Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEx_07_Public_CommentCAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. From:Planning Customer Service To:Jennifer Cisneros Cc:Brittany Gillia Subject:FW: Questions on variances LUA21-000067 Date:Wednesday, March 10, 2021 9:44:22 AM Hi Jenny, will you please Todd Campbell as a party of record to the LUA below. Thanks! -Matt From: Todd Campbell <toddcampbell42@icloud.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 8:46 AM To: Planning Customer Service <PlanningCustomerService@rentonwa.gov>; Brittany Gillia <BGillia@Rentonwa.gov> Cc: Rebecca Campbell <rcampbell88@icloud.com> Subject: Questions on variances Good morning, My name is Todd Campbell and My wife Rebecca and I own the property 3619 Park Avenue N (3342700457)and 3613 Park Ave North. We received this document in the mail today referring to PR21-000074 My precious home variances, LUA21-000067, V-A, V-A, V-A I have questions and I am concerned on all of the set backs being mentioned. I am also concerned about the maximum height of the structure obstructing view and blocking sunlight. The multiple office spaces mentioned is also concerning in a residential neighborhood. Are these office spaces separate from the structure? What is the setback in the rear? I called Brittany Gillia, but she is out of the office until March 17, 2021. The deadline for comments is on 3/17/2021. I also went to the link http://cut.LY/XI8ruCA and could not find any information. Please call me as soon as possible, so I can make my next steps in understanding the scope of the project. I want to be updated on any information on this project and be part of the written record. Please send hard copies as well. Regards, Todd Campbell Exhibit 7 DocuSign Envelope ID: 0CA48C0A-C24B-4062-AF0E-588F9D64E62E Todd Campbell | Pro Sales Representative | BEHR| KILZ Pacific Northwest Region c. 206-715-8800 | tcampbell@behr.com DocuSign Envelope ID: 0CA48C0A-C24B-4062-AF0E-588F9D64E62E 1 Brittany Gillia From:Brittany Gillia Sent:Thursday, March 18, 2021 10:00 AM To:Rebecca Campbell; Todd Campbell Subject:RE: Questions on variances Hello Rebecca and Todd, Thank you for submitting your public comment for the My Precious Home Variances. Your comments have been received and you have been added to the project as parties of record. Rebecca, to obtain records of previous variances that have been approved for previous projects exceeding height limits by 2 feet in the past 5 years, please submit a public records request. You can find online resources here: https://rentonwa.gov/city_hall/municipal_court/records_request Todd, the offices mentioned in the application are home offices that are included in the structure, they do not appear to be commercial offices. The use of the room will be up to the future home owner. The rear yard setback is proposed to be 15’ and the standard rear yard setback for the R-6 zone is 25’. Here is a different link to the submittal items for this project: https://edocs.rentonwa.gov/Documents/Browse.aspx?id=8423305&dbid=0&repo=CityofRenton As I am just returning from being out of the office, I am still sorting through correspondence that has happened while I’ve been out. I understand that you have spoken to a representative from our Planning Customer Service line, but I wanted to check in- have all of your questions been answered or did you have any additional questions you wanted to ask about? Thank you, Brittany Gillia, Assistant Planner City of Renton | CED | Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way | 6th Floor | Renton, WA 98057 Office Phone: (425) 430-7246| bgillia@rentonwa.gov Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, I am working from home and will respond quicker to calls on my cell number than my desk phone. COVID-19 UPDATE City Hall is currently closed to the public but we are still available to assist you. I can be reached via cell at (503)985-8621. · Pay Invoice and Apply for Over-the-Counter Permit: Permitting Portal · Schedule an Inspection: Permitting Portal -OR- Building: 425-430-7202; Civil/Site: 425-430-7203 · Contact Staff: o Building or General Permitting: permittech@rentonwa.gov or 425-430-7200 o Planning: planningcustomerservice@rentonwa.gov or 425-430-7294 o Public Works Permitting: pwpermitting@rentonwa.gov or 206-402-8626 o Code Compliance: Renton Responds or 425-430-7373. From: Planning Customer Service <PlanningCustomerService@rentonwa.gov> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 9:37 AM DocuSign Envelope ID: 0CA48C0A-C24B-4062-AF0E-588F9D64E62E 2 To: Brittany Gillia <BGillia@Rentonwa.gov> Subject: FW: Questions on variances Brittany, I hope you enjoyed your time off. Thanks for responding to this email. Thank you, Planning Customer Service City of Renton | CED | Planning Division 1055 S Grady Way | 6th Floor | Renton, WA 98057 (425) 430-7294 | PlanningCustomerService@rentonwa.gov From: Rebecca Campbell <rcampbell88@icloud.