***18] costs on local government with little or no corresponding benefit. The policy underlying the public duty doctrine is that legislative enactments for the public welfare should not be discouraged by subjecting a governmental entity to unlimited liability. Rogers v. Toppenish, 23 Wn. App. 554, 559, 596 P.2d 1096, review denied, 92 Wn.2d 1030 (1979). J & B Dm Co. has obscured this I purpose. Under J & B Dev. Co., local governments may be sub- jected to virtual unlimited liability. This potential expo- sure to liability can only [* 171] dissuade public offi- cials from carrying out their public duty. This can no longer be tolerated. Our [HNl9] holding that there is no duty owing to an individual in the routine handling of building pennits and building code inspections does not absolve local government from all liability and responsibility for tl1e enforcement of building codes. A duty of care may arise where a public official charged with the responsibility to provide accurate information fails to correctlv answer a specific inquiry from a plaintiff intended to benefit from the dissemination of the information. See Meaney v. Dodd, Ill Wn.2d/74, 180, 759P.2d455(1988)c.J&B Dev. Co. v. King Cy., 29 Wn. App. 942, 953-54, 631 P.2d 1002 (1981), [***19] affd on other grounds, JOO TYn. 2d 299, 669 P.2d 468, 41 ALR.4th 86 (1983); Rogers. ol 560-61. In Rogers, the court imposed a duty of care on a public official, 2 where the official in response to a spe- cific inquiry, gave the plaintiff inaccurate zoning infor- mation. The court relied on Restatement (Second) of Torts§ 552(3) (1977) which provides: (3) [HN20] The liability of one who is under a public duty to give the informa- tion extends to loss suffered by any of the class of persons for whose benefit tl1c duty is created, in any of the transactions in which it is intended to protect them In this narrow situation, a special relationship is cre- ated because: (I) there is direct conlact between the pub- lic official and the plaintiff, (2) the official, in response to a specific inquify, provides express assurances that a building or structure is in compliance with the building code, and (3) the plaintiff justifiably relies on tl1c repre- sentations of the official. The creation of a special rela- tionship between the plaintiff and the public official gives [**454] rise to a duty to use reasonable care when furnishing information. Once the existence of duty is eslablished, the plaintiff may proceed in tort [***20] against the local government [HN21] As to the performance of building code in- spections, a duty shall continue to be recognized where a public official 3 [*172] knew of an inherently danger- ous and iul7.ardous condition, is under a duty to correct the problem and fails to meet this duty. See Halvorson v. Dahl, 89 Wn.2d 673, 677-78, 574 P.2d JJ90 (1978); Campbell v. Bellevue, 85 Wn.2d I, 530 P.2d 234 (1975); see also Bailey v. Forks, 108 Wn.2d 262, 268, 737 P.2d 1257 (1987). The provisions of this opinion do not apply to local governments' intentional torts that cause dam- ages. See Alger v. Mukilteo, 107 Wn.2d 541, 730 P.2d 1333 (1987). Here, the buyers and the realtor have alleged negli- gence in the issuance of the building permit and the per- formance of the "special investigation". The County owed them no actionable duty. Because the buyers' and the realtor's claims fail to eslablish a duty, the County was entitled to judgment on the pleadings pursuant to CR 12(b)(6). Conclusion We find that neither the legislative intent rule nor the special relationship exception to the public duty doc- trine is pertinent We hold that Stevens County owed no duty to 4 the buyers or the realtor arising out of the administration [***21 J of its building code. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. CONCUR BY: UTTER CONCUR Utter, J. I concur with much of the majority opinion. It re- flects veibatim in many areas views I have previously expressed to this court. The majority, however, unneces- sarily complicates what should be a straightforward analysis of the concept of duty and its applicability in these cases. There is no need to use the public duty doc- trine when there is no duty at all. The basic question is simple: whose duty is it to ensure that construction pro- jects meet the s1andards of a local building code, the builder or the government? When we conclude there is no duty on the part of the [* 173] County then it follows that the duty of compliance is on the shoulders of the builder alone. The majority reaches the same conclusion but only after additional and unnecessary steps involving the pub- lic duty doctrine (i.e., that a duty to the public in general is a duty to no one in particular). The majority must first conclude that the County's duties in issuing the permits and inspecting the premises were of a public nature only. Page 10 111 Wn.2d 159. *; 759 P.2d 447, **; 1988 Waslt LEXIS 174, ••• Next, the majority must 5 find that the legislative intent exception does not apply in this instance, [***22] even though the statutory language that enabled us to find such legislative intent in Halvorson v. Dahl, 89 Wn. 2d 673, 676, 574 P.2d 1190 (/978), is virtually indistin- guishable from the language of the State Building Code Act involved here. Next, the majority must find that there is no "special relationship" exception applicable in this case. In ad- dressing this question, the consistency of the majority opinion breaks down. The public duty analysis is sud- denly dropped and the discussion of "special relation- ship" becomes instead an analysis of the traditional tort concept of duty. It is far from clear whether the majority means to find no County liability here because there is no "special relationship" or whether it means to find no liability because the County had no duty to verify build- ing code compliance. I would reach the same result by directly reaffirming the traditional rule that it is the duty of a builder not the governmeot to ensure that his work complies with the building codes. • ~RDER NO. ____ _ ECF NO. ____ _ coNSTRUCTION PERMIT NO. TO: Comments Due comments Due FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU WATER SYSTEMS BUILDING CODE REVIEW __ I SEWER SYSTEMS --I STORM DRAIN SYSTEMS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT TRANSPORTATION DIVISION, --- ENERGY CODE STRUCTURA MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL --- REVIEWING DEPARTM~IVISION I I APPROVED I I APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS J __ J NOT APPROVED &;;w.tJ' tlf--/',V'f,f/AU ~tiOn.- »tMJ-1-yt,uf--' ~ 1'Jvfo ~ ftJ/J/(!,,- ~~I. "· -c-;-N,_,-,.1--,-',~"'-.,---=~...co"'f-D_i_r_~_c_t_o_r-:-~-A-u_t_h_o_r_iz_e_d_R_e_p_r_e_s_e_n_t_a_t_i_v_e __ DA~ ' I ' , -· '• ' \ l ' ! ' • ' ' ' ' ' . Iv. / 0 ~Ct,..S{d-~ h \.\lf ~er iAl,J !lp I -~~~ee {Y-0} n1-et1Jf . . ·• t.wtt<l p..t,. - ! " ~ I.. .i . .. ~ Ll,,- I • ~ \ ·- ·oo·og ~( -. lk'.: I .... ' ·-- L; c.L• . • ~, , • <:~'. f"'l,1 : ~ ... -. w I I I I . I . ( .. ',) . ' 2.0.,--.. -, ... ft;' ~....., oo·o~ ... 'v /,J.-1 -Ne, 1'8 pf. ~~ 5qq~ /'nfrlJ -\ 1.). ~ foB~ 33, s(:~ CITYOFAENTON RECEIVED DEC 2 9 2004 BUILDING DIVISION Justification for variance February 27, 2007 City of Renton It came to my attention that the home that is almost completely framed at 1721 ne 18 1h pl, is encroaching the 5 foot side yard setback. I have built a lot of homes in Renton, and always attempt to comply with all codes. My foundation subcontractor, who has done work for us, also is very careful, and a quality sub. He seems to have added about the same amount of space to the opposite sideyard, as he deleted from the one in question. r\ ~ecause this house is now fully framed, and ready for a roof, it would be a majo-;:-\ 1 hardship to try to alter the building. "_) 1.---.. This error was not caught at foundation stage, either by us or the inspector. Given that the city allows overhangs and fireplace projections 18-24 inches into the setback, with no apparent adverse impact to adjoining property owners, it doesn't seem like my requesl to go into this setback by less than in inch would any more negatively impact anyone. Additionally, my total side yard setbacks is the required 10 feet.. I appreciate youre consideration for this request. Sal Cohen Ji COMMENCING AT 9:00 AM, CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING June 19, 2007 AGENDA COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7TH FLOOR, RENTON CITY HALL The application(s) listed are in order of application number only and not necessarily the order in which they will be heard. Items will be called for hearing at the discretion of the Hearing Examiner. PROJECT NAME: Jones Side Yard Setback Variance Appeal PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-07-025, V-A PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Appeal of an Administrative decision to deny a side yard setback variance at 1721 NE 18th Place (Lot 4 of the Jones Avenue Short Plat). The parcel is located in the current R-4 zone, but is vested to R-8 development standards. Lot size is 5,999 square feet, and building lot coverage totals 2,013 square feet or 34%. HEX Agenda 6-19-07.doc June 5; 2007 Sal Cohen American Classic Homes PO Box 1830 Renton, WA 98057 CITY .F RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator SUBJECT: Jones Side Yard Setback Variance Appeal LUA07-025, V-A Dear Mt. Cohen; This letter is to inform you that the public hearing scheduled for June 12, 2007 for the above subject project has been rescheduled for June 19, 2007. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant are requited to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed ti:> yol! prior to the scheduled hearing. If you have any questions, please contact me at { 425} 430-7270. Sincerely, fika:~ Andrea Petzel ·· · Associate Planner cc: Jean Daniels; Durward F. Clare, Darrell & Sue Kinzer,Jerome 0. Cohen/ Parties of Record Ann Nielson, City Attorney --~----10_5_5-So~u-th--G-ra_d_y_W_a_y __ -'-R-en--'-to_n_, -W-as--h-in_gt_o_n_9_80-"5-7--~-~-~ <i) This paper amtains 50% recycled material, 30% ~coost1ffi8f · AHEAD OF THE CURVE ,'(Y r , >:::;:·<.,. ~\~k)-; CIT' (p'1~ OF' REN-rON City Clerk Bonnie I. Walton -"r/,,_/--:: Kathy Keolker, Mayor ·(',\''f.__'lr-------------------------------- May 10, 2007 Sal Cohen American Classic Homes 2806 NE Sunset BL Renton, WA 98056 Re: Variance Request -LUA07-025, V-A Dear Mr. Cohen: Your letter regarding your project at 1721 NE 18th Place has been received by Renton City Council members, who thank you for sharing your concerns. On behalf of City Council, please know that the one of the purposes of the Hearing Examiner system, as established by City ordinance, is to reassure citizens of fairness in the land use permit approval process_ The hearing examiner is a professionally-trained individual who makes objective quasi-judicial decisions that are supported by the record and that are free from political influences. The hearing examiner system helps to ensure that roles are clarified, conflicts are avoided, and decision-making is improved through procedural fairness. In other words, you are at the right place in the process, and will be heard by a professional, with a law degree, acting similar to a judge, whose appointment to office has been confirmed by the City Council. The Hearing Examiner's schedule currently shows that your appeal hearing will be held on June 12, 2007. After the report and decision is issued by the Hearing Examiner there will be a 14-day period during which an appeal to City Council could be filed if desired. Under City Code, if such appeal to City Council were filed, no additional public hearing would be held and no new or additional evidence or testimony could be accepted by the Council. The Council decision would be rendered after consideration of the existing record. We hope this information is helpful and that your issue can be soon resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Sincerely, Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk cc: Members, City Council Mayor Kathy Keolker v Jay Covington, CAO 1055 South Grady Way-Renton. Washington 98057 -(425) 43-0--6-5_1_0_/ F-A-X-(4_2_5_) 4-3-0--6-5_1_6 ~ .ci. / May9 2007 American Classic Homes LLC Denis Law Renton City Council Dear Councilman Law May9 2007 American Classic Homes LLC Marci Palmer Renton City Council Dear Councilman Palmer May 9 2007 American Classic Homes LLC Don Persson Renton City Council Dear Councilman Persson CITY OF Rl:NTON MAY O 9 2007 RECEIVED OITY Cl...eRK·g OrFICE CITY OF Rl:NTON MAY O 9 2007 RECEIVED CITY Cl.J!AI<'$ OFFICf: CITY OF RENTON MAY O 9 2007 RECENED ony Cl.J!AK'$ OJ=FICE I am a homebuilder, and have done a lot of work in the city or Renton , in the last several years. I believe our company to have a good reputation, and good standing regarding the May9 2007 American Classic Homes LLC Denis Law Renton City Council Dear Councilman Law Cll'Y OF R~TON MAY