Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOR 6_Code Interpretation CI-154 h:\ced\planning\title iv\docket\administrative policy code interpretation\ci-154\code intepretation.docx Department of Community and Economic Development Planning Division ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY/CODE INTERPRETATION ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY/CODE INTERPRETATION #: CI-154 MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS: RMC 4-4-040, FENCES, HEDGES, AND RETAINING WALLS REFERENCE: RMC 4-4-040 SUBJECT: Special Administrative Fence Permit Eligibility BACKGROUND: RMC 4-4-040.G.1 provides eligibility requirements for Special Administrative Fence Permits. Currently, eligibility requirement 4-4- 040.G.1.b states permit applicability is for fences or hedges located “outside” of required yard setbacks; however, this wording creates a conflict with other provisions in RMC Title 4, which regulate fences located within yard setbacks. Currently, per RMC 4-4-040.D Standards for Residential Uses, the maximum height of fences allowed within required yard setbacks are forty eight inches (48”) for front yard setbacks and seventy two inches (72”) for side and rear yard setbacks. In practice, because most fences are located along property lines, staff have handled this conflict to interpret the special administrative fence permit provisions to apply to fences proposed within required yard setbacks. Along with this, there is a discrepancy in RMC 4-4-040.G.2.c Evaluation Criteria where the word “compliments” is being used rather than “complements” which is not the intended definition for this section. Updating the code language would formally resolve the conflict. JUSTIFICATION: RMC 4-4-040.G.1.b should be amended to reflect eligibility for special fences within yard setback requirements due to initial error or misapplication of terms in writing this code section. The inconsistent fence location creates conflict with language throughout RMC 4-4-040. By updating the fence location in the eligibility, we can resolve the conflict and ensure that established departmental practice is reflected in code for all fences within required yard setbacks. RMC 4-4-040.G.2.c should be amended to reflect the proper word and subsequent definition intended for this section of code. CI-154 Page 2 of 3 DECISION: Amend RMC 4-4-040.G.1.b to reflect eligibility for special fence permits within required yard setbacks, as specified below, and amend RMC 4-4- 040.G.2.c to reflect the appropriate word intended for the criteria. ADMINISTRATOR APPROVAL: _______________________________________ C. E. “Chip” Vincent EFFECTIVE DATE: December 27, 2019 APPEAL PROCESS: To appeal this determination, a written appeal--accompanied by the required filing fee--must be filed with the City's Hearing Examiner (1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, 425-430-6515) no more than 14 days from the date of this decision. Your submittal should explain the basis for the appeal. Section 4-8-110 of the Renton Municipal Code provides further information on the appeal process. CODE AMENDMENTS NEEDED TO IMPLEMENT DETERMINATIONS: 4-4-040 FENCES, HEDGES, AND RETAINING WALLS G. SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE FENCE PERMITS: 1. Fences Eligible for Administrative Review Process: Persons wishing to have one of the following types of fences may submit a letter of justification, site plan and typical elevation together with the permit fee to the Department of Community and Economic Development: a. Fences exceeding forty eight inches (48") within front yard or side yards along a street setback but not within a clear vision area; b. Fences or hedges exceeding seventy two inches (72") and located outside of within required yard setbacks; c. Electric fences; and c. Barbed wire fences. (Ord. 5450, 3-2-2009; Ord. 5578, 11-15-2010) 2. Evaluation Criteria: The Administrator may approve the issuance of special fence permits provided that the following objectives can be met: a. The proposed fence improves the privacy and security of the adjoining yard space; b. The proposed fence does not detract from the quality of the residential environment by being out of scale or creating vast blank walls along public roadways; CI-154 Page 3 of 3 c. The proposed fence compliments complements the environment it serves in an aesthetically pleasing manner; and d. The proposed fence does not present a hazard to vehicular or pedestrian traffic. STAFF CONTACT: Brittany Gillia, x7246