The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLUA-04-053.4)fi(! CITY OF RENTON :! Planning/Building/Public Works 1055 South Grady Way -Renton Washington 98055 if :':~'-'._~ or,: ,t. !".:.: '.<-=~ ,-,ij '1 .i~ , "1 f i '--i' .~ ~ .... _-.1 ',. ~', ~ .. ~ . .' ~ ~ ( -i': tj ~< i.-' >.; { , I \ I~ T~ .. : \ J J i ,) " RIDDELL JUDITH C 10249 147TH AVE SE Renton, WA /. ,._-. ...,,, /' -od,,·:> I ' .' f~ .. . ~~ <P~ t'Y) " r I'~ \i _J 0)' . ,q:-}rD~9{f~ ~~" _., \ \.-.3 . ",.::!_ .. ' "'-,.A" S8( n ~~ M 53 o ~ 1\ ~ q ~ ~~'-.. DCIICI.OPMc erry OF 'lJtt-~ZIVIIVG JUN 21200~ RECEIVED NOTICE OF APPLICATION A Master Application has been flied and accepted with the Development Services Division of the CHy of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. PROJECT NAMEINUMBER: Chappelle/Schulz Fence Height Variance / LUA04-oS3, V-B PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicanfs are requesting a variance from the Board of Adjustment in order to keep an 8-foot high fence that is located within the rear yards of both homes. The applicant's content the fence is -necessary in order to have effective privacy and security screening from an adjoining open space/natural reserve corridor, which is utilized as a public park and trail system. The fence is under code violation and is pending a decision from the Board of Adjustment. PROJECT LOCATION: 2202 & 2208 Lyons Avenue NE PUBLIC APPROVALS: Board of Adjustment Height Variance APPLICANTIPROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Douglas Chappelle Tel: (425) 277-0309 Email: douglas.e.chappelle@boeing.com PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing scheduled for July 28, 2004 before the Renton Board of Adjustment in Renton Council Chambers. Hearings begin at 7:30 PM on the 7th floor of the Renton City Hall located at 1055 South Grady Way. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Jason Jordan, Project Manager, Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on June 30, 2004. 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) 430-7219. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION DATE OF APPLICATION: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: ---.-~L' MAY 21, 2004 June 15, 2004 June 15, 2004 If you.would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, compleie this form and retum to: City of Renton, Development Planning, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. File Name / No.: Chappelle/Schulz Fence Height Variance / LUA04-053, V-B NAME: ______________________________________________________________ ___ ADDRESS: ___________________________________________________ ~ ______ ___ TELEPHONE NO.: ________ -'--________________ _ ·$fie CITY OF RENTON :!: Planning/Building/Public Works 1055 South Grady Way -Renton Washington 98055 --:;,_~1J , 6 S Lt ~":! ~;; . ~~1~j2, ',,: . I); \, I SCHAEFER SARAH 10223 147TH AVE SE Renton, WA 98055 C)-IOSlo·iF Si:;i: 63 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON JUN 2 1 200~ RECEIVED NOTICE OF APPLICATION A Master Application 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 NAMEINUMBER: Chappelle/Schulz Fence Height Variance / LUA04-053, V-B PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicanfs are requesting a variance from the Board of Adjustment in order . to keep an 8-foot high fence that is located withIn the rear yards of both homes. The applicanfs content the fence is -necessary in order to have effective privacy and security screening from an adjoining open space/natural reserve corridor, which is utilized as a public park and trail system. The fence is under code violation and is pending a decision from the Board of Adjustment. PROJECT LOCATION: PUBLIC APPROVALS: 2202 & 2208 Lyons Avenue NE Board of Adjustment Height Variance APPLICANTIPROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Douglas Chappelle Tel: (425) 277-0309 Email: douglas.e.chappelle@boeing.com PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing scheduled for July 28, 2004 before the Renton Board of Adjustment in Renton Council Chambers. Hearings begin at 7:30 PM on the 7th floor of the Renton City Hall located at 1055 South Grady Way. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Jason Jordan, Project Manager, Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on June 30,2004. 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) 430-7219. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION DATE OF APPLICATION: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: ---~,: MAY 21,2004 June 15, 2004 June 15, 2004 If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project:complete this form and r~tum to:, City of Renton" Development Planni~g, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. ",' l. File Name / No.: Chappelle/Schulz Fence Height Variance / LUA04-053, V:B . NAME: ______ ~-----------------------------------------------------------ADDRESS: ____________________________________________________________ ___ TELEPHONE NO.: __________________________ _ ,., 'li'; " . --" ----- .$~ CITY OF RENTON ~ Planning/Building/Public Works 1055 South Grady Way -Renton Washington 98055 ""'1 it I'J " II '! Ii .' ,ij /:~;.--; .... " ,. " " l \;. " ~ "" (J.}l:, ~ r -. f" <~~C~:: ~~}):;;~i GABRIELSON BRIAN K 10240 147TH AVE SE Renton, W A 98055 D-I iJSr·iP sa( ," 1"1: , , , .. :-.. ' I d 53 D/2V/21..0P41 City 0 '$/yf p~ f: AE:/lfjo~tvltvG J{jN 21200~ lIeC~IIt~/) r NOTICE OF APPLICATION A Master Application has been flied and accepted with the Development Services Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. . PROJECT NAMEINUMBER: Chappelle/Schulz Fence Height Variance / LUA04-Q53, V-B PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant's are requesting a variance from the Board of Adjustment in order to keep an 8-foot high fence that is located within the rear yards of both homes. The applicant's content the fence is ·necessary in order to have effective privacy and security screening from an adjoining open space/natural reserve corridor, which is utilized as a public park and trail system. The fence is under code violation and is pending a decision from the Board of Adjustment. PROJECT LOCATION: 2202 & 2208 Lyons Avenue NE PUBLIC APPROVALS: Board of Adjustment Height Variance APPLICANTIPROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Douglas Chappelle Tel: (425) 277-0309 Email: douglas.e.chappelle@boeing.com PUBLIC HEARING: 'Public hearing scheduled for July 28,2004 before the Renton Board of Adjustment in Renton Council Chambers. Hearings begin at 7:30 PM on the 7th floor of the Renton City Hall located at 1055 South Grady Way. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Jason Jordan, Project Manager, Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on June 30, 2004; 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) 430-7219. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION DATE OF APPUCAllON: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: DATE OF NOTICE OF APPUCAllON: --to-~.,' MAY 21, 2004 June 15, 2004 June 15, 2004 ~=~=~~~=~~~~~~====" If you wpuld like to be 'made a party of record to· receive further. information on this proposed project, complete this form and retum to: City of Renton, Development Planning, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. • > • ~ ~' . . File Name / No.: Chappelle/Schulz Fence Height Variance / LuA04-053, V-B NAME: ________________ ~ ____ ~ __________________________________________ __ ADDRESS: ________________________________________________________________ _ TELEPHONE NO.: ______________ _ ·~f(! CITY OF RENTON :!: Planning/Building/Public Works 1055 South Grady Way -Renton Washington 98055 t ~(~ H·~ f; ~ ~~ ,! ' (,>XJ f i \ _ ~ -, L; i L ~ ~_.1 • v _ , ,,_; ~ J !·I -.... ------or:.,. ... DL\ -053 AFFOLTER RUTH 10241 147TH AVE SE Renton, WA 98055 /,/~:::-;r--:::-) ~ .... "'. ,-i ~" . : ..•. tl), \ ' I,' , 1-'. v ~: .rj ~./) :/ '\<>, ~ £:·;:iIO::::::.·1· ...... ,,::n ~_};~I".: -I l-" S8;: II ... ~ U D~I/~I.O Ctr{'li1£fV, p O~ A£NMZiVlfVG JUN lllOO~ Ii~C~/V~lJ 't' NOTICE OF APPLICATION A Master Application 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 NAMEINUMBER: Chappelle/Schulz Fence Height Variance / LUA04-Q53, V-B PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant's are requesting a variance from the Board of Adjustment in order to keep an 8-foot high fence that is located within the rear yards of both homes. The applicanfs content the fence is -necessary in order to have effective privacy and security screening from an adjoining open space/natural reserve corridor,' which is utilized as a public park and trail system. The fence is under code violation and is pending a decision from the Board of Adjustment. PROJECT LOCATION: 2202 & 2208 Lyons Avenue NE PUBLIC APPROVALS: Board of Adjustment Height Variance APPLICANTIPROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Douglas Chappelle Tel: (425) 277-0309 Email: douglas.e.chappelle@boeing.com PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing scheduled for July 28, 2004 before the Renton Board of Adjustment in Renton Council Chambers. Hearings begin at 7:30 PM on the 7th floor of the Renton City Hall located at 1055 South Grady Way. Comments on the. above application must be submitted in writing to Jason Jordan, Project Manager, Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on June 30, 2004. 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) 430-7219. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION DATE OF APPLICATION: MAY 21,2004' NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPUCATION: June 15, 2004 DATE OF NOTICE OF APPUCATION: June 15, 2004 ---~,: If you would -like ·to. be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, comph~te 'this form and return to: City of Renton, Development Planning, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. . ~. ~ File Name / No.: Chappelle/Schulz Fence Height Variance! LUA04~053,V-B NAME: ______________________________________________________________ ___ ADDRESS: ____________________________________________________________ ___ TELEPHONE NO.: __________________________ _ TERAMANTOINC Unknown Renton, WA PREDA ION & ESTERA 10250 147TH AVE SE Renton, WA GABRIELSON BRIAN K 10240 147TH AVE SE Renton, WA 98055 COSTANTINI MAURICE J 10228 147TH AVE SE Renton, WA 98055 OKESON CHRISTINA M 10218147TH AVE SE Renton, WA 98059 NAGEL MAXINE Renton, WA NAGEL MAXINE M 10217147TH AVE SE Renton, WA 98055 SCHAEFER SARAH 10223147TH AVE SE Renton, WA 98055 TUPOU FELENI M 10231 147TH AVE SE Renton, WA AFFOLTER RUTH 10241 147TH AVE SE Renton, WA 98055 RIDDELL JUDITH C 10249147TH AVE SE Renton, WA RIDDELL JUDITH C 10257 147TH AVE SE Renton, WA MORSE PEGI E 10269 147TH AVE SE Renton, WA 98055 CURRAN KELLY M+LEANORE 2303 LYONS AV NE Renton, WA 98056 ROBISON H GUNN+DANA F 5313 NE 23RD CT Renton, WA 98056 STEWART LONNIE R+LEDA K 2217 LYONS AV NE Renton, WA 98058 SAFLEY THOMAS S+SARA E 2211 LYONS AV NE Renton, WA 98058 LOFGREN WILLIAM W+ABNER JUL 2205 LYONS AV NE Renton, WA 98058 ROGERS WILLIAM L+DEBRA L H 5326 NE 22ND CT Renton, WA 98058 NOLAN MR AND MRS 5320 NE 22ND CT Renton, WA PHUNG THANH VAN 5321 NE 22ND CT Renton, WA HUTCHINSON STEVEN 5401 NE 22ND CT Renton, WA 98059 BALWADA RAVI 2009 LYONS AV NE Renton, WA FLANNERY TIMOTHY 0 5501 NE 21 ST ST Renton, WA PRICE RANDALL E 5505 NE 21 ST CT Renton, WA 98058. SLATON DANIEL B+SUSAN B 5511 NE 21ST CT Renton, WA 98058 RATTlE DENNIS L+ELlZABETH S 5510 NE 21ST CT Renton, WA 98058 BUNN PAUL ANTHONY 5504 NE 21 ST CT Renton, WA 98058 TRIBBLE JOHN+STACY 2106 LYONS AV NE Renton, WA SCHULZ MR+MRS 2202 LYONS AV NE Renton, WA '. HUDGINS DAVID J+KELL Y A 2302 LYONS AV NE Renton, WA 98058 , MUTTART GEORGE M+GINGER A R 2310 LYONS AV NE Renton, WA 98056 LARSON DAVID TROY 5505 NE 24TH CT Renton, WA MESSINA MARC S+MESSINA MADONNA A 2218 LYONS AV NE Renton, WA CHAPPELLE DOUGLAS & CAROL 2208 LYONS AV NE Renton, WA WINN STEPHEN G 2212 LYONSAVNE Renton, WA 98058 • "'1 N w E s coo 100 0 f : _iiiiiiiiiiii~2~io. __ ':41_0 ___ 6~J( SCALE IN rEET I. e ~ a.. Q) +-0-en Q) o e CO °C CO > +-..c: C) 0-Q) I~ Q)O 0 0 eC\J Q) .. u..f'.. N -~ ..c o en .......... Q) -Q) a. a. CO ..c () or- DevELOPMENT pLANNING CITY Of RENTON MAY 2 ''200~ RECE\VED CITY OF RENTON BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES July 28, 2004 The following minutes are a summary of the July 28, 2004 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Wallace led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag and called the meeting of the Board of Adjustment to order. ROLL CALL OF BOARDMEMBERS Jay Wallace, Jim Jacques, Mark Rigos, George Feighner, Wayne Jones, Steve Maxwell. CITY STAFF IN ATTENDANCE Jason Jordan, Senior Planner; Stacy Tucker, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING Motion made and passed to approve the Minutes of June 23, 2004 as submitted. This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in accordance with local and State laws, Board Chairperson Wallace opened the public hearing. Chappelle/Schulz Fence Height Variance LUA04-053, V-B Jason Jordan, Senior Planner with the City of Renton Development Services Division presented the staff report for the Chappelle/Schulz Fence Height Variance. Exhibit No.1: Yellow file containing the original Exhibit No.2: Site PlanNicinity Map application, proof of posting and publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. File: LUA04-053, V-B Exhibit No.3: Fence Elevation Photos Exhibit No.4: Zoning Map Exhibit No.5: Letter from Neighbors Steve and Exhibit No.6: Letter from Neighbors John and Angela Winn at 2212 Lyons Avenue NE Stacy Tribble at 2106 Lyons Avenue NE Exhibit No.7: Letter from Neighbors Tom & Sara Exhibit No.8: Letter from Neighbor Bill Lofgren at Safley at 5401 Lyons Avenue NE 5401 Lyons Avenue NE Exhibit No.9: Map Indicating Location of Exhibit 10: Example Photos of Various Fence Examples of Various Fence Height Elevations in Height Elevations 8-feet or higher in the City of the City of Renton Renton Project Location: Variance Request: Lots 42 & 43 of the Stonegate Subdivision: 2202 & 2208 Lyons Avenue NE Variance to allow an 8-foot high fence, within the rear yard setback. Board of Adjustment Minutes, July 28, 2004 Page 2 of 24 The Applicants: Douglas & Carol Chappelle 2208 Lyons Avenue NE Renton, WA 98059 Kevin & Lauren Schulz 2202 Lyons Avenue NE Renton, WA 98059 Project Description: The applicants are requesting a variance from the Board of Adjustment in order to keep an 8-foot high fence that is located within the rear yards of both homes. The applicant's contend the fence is necessary in order to have effective privacy and security screening from an adjoining open space/natural reserve corridor, which is utilized as a public park and trail system. The fence is under code violation and is pending a decision from the Board of Adjustment. In order to receive a variance they need to show that they meet all four of the decision criteria. . .." .-,'i .. , ""~ City of Renton Development Regulations Section 4-9-250.B.5. -The Board of Adjustment shall have authority to grant a variance upon making a determination, in writing, that the conditions specified below have been found to exist: 1. 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: The applicants contend that the subject properties suffer a unique hardship as they are situated along the boundary of a large open space tract that was developed as a result of the Stonegate subdivision. The applicant notes that the homeowner's association owns the property but it is utilized by the surrounding neighborhoods. In addition to the open space next to the subject lots, the applicant states that the residential lots sit approximately 4 feet higher than the abutting open space area, sloping back to the rear property line, which makes it difficult to screen the properties. Finally, the applicant argues that a 6-foot high fence does not adequately secure the back yard from the surrounding area. While the site is located next to a private open space tract, regulated by the subdivision homeowner's association, the applicant has not demonstrated an undue hardship based on special circumstances applicable to the subject property. Moreover, the code clearly states that the maximum fence height is 6 feet for residential purposes and the circumstances surrounding this property do not necessitate a spe«ial exception to that general rule. In fact, the open space area in question is private and not open to the public and is controlled by the subdivision homeowners, which could limit the uses allowed within that area of the subdivision. Furthermore, the applicant has not demonstrated any other hardship unique to the property that would require an 8-foot high fence. Moreover, the majority of completed subdivisions throughout the City have uneven grades with some lots being higher than others; however, that circumstance does not justify the need for a taller fence that what the code currently allows (6-foot maximum). Finally, it should be noted that the Development Services Division coordinated a series of code revisions to the City's fence regulations in 2003. Those revisions now allow property owners the ability to request a taller fence in certain situations. However, during the code revision process, staff was directed to limit the height of residential fences to a maximum of 6 feet, which is currently allowed by City code. As a result of those discussions, staff does not support the request for an 8-foot high fence, in this residential setting. e Board of Adjustment Minutes, July 28, 2004 Page 3 of 24 2. 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: The applicant contends the intent of the fencing regulations are to provide and maintain adequate sight distance along public rights-of-way at intersections and to encourage safe ingress and egress from individual properties. In addition, the applicant notes that the fencing regulations also encourage the feeling of spaciousness along neighborhood streets and minimize the closed city atmosphere, which tall fences can create. In this case, the existing 8-foot high fence is located within the rear yard and abuts a private open space tract and is neither adjacent to a right-of-way nor othelwise visible to the neighboring homes or streets. Therefore, the applicants conclude that the 8-foot high fence would not be detrimental to the public welfare nor be injurious to any property or improvements in the vicinity. As such, staff does not anticipate the existing fence to be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity. 3. 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: The applicants state that any other property abutting a similar public park or other public property would be entitled to erect an 8-foot high fence along the common boundary line. However, City code does not allow any residential property to construct an 8-foot high fence. Instead, only commercialJindustrial properties are permitted to construct an 8-foot high fence without further city approval. Therefore, the granting of the variance, without any demonstrated hardship, would be a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated. It should also be noted, that in revising the fencing regulations in 2003, the Administration and City Council increased the residential fence heights to 6 feet, with a special fence permit; however increase above 6 feet was not supported. Thereby, if this variance were granted, a precedence would be set establishing 8-foot high fences in residential areas, which staff believes to be counter to current City policy. 4. That the approval as determined by the Board of Adjustment is a minimum variance that will accomplish the desired purpose: The applicant contends that the location and size of the fence is the minimum necessary, in order to "reasonably" provide screening an<;l security from adjacent non-residential uses. However, staff does not support that assumption as the property in question (the open space tract) is designated residential and does not allow for more intensive commercialJindustrial uses that would necessitate the need for an 8-foot high fence. Therefore, staff recommends that the . variance be denied as the situation does not meet the criteria to approve such a variance request, which would require the applicant to reduce the fence height to the code approved 6-foot maximum height. This in turn, does not create a precedence, which other homeowner may attempt to exploit in the future. This concludes the staff comments, unless there are any questions. George Feighner: I have one. When was that annexed into the City? Jason Jordan: I have an annexation map downstairs. Do you guys know? Chair. Wallace: Was it substantially prior to 2003? . Jason Jordan: Yes. Board of Adjustment Minutes, July 28, 2004 Page 4 of24 Kevin Schulz: Yeah. The houses I must say now are about 6 years old. So that's when they were constructed. So it had to have been prior to that. George Feighner: I'm sorry .. .! didn't hear you, say that again. Kevin Schulz: The houses themselves are about 6 years old now, so it had to have been prior to 6 years ago. George Feighner: It was annexed before it was built? Jason Jordan: It was annexed as a preliminary plat and the final plat and the house construction . came through the city. So I think that the applicant is absolutely right it was probably in the 90's mid to late 90's when it was annexed in. Final plat approval was September of '96. George Feighner: Okay, thank you. Chair. Wallace: Kevin Schulz: Thank you Mr. Jordan. And we might ask you some more questions later. So at this time we would like to invite the applicant or applicants· and when you come to the front go ahead and state your name and your address and who you represent. I'm Kevin Schulz and my neighbor Doug Chappelle who is in the chair over there and that's our attorney, or obligatory attorney Brian Dorsey. I live at 2202 Lyons Avenue NE in Renton and Doug lives next door to me. The agenda or order of what we thought we would do tonight I would give you some idea of how we got to where we are today. Why this fence was constructed to begin with and the major challenges we've had in owning the property without the fence and what's happened after the fence has been built. Then I'm going to turn it over to Doug, Doug is going to talk about why the fence was constructed the way it was and why we felt we didn't need and have any of these kinds of issues initially or at any time because we did, we read the code also before we even constructed the fence and lastly in terms of the technical issues and the variance criteria Brian Dorsey will finish that up and give us a conclusion. So to start out I bought the property before or had our house before Doug did and it wasn't long at all that there were people traipsing through the land. This Tract J as he talks about being zoned residential that's fine the homeowners' is obligated to maintain it but I'll tell you it is used as a public park and I have pictures here that I will show you in a little bit that show that. But there is a swing back there, there's a fire pit and there is a very well established trail system long before this homeowners association long before this was ever platted, the people that live behind here this is unincorporated King County and they travel through there and pick up the public bus up on Summit or on Sunset and so that habit is very very well established long before these houses were ever built and I had no idea of that until all of a sudden I own this house and people are walking through my yard and we're not talking only one or two we're talking 6-8 on a daily basis but I just happen to be home and I work 8-9 hours a day. And so, these are people from little kids riding bicycles to people that are in college walking through 'cause I quizzed some of them and I tried being nice, I tried being mean none of that stuff made, it didn't make any difference. It's a very well established trail system and no matter what I had to say about it, it wasn't going to change the habits thafve been established long before these things were ever built. And they want to pick up the public bus or there's other playgrounds and things like that. So anyway, the point here is that and I have pictures of these very well established trail systems and I understand it's done as residential I can tell you how it's being used. So when the neighbors that we had next to us, doing my fence and not doing the neighbor next door was not going to do anything. In fact, the main trail was whatever, coincidentally exactly on our property line between the two and that goes over the little stream and which doesn't have that e Board of Adjustment Minutes, July 28, 2004 Page 5 of 24 much water in it and back to unincorporated King County. But the, anyway, so that the point of this was the neighbors I had next door we knew that they weren't intending to stay in the house for very long they were not willing to do anything with the fence. And all brutal honesty when Doug moved in and I started talking to him a little bit it was one of the first conversations I ever had was saying, "By the way would you be .at all interested in helping me build a fence back here?" And when I got agreement that he was willing to do that I was thrilled to death. And it wasn't too hard to convince him, I said, "By the way, I know you haven't been in this house very long here but just watch what happens." And it was within weeks that we started planning putting this thing together. The other thing was then the other motivation that I had was that about three weeks into owning the property a Sheriff came driving through our neighborhood and my wife was outside and he slowed down and rolled down his window and he said, 'Well by the way I'm really not supposed to sort of mention this but you might want to know that the red house behind you is a third level sex offender." And she's like, "I really do appreciate having that information." So again, additional concern not only is the traffic and the playing, the kids playing and swinging back there I got a sex offender back there! I have a six and half year old daughter! Anyway, so between those things I was just beside myself. Doug has two children as you can see and so we've got three children here that are little and there are tons of children in this neighborhood. And I felt very uncomfortable having people traipsing through my yard all the time, not knowing who these people were. As I said we tried to make a diligent effort of reading the code. I thought at this point, with your permission I would like to just show some of the pictures that would give you some context of what we are doing here. Chair. Wallace: That'll be great. Kevin Schulz: So you can see that the actual property ... 1 don't have good pictures for that. .. of the open spaces that are inside Stonegate themselves, there are a number of different sections of them they're in excess of ten acres. Chair. Wallace: Mr. Schulz I'm not sure we're picking you up when you're back there. Kevin Schulz: The open spaces, there's a number of different open spaces within Stonegate and to configure the houses and property and you know whatever. Of all of the open spaces that are inside Stonegate property is in excess of ten acres, the one that runs behind our property is over an acre alone. And so when you look at how lush it is in the summer time and I'll show some of these here you'll see that it's less of an issue right now when you've got all of-the these things grown up. The bushes and the trees and things are fairly lush and fairly thick although again with the established trail system I mean you can clearly walkthrough there. So when he talks about it having being maintained there is no maintaining. The only maintenance that goes through they rate the trees on a scale of red, yellow, green every six months as I've since learned and that's the only maintenance that goes on the rest of this ... this is wild open park territory. So anyway, my point is that is in the wintertime over here these house are look a lot closer than they really are. When you have no vegetation there at all. Now here's another example and this right behind my house and there is a white trailer of sorts there's a truck sort of a utility kind of truck that's parked there most of the time I mean it's not the greatest of views believe me. This is the other thing that we did was that I have a berm it's a 4-foot berm right up against this fence and so you can see that when I stand in my yard I mean I'm not seeing an 8-foot fence I have the equivalent of a 4-foot fence. And so again, when I stand on my deck I can hardly see my fence and when you stand street when you stand on Lyons Avenue you can see about this much if you're standing on the street because these yards slope as this gentleman was saying and at the very back of my property I have 4-foot drop. I Board of Adjustment Minutes, July 28, 2004 Page 6 of 24 Chair. Wallace: Can you do us a favor? Kevin Schulz: Sure. Chair. Wallace: Can you put some letter or a number on these pictures that you're showing so maybe we can call them back? Kevin Schulz: We actually did. Chair. Wallace: Are they on there? Kevin Schulz: Yeah. You can't maybe see them but this first one here is actually #7. Jason Jordan: Yeah can you do that? Kevin Schulz: Okay, we've got #7 which just shows again this is really right between our two properties our property line here and where that row of trees are that's exactly where that whole trail thing move right across into this other development. This was picture #12 just showing the berm in the back of my yard. Jason Jordan: Can I pass this out now? Kevin Schulz: Sure. Jason Jordan: This is a summary of the photos. Chair. Wallace: Oh okay, great. George Feighner: I think we have them. Chair. Wallace: We got some of them but we didn't get all of them. Jason Jordan: You got some of them but these came in after the report was done. George Feighner: Oh, okay. Jason Jordan: Kevin Schulz: These came in on Monday. And this is picture #13 and showing the house behind here and how thick it is. Photo #10 was the 4th one I showed showing again how the 4-foot drop on the back of my property and then again irs not by any means looking like an 8-foot fence in the back of my yard. This is the fence in Doug's yard and it's hard to see it but the fence itself is right here so he has less of a berm on that side of the property but again the idea was and when we built this was that the fence looked level across a few properties if you actually follow the topography of these two yards I mean its gonna look like this it looks sort of ridiculous. So there are sections in here where it's a fair amount less than 8-feet just depending on what the topography is back there 'cause it's you know it's fairly rolling. This is showing on the right side of my property, I'm sorry the last photo was photo #1 and this one's photo #6 and again this is showing if you're standing in my yard again that's what you see it's about a 4-foot fence and then on the right hand side of me that's a true 6-foot fence it's between the two properties on the other side from Doug not on the Doug side. This is a bit of a disturbing photo this is showing it's hard to see sort of the established trail is right here and there's a pole back there I'm not sure what the use is but you'll also see the fact that there's some old clothes back there and it's not like people have been just walking through they're e Board of Adjustment Minutes, July 28, 2004 Page 70'24 Jim Jacques: Kevin Schulz: Jim Jacques: Kevin Schulz: Jim Jacques: Kevin Schulz: Jim Jacques: Kevin Schulz: Jim Jacques: Kevin Schulz: Jim Jacques: Kevin Schulz: Jim Jacques: obviously spending time back there. And this is the other one that I think really shows the point of what is going on here's this beautiful this not the utility truck this is the pick-up truck that's back there, right here, it's hard to see but you'll see that those are handle bars from a bicycle and that's attached to a rope so that's a tree swing and this right here is a fire pit and this directly behind my property. So when you've got a berm like I do you put a 6-foot fence over there it's going to be very easy for them to get over it. This is photo #14 the previous one was not numbered, the other thing I want to show I'm gonna go back to the 3rd to the last one I showed you it's hard for you to see but right here is a red house that's the third degree sex offender, that is directly behind my house. So those are the photos I was intending to show, are there other questions or would you like for me to turn it over to Doug? I have a question. So on the opposite side of the fence, your house on the opposite side of the fence of the a-foot fence is that the same elevation as your berm drops down and then the fence and it's level on the other side? Again, I think you can actually see some of this. There's actually a creek back there and I think sometime long before I was around there was actually a fair amount of water and it's I can't really remember if it's Coal Creek I don't remember, but anyway the point is that there is a little bit of water in here so there is a natural banking there was a stream of sorts there. So where our property when it berms to the 4-feet it gets flat and it'll go down again to allow for the what had been water in there and come back up and you can see that this here is probably I want to estimate probably about 3% some feet over rising up over here. Ok, I guess I didn't say it right. So say the first three (3) or four (4) feet on the other side of your fence, is it the same elevation as where your berm drops down? I'm a do my best to answer your question. A berm of 4-feet on the house side of the fence, lets put it that way? . No, on the opposite side, the other side of the fence. On the other opposite side it would be a straight a-feet. So you got basically if the guy standing there he's got an a-foot fence That's true. Or if the guy is standing there he's got a 6-foot fence. Right, but my hedge on that is the fact the topography changes so there are spots in there it's sort of a rolling, hilly sort of an area so there are certainly sections over there, there's a tree stump and a bit of a hump over there, so there are sections where it's a true a-feet on the one side there are other sections where it would be much closer to four (4) five (5) feet maybe. Ok. It's hilly. Yeah so, I guess my question is I kind of listened to you, my question I'm a little confused. Was the fence built for to keep people out or was it built to not see the surrounding areas behind you? I Board of Adjustment Minutes, July 28, 2004 Page 8 of 24 Kevin Schulz: Jim Jacques: Kevin Schulz: Jim Jacques: Kevin Schulz: Jim Jacques: Kevin Schulz: Jim Jacques: Kevin Schulz: Both. Absolutely both, because there are sections over there like where the stump is where it would be very easy to leap over that fence. So, your neighbor on either side of you they have a 6-foot fences? On the side of Doug there is no fence. So those people are relatively new to the neighborhood but they have some of the trespass issues but it's dramatically reduced with this fence being here. So your side yard fences are 6-feet? The one on the other side of us is a 6-foot that's true. But what's over there is much, much more lush and it would be very difficult to walk back there from where their yards are going maybe further north. If you look at this here, this is a 6-foot fence and this is a 6-foot fence you can see that they are basically squishes over here you really cannot walk back here. Where it is traversable is basically everything else, but from this point upward you really just simply can't walk back there it's just too thick. Where I was going was that they can't maybe get over your area code fence but could they go to a side yard and jump over your 6-foot fence? I mean what does this really Not really, it's too lush; it's very very lush, it would be very difficult actually to do. Thank you. I did bring letters from the people that would be most directly impacted. These people here aren't really going to see it, the unincorporated King County. I have letters from Steve Winn and his wife where they are relatively new owners of this property here. George Feighner: What lots are them? Kevin Schulz: Chair. Wallace: That's 44 and I have a letter from Steve Winn and it talks about it, it says that, "Since the fence went up, foot and bicycle traffic crossing our yard has more or less eliminated and some of the trails in the greenbelt are starting to grow back again." He said, "Doug and Kevin have asked us to give our thoughts on a 6-foot fence versus the present fence and it is our opinion that a 6-foot fence would not provide the sense of security and screening. A 6-foot fence would provide essentially no screening effect for our properties and therefore would be essentially worthless from that standpoint. We believe that most of the security afforded by the fence could be retained with a 6-foot fence, however, there are factors that make the present fence much more desirable. Doug has shown us the indentations he says were made by children playing with bb-guns in the greenbelt. Given our limited observation of these children it is entirely a believable story and we strongly suspect that incidents similar to this are highly likely to reoccur in the future, be they with rocks, bullets or fireworks having this park behind us. Therefore, we think that the more fence height the better therefore, recommending granting our neighbors the fence variance." So they are the ones that own the property here. I have letters from the property owners here, here and here and they are all an endorsement of it. So I'm hoping that helps. And I can read other letters if you want them. You know it's one of the only ways of getting them into the record for as far as our \ consideration that I know. e Board of Adjustment Minutes. July 28. 