O 9 2007 RECEIVED OffY Cl.ERK'! Oi=FICE I am a homebuilder, and have done a lot of work in the city or Renton , in the last several years. I believe our company to have a good reputation, and good standing regarding the work we have done in the city. We were recently red tagged on a project located at 1721 ne 18 pl. The house is framed. A neighbor complained that they thought our house was too close to their property, based on their measuring the house from fence posts that we installed. I had the home surveyed by a licensed surveyor. It was one half of one inch too close on one comer. And nine tenths of an inch on the far comer of the house. Our foundation sub contractor simply made a slight error when he placed the foundation, there is the extra Yi to .9 inches of side yard on the other side. The complaining neighbor is the Kinzers, who own the "blueberry farm". I submitted this survey, along with a variance request. The planner who reviewed it wrote in her analysis, that it was 5 to 9 inches too close, again based on her measurements from fence posts, that were inside of our property, and 5 inches thick, and totally ignoring the survey. I waited 5 weeks for this to come back. I then applied for a hearing. I was told to have my attorney contact the city attorney, and that often, in cases like this, something can be negotiated without having to take the time of a hearing examiner. We did contact the attorney who is handling this, and after checking with the staff, told us that it needed to go to the hearing examiner, she could do nothing. Please see my attached variance, and request for a hearing. I frankly assumed that because the distance was so minute, that a request would be almost automatic, routine. Because lots arc getting so small, most new homes get built to the maximum limit of the side yard setbacks. An error like this must occur often, and come to someone's attention occasionally. I cannot believe that administrative variances for accidental mistakes as inconsequential as this end up resulting in the city asking a property owner to move a full house. There must be some precedence for granting a variance for a minor mistake that was made. The planner who handled this did not feel moving a full house was a "undue hardship". Apparently, she has never tried to move a whole house. I do not know ifthere is any additional political issues going on in regard to the Kinzers that is making the staff have such a hard time with this issue. This home has been dead in the water for 90 days, unroofed, unsided, windows sitting in garage. and I am expecting a delay of another 30+ days to get to the hearing examiner. We lost the sale we had on this home, after the buyers were told the initial request for an administrative variance was denied. Any help in this matter, or thoughts on how I might handle this would be appreciated. I have attached the hearing request application letter. Sincerely Sal Cohen ' • American Classic Homes LLC April 11, 2007 Re file number LUA07-025, V-A In March of 2007 the project at 172 I ne I 8 pl was red tagged. The neighbor complained that she thought the house was too close to her property. I had it surveyed and submitted the survey with the variance request. It is a 40 foot wide house that was to be placed on a 50 foot wide lot. Our foundation sub contractor placed it too close to one property line, and too far from the opposite side yard line. The total combined side yard setbacks is I 0 feet. The actual distance from the east side line is 4 feet 11.4 inches, and the rear corner is 4 feet 11.04 inches. The project summary states that we are asking for 4-9 inches of encroachment, this is not accurate. This encroachment was an error made by the subcontractor, not an attempt to build too wide a home on this lot. Im an not asking for the fireplace projection to come into the setback more than the allowed 2 feet. The roof overhang of this projection comes another 12 inches past the allowed two feet, but is to be trimmed so as not exceed the two feet. Again, this extra projection was not being asked to be allowed in my application for variance. This projection can easily comply with the zoning requirements. I have reviewed the four criteria used in evaluating a request for a variance. Criteria a and b : Had I asked for a variance to encroach into the side yard setback given the size of the lot at application for pem1it I would not expect it to be granted because there are no variables that could point to us suffering an undue hardship. This error was made not to circumvent any zoning requirements, but just by mistake. The house is fully framed, and it would be a undue hardship to correct an error that "would not necessarily be detrimental or injurious to the property in the vicinity" as stated by the plarmer in her statement of criteria B. Criteria c: The plarmer states that the approval would grant special privilege. I find it hard to believe that a very small encroachment or departure from the code doesn't happen from time to time. I imagine that if any plarmer, inspector, or hearing examiner, in the construction of their home made a Y, inch error in placing their home, they would feel that getting a variance for this was not a special privilege, but a reasonable fair and appropriate granting by the city that would otherwise cause them an unnecessary hardship, while not injuring anyone. Im just asking the City to do the same for me, be fair and reasonable. Criteria d: I think that asking for less than an inch is a minimum to accomplish the desired purpose, and "would not necessarily be detrimental or injurious to the property in the vicinity" In summary, the planner inaccurately stated the variance we are actually asking for. It is not for 4-9 inches, it for between a half and nine tenths of one inch. I believe we meet all criteria for being granted this variance. Sal Cohen Manager American Classic Homes LLC • City o nton Department of Planning I Building I Pub, 'orks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 27, 2007 APPLICATION NO: LUA07-025, V-A DATE CIRCULATED: . . . . - APPLICANT: KBS Ill, LLCIKBS Develooment Com. PROJECT MAN£ER: An8rea Petzel/) PROJECT TITLE: Jones Side Yard Setback Variance PLAN REVIEW: Kavren "'"rick ' \ (')' SITE AREA: 5,999 sauare feet BUILDING AREA lnross): 2,013 snuare feet LOCATION: 1721 NE 18" Place WORK ORDER NO: 77732 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Application for a side yard setback variance at 1721 NE 18th Place, (Lot 4 of the Jones Avenue Short Plat). A setback variance would allow the lot to have a side yard setback area reduced to approximately 4 feet 9 inches. The parcel is located in the R-8 zone, and the standard side yard setback is 5 feet. Lot size is 5,999 square feet, and lot coverage totals 2,013 square feet or 34%. A stop work order for construction is currently in place for this lot. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable Mo,e Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Majo, Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housina Air Aesthetics Water Liaht!G/are Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transnnnation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14 000 Feet 8. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information i d t roperly assess this proposal. Date REPORT & DECISION Decision Date: Project Name: Applicant: File Number: Project Summary: Project Location: Exist. Bldg. Area: Site Area: City of Renton Department of Planning I Building I Public Works lt. t41qt1s ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE LAND USE ACTION April 9th, 2007 Jones Side Yard Setback Variance Sal Cohen American Classic Homes P.O. Box 1830 Renton, WA 98057 LUA07-025, V-A Project Manager: Andrea Petzel, Assistant Planner Application for a side yard setback variance at 1721 NE 18th Place (Lot 4 of the Jones Avenue Short Plat). The parcel is located in the current R-4 zone, but is vested to R-8 development standards. A setback variance for the building's foundation would allow the lot to have a side yard setback area reduced to approximately 4 feet 9 inches. The required interior setback is 5 feet. In addition, the eaves of the fireplace protrusion extend 3 feet 5 inches into the side yard setback area and would require an additional variance for the encroachment. Lot size is 5,999 square feet, and building lot coverage totals 2,013 square feet or 34%. I 721 NE l S'h Place NIA Proposed New Bldg Area: 3,496 sq. ft. 5,999 sq. ft. Total Building Area: 3,496 sq. ft. REPORT & DECISION Decision Date: Project Name: Applicant: File Number: Project Summary: Project Location: Exist. Bldg. Area: Site Area: City of Renton Department of Planning I Building I Public Works ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE LAND USE ACTION April 9'', 2007 Jones Side Yard Setback Variance Sal Cohen American Classic Homes P.O. Box 1830 Renton. WA 98057 LUA07-025, V-A Project Manager: Andrea Petzel, Assistant Planner Application for a side yard setback variance at I 721 NE 18th Place (Lot 4 of the Jones Avenue Short Plat). The parcel is located in the current R-4 zone, but is vested to R-8 development standards. A setback variance for the building's foundation would allow the lot to have a side yard setback area reduced to approximately 4 feet 9 inches. The required interior setback is 5 feet. In addition, the eaves of the fireplace protrusion extend 3 feet 5 inches into the side yard setback area and would require an additional variance for the encroachment. Lot size is 5,999 square feet, and building lot coverage totals 2,013 square feet or 34%. 1721 NE 18'h Place NIA Proposed New Bldg Area: 3,496 sq. ft. 5,999 sq. ft. Total Building Area: 3,496 sq. ft. City of Renton P/8/PW Department Jones Side Yard Setback Variance REPORT OF APRIL 9TH, 2007 Page 2of5 A. Type of Land Use Action Conditional Use Site Plan Review Special Permit for Grade & Fill X Administrative Variance B. Exhibits The following exhibits were entered into the record: Administrative Reporl and Decision LUA07-025, V-A Binding Site Plan Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Administrative Code Determination Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing: application, proof of posting and publication, and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No. 2: Zoning and Neighborhood Detail Map Exhibit No. 3: Site Plan Submitted with Variance Application (dated 3/5/2007) Exhibit No. 4: Approved Site Plan Submitted with Building Permit Application CP04504 (dated 12/29/2004) C. Project Description I Background: The subject property is located in the Residential-4 (R-4) zone, but as Lot 4 of the Jones Avenue Short Plat the site is vested to R-8 zoning standards (rezoned as of9/22/2006). Along the parcel's eastern boundary, the property abuts the Kennydale Blueberry Farm, located at 1733 NE 20th Street. The applicant requested a variance from Renton Municipal Code 4-2-1 lOA, "Development Standards for Single Family Residential Zoning Designations." The minimum side yard setback for the R-8 zone that the property is vested to is 5 feet. The applicant submitted a recently surveyed site plan illustrating their request for variance. The site plan showed a reduced interior side yard setback area of 4 feet 9 inches. During a field visit by City staff, the measurement from the foundation of the existing house to the fence (built on the property line) showed a distance of 4 feet 5 inches. In addition to the encroachment by the foundation, the eaves of the fireplace projection also extend into the required setback area. Protrusions into setback areas are allowed up to 2 feet by 10 feet, however, a variance is needed for the additional encroachment of 1 foot 5 inches of the fireplace and it's associated eave. Lot size is 5,999 square feet, and lot coverage totals 2,013 square feet or 34%. The applicant has a City of Renton approved building plan for a two story, single-family residence (CP04504, issued 11/14/2005). Construction has begun, and the house is nearly framed. A stop work order for construction is currently in place for this lot until a decision on this variance has been reached. City of Renton P!B!PW Department Jones Side Yard Setback Variance Administrative Reporl and Decision LUA07-025, V-A REPORT OF APRIL 9'", 2007 Page 3 of 5 Findings, Conclusion, and Decision Having reviewed the written record in the matter, the City now makes and enters the following: D. I. 2. 3. 