HomeMy WebLinkAboutProvost Pier & Boatlift
April 30, 2009
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF RENTON
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
APPLICANT: Cynthia M. and Alan E. Provost
PO Box 1492
Renton,WA 98057
CONTACT: Gregory Ashley
Ashley Shoreline Design & Permitting
16412 NE 10th Place
Bellevue, WA 98008
LUA-09-006, ECF, SM, SMC
LOCATION: 3707 Lake Washington Boulevard North
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Shoreline Conditional Use Permit and a Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit for the installation of a pre-manufactured,
freestanding, portable marine grade aluminum boatlift in
association with an existing single-family residence.
SUMMARY OF ACTION: Development Services Recommendation: Approve
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the
Examiner on March 31, 2009.
PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining
available information on file with the application, field
checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner
conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows:
MINUTES
The following minutes are a summary of the April 7, 2009 hearing.
The legal record is recorded on CD.
The hearing opened on Tuesday, April 7, 2009, at 9:01 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the
Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner.
The following exhibits were entered into the record:
Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the original
application, proof of posting, proof of publication and
other documentation pertinent to this request.
Exhibit No. 2: Vicinity Map
Exhibit No. 3: Site Plan Exhibit No. 4: Pier and Boatlift Elevations
Exhibit No. 5: Zoning Map Exhibit No. 6: City of Renton Determination of Non-
Significance – Mitigated and Mitigation Measures
Provost Pier and Boat lift
File No.: LUA-09-006, ECF, SM, SMC
April 30, 2009
Page 2
Exhibit No. 7: Shoreline Substantial Development
Permit
Exhibit No. 8: E-mail from Muckleshoot Indian Tribe
requesting specific planting along the shoreline.
The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Gerald Wasser, Associate Planner, Community and
Economic Development, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. The property is
located at 3707 Lake Washington Boulevard North. The proposed project is a 65-foot fully grated pier with an
associated free-standing boatlift, which would be of marine grade aluminum. It is pre-manufactured, both the
boatlift and the pier would be assembled and constructed on the water side of the property with the use of barge-
mounted equipment. Eight 8-inch diameter piles would be driven by a drop hammer system located on the
barge for the pier. The boatlift weighs approximately 500 pounds and would be set directly on the lake bottom
on four footpads that are approximately 12” x 18” and would be operated by a hydraulic motor run by a 12 volt
solar powered battery. No lights are projected for this facility. Currently there is no pier or boatlift on this
property, there are similar facilities in the vicinity.
There is a concrete bulkhead along the shoreline and the lakebed consists of sand and gravel. Duration of
construction is estimated at 10-15 days and would take place within the construction window established by the
Department of Fish and Wildlife, July 16-December 31. The proposed project would not obstruct views from
surrounding properties.
The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance – Mitigated with one
mitigation measure. No appeals were filed.
An email was received from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe asking for placement of fish friendly gravel in front
of the bulkhead and the planting of plants like bulrush etc.
Since boatlifts are not specifically identified in the Shoreline Master Program, they require a Hearing Examiner
decision under the Shoreline Conditional Use. The boatlift is consistent with the five Shoreline Conditional Use
Permit criteria. This use is compatible with other permitted uses along this portion of Lake Washington. This
use will not interfere with the public use of public shorelines. The proposed use is for one watercraft to be
maintained at this site. The design is compatible with the surroundings and the City’s Master Program. The
freestanding residential boatlift would be associated with an existing single family residence and would be
located 13-feet from the southerly property line and 9 feet from the northerly property line. The use is in
harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City’s Master Program. The City of Renton piers and docks
require a five foot side yard setback and cannot exceed 80 feet in length.
Gregory Ashley, Ashley Shoreline Design & Permitting, 16412 NE 10th Place, Bellevue, WA 98008 stated that
the US Corps of Engineers, Fisheries and US Wildlife recommend that all boatlifts be placed in deeper than 9-
feet of water, this project was designed in order to get the boatlift into just over nine feet of water.
In reference to the suggestion that spawning gravel be placed along the bulkhead as well as plant emergent
vegetation, due to the depth of the water at the bulkhead which is three and a half feet over the high water mark,
most emergent vegetation would not take hold and root in that location due to the wave and wind action that
takes place on this site. Spawning gravel tends to move around quite vigorously so it would not stay in place.
The only fish that spawn on the beach are sockeye and that is not a sockeye spawning area, other fish will not
come in to spawn along that section. Enough gravel could be brought in to make the water shallower, however,
the gravel will not stay in place, it will wash away and be gone, some may come back but it would take a large
structure to keep the gravel in place.
Provost Pier and Boat lift
File No.: LUA-09-006, ECF, SM, SMC
April 30, 2009
Page 3
The hydraulic fluid used in these lifts is non-toxic and not detrimental to the environment.