2004 Page 9 of 24 Kevin Schulz: Ok. Jason Jordan: As a suggestion you can just make them exhibits and then you don't necessarily have to read the whole entire letter you just note that the exhibit it is what it is or you can read the entire letter whatever your pleasure is. Chair. Wallace: You just want to give us some highlights? Kevin Schulz: Yeah I was just going to say, the paragraph from ... You ask a good question about the 6-foot fence over here and this is the Tribble Family here and they said that, "Our property is graded very similarly to the Schulz'S and we have a 6-foot fence on the back of our rear lot line. It basically has no screening effect but in our case its pretty much ok because behind our lot is very dense growth within the greenbelt area. That isn't true for behind Kevin and Doug, where the greenbelt behind their lot is much less dense. You can see through to the other properties on the other side, particularly in the spring, late fall and winter. So we can easily understand why they want a couple of extra feet on their fence because people can't traverse ours." That's in her letter. The other two letters are very similar, these are the folks that live directly across the street and again the comment that was made, 'We have witnessed much less much foot traffic and bicycle traffic in our neighborhood since the fence was built. We are not convinced that a comparable 6-foot fence would provide the same sense of screening or security, due to all the activity in the greenbelt area." Ctlair. Wallace: Ok so go ahead and submit them to Mr. Jordan for us. Kevin Schulz: Those are the originals I didn't make copies of them. Jason Jordan: Do you want copies back? Kevin Schulz: No. Chair. Wallace: We can make some. Kevin Schulz: Are there any questions, or I'll turn it over to Doug? George Feighner: I have one other question. According to this map here, the greenbelt starts behind lot #39 is that correct? Kevin Schulz: Y~s, it does. George Feighner: Starts or finishes wherever you would start from. Kevin Schulz: Yes, it basically sort of gets squeezed i.nto and becomes these other properties up here. So Doug will talk about the homework that we did prior to the creation of the fence thinking that we were in safe territory. Chair. Wallace: Thank you. Doug Chappelle: Hi, I'm Doug Chappelle and my wife Carol is here along with my daughter Christine and Andrew, we live at 2208 Lyons Avenue NE in Renton. I'd like to thank everyone for being here tonight. I realize that you guys are volunteers and I really do appreciate the work that you put into this and I can honestly say I wish I wasn't here. I am a licensed professional engineer in the State of Washington and I would be embarrassed to stand up here before you today and say that I hadn't read the code before we did this. In fact, I did read the code and it is within my job description on a I Board of Adjustment Minutes, July 28, 2004 Page 100124 day-to-day basis to work with codes, interpret them, analyze them and essentially build products that conform to codes. So like I say, what Brian suggested that I do is go through the analysis I went through in reading the code that led to the conclusion that ultimately resulted in us building an 8-foot fence. But before I do that let me say, we had options. I actually drove Kevin nuts with some of the options that I came up with, a 6-foot fence made out of cedar with 4-foot pOints and 6 inch planks or 4 inch planks, what it would cost, what could we have, does it need to be on the property line or would you rather have it on top of the berm, is to be straight or does it need to follow the topography and I kind of forced him to consider all of these things just because of my engineering nature I guess. But how did the 8-foot fence come into consideration? And the answer is I read 4-4-440 in here starting off with Section A and what it is that the City intended to regulate and worked my way through it and came through D and said well residential allows up to 6-foot or 72" fence and kept reading and I get to paragraph A where they say, Standards for CommerciaVlndustrial and Other Uses and when I get to Section E5 where they say, Special Provisions -Fences for Mobile Home Parks, Subdivisions or Planned Unit Developments may vary from these regulations as provided for in the respective code sections. So I centered in on the term "subdivision" because Stonegate is indeed a subdivision. As stated on the plat that was accepted by the City, the Mayor, and voted ultimately on by the City Council. So in looking at the subdivision and the face of the plat the conclusion I came to was based on this note on the very bottom here is, the plat is subject to the covenants, conditions and restrictions recorded under some King County number and were given all of those when we moved in and so I reviewed those and fences are indeed covered in there and it says that you need to go to the Architectural Control Committee within Stonegate to get approval to build a fence of any nature or any form and so on and so forth. So being the engineer and hence less social than most people I asked Kevin to go to the Architectural Control Committee and so he did and he talked with the then President at the time and several of the other Board Members describing the fence that we were talking about discuss some of the conditions whether it be 6 or 8 and this, that and the other thing because for a long time the neighborhood, not just Kevin, not just me, not just our direct neighbors but the neighborhood had been concerned about the trespass that was happening within the neighborhood and at the same time, not enough of the neighborhood was concerned about it in order to erect a big fence or do something more drastic. So they were essentially leaving it up to us on a piece mail basis to do something about that. So in any event, he talked with the Board Members and got their verbal concurrence that a fence sounded okay. In this case, an 8-foot fence on the property line or as we described it a fence constructed of 8-foot bards level across the top, shaped to .follow the topography underneath it and they said it was okay to go forward with that. On that basis, I concluded that we were okay and legal to go ahead and build a fence and I will mention that this discussion happened, Carol and I moved in, in December of '02 and the discussions happened in the February time frame. We priced everything out in March and April and the fence went up over the Memorial Day weekend. We predrilled the holes with a post hole digger but the fence, we poured the concrete, we put up the boards over Memorial Day weekend in May and the week after that we painted the fence and it was done and traffic miraculously dropped off and so on and so forth. So that was the basis of the fence; the story behind how it was constructed, the decisions that we made, who we talked with, again at the time I didn't feel based on what I had read in the code that it was necessary for me to talk with Planning Division. But you know what they say about the word assume, so I guess that's why I'm here today. In retrospect, obviously, I will clearly be talking with the Planning Division just to ensure that we have a clear understanding. When it came about in December, and I know I talked with Kevin about this earlier but when we first spoke with Paul Baker and I forget the other gentleman's name here right after the time of the Notice of Violation, I noted that although our property is not yet graded the way we would like to have it and this is e Board of Adjustment Minutes, July 28, 2004 Page 11 of24 still in advance and I'd like to grade it out so that it is flatter. But one of the things I need to understand in order to come up with a correct plan is how do I need to finish off the grade so that we can retain the height of the fence today. I think at some point, its probably not relevant at this point but one of the pictures we may show you shows some different cases where a fence has been constructed and things have been graded up next to it in varying forms and so one of the questions that will have as a kind of a rhetorical question is at what pOint because I believe you were asking the question as well, it slopes down, flattens out and then it begins to drop off to the stream. When it becomes an issue of judgment call there as to how much of a drop off is adequate and where would you make the consideration on the high side of the fence? So when we first started talking with Paul we were asserting that if the grading job had been completed correctly this would never had been an issue we would have 4-feet on his side so on and so forth, but I won't go into that right now. What I would like to do at this point is turn it over to Mr. Dorsey who will handle the technical points, he's had the benefit of both Kevin and my observations and in particular my technical expertise but I'll let him put it into codes and legalities of that and what are positions are but before I do that at some point I think we're gonna wind up showing some additional pictures and I didn't have a chance to pull this together by the time we submitted that package that is just now been handed out to you. What this is, is a Renton Zoning Map with points on it that will show you where the pictures in the rest of the package were taken when we went off to look for other examples of fences that are out there that are built in a residential setting abutting a park, or public use property where the fence or the hedge in some cases exceeds 8-feet and then there are some other examples that are interesting at least from a technical stand pOint because it helps me better understand how the City's going to interpret codes for things that I'd like to do in the future. So with your permission, I'll go ahead and hand these out now. Chair. Wallace: That'd be great. Doug Chappelle: There is one comment I guess I want to address right before I tum it over to Mr. Dorsey and Kevin read one of the letters from the neighbor on the north, that would be the Winns who live in tracts 4 in lot 44 and they mentioned something about bb's and I apologize this is picture #16 and it doesn't show up very well at all but it turns out its grown up enough that I couldn't get to take the pictures where some of the other indentations are but right here this little mark is from a bb. I pried a bb out of the fence there and the story there goes along the lines of Andrew and I were out in the back playing on that play yard that you saw in one of the pictures in early December of last year just in fact after we received the original Notice of Violation and I kept hearing clicking noises sometimes they'd be over there and sometimes they'd be behind me essentially where the house was and I didn't make much of it there's noises all the time eventually I look over or something catches my eye something's moving I see little feet running underneath the fence and I look back there where its all grown up and I was like curious so I walked over there and this little 8-9 year old boy comes running around the fence and he stops with his pellet gun and he's pointing at another boy who's sitting over 30-feet away or so just on the other side of where the stream is and he starts plugging the guy with his bb gun and the guy flinches when the bb hits him and the other kid is armed with a paint ball gun and it turns out I'd been hearing that it just didn't register there would be the whoosh splat kind of thing. There were paint ball marks back then but I can't find any more now but I would have had a picture of that for you. They're running around back there with no eye-glasses or anything just having kid kind of fun. Fourth of July they could have substituted for the Ivers display back there so you know, I'll be honest we asked them to address that because I showed them these things I didn't want to be up here saying well that's what that is there is other people that have witnessed this and seen that and I think that's in large part all of these circumstances have led me to believe I Board of Adjustment Minutes, July 28, 2004 Page 120124 that we actually did the right thing by putting up an 8-foot fence and on that basis I'll turn it over to Brian. Chair. Wallace: Mr. Jordan you have a question? Jason Jordan,: Just for the record can I state the exhibit list so that we're all on the same page or do you want me to do that at the end? I've been trying to keep track of them. Chair. Wallace: Well if you've got them tracked now, why don't you go ahead? Jason Jordan: Ok Chair. Wallace: Got numbers and letters there? Jason Jordan: I do. Chair. Wallace: Ok, go ahead if you want. I'm sorry Jason did you want to go ahead. Go ahead and share that with us. Jason Jordan: So Exhibit #5 is the letter from Steve & Angela Winn, Exhibit #6 is the letter from John & Stacey Tribble, Exhibit #7 is the letter from Tom & Sara Safley, Exhibit #8 is the letter from Bill Lofgren, Exhibit #9 is the Zoning Map, and Exhibit #10 is the pictures, the black and white list of pictures that they've been referring to. Chair. Wallace: Thank you. Brian Dorsey: Good evening, my name is Brian Dorsey up to six months ago I was from Wenatchee other side of the mountain so your zoning code is larger than anything we had over there so this is a new experience for me as well. I'm also as Kevin referred to me as the obligatory attorney, that's what happens when you have a family friend who needs legal services, you wind up coming down pro bono. So I have no vested interest in this let me assure you. Chair. Wallace: Brian Dorsey: Chair. Wallace: Brian Dorsey: \ Brian can you go ahead and state your address for us please? Oh yes, 16088 NE 85th Street, Redmond. Thank you. Hopefully, Kevin and Doug have given you the factual background, my job is to try to fit those facts into the variance criteria, so that hopefully this all makes sense as to why a variance should be granted. Something that will be key to all of this is in your fence code provisions the map that Doug gave you. What your fence code states is that it has the provision governing residential uses and then in Sub-section E it has standards for commercial, industrial and other uses. So for anything other than residential you allow an 8-foot high fence and down in this provision, when we talk about other uses it specifically includes industrial, utility and public uses ... public uses. And now what you'll see in that drawing, the map what Doug is going to show you later on. In a span of 90 minutes they found these 20 other examples where you have 8-foot high fences separating a church from a home, separating a school from a home, separating a park from a home. Your code specifically allows 8-foot high fences to separate these kind of public uses from residential property. So it's not as though you do not have 8-foot high fences next residences. You do not have 8-foot high fences separating one residence from another residence. And if Doug or Kevin's property backed on to another neighboring home we wouldn't be here tonight. A 6- e Board of Adjustment Minutes, July 28, 2004 Page 130'24 foot high fence is great to shake hands and to share stories over the fence with a neighbor who has swing set and kids playing in their backyard. A 6-foot high fence is not adequate to provide screening or security to someone who backs on to what is a public use. Your code recognizes that, it allows for 8-foot high fences. So when we go into the very first criteria that your staff talked to you about: The applicant suffers a hardship due to some special circumstance, one of them being location or surroundings of the subject property. The thing that we argue is the special circumstance is the surrounding of this property. This property is unique it backs onto an open, natural, vegetative space. We're not talking about setting a precedent that everyone can put up 8-foot high fences in their neighborhoods, we're talking about homes that back onto what are equivalent to public spaces. Also, your staff talks about this is a private area, this is something the Stonegate homeowners wanted; this is their little private mecca, this is not the case. You look on the face of the plat that was required; Stonegate was required to dedicate this Tract, Tract J as a natural open space. On the face of the plat it says, "And further dedicates to the use of the public all of the easements and Tracts shown on this plat for all public purposes as indicated thereon including but not limited to parks, open space, utilities and drainage." This is not, now granted later on what they say is Tract J; which is the one right behind this property is going to be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association. That's very common these days, cities and counties, they don't want to take on these spaces, they want to require the open space, they want to preclude it from being developed, they want to deSignate the reserve but the City does not want the liability, the City doesn't want to take it off the tax rolls. So great, we burden these folks by having to have what is a defacto park but it is not a private space that they chose to have, it was something that was required as the condition of this plat. And on the note of the plat it goes on to say,"dedication of sensitive areas tracts, sensitive area setbacks conveys to the public a beneficial interest in the land within the tract setback area." These are not private garden spaces that homeowners association decided to have for their lush enjoyment. This is a natural vegetative space that the City, or in essence the County required be deSignated; that the County required be set aside; that the County requires be maintained in a natural vegetative state. These folks don't simply back onto a park they back onto a park that is unmaintained, unsupervised, unlighted. They have all the problems that folks have who live adjacent to parks, but they have none of the maintenance, they have none of the security, they have none of the lighting. So thafs why this is such a critical issue to them. So when we talk about also in this first criteria, that is the special circumstances that is creating the hardship. Then it goes on to say that the strict application of the zoning code would deprive the subject property owners of rights and privileges enjoyed by, other property owners. Again, you will see photographs, every other property who abuts a school, a park, a church, a playground they get to have an 8-foot high fence. But the staffs position here is well this is private, this is a private tract, this is not a public tract, therefore, they don't get to have the 8-foot high fence, despite the fact that they are just similarly situated next to what is an open space as any other church ... 1 think these folks will tell you they'd much rather back onto a church or a school or to a public park that is properly maintained, but they don't they back onto a natural vegetative area that is force to be maintained in the state that it is which is unmaintained. So in response to number one, we think those criteria are there, there are special circumstances here and these folks simply want to have the same benefits that other folks who back onto parks, churches, schools, playgrounds have. Number two that the granting of the variance will not materially detriment to the public welfare. Again, you look at the purpose right here of the fence code, it talks about the fact that the regulations are intended to provide and maintain adequate sight distances along public right-of-ways and intersections to encourage safe ingress and egress from individual properties. This Planning Department has announced that there is nothing about this fence that violates public health safety or welfare. It does not detrimental to the public interest in any means whatsoever, it I Board of Adjustment Minutes, July 28, 2004 Page 140124 doesn't impact any adjoining property owners in fact the adjoining property owners favor this fence. So that point is already conceded by the Planning Department. Number three: that the approval shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity subject to the same zoning. This is where I'm going to ask Doug to come back up and show you the photos that he and Kevin took corresponding to that map you have. That will show over 20 other fences in your City where you have residences separated from and I don't want to labor the point, well maybe I'll ask Doug to expedite this and I know that we are all volunteering our time this evening, just maybe pick 4 or 5 of these, but each one of those points on that map highlights a fence that is 8-feet in height that separates a residential property from some adjoining use, be it a church, be it a school, playground or public right-of-way. And again, that's your own code that clearly allows that. The only difference here is that the contention well this is a private space versus a public space, so please keep that in mind as Doug goes through these photos. Doug Chappelle: I'll try to edit these on the fly for brevity of course you've got the 50 or so available to you in black and white. I apologize for the quality that's paired down from literally 200 pictures or so that we'd took in that brief interval. The first one I'll pOint you to is 21 here, one moment please, forgot my own decoder ring. I'd hate to accuse that this fence existing somewhere where it didn't. This one's on a fence-hedge combo on Aberdeen and 24th on the locator map you'll note that's right here up in the upper northwest corner of the City. Moving right along, Monroe and Sunset this one was of interest of us because again he has a piece of sloping property in the center of the fence there, we didn't want to go on his property to put our little measuring stick up there but I'd estimate that it is very close to if not exceeding 8-feet. Chair; Wallace: I'm sorry what number was that one? Doug Chappelle: I'm sorry that's number 22. Number 23 now is at Union near 12th. 9%-foot fence you can see that they've built up a retaining wall there, then put a six or so foot fence on top of that then built an 8-foot bridge there until they can connect to the next piece of fence and number 24 is the same fence there but it was taken to show that you can see light through the fence and all that illustrates is there isn't fill on the other side, that it's 9%-feet on both sides of the fence. What you'll see in slide 25 is a topological circumstance here where they're trying to level off the top of the fence to follow the topography underneath the ground underneath the fence, in this case the highest board here towards the center I'd estimate is in the neighborhood of 8% -9-feet. Here We see on slide 26 we see a circumstance here where we've got some sloping topography on a park joining a house. In fact, 27 shows it better the house and its adjoinment to the park. But again there on that comer I'd estimate the fence to easily exceed 6-feet. In slide 30 we see Glenco Park I believe that is, this is an example of . the 4-foot fence is on the sidewalk the point of interest is there's a 6-foot fence embedded inside of what I'd estimate to be a 10-foot hedge that the owner has planted it has literally grown up inside of the fence to extend the barrier and again the code not making the distinction between a fence or a hedge but in this case it appears the City has erected a 6-foot fence and the owners felt that's not adequate for his privacy and security. Slide 31 is an example of a residential fence you can see the apartments in the back there and the fence is estimated at 8% -8%-feet. Slide 32 is the other side of that fence where you can see the landscaping in front kind of obscures the fact that it protects nothing in the back; again another example of a very tall fence separating public use from private use. Moving to slide 37 this is an example of a perimeter fence around a school; again there is some complexity where I didn't want to trespass on anyone's yard so this is at Maplewood Heights Elementary. So slide 37 shows that the fence is indeed an 8-foot fence. Again, I didn't want to cross into their yard slide 38 shows their yard, that fence continues on e Board of Adjustment Minutes, July 28, 2004 Page 150'24 Jim Jacques: and intersects up with their fence makes a perpendicular turn and kind of rounds the corner there where the fence heights are maintained with the slope there's not any berming or finishing there. This here on the is part of that perimeter fence here where they wound up with a double fence in an attempt to provide safety on one side and safety and screening on the other and it actually exceeds on up to 8Y.2-feet. Slide 40 is at the corner of Anacortes and Sunset this was particularly interesting to me because its constructed of 6-foot slats of which you will notice on the bottom here that as the terrain slopes away they actually leave a gap underneath the fence in order to keep the fence level but at that one edge the top rail of the fence is very nearly 8-feet and again that's a case of residential property there abutting public use space. Excuse me. Doug Chappelle: I'm sorry? Jim Jacques: I'm sorry, I have kind of a quick question. So some of these wood fences do you know if the City just let the people put them up or they just maybe chose to do it on their own, you don't really know? ' Doug Chappelle: You're right, I don't know. Jim Jacques: Doug Chappelle: Jim Jacques: Chair. Wallace: Jim Jacques: Doug Chappelle: Maybe they're in violation also or maybe they're in violation. I don't know. Well based on the argument that the staff made earlier today I would suggest that you as the Board of Adjustment would have the best experience intuitively on that basis because these people would be coming to you on a regular basis to get the variance because the City's position is these sorts of fences aren't allowed unless you guys have granted the variance. Well I've been on the Board 12-13 years and we've never had a variance, this is the first one we've ever had that I remember. So I guess my point was ... For a fence. For a fence in this particular case, but I guess what I'm trying to say is I guess a lot of people probably do things without permits and could be in some sort of violation maybe the City doesn't know about it. If that's true I would suggest that you answered your own question and I would further extend to suggest that on the concern about setting a precedent in a defacto sense the precedent has already been established there are 8-foot fences out there in residential to public use out. there. The question that I believe the City needs to think about on the staff side is: what do they want to do about it? Do they want to bring all of. these people into compliance? Does the code need to be reexamined by the City to clarify exactly what the intent is or is there some other third option out there? So I recognize what their concern about precedent, I deal with that everyday in my job too I'm very sensitive to that issue, but I believe that in a similar sense there is a problem here if you are going to take these hyper-technical points of view with respect to an 8-foot fence in a residential setting is just flat not allowed well okay, but that maybe what the code says but the evidence clearly shows that the people out there think something else. Board of Adjustment Minutes, July 28, 2004 Page 160124 Wayne Jones: I have a question for staff. In a case where a school district comes in for constructing a new school, school's conditional use permit on residential property and quite often you go with an 8-foot fence screening around there how's that handled? Jason Jordan: Ifs generally handled as a condition of the site plan approval or the conditional use permit for approval and we do rely on the use, as a school is clearly a public use. As a general rule if it abuts or is adjacent to a residential neighborhood they usually come in with a plan to show an 8-foot high fence to screen for themselves because they have liability issues too, but if not, we generally require that as a condition of the project approval. Wayne Jones: And in the case of a .. .I'm just picturing McLendon's where you have a commercial or industrial use next to a residential? Jason Jordan: The commercial use, if the fence is on the commercially zoned property it's allowed to. do an 8-foot high fence, as long as ifs on the commercial property. If they want to put the fence on the residential property then it would be lowered