4. Findings Request: The Applicant, Sal Cohen, has requested approval for an Administrative Variance for his property at 1721 NE 18"' Place. The variance is requested from RMC 4-2-11 OA, which requires a 5 foot sideyard setback from the property line. The applicant is requesting a variance in order to reduce the eastern side yard setback area to approximately 4 feet 9 inches. In addition, the fireplace and it's associated eave encroach 1 feet 5 inches into the side yard setback area. An additional variance is needed to allow that protrusion which is in excess of the allowed 2 feet. Administrative Variance: The applicant's Administrative Variance application complies with the requirements for information for a variance. The applicant's site plan and other project drawings are entered as Exhibits 2 and 3. Existing Land Use: Land uses surrounding the subject site include: North: R-4 zone, developed as single-family residential; South: R-4 zone, developed as single-family residential; East: R-4 zone, Kennydale Blueberry Farm, with an existing single-family home on site, and; West: R-4 zone, developed as single-family residential. Consistency with Variance Criteria: Section 4-9-250B5 lists four criteria that the Zoning Administrator is asked to consider the following four criteria, along with all other relevant information, in making a decision on an Administrative Variance application. The variance criteria are as follows: a. That the applicant suffers undue 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; Through strict application of the zoning code, the applicant suffers no undue hardship that would merit a variance for a reduced side yard setback. The property is of sufficient size, flat and rectangular. No critical areas exist onsite. The encroachment into the side yard is the result of the foundation being poured incorrectly; there are no special circumstances. The applicant has been granted all the rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity, and the request for a variance is simply the opportunity to compensate for a mistake. As mentioned previously, in addition to the incorrect location of the foundation, the applicant has a fireplace that protrudes 3 feet 6 inches (including the I foot eave) by 10 feet into the setback area. Per RMC 4-2-l 10D4a, protrusions into the setback areas are allowed 2 by 10 feet. The approved building permit (CP04504) contains a specific condition that the protrusion is limited to two feet, including the eave. As mentioned earlier in this report, this additional protrusion would also need a variance. City of Renton P/8/PW Deparlment Jones Side Yard Setback Variance Administrative Reporl and Decision LUA07-025, V-A REPORT OF APRIL 9TH, 2007 Page 4 of 5 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; Granting the variance would not necessary be materially detrimental or injurious to the property in the vicinity. Kennydale Blueberry Farm is located to the east and shares a property line with the subject lot. No structures belonging to the Blueberry Farm, residential or otherwise, exist in close proximity to the house, and there is plenty of open space on the Blueberry Farm's side of the fence. However, there is possibly the potential for future development on the Blueberry Farm site that could be impacted by a lessened side yard setback. Several letters from the public were submitted, urging the City not to grant the variance due to the fact that a variance is necessary because of builder error, rather than hardship. Instead of presenting an argument for how the variance would be materially detrimental to the public welfare, the letters document a history of ill will between the applicant (the builder), and the neighborhood residents. 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, and; Granting an Administrative Variance in this situation would not necessarily constitute a special privilege. There are some instances where the City would grant this type of variance. For example, if the property was bound by environmental constraints, or if the property was located next to land zoned with a lower density (which, after the rezone, it is). However, it could be argued that approving a variance in this situation would, in fact, constitute special privilege, if financial hardship for the builder were the sole reason for granting the request. d. That the approval as determined by the Reviewing Official is a minimum variance that will accomplish the desired purpose. The applicant submitted materials for a building permit indicating that they intended to meet the required setbacks. However, work in the field resulted in the encroachment, and while the requested variance is the minimum needed to accomplish the desired purpose of the applicant, there may be other remedies as well. The applicant could approach the abutting property owner to the east to negotiate a lot line adjustment, or other remedy, so that the property can be brought into compliance with the City's zoning code. E. Conclusions I. 2. 3. The subject site is located 1721 NE 18 1 " Place in the R-4 (R-8 vested), single-family residential zone. The City of Renton Development Standards, RMC 4-2-11 OA requires a 5 foot side yard setback area. The recommendation of staff is to deny the variance request because it does not meet all four of the variance criteria found in RMC 4-9-250B5. Specifically, the applicant has not demonstrated that they suffer undue hardship. City of Renton P/8/PW Department Jones Side Yard Setback Variance REPORT OF APRIL 9TH, 2007 Page 5of5 F. Decision Administrative Report and Decision LUA07-025, V-A The Administrative Variance for the Jones Side Yard Setback Variance File No. LUA07-025, V-A, is denied. SIGNATURE: Neil Watts, Development Services Director TRANSMITTED this 9'" day of April, 2007 to the applicant and owner: Sal Cohen American Classic Homes P.O. Box 1830 Renton, WA 98057 TRANSMIITED this 9'" day of April, 2007 to the parties of record. Durward F. Clare 1818 Jones Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Jean Daniels t 707 Jones Avenue, NE Renton, WA 98056 Darrell & Sue Kinzer Kcnnyda\e Blueberry Fann 1733 NE 20" Street Renton, WA 98056 TRANSMIITED this 9'" day of April, 2007 to the follow111g. Larry Meckling, Building Official Larry Rude, Fire Prevention Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager Land Use Action Appeals I 4/1/CZ Date The administrative land use decision will become final if the decision is not appealed within 14 days of the date of approval. An appeal of the decision must be filed within the 14-day appeal period (RCW 43.21.C.075(3); WAC 197-11-680). RMC Title N, Section 4-8-11.B, governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner and requires that such appeals be filed directly with the Office of the Hearing Examiner. Appeals must be made in writing on or before 5:00 PM on April 23'•, 2007, and must be accompanied by a $75.00 fee and other specific requirements. THE APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS DOCTRil'IE 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. L r .._.._.,.,,..,,_, ,-...,.._, ,,_,_, ,...., cce.-_::,· elk.ct.~· over . ;,, :i, ·::, ~, t:-/ ~ \L,Q. Ree 100 '1~,v~A,";·~5°00"' ~ 55.55 50.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 ci 0 ~ N N N I 4.95' -----i--I ,, / I I I I \:'. 1 I CONCRETE I I / FOUNDATION I / s.rn I ' 3: ~OT 4 ~ 8 ] OT 3 "<I" r 0 N 0 ~ 4.92 0 (/J I ' • I I I 5.08' I I I I I _______ _J L ________ _J 55.55 50.00 LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 4, CITY OF RENTON SHORT PLAT NO. LUA03-095-SHPL, RECORDED IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON UNDER RECORDING NO. 20050525900037 1 "=20 -0 0 . 0 N ,,- w ::: N sq- ~ .,-- I"; 0 0 0 z A fc,o vw~itk lf~al4- tWi~ fo q 1/. I '1 r-ca:i llf?f<A. El-ST pl.ANNING OE\/ ~ff~~F AEl'SfON MAR -5 2007 RECEIVED $ ORDER NO. ____ _ ECF NO. ____ _ coNSTRUCTION PERMIT NO. NATURE OF WORK: ____________________________ _ TO: Comments Due FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU WATER SYSTEMS comments Due BUILDING CODE REVIEW __ / SEWER SYSTEMS __ /. STORM DRAIN SYSTEMS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT TRANSPORTATION DIVISION. --- ENERGY CODE STRUCTURA MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL --- REVIEWING DEPARTM~IVISION I I APPROVED I I APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS, __ NOT-APPROVED &Mil rf!f--thtlf_j}!AU ~rf1Pn.- »f),1Jt-Yl,ff ~ 1'Jv/t, ~ "1(//e-, ~'2-.'. {/~ .,.4t, /~ DATEl1Mf,/3,7#> -"-; -nn-,,-t--,~,r-,,-_ ~o-f_D_i_r_e_c_t_o_r-or_A_u_t_h_o_r_i_z_e_d_R_e_p_r_e_s_en_t_a_t_i_· v_e___ ~, ._ ..... ··, I ' : -·· -~ : i ! ' ~ l ' ' I I I, . / 0 ~Ct..~~ ht\l.t ~er~ ~JAi -~~~~ (Yb} n1-Wl1 ,,D . 'bo·oc; -- :£'. ., -. :,[ c_.l j r,.,., .• , I C p;.-i. -,; 1'• - I ' . ~ ,, , -,. l. .. ~· -· """' : ----. I I ( I • . I ' . ( l .~ ' .J - . 20'-: . ---• . . ~ ..,,..,.,,, . \..Loo·os -.. 'v h~I -~ IS pf ~ ~ sqq'} /n~ -\1.).tf l,B~ 33, sr:~ CITYOFAENTON RECEIVED DEC 2 9 20U4 BUILDING DIVISION I 171 'G\ \ I , --1 11 P1 'G,~1111 m ~ --1 () z Al )> 71 m r m ~ --1 () z 1 11 i I: 111111 ! I;;; 1111 I tni .. i• I jlt I ir:111:11u111 '11 ' ' ;i 11111 @I "/@:1 l 1w ii]' II ' -I~ . t ' 1' l 11111~ :11111· ';.I .. ,I ,, l 1l{illlPm1 Ji ~ I •~ 'i 11· !., • !! !l 11 fl \ Ji e:: ;, 1• "l 1' I I ~' j 'rn I 1[-1 Tl.HI : -n ' ,--1,1 I, ' ' I I I ,i ' rTI 1\ I ,~ !; , , j 1l < ' . I I )> I I ' .'·'· I . ,I ' I . " -I ~ I '! , . ': -I.,; i, ~ 11111 ........ ll ! Pi iii !! f.B ll ll ! .11 i 1dl ~ ; ~ I I Pl' 'H• --1 1 • , i l ! 1 •\ ~ m '11'1!'.'r 111'11 m .. ii''l <. (Ii !i )> ,1,1· --1 ,1:1 d () i' " z I' ~ rllljll'IIIIIIIIII\ ii ·""l C ~11, ' j !1111 I ill !11 -i D'·':. AMERICAN CLASSIC HOMES ·~-... NII/ARCHITECTS PLAN 18069f-0 J '.'..'!f.}}fj~ TH Yf.!.J. T ""-'-""€'-.,_ ~ :tj :ti ip, !di I s ~ Ill :2 ~ E-o Ill ! R-B(P) R-8 R-4 i:.:i z Q) > < _, Q) ~ 0 . -, R-4 a> I "' R-8 R-4 Rc-4 R-8 NE 12th St. R-8 a> I "' R..;;_8 R-8. NE 27th St. 16th R-1 ~ Q. ~ a> I "' R E t::i "' R-8CP RM-F E4 • 8 T23N RSE E 1/2 0 200 Po D4 ~ ZONING ~ = DCBN1CAL IIBllVlCll8 11"800 5 T23N R5E E 1/2 5305 Z"NING MAP 800'< 92 93 455 ! '' ;B1 26T24N R4E ··01 '35:;;iN;~~ 7 R5E -' 27 328 370 810 : 13111 ·a. ·p 4.:: ':f 5 ·. ~1 ,~- ·1s-t2Jfu,R$i/~/'·· .:r71"23' SE '··, ... :;·~~~-.-~E( '-· 14T23r•fRSE.> .1 ··. i 22N A4E 607 J2· 1T22NR4E RBSIDENTUI ~ Reaource Conservation ~ Reaidential l du/ac ~ Residential 4 du/ac ~ Residential 8 du/ac ~ Residential Manufactured Homes I R-lD I Reeidential 10 du/ac I R-141 Re11ldentlal 14 du/ac I RM-rl Reridential Multi-Family IRM-T I Residential )l(ulU-Fam..it, Traditional IRM-ul Residential Multi-Family Urban Cent.er• Printed by Print & Mall Services, City of Renton 23T23N ASE 821 .' ';H. · s· ;.':> . :H' .. w.,.: .. ·,··. '.·.•.·.··;···. ·.·:·. ~-:~ ;' -.: ,_>/:?\ 1iT2SNR5E .. 26T~<Js(;: 3:{14: , 15~ szn:3N RsE -"/, 33T23N a.is 35T23N ASE'" '6'10 833 J7 3 T22N ASE 2 T22N ASE uoom USE GENTJR ~ Center Villa1e \uc-N1 I Urban Center -North I ~ Urban Center -North 2 ~ Center DO'WlltoWD• ~ Commercial/Office/Residential CQ¥¥EBCX61 ~ Commercial Arterial• @J Commercial Office• ~ Commercial Neichborhood INDllfflIA.l. ~ lnduetria.l -Heavy 0 lnduatrial -Medium 0 Induatrial -Lia:ht (P) Publicly owned ----Renton Cit, Limits --Adjacent City Limit.II -Book Pages Boundary KROLL PAGE 2· E 3€ .s 1 T2 • lle.y iDolude Overlay Di11t.ri~. S~e Appendh: ma.pa. For addiUonal re(W11tion11 tn overlay Districts, please see RllC 4-S. PAGE# INDEX Cit Renton Department o( Planning I Building I ,c Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Pa.r \'.'.-._s COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 27, 2007 ;O '::. ... 1.H APPLICATION NO: LUA07-025, V-A DATE CIRCULATED: MARCH 13, 2007 l"' , . ., lo ,.,_," APPLICANT: KBS Ill, LLC/KBS Develonment Com. PROJECT MANAGER: Andrea Petzel I""' ·~ ::~ ,;. -PROJECT TITLE: Jones Side Yard Setback Variance PLAN REVIEW: Kavren Kittrick ·"" ..... , .. SITE AREA: 5,999 snuare feet BUILDING AREA lnrossl: 2,013 sauare feet jj.~ Eli I_!_!, I Ci~ -LOCATION: 1721 NE 18~ Place WORK ORDER NO: 77732 ;;. -SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Application for a side yard setback variance at 1721 NE 18th Place, (Lot 4 of the Jones Avenue Short Plat). A setback variance would allow the lot to have a side yard setback area reduced to approximately 4 feet 9 inches. The parcel is located in the R-8 zone, and the standard side yard setback is 5 feet. Lot size is 5,999 square feet, and lot coverage totals 2,013 square feet or 34%. A stop work order for construction is currently in place for this lot. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major lnformatfon Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earlh Housinn Air Aesthetics Water Uiiht!Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Trans a/ion Environmental Health Public Services Energy! Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Sign~e~~ -D-at-.~14il-""'4lJ/o'.I.LJ7'..-_____ _ t ORDER NO. ____ _ ECF No. ____ ~ coNSTRUCTION PERMIT NO. TO: Comments Due comments Due FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU WATER SYSTEMS BUILDING CODE REVIEW ___ / SEWER SYSTEMS __ /. STORM DRAIN SYSTEMS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT TRANSPORTATION DIVISION --- ENERGY CODE STRUCTURA MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL --- REVIEWING DEPARTM~IVISION I I APPROVED I I APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS j __ j NOT"APPROVED 6Mll &f-. A~/ Id u fYTl1rnt1Pn.., IH#.Jf-n,(f-' ~ 1'Jvfo ~ #'!