Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDB 8407090677 601E July 2, 1984 t OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER _ CITY OF RENTON • REPORT AND DECISION. PARTY IN INTEREST: JOHN E. HARER -IS ` 00 22 FILE NO. AAD-065-84 and D-135-84 LOCATION: 305 N. W. 7th Street (See attached Legal Description) SUMMARY OF HEARING: Review of a dangerous building complaint filed by the Building Official to determine whether the structure is a dangerous building as defined by Section 4-2106 of the Dangerous Building Code. Hearing Examiner Decision: Building is considered to be dangerous and shall be brought up to City Code. The hearing was opened on June 26, 1984, at 10:05 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner.- r ;QR; j i j APPEARING AT THE !,�i n �; 25 E,3 '8t4 HEARING WERE: Zanetta Fontes - attorney'for the City of`Renton. 'SION OF Kenneth Shellan, attorney for the applicant, ;;: j Ken Bindara, Lead Building Inspector for the City of Renton. O) Ms. Fontes announced that legal counsel for the applicant was in attendance and a possible agreement could be reached without holding a public hearing. Ken Shellan, attorney for the applicant spoke with Ms. Fontes and it was stated that there was a stipulation that the house, as CO it now stands and where it stands, is in fact a dangerous building according to the code. Ms. Fontes stated if a hearing was necessary the recommendation would have been to demolish, repair or remove the house within 60 days. The applicant is going to attempt to move the house 15 feet forward, thus considering this action as repair. It was proposed this be done within 60 days as they are now waiting for soil samples and dealing with the possibility of having to file for a variance. If there is a delay due to filing for a variance, it will be at the discretion of the Building Department whether or not to grant an extension. At this point the Examiner inquired of the Zoning Administrator, Roger Blaylock, if the entire process could be accomplished within the 60 days, including the presentation to the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Blaylock stated the next Board of Adjustment meeting would not be until September. The deadline is past for placing items on the current Agenda, but if an application would be submitted within the next few days he would try to have it placed on the agenda for the upcoming hearing before the Board. Ken Bindara, Lead Building Inspector for the City responded for the Department stating there would be no objection to the proposed 60 day time frame, but wanted the house boarded up to keep out the children in the area. He stated that any extension of time should be at the discretion of the Building Department. At this time the Building Department does not know if the applicant needs a variance. Mr. Bindara again clarified his position stating any deviation from the 60 day time frame would have to be discussed with the Building Department. Ms. Fontes wanted to restate for the record her interpretation of the agreement. It was agreed that: In the event a variance is not necessary, the house will be moved or demolished within 60 days. If a variance is needed, the house will be moved or demolished within 30 days after the decision on the variance request is made. It was felt this agreement showed good faith on the part of the City and the applicant had expressed a good faith desire to do what is necessary to comply with City Code. It was also noted by the Examiner that if the building was not moved or removed within the time frame of the agreement, without any further hearings, the building would come down. At this point in the hearing the attorney for the applicant, Ken Shellan wanted it placed in the record that there is a law suit pending on the property and he wanted the City to retain jurisdiction to mitigate damages. The Hearing Examiner explained this was out of his jurisdiction, but would have it entered into the record. FILED FOR RECORD AT REQUEST OF °FRE OF THE CITY CLERK RENTON MUNICIPAL BLDG, 200 MILL AVE SO. RENTON,WA 98055 JOHN E. HARER File No. AAD-065-84 and D-135-84 T1 Page 2 4-1 The Hearing Examiner called for further testimony from persons in attendance who wished to speak for or against the application. Responding was: William G. Thomas 8810 South 122nd Seattle, Washington, 98178 Mr. Thomas presented three letters from neighbors who were unable to attend the hearing - all of which are against granting a variance to this property so the house can be moved closer to the street. He said the house, in their opinion is a eyesore, a fire hazard, a danger to the children in the neighborhood, and a health problem because of the rodents present inside the property as well as in a canyon behind the property. He said there has been alot of dumping of junk behind the property, in a canyon which is in a water course. Mr. Thomas was concerned about moving the house closer to the street stating if this was allowed there would be no parking available for visitors. The Hearing Examiner advised Mr. Thomas that if a variance is necessary there will be a Board of Adjustment hearing and he and the neighbors are all welcome co to attend and speak. 0P) There being no one else wishing to testify, the hearing was closed at 10:26 a.m. INTRODUCTION This matter came before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Renton pursuant to Ordinance 3809, The Dangerous Building Code, on June 26, 1984 at 10:00 a.m. The Hearing was held in the Council Chambers in the Renton Municipal Building. Parties to the proceeding were: The City of Renton by its Attorney Zanetta Fontes; Ken Bindara, Lead Building Inspector, City of Renton; and Kenneth Shellan, Counsel for John E. Harer, property owner. After due consideration of the evidence elicited during the hearing, the following findings of fact and conclusions shall constitute the decision of the Hearing Examiner. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The subject site is located at 305 N.W. 7th Street in the City of Renton (see attachment for legal description). Located on the site is a single family residence. The structure is situated in such fashion as to be partially perched over a ravine. Portions of the foundation have slipped into the ravine and portions of the building, therefore, remain unsupported. 2. For purposes of the dangerous building hearing the property owner, through an attorney has stipulated that the building is a dangerous building as that term in defined under the code provisions. Therefore, the owner has agreed to repair the building by relocating it to more stable ground after a soils study is accomplished. If relocation proves infeasible the building would be removed from the site or demolished. 