to a 6-foot high fence but because it's a commercial zone property we rely on what the zone of the subject site is and if it's zoned commercial then we allow them to do an 8-foot high fence per the regulations. Chair. Wallace: Let's go ahead and let Mr. Chappelle finish. Doug Chappelle: This last site here I believe is Windsor Hills Park we have a 6-foot fence that the owner has grown up a 12-foot hedge around on this side. On the opposite side of the entry to the park the owner has done exactly the same thing except this time he's only grown up a 10-foot fence, it's a different owner, different plat same situation. You saw the map there's basically an entry and then the park opens out around that. What was more interesting to us in this case was this particular piece of property where you can see the City has constructed what I estimated to be a 61'2 or so foot fence and the owner has built up a wall upon which he has constructed another fence and aggregation it exceeds in my estimation 11-feet and you can kind of see through the slats, he appears to have filled in some but clearly not all the way up to the bottom of the wall and the boards on the fence if I do my little extrapolation the boards are at least 6-feet. So if he hasn't filled all the way up to the base of the wall then on the other side the grade would obviously make the height of the fence on higher side being more than 6-feet. Nearly done here. This is an example of new community; you can see the tags on the windows where they're constructing what looks to be like multi-family residences here; 6-foot boards with a foot and a half or so on top adding up to about an 8-foot fence they're separating it from, in this case it's going to be a commercial property, let me jump to that, I'm now on picture 48 here where you can see fence slightly different view, in this case its constructed below the razor wire up to be about 9-feet over on the side away from the gate the razor wire takes it up over 10-feet. At the other end of this fence and this is one of the examples I was eluding to earlier we see on one side an 8-foot fence and then we can see underneath the fence to see that they've constructed a retaining wall. Because the fence turns a corner I couldn't get a picture of that to see exactly how high up it goes but as I was eluding to earlier it'd be interesting to me to understand how the City would measure this fence because there is room to slip the two-by-four in on the other side so it's not right up against the fence. The question being is how close does the finished grade if you will have to be to the fence in order for that to count for the high side of the fence, that is one of the questions I asked back in December and I still don't understand the answer to that but perhaps at some point I'll be able to get that figured out so I can figure out how to finish the grade in my property to make things be even better. Last two pictures, last two or three pictures here last two I guess, this is a now down at Renton High School an owner abutting the school there e Board of Adjustment Minutes, July 28, 2004 Page 17 of 24 Chair. Wallace: Brian Dorsey: there's what appears to be a 6 or 7 -foot fence that the school has put in and in this case the owner is allowed a native growth hedge it's clear that he maintains it, grow up to approximately 9-feet and then the final example here is industrial to residential, you see the house in the back what you see then is a 10-foot two-by-four so this McLendon's fence is probably 10-foot 2-inches or so abutting residential property in this case. So it's clear that at least in my mind, that these kinds of fences that are not necessarily in compliance with the code the casual observer anyway exist out there and I guess that's the that's one of the points that's I believe is relevant in your consideration of our appeal for the variance. So again, I thank you. Unless there's any questions? Thank you. We might have you back up. Go ahead. Okay. I'll try to wrap this up real quickly. The point of Doug's pictures is not that other people get to do it, so why can't we? The point is that your code specifically recognizes that higher fences are appropriate to separate a residential use from a non-residential use. That's what your code advocates, encourages that, because it recognizes these 'are not compatible uses. It would be quite an irony to say that the church abutting the residence can construct the 8-foot fence but the property owner two inches on the other side cannot construct the 8-foot fence. That may be a very hyper-technical interpretation of the code I think from the lawyer's perspective we would say if that were the argument that would be not only arbitrary and capricious but in denial of equal protection. There's no rational basis for distinguishing between a residential owner two inches on one side of the line and the non-residential two inches on the other side of the line why one could do an 8-foot and one cannot. I think clearly the contemplation of your code is that a higher fence is appropriate to separate a residential use from a non-residential use and that's what we have here we have a non-residential use. I don't blame the staff I think they're qoing their job they are interpreting the code saying well this is a private plat its not a public park therefore, it doesn't meet the criteria. I would ask this panel to please look through the form to the substance here, we have area that is not going to be used for residential, it cannot be used for residential the face of your plat requires that it not be used for residential it requires that it be maintained in an open natural vegetative state and as long as it maintains that state it's going to be used equivalent as a park. As an area where people are going to congregate, now it's going to be used in that fashion then Doug and Kevin and their family should be allowed the same security and the same screening that most other folks in your town get when they adjoin a park or a school or a church. So that's all I would add on that condition number three. The last being that condition number four that this be the minimum variance that will accomplish the desired purpose. Truth be known, the minimum requirement probably would be more like a 12-foot fence, truly I mean given the grade of the properties and where this area sits and if you're truly going to screen out the ability of folks who are already playing back there and shooting bb-guns you probably need something much higher than an 8-foot fence to truly give you security and screening. But the fact is, these folks built what they thought your code allowed, they didn't go out there in the middle night and try to build a fence and then get caught and come to you asking permission. They did what they thought was right, they read your code they saw the' subdivision exception under the Subsection E governing 8-foot fences .which says these things can be varied, so then they looked to the covenants which is what the plat said to look to. I guess if engineers did lawyers work we'd have more work for lawyers but fortunately that doesn't happen very often. But they made a very I think reasonable and honest evaluation of your code and built the fence that they thought was appropriate and I think your code'in all honesty that was the intent and purpose, that a fence of this height is appropriate when separating residential from non- residential. Thank you very much for your time this evening. I • o Board of Adjustment Minutes, July 28, 2004 Page 180124 Chair. Wallace: Thank you. We may ask you back up, but in the mean time I'd like to offer the podium for anybody who may be in opposition to the variance request. And I don't see anybody out there. So· lets go ahead and show in the record that there wasn't anybody opposed even though they were given due notice of the meeting and I assume notices went out in the 300-foot range or so and everybody had a chance to show up. Board members do you have any additional questions you'd like to ask anybody now? Mark Rigos: I have a question. I'm not sure who wants to answer this, maybe Doug but I'm looking at the site plan I'm not sure what the exhibit number is, it's dated May 17, 2004 and it's on the east of the lots 42 and 43 it's Tract J and it says that it's a sensitive area tract so my guess is it's. probably like a class 3 wetland or a class 3 stream at one point was designated in there with a 25-foot buffer on either side but seems to me your concern is not Lyons Avenue neighborhood irs the neighborhood to the east of you in unincorporated King County. Was there any thought at asking the Homeowner's Association since Tract J what the attorney said was is privately assessed for taxes but it is a public use have you thought about putting a 6-foot tall . fence on the east side of Tract J and then asking the Homeowner's Association to pony up for that, because the whole neighborhood seems to be in favor of keeping these people out. Doug Chappelle: The whole neighborhood is indeed in favor in keeping the security and screening within the neighborhood however they weren't in favor enough of it to actually cough up the money to construct the fence. And subsequent to that I didn't know it at the time but now after having had the opportunity to research all of this I believe the City who would have precluded us based on what the face of the plat says they aren't legally allowed to allow us to go in and damage or disrupt or otherwise prune, in fact what it says is that the stuff within that area cannot be cut, prune, covered by fill, removed or damaged without approval in writing from Renton Development Services Division and so it's not within the Homeowner's Association's power to erect a fence in Tract J. Does that answer your question? Mark Rigos: Yeah. Chair. Wallace: I think you said something to the effect without approval of the City and I don't know if anybody ever asked. Doug Chappelle: To my knowledge it hadn't been asked but I would presume that we WOUldn't have even begun to ask unless' the Homeowner's Association would have approved the funding in order to construct the fence otherwise it WOUld've been an immaterial request and the Homeowner's Association was not interested in funding a fence. Wayne Jones: Question to staff. Quite often on sloping topography a homeowner or builder or through the platting process can build a 2-foot -4-foot high rockery on the property line and then build up to a 6-foot fence on top of that. If they were to build a rockery across the back property line and then build a fence on top of that, would that be a violation of the code? Jason Jordan: It depends the answer to your question is if they built a rockery and then they filled up to the rockery in other words if they leveled their site to the rockery, no we'd measure from the high side. If they build a rockery just clearly as a wall and build a fence on top of that then it would be in violation and the maximum there could only be 6-feet combined with the fence and the wall. So in other words, we measure from the high side but it does have to be back filled up to the retaining wall. e Board of Adjustment Minutes, July 28, 2004 Page 190'24 Wayne Jones: If they were to build a 2-foot rockery across the bottom of the fence, fill it up with dirt and cut the boards off, it'd be a legal fence? Jason Jordan: Well if they built a 2-foot rockery up to the fence, they wouldn't have to cut the boards off, it'd be 6-feet measure from the high side. Chair. Wallace: Right. Kevin Schulz: I would submit that's what we already have and the City takes a position that if you can stick a two-by-four in between this rockery that you're talking about they will measure it from the ground to the top. That's why we're showing Chair. Wallace: Mr. Chappelle can you go ahead and come to the microphone we're having a hard time picking you up there. Kevin Schulz: What is frustrating to me though is that the argument is is that when you read the code it says it talks about finished grade, the finished grade of my property you saw the pictures, when I stand in the back of my property that fence is equivalent to a 4- foot fence. Their position is and I had Mr. Baker come out and we talked about this they take the position, and Doug's argument is how close and how far away is that fence need to be to be able to do what you're talking about. I have a 4-foot berm behind that fence and finished grade says that I have a 4-foot drop and it varies some wherever that fence is and so that there's nothing in the code that I could see that says anything about this is okay but this is not or that this is okay and this is not and they simply would not and if you can take a sliver and put it between this 2-foot rockery that you're talking about and the fence itself, they're going to measure from bottom of that fence to the top and it's a done deal. Chair. Wallace: Yeah, but the only thing that I can think of is when you measure the height of a building you measure within 5-feet, you have the opportunity to go 5-feet away from the edge of the building to the highest point. Kevin Schulz: This would be compliant if you were actually going to do that. It'd be a done deal. Jason Jordan: On sloped property, if you have over 10-feet of elevation from one side to the next, Mr. Wallace is correct that you go from the high side and you go out 5-feet from the wall. That actually comes from the building code, the uniform building code and so the planning section just adopted that to measure for height. Unfortunately, the fences don't fall under that"category but yeah, that is correct. Jim Jacques: Jason Jordan: Jim Jacques: Kevin Schulz: Chair. Wallace: So you're saying if they did retain that right up to the fence whether with a rockery or add a block and filled it in, is he correct that the City can stick a 2x4 or something down there .and.that's where they'll measure from? I don't know the exact, I mean I don't think that that's necessarily correct. If clearly there's no usable space between the rockery and where the berm ends I don't think they would measure from that. I don't personally go out and measure it; it's typically done by a building inspectors or code enforcement. But that's not my understanding, I mean we try and be as liberal as possible. Did, excuse me, Paul Baker or Bob Arthur tell you that? Absolutely, we were standing in the back of my property. Thank you. I Board of Adjustment Minutes, July 28, 2004 Page 20 of 24 Wayne Jones: Kevin Schulz: Jim Jacques: Kevin Schulz: Jim Jacques: Kevin Schulz: Jim Jacques: Kevin Schulz: Jim Jacques: Could you guys draw a cross-section or have your engineering neighbor draw a cross-section of what the backyard and the fence looks like? Sure, but that was exactly what I've been talking about. I've sent letters over the past year to Zimmerman and to Baker trying explain the fact the code simply says if you have finished grade you get to measure from the highest side and they are very, very adamant that they measure exactly against that fence and will not budge on that at all. It was just very frustrating to me and I couldn't understand their point at all. Did they write you a letter or did they just tell you this verbally? No I have both letters and verbally. But this is what I'm talking about, at what point over here is this distance not sufficient for me to build and measure and say my finished grade is here. This is the top of my property right here. I think they mean more if you retain that within a couple inches of that fence. It looks as though there are two or three feet from the fence to the ferns and stuff. Absolutely, admittedly as you also probably know if you've got dirt right against the fence like that it's going to rot out. Right you would need to retain that wood. I mean that was just an idea, I've seen it done and I never did know how they measured it, but it just doesn't seem very fair that they would stick a tape down there because you stayed an inch away that doesn't sound right. But that is my interpretation of what I was told. Thank you. Doug Chappelle: You mentioned Bob Arthur and that brings up a discussion he and I had in December, in fact where I sketched this out for him and we did have a technical discussion regarding where should that be measured from and I documented that it in a letter and sent it to both Bob and Paul. There was some other questions that I asked them which I won't go into right now because they aren't relevant in this context. The discussion that I had with Bob what I remember of it and I haven't talked to him since is he said that essentially off of a 45 or the natural fall line of the soil since it was not retained with rock, would probably be acceptable if he were the one making the observation. Unfortunately, he wasn't the one making the observation it was Mr. Baker and Mr. Baker clearly has a different interpretation and we attempted to address that with him, I believe it was in April or May and that was the time they had the discussion about the sliver of woo,d and so on and so forth. But from a technical standpoint and civil engineering standpoint making a berm out of dirt like ----. -- that its not going to retain its sharp slope there its going to fall over, you know that just playing sandcastles at the beach, it eventually falls over. This type of soil falls over to a 45 degree where as sand can actually hold it for a while until it dries out and then it will slope to 33 degrees. But in any event, we had all those kinds of fun discussions, but that's exactly along the lines of what you were talking about. From my standpoint there is a disparity of opinion within even the code enforcement division as to where the measurement should be made from and where indeed is finished grade. That's not the issue here, the issue here is that if indeed this is an 8- foot fence which at points it is and other points it is 4~ feet, is it entitled to a variance based on the criteria for the variance? I gave those other arguments as being appropriate for some other venue. Board of Adjustment Minutes, July 2~04 Page 21 of24 Chair. Wallace: Thank you. Any other questions? Wayne Jones: It appears staff would like to add from the code. Jason Jordan: I'd be happy to read directly from the code what the code says in terms of measurement, if the board thought that would be useful? Not sure if you have the code or the code section, but I can do that, if that'll help? Chair. Wallace: Go ahead, what does it say? Jason Jordan: So I'm in 4-4-040C and its general fence and hedge requirements and then it says item C1 Fence Height Method of Measurement: the height shall be measured from the top elevation of the top board rail or wire to the ground. In cases where a wall is used instead of fence, height shall be measured from the top surface of the wall to the ground on the high side of the wall. Kevin Schulz: Simply if you read the code further it also gives allowances for berms. Grade Differences: Where the finished grade is a different elevation on either side of the fence the height may be measured from the side having the highest elevation. Jason Jordan: Speaking of berms, I don't want to belabor the point but that was item #3, item #2 says: a berm may not be constructed with a fence on it unless the total height of the berm plus the fence is less than the maximum allowed. So you can't just berm up a piece of property, it actually has to be a retaining wall, in order to meet the fence height. Chair. Wallace: Thank you. Don't see any other questions. I just want to say that I think this was one of the most exhaustively detailed application that we've seen for a long time, so I appreciate all the hard work that you guys poured into this I know this didn't happen over night. So thank you for doing your homework and for spelling it out as clearly as you can, it was really good work. We'd like to close the public hearing portion of our meeting and open it up for discussion amongst board members. I think I want to pick- up on the point Jim was getting at in his line of questioning at one point, is that there might be a lot of examples of code violations around the city and criteria #3 addresses that approval shall not constitute a grant of special privilege, and so even though some may have kind of taken advantage of the special privilege by just doing it and getting away with it, were not supposed to grant them. Nonetheless I understand the argument that this really is a condition of a residence against a public use, so I can see both sides of the coin there. Wayne Jones: It appears the majority of the pictures they submitted are residential uses next to public uses of some sort. --~ .. -" ... -, .. Wayne Jones: Either against high traffic areas or commercial use or schools or McLendon's Hardware or something like that. So its kind of I think how we interpret the dedication of an open space tract as to whether that's public use or not. Steve Maxwell: I guess it's a public use if certain percentage of the public in the general area uses it either for a thoroughfare or for recreation, apparently in this case that's happening or has happened. Chair. Wallace: It seems like I think they made a fairly convincing argument that it is being used publicly and it was purposely set aside for a use in that they couldn't change the natural quality of it in the end and maybe to the paint where they couldn't restrict access to it even. I • o Board of Adjustment Minutes. July 28. 2004 Page 22 of 24 Mark Rigos: Steve Maxwell: 'Chair. Wallace: Kevin Schulz: Steve Maxwell: Mark Rigos: Chair. Wallace: On a lot of these public tracts they have these sensitive area tract notices signs where there is heron, wetland stream, keep out, I haven't been out to the site are those signs there that would say to tell the public to stay out? No, irs pretty much just an open woodsy area that separates two neighborhoods. One neighborhood highly more organized than the other, the other neighborhood, there is limited fencing if any and its hard to tell where property lines stop and start and that sort of thing, its more of a rural type neighborhood to the east. You know with all the weaponry in the neighborhood, I thought that shot at that razor wire fence might be effective, if you keep it down to 6-feet. No? Okay. I really very much hoping that we would be able to do that later, but we must do this part first. It sounds to me like at least they had whether they technically violated the provisions of the code or not, in their minds they weren't they looked at the code they checked with the homeowner's association got their blessing and one of the gentleman involved is an engineering of sorts and he read everything he could find it sounded okay to him, so at least I don't think in this case they did this with malice of for- thought so to speak. It appears we are leaning a little bit toward approving this, so if we do that we need to word it such that for extenuating circumstances in case that everybody that borders a little tract or something on an interior of a plat or something can't come back and we gave special privilege to do it, we need to be real careful in how we word this. It's too bad that the association couldn't be a little more active. I know a woman in a neighborhood who saw an area that she thought would make a great park and so she asked the City for a grant which they granted they have a grant application process and then, of course that was public space, but nonetheless they rallied all the neighbors and they got it all fixed up they even have irrigation in it and so there is opportunity to motivate the community to join you efforts of cleaning up spaces like that or at least doing something with it but in this case its seems like its frustrating if its designated to remain natural and yet you've got a fire pit out there and bicycles, parts and clothes. Steve Maxwell: It kind of a neighborhood-gathering place for the kids and you know target practice and that sort of thing, that's frustrating. Chair. Wallace: I hope that wasn't my kids out there. Does anybody feel up to crafting a motion? Jim Jacques: Steve was doing good. Chair Wallace: He is kind of on a role isn't he? Steve Maxwell: I think I'll watch somebody do it first once and then I'll become an expert after that. Chair. Wallace: As the Chair I'm unfortunately exempt from that role. Mark Rigos: I move that we approve the variance. Steve Maxwell: I could have said that. e Board of Adjustment Minutes, July 28, 2004 Page 23 of 24 Wayne Jones: Chair. Wallace: Mark Rigos: Wayne Jones: Jason Jordan: Wayne Jones: Chair. Wallace: I'd like to amend that to say that approve the variance by recognizing that it is an exterior Hold on just one technicality here do you want to go ahead and release your motion to Wayne? Sure, I release my motion to Wayne. I see where he's going with this. We should find that there is no grant of special privilege as lots border on a labeled open space on the exterior of the plat bordering on property that is not within the City and clearly being used for public uses and that the exclusion for fencing next to public area should be allowed. Weill get the point that in fact the Board determines that the Tract J open space tract is in fact a public use and warrants an 8-foot high fence and so I have findings and conclusions for both approval and denial as I try and always do I can add, I don't have that as a specific finding but I can certainly add that as a finding or something along those lines and have that back to you. Sounds good. It sounds like along the same motion as we are kind of crafting it as we go along here that variance criteria in #2 was satisfied to everyone's agreement and that #3 wasn't a special privilege because this was a condition such that is consistent with other public space to private property conditions and on the minimum one, item #4 it would be effective in its current height we couldn't imagine that they'd be back requesting additional height. I can see maybe how adjacent neighbors might want to join in extending the construction that would be a different neighborhood, a different request as I suppose at that time if that were to occur. So we could find this as an acceptable minimum as well. Does that make a motion? So we have a motion. Do we have a second? George Feighner: Second Chair. Wallace: Motion's been made, seconded and could we do a role call vote? DECISION Motion made by Board Member Wayne Jones to approve the fence height variance seconded by Board MemberGeorge Feighner. ' VOTE Jay Wallace ----------Approve Jim Jacques ---------Denied Marc Rigos -----------Approve George Feighner ---Approve Wayne Jones --------Approve Steve Maxwell-------Approve Chair; Wallace announced that the variance is hereby granted, to approve the motion, that variance criteria in #2 was satisfied to everyone's agreement and that variance criteria #3 wasn't a grant of special privilege because this was a condition such that is consistent with other public space abutting private property and on variance criteria #4 it would be effective at its current height of 8-feet and that no additional height would be requested. Board of Adjustment Minutes, July 28, 2004 Page 24 of24 An appeal of the Board of Adjustment decision is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 11 O.G., which requires that such appeal be filed with the Superior Court of Washington for King County within 21 days from the date of issuance of the decision. The land use decision is considered issued three (3) days after the City mails a written decision. The appeal period for this variance will end at 5:00 PM on August 18, 2004. Chair. Wallace closed the public hearing. OLD BUSINESS: Chair. Wallace offered to make the Chairperson position available to any other Board Member who would be interested. NEW BUSINESS: Chair. Wallace asked if there is any word on an additional Board Member. Jason Jordan offered the information he had on the status of the additional Board Member position, that there are two applications in, one has been passed down to Planning and Development and the other being King's application is still in the Mayor's office. Jennifer has not received formal notification to start the nomination process. The Mayor has not been able to get to the application at this time. There are two applications in for one position so it will be up to the Council to decide which applicant will fill the open position. ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Date: r9;/U~r>DS ------------------~------- CITY OF RENTON BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES July 28, 2004 The fol/owing minutes are a summary of the July 28, 2004 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Wallace led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag and called the meeting of the Board of Adjustment to order. ROLLCALL OF BOARDMEMBERS Jay Wallace, Jim Jacques, Mark Rigos, George Feighner, Wayne Jones, Steve Maxwell. CITY STAFF IN ATTENDANCE Jason Jordan, Senior Planner; Stacy Tucker, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING Motion made and passed to approve the Minutes of June 23, 2004 as submitted. This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in accordance with local and State laws, Board Chairperson Wallace opened the public hearing. Chappelle/Schulz Fence Height Variance LUA04-053, V-B Jason Jordan Senior Planner with the City of Renton Development Services Division presented the staff report for the Chappelle/Schulz Fence Height Variance. Exhibit No.1: Yellow file containing the original Exhibit No.2: Site PlanNicinity Map application, proof of posting and publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. File: LUA04-053, V-B Exhibit No.3: Fence Elevation Photos Exhibit No.4: Zoning Map . Exhibit No.5: Letter from Neighbors Steve and Exhibit No.6: Letter from Neighbors John and Angela Winn at 2212 Lyons Avenue NE Stac.y Tribble at 2106 Lyons Avenue NE Exhibit No.7: Letter from Neighbors Tom & Sara Exhibit No.8: Letter from Neighbor Bill Lofgren at Safley at 5401 Lyons Avenue NE 5401 Lyons Avenue NE Exhibit No.9: Map Indicating Location of Exhibit 10: Example Photos of Various Fence Examples of Various Fence Height Elevations in Height Elevations 8-feet or higher in the City of the City of Renton Renton Project Location: Variance Request: Lots 42 & 43 of the Stonegate Subdivision: 2202 & 2208 Lyons Avenue NE Variance to allow an 8-foot high fence, within the rear yard setback. I Board of Adjustment Minutes, July 28,2004 Page 2 of 24 The Applicants: Douglas & Carol Chappelle 2208 Lyons Avenue NE Renton, WA 98059 Kevin & Lauren Schulz 2202 Lyons Avenue NE Renton, WA 98059 Project Description: The applicants are requesting a variance from the Board of Adjustment in order to keep an 8-foot high fence that is located within the rear yards of both homes. The applicant's contend the fence is necessary in order to have effective privacy and security screening from an adjoining open space/natural reserve corridor, which is utilized as a public park and trail system. The fence is under code violation and is pending a decision from the Board of Adjustment. In order to receive a variance they need to show that they meet all four of the decision criteria. City of Renton Development Regulations Section 4-9-250.B.5. -The Board of Adjustment shall have authority to grant a variance upon making a determination, in writing, that the conditions specified below have been found to exist: 1. 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: The applicants contend that the subject properties suffer a unique hardship as they are situated along the boundary of a large open space tract that was developed as a result of the Stonegate subdivision. The applicant notes that the homeowner's association owns the property but it is utilized by the surrounding neighborhoods. In addition to the open space next to the subject lots, the applicant states that the residential lots sit approximately 4 feet higher than the abutting open space area, sloping back to the rear property line, which makes it difficult to screen the properties. Finally, the applicant argues that a 6-foot high fence does not adequately secure the back yard from the surrounding area. While the site is located next to a private open space tract, regulated by the subdivision homeowner's association, the applicant has -not demonstrated an undue hardship based on special circumstances applicable to the subject property. Moreover, the code clearly states that the maximum fence height is 6 feet for residential purposes and the circumstances surrounding this property do not necessitate a special exception to that general rule. In fact, the open space area in question is private and not open to the public and is controlled by the subdivision homeowners, which could limit the uses allowed within that area of the subdivision. Furthermore, the applicant has not demonstrated any other hardship unique to the property that would require an 8-foot high fence. Moreover, the majority of completed subdivisions throughout the City have uneven grades with some lots being higher than others; however, that circumstance does not justify the need for a taller fence that what the code currently allows (6-foot maximum). Finally, it should be noted that the Development Services Division coordinated a series of code revisions to the City's fence regulations in 2003. Those revisions now allow property owners the ability to request a taller fence in certain situations. However, during the code revision process, staff was directed to limit the height of residential fences to a maximum of 6 feet, which is currently allowed by City code. As a result of those discussions, staff does not support the request for an 8-foot high fence, in this residential setting. .. Board of Adjustment Minutes, July 28, 2. Page 3 of 24 2. 