#/~ ~r-z'. ----=U;-=-d:t,,L=--_A't __ ~_~ ________ DATE \]tin, /31 ?,./t;t:; c,nn,-t-11ria of Director or Authorized Representative .-.-'··_,. . -. I I ' . ~'- " ' I i l l ; ! I 1,,- • /' 0 ~C!..Sfu-~ h~l1 ~er~ '1:p1 -~ plfr-<f0\ffi &-bl n1-P11J1 .,D . , oo·og . .. li'. ., -. ,r ~ I ·. I .• \ .. - (J,--t-(' ~:-' "" - l ' -, ~ ,, , ~ j. • .. . . . ~·. p-1,1 : ---. r I I ' • . I ' .. ( - I' . ,J h. . . 20/- -' ... 1,'f,' t,t,tl""":) \... oo·os ... . ·-. 'o I",<). I · Ne,, I S pf ~ ~ S'l'i'i ('n,tt.J -11>). 'l ~B~ '33, s('t, CITYOFAENTON RECEIVED DEC 2 9 20U4 BUILDING DIVISION March 21, 2007 To: Andrea PeJtel, Assistant Planner Developmt!nt Services Division Renton WA 98055 From: Darrell and Sue Kinzer 1733 N.E. 20"' St. Kennydale Blueberry Farm Renton, WA 98056 Subject: Jones Side Yard Setback Variance Df:VtLOPME Crry OF ':Jkr~NiNG MAR 2 1 2007 RECEIVED We own the property to the east ofthis development and have the property line that is impacted by the building of a house that has less than a five foot setback. This was no accident. On October I, 2006 they took down our fence and dropped trees on our property and destroyed some of our personal property stored near the fence. They then piled the excavation dirt on our property. We put up a string line indicating the property line and had conversation with the builder Sal Cohen. In our opinion this is one Y£!I inconsiderate builder. We requested a fence be put back up immediately and we were told by one of the partners, Robert Gladstein,that it would be. Almost five months later the fence finally happened. In the intervening time we had to put up with a framers pitbull dog running on our property. People trespassed as was evident when it snowed and the foot prints were apparent. If the city inspectors were to check the distances between the pre-existing house and the three new houses I think you will find further distance errors. They were squeaking to get in three houses of the size they choose to build on the amount ofland they have. We have photos to show the damage done on our property. We feel that they held off on the fence because when it was installed it was very apparent that they were building too close to the property line. Trees were taken down that the hearing examiner said should stay and the two remaining trees are so damaged that they will be a future problem. A slope was created on our side of the fence and the grass was destroyed. What was nice and flat and easy to maintain is now a mess. Old fencing, garbage and an old apple tree were shoved to our side. If the city inspectors did their job and you didn't always acquiesce to the builder maybe more consideration would be shown to adjacent property owners. We do not feel that this variance should be approved. They need to pay the price for what they have done and if that means redo the foundation and rebuild, so be it. Maybe next time they won't be so quick to violate ordinances. D.E. Kinzer and Sue Larson-Kinzer 1733 N.E. 20"' St. Renton, WA 98056 (425)228-9623 March 21, 2007 To: Andrea Petxel, Assistant Planner Development Service Division Renton, WA 98055 From: D.F. Clare at 1818 Jones Ave. NE Subject: Jones Side Yard Setback Varianc I was a party of record when you had discussions on the short platting of the property on 1721 Jones Ave NE. We all had many concerns on this development, one of the primary being that it was not in keeping with an established neighborhood. Of course the platting was approved and three large houses have been built. They indeed are not in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. The sizes of the three lots are marginal for the size of the homes and have left little tolerance for error. The third home was built first and the proper setback should have been established prior to any concrete being poured. The property appears to have been surveyed so the property lines should have been well established. There is no excuse for this error unless it was done purposely to obtain the necessary five feet from the adjacent property line, the property line between houses #2 and #3. This could have been done in hopes that no one would notice the violation along the east property line. The home facing Jones Ave has a fence which appears to be 20 feet from the back of the house as it should be. Assuming that this is the property line the next house, designated #2, should be five feet from it. It looks to me as if it is marginal, less than five feet, and therefore should be checked. 1 suspect the same problem exists as exists with house #3; too much house for the size of the lot. If it is not five feet from the property line this also should be part of this variance request so it is no surprise to prospective buyers. My final concern is for the two trees left standing on the NE corner of the property. The smaller of the two was damaged when the remaining trees were removed from the property. The larger, about three feet to the north of the smaller, was undamaged during the clearing process but severe damage has been inflicted on it during the installation of a fence. The fence is wooden approximately six feet high running between the two adjacent properties along the property line with the blueberry farm. There was interference between the fence and the large tree, which was solved by carving away, flattening, about a three foot length of the tree as shown in the attached picture. The fence should have been redesigned/altered in the area of the tree leaving it undamaged. As it is now, if the tree survives it has no place to grow except into the fence for a problem for the future owners. An appropriate expert should examine the damaged tree/trees to determine if the trees have a chance or if they are simply a future problem. It is possible they should be removed. I'm sure this variance will be approved but I'm not sympathetic with their problem and am suspicious that it was no accident. '\J1..rnu.l.><V>~ ~ ~ Durward F. Clare 1818 Jones Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 ( 425) 226-7409 Attachment .. -• ... , ,, , Attachment for memo to Andrea Petxel from D.F. Clare \ I ! I Modification to tree to allow clearance for fence at 1721 NE 18'h Place Attachment March 19, 2007 Andriia Petzel, Assistant Planner Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Subject: Jones Side Yard Setback Variance / LUA07-025, V-A Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback concerning a building project in my neighborhood. The project description is: Application for a side yard setback variance at 1721 NE 19'" Place, (Lot 4 of the Jones Avenue Short Plat). A setback variance would allow the lot to have a side yard setback area reduced to approximately 4 feet 9 inches. The parcel is located in the R-8 zone, and the standard side yard setback is 5 feet. Lot size is 5,999 square feet, and lot coverage totals 3,013 square feet or 34%. A stop work order for construction is currently in place for this lot. Please adhere to the city building codes and do not provide a variance for this application. The five-foot setback is already such a small distance and the building codes should be enforced. I know that we are only talking about a few inches for this request, but the City needs to set limitations and not allow the builders to deviate from the minimum requirements. My assumption is that the site plans, house plans, and all other plans associated with this construction project have already been approved by permit and inspections. This issue should have been identified long before the builder began construction and he should have amended his construction to meet the construction requirements. I understand the implications concerning the impact to the builder in the event this request for variance is denied. Sorry, but it should have been done correctly from the beginning. The builder should shoulder the burden on this one and the request for variance should be denied. The city needs to enforce some "tough love" with this request. By the way, we are also licensed builders and we are well-familiar with the permitting, inspection and building processes. The builder should never have put himself in a position to request a variance like this. (submitted via e-mail 3/18/07) Jean Daniels 1707 Jones Avenue N.E. Renton, WA 98056-2665 e-mail: KD7GTE@comcast.net Contact phone: 206-298-8275 (voice mail only) City . !enton Department of Planning I Building/ I c Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ·T, a v.s ,:,o, t«Ji· rY, COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 27, 2007 APPLICATION NO: LUA07-025, V-A DATE CIRCULATED: MARCH 13, 2007 APPLICANT: KBS Ill, LLCIKBS Develonment Co=. PROJECT MANAGER: Andrea Petzel -.-r"'"'FRENfO!\ PROJECT TITLE: Jones Side Yard Setback Variance PLAN REVIEW: Kavren Kittrick RECEIVtL SITE AREA: 5,999 snuare feet BUILDING AREA 1nrossl: 2,013 souare te..UAD i ii ?'.l:17 LOCATION: 1721 NE 18'" Place WORK ORDER NO: 77732 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Application for a side yard setback variance at 1721 NE 18th Place, (Lot 4 of the Jones Avenue Short Plat). A setback variance would allow the lot to have a side yard setback area reduced to approximately 4 feet 9 inches. The parcel is located in the R-8 zone, and the standard side yard setback is 5 feet. Lot size is 5,999 square feet, and lot coverage totals 2,013 square feet or 34%. A stop work order for construction is currently in place for this lot. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable Environment Minor Major Impacts Impacts Earth Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental HeaHh Energy/ Natural Resources B. POL/CY-RELATED COMMENTS 10o,,..c C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS l\l~ More Information Necessary Element of 'lhe Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Housin'"' Aesthetics Liaht/Glare Recreation Utilities Trans~~ ... euon Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000Feet We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional informaUon is needed to properly assess this proposal. -,J, Date I I City ___ lenton Department of Planning I Building IP c Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 27, 2007 APPLICATION NO: LUA07-025, V-A DATE CIRCULATED: MARCH 13, 2007 APPLICANT: KB$ Ill, LLCIKBS Develonment Co=. PROJECT MANAGER: Andrea Petzel •·11YVfHt.NIUt\l PROJECT TITLE: Jones Side Yard Setback Variance PLAN REVIEW: Kavren Kittrick REt.;EIVl:U SITE AREA: 5,999 square feet BUILDING AREA tnrossl: 2,013 sauare teeUAD LOCATION: 1721 NE 181h Place WORK ORDER NO: 77732 --- SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Application for a side yard setback variance at 1721 NE 18th Place, (Lot 4 of the Jones Avenue Short Plat). A setback variance would allow the lot to have a side yard setback area reduced to approximately 4 feet 9 inches. The parcel is located in the R-8 zone, and the standard side yard setback is 5 feet. Lot size is 5,999 square feet, and lot coverage totals 2,013 square feet or 34%. A stop work order for construction is currently in place for this lot. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housi Air Aesthetics Water Uaht!G/are Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use UtiNties Animals Transnr.rl<>tion Environmental Health Public Serviees Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS )\)avJl We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. ' . "0\\J j ) ~o/""""te...j./ .L.:Jle~?1J1?r-"--'-+----- Cit, 1enton Department of Planning I Building I I . c Work{-- APPL/CATION: -~-} -:__J .;c...; _;.i --_;,.-...... ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT R, .. , ...... ~,,a...._,!; REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Rre 1' rev e,, k 0, :, COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 27. :200L'.AR 14 2007 ': ! ' 3,2007 ' APPLICATION NO: LUA07-025, V-A DATE CIRCULATED: MARCH I APPLICANT: KBS Ill, LLC/KBS Develonment Co-. PROJECT MANAGER: Andrea "etzel :'!fYU-f'-[,,',i .:-.. ' ' . ' -- PROJECT TITLE: Jones Side Yard Setback Variance PLAN REVIEW: Kavren Kittrick SITE AREA: 5,999 Muare feet BUILDING AREA lnross): 2,013 sauare feet LOCATION: 1721 NE 18'" Place I WORK ORDER NO: 77732 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Application for a side yard setback variance at 1721 NE 18th Place, (Lot 4 of the Jones Avenue Short Plat). A setback variance would allow the lot to have a side yard setback area reduced to approximately 4 feet 9 inches. The parcel is located in the R-8 zone, and the standard side yard setback is 5 feet. Lot size is 5,999 square feet, and lot coverage totals 2,013 square feet or 34%. A stop work order for construction is currently in place for this lot. _____ __; A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earlh Housinn Air Aesthetics Water Unht/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use UtiUties Animals Trans ation Environmental Health Public Services Energy! Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed t s application areas where additio I information particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identdied areas of probable impact or eded to properlr.. ss this proposal. Date I i City . tenton Department of Planning I Building IP Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: f' r o p,u tq Serv;.c'"' APPLICATION NO: LUA07-025, V-A APPLICANT: KBS 111, LLC/KBS Develooment Com. PROJECT TITLE: Jones Side Yard Setback Variance SITE AREA: 5,999 sauare feet LOCATION: 1721 NE 18~ Place COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 27, 2007 DATE CIRCULATED: MARCH 13, 2007 PROJECT MANAGER: Andrea Petzel PLAN REVIEW: Kavren Kittrick BUILDING AREA /aross): 2,013 sauare feet I WORK ORDER NO: 77732 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Application for a side yard setback variance at 1721 NE 18th Place, (Lot 4 of the Janes Avenue Short Plat). A setback valiance would allow the lot to have a side yard setback area reduced ta approximately 4 feet 9 inches. The parcel is located in the R-8 zone, and the standard side yard setback is 5 feet. Lot size is 5,999 square feet, and lot coverage totals 2,013 square feet ar 34%. A stop work order for construction is currently in place for this lot. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable Environment Minor Major Impacts Impacts Earth Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS ~ h.:,ve reviewed this application with particular atte areai_where addition ;nforma · ,i needed to proper ' More Element of the Probable Probable More Information Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Housina Aesthetics Liahf/Glare Recreation Utilities Trans ation Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet ion to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or assess this proposal. r;,, /I/, I 7 _,) r -r--2.tl ) -- Date r 1 City _ .. !en ton Department of Planning I Building IP · Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: L onchw:.+-i-m, Sc,0020 COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 27, 2007 APPLICATION NO: LUA07-025, V-A DATE CIRCULATED: MARCH 13, 2007 crrv OF fil::N I (JN APPLICANT: KBS Ill, LLC/KBS Develooment Com. PROJECT MANAGER: Andrea Petzel nt:1...t:1vc .. PROJECT TITLE: Jones Side Yard Setback Variance PLAN REVIEW: Kavren Kittrick MAR 142007 SITE AREA: 5,999 sauare feet BUILDING AREA lnross\: 2,013 =uare f=• ... - LOCATION: 1721 NE 18'" Place I WORK ORDER NO: 77732 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Application for a side yard setback variance at 1721 NE 18th Place, (Lot 4 of the Jones Avenue Short Plat). A setback variance would allow the lot to have a side yard setback area reduced to approximately 4 feet 9 inches. The parcel is located in the R-8 zone, and the standard side yard setback is 5 feet. Lot size is 5,999 square feet, and lot coverage totals 2,013 square feet or 34%. A stop work order for construction is currently in place for this lot. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable Mon, Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major lnfonnation Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housinn Air Aesthetics Water u;:;ht/G/are Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transrvvtafion Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POL/CY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have rev: wed th;s application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas whe / dditional information is ne to properly assess this proposal. Date NOTICE OF APPLICATION PROJECT NAME/NUMBER: Jcnes S,ce vacd Setback variance I LUA07-025. V-A PROJECT DESCRIPTION; App11-at,,J~ r~· a id d tb Jones Avenue Short Plal) A s~ttar., ,·a,;n-e v,uu'd 5 31 ~0~8~h 6"i tck ~anance at 1721 NE 18th Place. (Lot 4 of 1he apProx1mately 4 Je,et g inches Tro ~a,,.e; ,s ,o:atec II the R 6 z e O t~ lhave a side ysrd setback area reduced •o s,ze 1s 5,999 square l'eel. and lot ccv~rage io~als ; C 3 ..-.uare 0/"", '° ,,! standard side yard setback 1s 5 feel Lot cu•renlly ,n place for th,s lol ""' ee or ~ ·• A stop work order for construct,on 1s PROJECT LOCATION: "721 NE 15''·pace PUBLIC APPROVALS: Adm,.11s1ral1,e '/ar,;,nce Approval APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON Sal Coti~n. American Classic Homes. Tel· (206'• 226-7252 Er1I salcohen@msn.oom • Commarols on lh• above application mus1 be submir:led I Ill DevelopmantServi-Division, 105~ south Grady Way, Rento~ ;; 9~i$~ /~~~';,ap:etz.el, Anistant Plannu, hiwe quesl1ons about this propnsal. or '"ISh lo be made ' ' ~ · on March V', 2007. If you con1ac1 lhe Project Manager at (42 s1 430 '.~2~0 Anvore ...t,a party _01 record and receive addlll<'.lnal not1ftca11on by mall, of record and will be notified 0r a~'r dec,s,ao ,,r th•s i,mJ~Gt O submits wnHen comments will automal1cally become a party UMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION DATE OF APPLICATION: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: March 5, 2007 March 13, 2007 ,i • If you would hke .to be made a party of reccrd tc rece ve further ,nforrnalion on th PS r 0 and return to C1ly or Renton, Develnpme~t Plarni·ig TC 55 South Grady Way. Re~to°t :J.e:. ~:ci:· com~ete thjs form File Name I No· Jones S1de Yard Setbac, Va·rarc,:, / LUA07-025, V-A NAME MAILING ADDRESS ------ TELEPHONE NO CERTIFICATION I, Ss:rt+ (qgisefl.. , hereby certify that ? copies of the above document were posted by me in ___2_ conspicuous places or nearby the described property ~,1\-:''t~~~'.~i,,, ' ::=,;, •. _;r.s,~}~N''·· SIGNED: ~ -,,_, '"' ,11 ~ .I &~ ~,//, ~c1A,t,. ~ ~ :: -~,' ~~ ~ . ,,, : .) -. -~ :; A TIEST-Subscnbed and sworn before me, a Notary Pubhc, m and for the State of Washington restdmg ~ · ; ~ ':J t · tr-/J ~ :~/ ~\ ;'.,~~foA.!f lMc-1. l' , on the l '3 day of [\,\ty Ch l_!.<1MS,t,\ J/\/,-'ll'c;,,..,..,,,,.o,S-NOTAR PU!!LIC SIGN WA~,,,..:-1\111\\,,,.._ DA TE:_'3:__-/_::.:S_-C?:_J_ __ _ , 1 CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING ' On the 131h day of March, 2007, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Acceptance Letter & NOA documents. This information was sent to: Name Sal Cohen -American Classic Homes Surrounding Property Owners (Signature of Sender):_ 7 ~ .;Jut' l{_,t,,, STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OF KING ) Reoresentina Owner/Applicant/Contact See Attached Project Name: . Jones Side Yard Setback Variance Project Number: LUA0?-025, V-A • • 334450009702 BISBEE JOSEPH D 1725 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 334390348806 HUEBNER ROBERT F 1700 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 334390324005 KINZER DARRELL E LARSON-KINZER SUSAN C 1733 NE 20TH ST RENTON WA 98056 334390352303 LUTA !OSIF+LUTA MARIA 1806 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 334390352006 MR PARTNERSHIP PO BOX 2566 RENTON WA 98056 334450010007 SPENCER GENEVIEVE 1809 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 182870008006 WIEHOFF CHARLES A & MARY E 1708 KENNEWICK AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 334390352709 CLARE D F 1818 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 334390352501 JOHNSON BARBARA JOY 1824 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 182870010002 KUBOTA HISAKO 1702 KENNEWICK AVE NE RENTON WA 98055 182870009004 MCBRIDE DAVID P+MICHELLE M 1706 KENNEWICK AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 334450011500 PORCELLO ANTHONY J 1817 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 182870005002 SUMMERS DARRELL+GRACE 1625 KENNEWICK AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 334450010106 WOLFE ERIC & ZIBA 1801 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 334450009009 DANIELS JAMES+JEAN 1707 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 334450011609 JORGENSEN J J 1901 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98055 334390348608 LUNSFORD LARRY M+SUSAN 1716 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 182870006000 MINKLER ROBERT J 1701 KENNEWICK AVE NE RENTON WA 98055 334450009504 SMITH DARRYL J 1733 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98055 334390352808 TOMCHICK JOHN A+LAUREL S 1900 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 182870011000 WOODWORTH J M 1624 KENNEWICK AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 2..5 NOTICE OF APPLICATION A Master Appllcatlon has been filed and accepted with the Development Services Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. PROJECT NAME/NUMBER: Jones Srde Yard Setback Variance/ LUA07-025, V-A PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Application for a side yard setback variance at 1721 NE 18th Place, (Lot 4 of the Jones Avenue Short Plat). A setback variance would allow the lot to have a side yard setback area reduced to approximately 4 feet 9 inches. The parcei is located in the R-8 zone, and the standard side yard setback is 5 feet. Lot size is 5,999 square feet, and lot coverage totals 2,013 square feet or 34%1. A stop work order for construction is currently in place for this lot. PROJECT LOCATION: PUBLIC APPROVALS: 1721 NE 181 ~ Place Administrative Variance Approval APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON Sal Cohen, American Classic Homes: Tel: (206) 226-7252; Eml salcohen@msn.com Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Andrea Petzel, Assistant Planner, Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on March 27, 2007. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact the Project Manager at (425) 430-7270 Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION I DATE OF APPLICATION: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: ~,;,,,-;;;· ~7ji, ·ii, March 5, 2007 March 13, 2007 If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, Development Planning, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. File Name/ No.: Jones Side Yard Setback Variance/ LUA0?-025, V-A NAME: ------------------------------------- MAILING ADDRESS _____________________________ _ TELEPHONE NO: CIT°' :>F RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator March 13, 2007 Sal Cohen American Classic Homes P.O. Box 1830 Renton, WA 98057 Subject: Jones Side Yard Setback Variance LUA07-025, V-A Dear Mr. Cohen: The Development Planning Section of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is accepted for review. You will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your application. Please contact me at (425) 430-7270 if you have any questions. Sincerely, / ~!/tJ( Assistant Planner -------10_5_5_S_ou-th_G_ra_dy_W_a_y---R-en-to_n_, -W-a-,h-in-g-to_n_9_8_05_7 _______ ~ 6ir\ This oaoeroon1arns 50°h, recvded material. 30% ooi.t coni.ul'TIP.f" AHEAD OF THE CURVE • -)7-Q(t) U)A'J1-oz0 City of Renton Di:v~1.112,,,,_ LAND USE PERMIT M4R ~~t11:!;,.~NING a..il 5 2001 MASTER APPLICATI01"·cc£1i,~" PROPERTY OWNER(S) PROJECT INFORMATION NAME: ~ IIMC1iCC~ C,/"55/<.. f-lu ""'6 s . ~rJ8}0 ADDRESS: PD . CITY: 12.. ISNJaJ ZIP: 9S-OS; ~ PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: , . .:::r a:c.s ,,_.--: hr-:i<i v Vo., fr., T -· PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/1.0CATION AND ZIP CODE: /721 "-)c /g f L tlf'05& TELEPHONE NUMBER: 7_fj b 22£7152 . APPLICANT (if other than owner) KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): 33Y 3~0 ?> 521=, . . NAME: EXISTING LAND USE(S): 5 'f' . COMPANY (if applicable): PROPOSED LAND USE(S): St, rt' rU).1 vrR V\Ol'Yt'-l,(J I _,/1-, ,:,·,-,_,e ~,3'.J~. .,, ADDRESS: EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: RSF- CITY: ZIP: PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable): Nfo . TELEPHONE NUMBER EXISTING ZONING: f.B CONTACT PERSON PROPOSED ZONING (ii applicable): N~ NAME: ~A.L Qoj SITE AREA (in square feet): UXJO COMPANY (ii applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF .PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED: t--JA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: ADDRESS: . ~ PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY INUNITS PER NET CITY: ZIP: ACRE (ii applicable): ~ ).J,. NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable): TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS: NI'- 20f:, '2...2<::, 1 L 52 <'"AJ-CON6J'J Vf'/)fN v(_d ~ NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (ii applicable): I "-.)lie Q:web/pw/devserv/forms/planning/masterapp.doc 07/29/05 o . PRvJECT INFORMATION (continued) r--~----~-----------. NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable}: SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED R~ENTIAL BUILDINGS (W applicable}: ·_3ceo +/_ SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable}: - SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUI.LDINGS (if applicable}: - SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable}: - NET FLOOR AREA OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): - NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (ff applicable): - . ' PROJECT VALUE: IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): a AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE ~AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA TWO a FLOOD HAZARD AREA Q GEOLOGIC HAZARD a HABITATCONSERVATION a SHORELINE STREAMS AND LAKES a WETLANDS . ___ sq.fl. ___ sq.ft. ___ sq.fl. ___ sq.ft. ___ sq.ft. , LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (Attach legal description on seoarate sheet w.ith the followlmi .Information included) SITUATE IN THE SE::-· ·. OUARTEROF SECTION ..2., TOWNS7P ;;;1-~ RANGE 0, IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. 