3. The City prefers to have the property restored to a safe condition as soon as possible. The building is open and ,access by vagrants and minors is possible. The Building Department recommends that as an interim measure the building be secured from entry no matter what transpires as a result of this proceeding. 4. Depending upon the soils analysis the owner proposes that within 60 days of this decision the building will be either relocated on the site if no variance is necessary, moved to another site or demolished. If the soils analysis provides information that relocation on the site is possible but a variance for such relocation is necessary, the owner proposes that the building would be relocated within 30 days of such variance decision. If the variance is necessary but is denied the owner would either move the building to another site or demolish it within 30 days. Any variance request would be to the Board of Adjustment. - 5. Any deviation from these limits extending the time would remain solely with the Building Department and would be based upon reasonable extenuating circumstances. 6. The parties further agreed that no further hearings would be necessary regarding whether the building is an unsafe building according to the provisions and that the stipulation to its unsafe character would be binding upon the property owner. 3 • ' r , -11OHN E. HARER File No. AAD-065-84 and D-135-84 Page 3 7. Dumping, presumably unsanctioned has occurred on the site and in the adjacent ravine. CONCLUSIONS 1. The stipulation that the existing building is unsafe permits the conclusion that the complaint of the Building Official is justified. The building is a "dangerous building", and therefore, the building must either be repaired in accordance with the current building code or demolished at the option of the owner. (Section 4-2103(A)). 2. As the parties have agreed, the building will either be relocated on the subject site if a variance for such relocation is unnecessary and if a soils analysis proves favorable to such a move; moved off the site; or demolished within 60 days of this decision. 3. If for whatever reason a variance is necessary for on-site relocation, then the owner will apply for such variance at the earliest possible date, and will either relocate the building in accordance with such variance, if one is issued, (not a foregone conclusion) or remove the building from the site or demolish it. Any action whether on-site relocation, an off-site move or demolition resulting from the decision on the variance shall be accomplished within 30 days of the variance decision. 4. Pursuant to Section 4-2103(B) the building must be vacated and closed to unauthorized entry since the condition of the building is such as to make it immediately dangerous to life, and limb. Measures for securing the building from entry shall be subject to approval of the Building Department. 5. Any deviation from these limits extending the time would remain solely with the Building Department and would be based upon reasonable extenuating circumstances. ORDER OI. The following time limits shall be effective depending upon whether a variance for on-site relocation is required: O1. Within Sixty (60) Days and provided that no variance is necessary to relocate the building on-site, and limited solely to a variance or variances for the subject site: The building will either be: A. Relocated on the subject site in accordance with the City of Renton's applicable Building and Zoning Codes now in force; B. Moved off the subject site; or C. Demolished; or 2. Within Thirty (30) Days and provided a variance is necessary to relocate.the building on-site and regardless of the outcome of a decision on a variance: • • - The building will either be: . 00 wry.,,, • A. Relocated on the subject site in accordance with the City0 tib,, Renton's applicable Building and Zoning Codes now in force; B. Moved off the subject site; or C. Demolished; and 3. Further provided, that because of the extreme structural instability of the building, the denial of a necessary variance will not effect the running of these time limits; and 4. Provided further that variances or other governmental authorizations not relating to the subject site shall have no effect on the time limits contained herein. 5. Any extention of the time limits provided herein will be solely at the discretion of the Building Official. II. The building will be secured and vacated subject to the approval of the Building Official. • JOHN E. HARER File No. AAD-065-84 and D-135-84 A Page L 1 ORDERED THIS 2nd day of July, 1984. Fred J. Kaufman g Land Use Hearing aminer D. TRANSMITTED THIS 2nd day of July. 1984 to the parties of record: Ken Shellan, Attorney 321 Burnett Avenue So. Renton, Wa. 98055 William G. Thomas (X) 8810 South 122nd Seattle, Washington, 98178 TRANSMITTED THIS 2nd day of July, 1984 to the following: Mayor Barbara Y. Shinpoch Zanetta Fontes, Attorney Ken Bindara, Building Department Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Richard Houghton, Public Works Director David Clemens, Policy Development Director Members, Renton Planning Commission Ronald Nelson, Building & Zoning Director Roger Blaylock, Zoning Administrator Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Renton Record-Chronicle Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before July 16, 1984. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific errors relied upon by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. Any appeal,is governed by Title IV, Section 3011, which requires that such appeal be filed with the Su oz,,court of Washington for King County within thirty (30) days from the date of the Exa ie1 s4leation. >'..r ;,fir,' as • r gUBS9R ? 211 • ..salvo• i TO BE pl i Nota •ubiic ' r residing at�� tie State 4-Washington, FILED FOR RECORD AT REQUEST OF OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK RENTON MUNICIPAL BLDG. 200 MITI AVE.SO. RENTON,WA 98055 } s ` . - .7 - PROPERTY ADDRESS: 305 N.W. 7th Street f' r. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of Short Plat #26-76, according to the Short , Plat survey recorded under King County recording #761019-0753. r. F ' i' ic I 0 Cf) fr 0 [. a E it j 1 INTEROFFICE CORRESPONDENCE Date e' TO: . - - FROM: Maxine E. Motor, City Clerk SUBJECT: We return herewith fully executed document(s) , as above- captioned, copy of which we have retained for our official public records. Copies should be forwarded to and the other for your file. Pursuant to your memo of we return herewith document(s) , as above-captioned, which have been signed by City Officials and need to be forwarded for further execution by We return herewith recorded document(s) , as above-captioned, copy of which we have retained for our official public records. Copies should be forwarded to appropriate parties and retained as necessary for your files. Please file a fully executed copy with the City Clerk's office for our permanent records when received. Thank you. MEM:db cc: -