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: . The applicant contends the intent of the fencing regulations are to provide and maintain adequate sight distance along public rights-of-way at intersections and to encourage safe ingress and egress from individual properties. In addition, the applicant notes that the fencing regulations also encourage the feeling of spaciousness along neighborhood streets and minimize the closed city atmosphere, which tall fences can create. In this case, the existing 8-foot high fence is located within the rear yard and abuts a private open space tract and is neither adjacent to a right-of-way nor otherwise visible to the neighboring homes or streets. Therefore, the applicants conclude that the 8-foot high fence would not be detrimental to the public welfare nor be injurious to any property or improvements in the vicinity. As such, staff does not anticipate the existing fence to be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity. 3. 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: The applicants state that any other property abutting a similar public park or other public property would be entitled to erect an 8-foot high fence along the common boundary line. However, City code does not allow any residential property to construct an 8-foot high fence. Instead, only commercial/industrial properties are permitted to construct an 8-foot high fence without further city approval. Therefore, the granting of the variance, without any demonstrated hardship, would be a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated. . It should also be noted, that in revising the fencing regulations in 2003, the Administration and City Council increased the residential fence heights to 6 feet, with a special fence permit; . however increase above 6 feet was not supported. Thereby, if this variance were granted, a precedence would be set establishing 8-foot high fences in residential areas, which staff believes to be counter to current City policy. 4. That the approval as determined by the Board of Adjustment is a minimum variance that will accomplish the desired purpose: The applicant contends that the location and size of the fence is the minimum necessal)t) in order to "reasonably" provide screening and security from adjacent non-residential uses. However, staff does not support that assumption as the property in question (the open space tract) is designated residential and does not allow for more intensive commerciaVindustrial uses that would necessitate the need for an, 8-foot high fence. Therefore, staff recommends that the variance be denied as the situation does not meet the criteria to approve such a variance request, . which would require the applicant to reduce the fence· height to the code approved 6-foot maximum height. This in turn, does not create a precedence, which other homeowner may attempt to exploit in the future. . This concludes the staff comments, unless there are any questions. George Feighner: I have one. When was that annexed into the City? Jason Jordan: I have an annexation map downstairs. Do you guys know? Chair. Wallace: Was it substantially prior to 2003? Jason Jordan: Yes. Board of Adjustment Minutes, July 28, 2004 Page 4 0124 Kevin Schulz: Yeah. The houses I must say now are about 6 years old. So that's when they were constructed. So it had 'to have been prior to that. George Feighner: I'm sorry ... 1 didn't hear you, say that again. Kevin Schulz: The houses themselves are about 6 years old now, so it had to have been prior to 6 years ago. George Feighner: It was annexed before it was built? Jason Jordan: It was annexed as a preliminary plat and the final plat and the house construction came through the city. So I think that the applicant is absolutely right it was probably in the 90's mid to late 90's when it was annexed in. Final plat approval was September of '96. George Feighner: Okay, thank you. Chair. Wallace: Kevin Schulz: Thank you Mr. Jordan. And we might ask you some more questions later. So at this time we would like to invite the applicant or applicants and when you come to the front go ahead and state your name and your address and who you represent. I'm Kevin Schulz and my neighbor Doug Chappelle who is in the chair over there and that's our attorney, or obligatory attorney Brian Dorsey. I live at 2202 Lyons Avenue NE in Renton and Doug lives next door to me. The agenda or order of what we thought we would do tonight I would give you some idea of how we got to where we are today. Why this fence was constructed to begin with and the major challenges , we've had in owning the property without the fence and what's happened after the fence has been built. Then I'm going to turn it over to Doug, Doug is going to talk about why the fence was constructed the way it was and why we felt we didn't need and have any of these kinds of issues initially or at any time because we did, we read the code also before we even constructed the fence and lastly in terms of the technical issues and the variance criteria Brian Dorsey will finish that up and give us a conclusion. So to start out I bought the property before or had our house before Doug did and it wasn't long at all that there were people traipsing through the land. This Tract J as he talks about being zoned residential that's fine the homeowners' is obligated to maintain it but I'll tell you it is used as a public park and I have pictures here that I will show you in a little bit that show that. But there is a swing back there, there's a fire pit and there is a very well established trail system long before this homeowners association fong before this was ever platted, the people that live behind here this is unincorporated King County and they travel through there and pick up the public bus up on Summit or on Sunset and so that habit is very very well established long before these houses were ever built and I had no idea of that until all of a sudden I own this house and people are walking through my yard and we're not talking only one or two we're talking 6-8 on a daily basis but I just happen to be home and I work 8-9 hours a day. And so, these are people from little kids riding bicycles to people that are in college walking through 'cause I quizzed some of them and I tried being nice, I tried being mean none of that stuff made, it didn't make any difference. It's a very well established trail system and no matter what I had to say about it, it wasn't going to change the habits thafve been established long before these things were ever built. And they want to pick up the public bus or there's other playgrounds and things like that. So anyway, the point here is that and I have pictures of these very well established trail systems and I understand it's done as residential I can tell you how it's being used. So when the neighbors that we had next to us, doing my fence and not dOing the neighbor next door was not going to do anything. In fact, the main trail was whatever, coincidentally exactly on our property line between the two and that goes over the little stream and which doesn't have that Board of Adjustment Minutes, July 28, 2. Page 5 of 24 Chair. Wallace: Kevin Schulz: Chair. Wallace: Kevin Schulz: much water in it and back to uninco"rporated King County. But the, anyway, so that the point of this was the neighbors I had next door we knew that they weren't intending to stay in the house for very long they were not willing to do anything with the fence. And all brutal honesty when Doug moved in and I started talking to him a little bit it was one of the first conversations I ever had was saying, "By the way would you be at all interested in helping me build a fence back here?" And when I got agreement that he was willing to do that I was thrilled to death. And it wasn't too hard to convince him, I said, "By the way, I know you haven't been in this house very long here but just watch what happens." And it was within weeks that we started planning putting this thing together. The other thing was then the other motivation that I had was that about three weeks into owning the property a Sheriff came driving through our neighborhood and my wife was outside and he slowed down arid rolled down his window and he said, 'Well by the way I'm really not supposed to sort of mention this but you might want to know that the red house behind you is a third level sex offender." And she's lik~, "I really do appreciate having that information." So again, additional concern not only is the traffic and the playing, the kids playing and swinging back there I got a sex offender back there! I have a six and half year old daughter! Anyway, so between those things I was just beside myself. Doug has two children as you can see and so we've got three children here that are little and there are tons of children in this neighborhood. And I felt very uncomfortable having people traipsing through my yard all the time, not knowing who these people were. As I said we tried to make a diligent effort of reading the code. I thought at this pOint, with your permission I would like to just show some of the pictures that would give you some context of what we are doing here. That'll be great. So you can see that the actual property ... 1 don't have good pictures for that...of the open spaces that are inside Stonegate themselves, there are a number of different sections of them they're in excess of ten acres. Mr. Schulz I'm not sure we're picking you up when you're back there. The open spaces, there's a number of different open spaces within Stonegate and to configure the houses and property and you know whatever. Of all of the open spaces that are inside Stonegate property is in excess of ten acres, the one that runs behind our property is over an acre alone. And so when you look at how lush it is in the summer time and I'll show some of these here you'll see that ifs less of an issue right now when you've got all of the these things grown up. The bushes and the trees and things are fairly lush and fairly thick although again with the established trail system I mean you can clearly walk through there. So when he talks about it having being maintained there is no maintaining. The only maintenance that goes through they rate the trees on a scale of red, yellow, green every six months as I've since learned and that's the only maintenance that goes on the rest ofthis ... thisis wild open park territory. So anyway, my point is that is in the wintertime over here these house are look a lot closer than they really are. When you have no vegetation there at all. Now here's another example and this right behind my house and there is a white trailer of sorts there's a truck sort of a utility kind of truck that's parked there most of the time I mean it's not the greatest of views believe me. This is the other thing that we did was that I have a berm it's a 4-foot berm right up against this fence and so you can see that when I stand in my yard I mean I'm not seeing an 8-foot fence I have the equivalent of a 4-foot fence. And so again, when I stand on my deck I can hardly see my fence and when you stand street when you stand on Lyons Avenue you can see about this much if you're standing on the street because these yards slope as this gentleman was saying and at the very back of my property I have 4-foot drop. Board of Adjustment Minutes, July 28, 2004 Page 6 of 24 Chair. Wallace: Kevin Schulz: Chair. Wallace: Kevin Schulz: Chair. Wallace: Kevin Schulz: Jason Jordan: Kevin Schulz: Jason Jordan: Kevin Schulz: Jason Jordan: Chair. Wallace: Can you do us a favor? \ Sure. Can you put some letter or a number on these pictures that you're showing so maybe we can call them back? We actually did. Are they on there? Yeah. You can't maybe see them but this first one here is actually #7. Yeah can you do that? Okay, we've got #7 which just shows again this is really right between our two properties our property line here and where that row of trees are that's exactly where that whole trail thing move right across into this other development. This was picture #12 just showing the berm in the back of my yard. Can I pass this out now? Sure. This is a summary of the photos. Oh okay, great. George Feighner: I think we have them. Chair. Wallace: We got some of them but we didn't get all of them. Jason Jordan: You got some of them but these came in after the report was done. George Feighner: Oh, okay. Jason Jordan: Kevin Schulz: These came in on Monday. And this is picture #13 and showing the house behind here and how thick it is. Photo #10 was the 4th one I showed showing again how the 4-foot drop on the back of my property and then again it's not by any means looking like an 8-foot fence in the back of my yard. This is the fence in Doug's yard and it's hard to see it but the fence itself is right here so he has less of a berm on that side of the property but again the idea was and when we built this was that the fence looked level across a few properties if you actually follow the topography of these two yards I mean its gonna look like this it looks sort of ridiculous. So there are sections in here where it's a fair amount less than 8-feet just depending on what the topography is back there 'cause it's you know it's fairly rolling. This is showing on the right side of my property, I'm sorry the last photo was photo #1 and this one's photo #6 and again this is showing if you're standing in my yard again that's what you see it's about a 4-foot fence and then on the right hand side of me that's a true 6-foot fence it's between the two properties on the other side from Doug not on the Doug side. This is a bit of a disturbing photo this is showing it's hard to see sort of the established trail is right here and there's a pole back there I'm not sure what the use is but you'll also see the fact that there's some old clothes back there and it's not like people have been just walking through they're Board of Adjustment Minutes, July 28, • Page 70124 obviously spending time back there. And this is the other one that I think really shows the point of what is going on here's this beautiful this not the utility truck this is the pick-up truck that's bl:lck there, right here, it's hard to see but you'll see that those are handle bars from a bicycle and that's attached to a rope so that's a tree swing and this right here is a fire pit and this directly behind my property. So when you've got a berm like I do you put a 6-foot fence over there it's going to be very easy for them to get over it. This is photo #14 the previous one was not numbered, the other thing I want to show I'm gonna go back to the 3rd to the last one I showed you it's hard for you to see but right here is a red house that's the third degree sex offender, that is directly behind my house. So those are the photos I was intending to show, are there other questions or would you like ,for me to turn it over to Doug? Jim Jacques: I have a question. So on the opposite side of the fence, your house on the opposite side of the fence of the 8-foot fence is that the same elevation as your berm drops down and then the fence and it's level on the other side? Kevin Schulz: Again, I think you can actually see some of this. There's actually a creek back there and I think sometime long before I was around there was actually a fair amount of water and it's I can't really remember if it's Coal Creek I don't remember, but anyway the point is that there is a little bit of water in here so there is a natural banking there was a stream of sorts there. So where our property when it berms to the 4-feet it gets flat and it'll go down again to allow for the what had been water in there and come back up and you can see that this here is probably I want to estimate probably about 3% some feet over rising up over here. Jim Jacques: Ok, I guess I didn't say it right. So say the first three (3) or four (4) feet on the other side of your fence, is it the same elevation as where your berm drops down? Kevin Schulz: ' I'm a do my best to answer your question. A berm of 4-feet on the house side of the fence, lets put it that way? Jim Jacques: No, on the opposite side, the other side of the fence. Kevin Schulz: On the other opposite side it would be a straight 8-feet. Jim Jacques: So you got basically if the guy standing there he's got an 8-foot fence Kevin Schulz: That's true. Jim Jacques: Or if the guy is standing there he's got a 6-foot fence. Kevin Schulz: Right, but my hedge on that is the fact the topography changes so there are spots in there it's sort of a rolling, bilJY.,sQrtof ,an area so there are certainly sections over there, there's a tree stump and a bit of a hump over there, so there are sections where it's a true 8-feet on the one side there are other sections where it would be much closer to four (4) five (5) feet maybe. Jim Jacques: Ok. Kevin Schulz: It's hilly. Jim Jacques: Yeah so, I guess my question is I kind of listened to you, my question I'm a little confused. Was the fence built for to keep people out or was it built to not see the surrounding areas behind you? I Board of Adjustment Minutes, July 28, 2004 Page 80124 Kevin Schulz: Jim Jacques: Kevin Schulz: Jim Jacques: Kevin Schulz: Jim Jacques: Kevin Schulz: Jim Jacques: Kevin Schulz: Both. Absolutely both, because there are sections over there like where the stump is where it would be very easy to leap over that fence. So, your neighbor on either side of you they have a 6-foot fences? On the side of Doug there is no fence. So those people are relatively new to the neighborhood but they have some of the trespass issues but it's dramatically reduced with this fence being here. - So your side yard fences «:ire 6-feet? The one on the other side of us is a 6-foot that's true. But what's over there is much, much more lush and it would be very difficult to walk back there from where their yards are going maybe further north. If you look at this here, this is a 6-foot fence and this is a 6-foot fence you can see that they are basically squishes over here you really cannot walk back here. Where it is traversable is basically everything else, but from this point upward you really just simply can't walk back there it's just too thick. Where I was going was that they can't maybe get over your area code fence but could they go to a side yard and jump over your 6-foot fence? I mean what does this really Not really, it's too lush; it's very very lush, it would be very difficult actually to do. Thank you. I did bring letters from the people that would be most directly impacted. These people here aren't really going to see it, the unincorporated King County. I have letters from Steve Winn and his wife where they are relatively new owners of this property here. George Feighner: What lots are them? Kevin Schulz: Chair. Wallace: That's 44 and I have a letter from Steve Winn and it talks about it, it says that, "Since the fence went up, foot and bicycle traffic crossing our yard has more or lesS eliminated and some of the trails in the greenbelt are starting to grow back again." He said, "Doug and Kevin have asked us to give our thoughts on a 6-foot fence versus the present fence and it is our opinion that a 6-foot fence would not provide the sense of security and screening. A 6-foot fence would provide essentially no screening effect for our properties and therefore would be essentially worthless from that standpoint. We believe that most of the security afforded by the fence could be retained with a 6-foot fence; however, there are factors that make the present fence much more desirable. Doug has shown us the indentatioris he says were made by children playing with bb-guns in the greenbelt. Given our limited observation of these children it is entirely a believable story and we strongly suspect that incidents similar to this are highly likely to reoccur in the future, be they with rocks, bullets or fireworks having this park behind us. Therefore, we think that the more fence height the better therefore, recommending granting our neighbors the fence variance." So they are the ones that own the property here. I have letters from the property owners here, here and here and they are all an endorsement of it. So I'm hoping that helps. And I can read other letters if you want them. You know it's one of the only ways of getting them into the record for as far as our consideration that I know. Board of Adjustment Minutes, July 28, • Page 9 of 24 Kevin Schulz: Jason Jordan: Chair. Wallace: Kevin Schulz: Chair. Wallace: Kevin Schulz: Jason Jordan: Kevin Schulz: Chair. Wallace: Kevin Schulz: Ok. As a suggestion you can just make them exhibits and then you don't necessarily have to read the whole entire letter you just note that the exhibit it is what it is or you can read the entire letter whatever your pleasure is. You just want to give us some highlights? Yeah I was just going to say, the paragraph from ... You ask a good question about the 6-foot fence over here and this is the Tribble Family here and they said that, "Our property is graded very similarly to the Schulz's and we have a 6-fo'ot fence on the back of our rear lot line. It basically has no screening effect but in our case its pretty much ok because behind our lot is very dense growth within the greenbelt area. That isn't true for behind Kevin and Doug, where the greenbelt behind their lot is much less dense. You can see through to the other properties on the other side, particularly in the spring, late fall and winter. So we can easily understand why they want a couple of extra feet on their fence because people can't traverse ours." That's in her letter. The other two letters are very similar, these' are the folks that live directly across the street and again the comment that was made, 'We have witnessed much less much foot traffic and bicycle traffic in our neighborhood since the fence was built. We are not convinced that a comparable 6-foot fence would provide the same sense of screening or security, due to all the activity in the greenbelt area." Ok so go ahead and submit them to Mr. Jordan for us. Those are the originals I didn't make copies of them. Do you want copies back? No. We can make some. Are there any questions, or I'll tum it over to Doug? George Feighner: I have one other question. According to this map here, the greenbelt starts behind lot #39 is that correct? ' Kevin Schulz: Yes, it does. George Feighner: Starts or finishes wherever you would start from. Kevin Schulz: Yes, it basically sort of gets~queezed into and becomes these other properties up here. So Doug will talk about the homework that we did prior to the creation of the fence thinking that we were in safe territory. Chair. Wallace: Thank you. Doug Chappelle: Hi, I'm Doug Chappelle and my wife Carol is here along with my daughter Christine and Andrew, we live at 2208 Lyons Avenue NE in Renton. I'd like to thank everyone for being here tonight. I realize that you guys are volunteers and I really do appreciate the work that you put into this and I can honestly say I wish I wasn't here. I am a licensed professional engineer in the State of Washington and I would be embarrassed to stand up here before you today and say that I hadn't read the code before we did this. In fact, I did read the code and it is within my job description on a I Board of Adjustment Minutes, July 28, 2004 Page 100124 day-to-day basis to work with codes, interpret them, analyze them and essentially build products that conform to codes. So like I say, what Brian suggested that I do is go through the analysis I went through in reading the code that led to the conclusion that ultimately resulted in us building an a-foot fence. But before I do that let me say, we had options. I actually drove Kevin nuts with some of the options that I came up with, a 6-foot fence made out of cedar with 4-foot pOints and 6 inch planks or 4 inch planks, what it would cost, what could we have, does it need to be on the property line or would you rather have it on top of the berm, is to be straight or does it need to follow the topography and I kind of forced him to consider all of these things just because of my engineering nature I guess. But how did the a-foot fence come into consideration? And the answer is I read 4-4-440 in here starting off with Section A and what it is that the City intended to regulate and worked my way through it and came through D and said well residential allows up to 6-foot or 72:' fence and kept reading and I get to paragraph A where they say, Standards for CommerciaVlndustrial and Other Uses and when I get to Section E5 where they say, Special Provisions -Fences for Mobile Home Parks, Subdivisions or Planned Unit Developments may vary from these regulations as provided for in the respective code sections. So I centered in on the term "subdivision" because Stonegate is indeed a subdivision. As stated on the plat that was accepted by the City, the Mayor, and voted ultimately on by the City Council. So in looking at the subdivision and the face of the plat the conclusion I came to was based on this note on the very bottom here is, the plat is subject to the covenants, conditions and restrictions recorded under some King County number and were given all of those when we moved in and so I reviewed those and fences are indeed covered in there and it says that you need to go to the Architectural Control Committee within Stonegate to get approval to build a fence of any nature or any form and so on and so forth. So being the engineer and hence less social than most people I asked Kevin to go to the Architectural Control Committee and so he did and he talked with the then President at the time and several of the other Board Members describing the fence that we were talking about discuss some of the conditions whether it be 6 or a and this, that and the other thing because for a long time the neighborhood, not just Kevin, not just me, not just our direct neighbors but the neighborhood had been concerned about the trespass that was happening within the neighborhood and at the same time, not enough of the neighborhood was concerned about it in order to erect a big fence or do something more drastic. So they were essentially leaving it up to us on a piece mail basis to do something about that. So in any event, he talked with the Board Members and got their verbal concurrence that a fence sounded okay. In this case, ana-foot fence on the property line or as we described it a fence constructed of a-foot bards level across the top, shaped to follow the topography underneath it and they said it was okay to go forward with that. On that basis, I concluded that we were okay and legal to go ahead and build a fence and I will mention that this discussion happened, Carol and I moved in, in December of '02 and the discussions happened in the February time frame. We priced everythif.1g out in March and April and the fence went up over the Memorial Day weekend. We predrilled the holes with a post hole digger but the fence, we poured the concrete, we put up the boards over Memorial Day weekend in May and the week after that we painted the fence and it was done and traffic miraculously dropped off and so on and so forth. So that was the basis of the fence, the story behind how it was constructed, the decisions that we made, who we talked with, again at the time I didn't feel based on what I had read in the code that it was necessarY for me to talk with Planning Division. But you know what they say about the word assume, so I guess that's why I'm here today. In retrospect, obviously, I will clearly be talking with the Planning Division just to ensure that we have a clear understanding. When it came about in December, and I know I talked with Kevin about this earlier but when we first spoke with Paul Baker and I forget the other gentleman's name here right after the time of the Notice of Violation, I noted that although our property is not yet graded the way we would like to have it and this is '. Board of Adjustment Minutes, July 28, • Page 11 0'24 still in advance and I'd like to grade it out, so that it is flatter. But one of the things I need to understand in order to come up with a correct plan is how do I need to finish off the grade so that we can retain the height of the fence today. I think at some point, its probably not relevant at this point but one of the pictures we may show you shows some different cases where a fence has been constructed and things have been graded up next to it in varying forms and so one of the questions that will have as a kind of a rhetorical question is at what point because I believe you were asking the question as well, it slopes down, flattens out and then it begins to drop off to the stream. When it becomes an issue of judgment call there as to how much of a drop off is adequate and where would you make the consideration on the high side of the fence? So when we first started talking with Paul we were asserting that if the grading job had been completed correctly this would never had been an issue we would have 4-feet on his side so on and so forth, but I won't go into that right now. What I would like to do at this point is turn it over to Mr. Dorsey who will handle the technical points, he's had the benefit of both Kevin and my observations and in particular my technical expertise but I'll let him put it into codes and legalities of that and what are positions are but before I do that at some point I think we're gonna wind up showing some additional pictures and. I didn't have a chance to pull this together by the time we submitted that package that is just now been handed out to you. What this is, is a Renton Zoning Map with pOints on it that will show you where the pictures in the rest of the package were taken when we went off to look for other examples of fences that are out there that are built in a residential setting abutting a park, or public use property where the fence or the hedge.in some cases exceeds 8-feet and then there are some other examples that are interesting at least from a technical stand point because it helps me better understand how the City's going to interpret codes for things that I'd Ii\<e to do in the future. So with your permission, I'll go ahead and hand these out now. . Chair. Wallace: That'd be great. Doug Chappelle: There is one comment I guess I want to address right before I turn it over to Mr. Dorsey and Kevin read one of the letters from the neighbor on the north, that would be the Winns who live in tracts 4 in lot 44 and they mentioned something about bb's and I apologize this is picture #16 and it doesn't show up very well at all but it turns out its grown up enough that I couldn't get to take the pictures where some of the other indentations are but right here this little mark is from a bb. I pried a bb out of the fence there and the story there goes along the lines of Andrew and I were out in the back playing on that play yard that you saw in one of the pictures in early December of last year just in fact after we received the original Notice of Violation and I kept hearing clicking noises sometimes they'd be over there and sometimes they'd be behind me essentially wh.ere the house was and I didn't make much of it there's noises all the time eventually I look over or something catches my eye something's moving I see little feet running underneath the fence and I look back there where its . -all grown up and I was like curious so I walked over there and this little 8-9 year bld- boy comes running around the fence and .lJe stops with his pellet gun and he's pointing at another boy who's sitting over 30~feet away or so just on the other side of where the stream is and he starts plugging the guy with his bb gun and the guy flinches when the bb hits him and the other kid is armed with a paint ball gun and it turns out I'd been hearing that it just didn't register there would be the whoosh splat kind of thing. There were paint ball marks back then but I can't find any more now but I would have had a picture of that for you. They're running around back there with no eye-glasses or anything just having kid kind of fun. Fourth of July they could have substituted for the Ivers display back there so you know, I'll be honest we asked them to address that because I showed them these things I didn't want to be up here saying well that's what that is there is other people that have witnessed this and seen that and I think that's in large part all of these circumstances have led me to believe I Board of Adjustment Minutes, July 28, 2004 Page 12 of 24 that we actually did the right thing by putting