The pier is fully grated to allow light to pass through the surface. This will help discourage predators from
hanging out under the pier and allows salmon to hang out under the pier without the fear of predators.
Jerry Brennan, 3405 Lake Washington Blvd., Renton 98056 stated that he lives just south of the site and is in
support of the residential docks in the area and believe this dock meets the criteria for the use.
Kayren Kittrick, Community and Economic Development stated that she has seen nothing on the documents
showing that there is a sanitary sewer line that serves most of these homes. They must do a locate prior to
installing any piles. It will be necessary to call before any digging is done in order to protect the sewer line.
The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and
no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 9:28 a.m.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION
Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following:
FINDINGS:
1. The applicants, Cynthia M. and Alan E. Provost, filed a request for a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit
as well as a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit to install a pier and boatlift in Lake Washington.
2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation
and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit #1.
3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official issued a Determination of
Non-Significance- Mitigated (DNS-M).
4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter.
5. There was no opposition from the public regarding the subject proposal.
6. The subject site is located at 3707 Lake Washington Boulevard North. The subject site is located west
of Lake Washington Boulevard on the shoreline of Lake Washington.
7. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as
suitable for the development of single family uses, but does not mandate such development without
consideration of other policies of the Plan.
8. The subject site is currently zoned R-8 (Single Family - 8 dwelling units/acre).
9. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 1804 enacted in December
1959.
Provost Pier and Boat lift
File No.: LUA-09-006, ECF, SM, SMC
April 30, 2009
Page 4
10. The subject site is approximately 4,549 square feet but a portion of the property extends out into the
lake.
11. A single family home is located on the eastern, uplands portion of the site.
12. The applicant proposes erecting a new pier and boatlift. The pier is proposed to be 65 feet long and
vary from 4 to 8 feet wide. The pier would have a surface area of approximately 315 square feet. It
would have a grated deck that allow light to pass making it less likely to harbor salmon predators.
The pier would be supported by eight 8-inch piles.
13. The boatlift would be approximately 10 feet square with a surface area of approximately 100 square
feet. The boatlift would be freestanding and portable. It would be constructed of marine grade
aluminum.
14. All construction would be accomplished from the lake by barge.
15. Code requires a five foot side yard setback from the property line. The pier and boatlift would be
located approximately 13 feet from the south property line and approximately 9 feet from the north
property line. Code permits docks to extend 80 feet into the lake and the applicant proposes a 65 foot
long combination.
16. The work will be done in the time window specified by the state to avoid interfering with salmon
activity in the lake.
17. The hydraulic fluid that will help operate the boatlift is non-toxic and biodegradable so leaks would not
create any environmental hazards.
18. The Muckleshoot tribe wants a gravel bottom to allow plants to be established in this area.
19. The applicant's representative noted that in this location, wind and water action would disrupt any
bottom materials and hamper plant growth.
20. Lake Washington's shoreline is classified as a Shoreline of Statewide Significance and therefore any
development adjacent to it is subject to the City's Shoreline Master Program. This section of the
shoreline is designated as an Urban Shoreline.
21. Staff noted that the residential designation of the subject site permits docks associated with single-
family uses along this portion of the shoreline. Boatlifts are not a listed use nor are they a prohibited
use and, therefore, are subject to a shoreline conditional use review.
22. A Metro sewer line is located in the lake bottom in the vicinity of the subject site. The applicant should
take precautions and make sure the location of the line is known when they begin operation.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The criteria for approving a Shoreline Conditional Use permit are twofold. There are City criteria and
those City criteria require compliance with additional State criteria. Those criteria are as follows:
Provost Pier and Boat lift
File No.: LUA-09-006, ECF, SM, SMC
April 30, 2009
Page 5
Renton: Section 4-9-190.I.5:
5. Conditional Use:
a. Purpose: Upon proper application, a conditional use permit may be granted.
The objective of a conditional use provision is to provide more control and
flexibility for implementing the regulations of the Master Program. With
provisions to control undesirable effects, the scope of uses can be expanded
to include many uses.
b. Decision Criteria: Uses classified as conditional uses can be permitted only
after consideration and by meeting such performance standards that make
the use compatible with other permitted uses within that area. A conditional
use permit will be granted subject to each of the following conditions:
i. The use must be compatible with other permitted uses within that area.
ii. The use will not interfere with the public use of public shorelines.
iii. Design of the site will be compatible with the surroundings and the City's Master
Program.
iv. The use shall be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City's Master
Program.
v. The use meets the conditional use criteria in WAC 173-27-160.
Washington State: WAC 173-27-160:
Review criteria for conditional use permits. The purpose of a conditional use permit is to provide a
system within the master program which allows flexibility in the application of use regulations in a
manner consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020. In authorizing a conditional use, special
conditions may be attached to the permit by local government or the department to prevent undesirable
effects of the proposed use and/or to assure consistency of the project with the act and the local master
program.