5u.. p/ifr f "' \ <:1_,rl r, .. TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES f . List all land use applications being applied for: 1. vooancei ~ s1rJ£, W'd.. ~ 3. 2. J(J ~ 4. Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $ 100::::' .· AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP . . ' . ·. . . I, (Print Name/S~~ 6 ac:ls:/fu:\ · . . · . declare lhat , .,,; (pleQe check ooe) ~ current owner of. Iha property il1\lolved in lhis 1lon or __ Iha aulhorized rep,esentalive lo act fou corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and Iha! Iha foregoing statements and answe,s herein con1alned and Iha in!Qtmation herawtth are in al respects. true and correct lo Iha ~ knowledge and belief. , . · I certify lhat I know or have satisfactory evidence lhat x A;=( ..Jad6k !ID ~ . signed !his lnstnmenl and acknowledged tt to be hlshlerllheir tree ani!Voluntary actfor ttie ~ . = uses and purposes mentioned in Iha instrument (Signalure of Owner/Representative) Oct>rt«/~ (Signalure of Owner/Represenlative) · My appointment expires:t · l '"::J--0 '::\: Q:web/pw/devserv/fonns/planningfmaslerapp.doc 2 07129/05 • . >EVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION Dcv~';f['Mctvrp WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS OFR1=r-.rr~NlfVG FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS MAR~ 5 2001 RECEIVE, ,,,,,;;a,,.,,,,,,, 1,1;;• ~,111:;;:1111U111r, Landscape Plan, Conceptual, :~iiii!iffli!mi0111ii1ii;rriif~m11mtrnJ;:tit~i~iftiti1titi~1i~~~titr:i Legal Description , Neighborhood Detail Map 4 This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services Section PROJECT NAME: /fYjJ .:\J.N S /}Je_ t4u (iC/IJ If'. 2. Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building Section DATE: 2-1 JG~ (Yf-- 4. Development Planning Section Q:\WEB\PW\DEVSERV\Forms\Planning\waiverofsubmittalreqs_9-06.xls 09106 lEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION WAIVEn. '-'F SUBMITTAL REQUIRa;;;1JIENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS Wireless: Applicant Agreement Statement 2 AND• Inventory of Existing Sites 2 AND 3 Lease Agreement, Draft 2 AND 3 Map of Existing Site Conditions 2 AND 3 Map of View Area 2 AND• Photosimulations 2 AND a This requirement may be waivE/d by: 1 . Property Services Section 2. Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building Section PROJECT NAME: /f!IYJ cZVeS ;fve.._ W V\6nb DATE:-=Z-'--::J----+f:~bd_J~--- 4. Development Planning Section Q:\WEB\PW\DEVSERV\Fonns\Plannlng\waiverofsubmittalreqs_9-06.xls 09/06 • Project narrative February 27, 2007 City of Renton I am requesting an administrative variance on a single family project I am currently building at 1721 ne 18 pl. It came to my attention that this home might be encroaching in the side yard setback. I had it surveyed, and it is approximately a half inch into the setback on one comer, and slightly less than one inch on the other corner. (see attached survey oflot) j / I V Justification for variance February 27, 2007 City of Renton It came to my attention that the home that is almost completely framed at 1721 ne 181 h pl, is encroaching the 5 foot side yard setback. I have built a lot of homes in Renton. and always attempt to comply with all codes. My foundation subcontractor, who has done work for us, also is very careful, and a quality sub. He seems to have added about the same amount of space to the opposite sideyard, as he deleted from the one in question. Because this house is now fully framed, and ready for a roof, it would be a major hardship to try to alter the building. This error was not caught at foundation stage, either by us or the inspector. Given that the city allows overhangs and fireplace projections 18-24 inches into the setback, with no apparent adverse impact to adjoining property owners, it doesn't seem like my request to go into this setback by less than in inch would any more negatively impact anyone. Additionally, my total side yard setbacks is the required IO feet .. I appreciate youre consideration for this request. ,1 Sal Cohen ) \ \ I /1 ,' l i" ~ -... ~ 1-4)(11-ti ' """"'-"" l~xl"f-e -10-0" ll-4 • '-, . . ~ 1-6 X 11-4 ~ ,-------------· L...;:~-~-~-~-~--~-~-"_,,_,.,_):~.Jr"'""?"""~"'II•: l\12780I3JF-O NI p\)>J'INI Main Floor: l)E\/i~~~ RENTON Upper Floor : Lower Floor: 1330 SqFt 1475 Sq Ft OSqFt /)/\1\f'I A R C H I T E C T S '41'.R _ 5 1001 IVv N o R T H w E s T cE'"Eo Width, 4~~:= i~:,~~. 18915 142nd Ave NE Suite 100 Woodinville, WA 98072 -1-8»-~2-4100 -www.ARCHITECTSNW.com Map Output ® King County iMAP '! I I 0191 3602 0180 I 011::12 01ti, z 3::'[13 .. 0156 J:)6; DEVELOP Page 1 of 2 CITY MENT PLANNING OF RENTON MAR -5 2007 RECEIVED 1~ 1961 1523 2~ 2364 1925 Hl27 0020 I 1926 I[ NE21STST n:121 12'6 12~ ,~. 1251 1245 012e .01«1 0320 03,0 = 191!.I I ,= 1241 0315 3M3 012.! 366:! 3~6!) 3200 3202 192B ,,.. 0350 23li2 1!l30 125512,9 2122 0300 2350 2381 1922 1252 12'8 NE3!THST 1923 191B 0119 1220 + -I County Boundary I_ x Mountain Peaks Highways I. L V I 1:!119 /! 'i '1'1 ' ' \ I '1' ·',1'. . iJ ' ' Fo11:1st Production Di!it:ric1. Bcund.aiy Agriculutal Product.ion District Bound.aiy Ufban Gmwlh Area La1e lnc:alflorated Area Streets D lake& and Large Rivers /·./ Streams [J TriJal Lands Pare.els D Patl<s 0121 J:J21 J~3:J 3~29 Jt,;!8 3!:12~ 3~2/ 0160 2.es, 0210 2401 1890 1880 : 1w ,e11 1233 0082 ,m, ,a!Wii 1232 0120 1239 2682 1891 ll500 0083 '242 1231 0110 0190 0220 1896188! . On.fl w ~ OHS ~ 0100 fi1 ~ 0H)1 0095 0091 0090 0092 0091 0086 0086 0082 Jt,23 Renton 3~2(.1 [J 3•nl6 3.ff:hf 348() 3,ff:I~ :NB2 3•fl:I! J,f/Y 3(~1 0080 HE Ul1"H A. o1~ 0000 0081008/ :H49 3(43 34'18 008B 0071:i 001~ 314~ 344 / 34,f,f Legend Unmcorµora1.ad KC Zoning A 10 ~·(.J:.r,1,a,e0Ups"10~ D A )5 /~· c.1:.J·,1 .cniOl! ps":J5""7m L •en."!:-·. \l \i "K!".:J ::i,\ 2 :, ~ ..1·:1 ,•\"ea. 0'1CI OU Pl'" 5 ;nae. ';,,A 5 ·~ .J" ct !\'• .. 1.1. cni OU ?Y" 5 «7M ~.•\ 10 ~..1·,1.•\·,:111.cniD-LJ?:Y 10olt.7m -~ l:i '"''" ·>.n: .:i. 18 OU µcs-.:t:l'e! ~ 2,::. ~(~-·1:·r.ci.24i0UtD'"~-e 02.JO 1~ 16Ul 12,J 1234 • • D • • 1600 1231! 12.0 1608 1609 1231 001 1241 1t,(J1 nJe: N£ 1BTtt s N£ tTl'H CT 0200 1648 16'1 0240 1650 ·-1883 111H 1686 16M 1682 119! 697ft 1185 R-48 · Rel.dcni':t. 4.9 O"J P!'.'J' .;,:re "" N~9.Jsi~ C8 Ci::mmunty Busi~ "" ._,. .... _ o oo~ ·-°""' -10. ,, .. o,j na2 '189 1190 The information included on lhis map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King C ~akes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. King Cc lshall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits result !the use or misuse of the infonnation contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written pennission c http://www5.metrokc.gov/servlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=overview&Clien ... 3/1/2007 .) ~· -.mCAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMP.AN" 0 COLtnmll CBNTBR.~ 701 Sff Aff 9&1.ftLB, WA !il8l.Of. SHORT PLAT CERTIFICATE Certificate for Filing Proposed Short Plat Order No.: 1228693 In the matter of the short plat submitted for your approval, this Company bas enroioed the records of the County Auditor and County Clerk of KING County, Washington, and the records of the Clerk of the United States Coorts holdiog terms in said County, and from such enroioation hereby certifies that the titleytv the foilowing described land situate in said KING County, to-wit: 87P{'MF:tvr O;: '11Et,.YlvN1 SEE SCHEDULE A (NEXTPAGE) 1,/. ON NG 'AR ~ 5 "' VESTED IN: R c.t.107 AMERICAN CLASSIC HOMES, LLC, A WASHINGTON LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 'ECE/IIED EXCEPTIONS: SEE SCHEDULE B ATI'AC!IED CHARGE: $100. oo TAX: $ 8.80 Recordsexaroioedto February 27, 2007 at 8: 00 A.M. OilCAGO 'ITILEINSURANCB COMPANY ~;l,L~. HARRIS/EISENBREY Title Officer (425) 277-8681 • ... ·, ·,· ',· ,tlCAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMP.AN"" SHORT PLAT CERTIFICATE SCHEDULE A (Continued) LEGAL DESCRIPTION Order No.: 1228693 LOT 4, CITY OF RENTON SHORT PLAT LUA03-095, RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 20050525900037, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; TOGETHER WITH AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITIES AS DELINEATED ON THE FACE OF SAID SHORT PLAT. CIDCAGO 1TILEINSURANCE OOMPANY ' ,· CIDCAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY SHORT PLAT CERTIFICATE SCHEDULEB Order No.: 1228693 This certificate does not insure against loss or damage by reason of the following =eptians: GENERAL EXCEPTIONS: A. Defects, liens, encombranc:es, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attacbing Sllbsequc:ot to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires for value of record the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitmeut. B. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. C. Encrol>chrnents, overlaps, boundary line disputes, and any other matters which would be disclosed by an accmate survey and inspection of the premises. D. Easements or claims of easements not shown by the public records. E. Any lien, or right to lien, for contributioos to employee benefit funds, or for state workers' compensatinn, or for services, labor, or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, all as imposed by law, and not shown by the public records. F. Liens under the Workmen's Compensation Act not shown by the public records. G. Any service, instaDatinn, comiection, maintenance or construction charges for sewer, water, electricity or garbage removal H. General tues not now payable; matters relating to special as<es-S111ents and special levies, if any, preceding or in the same becoming a lien. I. Resexvations or =eptioo., in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; Indian tribal codes or regulations, Indian treaty or aboriginal rights, including easements or equitable servitudes. J. Water rights, claims, or title to water. K. nns REPORT IS ISSUED AND ACCEPTED UPON THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY SB.ALL NOT EXCEED ONE THOUSAND D01LARS($1000.00). CHICAGOTIITEINSURANCBCOMPANY ""HICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMP.Alv . SHORT PlAT CERTIFICATE SCHEDULBB (Continued) EXCEPTIONS Order No.: 1228693 .a l. EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTEE: PURPOSE: AREA AFFECTED: RECORDED: RECORDING NUMBER: PUGET SOUND ENERGY UTILITY SYSTEMS A STRIP OF LAND 10 FEET IN WIDTH AS CONSTRUCTED OR TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN SAID SHORT PLAT NOVEMBER 18, 2004 20041118000928 a 2. EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTEE: PURPOSE: AREA AFFECTED: RECORDED: RECORDING NUMBER: CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC UTILITIES WITH NECESSARY APPURTENANCES THE NORTH 20 FEET OF SAID PREMISES AND OTHER PROPERTY MAY 25, 2005 20050525002724 c NOTE: SAID EASEMENT IS ALSO DELINEATED AND/OR DEDICATED ON THE FACE OF 'I'IIE SHORT PLAT . D 3. CDVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS, EASEMENTS, NOTES, DEDICATIONS AND SETBACKS, IF ANY, SET FORTH IN OR DELINEATED ON CITY OF RENTON SHORT PLAT NUMBER LUA03-095-SHPL, RECORDED UNDER RECDRDING NUMBER 20050525900037. • 4. GENERAL AND SPECIAL TAXES AND CHARGES, PA:a.BLE FEBRUARY 15, DELINQUENT IF FIRST HALF UNPAID ON MAY l, SECOND HALF DELINQUENT IF UNPAID ON NOVEMBER 1 OF 'I'IIE TAX YEAR (AMOUNTS DO NOT INCLUDE INTEREST AND PENALTIES) : YEAR: TAX ACCOUNT NUMBER: LEVY CDDE: ASSESSED VALUE-LAND: ASSESSED VALUE-IMPROVEMENTS: GENERAL & SPECIAL TAXES: 2007 334390-3526-00 2100 $ 129,000.00 $ 0. 00 BILLED: $1,422.72 PAID: $ 0.00 UNPAID: $1,422.72 7 5. DEED OF TRUST AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: aDCAGO TIILE INSURANCE OOMPANY ® CHICAGO TITLL, ,URANCE COMPANY 555 S RENTON VD.J.AGE,-#225, RENTON, WA 98057 PHONE: (425)W-&i81 FAX: (425)W-8919 IMPORTANT: This is not a Survey. It is fomished as a convenience to locate the land indicated hereon with reference to streets mid other land. No liability is assumed by reason of reliance hereon. City of Renton Short Plat #LUA03-095-SHPL 20050525900037 .... il!I I,, .. f l lt 0 ! 