up an 8-foot fence and on that basis I'll turn it over to Brian. Chair. Wallace: Mr. Jordan you have a question? Jason Jordan: Just for the record can I state the exhibit list so that we're all on the same page or do you want me to do that at the end? I've been trying to keep track of them. Chair. Wallace: Well if you've got them tracked now, why don't you go ahead? Jason Jordan: Ok Chair. Wallace: Got numbers and letters there? Jason Jordan: I do. Chair. Wallace: Ok, go ahead if you want. I'm sorry Jason did you want to go ahead. Go ahead and share that with us. Jason Jordan: So Exhibit #5 is the letter from Steve & Angela Winn, Exhibit #6 is the letter from John & Stacey Tribble, Exhibit #7 is the letter from Tom & Sara Safley, Exhibit #8 is the letter from Bill Lofgren, Exhibit #9 is the Zoning Map, and Exhibit #10 is the pictures, the black and white list of pictures that they've been referring to. Chair. Wallace: Thank you. Brian Dorsey: Good evening, my name is Brian Dorsey up to six months ago I was from Wenatchee other side of the mountain so your zoning code is larger than anything we had over there so this is a new experience for me as well. I'm also as Kevin referred to me as the obligatory attorney, thafs what happens when you have a family friend who needs legal services, you wind up coming down pro bono. So I have no vested interest in this let me assure you. Chair. Wallace: Brian Dorsey: \ Brian can you go ahead and state your address for us please? Oh yes, 16088 NE 85th Street, Redmond. Chair. Wallace: Thank you. Brian Dorsey: Hopefully, Kevin and Doug have given you the factual background, my job is to try to fit those facts into the variance criteria, so that hopefully this all makes sense as to why a variance should be granted. Something that will be key to all of this is in your . .. fence code provisions the map that Doug gave you. What your ferice code states is that it has the provision governing residential uses and then in Sub-section E it has standards for commercial, industrial and other uses. So for anything other than residential you allow an 8-foot high fence and down in this provision, when we talk about other uses it specifically includes industrial, utility and public uses ... public uses. And now what you'll see in that drawing, the map what Doug is going to show you later on. In a span of 90 minutes they found these 20 other examples where you have 8-foot high fences separating a church from a home, separating a school from a home, separating a park from a home. Your code specifically allows 8-foot high fences to separate these kind of public uses from residential property. So it's not as though you do not have 8-foot high fences next residences. You do not have 8-foot high fences separating one residence from another residence. And if Doug or Kevin's property backed on to another neighboring home we wouldn't be here tonight. A 6- " Board of Adjustment Minutes, July 28, • Page 13 of 24 foot high fence is great to shake hands and to share stories over the fence with a neighbor who has swing set and kids playing in their backyard. A 6-foot high fence is not adequate to provide screening or security to someone who backs on to what is a public use. Your code recognizes that, it allows for 8-foot high fences. So when we go into the very first criteria that your staff talked to you about: The applicant suffers a hardship due to some special circumstance, one of them being location or surroundings of the subject property. The thing that we argue is the special circumstance is the surrounding of this property. This property is unique it backs onto an open, natural, vegetative space. We're not talking about setting a precedent that everyone can put up 8-foot high fences in their neighborhoods, we're talking about homes that back onto what are equivalent to public spaces. Also, your staff talks about this is a private area, this is something the Stonegate homeowners wanted; this is their little private mecca, this is not the case. You look on the face of the plat that was required; Stonegate was required to dedicate this Tract, Tract J as a natural open space. On the face of the plat it says, "And further dedicates to the use of the public all of the easements and Tracts shown on this plat for all public purposes as indicated thereon including but not limited to parks, open space, utilities and drainage." This is not, now granted later on what they say is Tract J; which is the one right behind this property is going to be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association. That's very common these days, cities and counties, they don't want to take on these spaces, they want to require the open space, they want to preclude it from being developed, they want to designate the reserve but the City does not want the liability, the City doesn't want to take it off the tax rolls. So great, we burden these folks by having to have what is a defacto park but it is not a private space that they chose to have, it was something that was required as the condition of this plat. And on the note of the plat it goes on to say, "dedication of sensitive areas tracts, sensitive area setbacks conveys to the public a beneficial interest in the land within the tract setback area." These are not private garden spaces that homeowners association decided to have for their lush enjoyment. This is a natural vegetative space that the City, or in essence the County required be designated; that the County required be set aside; that the County requires be maintained in a. natural vegetative state. These folks don't simply back onto a park they back onto a park that is unmaintained, unsupervised, unlighted. They have all the problems that folks have who live adjacent to parks, but they have none of the maintenance, they have none of the security, they have none of the lighting. So that's why this is such a critical issue to them. So when we talk about also in this first criteria, that is the special circumstances that is creating the hardship. Then it goes on to say that the strict application of the zoning code would deprive the subject property owners of rights and privileges enjoyed by .other property owners. Again, you will see photographs, every other property who abuts a school, a park, a church, a playground they get to- have an 8-foot high fence. But the staffs position here is well this is private, this is a private tract, this is not a public tract, therefore, they don't get to have the 8-foot high fence, despite the fact that they are just similarly situated' next to what is an open space as any other church ... 1 think these folks will tell you they'd much -rather back- onto a church or a school or to a public park that is properly maintained, but they don't they back onto a natural vegetative area that is force to be maintained in the state that it is which is unmaintained. So in response to number one, we think those criteria are there, there are special circumstances here and these folks simply want to have the same benefits that other folks who back onto parks, churches, schools, playgrounds have. Number two that the granting of the variance will not materially detriment to the public welfare. Again, you look at the purpose right here of the fence code, it talks about the fact that the regulations are intended to provide and maintain adequate sight distances along public right-of-ways and intersections to encourage safe ingress and egress from individual properties. This Planning Department has announced that there is nothing about this fence that violates public health safety or welfare. It does not detrimental to the public interest in any means whatsoever, it I Board of Adjusbnent Minutes, July 28, 2004 Page 140124 doesn't impact any adjoining property owners in fact the adjoining property owners favor this fence. So that point is already conceded by the Planning Department. Number three: that the approval shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity subject to the same zoning. This is where I'm going to ask Doug to come back up and show you the photos that he and Kevin took corresponding to that map you have. That will show over 20 other fences in your City where you have residences separated from and I don't want to labor the point, well maybe I'll ask Doug to expedite this and I know that we are all volunteering our time this evening, just maybe pick 4 or 5 of these, but each one of those pOints on that map highlights a fence that is 8-feet in height that separates a residential property from some adjoining use, be it a church, be it a school, playground 'or public right-of-way. And again, that's your own code that clearly allows that. The only difference here is that the contention well this is a private space versus a public space, so please keep that in mind as Doug goes through these photos. Doug Chappelle: I'll try to edit these on the fly for brevity of course you've got the 50 or so available to you in black and white. I apologize for the quality that's paired down from literally 200 pictures or so that ,we'd took in that brief interval. The first one I'll point you to is 21 here, one moment please, forgot my own decoder ring. I'd hate to accuse that this fence existing somewhere where it didn't. This one's on a fence-hedge combo on Aberdeen and 24th on the locator map you'll note that's right here up in the upper northwest corner of the City. Moving right along, Monroe and Sunset this one was of interest of us because again he has a piece of sloping property in the center of the fence there, we didn't want to go on his property to put our little measuring stick up there but I'd estimate that it is very close to if not exceeding 8-feet. Chair. Wallace: I'm sorry what number was that one? Doug Chappelle: I'm sorry that's number 22. Number 23 now is at Union near 12th. 9%-foot fence you can see that they've built up a retaining wall there, then put a six or so foot fence on top of that then built an 8-foot bridge there until they can connect to the next piece of fence and number 24 is the same fence there but it was taken to show that you can see light through the fence and all that illustrates is there isn't fill on the other side, that it's 9%-feet on both sides of the fence. What you'll see in slide 25 is a topological circumstance here where they're trying to level off the top of the fence to follow the topography underneath the ground underneath the fence, in this case the highest board here towards the center I'd estimate is in the neighborhood of 8% -9-feet. Here we see on slide 26 we see a circumstance here where we've got some sloping topography on a park joining a house. In fact, 27 shows it better the house and its adjoinment to the park. But again there on that corner I'd estimate the fence to easily exceed 6-feet. In slide 30 we see Glenco Park I believe that is, this is an example of the 4-foot fence is on the sidewalk the point of interest is there's a 6-foot fence embedded inside of what I'd estimate to be a 10-foot hedge that the owner has planted it has literally grown up inside of the fence to extend the barrier and again the code not making the distinction between a fence or a hedge but in this case it appears the City has erected a 6-foot fence and the owners felt that's not adequate for his privacy and security. Slide 31 is an example of a residential fence you can see the apartments in the back there and the fence is estimated at 8% -8%-feet. Slide 32 is the other side of that fence where you can see the landscaping in front kind of obscures the fact that it protects nothing in the back; again another example of a very tall fence separating public use from private use. Moving to slide 37 this is an example of a perimeter fence around a school; again there is some complexity where I didn't want to trespass on anyone's yard so this is at Maplewood Heights Elementary. So slide 37 shows that the fence is indeed an 8-foot fence. Again, I didn't want to cross into their yard slide 38 shows their yard, that fence continues on Board of Adjustment Minutes, July 28, • Page 150124 Jim Jacques: and intersects up with their fence makes a perpendicular tum and kind of rounds the comer there where the fence heights are maintained with the slope there's not any berrning or finishing there. This here on the is part of that perimeter fence here where they wound up with a double fence in an attempt to provide safety on one side and safety and screening on the other and it actually exceeds on up to 8%-feet. Slide 40 is at the comer of Anacortes and Sunset this was particularly interesting to me because its constructed of 6-foot slats of which you will notice on the bottom here that as the terrain slopes away they actually leave a gap underneath the fence in order to keep the fence level but at that one edge the top rail of the fence is very nearly 8-feet and again that's a case of residential property there abutting public use space. Excuse me. Doug Chappelle: I'm sorry? Jim Jacques: I'm sorry, I have kind of a quick question. So some of these wood fences do you know if the City just let the people put them up or they just maybe chose to do it on their own, you don't really know? Doug Chappelle: You're right, I don't know. Jim Jacques: Maybe they're in violation also or maybe they're in violation. Doug Chappelle: I don't know. Well based on the argument that the staff made earlier today I would suggest that you as the Board of Adjustment would have the best experience intuitively on that basis because these people would be coming to you on a regular basis to get the variance because the City's position is these sorts of fences aren't allowed unless you guys have granted the variance. Jim Jacques: Well I've been on the Board 12-13 years and we've never had a variance, this is the first one we've ever had that I remember. So I guess my point was ... Chair. Wallace: For a fence. Jim Jacques: For a fence in this particular case, but I guess what I'm trying to say is I guess a lot of people probably do things without permits and could be in some sort of violation maybe the City doesn't know about it. Doug Chappelle: If that's true I would suggest that you answered your own question and I would further extend to suggest that on the concern about setting a precedent in a defacto sense the precedent has already been established there are 8-foot fences out there in residential to public use out there. The question that I believ.e the City needs to think about on the staff side is:-' whaf do they want to do about it? Do they want to bring all o( these people into compliance? Does the code need to be reexamined by the City to clarify exactly what the intent is or is there some other third option out there? So I recognize what their concern about precedent, I deal with that everyday in my job too I'm very sensitive to that issue, but I believe that in a similar sense there is a problem here if you are going to take these hyper-technical pOints of view with respect to an 8-foot fence in a residential setting is just flat not allowed well okay, but that maybe what the code says but the evidence clearly shows that the people out there think something else. Board of Adjustment Minutes, July 28, 2004 Page 160124 Wayne Jones: I have 'a question for staff. In a case where a school district comes in for constructing a new school, school's conditional use permit on residential property and quite often you go with an 8-foot fence screening around there how's that handled? Jason Jordan: It's generally handled as a condition of the site plan approval or the conditional use permit for approval and we do rely on the use, as a school is clearly a public use. As a general rule if it abuts or is adjacent to a residential neighborhood they usually come in with a plan to show an 8-foot high fence to screen for themselves because they have liability issues too, but if not, we generally require that as a condition of the project approval. WaYl1e Jones: And in the case of a ... I'm just picturing McLendon's where you have a commercial or industrial use next to a residential? Jason Jordan: The commercial use, if the fence is on the commercially zoned property it's allowed to do an 8-foot high fence, as long as it's on the commercial property. If they want to put the fence on the residential property then it would be lowered to a 6-foot high fence but because it's a commercial zone property we rely on what the zone of the subject site is and if it's zoned commercial then we allow them to do an 8-foot high fence per the regulations. Chair. Wallace: Let's go ahead and let Mr. Chappelle finish. Doug Chappelle: This last site here I believe is Windsor Hills Park we have a 6-foot fence that the owner has grown up a 12-foot hedge around on this side. On the opposite side of the entry to the park the owner has done exactly the same thing except this time he's only grown up a 10-foot fence, it's a different owner, different plat same situation. You saw the map there's basically an entry and then the park opens out around that. What was more interesting to us in this case was this particular piece of property where you can see the City has constructed what I estimated to be a 6}2 or so foot fence and the owner has built up a wall upon which he has constructed another fence and aggregation it exceeds in my estimation 11-feet and you can kind of see through the slats, he appears to have filled in some but clearly not all the way up to the bottom of the wall and the boards on the fence if I do my little extrapolation the boards are at least 6-feet. So if he hasn't filled all the way up to the base of the wall then on the other side the grade would obviously make the height of the fence on higher side being more than 6-feet. Nearly done here. This is an example of new community; you can see the tags on the windows where they're constructing what looks to be like multi-family'residences here; 6-foot boards with a foot and a half or so on top adding up to about an 8-foot fence they're separating it from, in this case it's going to be a commercial property, let me jump to that, I'm now on picture 48 here where you can see fence slightly different view, in this case its constructed below the razor wire up to be about 9-feet over 'on the side away from the gate the razor wire takes it up over 10-feet. At the other end of this fence and this is one of the examples I was eluding to earlier we see on one side an 8-foot fence ~nd then we can see underneath the fence to see that they've constructed a retaining wall. Because the fence turns a corner I couldn't get a picture of that to see exactly how high up it goes but as I was eluding to earlier it'd be interesting to me to understand how the City would measure this fence because there is room to slip the two-by-four in on the other side so it's not right up against the fence. The question being is how close does the finished grade if you will have to be to the fence in order for that to count for the high side of the fence, that is one of the questions I asked back in December and I still don't understand the answer to that but perhaps at some point I'll be able to get that figured out so I can figure out how to finish the grade in my property to make things be even better. Last two pictures, last two or three pictures here last two I guess, this is a now down at Renton High School an owner abutting the school there '\ Board of Adjustment Minutes. July 28 •• Page 170124 there's what appears to be a 6 or 7 -foot fence that the school has put in and in this case the owner is allowed a native growth hedge it's clear that he maintains it, grow up to approximately 9-feet and then the final example here is industrial to residential, you see the house in the back what you see then is a 10-foot two-by-four so this McLendon's fence is probably 10-foot 2-inches or so abutting residential property in this case. So it's clear that at least in my mind, that these kinds of fences that are not necessarily in compliance with the code the casual observer anyway exist out there and I guess that's the that's one of the points that's I believe is relevant in your consideration of our appeal for the variance. So again, I thank you. Unless there's any questions? Chair. Wallace: Thank you. We might have you back up. Go ahead. Brian Dorsey: Okay. I'll try to wrap this up real quickly. The point of Doug's pictures is not that other people get to do it, so why can't we? The point is that your code specifically recognizes that higher fences are appropriate to separate a residential use from a non-residential use. That's what your code advocates, encourages that, because it recognizes these are not compatible uses. It would be quite an irony to say that the church abutting the residence can construct the 8-foot fence but the property owner two inches on the other side cannot construct the 8-foot fence. That may be a very hyper-technical interpretation of the code I think from the lawyer's perspective we would say if that were the argument that would be not only arbitrary and capricious but in denial of equal protection. There's no rational basis for distinguishing between a residential owner two inches on one side of the line and the non-residential two inches on the other side of the line why one could do an 8-foot and one cannot. I think clearly the contemplation of your code is that a higher fence is appropriate to separate a residential use from a non-residential use and that's what we have here we have a non-residential use. I don't blame the staff I think they're dOing their job they are interpreting the code saying well this is a private plat its not a public park therefore, it doesn't meet the criteria. I would ask this panel to please look through the form to the substance here, we have area that is not going to be used for residential, it cannot be used for residential the face of your plat requires that it not be used for residential it requires that it be maintained in an open natural vegetative state and as long as it maintains that state it's going to be used equivalent as a park. As an area where people are going to congregate, now it's going to be used in that fashion then Doug and Kevin and their family should be allowed the same security and the same screening that most other folks in your town get when they adjoin a park or a school or a church. So that's all I would add on that condition number three. The last being that condition number four that this be the minimum variance that will accomplish the desired purpose. Truth be known, the minimum requirement probably would be more like a 12-foot fence, truly I mean given the grade of the properties and where this area sits and if you're truly going to screen out the ability of folks who are already playing back there and shooting bb-guns you probably need something much higher than an 8~foot fence. to truly give you seeufity'and screening. But the fact is, these folks built what they thought your code allowed, they didn't go out there in the middle night and try to build a fence and then get caught and come to you asking permission. They did what they thought was right, they read your code they saw the subdivision exception under the Subsection E governing 8-foot fences which says these things can be varied, so then they looked to the covenants which is what the plat said to look to. I guess if engineers did lawyers work we'd have more work for lawyers but fortunately that doesn't happen very often, But they made a very I think reasonable and honest evaluation of your code and built the fence that they thought was appropriate and I think your code in all honesty that was the intent and purpose, that a fence of this height is appropriate when separating residential from non- residential. Thank you very much for your time this evening. I Board of Adjustment Minutes, July 28, 2004 Page 180(24 Chair. Wallace: Thank you. We may ask you back up, but in the mean time I'd like to offer the podium for anybodY-who may be in opposition to the, variance request. And I don't see anybody out there. So lets go ahead and show in the record that there wasn't anybody opposed even though they were given due notice of the meeting and I assume notices went out ,in the 300-foot range or so and everybody had a chance to show up. Board members do you have any additional questions you'd like to ask anybody now? Mark Rigas: I have a question. I'm not sure who wants to answer this, maybe Doug but I'm looking at the site plan I'm not sure what the exhibit number is, it's dated May 17, 2004 and it's on the east of the lots 42 and 43 it's Tract J and it says that it's a sensitive area tract so my guess is it's probably like a class 3 wetland or a class 3 stream at one point was designated in there with a 25-foot buffer on either side but seems to me your concern is not Lyons Avenue neighborhood it's the neighborhood to the east of you in unincorporated King County. Was there any thought at asking the Homeowner's Association since Tract J what the attorney said was is privately assessed for taxes but it is a public use have you thought about putting a 6-foot tall fence on the east side of Tract J and then asking the Homeowner's Association to pony up for that, because the whole neighborhood seems to be in favor of keeping these people out. Doug Chappelle: The whole neighborhood is indeed in favor in keeping the security and screening within the neighborhood however they weren't in favor enough of it to actually cough up the money to construct the fence. And subsequent to that I didn't know it at the time but now after having had the opportunity to research all of this I believe the City who would have precluded us based on what the face of the plat says they aren't legally allowed to allow us to go in and damage or disrupt or otherwise prune, in fact what it says is that the stuff within that area cannot be cut, prune, covered by fill, removed or damaged without approval in writing from Renton Development Services Division and so it's not within the Homeowner's Association's power to erect a fence in Tract J. Does that answer your question? Mark Rigas: Yeah. Chair. Wallace: I think you said something to the effect without approval of the City and I don't know if anybody ever asked. Doug Chappelle: To my knowledge it hadn't been asked but I would presume that we wouldn't have even begun to ask unless' the Homeowner's Association would have approved the funding in order to construct the fence otherwise it WOUld've been an immaterial request and the Homeowner's Association was not interested in funding a fence. Wayne Jones: Question to staff. Quite often on sloping topography a homeowner or builder or through the platting process can build a 2-foot -4-foot high rockery on the property line and then build up to a 6-foot fence on top of that. If they were to build a rockery across the back property line and then build a fence on top of that, would that be a violation of the code? Jason Jordan: It depends the answer to your question is if they built a rockery and then they filled up to the rockery in other words if they leveled their site to the rockery, no we'd measure from the high side. If they build a rockery just clearly as a wall and build a fence on top of that then it would be in violation and the maximum there could only be 6-feet combined with the fence and the wall. So in other words, we measure from the high side but it does have to be back filled up to the retaining wall. " 'I.. Board of Adjustment Minutes, July 28, • Page 190'24 Wayne Jones: Jason Jordan: Chair. Wallace: Kevin Schulz: Chair. Wallace: Kevin Schulz: Chair. Wallace: Kevin Schulz: Jason Jordan: Jim Jacques: Jason Jordan: Jim Jacques: Kevin Schulz: Chair. Wallace: If they were to build a 2-foot rockery across the bottom of the fence, fill it up with dirt and cut the boards off, it'd be a legal fence? Well if they built a 2-foot rockery up to the fence, they wouldn't have to cut the boards off, it'd be 6-feet measure from the high side. Right. I would submit that's what we already have and the City takes a position that if you can stick a two-by-four in between this rockery that you're talking about they will measure it from the ground to the top. That's why we're showing Mr. Chappelle can you go ahead and come to the microphone we're having a hard time picking you up there. What is frustrating to me though is that the argument is is that when you read the code it says it talks about finished grade, the finished grade of my property you saw the pictures, when I stand in the back of my property that fence is equivalent to a 4- foot fence. Their position is and I had Mr. Baker come out and we talked about this they take the position, and Doug's argument is how close and how far away is that fence need to be to be able to do what you're talking about. I have a 4-foot berm behind that fence and finished grade says that I have a 4-foot drop and it varies some wherever that fence is and so that there's nothing in the code· that I could see that says anything about this is okay but this is not or that this is okay and this is not and they simply would not and if you can take a sliver and put it between this 2-foot rockery that you're talking about and the fence itself, they're going to measure from bottom of that fence to the top and it's a done deal. Yeah, but the only thing that I can think of is when you measure the height of a building you measure within 5-feet, you have the opportunity to go 5-feet away from the edge of the building to the highest point. This would be compliant if you were actually going to do that. It'd be a done deal. On sloped property, if you have over 10-feet of elevation from one side to the next, Mr. Wallace is correct that you go from the high side and you go out 5-feet from the wall. That actually comes from the building code, the uniform building code and so the planning section just adopted that to ,measure for height. Unfortunately, the fences don't fall under that category but 'yeah, that is correct. So you're saying if they did retain that right up to the fence whether with a rockery or add a block and filled it in, is he correct that the City can stick a 2x4 or something down there an:d .!hat's ~here they'll measure from? I don't know the exact, I mean I don't think that that's necessarily correct. If clearly there's no usable space between the rockery and where the berm ends I don't think they would measure from that. I don't personally go out and measure it; it's typically done by a building inspectors or code enforcement. But that's not my understanding, I mean we try and be as liberal as possible. Did, excuse me, Paul Baker or Bob Arthur tell you that? Absolutely, we were standing in the back of my property. Thank you. Board of Adjustment Minutes, July 28, 2004 Page 20 of 24 Wayne Jones: Could you guys draw a cross-section or have your engineering neighbor draw a cross-section of what the backyard and the fence looks like? Kevin Schulz: Sure, but that was exactly what I've been talking about. I've sent letters over the past year to Zimmerman and to Baker trying explain the fact the code simply says if you have finished grade you get to measure from the highest side and they are very, very adamant that they measure exactly against that fence and will not budge on that at all. It was just very frustrating to me and I couldn't understand their point at all. Jim Jacques: Did they write you a letter or did they just tell you this verbally? Kevin Schulz: No I have both letters and verbally. But this is what I'm talking about, at what point over here is this distance not sufficient for me to build and measure and say my finished grade is here. This is the top of my property right here. Jim Jacques: I think they mean more if you retain that within a couple inches of that fence. It looks as though there are two or three feet from the fence to the ferns and stuff. Kevin Schulz: Absolutely, admittedly as you also probably know if you've got dirt right against the fence like that it's going to rot out. Jim Jacques: Right you would need to retain that wood. I mean that was just an idea, I've seen it done and I never did know how they measured it, but it just doesn't seem very fair that they would stick a tape down there because you stayed an inch away that doesn't sound right. Kevin Schulz: But that is my interpretation of what I was told. Jim Jacques: Thank you. Doug Chappelle: You mentioned Bob Arthur and that brings up a discussion he and I had in December, in fact where I sketched this out for him and we did have a technical discussion regarding where should that be measured from and I documented that it in a letter and sent it to both Bob and Paul. There was some other questions that I asked them which I won't go into right now because they aren't relevant in this context. The discussion that I had with Bob what I remember of it and I haven't talked to him since is he said that essentially off of a 45 or the natural fall line of the soil since it was not retained with rock, would probably be acceptable if he were the one making the observation. Uhfortunately, he wasn't the one making the observation it was Mr. Baker and Mr. Baker clearly has a different interpretation and we