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 12:17 PM To: Planning Customer Service <PlanningCustomerService@rentonwa.gov> Cc: Brittany Gillia <BGillia@Rentonwa.gov> Subject: Fwd: Questions on variances Regarding PR21-000074 My precious home variances, LUA21-000067, V-A, V-A, V-A And part of our written record, we would like copies of all variances requests that have been approved 2 feet and over in the last 5 years. Requests for over height restrictions and over setback restrictions. Please keep as part of our written record. Rebecca Text or Call: 206-579-3480 Sent from my mobile device Begin forwarded message: From: Todd Campbell <toddcampbell42@icloud.com> Date: March 16, 2021 at 12:09:42 PM PDT To: Rebecca Campbell <rcampbell88@icloud.com> Subject: Fwd: Questions on variances Todd Campbell | Pro Sales Representative | BEHR| KILZ Pacific Northwest Region c. 206-715-8800 | tcampbell@behr.com Begin forwarded message: From: Todd Campbell <toddcampbell42@icloud.com> Date: March 10, 2021 at 8:46:17 AM PST CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. DocuSign Envelope ID: 0CA48C0A-C24B-4062-AF0E-588F9D64E62E 3 To: planningcustomerservice@rentonwa.gov, bgillia@rentonwa.gov Cc: Rebecca Campbell <rcampbell88@icloud.com> Subject: Questions on variances Good morning, My name is Todd Campbell and My wife Rebecca and I own the property 3619 Park Avenue N (3342700457)and 3613 Park Ave North. We received this document in the mail today referring to PR21-000074 My precious home variances, LUA21-000067, V-A, V-A, V-A I have questions and I am concerned on all of the set backs being mentioned. I am also concerned about the maximum height of the structure obstructing view and blocking sunlight. The multiple office spaces mentioned is also concerning in a residential neighborhood. Are these office spaces separate from the structure? What is the setback in the rear? I called Brittany Gillia, but she is out of the office until March 17, 2021. The deadline for comments is on 3/17/2021. I also went to the link http://cut.LY/XI8ruCA and could not find any information. Please call me as soon as possible, so I can make my next steps in understanding the scope of the project. I want to be updated on any information on this project and be part of the written record. Please send hard copies as well. Regards, Todd Campbell DocuSign Envelope ID: 0CA48C0A-C24B-4062-AF0E-588F9D64E62E 4 Todd Campbell | Pro Sales Representative | BEHR| KILZ Pacific Northwest Region c. 206-715-8800 | tcampbell@behr.com DocuSign Envelope ID: 0CA48C0A-C24B-4062-AF0E-588F9D64E62E 1 Brittany Gillia From:Rowland Stow <stows@comcast.net> Sent:Thursday, March 18, 2021 8:49 AM To:Brittany Gillia Subject:Re: PR21-000074 My Precious Home Variances Brittany, the text is as follows. I trust this doesn’t mean I missed the March 17 cutoff. 1309 N 36th Street Renton, WA 98056 March 15, 2021 City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 Attention: Brittany Gillia, Assistant Planner Re: File No.: PR21-000074 My Precious Home Variances / LUA21-000067, V-A,V-A, V-A Dear Ms. Gillia, This letter is in response to the Notice of Application regarding a piece of property on N 37th Street. The applicant has requested a variance on the Lot Coverage based on “practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship” associated with the Zoning Code. The Code has not changed since they recently purchased the property. They knew the rules going in and should abide by them. The applicant has requested a variance on the Maximum Top Plate Height. Instead of the Code-required 24-feet, with a maximum building height of 30-feet, they are proposing a maximum top plate height of 27.5-feet with no increase in CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. DocuSign Envelope ID: 0CA48C0A-C24B-4062-AF0E-588F9D64E62E 2 maximum building height. To help justify the height variance the applicant notes the heights on the houses to the south and west. Both of these structures have sloped roofs. The proposed design is a flat roof structure, with a minimum height of 28-feet, 62-feet long on a 77-foot wide lot. It is not “substantially similar” to other houses in the area. I also understand the house to the south was constructed higher than was permitted. The applicant has requested a variance on the Setbacks. It is my understanding that a property owner on the north side of 37th, while doing an upgrade to their own home, was denied a variance. It is not fair and reasonable that a developer can get a variance when a property owner can’t. Please contact us at stows@comcast.net if you have any questions or comments. Yours truly, Susan Stow On Mar 18, 2021, at 8:26 AM, Brittany Gillia <BGillia@Rentonwa.gov> wrote: Hello, I am unable to open a blank email with an attachment only for security reasons, can you please resend your email with the text in the body of the message? Thank you, Brittany Gillia, Assistant Planner City of Renton | CED | Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way | 6th Floor | Renton, WA 98057 Office Phone: (425) 430-7246| bgillia@rentonwa.gov Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, I am working from home and will respond quicker to calls on my cell number than my desk phone. COVID-19 UPDATE City Hall is currently closed to the public but we are still available to assist you. I can be reached via cell at (503)985-8621. . Pay Invoice and Apply for Over-the-Counter Permit: Permitting Portal . Schedule an Inspection: Permitting Portal -OR- Building: 425-430-7202; Civil/Site: 425-430-7203 . Contact Staff: o Building or General Permitting: permittech@rentonwa.gov or 425-430-7200 o Planning: planningcustomerservice@rentonwa.gov or 425-430-7294 o Public Works Permitting: pwpermitting@rentonwa.gov or 206-402-8626 o Code Compliance: Renton Responds or 425-430-7373. DocuSign Envelope ID: 0CA48C0A-C24B-4062-AF0E-588F9D64E62E 3 -----Original Message----- From: Rowland Stow <stows@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 3:48 PM To: Brittany Gillia <BGillia@Rentonwa.gov> Subject: PR21-000074 My Precious Home Variances CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. DocuSign Envelope ID: 0CA48C0A-C24B-4062-AF0E-588F9D64E62E 1 Brittany Gillia From:Joe Hamell <jhamell@montgomerypurdue.