'MEN IECORlEC AEIIJIIITO -Q.ASBICHOlollS,LLC P.O. BOX 1880 FENTON, WM!HNlffllN9"1E7 •11 ~HJCAGO Tffl.E II> 34.U 02"lffl.!.il: :r .. KH coiiin, WI @ CIDCAGO 1TILE INSURANCE COMPANY e;fl 12'83114-1\ STATUTORY WARRANTY DEFD ~ n!BGRANTOR(S) IV~ :)5 JIM l.NC)oeve..aaMEN'r, ICAWASHNGTONCORPOAATJJN far ad DI. O"!Olidoration of TIIIDOLJ.ARSNEOllERBOODNIJVALUASlECONSIDEPATION illhandpald, _and _to AMEROHa.ASSC HOMES U.C.AWASHINGTON LMTED LNIJTYca/lWff LOTS 2,.1 Atl:>4. CffV OF FENTON 8HCffl PLAT LlJA03o095, FBXRJEO l.lEER FECOAtfi3 NlNBER .» e JC If, N KING COUNIY, WASHNGTON; TOGEIIEllv.llH,INEASEIIENTFaltlGAESS.BlAESS»41UIIJ'll1SASOEIMAT8)0NTl£FACEOFSAID SHORT Fl.AT. &JBJECrTO: FXCEPTIONS SET FORIH ON ATTACHED E»BT'"lt MO~THIS REFEFENCEMADEA PNlfl&EOFASIFRI.LYINCORPORATEDHmEN. E2264571 ~-,ill .n . .w::::: ........ QF ... Tu:AccullDt:Nmnber(a): •mi as22 04, 334390 asa, D2.ANJ831311),3528-00 LPB1Q/KI.CJ05"lllll • S'l1TB OF 'NASHIBG'I'OB as COUHTI' Of' KING I Cl!RTIPY THAT I l<IIOII OR IIAVB SATISFACTORY SVID1311Cl! 'll!AT MARC 1,. ROUSSO AJID .JAY MBZIS'l'RANO ARB ·TBE PBRSOOS WHO APPJWlBD S2PORB U, AND SAID PBRSai' ACIQICMliEDGBD THAT THEY SIG!IBO nns INS'l'!UIEHT' OB OA.'I11 STATED THAT 1'IIBl' 11B1U! AIJ'MlRIZBD TO EXEctn'E THE I1ISTRllMSIIT AND AO<IIOlfl.EDGBD IT AS MARAGIHG MBMBBRS OP J & M LAND DEVELO»Mli.tiT, INC. TO BE Tim PRBE AND VOlDm\RY 111:r OF SUCH PAllTY POI< THE 1JSBS AND PI.IRPOSBS MIIIITICJIED Ill TIIB IllS'IlWlllillT • PRI>m!ll IWIE, g(//1.A-).A· ~~J'l jt-,.,- l!IOTARY l'USl,IC Ill -~~ THB STATE OF liASHIJIIGTa, RBSIDIHG AT --/{• ~ 1 MY APPOilffllllllT l!XfI/ J'l j Zbu/-. I ...... • CHICAGO TITU! INSURANCE COMPANY EXHIBIT A EscrowNc.: 1228304 PlDBT SCllliD BNERGY. IlilC. TRAHSIIISSICBI, DISTRil!ll'l'ICBI A>JD SALB OF ClAS /IND l<uBCTIUCITY 10 PDT 111 WID'l'H HA.VD1G 5 FEET OF StJal WIDTH CBI 1!11CH SIDl! OF TSE CIIIITERLI!lll OF G!WITBE' S SYSTBMS LOCATED AS CO!iS'l'RUO'BD OR TO BE CD1STRIJCl'BD' BXTEllDl!I) OR REWCATED »c>VEMBBR 18, 2004 20041118000928 MSalBl1T AHD THI TERMS AND CONDITictiS THERliX>F: <llWrl'lil! ' PURPOSE, AREA APFBC'I'ED: CITY OF RDITOII, A MUIIICIPAL OORPORA'rl'.ON UTILITIES IIIORTIIEIU,Y 20 PEBT OF SAID Pl!EMISl!S Dill O'l'llBR PROPERTY MAY 25, 2005 20050525002724 CXJYBllABTS, CClmITIOUS, RBS'l'RIC'l'IONS. EASBMJDITS, IOTBS,. DBDICATIOMS AND SB'1'BICICS, IP AIJY, SET PORTH IN OR DELINBA.TBD O!f SAID SHORT PLAT. - ,.. RETURN 17 r,· Puglt-~Inc. AlbNlfian: MY D1p brwd: (Illa.) P.0.-80888GEIMS Bellevue. WA 98008 Dl8f 111111·-111· 111128110 20041 23 .. -~; . EXCIS!: TAX NM~ EASEMENT Kirlg ~Reaall!s Divtlbl (cmtomer form) ~ 0 7 ,, 'r:( 'DeilltY ORIGINAL REFERENCE 11: GRANTOR: iatPAR11ER81tlP-J&111AND DaVELOPIElll'IIIC. GRANl1:E: PUGET80UIIJENERGY, INC. SHORT~ C.D. IILIJIAN'S LAKE WASHIIGTON GARDEN OF EDEN ADD NO ... lRACK 292 ASSESSOR'S PROPER I {TAX PARCEL: 334390-3520-o& . UIIAPIIO:iillll!III JOB NO: 1MO!?'tf1 F1nnd In ... --· of One Dlllar($1.1l0) and --"""'*'"Ibo i>-paid, IIR PARlll-and J&II LAND DEVB.OPMENT IIC. ('G,aj*>.--} low andllllV'O ""'9IJY ...,_ and ...-ID PUGET SOUND ENERGY, IIC., a W-*va> CGqmllan r-" -~ b "* a and 11119'9 for the puipooos he.11inofM NI~ a r.a I -papeblOl - ovor, ..-. ~ -ond lhRJoVI the-d08Cribod '"81 pnoporty ("Prqoertr" -) In KING Caurty, Waslqlan: THE SOll1H 121 FEEf, TRACT 292, CD IULUIAll'S LAKE~ GARDEN DF EDEN _ ND..,_ING TOlHE PLAT THEREOF RECC11pED II Vl)LIJIII! 11 Of PLA'lll, PAGE12.RECORD80F-COUNTY, W-«rOII. DA1ED1ois GRANTORS: IIRPAlfflEltBIF 8Y:~•/j/lc J I II LAND DEVELOPIIENT INC. ? lot ' ..... ofl i 1 ·: · &tum.Address: City Clerl<'s Office City ofRalton 10SS Saudi Grady Way Ralton, WA 98055 20050525002724.001 Tide: UTILITIES EASEMENT Property Tax Pared Number: 334390-3520--06 Project F"de I: LUA.-«M95, SIIPL-A Street Tn•,.. cti.., or Project Name: Janes Short Plat Refeuoace NlllllbeS'(s) ofDocun.euts assigned or released: Additio11ahofermce IUllllbors..., OD pose_. Graotor(s): Grantee(s): I J & M Land DeYelopmmt, Inc., A l. City of Renton, a Municipal Corporation w .. -• Additional lepl ison pop __ or ........... , (A»,matd lqal Mc,lptltmMUSTgo/ua&) LBOALDBSCRlPTION: A utilities easement owe a portion of the South 120 feet, Tract 292, CD. Hillman' s Lake Washington Garden ofEdeo Division No.4, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 11 of Plats, Page 82, in King County, Washington. I Situate in the SE !A of Section S, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M, in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. ~- ___-/ .uos'-Cl071 Page I ... ••. :· .·1 •. • That said Gtaolor(a), :for and In COJIBidemtion of mutnaJ beMlils, do by these pJeSeDts, grant, bargain, soil, convey, and 11'81t'811111111111) the said Ormlee, its successors and assigns, an eesemeut ii>r public utilities (inclwlillg wattr, -. and SUJface water} with nooossary appurumanoc:s ovcr, Wider, through. across and upon the follawiog described pn,perty (the right-of-way) in King Counly, Washington, mono particularly described on paa,, l. (or if foll ·1ega1 is IIDt on page 1-Exhibit A.) For tl>e pwposo of'c:oustrucliD& l:eOllllSlnJcti iDsta1liJlg, repairlDg, replacing, enlarging. operatmgand maintaining utilities and alility pipelines, including, but not limiled to, water, -and SlorDl dilinage liDes. togi,tllec wilb the rigbt of hlgress and egress therelO without prior institution of any 6Uit or l""N""'ing,; of law and withou1 illl:un:iug any legal obligation or liability tben:ti>r. Following the initial coostmaion of its lilcilities, Gnml<e may :from time to tune construct such addi1iona1 facilities as it may require. This easement is granled ml!ject lo the tbllcnring teml8 and oonditiODS'. 1. The Gnnlee mall, llpOII compldicG of any work wilhin the proporty oo.-d by lhe ......... 1. restDre the wtfa<eof lhe -i. aad any pri-~ disturbed or de9b:Oyed duriJ,g oxecU!iai of tile -i<. as neatly as pn,t:lii:abJe to the <Olldiliul they-. in irnrnediately~-«IM IMllkor emrybylhe ~ 2. Gt'llllor sllall relain the right ID uoe dlo smface of the easement as long as sudi uoe does not~ with the ..... ,..tmllltriglllg 8ftlllled lo 1M Gfllnlae. Onmtor llbal1 not, howeft:r, have Ille right to: a. l!rec:t or lllllmUlin any l>uildlnp or struotures willlin 1he eermmt; « b. l'lallt trece, shrubs or ....«Oil haring deep root pattem, 'Mlich may cause damage to or~ "ith the 11tiJitia to be placed wilhin 1be easomeot by the Omib,o; or o. Develop, lend ; ,, or bea1ify the eaaanont area in eat Wflf which wm,ld ..........Wy illote8$e the costs to the(mm1,,c ofmmnng the euemeixt,reund any private impo1otnen1s 1bcnin. d. Di& tmlMI or pe,form oliJl:I' fllrllls of COllsttuctioll adiwiet "" tho p,opeey 'Mlich -.Id disturb the OOCllplCtion orUllelldh G1antmdiwilili= on the ri~way. or .....,,er the laDnl auppat &<:ilitie& o. Blast willlin ll1lecu (IS) l<etofthe right.«'-way. This easement shall 11111 with the land described ru,rein, and lba1l be binding 11poD the parties, lbeir hem, suca:ssors iii~ and aasigDB. <haniozs Go'YCJlaD1 that they are the lawful OWllffll of the above propertieS and that they have • good and lawlbl right to e=u1e this agreement. . By this comoeyaru:,e, Grantor will"warranl and defend the sale hrm,y made unto the Gnm!= apinst all and ew:ry penon or pmoas. wllomsoevet, lawfully Claiming or to claim 1he IIIIJlle. This~ shall bind the heirs, execulOrS, adminisliators and assigns forever. IN WITNBSS WBERBOF, S1b11 Omw hes"""-""1 thisimlnmlont to be "'""""'4 thiBAZ j.y of !"14t 20St'. 20050525002724.003 INDlVIDUALFORMOFACDiOWLEDGMENT Notary Seal must be within box STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfarluy tvidmce 111111 ______ _ ___ ...,..... __ ..,.-______ signed1hil instxw,-tand aolawwledged it to be hislhodtbeir fi:<e and volllllfaty act mr the uses and purposr$ m<ntiooed in the-t Notary Public in and fur the State ofWasbington Notary (Print),_,...--,----------- Myappoin1ment oxpircs:._·--------- Dated: /tD'll1SENTATil'EF0BMOFA~ Notary Seal ll!Pll be within box ·STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS MOUNIR H. TOLIMA STATE Of WASKINGTOM NOTARY-PUBLIC IY aJIIIIIISIOll Ell'IUHH7 COUNTY OF KING ) Icmtify ttmtll:now or-•titd8<1rcyeridencettmt ______ _ Notary Public in and fur the State of Washington Notary(Print), __________ _ !11:y appointment expires:. _________ _ Dated: . CORPORA.TE FORM OF ACDiOWLDXJMENT STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS COUNTY Of ~G ) %00.S"'. On tbis _/Z""' __ dl day of /r? ff' . J.9-~ befme me pemia1ly appeared /11Rrt!. i?pu.Jl'6 tomeknownlD be ?..,.St,;.,_, ofthe.,.pomicmthat ex..i""'1 the within instrumoal, and acknowledge the said imtrumcnl lo be the fi:<e llllll 101unt.ary act and deed of said co,poration. fir the usos aid pmpaoes themn !DODlioned, and eacl1 on that he/sbe was lllffwi1,:d to """"'1le raid . t and that the . the corpot!le soal of said corporation. Page3 EXHIBIT"A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Mast _be stBmped by a P .E. or I.S.) The north 20 feet of the following descnbed property: 20060525002724.004 South 120 feet of Tract 292, C.D. Hilhnan's Lake Washington Garden ofEden Division No.4, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 11 of Plats, Page 82, in King County, WBBhington. Situate in the SE ~ of Section 5, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M, in the City of Renton, King County, Washington Redoa-Utility at jc1111 doc\ vJ V) ~J~ ., II§ 11 .. t !ii~ I g ~ "' • 0 ~ r> iii z I 11: :;i, I Map Exhibit .oo·o,a 3 .zt,lf.OO w I I i-- I I 3N 3AV S3NOr I 11: :;i, I 20050525002724.005 ;.. .. ~ "' • 1-.. r> "' "' z • AFl'BR RBCOIU)ING RETURN to: Weehinr:!!!: J'edenJ Sayims .,,,, ~y:11,!. DT 18.N FedlnlWayWA!l8003 -------- ii:,'7ea'7,i Ira .. IClNG 1 MR SHORT FORM DEED OF TRUSI' 1'lllS DEBO OP TRUST ('Sealrity Instrument") is made FellnplrY 2lld, 2007 - AMEllICAN CLASSIC HOMES LLC., A WASHINGTON LJMrrED LIAIIILlTY COMPANY ---====~===--------•Grantorrsorru-"l. -addma ii PO BOX 1830. lll!NTON WA 98057 : ml WA§"'ffl'l"9N SIIIIVICJ!/1 INC.. A WASHINGTON COIIPORATION a, --addmaia6ll5SOl1'111MORGAN ROAD. pm Mm. WA. !18249 ml WASIIINGl'ON n:D1!11AL SAVINGS, a United Slaa Co,ponli<lo1. "Beoefk:iary ('l..eader" / Granloel, w--i,425 l'lloeS!rcet, Seo!tle. w • .....,.... !18101 LOl'l:1, 3 AMP .... arr OJ' DN'l'OMSIIOJtr PI.A.TWMIJ.095, RBCORDD UNDi1l RICORDINGHfJMIIIQtZV an 111137.IN KING COUNTY, WWINGLON( IOQIIBIR. Wl'l'BAN USDIIDff' JOI. ING~ EGRESS AND um.mBSAS llBUNBA1liD CN'IBPACE Ol SAID SIIOltI' PLAT. CHl:AG01111.EINS. CO REF# (?£153 O't -1 I @lF~1 Allaoor'sl'r<,pstyTul'lftd AcceuotNumb<r(s)::~'.N'l'9:~~3522~:!1-Q4!L _______ _ 33439D-3524-02 334390-3526-00 TOGETHER WTTH Ill '&he rr:ne:mems, b.efflflunnenrs am ~. DOW or heteafter 1lx=mlu belcm&lD8 or ID 011/I -, appertaining, 1 ..... 11111 Olbe< ag , • 11 fbr rho u.se ml _. patliDlq -· ad dlo-.;...., and profil> tll<,reof aod all od!er properly« rigbls ormiy kind or mmre-lbrll>tr oet-ill 1he M>sl,rFo,m Dceo!ofTmsl-lOfemd to, SUBJJ;CT, HOWEVl!R. to Ibo rill>I, -al authorlty hereinafl<r given to and amfemd -!.ender IO coll<a and apply ouch ims, -md pofita. 'Ibis 5""rilJ "'8lnlmt:m wll OOIISlitute a """1ily -1lllder rho Ullifoml Cotnm<n:w Code of WllillDatoa belwoen Borrower a, debtor and Lendor as secmod pony. Borrower anm a """1ily iDlotat to ~ in Ill)' of 1he Property which is pmonal pmpetly and also ir-a -,rlty imorcst in Ille property dacribed ID Pmgraph 3 of tbo -Fonn Deod of Trust her<imfter rdemd to. DOW C>ll'IIOd or hma!lm-·-1J'ed by Borrower (the Property, aa clofinod abcwe. aod Ille property dtlcribecl ill aaid Potagrapll 3 --collec:tively !Ofemd 10 u rho 'Coll-.!"). -. .. ..,,;_!f;T (l'a,, J qf 4) l.020-T {WA] 01107197 THIS SECURITY IN5l"RUMENT JS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECURING lhe lollowiDg: (a) PaymmtoflheSW11of _________________ =~ QnmUJOSTJIREEHtlNDREDNINETYTHOUS.~D AND i'i'OllOOS DOLLAlS ( SJ.3,0.000.00 ). widi imerest ~ acconling 11> Ille ,.,.,. of a pmmiaaoly DD!C of C\"Cll -bmwilh. poyal)le to l.aKler or Older and made by Borrower (lhe '"Nole". wllicll tam lball mdude Ill ..... evidencizJ& the imleb-sec=d by Ibis Security lmtrunm. illcludmg all -· m,dfffnriMS or emmioDs thereof); bl Paymmt of any linlher awns ad"21tCCd or Jomod by Lemler to ~. or any of ils """"'*"' or ISSigm, if (I) lhe Noto or other writing evidencing the futun: -or: Joan ,pccificaJly sma dllt It is seemed by Ibis Secmity lnsuwncat. or (2} Ille -DIChJdll!& com and expcmea incumd by Lend<r, is made -"' rhis Securtty lnsmJmOOI or my other --by --.r ..tdotlcln&, ~ or telaling to lhe Not< aod/or lhe Cdlatml, --prior to, com ..... wwsly with, or subsequ<m to tbis Socnrlty -(rhis Seaui1y .........,, Ille Nore ad such Olhcr &c:mnems. including an}' collS(ruaion loan. land Joan or oilier loan. agreemmt. cc -calkctlvdy -lO .. the "Loan Documr,,ra"). IOgcdlor widi ....... -at lhe - ... -!a the Noto unless otberwi,o ,pccir...i in lhe Loan -or agreed"' ill wriung; c) Parotw of each-~ ienn and condition set fmtlJ or maxpon,,d by-....., in the Loan Don·-DICllldll!