(1) Uses which are classified or set forth in the applicable master program as conditional uses
may be authorized provided that the applicant demonstrates all of the following:
(a) That the proposed use is consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and the
master program;
(b) That the proposed use will not interfere with the normal public use of public
shorelines;
(c) That the proposed use of the site and design of the project is compatible with other
authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the
comprehensive plan and shoreline master program;
Provost Pier and Boat lift
File No.: LUA-09-006, ECF, SM, SMC
April 30, 2009
Page 6
(d) That the proposed use will cause no significant adverse effects to the shoreline
environment in which it is to be located; and
(e) That the public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect.
(2) In the granting of all conditional use permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative
impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example, if conditional use permits
were granted for other developments in the area where similar circumstances exist, the total of
the conditional uses shall also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and shall
not produce substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment.
(3) Other uses which are not classified or set forth in the applicable master program may be
authorized as conditional uses provided the applicant can demonstrate consistency with the
requirements of this section and the requirements for conditional uses contained in the master
program.
(4) Uses which are specifically prohibited by the master program may not be authorized
pursuant to either subsection (1) or (2) of this section.
2. The area is zoned for and developed with single family uses. Many of the properties are served by
docks and piers and some properties have boatlifts. The boatlift proposed by the applicant appears to be
compatible with the uses located in this area.
3. The proposed boatlift should not interfere with any public use of the shoreline. Docks located both
north and south of the proposed dock already extend out into the lake and therefore, an additional pier
will not hamper near-shore navigation. This shoreline is privately owned and developed with a single-
family home.
4. The lift will be setback from property lines more than required by code and will not create any untoward
impacts on adjacent uses or on water-oriented uses.
5. The next series of criteria are contained within the Washington Administrative Code. One of the
paramount goals is to protect the ecology of the shoreline. In this case, there should be no change other
than some disturbance of the lake bottom during construction but this will occur at a time that limits
interference with salmon. While it was suggested that materials such as gravel be placed along the lake
bottom that might encourage plant growth, the location is apparently not suitable for this type of
rehabilitation.
6. The lot, as noted, is private and it extends out into the lake. The proposed pier and boatlift serve the lot.
Private uses are permitted in this area of the shoreline. The use is similar to those uses permitted in an
urban shoreline. The use should not impair the public use of this section of the lakeshore or the water in
its vicinity.
7. The pier and low-scale boatlift will not interfere with any uses that might occur in this area of the lake.
The comprehensive plan designates this area as suitable for single-family uses and the normal
complement of accessory uses. On a lakeshore property, piers, docks and similar uses including a
boatlift are considered reasonable accessory uses.
8. The proposed boatlift should not create any significant adverse affects on the shoreline environment.
Provost Pier and Boat lift
File No.: LUA-09-006, ECF, SM, SMC
April 30, 2009
Page 7
9. The pier and boatlift should not further harm the public interest.
10. As noted in earlier decisions, the analysis of cumulative impact or impacts is hard to judge. A series of
docks already protrude out into the lake from many of the homes. Clearly, there have had to be impacts
to water quality and habitat as a result of motor boating and docks shading the lake and some of the
shallow areas. This additional action will probably not have much effect on the overall circumstances.
11. Since boatlifts are neither permitted nor prohibited outright, they do require review under the
Conditional Use criteria. The proposed use is generally consistent with the criteria noted above.
12. The applicant will need to ascertain the location of the Metro sewer line before beginning any
operations in this area.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Conditional Use Permit and the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the pier and boatlift
should be approved subject to the following condition:
1. The applicant shall ascertain the location of the Metro sewer line and take precautions to avoid
any interference with the line or its functions.
ORDERED THIS 30th day of April 2009.
FRED J. KAUFMAN
HEARING EXAMINER
TRANSMITTED THIS 30th day of April 2009 to the following:
Mayor Denis Law Dave Pargas, Fire
Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Larry Meckling, Building Official
Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Planning Commission
Marty Wine, Assistant CAO Transportation Division
Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Utilities Division
Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Neil Watts, Development Services
Jennifer Henning, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services
Stacy Tucker, Development Services Renton Reporter
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100Gof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in
writing on or before 5:00 p.m., May 14, 2009 Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner
is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new
evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review
by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth
the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the
record, take further action as he deems proper.
Provost Pier and Boat lift
File No.: LUA-09-006, ECF, SM, SMC
April 30, 2009
Page 8
An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal
be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements.
Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City
Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., May 14, 2009.
If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the
executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You
may contact this office for information on formatting covenants.
The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur
concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in
private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both
the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council.
All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all
interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the
evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court.
The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as
Appeals to the City Council.