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 17, 2021 3:14 PM To:Brittany Gillia Cc:Rebecca Campbell Subject:Campbell comments to PR21-000074 My Precious Home Variances / LUA21-000067 Attachments:Hamell letter to Gillia comments 03 17 2021 (02459157).PDF Ms. Gillia, I represent Todd and Rebecca Campbell. The Campbells own the property directly south of the applicant’s property (parcel 3342700457) and an additional nearby property (parcel 3342700459). Please see the attached comments to the above referenced application. Please provide me with notices regarding this application. Please let me know if you have any questions. Joseph A. Hamell | Attorney | he/him/his MONTGOMERY PURDUE PLLC 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5500 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 682-7090 Direct: (206) 695-1159 jhamell@montgomerypurdue.com www.montgomerypurdue.com Privileged or confidential information may be contained in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not copy or communicate this message to anyone. If you received this message in error, please destroy this message and notify the sender by reply email. We are committed to our environment. Please join us and consider not printing this e-mail unless necessary. We have modernized our firm name and changed our email addresses. Please update your contact information for my email address and the firm name accordingly. Thank you. CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. DocuSign Envelope ID: 0CA48C0A-C24B-4062-AF0E-588F9D64E62E {21900/0001/02457228-1} Joseph A. Hamell ATTORNEY AT LAW jhamell@montgomerypurdue.com March 17, 2021 Brittany Gillia Department of Community & Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 bgillia@rentonwa.gov Re: PR21-000074 My Precious Home Variances / LUA21-000067 Dear Ms. Gillia: I represent Todd and Rebecca Campbell. The Campbells own the property directly south of the applicant’s property (parcel 3342700457) and an additional nearby property (parcel 3342700459). The Campbells request the City deny the applicants request for variances to increase top plate height; increase lot coverage; and to reduce front and rear yard setbacks. In addition to the comments below, the Campbells request the public comment period to be extended for another 60 days so that they can gather additional information to submit as part of their comments. An extension would be particularly appropriate here as the designated contact person for the City who could answer questions regarding the application was out of the office during a significant portion of the comment period. When requesting a variance, the burden of proof as to the appropriateness of the application lies with the applicant. In order to approve a variance request, the Reviewing Official must find all of the following conditions exist. RMC 4-9-250(6). • That the applicant suffers practical difficulties and unnecessary 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; DocuSign Envelope ID: 0CA48C0A-C24B-4062-AF0E-588F9D64E62E Montgomery Purdue PLLC March 17, 2021 Page 2 {21900/0001/02457228-1} • 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; • 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; • That the approval is a minimum variance that will accomplish the desired purpose. The applicant’s requests for variances related to increased top plate height; increased lot coverage and front and rear yard setbacks does not meet all of the criteria required to grant a variance. As a general matter, the size of the lot was known at the time the applicant purchased the lot. In light of the obvious knowledge that the lot was smaller and had building limitations, the applicant cannot complain that it is unfair to them that the code would provide for a smaller home than would be allowed to be built on a larger lot. There is nothing inherently unfair about enforcing the development code to the lot. The applicant will be able to build a home but not the same size home as could be built on a larger lot. As the development potential of the lot is known, the price of the lot reflects those limitations. Thus, the applicants’ investment expectations are fairly met by the application of the code as written. There is no indication that the residence the code would allow to be built would not be marketable. In fact, a smaller home would add to the housing diversity in the neighborhood. Request to increase maximum top plate height should be denied. The applicant will not suffer practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship by application of the development code. Application of the zoning code will not deprive the applicant of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners. The applicant argues that an increase in the top plate height will allow it to comply with RCC 4.2.115. However, RCC 4.2.115 requires 25% of the front façade to be doors or windows. There is no indication this standard