& -limilalion lhe lom -of ----wbkh ... ..,,. .... --by ..r.....,,orcorlaiDcd herein. TIIE MATURITY DATE OF TIIESE SECURED 0BU0Al10NS, AS CONTAINED IN THE LOAN DOCUMENTS, INCLUDING THE NOTE, IS February 2nd. 2009 By -ma ...i detiY<ri,ig this Security lnsuumool ...i tlto Note -ltcteby, tlto pam<ll -that all provisicms of Pm&taphs I throqh 69 ioclmive of the -!'otm ll<cd of TOISI --m, -SIICl! (ll"llraphs as are specifically oitdlllkd ormot!lfied llpem. aie ltcteby im • •F wMftd herein by ~ 8lld. made an integral pm hereof for all parposa. tbe *8IDe as If set forth -• leqth, ,nd lhe Borrower hereby -said covmallll ,nd -to ftlDy p<rbm aB of said _-. TIie MasterFoan ll<cd ofTrut above ref<md., __ oo Ibo-beloow obatw. in the Official Recoodl of die ollices of the County Auditors or OmmJ -of die lbllo,,1ng coumia ID the Slau: of Waslriqloo acconling to the ™""II«! .-dellgnalkm ,ppoaring below after 1DC 111a1eof eacb coumy, ro wit: DRAWER. REEL. F'RAMEOR 1lECORDING OR DATE OF !;2!ll!II BOOK m Y.au;trm PA.GE. NQ:ffi,l ~lmrmR:I fll.E HQ JJ'i'ltdWlfQ ~ 229 260-271 239<13 Oclobcr 12. 1!195 ASOTIN 217406 Oaobor 11. 1!195 BliNTON 636 65-16 95,lJ0.19 Oaobor 11, 1!195 CHELAN um 1633-164-1-9.110120006 Ocm:r 11, 1!195 CLALI.Ald llll 694-'ICS 7l942S °"""" 11, 1!195 CIA1UC 95il011(089 Oc1*r 11. 1!195 COLUMBIA ID 712-723 8601 Ocm:r 11. 1!195 cowurz 1213 0637--0648 9.110U074 OaoI,er 12, 1995 DOUGU,S M444 09-20 3078Sll Octcibcr I?. 199$ FEIUIY (M.F. ofO.R.J = Oecober 11. 1995 fltAlllWN '1377 OS64-0>7S ill669 October 11. 1995 <lAltflEU) 3317 Ocm:r 11. 1995 GRAN? 068 195.J-196:.S 9.11012004 Oc:t-ober ll. lffl GRAYS HARBOR .., 331J6.3lU7 9.110no26 Ociobet 11. 1995 lSLANI) 6116 1410-1421 950163" Ocm:r II. 1995 .lEFFEISOI! ID 31&-339 385505 Qc10ber 11. 1995 KING 9510IOl'.M11 Oetober 10.. lffl l<JTSAP 0879 2391·'.!-403 9.110130066 Ocl!Ober r:;, 199:5 KITIITAS 370 717 '86108 Oc:1obcr 11. 1995 IWCKITAT 327 218 2'9616 Ocd.i,tr 11. 1995 LEWIS 672 350.361 9.11.us? 0.-, II. 19115 LINCOLN 63 003034--003045 400875 O:tob<r 11. 1995 MASOII 688 144-U3 61S<O& O:tob<r II. 1!195 OlCANOGAN 137 1089-1100 833848 0<1ober 11. 1!195 PACIFIC 9.110 SS9-S70 62332 ~11.1995 PEND OIIELLE 121 1099-1110 230119 Oc:tobtr 11, 1995 PIERCE 1163 l5ll-2S22 9.1101IOl78 Oct,cib« 11. lffl SA.~JUAN m 230-UI 9jJ01l01 Ocmhcr' 12. 1995 SKAGIT 1483 0372-0383 9.11011°°'6 ocmt,,er 11, 199$ SKAMANIA 152 86().871 123094 Ocm:r II, 1995 SNOHOMISH 3081 162J.1634 9510110189 OclobcT 11. 199;5 SPOKANE 1781 1137-1748 9.110110!30 Ocm:r 11. 1!195 STEVENS 193 2376-.!387 9.1101S7 Oclol,er 11. 1!195 Tllt.'JISTON 2464 700:·713 '9510110097 Oaobn 11. 1995 WAIIXJAXIJM 104 Om-Om 4S<47 Oaabcr 1?. 1995 \\'AU.A WALLA 234 1593-1(,()4 9509789 o.r-11.1995 WHATCOM 463 1133-1144 9510lll97 October 11, 1995 WHil'MAN ll-No.SIIOIU Oclobcr 11, 1995 YAI<JMA 1494 1Sl9-1Sl0 3110734 October 11. 1995 (~1of-lJ L020-T [WA) '• 011 209 325304-4 A copy of llllCh Masl<r Form Deed of Trust has been fomi9lll:d to tbe penon """""1iDg thi, Securily -..-. and by ~ Ibis Security lmlrumlm the Borrower acbowledges having m:oiwd ltldl Master Form Deed of Tnnt. Tho Property wbi<h ls tbe ,abject ofthi, S<curity _.....,. is not used princlpally or primarily for qri<:ultmll or fmDiDg purpooeo. '!be UDdmipl'd Bom>wa: ioquests Iha! a eopy of ""'J Notice of De!iult and of ""'J No<ite of Sale -· 11 ,eqoiml by Wadlington Jaw ill case of llOll·judlclal r-... of a deed of """· be mailed to Boaower • Bonower's aMres as hereinabove let forth. --to -an insw= requircd --to limo by Lader IDd as - provided in !be 1-Documeml, mcludi1lg flood -If -fal1a to maintain ,ucb lmmnce -y to 1lle Lender, Lender may make 1lle paymml OD behalf of the Bom:,wer and ""'J RIIIIII ,:xpeod..i ohalJ be add<d to prmapai and bear -at lhc 111C provldcd in the Note. If tbe box prec<dlDg my of tbe following ,,_ -an "X", 11111 SlllelllOllt is a put of 1hls Seo:urlly lD.saumml. If tbe box is !!QI so check<d, the conaponding -is ll!!!. pm of Ibis Se<urity '""'""""'" 0 Plng,aph 49 of tho MIiier Fot1I1 Deed of Tmst (wbidl men to the exislenc:e, if ...., , of an aljuatlhle-r.atme in the Noie) i, hereby delclcd. [ii The Nole """"1 bad>y evid<Does a construction loan or laod loan bm is DDI a combination Note. Pangnpb 53 of Ibo Masom Form Deed of Tout;, h<Rby clolto,L 0 '!be Noto """"1 hereby is a combillalion -loln/p<:rmallel loan Nole. Rda-to pmpph 53 of the Malm< Fonn Deed of Trust. 0 1be Plopelty OI' a part tllt:reof is a Omdomininm Refer to panpapb. SO of lhe Maser Form Deed ofTmat. 0 A fee ....., allll a lco8cbold ownor of the Property, or a ponioll lllela>f. have execuled this Security-......,,_ 11<:!erto paragniph 51 oftbo Maslor Form Deed of Tom · D "Ibo Property or a port tbaoof is a leasdlold estato. Ref« to paragnpb S2 of tho M,-. Form Deed ofTmat. D Seo also -• A. of this Short Fonn Deed of Tomi. --and -.porat<d herein by 'tbis1*'cnce, WITNESS the baod(s) and IOll(I) of the lloirowcr, and each of lh<m if more !ban cme, on the day and yearimlabove- AMERICAN CLASSIC HOMES U.C (Over for oowy aolmwkdgaocots) L02tH CWAl 01/07191 . ·~ ·-r STATE OF ) "· COUNTY OF ) I cenify that I kDow or h&ve lllliafacrozy evidonce lhat ------------ {Name(s) of ~•ll is/ale die pe,soo{,) -appe,red befoie me, llllll smd person(s) acknoWledgcd that (bdtbe/lll<y) siped this-._. 11>11 >Cbowledpl it IO be (his/bcr/tbcir) fr<e 11>11 voi-.-y ICt for lbe -11>11 purpc>$OS -inlbe- Ilar<d: ______ _ (Si_.,.) (Seal or Stamp) Nowy Public In 11111 for the Swe of _____ _ residin: at ------------My_e,q,ires ________ _ STATE Of /,...).t1 ) COUNTY Or }<.Ji.J 67 ) "· lcenili' dlllllcnoworlmealbfaaory _lhat ___________ _ MM ~1"/V [Name(s) ofpmoa(s)I AQ.. .... pcnoo(s) -appeared befoft-:1\"',. and ,aid penon(t) ocaowledged ~ siped ~=:-tbat~~ to-~ inllJumem 11111 .7 of AmmldA< tfr,~:tt~·~ ~ I (Nan of !he Party on B<balf ofWhom 1be llmrrmmt WIS lmcmedl ID be tho Im, 11111 vclumuy ICl of such party for lhe ustS and pmposes • In dle-...cat. Dal<d: 1/t/UJP?': Nowy Public In a ~ of wfj residing at ~ ~ . My co-.sioo/'Ult>?- (~4of4J Printed: 03-05-2007 Payment Made: CITY OF RENTON 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Land Use Actions RECEIPT Permit#: LUA07 -025 Receipt Number: R0700944 Total Payment: 03/05/2007 01 :09 PM 100.00 Payee: AMERICAN CLASSIC HOMES LLC Current Payment Made to the Following Items: Trans Account Code Description Amount 5022 000.345.81.00.0019 Variance Fees 100.00 Payments made for this receipt Trans Method Description Amount Payment Check #56083 100. 00 Account Balances Trans Account Code Description Balance Due 3021 303.000.00.345.85 Park Mitigation Fee 5006 000.345.81.00.0002 Annexation Fees 5007 000.345.81.00.0003 Appeals/Waivers 5008 000.345.81.00.0004 Binding Site/Short Plat 5009 000.345.81.00.0006 Conditional Use Fees 5010 000.345.81.00.0007 Environmental Review 5011 000.345.81.00.0008 Prelim/Tentative Plat 5012 000.345.81.00.0009 Final Plat 5013 000.345.81.00.0010 PUD 5014 000.345.81.00.0011 Grading & Filling Fees 5015 000.345.81.00.0012 Lot Line Adjustment 5016 000.345.81.00.0013 Mobile Home Parks 5017 000.345.81.00.0014 Rezone 5018 000.345.81.00.0015 Routine Vegetation Mgmt 5019 000.345.81.00.0016 Shoreline Subst Dev 5020 000.345.81.00.0017 Site Plan Approval 5021 000.345.81.00.0018 Temp Use or Fence Review 5022 000.345.81.00.0019 Variance Fees 5024 000.345.81.00.0024 Conditional Approval Fee 5036 000.345.81.00.0005 Comprehensive Plan Amend 5909 000.341.60.00.0024 Booklets/EIS/Copies 5941 000.341.50.00.0000 Maps (Taxable) 5954 650.237.00.00.0000 Special Deposits 5955 000.05.519.90.42.1 Postage 5998 000.231.70.00.0000 Tax Remaining Balance Due: $0.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .oo .00 .00 .oo .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 03Al303t:f LUOl 9 -IJVl'I w z w > <t EX CB-O RIM EL = 353. 49' INV EL = 351.34' -12" FO UND BRASS DISK IN CONCR tTE IN CASE (2/05) ---. ,,r---------FOUND BRASS DISK IN CONCRETE IN CASE (2/05) ,, ... , I ,L ,; ; • ' ~I \0 -• I I . -0 ·,A .. , !") .J -j/i -,:-:-. -.. -. INTERSECTION OF 122nd AVE SE & SE 96th STREET .-----~-·-.,· ! ·, ' l .,-" ' ., ! . ,-···· .. -·· -~··· .. . / ' / • ···-·j / ,, w ' . \0 350-. :" CO---. -•. • -0 lz ·- .. ;,, .I ,-. ,·., ···· lo-.. .. ·- f -· // !/ ·-( . ,i I / -;·... / '. OY i [ I •. , 0) • • l : i (.() ,/ ' (\J ... I ,: ;,.. ' .. 1'1..1 ' : I ;~ . ' ,,~ ,/ ·' 0 i' / ·iV< .., i i I ; : ;Z .· / " .Jv'f ,· ,; ,,. --·· / / / .... ,. ! ' ----,,., -----/"' w --z-··~;·•c..., -;r · ,J:, [ 1 / / ~~-f , 3 6 0-. / ;i... -... . .. .· ' . NE 2 6 th COURT ----- I ----1 ---ss ------ss ---ts'(f \ i I q• ,• ),~ · "' ··,1 I w ' / ~" 1 -11 , i i . • ~ ·c •• C V I ,, ; " ·c 0 (.\_ ,. 0 • 0 N II ' - >-m z 0 (fl i;'; 0::: c, .._ ______ .. '\I r ' 0 z j RIM EL !NV EL = EX <:SMH /~,/ . ~ ~ •. l ~~"'":" t ~;',, 1 ~ 360.82' _;;,"--sg / D ,, i ; 35 2 .3'7'-a" -:... ----'--l-7 --. -.t'., i:;:i-jl''x'f...,;~~:..;. "' " 3b.a , .... · .... I , .. / VJ tO .... ---i ··--'. . I I '/ EX CB _____ ,,., N RIM EL -362 .32' !NV EL = 358.02' -12 11 w ~, \0 • ... ······ f 'i;; h1 .-"( i ' I ~15 t:2 p l f' '"i g ii I 1 / ' C) 0,) "1 ' ! ; 30.0,0' -0 EXISTING z 1 11 __._...-'7-~ F OUND B RASS DfSK IN ~ CONCRETE IN CASE (2/05) SURVEY NOTES INSTRUMENT: TOPCON GPT 3005W TOTAL STATION METHOO USED: FIELD TRAVERSE WITH AClUAL FIELD MEASUREMENTS AND ANGLES. WAC 332-130-090 DATE OF' SURVEY: FEBRUARY 2005 BASIS OF' BEARING: PLAT OF' HONEY CREEK RIDGE DIVISION /13, RECORDED UNDER KING CO. AF' #9612190392, VOL 178, PGS 76-78. LYNNWOOO AVE NE (N0116'26"E) ..di.. BENCHMARK: aTY OF' RENTON BENCHMARK /I 2091 V TOP BRASS DISK AT THE INTERSECTION OF' 122nd A\/f. SE & SE 96th PLACE. ELEVATION • 316.88' (96.5B5m) NAVO 1988 LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 45, HONEY CREEK RIDGE DIVISION NO. 3, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF' RECORDED IN VOLUME 178 OF' PLATS, PAGE(S) 76 THROUGH 78, INCLUSIVE, IN KING COUNTY WASHINGTON. R '0\C[ EST A TE S PJ\" .:, - NO 2 i I FOUND 1 /2" REBAR & CAP ~$#22962 (2/05) L OT 6 0 5 10 20 k;..-I I SCALE 1" -20· ' ··-----. ' ... -···· - " ' \I I 1l I ' ' .,. ---· , ... --·· .,-·. -"· ' .,-· , ____ ---··· \\ \ j ,1}' .. \\ I •,\ \ " ' " . \\ I / <\ \./ . . il l " ' .. ,• ·' -~-/ TOPOGRAPHY I TREE CUTTING (D TREES TO BE REMOVED ® TREE TO REMAIN, IF POSSIBLE EXISTING 40% SLOPE AREA -SEE GEOTECH REPORT LANDSCAPING NOTE THE EXISTING LANDSCAPING ALONG THE FRONTAGE OF' THE SITE CONSISTS OF' MAlURE ORNAMENTAL FLOWERING TREES THAT WERE INSTALLED AS A PART Of' THE HONEY CREEK RIDGE PROJECT. lHE EXISTING LANDSCAPING HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR APPROXIMATELY 12 YEARS. THERE ARE 6 TREES ALONG THE PROPERTY FRONTAGE. IN ADDITION, THERE IS A HEDGEROW Of THUJA ARBORVITAE BETWEEN THE EDGE OF' THE SIDEWALK AND THE F'ACE OF' THE ROCKERY. CU l1 BING EX. FIRE HYORANT w z w > <t EX CB--,:O, RIM EL = 353.49' !NV EL = 351.34'-12" FOUND BRASS DISK IN CONCRETE IN CASE (2/05) "- LEGEND DJ CB (TYPE 1) @ STMH (TYPE 11) NE " • SANITARY SEWER MH WATER VALVE WATER METER/SERVICE FIRE HYDRANT ··, UTILITY PO L E ,:;...,.-.•.. GUY WIRE SIGNAL CABINET CABLE TV BOX 40% + SLO PE --·----w -·-·-- 26th :·-::;:a·"! , __ I _.I C::J + $ 0 TELEPHON E VAULT · TELEPHONE CABINET SIGN CONIFER TREE DECIDUOUS TREE MAIL BOX PK NAIL MON IN CASE/ EX REBAR / PIPE AS NOTED i ' ~I \0 ,--0 z I "-------FOUND BRASS DIS K IN CONCRETE IN CASE (2/05) INTERSECTION OF 122nd AVE se: & SE 96th STR EET PARA[JIS E EST AT[S NO 2. I I FOUND 1/2" REBAR & ' CAP ~S#22962 (2/05) LOT 6 -~A , I . ·' ",. .I . . . : -1 ._;; ·' _., . . -"' u, N '" w -• -0 I • -0 • "' I! w ' ! ,,.,! / 0 (J\ 0) l~l n .. ·· .. .. .--·· LOT 4 4 . ---·-,, " 1 .. • ···, . . .,· .. -.. ,, .. --. ~--·,.,.. WOOD_/ FENCE FOUND 1 /2" REBAR & CAP LS#22962 (2/05) • I • t ' " ' / / \\ \ / II I / \\ I / \\ ,, ---·\; I " ' \I I -' j \I I ., \I I /' 11 v · . -------' --•"""1\'1 z CONCEPTUAL GRADING & UTILITIES ,. f~t_._...-0 ;;;-1 FO UND BRASS DISK IN @ CONCRETE IN CASE (2/05) (D REXISTING R&F DRAIN -USE FOR LOT 2 (APPROX. LOCATION (Z) PROPOSED R&F' DRAIN -LOT 1 Q') EXISTING SS STUB -LOT 2 (APPROX. LOCATION) MAY SE ABLE TO USE FOR LOTS 1 & 2 @ EXISTING DRIVE CURB CUT @ PROPOSED DRIVE --' LOT 2 @ CONCEPTUAL DRIVEWAY @20% (!) EXISTING WATER METER -LOT 1 ® · PROPOSED WATER ETER -LOT 2 I Call before you Dtg. 1-800-42+5555 AVOID CUTIINC l!NOERCROUNO UTILITY LINES. l i1 S COSTLY NOTE: EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY. IT SHALL BE THE CONTRAC TOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE THE EXACT VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL LOCATION OF AL L EXISTING UNDER- GROUND UTILITIES PRIOR TO COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION . NO REPRESENTATION IS MADE THAT ALL EXISTING UTILITIES ARE SHOWN HEREON . THt ENGINEER ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR UTILITI ES NOT SHOWN OR UTILITIES NOT SHOWN IN THEIR PROPER LOCATION. CALL BEFORE YOU DIG: 1-600-424-5555 UNDERGROUND SERVICE (USA) -f L .. -.. l .. -. L.LLJ_~ _ _J_L·-·----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~~-... -. -----\)------···-···-· ·--·-~·-··----·-----------··-· "rr~,,--20:">soo:1;'..'.;::=-"ici''l"",-.';c'llJ:;";1-,:;::d w~ci":a<-c:::;•5·~,-,.~--.,~.,,;;:p,--;";,~;;;;o;"• -,,:,,;,.),,;:;,.,:;"'l-:,:;;:,1 ,:Tis.1-··-···-·· -~-·-· __ _.