attempted to address that with him, I believe it was in April or May and that was the time they had the discussion about the sliver of wood and so on and so forth. But from a technical standpoint and civil engineering standpoint making a berm out of dirt like that its not going to retain its sharp slope there its going to fall over, you know that just playing sandcastles at the beach, it eventually falls over. This type of soil falls over to a 45 degree where as sand can actually hold it for a while until it dries out and then it will slope to 33 degrees. But in any event, we had all those kinds of fun discussions, but that's exactly along the lines of what you were talking about. From my standpoint there is a disparity of opinion within even the code enforcement division as to where the measurement should be made from and where indeed is finished grade. That's not the issue here, the issue here is that if indeed this is an 8- foot fence which at pOints it is and other pOints it is 4% feet, is it entitled to a variance based on the criteria for the variance? I gave those other arguments as being appropriate for some other venue. Board of Adjustment Minutes, July 28.4 Page 21 0'24 Chair. Wallace: Wayne Jones: Jason Jordan: Chair. Wallace: Jason Jordan: Kevin Schulz: Jason Jordan: Chair. Wallace: Wayne Jones: Wayne Jones:- Steve Maxwell: Chair. Wallace: Thank you. Any other questions? It appears staff would like to add from the code. I'd be happy to read directly from the code what the code says in terms of measurement, if the board thought that would be useful? Not sure if you have the code or the code section, but I can do that, if that'll help? Go ahead, what does it say? So I'm in 4-4-040C and its general fence and hedge requirements and then it says item C1 Fence Height Method of Measurement: the height shall be measured from the top elevation of the top board rail or wire to the ground. In cases where a wall is used instead of fence, height shall be measured from the top surface of the wall to the ground on the high side of the wall. Simply if you read the code further it also gives allowances for berms. Grade Differences: Where the finished grade is a different elevation on either side of the fence the height may be measured from the side having the highest elevation. Speaking of berms, I don't want to belabor the point but that was item #3, item #2 says: a berm may not be constructed with a fence on it unless the total height of the berm plus the fence is less than the maximum allowed. So you can't just berm up a piece of property, it actually has to be a retaining wall, in order to meet the fence height. Thank you. Don't see any other questions. I just want to say that I think this was one of the most exhaustively detailed application that we've seen for a long time, so I appreciate all the hard work that you guys poured into this I know this didn't happen over night. So thank you for doing your homework and for spelling it out as clearly as you can, it was really good work. We'd like to close the public hearing portion _of our meeting and open it up for discussion amongst board members. I think I want to pick- up on the point Jim was getting at in his line-of questioning at one point, is that there might be a lot of examples of code violations around the city and criteria #3 addresses that approval shall not constitute a grant of special privilege, and so even though some may have kind of taken advantage of the special privilege by just doing it and getting away with it, were not supposed to grant them. Nonetheless I understand the argument that this really is a condition of a residence against a public use, so I can see both sides of the coin there. It appears the majority of the pictures they submitted are residential uses next to public uses of some sort. Either -against high traffic areas or commercial lise -or schools or MCLendon's Hardware or something like that. So its kind of I think how we interpret the dedication of an open space tract as to whether that's public use or not. ~ I guess it's a public use if certain percentage of the public in the general area uses it either for a thoroughfare or for recreation, apparently in this case that's happening or has happened. It seems like I think they made a fairly convincing argument that it is being used publicly and it was purposely set aside for a use in that they couldn't change the natural quality of it in the end and maybe to the pOint where they couldn't restrict access to it even. Board of Adjustment Minutes, July 28, 2004 Page 22 of 24 Mark Rigos: On a lot of these public tracts they· have these sensitive area tract notices signs where there is heron, wetland stream, keep out, I haven't been out to the site are those signs there that would say to tell the public to stay out? Steve Maxwell: No, it's pretty much just an open woodsy area that separates two neighborhoods. One neighborhood highly more organized than the other, the other neighborhood, there is limited fencing if any and its hard to tell where property lines stop and start and that sort of thing, its more of a rural type neighborhood to the east. Chair. Wallace: You know with all the weaponry in the neighborhood, I thought that shot at that razor wire fence might be effective, if you keep it down to 6-feet. No? Okay. Kevin Schulz: I really very much hoping that we would be able to do that later, but we must do this part first. Steve Maxwell: It sounds to me like at least they had whether they technically violated the provisions of the code or not, in their minds they weren't they looked at the code they checked with the homeowner's association got their blessing and one of the gentleman involved is an engineering of sorts and he read everything he could find it sounded okay to him, so at least I don't think in this case they did this with malice of for- thought so to speak. Mark Rigos: It appears we are leaning a little bit toward approving this, so if we do that we need to word it such that for extenuating circumstances in case that everybody that borders a little tract or something on an interior of a plat or something can't come back and we gave special privilege to do it, we need to be real careful in how we word this. Chair. Wallace: It's too bad that the association COUldn't be a little more active. I know a woman in a neighborhood who saw an area that she thought would make a great park and so she asked the City for a grant which they granted they have a grant application process and then, of course that was public space, but nonetheless they rallied all the neighbors and they got it all fixed up they even have irrigation in it and so there is opportunity to motivate the community to join you efforts of cleaning up spaces like that or at least doing something with it but in this case its seems like its frustrating if its deSignated to remain natural and yet you've got a fire pit out there and bicycles, parts and clothes. Steve Maxwell: It kind of a neighborhood-gathering place for the kids and you know target practice and that sort of thing, that's"frustrating. Chair. Wallace: I hope that wasn't my kids out there. Does anybody feel up to crafting a motion? Jim Jacques: Steve was doing good. Chair Wallace: He is kind of on a role isn't he? Steve Maxwell: I think I'll watch somebody do it first once and then I'll become an expert after that. Chair. Wallace: As the Chair I'm unfortunately exempt from that role. Mark Rigos: I move that we approve the variance. Steve Maxwell: I could have said that. f Board of Adjustment Minutes, July 28, e Page 23 of 24 Wayne Jones: Chair. Wallace: Mark Rigos: Wayne Jones: Jason Jordan: Wayne Jones: Chair. Wallace: I'd like to amend that to say that approve the variance by recognizing that it is an exterior . Hold on just one technicality here do you want to go ahead and release your motion to Wayne? Sure, I release my motion to Wayne. I see where he's going with this. We should find that there is no grant of special privilege as lots border on a labeled open space on the exterior of the plat bordering on property that is not within the City and clearly being used for public uses and that the. exclusion for fencing next to public area should be allowed. Well I get the point that in fact the Board determines that the Tract J open space tract is in fact a public use and warrants an 8-foot high fence and so I have finding·s and conclusions for both approval and denial as I try and always do I can add, I don't have that as a specific finding but I can certainly add that as a finding or something along those lines and have that back to you. Sounds good. It sounds like along the same motion as we are kind of crafting it as we go along here that variance criteria in #2 was satisfied to everyone's agreement and that #3 wasn't a special privilege because this was a condition such that is consistent with other public space to private property conditions and on the minimum one, item #4 it would be effective in its current height we couldn't imagine that they'd be back requesting additional height. I can see maybe how adjacent neighbors might want to join in extending the construction that would be a different neighborhood, a different request as I suppose at that time if that were to occur. So we could find this as an acceptable minimum as well. Does that make a.motion? So we have a motion. Do we have a second? George Feighner: Second Chair. Wallace: Motion's been made, seconded and could we do a role call vote? DECISION Motion made by Board Member Wayne Jones to approve the fence height variance seconded by Board Member George Feighner. VOTE Jay Wallace ----------Approve Jim Jacques ---------Denied Marc Rigos -----------Approve George Feighner ---Approve Wayne Jones --------Approve Steve Maxwell-------Approve Chair; Wallace announced that the variance is hereby granted, to approve the motion, that variance criteria in #2 was satisfied to everyone's agreement and that variance criteria #3 wasn't a grant of special privilege because this was a condition such that is consistent with other public space abutting private property and on variance criteria #4 it would be effective at its current height of 8-feet and that no additional height would be requested. I • Board of Adjusbnent Minutes, JUI!, 2004 Page 24 0'24 An appeal of the Board of Adjustment decision is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 11 O.G., which requires that such appeal be filed with the Superior Court of Washington for King County within 21 days from the date of issuance of the decision. The land use decision is considered issuedthree (3) days after the City mails a written decision. The appeal period for this variance will end at 5:00 PM on August 18, 2004. Chair. Wallace closed the public hearing. OLD BUSINESS: Chair. Wallace offered to make the Chairperson position available to any other Board Member who would be interested. NEW BUSINESS: Chair. Wallace asked if there is any word on an additional Board Member. Jason Jordan offered the information he had on the status of the additional Board Member position, that there are two applications in, one has been passed down to Planning and Development and the other being King's application is still in the Mayor's office. Jennifer has not received formal notification to start the nomination process. The Mayor's has not been able to get to the application at this time. There are two applications in for one position so it will be up to the Council to decide which applicant will fill the open position. . ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Jay Wallace, Board of Adjustment Chairperson Date: ~< ________________________ __ • CITY OF RENTON PLANNING I BUILDING I PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM Date: August 20, 2004 To: City Clerk's Office From: Stacy M. Tucker Subject: Land Use File Closeout Please complete the following information to facilitate project closeout and indexing by the City Clerk's Office. Project Name: Chappelle/Schulz Fence Height Variance LUA (file) Number: LUA-04-053, V-B Cross-References: AKA's: Project Manager: Jason Jordan Acceptance Date: June 15, 2004 Applicant: Douglas E. Chappelle Owner: Douglas & Carol Chappelle/Kevin & Lauren Schulz Contact: Douglas E. Chappelle PID Number: 8035400430/803540020 BOA Approval Date: July 28, 2004 BOA Appeal Date: August 18, 2004 Administrative Approval: Appeal Period Ends: BOA Public Hearing Date: July 28, 2004 Date Appealed to HEX: By Whom: HEX D~cision: Date: Date Appealed to Council: By Whom: Council Decision: Date: Mylar Recording Number: Project Description: The applicants are requesting a variance from the Board of Adjustment in order to keep an 8-foot high fence that is located within the rear yards of both homes. The applicant's contend the fence is necessary in order to have effective privacy and security screening from an adjoining open space/natural reserve corridor, which is utilized as a public park and trail system. The fence is under code violation and is {lending a deciSion from the Board of Adjustment. Location: 2202 & 2208 Lyons Avenue NE Comments: e __ PARTIES OF RECORD Chappelle/Schulz Fence Height Variance LUA04-053, V-B Douglas & Carol Chappelle 2208 Lyons Avenue NE Renton, WA 98059 425.277.0309 (owner) Kevin & Lauren Schulz 2202 Lyons Avenue NE Renton, WA 98059 425.687-4889 (owner) John D. Todderud 5316 NE 24th Court Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) e .' e City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICA TION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: JUNE 30, 2004 APPLICATION NO: LUA-04-053, V-B lIelKeven Schulz PROJECT TITLE: Cha elle/Schulz Fence Hei ht Variance SITE AREA: NlA LOCATION: 2202 & 2208 L ons Avenue NE WORK ORDER NO: 77256 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant's are requesting a variance from the Board of Adjustment in order to keep an 8-foot high fence that is located within the rear yards of both homes. The applicant's content the fence is necessary in order to have effective privacy and security screening from an adjoining open space/natural reserve corridor, which is utilized as a public park and trail system. The fence is under code violation. and is pending adecision from the Board. of Adjustment. " .. ..... , .' __ .' 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 Housing Air Aesthetics Water UQhtIGlare Plants Recreation LandlShoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Setvices Energy/ Historic/Cuitural Natural ResOurces Preservation Airport Environment fO,OOOFeet 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 """'" """'" additional ;nf15P~ properly "".,. this proposal. 9 ~L/ vO (j Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 19th day of August, 2004, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Final Letter -No appeals documents. This information was sent to: Douglas E. Chappelle Owner Kevin & Lauren Schulz Owners John D. Todderud Party of Record (Signature of Sender).:,~~. 4" .... ' ......... N ... "~""'" , __ ,\..~ II, --:..~ •••••••• Q" STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ff~\.··~sslolV~ .•. ~\ ss ' ~. ~ :r~.'\;(\ ~ ) ; :.(5 ~OT A~ -;' ••• "'" ~ COUNTY OF KING ) e t _._ r ~n i ~ • j:J .' ~ ~ ~. ttsuc ! ; I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy Tucker \ ?~ .••••• 6', •• /~ i signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary aci'~~?esa1~~ __ -: Purposes mentioned in the instrument. II"",WAS\"\\ .......... .. ,,"", ... ... Dated:~. C)(), .2P Y __ rn~~;.:;i~~:::.;..~~A-A-:-:-__ _ Notary (Print):----~M~tiMIq,I::l!.WFN'_K:KAAI\PtIlf3~IHI"EFJ;ft=F------______ _ My appointment expires: MY APPOINlMENT EXPIRF!I 1l_?Q_n7 Chappelle/Schulz Fence Height Variance LUA04-053, V-B Kathy Kooiker-Wheeler, Mayor CITY • RENTON PlanningIBuilding/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator August 19, 2004 Douglas E. Chappelle 2208 Lyons Avenue NE Renton, WA 98059 SUBJECT: Chappelle/Schulz Fence Height Variance LUA04-053, V-B Dear Mr. Chappelle: ~. This letter is to inform you that the appeal period has ended for the Board of Adjustment· decision issued on July 28, 2004, for the above.-referenced project. No appeals were filed on the decision. This decision is final and application for the appropriately required permits may proceed, The· applicant must comply with the Board of Adjustment conditions of approval. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at(425) 430-7219 For the Rento t/5: Jason E. Jordan Senior Planner cc: Kevin & Lauren Schulz / Owners John D. Todderud / Party of Record -------------IO-S-S-S-ou-fu--G-m-dy-W.--ay---R-e-n-to-n-,W.-a-s-h-in-gt-o-n-9-8o-S-S----------~~ *" This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD .oF THE CURVE CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 29th day of July, 2004, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Board of Adjustment Decision Letter documents. This information was sent to: Douglas E. Chappelle Owner/Applicant Kevin & Lauren Schulz Owners John D. Todderud Party of Record ' ......... ...:;:; ... N"'~""", --~s;.' It. ,::-......... Q t, f ~ .... ii-\SSION:;: ••• ~'" , .' ~ =+~ •• '~ ~ ! :'8 ~O;AJ)lL ~'''""1\ ~ ~: r m: ~ '-: ... ~ en: ~ ~ (/) • ,0, I ., ~ A .'. valle .: ; I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy Tucker \"Yi···.~·C? -07 ..... "o~ i signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary ~t<Di~a~~ purposes mentioned in the instrument. "'",\~! ............... "'-- Dated: G.uo Q)Q, .;;co,/-_c-?n~_~~~~~~ft++-___ _ COUNTY OF KING Notary (Print):-----"""i~IJI#JlAIlHAIIi!Il'.klNIHIifIWM.Itf!IIe!HIHB'F------------ My appointment expires: MY APPOINTMENT EXPIRES 6-29-07 Chappelle/Schulz Fence Height Variance LUA04-053, V-B _complete item 4 if Restricted is desired. -. Print your name and address on the reverse - So ttla,l.wecan return the card to you . • -Attach this card to the back of the mail piece, ;or on the front if space permits. -1. Article Addressed to: -oOugla~: EChappelle 2208 l:yensAvenue NE RentOl;~:WA 98059 D. Is delivery address different from item 1? -If YES, enter delivery address below: 3.~iceType j;I{ Certified Mail o Registered o Insured Mail 4. Restricted Delivery? 2. Article Number 41 _CI>~ (fransrerfromservice/abeQ -1 00 '\\40 (JJ.)2.. 72..07.... -\D'\Q: Yes PSForm 3811, August 2001 Domestic Return Receipt 102S95-02-M-154( I I UNITED STATES POSTAL SER .. -~--e ,~;~ U) -, me, address, and ZIP+4-ID this box--- Attn: Jason Jordan City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 ~4.~ .» . ..IL . -Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor • CERTIFIED MAIL NO. 7001 1140 0002 2202 4688 July 29, 2004 Douglas E. Chappelle 2208 Lyons Avenue NE Renton, WA 98059 SUBJECT:. Chappelle/Schulz Fence Height Variance LUA04-053, V-B Dear Mr. Chappelle: CITY. RENTON PlanningIBuildinglPublicWorks Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator The Renton Board of Adjustment, at its regular meeting on July 28; 2004, granted your request for a variance from Renton Municipal Code Section 4~4~040D. This variance will allow an 8-foot high fence within the rear yard setback. . . This is the only varianc~ granted under this application and. aU other provisions of the Renton Municipal Code will apply. . . . . . .' ,.... . . AP~·ealprocess An appeal of the BO<,3.rd of Adj~stme(lt decision is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8; Section 110.G., which requires that slich appeal be.filed·withth~ SuperiorGourt of Washington for King County Within 21 days from the date of issuance ofthe decision. The land use decision is considered . issued three (3) days after the City mails a written decision. The appeal period for this variance will end at . 5:00 PM on August 18, 2004. If you have any questions, please contact me at (425) 430~7219. For the Renton Board of Adjustment, 4~ Jason E. Jordan Senior Planner cc: Kevin & Lauren Schulz / Owner John D. Todderud / Party of Record ------lO-S-S-S-ou-t-h-G-ra-d-y-W:-ay---R-e-nt-o-n,-W:-a~sh-in-gt-o-n-9-g-0S-s-..:...-----~ . * This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF RENTON In Re: Chappelle & Schulz Fence Variance No. LUA-04-053,V-B FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The applicants, Douglas & Carol Chappelle and Kevin & Lauren Schulz, are requesting approval of a fence variance from Section 4-4-040D of the Development ,Standards for Residential Fences, which limits the fence to a maximum of 6 feet in height. The applicants are proposing an 8-foot high fence, within their respective rear yards. 2. RMC4-4-040D allows residential fences to be a maximum of 6 feet within the rear yard. 3. The subject site is located within the Residential One Dwelling Unite Per Acre (R-1) zone. 4. The subject site is located within the Residential Rural (RR) Comprehensive Plan designation area. 5. The 8-foot high fence is existing and under code enforcement action. A Notice of Violation was issued on November 17, 2003. 6. The applicants content the fence is necessary as it separates their respective properties from an open space tract that was required as part of the subdivision development. 7. Tract J is utilized as public open space, which requires special fencing/security considerations for abutting homeowners. CONCLUSIONS: FROM THESE FINDINGS OF FACT, THE BOARD MAKES THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSIONS: , Development Regulations Section 4-9-250.B.5. -The Board of Adjustment shall have authority to grant a variance upon making a determination, in writing, that the conditions specified below have been found to exist: 1) 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: The applicant contends that the subject properties suffer a unique hardship being situated along the boundary of a large open space tract that was developed as a result of the subdivision. The applicant notes that the homeowner's association owns the property but it is utilized by the surrounding neighborhoods. In addition to the open space being next to the subject lots, the applicants note that the residential lots sit approximately 4 feet higher than the abutting open space area, sloping back to the rear property line. This topographic situation makes it difficult to screen the properties from the adjacent open space. Finally, the applicant argues that a 6-foot high fence does not adequately secure the back yard from the surrounding area. The site is located next to a private open space tract, which is open to the public and regulated by the subdivision homeowner's association. In addition, the subject site is situated higher than the surrounding open space, thus, creating a demonstrated undue hardship based on special circumstances applicable to properties, which makes providing adequate screening impractical with a 6-foot high fence. The Board of Adjustment agrees with the applicant's conclusion that an 8-foot high fence is necessary to provide adequate screening and security. 2) 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: The applicant contends the intent of the fencing regulations are to provide and maintain adequate sight distance along public rights-of-way at intersections and to encourage safe ingress and egress from individual properties. In addition, the applicant notes that the fencing regulations also encourage the feeling of spaciousness along neighborhood streets and minimize the closed city atmosphere, which tall fences can create. In this case, the existing fence is located within the rear yard and abuts a private open space tract and is neither adjacent to a right-of-way or otherwise visible to the neighboring homes or streets. Therefore, the applicants conclude that the 8-foot high fence would not be detrimental to the public welfare nor be injurious to any property or improvements in the vicinity. As such, the Board of Adjustment does not anticipate the existing fence to be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity. 3) 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: The applicants state that any other property abutting a similar public park or other public property would be entitled to erect an 8-foot high fence along the common boundary line. The Board of Adjustment agrees with the applicant's analysis and understanding of the intent of the fencing regulations. Therefore, the Board does not believe the granting of this variance would 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. 4) That the approval as determined by the Board of Adjustment is a minimum variance that will accomplish the desired purpose: The applicants contend that the location and size of the fence is the minimum necessary, in order to "reasonably" provide screening and security from adjacent non-residential uses. The Board of Adjustment finds no reason to disagree with the applicant's conclusion. DECISION: FROM THE FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS, THE BOARD ENTERS THE FOLLOWING DECISION: The variance from the City of Renton Development Regulations, Section 4-4-040D, Standards for Residential Uses to allow for the 8-foot high fence within the rear yard setback is approved. DATED this 28th day of July, 2004 .. An appeal of the Board of Adjustment decision is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 11 OG, which requires that such appeal be filed with the Superior Court of Washington for King County within 21 days from the date of issuance of the decision. The land use decision is considered issued three (3) days after a written decision is mailed by the City. The appeal period for this variance wi1l end at 5:00 PM on August 18, 2004. George Feighner J~ Mark Rigos Vacant / July 27, 2004 Steve and Angela Winn 2212 Lyons Avenue NE Renton, W A 98059 Re: Schulz/Chappelle Fence Dear Renton Board of Adjustment, We are one of the neighbors most directly affected by the Schulz/Chappelle fence. The fence is generally not noticeable from our next door location and we have no objection to it. We believe it fits well within the aesthetics of our neighborhood, and significantly improves the security of the neighborhood for us and our three year old daughter. Since the fence went up, foot and bicycle traffic crossing our yard has been more or less eliminated and some of the trails in the green belt are growing in again. Prior to the fence, our property was trespassed, as was the Chappelle's and Schulz's, on a regular basis (several times a day). Doug and Kevin have asked us to give our thoughts on a six foot fence versus the present fence. It is our opinion that a six foot fence would not provide the same sense of security and screening. A six foot fence would provide essentially no screening effect for their properties and therefore would be essentially worthless from that standpoint. We believe that most of the security afforded by the fence could be retained with a six foot fence, however, there are factors that make the present fence much more desirable. Doug has shown us the indentations he says were made by children playing with bb/pellet guns in the greenbelt. Given our limited observation of these kids, this is an entirely believable story and we strongly suspect that incidents similar to this are highly likely to reoccur in the future be they with rocks, bullets, or fireworks. Therefore, we think the more fence height the better and therefore, we recommend granting our neighbors the fence variance. y, tL.-+~ Angela Winn cc Kevin Schulz Doug Chappelle EX.b July 27,2004 John and Stacy Tribble 2106 Lyons Avenue NE Renton, W A 98059 Re: Schulz/Chappelle Fence Dear Renton Board of Adjustment, We are one of the neighbors most directly affected by the Schulz/Chappelle fence. The fence is generally not noticeable from our next door location and we have no objection to it. We believe it fits well within the aesthetics of our neighborhood, and significantly improves the security of the neighborhood for us and our family. Our property is graded very similarly to the Schulz's and we have a six foot fence on our rear lot line. It basically has no screening effect, but in our case, that's pretty much ok because behind our lot is very dense growth within the greenbelt area. That isn't true for Kevin and Doug, where the greenbelt behind their lots is much less dense. You can see through to the other properties on the other side of the green belt, particularly in the spring, late fall and winter. So we can easily understand why they might want a couple extra feet on their fence. lfthe developer of Stonegate had taken the same amount of care in the final grading of our three lots, as they did on virtually every other lot in Stonegate, this probably wouldn't be anywhere near the issue that it is and a six foot fence would have been more than adequate. However, the way it is, even the present fence is highly questionable in its effectiveness when it comes to screening. Because of this, we think it would be a shame to see the fence shortened because of circumstances outside their control. Therefore, we recommend that the variance be approved. Sincerely, John and Stacy Tribble Cc Kevin Schulz Doug Chappelle July 27, 2004 Tom and Sara Safley 5401 Lyons Avenue NE Renton, WA 98059 Re: SchulZ/Chappelle Fence Dear Renton Variance Board: We are one of the neighbors directly impacted by the Schulz/Chappelle fence. The fence does not detract from our view, it fits in with the aesthetics of the neighborhood, and is well constructed. We have witnessed much less foot and bicycle traffic in our neighborhood since the SchulZ/Chappelle fence was built. We are not convinced that a comparable six foot fence would provide the same sense of security and screening, due to all the activity in the green belt area. Please strongly consider granting our neighbors the fence variance we all seek. ~reIY' Toms:ef0 Cc Kevin Schulz Doug Chappelle Sincerely, Sara Safley July 27, 2004 Bill Lofgren 5401 Lyons Avenue NE Renton, WA 98059 Re: SchulZ/Chappelle Fence Dear Renton Variance Board: We are one of the neighbors directly impacted by the Schulz/Chappelle fence. The fence does not detract from our view, it fits in with the aesthetics of the neighborhood, and is well constructed. We have witnessed much less foot and bicycle traffic in our neighborhood since the SchulZ/Chappelle fence was built. We are not convinced that a comparable six foot fence would provide the same sense of security and screening, due to all the activity in the green belt area. Please strongly consider granting our neighbors the fence variance we all seek. Sincerely, Bil0&: Ce--Kevin Schulz _:-;'<:. Doug Chappelle ~., LAKE W ASHINGroN CITY OF RENTON Zoning Map RESIDENTIAL _ (RC) Resource ecnserva!ion IllI (1<-1) Residential 1 dulac _ (R-5)ResIdonIia15dulac . .-::'" (R-8) Residential 8 dulao kWl{~ (RMH) Residential Manufae."ed Homes :).;;'::~ (R·l0)ResldantiaJI0dulac _ (R.14) Residential 14 dulac _ (RM~) Residential Muiti-family InfiII a (RM.N) Reside_ MuI1I-Famiy Neighboo11ood Center 11\1 (RM-C) Residential Multi-Fomily Suburban eem... _ (RM· T) R .. iaential MuI1I-FamiIy Traditional _ (~·U) Residential MuI1I-Farnify Ur1lan Center .;.;:..,.. ... CilyUmiio • DeCember 22, 2003 MIXED USE CENTERS IIii!I (CN, Center NoI9hbcwhood .~ (CS) Ce_ SUburban _ (UC-Nl) Urban Center. North 1 a (UC-N2) Urban ~ .... North 2 • (CO) 0.._ Downtown .1!iii!Il (COR) Center 0I!ice Residential COMMERCIAL mill (CA) CommercialMeriai _ (CO)Commerdal 01r1CO _ (CC) Convenience Commerc:iaI INDUSlRlAL ~ (IL) I_I· Light l1li (1M) Industrial· - _ (IH) Industrial· Heavy 2208 Lyons Ave NE 2202 Lyons Ave NE Renton, W A 98059 July 26, 2004 Developmental Services Division Renton City Hall - 6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Subject: Variance LUA04-053, V-B Please append the attached set of photographs to the subject variance. We may refer to these photos in connection with the City of Renton Board of Adjustment Hearing scheduled for July 28,2004. We anticipate that any other materials we may use during the hearing have either already been supplied or will be distributed as handouts or will be large enough that they can be easily seen by the board .. Sincerely, Cc: K. Schulz, B. Dorsey 8«0 I , 01.jpg 02.jpg Subject fence, from NW comer of 2208 Lyons looking east Subject fence, from SW comer of 2208 Lyons looking east 03.jpg 04.jpg Subject fence, from NW comer of 2202 Lyons looking east Subject fence, from NW comer of 2202 Lyons looking east (slighUy better angle). ---. - 05.jpg Subject fence, from SW comer of 2202 lyons looking east 07.jpg Subject fence, general perspective. 06.jpg Subject fence, from southem lot line of 2202 lyons looking east Fence on right is six foot 08.jpg ;" _.-...... " . .: :.'::. :" ,.:'~~:' '.: .'. :"\;:'.':" . ,", . '. I . '. '.' . I',' .~'. ", " ". .', I ',.,' .:: . >,. >':'-':' : _.... :::.,' ; " ...... ..... ./1 . .. . \ .. · .. ··.··.11,··.· .Ii· .; j" :. :, '.: ., ,." . 1 ..' '.' '/'j' ; : If" ,,: '..... ~ i './' . 1 i .. ' . rL:-1 ..1 .. '. 1, .. !"'. , ... I ... . --.---... ----.-_. :'-:--~",-'- . ~ . . . a •• ," ' ..... " - . ~ ,-. " . .. . . . 09.jpg 10,jpg 11.jpg 12,jpg Subject fence -showing down slope to rear of property 13.jpg Subject fence and open space area to east Shot from standing height on ground. Effective screening = 4.5 ft. 15.jpg Open space -lraD, now in disuse 14.jpg Open space -SWing and occasional picknicking area. 16.jpg Subject fenee -peQetIBB indentation on backside of fence (side facing open --: ---•. _. . space.) One-of many; . 