could not be met by maintaining the top plate height. A nine foot ceiling is not required by the building code. Applicant would not be deprived of the reasonable use of their property if they designed their ceilings with an 8 foot height so that it could conform to the top plate height. While some buyers may prefer DocuSign Envelope ID: 0CA48C0A-C24B-4062-AF0E-588F9D64E62E Montgomery Purdue PLLC March 17, 2021 Page 3 {21900/0001/02457228-1} 9 foot ceilings, there will be a robust market for a home with lower ceilings. The applicant will still be able build a marketable home. Applicant could also excavate the proposed basement deeper in order to meet the top plate height. It is unclear how a lower excavation would cause any additional damage to the trees which will remain on the property. Granting the variance will have a detrimental impact on the adjoining property owners. Increasing the height of the building will increase its bulk and reduce the existing view corridors. Request to decrease front and rear yard setbacks should be denied. The applicant will not suffer practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship. Application of the zoning code will not deprive the subject property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners. The size of the lot was known at the time the applicant purchased the lot. Knowing that the lot was smaller and had building limitations, the applicant cannot complain that it is unfair to them that the code would provide for a smaller home than would be allowed to be built on a larger lot. The applicant can still build a smaller home and there will be demand for that home in the current housing market. Applicant argues it’s request is similar to the variance granted in LUA18-000689. However, the rear yard setback in that matter was maintained at 20 feet. Here, the applicant asks for a ten foot reduction in rear yard setback in addition to a reduction in the front yard setback. No such cumulative setback was granted in the LUA18-000689. Thus, the denial of the setback variance will not subject the applicant to different treatment than other applicants. The reduction in the rear yard setback will place the building closer to the residence to the south. Given the request to increase the top plate height, this will increase the feeling of the proposed building's bulk compared to what would normally be allowed under the code. Further, the significant reduction of the rear setback will result in reduced privacy for both the applicant’s property and my clients’ property. Because of the proximity, it will be more difficult to maintain privacy to the interior of the homes. Any activity outside in the applicant’s rear yard will also have less privacy and will impact my clients’ property to a greater degree than it would if the set back in the code were maintained. Allowing the variance will have a detrimental impact on the neighboring properties and the applicant’s property. DocuSign Envelope ID: 0CA48C0A-C24B-4062-AF0E-588F9D64E62E Montgomery Purdue PLLC March 17, 2021 Page 4 {21900/0001/02457228-1} The request to allowed increased lot coverage should be denied. The applicant asks for a variance to allow 68.2% of lot coverage versus 55%. This request should be denied. The application of the zoning code will not deprive the subject property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners nor will the applicant suffer practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship. The size of the lot was known at the time the applicant purchased the lot. Knowing that the lot was smaller and had building limitations, the applicant cannot complain that it is unfair to them that the code would provide for a smaller home than would be allowed to be built on a larger lot. The applicant can still build a smaller home and there will be demand for that home in the current housing market. While the applicant states the development will be similar in size to other homes in the area, those homes are on much larger lots so the proposed development will be much larger in proportion to the lot size. Application of the code will keep the development in proportion to the size of the lot and allow the applicant the same proportional use of the property as other property owners. The disproportionate size of the proposed development in relation to the size of the lot will increase the bulk of the building. Combined with the requested front and rear setback reduction and increased top plate height request; the increase bulk of the building will have substantial visual impacts on the neighboring property owners as their view corridors are more impaired than they would otherwise be if the requirements of the code were applied. The applicant wants to build a large house on a small lot in order to maximize the sale price of the house, but this is not the criteria required by the code. The applicant can build a house on the lot which would be smaller but not require a variance. A smaller house would still be marketable and would add price diversity to the mix of homes in the neighborhood. As the development limitations of the lot are reflected in its market price, it is fair to the applicant to apply those limitations rather than excusing them. The applicant’s variance requests should be denied. Sincerely, Joseph A. Hamell JAH:jah DocuSign Envelope ID: 0CA48C0A-C24B-4062-AF0E-588F9D64E62E