17.jpg 18.jpg SlDnegate -example of terracing on other lots. Fence 8 ft (approx). 7 + foot hedge comer of Union Ave NE and N 21st Street (Renton). 19.jpg 20.jpg Mixed use fence 7 ft high. East on Sunset from Anacortes on Sunset 6.5 + fence NE 8th St (Renton) 21.jpg Fence Hedge combo. Aberdeen and 24th St NE 23.jpg Union near 12th St NE (Renton) -9.5 foot fence 22.jpg Monroe and Sunset -Tenain slopes toward observer -fence estimated at 7..a feet 24.jpg Same as #23 -different view with sun shining through dacks shows no fill behind ----~-: -fence--fence really is-9,5 feel-~ - 25.jpg 960 Union (Renton) -Variable height fence -stepped and leveled because of tenain. Max height exceeds 8 feel 27.jpg 26 continued 26.jpg Open space -play area (example) 28.jpg Side lot line fence greater than 72 inches -Sunset 29.jpg Hedge on benn -Sunset East Development 31.jpg 8.75 foot fence side lot line -NE 3n:1 St between Jefferson and Index 3O.jpg Glenco Park (Renton) -note six foot fence buried in 8-12 foot hedge on residential side lot line 32.jpg 8.75 foot fence side lot line -NE 3n:I St between Jefferson and Index (Same as • 31, other ~e offence.) 33.jpg 34.jpg 30 foot fence at Maplewood Heights Elementary Perimeter fence at Maplewood Heights Bementary 35.jpg 36.jpg Perimeter fence at Maplewood Heights Elementary Perimeter fence at Maplewood Heights Bementary -note benn 37.jpg Perimeter fence at Maplewood Heights Elementary - 8 It from top of benn. 39.jpg Perimeter fence at Maplewood Heights Elementary 8.5 feet 38.jpg Eastern boundary of perimeter fence at Maplewood Heights Elementary -note double fence -closest one is 4 It. 4O.jpg Edmonds and Sunset - 8 foot fence due to terrain slope. 41.jpg Windsor Hills f'art( (Renton) -Note 7 foot fence buried in 12 foot hedge on raarlside lot line. 43.jpg Wall fence combo on rear lot line adjoining Wmdsor Hills PIrt. 42.jpg Windsor Hills Park -note 6.5 foot fence buried in 10 foot hedge on side lot line- different lot than #41. 44.jpg 6.5 foot Windsor Hills Park boundary fence and adjoining 11 foot waD fence combo .. 45.jpg Corner of Wlrldsor HiDs PaI1< adjoining wall fence oombo. WaH does appear to retain some fiD but not 5 feet worth. 47.jpg Union and 3rd -7.75 foot fence on rear lot line 46.jpg Union and 3rd -7.75 foot fence on rear lot line 48.jpg . Union a~ ~rd -! ~t fen~ on s~ IO~ line (>10 ft with ~r wire.) • 49.jpg Renton High Sc:hooI-Northwestern boundSJy (by tennis courts). 8 + foot hedge buries a six foot fence SO.jpg Mclendon's 10 foot fence on lot line in (or next to) a residential area. CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 21 51 day of July, 2004, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing BOA Agenda & Staff Report documents. This information was sent to: Board of Adjustment Committee See attached list (Signature of Sender)~~ ~ '~~""'''''' ._c." "'(~ KA4t", "'I ~ ~" •••••••.. '" "'~ '1, STATE OF WASHINGTON ) : r,.·~~sSION~.t ... ~II, )SS .. ~.-~-~'-1\1. ; :,a~OTAFiy ~'.. ~ COUNTY OF KING ) ~ :0 _._ en: ~ ~ : : ~ ~ ell ... PUBUv .: ~ : I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy Tucker \ :;. •.••• 1 .... ~o J signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary a~~~.t8J~~ .. sf" purposes mentioned in the instrument. """~ WAS ..... ~~ ...... ~ ~\ :J/3J')'{ ~~ ~~ ""'" ~ Notarypt)iiCin and ~of Washington _ Notary {Print): ___ ---1tMARllYN,..-aJ!-"if'f" IIfIfI'fI:KAMCIIf!I\IT"~HEI'I1FF~::'1tr],.,.__---------- My appointment expires: MYAPPOIN'fMENTE<PlRES 6=29=t17 " Chappelle/Schulz Fence Height Variance LUA04-053, V-B Jay Wallace Boeing 1207 North 33rd Street Renton, WA 98056 George Feighner 201 SE Union, Space #92 Renton, WA 98059 Board of Adjustment Committee Jim Jacques 1216 North 38th Street Renton, WA 98056 Wayne Jones Lakeridge Development 1800 SE 7th Court Renton, WA 98057 Mark Rigos 1309 North 39th Place Renton, WA 98056 Ralph Evans 3306 NE 11th Place Renton, WA 98056 CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 21 51 day of July, 2004, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing BOA Agenda & Staff Report documents. This information was sent to: Kevin & Lauren Schulz Owners Douglas & Carol Chappelle Owners· John D. Todderud Party of Record N I<A4fC'tt, (Signature of J:..-~~~~~~~~~=---________ ~~~~,SION '. ~ ~~"~ STATE OF WASHINGTON ~OTA~r ~\-1\ SS -.-0: cP·. /)USl\C ] COUNTY OF KING ;A '. : ~ ..,' ,~ ~·"~·29_01 ••• ·"~O I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy Tucker O/:'WAS~\~~ signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Date04 "bf ~~ <-dn~-~<h~ '=(J ~NOta\W'Public in and for the ~ of Washington Notary (Print): MARILYN KAMCHEFF M . t t· f'H( APP6lrffMENf EXJ!fA~ 6=2900' Y appotn men expires: Chappelle/Schulz Fence Height Variance LUA04-053, V-B • CALL TO ORDER • PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE • ROLLCALL ~ APPROVAL OF MINUTES (Minutes'of June 23, 2004) .. '. • PUBLIC HEARINGS SCHEDULED: Chappelle/Schulz Fence Height Variance LUA04-053, V-B • AUDIENCE COMMENT ----. OLD BUSINESS • NEW BUSINESS • ANNOUNCEMENTS • ADJOURNMENT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT STAFF REPORT JULY 28, 2004 A. BACKGROUND APPLICANT: Douglas & Carol Chappelle Kevin & Lauren Schulz 2208 Lyons AvenueNE -2202 Lyons Avenue NE Renton, WA, 98059 Renton, WA 98059 PROJECT NAME: Chappelle/Schulz Fence Variance , APPLICATION NO.: LUA04-053, V-B· -"- SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicants are requesting a Board of Adjustment Variance· in order to keep an existing 8-foot high fence within the rear yard of their respective homes .. The.fence wa~ constructed late last year (2003) anQ is located adjacent.toJhe subject properties eastern (rear yard)' propertY boundaries. Th.e City of Renton's fence .. height standards allow for a maximum residential fence height of ,6 feet (RMC, 4-4-0400). As the fence was deemed taller than allowed. by 'code, a notice of violati!)n. was subsequently sent to the applicants, which ultimately prompted this request ." for a variance. " '., LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: i--:-2202~&"2208 .. t:yons:"A\(EmUe NE, Renton, WA 98059 boarptdoc II B. EXHIBITS • The following is a list of exhibits to be entered into the record: Exhibit No.1: Yellow file containing: application, proof of posting and publication, and other Exhibit No.2: Exhibit No.3: Exhibit No.4: C. BACKGROUND documentation pertinent to this request. Site PlanNicinity Map (Received May 21, 2004). Fence Elevation Photos (Received May 21,2004). Zoning Map. The applicants (Chappelle & Schulz) are requesting approval of a Board of Adjustment variance, which would allow them to keep an 8-foot high fence located within their respective rear yards. RMC4-4-040D1 c stipulates that "Rear Lot Line: A fence or hedge a maximum of seventy two inches (72") may be located on the rear lot line." As a result of this code citation, the City of Renton's Code Compliance officers issued the applicant a notice of violation in November of 2003. The applicants contend that the purpose of the fence is to have effective privacy and security from an adjoining open space/natural reserve corridor, which was required as part of the subdivision development. In addition, the applicants note that the open space tract is now being utilized as a neighborhood park and trail system. The applicants argue that the City's fence regulations imply that 8-foot high fence are allowed if the property is abutting a "public use" (RMC4-4-040B) thus a variance is not needed. Nevertheless, the Development Services Division has determined that the existing fence is over 6 feet in height and is in violation of City code. Therefore, a variance from the City's fence regulations, by the Board of Adjustment, is the only mechanism available to approve the existing 8-foot high fence. 110. . VARIANCE CRITERIA City of Renton Development Regulations Section 4-9-250.B.5. -The Board of Adjustment shall have authority to grant a variance upon making a determination, in writing, that the conditions specified below have been found to exist: 1. 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: The applicants contend that the subject properties suffer a unique hardship as they are situated along the boundary of a large open space tract that was developed as a result of the Stonegate subdivision. The applicant notes that the homeowners association owns the property but it is utilized by the surrounding neighborhoods. In addition to the open space next to the subject lots, the applicant states that the residential lots sit approximately 4 feet higher than the abutting open space area, sloping back to the rear property line, which makes it difficult to screen the properties. Finally, the applicant argues that a 6-foot high fence does not adequately secure the back yard from the surrounding area. While the site is located next to a private open space tract, regulated by the subdivision homeowners association, the applicant has not demonstrated an undue hardship based on special circumstances applicable to the subject property. Moreover, the code clearly states that the maximum fence height is 6 feet for residential purposes and the circumstances surrounding this property do not necessitate a special exception to that general rule. In fact, the open space area in question is private and not open to the public and is controlled by the subdivision homeowners, which could limit the uses allowed within that area of the subdivision. II boarpt.doc Furthermore, the applicant has not demonstrated any other hardship unique to the property that would require an 8-foot high fence. Moreover, the majority of completed subdivisions throughout the City have uneven grades with some lots being higher than others; however, that circumstance does not justify the need for a taller fence that what the code currently allows (6-foot maximum). Finally, it should be noted that the Development Services Division coordinated a series of code revisions to the City's fence regulations in 2003. Those revisions now allow property owners the ability to request a taller fence in certain situations. However, during the code revision process, staff was directed to limit the height of residential fences to a maximum of 6 feet, which is currently allowed by City code. As a result of those discussions, staff does not support the request for an 8- foot high fence, in this residential setting. 2. 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: The applicant contends the intent of the fencing regulations are to provide and maintain adequate sight distance along public rights-of-way at intersections and to encourage safe ingress and egress from individual properties. In addition, the applicant notes that the fencing regulations also encourage the feeling of spaciousness along neighborhood streets and minimize the closed city atmosphere, which tall fences can create. In this case, the eXisting 8-foot high fence is located within the rear yard and abuts a private open space tract and is neither adjacent to a right-of-way nor otherwise visible to the neighboring homes or streets. Therefore, the applicants conclude that the 8-foot high fence would not be detrimental to the public welfare nor be injurious to any property or improvements in the vicinity. As such, staff does not anticipate the existing fence to be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity. 3. 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: The applicants state that any other property abutting a similar public park or other public property would be entitled to erect an 8-foot high fence along the common boundary line. However, City code does not allow any residential property to construct an 8-foot high fence. Instead, only commerciaVindustrial properties are permitted to construct an 8-foot high fence without further city approval. Therefore, the granting of the variance, without any demonstrated hardship, would be a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated. It should also be noted, that in revising the fencing regulations in 2003, the Administration and City Council increased the residential fence heights to 6 feet, with a special fence permit; however increase above 6 feet was not supported. Thereby, if this variance were granted, a precedence would be set establishing 8-foot high fences in residential areas, which staff believes to be counter to current City policy. 4. That the approval as determined by the Board of Adjustment is a minimum variance that will accomplish the desired purpose: The applicant contends that the location and size of the fence is the minimum necessary, in order to "reasonably" provide screening and security from adjacent non-residential uses. However, staff does not support that assumption as the property in question (the open space tract) is designated residential and does not allow for more intensive commerciallindustrial uses that would necessitate the need for an 8-foot high fence. Therefore, staff recommends that the variance be denied as the situation does not meet the criteria to approve such a variance request, which would require the applicant to reduce the fence height to the code approved 6-foot maximum height. This in turn, does not create a precedence, which other homeowner may attempt to exploit in the future. liE. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the proposed 8-foot high fence, which requires a variance from Section 4-4-0400 of the City of Renton fence standards, as the situation does not comply with the hardship criteria established by City code. Transmitted this 21 sl day of July, 2004 to the owners/contact: Douglas & Carol Chappelle 2208 Lyons Avenue NE Renton, WA 98059 Kevin & Lauren Schulz 2202 Lyons Avenue NE Renton, WA 98059 Transmitted this 21 sl day of July, 2004 to the parties-of-record: John D. Todderud 5316 NE 24th Court Renton, WA 98059 boarpt.doc II N w E s 2 200 100 0 200 400 60( I i ·~. __ I i .. liiiii •• ' SCALE IN rEET SE ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--~~~~-~--~~~ ~~ t-+--~ ~ f' ~~~r. !;: .• 17 - Q) 0 c: CO .t: CO > ... .t::. .2> Q) I~ c: Q)0 CO 0° -c:C\I a. Q) - Q) u.~ ~ N ~ en -:J co .t::. ~ 0 en " Q) --Q) a. a. co .t::. 0 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON MAY 2 1. 2004 RECEIVED U) t: o m ~ I .0; ""w.c Ez m e CI).5 .... >" 3: <C t: CI) S .-U) > " L. ~ ~ () as .c ~ .-> N ~ .-.. '''~ E CD () =CD O .-" ..... "-"" L. ..... CDc: c: > .- CD 0 as ~.ct: as as CD t-... ~ u ca :: ---ca c c. CD u ....... --"'" ca Q.c :: ca ff') \0 ~ R: 8 ZONING· PIBIPW TBCllNlCAL SBllVlCBS 12IOfIOl E6 -10 T23N RSE E1I2 ----Benton dity Umlt,oI r::.::I rn Q,) > < ....c::: ........ c:o ~ ........ D6 3 T23N R5E E 1/2 5303 I RESIDENTIAL ~ Resource Conservation .8 Residential 1 dulac ~ Residential 5 dulac ~ Residential 8 dulac ~ Residential Manufactured Homes I R-lO I Residential 10 dulac I R-14 I Residential 14 dulac I RM-I I Residential M.uIU-Family Infill MIXED USE CENT!lR ~ Center Neighborhood- ~ Center Suburban- ~C-Nli Urban Center -North ~ Urban Center -North 2 ~ ~enter Downtown- ~ Center Office Residential COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL -~ Industrial -Heavy o Industrial -Medium o Industrial -Light <P> Publicly owned ---Renton City IJ.mits --Adjacent City Limits _ Book Pages Boundary, . I RH-N I Reside;ntial Multi-Family Neighborhood Center IRH-C I Residential MulU-Family Suburban Center o Commercial Arterial- ~ Commercial Office- ~ Convenience Commercial KROll PAGE IRM-T I Residential Multi-Family Traditional I RH-U I Residential Multi-Family Urban Cente ... • May include Overlay Districts. See Appendix maps. For additional regulations in Overlay Districts. please see RMC 4-3. PAGE# INDEX SECTfTOWNIAANGE STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING } AFFIDA VIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Lily Nguyen, being first duly sworn on oath that she is a Legal Advertising Representative of the King County Journal a daily 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 daily newspaper in King County, Washington. The King County Journal 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 King County Journal (and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a Public Notice was published on Monday, 7/19/04 The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $79.63 at the rate of $15.50 per inch for the first publication and NIA per inch for eac~seqll.@Qt insertion. \\\\\1111" ""1/ \\\\\\ w.EAG IIII//. ,;';:-~ ............ ltt::~ ~' ... ..:::: ~ .tI' \on Ek •••• rr ~ Tom A. Meagher ::::' 0' .. ' "~" 1>;,... ;::;. ...... • ~ 6,,', ~ Notary Public for the State of Washington, Residing in Redmond, Wa'sh.i1ffi~\ r-.R Y \ ~ AdNumber:.84.6463.P.O .. Nu~ber: .. ~ ~ __ G-162 Cost of pubhshmg thiS notice mcludes an affidaVit surcharge. ,'';: ()l \ '", PU S \.. \\J '\ /,.1;: ::: ~ /\ •••• ~t{.).·· v S' ~ -1 >. ••• ~ ... y 2 ...... ).~ ~~ 'l: /i: ......... s'\' , ..... ///11 OF W ~ \\\'~ 11//1""1 \1\\\\\\\ RENTON BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Board of Adjustment at its regular meeting in the Council Chambers, on the seventh floor of City Hall, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, WA, on July 28, 2004 at 7:30 PM to consider the following variances: Chappelle/Schulz Fence Height Variance LUA·04·053, V·B Location: 2202 & 2208 Lyons Avenue NE. The applicants are requesting a variance from the Board of Adjustment in order to keep an 8·foot high fence that is located within the rear yards of both homes. The applicant's contend the fence is necessary in order to have effective privacy and security screening from an adjoining open space/natural reserve corridor, which is utilized as a public park and trail system. The fence is under code violation and is pending a decision from the Board of Adjustment. Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the Development Services Division, Sixth Floor, Renton City Hall. All interested persons to said petitions are invited to be present at the Public Hearing to express their opinions. Published in the King County Journal July 19,2004. #846463 ,e e • • CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: STAFF CONTACT: SUBJECT: July 2,2004 Jason Jordan Rebecca Lind rtVIt / Don Erickson ~ Chappelle/Schultz Fence Height Variance The applicant is proposing a fence height variance for a proposed fence abutting a private open space tract in the Stonegate Subdivision. Whereas the code establishes a maximum height of 6-feet the applicant is requesting a height of 8-feet arguing a unique hardship based upon the fact that this private open space tract is used by the public and therefore should be treated as a public open space where abutting property owners are allowed 8-foot high fences. Analysis: Staff do not believe this tract is the same as most public parks where major recreational activities often occur including scheduled sporting activities such as softball, baseball, soccer, tennis, etc. In fact, there are a number of City parks that abut private property where there are not 8-foot high fences even though they are allowed. There also appear to other remedies available to this applicant such as the planting of shrubs or a hedge that would be less unsightly for park users and abutting property owners. The applicant may want to consider tree plantings as well in their back yard as another effective, non-structural response to this issue. The granting of a variance for this individual would in fact be a grant of special privilege since property owners abutting such private open space tracts all over the City have abided with the 6- foot maximum height provision over the years. If this applicant is granted this variance why shouldn't all property owners abutting private open space tracts be granted the same privilege? Whereas a 6-foot high fence, especially a wood fence or a concrete wall is visually imposing and often unattractive, especially after a few years exposure to the elements, how much more for an 8- foot high wall or fence? Another related issue is that of user safety. If public open space tracts such as this can be walled off with 8-foot high fences, the narrow private open space in this case, will loose much its sense of openness and the additional security associated with what Jane Jacobs called the "eyes of the street" i.e. visual scrutiny by abutting residents. As a result the likelihood of unauthorized activities occurring is such a space significantly increases. This tract was never envisioned as a space that could be walled off with 8-foot high walls or fences in the original plat, and had it been, it likely would not have been approved. Recommendation: Do not support this proposed variance request since· there is no unique hardship associated with it and, were it granted, it would establish a precedent with citywide negative implications. cc: Don Erickson Document! \cor . City of Ret Department of Planning/ Building / Public Jl~ nI ~. ~~ ZI' ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICA TID ~. ~_~ ------------------------------------~----------~-~-.~\ ~ ~ ... ~ REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: iConoml'c. 1)ev. COMMENTS DUE: JUNE 3 i APPLICATION NO: LUA-04-053, V-B DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 11 t¥e: otP, ~ r APPLICANT: Douglas Chappelle/Keven Schulz PROJECT MANAGER: Jason! ~ (A.$/', r PROJECT TITLE: Chappelle/Schulz Fence Height Variance PLAN REVIEW: Kayren Kittric~ I SITE AREA: NlA BUILDING AREA (gross): N/A JON 1 6 2004 LOCATION: 2202 & 2208 Lyons Avenue NE WORK ORDER NO: 77256 ECO~~I~~cc;,~yELOPMENT, . -"" :; RATEGIC PLANNING SUMMARY OF PROP9~AL: The applicant's are requesting a vari~nce, from the Board of A~justment in <;>rder to keep an O-'UU~ "~I fence that IS located Within the rear yards of both homes. The applicant s content the fence IS necessary In order to have effective privacy and security screening from an adjoining open space/natural reserve corridor, which is utilized as a public park and trail . system .. The fence is under code violation and is pending a decision from the Board of Adjustment. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earlh Housina Air Aesthetics Water UghtIGlare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation AitpOrt Environment 10.000 Feet 14.000 Feet B. POLiCY-RELA TED 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. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date City of Rlon Department of Planning / Bui/ding / PUblictrlcs ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: (H:Mr(Gg COMMENTS DUE: JUNE 30, 2004 APPLICATION NO: LUA-04-053, V-B DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 16, 2004 APPLICANT: Douglas Chappelle/Keven Schulz PROJECT MANAGER: Jason Jordan PROJECT TITLE: Chappelle/Schulz Fence Height Variance PLAN REVIEW: Kayren Kittrick SITE AREA: NlA BUILDING AREA (gross): NlA LOCATION: 2202 & 2208 Lyons Avenue NE WORK ORDER NO: 77256 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant's are requesting a variance from the Board of Adjustment in order to keep an 8-foot high fence that is located within the rear yards of both homes. The applicant's content the fence is necessary in order to have effective privacy and security screening from an adjoining open space/natural reserve corridor, which is utilized as a public park and trail . system. The. fence is under code violation and is pending a decision from. the Board of Adjustment. -. _ . _ . 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 Informat/on Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water UghtlGlare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Pub/ic SeTVices Energy/ HistoridCultural Natural Resdurces Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS 1f,t.c~q/~cr ~ ~r~~rz...u,~~~ ~ t?1av110 ~tTtA:-/'MtJW>t~ ~~ ~/t) ~ ~a-.uct. .r . 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 informaf is needed to properly assess this proposal. Date' I City of Rln Department of Planning / Building / Public .S ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: &(l\fr..'l10~ /)n COMMENTS DUE: JUNE 30, 2004 APPLICATION NO: LUA-04-053, V-B APPLICANT: Douglas Chappelle/Keven Schulz PROJECT TITLE: Chappelle/Schulz Fence Height Variance SITE AREA: NlA LOCATION: 2202 & 2208l}tons Avenue NE DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 16,2004 PROJECT MANAGER: Jason Jordan PLAN REVIEW: Kayren Kittrick BUILDING AREA (gross): NlA WORK ORDER NO: 77256 R i2T;" 0;.. RENTON ~I:t-R"~ .... . ... "" ". , BUILDING DIVI.~/nr..1 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant's are requesting a variance from the Board of Adjustment in order to keep an 8-foot high fence that is located within the rear yards of both homes. The applicanfs content the fence is necessary in order to have effective . privacy and security screening from an adjoining open space/natural reserve corridor, which is utilized as a public park and trail c". ,.system. The fence is under. code violation and is. pending a.decision from. the Boardof.Adjustment... ...•. '.. .' ." ... '_~"_'''' ___ '_'' 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 Housing Air Aesthetics Water UahtiGlare Plants Recreation LandlShoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Natural Resources HisioridCultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED 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 property assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representati~ 6 Date City of Rlon Department of Planning / Building / PUbliC.tkS ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: JUNE 30, 2004 DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 16, 2004 PROJECT MANAGER: Jason Jordan PROJECT TITLE: Cha elle/Schulz Fence Hei ht Variance SITE AREA: NlA LOCATION: 2202 & 2208 L ons Avenue NE· WORK ORDER NO: 77256 CITY OF RENTON SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant's are requesting a variance from the Board of Adjustment in order to keep an 8-foot high fence that is located within the. rear yards of both homes. The applicant's content the fence is necessary in order to have effective privacy and security screening from an adjoining open space/natural reserve corridor, which is utilized as a public park and trail system. The fence is under code violation and is pending a decision from the Board of Adjustment. . 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 Housing Air Aesthetics Water UghtlGJare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals T ransoortation Environmental Health Public SeTVices Energy! Natural Resources HistoridCultura/ Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS reas of probable impact or Date City of an Department of Planning / Building / PUbliarks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ._, COMMENTS DUE: JUNe-~cr,~·1l t-/re... r;::> 11 l'l.rr .-,., APPLICATION NO: LUA-04-053, V-B DATE CIRCULATED: JUNa h~].J,~ 110 IS li Vi ~ nl APPLICANT: Douglas Chappelle/Keven Schulz PROJECT MANAGER: JashHJdr ~an III PROJECT TITLE: Chappelle/Schulz Fence Height Variance PLAN REVIEW: Kayren Kit1 JJkU. JUN 1 6 2004 U) SITE AREA: NlA BUILDING AREA (gros~): N, A LOCATION: 2202 & 2208 Lyons Avenue NE WORK ORDER NO: 7725J ~llrUrKtNIUN FIRE DEPARrMDH SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant's are requesting a variance from the Board of Adjustment in order to keep an 8-foot high fence that is located within the rear yards of both homes. The applicant's content the fence is necessary in order to have effective privacy and security screening from an adjoining open space/natural reserve corridor, which is utilized as a public park and trail system. The fence is under code violation and is pending a decision from the Board of Adjustment. 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 We have review d this application w· areas where ad itionai information i More Information Necessary Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts . Impacts Necessary Housing Aesthetics UghtiGlare Recreation Utilities Transportation Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14 000 Feet Date City of Rlon Department of Planning / Building / PUbli.rkS ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Plan '?>eN,et...J COMMENTS DUE: JUNE 30, 2004 APPLICATION NO: LUA-04-053, V-B DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 16, 2004 APPLICANT: Douglas Chappelle/Keven Schulz PROJECT MANAGER: Jason Jordan PROJECT TITLE: Chappelle/Schulz Fence Height Variance PLAN REVIEW: Kayren Kittrick SITE AREA: NlA BUILDING AREA (gross): NlA LOCATION: 2202 & 2208 Lyons Avenue NE WORK ORDER NO: 77256 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant's are requesting a variance from the Board of Adjustment in order to keep an 8-foot high fence that is located within therear yards of both homes. The applicant's content the fence is necessary in order to have effective privacy and security screening from an adjoining open space/natural reserve corridor, which is utilized as a public park and trail ,, __ . -..... system. The fence is under code violation and is pending a decision.from the Board of-Adjustment. .• . _',' . .: .. _,> _ 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 Housing Air Aesthetics Water UghtIGlare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural ResOurces PreseNation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14.000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS tJ~ 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 property assess this proposal. City of .on Department of Planning / Building / PUbli.rkS ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ~ll~ W COMMENTS DUE: JUNE 30, 2004 , APPLICATION NO: LUA-04-053, V-B DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 16,2004 APPLICANT: Douglas Ch~elle/Keven Schulz '-'" y O. RENTON PROJECT MANAGER: Jason JordcRi E C F 8 \l j;: n -PROJECT TITLE: Chap~elle/Schulz Fence Height Variance PLAN REVIEW: Kayren Kittrick "nl • SITE AREA: NlA BUILDING AREA (gross): NlA "VIII 'b LUUlf LOCATION: 2202 & 2208 Lyons Avenue NE I WORK ORDER NO: 77256 BUILDING DIVISION SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant's are requesting a variance from the Board of Adjustment in order to keep an 8-foot high fence that is located within therear yards of both homes. The applicant's content the fence is necessary in order to have effective privacy and security screening from an adjoining open space/natural reserve corridor, which is utilized as a public park and trail 0 •• • _. system:, The.fence is under code violation and is pending a decision from the BoarctotAdjustmenL .,' .,,' '. .. ," " .' .. "', __ ._,:"'~~_,. 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 Housina Air Aesthetics Water UghtlGlare Plants Recreation LandlShoreline Use Utilities Animals Transpottation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ HistoriclCultural Natural ResOurces Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELA TED 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 infonnation is needed to properly assess this proposal. Date City of .ton Department of Planning / Building / PUbl.OrkS ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: JUNE 30, 2004 APPLICATION NO: LUA-04-053, V-B DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 16,2004 lie/Keven Schulz PROJECT MANAGER: Jason Jordan PROJECT TITLE: Cha elle/Schulz Fence Hei ht Variance SITE AREA: NlA BUILDING AREA LOCATION: 2202 & 2208 L ons Avenue NE WORK ORDER NO: 77256 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant's are requesting a variance from the Board of Adjustment in order to keep an 8-foot high fence that is located within the.rear yards of both homes. The applicanfs content the fence is necessary in order to have effective privacy and security screening from an adjoining open space/natural reserve corridor, which is utilized as a public park and trail .. _ .. _.system .. The fence is under code violation.and is pending a decision fromthe Board otAdjustment.·, ... , " __ ... . _ ,c.. _ .... A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Infonnation Impacts Impacts Necessary Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Infonnation Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water UghtiGlare Plants Recreation LancVShoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation AitpOrt Environment 10,000 Feet 14 000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED 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 infonnation is needed to properly assess this proposal. ::' .... ~HI411.....,/,...A1"""""Tl<-+f1 J. ______ _ Date I l!Lf . .".-' ~- ,June 24, 2004 Mr. Jason Jordon, Project Manager Development Services Division 1055S. Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Re: Schultz/Chappelle fence, LUA04-053, V-3 Dear Mr. Jordon, • lIDs letter is to support the Schultz and Chappelle petitions for variance from City of Renton enforcement of fence height ordnances for the fences in the back of their properties. I am a resident of Stonegate and have concern for the security of neighborhood residents as well as aesthetic development standards established for the neighborhood. , These fences add a significant amount of privacy, security, and protection for their families and for the rest of the neighborhood, and should be allowed to stand as is. Residentson the other side of the fence have created disturbances which several neighbors in the area have complained about, and have trespassed through these properties into the neighborhood as a shortcut to shopping areas. They have allowed dogs to run freely through neighborhood yards. The Schultz's and Chappelles have a right to fence their property, as do other City residents. They chose to make the fence 8' high instead of the City's standard of 6' because of the nature of unsafe intrusions coming from the other side of the fence. Their property slopes down to a creek in back of their property, then slopes up to the other residence's properties .. The children in these residences have been seen to fire paint guns and bb guns, the evidence of which has marred the back of this fence. The fence needed to be higher to provide reasonable protection to the children playing in the Schultz and Chappelle yards. lIDs fence has no harmful consequences to the neighborhood or City. It does not create a precedent for permitting 8' fences all around, as the mtent of the height limit is to prevent residences from creating unreasonable visual barriers. lIDs fence is only in the rear of their property so it does not stand out as a tall fence, and fits in aesthetically with neighborhood fence design standards. lIDs fence should be allowed to remain as is and a variance to the City's fence height law should be granted. Thank you very much for your consideration. Sincerely, ~ John D. Todderud 5316 NE 24th Court Renton, W A 98059 STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING } AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Lily Nguyen, being first duly sworn on oath that she is a Legal Advertising Representative of the King County Journal a daily 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 daily newspaper in King County, Washington. The King County Journal 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 King County Journal (and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the belo\v stated period. The annexed notice, a Public Notice was published on Monday, 7/19/04 The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $79.63 at the rateff $15.50 per inch for the first publication and N/A per inch for each sl:ItfsebuenLiJ:lsertion. Lily Nguyen Legal Advtitising Representative, King County Journal sZsz:::: (hi, 19th day of July. 2004. \\\\\\\11111111/11 . \\\\ ~~ ~AG III, ". I'" r::. f..t ;//. ~ \'-. . •.. ".. I:~;.z .. ~ ,~ .. ~':;\on Ex;·.· .. · r ~ :: .. :;" 0 .... (..~'.. 1"\9 ... ~ ~ i~. :" o~ '\ po. R Y ..... S Tom A. Meagher :::: : L) ~,C) ~:: --, • \" Q --• Z - Notary Public for the State of Washington, Residing in Redmond, W3shi~gton-· \~ j E ~ Ad Number: 846463 P.O. Number: ',';:, i.P;.... P U \) \. 0"'" 0 ~ -/ ,.. -. t1.t' '2.0 .-~ ~ Cost of publishing this notice includes an affidavit surcharge. 'l '11'· ••. AY2, ••• ··.)..~~ ~ I: ........ s"'· ~ /./11 OF W ~ \\\~ 111111" III \I \ \\\\ RENTON BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Board of Adjustment at its regular meeting in the Council Chambers, on the seventh floor of City Hall, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, WA, on July 28, 2004 at 7:30 PM to consider the following variances: Chappelle/Schulz Fence Height Variance LUA·04-053, V·B Location: 2202 & 2208 Lyons Avenue NE. The applicants are requesting a variance from the Board of Adjustment in order to keep an 8-foot high fence that is located within the rear yards of both homes. The applicant's contend the fence is necessary in order to have effective privacy and security screening from an adjoining open space/natural reserve corridor, which is utilized as a public park and trail system. The fence is under code violation and is pending a decision from the Board of Adjustment. Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the Development Services Division, Sixth Floor, Renton City Hall. All interested persons to said petitions are invited to be present at the Public Hearing to express their opinions . Published in the King County Journal July 19,2004. #846463 e -. • NOTICE OF APPLICATION A Master Appncatlon has been flied and accepted with the Development $ervk:es OMsion of the City of Renton. The followfng briefly describes the appUcation and the necessary Public Approvals. PROJECT NAllEINUMBER: Chappel1elSchuiz Fence Height Variance I LUA04-053, V·B PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The appIicanfs are requesting a vatianC8 from 1he Board of Adjustment In order 10 k_ an 8-Ioot high fence 1hat Is located within 1he rear yards of both home.. The appllcanfs content 1he fenee is necessary in order to have effectiVe privacy and 66CU1fty screening from an adjoining open spacelnab.ual reserve corridor, which Is utilized as a public pari< and traD system. The fenee Is under code violation and is pendlng a decision from 1he Board 01 A$Stment PROJECT LOCATION: PUBUC APPROVALS: 2202 & 2208 Lyons Avenue NE Board or Adjustment Height Variance APPUCANTIPROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Douglas Chappelle Tel: (425) 277.()3Q9 EmaIl: douglas.e.chappelleOboelng.com PUBUC HEARING: Public hearing scheduled for July 28, 2004 before the Renton Board of Adjustment In Renlon Council Chambers. Haarlngs begin at 7:30 PM on 1he 7th IIoor of 1he Renton City HaD located at lOSS Sou1h Grady Way. Comments on 1he above application must be submitted In writing 10 Jason Jordan, Project Manager. Development Services Divisloo, lOSS Sou1h Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on June 30, 2004. If you have Q1JeSIions about this proposal. or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mall, contact the Project Manager at (425) 430-7219. Anyone who submits written comments wiD automaticany become a party or record and will be notified 01 any decision on 1h1s project PLEASE INCLUDE lliE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALUNG FOR PROPER ALE IDENTlFICATION I DATE OF APPUCATION: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPUCATION: MAY 21, 2004 June 15, 2004 H you would like to be made a party 01 record to receive further information on this proposed project. complete this fORn and ratum to: City of Renton, Development Plann~g, 1055 South Grady Way. Renton. WA 98055. FDa Name I No.: ChappeUelSchulz Fence Haight Variance I LUA04-053, V·B NAME: ________________________________________________________ __ ADDRESS: _____________________________________________________ _ TaEPHONE NO.: ___________________ -"-__ _ CERTIFICATION ---------""",,\\\ "... \\ :-......... ~~~:.~.Ju,'~IIII f ~.~\f.\SS/O~~O '" : /QO. N01: ~ •• ~'~ ;: ~~ ~~\'~ ~ , en : .... '7J-::o: "1\ ~ o e..J .:::r; ~ ~ -4: ,() .", m: "T1 ~ I, c:.(', c:.. or~l'\, hereby certify that '3 \ ~ep~eY~lIhe ~/ i above document were posted by me in 3, conspicuous pl~~·~AJo,e¥.8~ .! the described property on 6-/6 -OU 'I, Ie' U •........ :\O ... ~-~ '" rVASH,~G ........ ... " ..... .. Signed:~":;t;i~Aj.../ ATTEST: Subscri~~~~..:fore me, a Notary Public, in and ~ I -7 Washington residil~ , on the a.j!Y& day o~ ~y MARILYN KAMCHEFF MY APPOINlMENT EXPIRES 6-29-07 • • NOTICE OF APPLICATION A Master Application 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 NAMEINUMBER: Chappelle/Schulz Fence Height Variance / LUA04-QS3, V-B PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant's are requesting a variance from the Board of Adjustment in order to keep an 8-foot high fence that is located within the rear yards of both homes. The applicanfs content the fence is -necessary in order to have effective privacy and security screening from an adjoining open space/natural reserve corridor, which is utilized as a public park and trail system. The fence is under code violation and is pending a decision from the Board of Adjustment. PROJECT LOCATION: 2202 & 2208 Lyons Avenue NE PUBLIC APPROVALS: Board of Adjustment Height Variance APPLICANTIPROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Douglas Chappelle Tel: (425) 277-0309 Email: douglas.e.chappelle@boeing.com PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing scheduled for July 28, 2004 before the Renton Board of Adjustment in Renton Council Chambers. Hearings begin at 7:30 PM on the 7th floor of the Renton City Hall located at 1055 South Grady Way. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Jason Jordan, Project Manager, Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on June 30, 2004. 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) 430-7219. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER RLE IDENTIFICATION DATE OF APPLICATION: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: ----..r--~t _ MAY 21,2004 June 15, 2004 June 15, 2004 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, Reriton, WA 98055. File Name / No.: Chappelle/Schulz Fence Height Variance / LUA04-053, V-B NAME: __________________________________________________________________ _ ADDRESS: ____________________________________________________________ ___ TELEPHONE NO.: __________________________ _ ·.~·.·.lt ••• .' CITY IF RENTON . . MIL ' -' Kathy Keolker~Wheeler. Mayor' PlanningIBuildinglPublic Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Adininistrator June 15, 2004 Douglas E. Chappelle. '. 2208 Lyons Avenue NE Renton, WA 98059·· ,Subject: Chappelle/Schulz Fence Height Variance LUA'-04-053j V-B Dear.Mr. Chappelle: 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. '. A Public Hearing will beheld by the City of Renton. Board of Adjustment in the Council Chambers on .theseventhfloor of City HaU,1 055 South Grady Way,' Renton, on July 2S;2004at 7:30 PM toconsid~r.the Variance. " You will be notified if. any additional inforrilati~nis required to continue processing your application. Please, contact me at (425) 430-7219 if you have any question~~ ason E. Jordan . Senior Planner cc: Kevin & Lauren Schulz tOwner ------l-OS-S-S'-o-uth-G-ra-d-y-W-ay-. --R-e-n-to-n,-W-a-sh:.-.i-ng-to-n-9-8-0-55-----~ ~ . ® This papercon1ains 50% recycled material, 30% pcistconsumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE • LJ)POLt-bS~ '0 4.-0\'\'0 \.O'f~f:.~:$:t'~G City of Renton <V -(J L\ -~S oeIec~: l\~ LAND USE PERMIT ~~c~\\jWlASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) PROJECT INFORMATION NAME: Douglas E. & Carol Kevin F. & Lauren PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: A. Chappelle Schulz Chappelle/Schulz Fence Height Variance ADDRESS: 2208 Lyons Ave NE 2202 Lyons Ave NE PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE CITY: Renton ZIP: 98059 2208 Lyons Ave NE, Renton, 2202 Lyons Ave NE, Renton, Washington 98059 Washington 98059' TELEPHONE NUMBER: 425-277 -0309 425-6874889 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): APPLICANT (if other than owner) 8035400430 8035400420 NAME: EXISTING LAND USE(S): Single Family(Res Use/Zone) COMPANY (if applicable): PROPOSED LAND USE(S): No change ADDRESS: EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: Residential Rural CITY: ZIP: PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable): No Change TELEPHONE NUMBER EXISTING ZONING: (R-l) Residential 1 dulac CONTACT PERSON PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): No Change NAME: Douglas E. Chappelle SITE AREA (in square feet): 15,492 SqFt 114,877 SqFt SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED COMPANY (if applicable): FOR SUBDIVISIONS OR PRIVATE STREETS SERVING THREE LOTS OR MORE (if applicable): 0 SqFt ADDRESS: 2208 Lyons Ave NE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable): No Change , CITY: Renton ZIP: 98059 NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable): No Change TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS 425-277-0309 douglas.e.chappelle@boeing.com NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): No Change Q:web/pw/devserv/formslplanning!masterapp.doc 05/17/04 P INFORMATION r-------l'-------' NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): PROJECT VALUE: No Change No Change SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): No Change SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): No Change IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): No Change SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): No Change NET FLOOR AREA OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): No Change NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): No Change o AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE No. o AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA TWO No. o FLOOD HAZARD AREA 0 o GEOLOGIC HAZARD 0 o HABITAT CONSERVATION 0 o SHORELINE STREAMS AND LAKES 0 o WETLANDS 0 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (Attach legal description on separate sheet with the following information included) sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. SITUATE IN THE NE QUARTER OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 23N RANGE 5E IN THE CITY OF RENTON . , KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. 43STONEGATETGW UND INT IN TRACTS A, F & J TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES List all land use applications being applied for: 1. Variance 3. -2. 4. Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $ S 13,:3 l... 5\ ).., ~~ AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP /!.aro} .f.}... Cho.ff~/lc.. . I, (Print Namels) n:.' LIft., .Il:... c ~ /U,i4-, declare that I am (please check one) ~ current owner of the property involved in this application dr __ the authoriJ~ representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the fore oin statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. g g (Signature of Owner/Representative) Q:web/pw/devserv/fonns/planninglmasterapp.doc I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Douglas E. Chappelle Signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be hislherltheir free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. 05117/04 pACT INFORMATION (ContinUed) • . AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP We, Douglas E. Chappelle, Carol A. Chappelle, Kevin F. Schulz and Lauren Schulz, declare that we are the current owners of the properties involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Q:web/pw/devserv/forms/planning/masterapp.doc I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Lauren Scliulz signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/herltheir free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. ' ~~~~ Notary Public in and for the State of Washington . ShO-nyu;n Ker~huv.F Notary (Pnnt}-= __ ' ---.....".0;-7'""::::---.---::----- My appointment expires: q . / C; . 05 '05/17/04 PR'JECT INFORMATION (continUed). AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP We, Douglas E. Chappelle, Carol A. Chappelle, Kevin F. Schulz and Lauren Schulz, declare that we are the current owners of the properties involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my .~nowl_e~ge a. Zn.d~ .. ~~lief " __ ' I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Kevin F. Schulz signed this ~. instrument and acknowledged it to be hislherltheir free and voluntary act for the uses and ~!:s'~==-~--'===~=---=::"..y,-===.--purposes mentioned in the instrument. (Signature of Owner/Representa . e if~s~~ Notary (Print) {)hannon )(~aw- My appointment expires:. ___ q ... , ..... Z'--l9""'I-=o..::S:::;"".. ___ _ Q:web/pw/devserv/formslplanninglmasterapp.doc 05/17/04 , . • • Legal Description of Properties Project: Chappelle / Schulz Fence Height Variance Situate in the NE Quarter of Section 3, Township 23N Range 5E in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. Lots 42 & 43 of Stonegate, accurdiilg to plat recorded in volume 177 or plat!. at pages 62 llti:~ugh 68 inclusive. The first property, assessors parcel number 8035400430, is located in King County at 2208 Lyons Avenue Northeast, Renton, Washington, 98059. The second property, assessors parcel number 8035400420, is located in King County at 2202I"yons Avenue Northeast, Renton, Washington, 98059. Q:web/pw/devseJv/fonn~/!llanr.ir.g/ma:;t.:ral'p.d\)c 05/)7/04 · .~ e e e e LIST OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 30D-FEET OF THE SUBJECT SITE City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 PROJECT NAME: Chappelle/Schulz Fence Height Variance DEVEtQ CIr:ME/lfrp OF F1E/Ifr~NtNG NAY 2t2oo~ RECEIVED APPLICATION NO:, ____________________________ _ The following is a list of property owners within 300 feet of the subject site. The Development Services Division will notify these individuals of the proposed development. NAME ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER TERAMANTO INC Unknown 0323059233 . Renton, WA PREDA ION & ESTERA 10250 147TH AVE SE 5230000100 Renton, WA GABRIELSON BRIAN K 10240 147TH AVE SE 5230000110 Renton, WA 98055 COSTANTINI MAURICE J 10228147TH AVE SE 5230000120 Renton, WA 98055 OKESON CHRISTINA M 10218147TH AVE SE 5230000130 Renton, WA 98059 NAGEL MAXINE M 10217147TH AVE SE 5230000150 Renton, WA 98055 5230000160 SCHAEFER SARAH 10223 147TH AVE SE 5230000170 Renton, WA 98055 " TUPOU FELENI M 10231 147TH AVE SE 5230000180 Renton, WA AFFOLTER RUTH 10241147TH AVE SE 5230000190 Renton, WA 98055 RIDDELL JUDITH C 10249147TH AVE SE 5230000210 Renton, WA 5230000200 _ .. MORSE PEGI E 10269 147TH AVE SE 5230000220 Renton, WA 98055 CURRAN KELLY M+LEANORE 2303 LYONS AV NE· 8035400140 Renton, WA 98056 ROBISON H GUNN+DANA F 5313 NE 23RD CT 8035400200 Renton, WA 98056 Q:/web/pw/devservlfonnslplanninglowners.doc 08127/03 .. e e e e STEWART LONNIER+LEDA K 2217 LYONS AV NE 8035400210 Renton, WA 98058 SAFLEY THOMAS S+SARA E . 2211 LYONS AV NE 8035400220 Renton, WA 98058 LOFGREN WILLIAM W+ABNER 2205 LYONS AV NE 8035400230 JUL Renton, WA 98058 ROGERS WI~L1AM L+DEBRA L 5326 NE 22ND CT 8035400240 H Renton, WA 98058 NOLAN MR AND MRS 5320 NE 22ND CT 8035400250 Renton, WA PHUNG THANH VAN 5321 NE 22ND CT 8035400320 Renton, WA HUTCHINSON STEVEN 5401 NE 22ND CT 8035400330 Renton, WA 98059 BALWADA RAVI 2009 LYONS AV NE 8035400340 Renton, WA FLANNERY TIMOTHY 0 5501 NE 21 ST ST 8035400360 Renton, WA PRICE RANDALL E 5505 NE 21ST CT 8035400370 Renton, WA 98058 SLATON DANIEL B+SUSAN B 5511 NE 21 ST CT 8035400380 Renton, WA 98058 RATTlE DENNIS L+ELlZABETH 5510 NE 21ST CT 8035400390 S Renton, WA 98058 BUNN PAUL ANTHONY 5504 NE 21 ST CT 8035400400 Renton, WA 98058 TRIBBLE JOHN+STACY 2106 LYONS AV NE 8035400410 Renton, WA SCHULZ MR+MRS 2202 LYONS AV NE 8035400420 Renton, WA CHAPPELLE DOUGLAS & 2208 LYONS AV NE 8035400430 CAROL Renton, WA WINN STEPHEN G 2212 LYONS AV NE 8035400440 Renton, WA 98058 MESSINA MARC S+MESSINA 2218 LYONS AV NE 8035400450 MADONNA A Renton, WA . HUDGINS DAVID J+KELLY A 2302 LYONS AV NE 8035400460 Renton, WA 98058 MUTT ART GEORGE 2310 LYONS AV NE 8035400470 M+GINGERAR Renton, WA 98056 C:\Documents and Settings\Chappelled\My Documents\City of Renton\owners.doc 2 • e e e e LARSON DAVID TROY 5505 NE 24TH CT 8035400520 Applicant Certification I, Douglas E. Chappelle, hereby certify that the above list(s) of adjacent property ----'RRI''C'''\ (Print Name) .: ~,,~ •••••••• ?~t; \', owners and their addresses were obtained from: f .. ·c,o\lM'S.siO".~~ 't, Title Company Records : ¥t .... Ato~~ ... b '~ King County Assessors Records ~ ~ ; ~ ~"~..L ~ ~ c ~ f1, / c, q / / I / \~.,:~.9. ~ e;,~/J f Signed ~tJW.£A.-Date o/[>k;y \\ .... :9.~ ..... ~ .... o/ hcant) . 7 \,\ __ ", ........ ,'-- NOTARY om before me, a Notary Public, in and !R~ the State of Washington, --+4~~~.u....>::.l-,=+---"7"--on the ~ day of ~ ,20Q!L.. ****For City of Renton Use**** _ ...... ~N KA4t. "I. Z-~ ........ C.At." -.-stON-·· .. ~, CERTIFICATION OF MAILING .f .. ~~s ~":~'~~"1. ; :"0 ~OTARy ~\ ~ : :0 (I): ~ I, 'f' G.\-r~ ~u\ (\ , hereby certify that notices of the proposed aJ:>plic1ation ~ail~ to~ (City Employee) ~ cP. \ ,oUBUC .: ~ ; ~~ ;.A ". .. is : each listed property owner on LD, ',:'JoJ ·· .. 6-29-01 .... ~ .: ., .. .. ~,..., -" 0 ....... ~~ .. -- Date: {, I (g 0 '\ 'F WAS~ ........... " NOTARY A~: Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington residing at~An~ onthe C;<V~ayof ~<t'''M ,20..Q.SL.. , . Si ned' / / . MARllVNKAMCHEFF . . C:\Documents and Senings\Chappelled\My Documents\City of Renton\owners.doc 3 -~ ~~~\~G e • Oft/l€.N\~~O~ r"\~\J€.\..!~ Of P\~ v~ en ,-u~'( 1 \1\\\\'\ Justification for the Variance Request: ",.... D SchulzJChappelle Rear Lot Line Fence Height Variance Application ?~C~\~~ Undue Hardship: The subject properties suffer a unique hardship being situated along the westerly boundary of a large open space/natural reserve which was required to be dedicated by the Developer of the Plat of Stonegate as a condition of Plat approval. While technically owned by the Stonegate Homeowner's Association, the open space reserve is "overseen" by the City of Renton and comprises a large natural space corridor with walking trails and paths used by the surrounding neighborhoods as the equivalent of a public park. Because of the grading of the residential lots, they sit approximately 4' above the adjoining grade of the natural space corridor, with a slope at the immediate rear lot line of the properties. As a result of this grade change, a typical six foot (6') high fence located at the rear property line would have provided no privacy screening for the homes situated upon the residential lots from the sight-line of members of the public using the walking trails within the open space corridor. In addition, it was felt that a six foot high fence was inadequate for purposes of providing "security" against persons seeking to enter the property from the open space corridor. Properties which adjoin a formal public park and other public uses are entitled to erect an eight foot (8') high fence along the common boundary adjoining such public uses in accordance with RMC Section 4-4-040(E)(1) (fence height limitations applicable to commercial, industrial, utility and public uses).· The City of Renton Development . Services Division has stated that this provision is not applicable to the subject properties because they adjoin a privately dedicated open space (presumably as opposed to actual public property). However, the effective use of this open space corridor is equivalent to that of a public park and, thus, applicants are being deprived of the same rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity abutting equivalent public parks to have the same level of privacy screening and security afforded by an eight foot high fence. B. Granting of Variance Will Not be Materially Detrimental to Public Welfare: The stated purpose of the RMC regulations governing fence heights is as follows: The following regulations are intended to provide and maintain adequate sight distance along public rights-of-way at intersections and to encourage safe ingress and egress from individual properties. These regulations also encourage the feeling of spaciousness along neighborhood streets and minimize the closed city atmosphere which tall fences along public rights- of-way can create. (See RMC Section 4-4-040(A)). .. :~ • Schulz/Chappelle Rear Lot Line Fence Height Variance Application The fence which is the subject of this variance is a rear lot line fence which abuts an open space/natural reserve corridor and is neither adjacent to a public right-of-way or otherwise visible to the neighboring homes or streets. As such, allowing a variance to increase the height of the fence from 72" to 96" will neither violate the purpose of the fence height limitations (and, thus, will not be detrimental to the public welfare served thereby), nor be injurious to any property or improvements in the vicinity. On the contrary, RMC Section 4-4-040(E) recognizes that greater security and privacy screening is necessary when dealing with non-residential uses (including commercial, industrial, utility and public uses), and specifically allows an eight foot (8') fence height as long as such fence does not pose a traffic vision hazard. (See RMC Section 4-4- 040(E)(l». Thus, the variance sought is otherwise consistent with the height permitted for fences adjacent to similar public parks and related public uses. C. Approval Does Not Constitute Grant of Special Privileges: As set forth above, any other residential property abutting a similar public park or other public property would be entitled to erect an eight foot (8') high fence along the common boundary line to provide privacy and security from what is otherwise a non-residential use. (See RMC 4- 4-040(E». In the present case, applicants are being denied that same privilege merely because the open space corridor in question was retained as private property by the homeowners association (although dedicated to what is otherwise a public use). Thus, grant of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges; but rather, merely afford applicants the same privileges enjoyed by similarly situated residential property owners abutting public land. D. Minimum Variance Required to Accomplish desired Purpose: As recognized in RMC Section 4-4-040(E), an eight foot (8') high fence is the minimum reasonably necessary to provide adequate screening and security for adjacent non-residential uses, including public parks, and would otherwise be allowed in the present case if the open _ space corridor were dedicated public land (as opposed to being private land dedicated to a public use). Accordingly, the variance sought is the minimum height otherwise recognized under the RMC as being appropriate to fence non-residential uses. p~~~,t-iG OE.'4E.l.OP~~~EN1'Ot-i C\~ .. \e\~'( i tln~ • RE,CE,\\JE,O Project Narrative: • SchulZ/Chappelle Rear Lot Line Fence Height Variance Application Summary: Applicants request a variance from the maximum height limitations for rear lot line fences for residential uses under RMC Section 4-4-040(D)(1)(c) to allow an increase in height from 72" inches to 96" inches (as constructed along the rear of Parcel No.s 8035400420 and 8035400430). The. purpose of the variance is to allow the applicants to have effective privacy and security screening from an adjoining open spaCe/natural reserve corridor which is being used as a public park and trail system. a. Land Use Permits: None b. Zoning Designation of Site: Single Family Residential c. Current Use of Site: Subject property on westerly side of fence used for single family residential dwellings .. Subject property on easterly side of fence dedicated as natural reserve/open space corridor and used as public park/open space trails. d. Special Site Features: Finished grade of residential lots on westerly side of fence elevated approximately four feet (4') above grade of adjacent open space/natural reserve located on easterly side of fence. Slope adjacent to fence line on westerly side. Open space/natural reserve contains various trails and paths used by surrounding residents for recreation and access. e. Soil type and drainage conditions: Unknown. f. Scope of Proposed Development: Limited to as-built construction of rear lot line fence. g. Proposed off-site improvements: None. h. Estimated Construction costs: Less than $2,000.00 I. Number of Trees to be removed: None J. Explanation of Any land to be Dedicated to City: None (Variance sought to mitigate impact of dedication of open space/natural reserve to City adjacent to rear lot line of subject property). k. Proposed Number of New Lots: None 1. Proposed Job Shacks: None m. Proposed Modifications Being Requested: None ~ 12' treated posts trimmed to 1 inch above finished fence cap and capped with post cap o~ ~ ~ 2."Q, o ~ ~~ ~ ~ .. ~';, ~ .-. ';,"1) Min buried post depth = 3 ft ...... : .. • \II' •• • .. . . Variable height boards, eight foot maximum. Attached to conform to natural grade, tops trimmed and capped to produce continuous (usually level) appearance "..... 1.S:LOP.EDOWN .~-."'."""' .. ' .. Chappelle/Schulz Fence H . h .t!toft .... · "GRAVEL 8ASa M el9 t Variance .' ay 17, 2004 ~ ~ 'i\ z ( - - "C '-~ ~ U as .c , == . CI)' --> N ~"C~ ICl)U E -CI) ="C O .... ~ '-.... CI)c C >-- CI) .8 e ~,..'as .. v CI) I-... >-() as :: ---as c: a. CI) () ..... --'" as Q.c: :: as Trail (one year overgrowth after fence was installed) Previously used by trespassers to cross green space and access applicant's property -.~ -, , DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS Calculations 1 : ........... : .... t:·:··· ......... : . ' .. :: .... » 1':'( I"~I.:· "1. h ...... lI..:: .: ...•. "': J-.;.~ .. : ::.··,,· ... C'"'.· .•. , ......... · .•. j' .• ·;.; ··.i.:· ... ~j;.:::··.: .. :·.· •.•. : :;c.: ....• : .. f:.·,j,.'.".;...·.··:.·.·.·.·.:.· .• ·· .. :· .•. ColoreqMaesprPi~laY4 ':.' . .. ". ..... .......... :.::;.ALAluJ/1L1/:~.:JCv~rlfi./v.~fr/I(;pT' Construction Mitigation Description 2AND4 ,1 U Mitlt'c[ DensityWork~~eeti ....... : •. . ..... : .•. ~ ..•••• :: I' .' ••.•. ::'::" •.• :.:-• : ......• : .••. ::.: :.. ••..... ;> •..•• : '.' ~.: .... ..: ............. . Drainage Control Plan 2 . : '.:: ....y ... : ..... . Drainage Report 2 .. :.' ... Elevations, Architectural 3 AND 4 ......... : .. ":..... . •.... : .•.. :::: ..•..•..•. : .: ..• ,!< --::::-Envir()r\ilj~htal Checklish ..•.• :" . . ..•.• : ...... . ......... ::..... . : .•. '·'::1< .< ....... : :»> ..•...• : .•. : Existing Covenants (Recorded COpy)4 Existing Easements (Record~ifbopy) .4 ......... : .....•.•. > :' . -:,{ \2. "': :' ... :> .•••.• ': .. " .' .. ' .:. ••. .••• .... • • .• ..• ..• '> ..•• : .. Flood Hazard Data 4 ~~ Flooi' Plans 3 AND 4 Geotechnical Report 2 AND 3 .... ," Grading Plan, Conceptual 2 .. . ......: .. C.CC" :.:. ': ..•.• •• :. :: ..... : :.: ... <:: .:.: .•.•... :> :: •.. Grading Plan, Detailed 2 King County Assessor's Map Indicating Site4 .. ':' ••...•..•... :: .... ··t·· ..... : .... : ." .... L~n<is~piligPlan,Concept~aI4 .: .. : •.•....•. :. .::.:. .. • ••. :: i . ... : ... '.: . Legal DeSCription 4 ..... :.::) •• : : .• : ...•....••..••..•. > .: ••. : ..• : .•.•.. : .• :. Mailing Labels for Property Owners 4 ..... ":.' '. .. . ................ '. . ..... :: •... : ... :.: :::··:·:···· .. :··::·1 ., .. : ... :::.:: . .. .. : ..•.. :: ...... : .. ::::: ....... :::,:.:.:: ::.:::::: .... : .. ::::. : :'::':':'''::.::.:::::'::'::'.:.' .::':' Mapof~i~~~g$iteQgrlC:ii~~l1s4 .: .. :..« : ... : •...... :.: ... :.: .. : .. > f) •. :: .. :...... . .... :, : •.• : ....x:> .... :. :": .. :'..2) Master Application Form 4 .. : ...• : •.•. : .:<.7 .:G0N/ ••• > •..... : :.:.: ••••• : •• · •••••• :.·.· •.• i Neighborhood Detail Map 4 This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services Section 2. Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building Section DATE; ________ -L~~~~=-__ 4. Development Planning Section Q:\WEB\Pw\DEVSERv\Forms\Planning\waiver.xls 9/2312003 Printed: 06-11-2004 Payment Made: _ .TY OF RENTON 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Land Use Actions RECEIPT Permit#: LUA04-053 05/21/200405:13 PM -. Receipt Number: Total Payment: 512.58 Payee: KEVIN F. SCHULZ Current Payment Made to the Following Items: Trans Account Code Description 5022 000.345.81.00.0019 Variance Fees 5955 000.05.519.90.42.1 Postage Payments made for this receipt Trans Method Description Amount Payment Check 4252 512.58 Account Balances Amount 500.00 12.58 Trans Account Code Description Balance Due 3021 5006 5007 5008 5009 5010 5011 5012 5013 5014 5015 5016 5017 5018 5019 5020 5021 5022 5023 5024 5036 5909 5941 5954 5955 5998 303.000.00.345.85 000.345.81.00.0002 000.345.81.00.0003 000.345.81.00.0004 000.345.81.00.0006 000.345.81.00.0007 000.345.81.00.0008 000.345.81.00.0009 000.345.81.00.0010 000.345.81.00.0011 000.345.81.00.0012 000.345.~1.00.0013 000.345.81.00.0014 000.345.81.00.0015 000.345.81.00.0016 000.345.81.00.0017 000.345.81.00.0018 000.345.81.00.0019 o 000.345.81.00.0024 000.345.81.00.0005 000.341.60.00.0024 000.341.50.00.0000 604.237.00.00.0000 000.05.519.90.42.1 000.231.70.00.0000 Park Mitigation Fee Annexation Fees Appeals/Waivers Binding Site/Short Plat Conditional Use Fees Environmental Review Prelim/Tentative Plat Final Plat PUD Grading & Filling Fees Lot Line Adjustment Mobile Home Parks Rezone Routine Vegetation Mgmt Shoreline Subst Dev Site Plan Approval Temp Use or Fence Review Variance Fees Conditional Approval Fee Comprehensive Plan Amend Booklets/EIS/Copies Maps (Taxable) Special Deposits Postage Tax Remaining Balance Due: $0.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 R0402722 -~-~- -, " ~~ '\\ I ,.. • ." Site Plan 'n ·r'\?~ l , '~ .1 ,0 Chappelle / Schulz Fence Height Variance May 17, 2004 \ Fence iI·· DEVELOPMENTPLANNING CITY OF Pc" f011 MAY 2 \ ::'/'. RECb'!H) " . ~ (;) \0 o '0 V .~ i .. A . • "'1 . l>-' W W lJ.., Z ~ C) ,'" . '" l ' i 1 , 1 , 2 . . G " 1.1 --i ____ _ C{i '1""!t. , , , . < ~ft f '" ". } , , ~~,,: ~ L() - {() . r" ~ ,~ ,. f", ..,-' ,,~ (:J N ill -'f"'~ OJ r- '" ''-'i'' ;,\ '_:.or:-,_". p.t') N 1.0 ·N , .1--. o ('ii,~ .p.t) > .' -",i ~-"if3:'t .# -I .... ~~-NI t'JI it) '~ ,. I J N W Z Neighborhood Detail Map Chappelle / Schulz Fence Height Variance ----- DCVElOPMENT PLANNING ~ CITY OF RENTON MAY 2 1 20011 RECEIVED