Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA-06-101_Report 1.--Farkas Tiberiu 2509 NE 18th Street Renton, WA 98056 PARTIES OF RECORD FARKAS SPECIAL FENCE PERMIT LUA06-101, SPECIAL FENCE -/Phyllis Wik .,.. Bylund Wik (owner/ applicant/ contact) 2616 NE 18th Street Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) 2616 NE 18th Street Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) "Wendelin Richter 2608 NE 18th Street Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) ,.Eva Richter 2608 NE 18th Street Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Beverly Rootvik 2524 NE 18th Street Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Updated: 11/09/06 vJulee Walsh 2624 NE 18th Street Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) -Sarol Nicholson 2609 NE 18th Street Renton, WA 98056 tel: (425) 255-2088 (party of record) S~ c_Lf'-f'-'-~ I 'J ~ S-t-"f nu-..M~ ~. t...tic.. q ~VSb Ten Towle 2625 NE 18th Street Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) ~ Christine Grubesic 2508 NE 18th Street Renton, WA 98056-2367 tel: (425) 255-2172 (party of record) (Page 1 of 1) Farkas Tiberiu 2509 NE 18th Street Renton, WA 98056 PARTIES OF RECORD FARKAS SPECIAL FENCE PERMIT LUA06-101, SPECIAL FENCE Phyllis Wik Bylund Wik (owner/ applicant/ contact) 2616 NE 18th Street Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) 2616 NE 18th Street Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Wendelin Richter 2608 NE 18th Street Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Eva Richter 2608 NE 18th Street Renton, WA 98056 (party of record ) Beverly Rootvik 2524 NE 18th Street Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Updated: 09/12/06 Julee Walsh 2624 NE 18th Street Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Sarol Nicholson 2609 NE 18th Street Renton, WA 98056 tel: (425) 255-2088 (party of record) Teri Towle 2625 NE 18th Street Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Christine Grubesic 2508 NE 18th Street Renton, WA 98056-2367 tel: (425) 255-2172 (party of record) (Page 1 of 1) (S) --, &1 -e ~ 2. -= . ll () I - 0 - z. rTl ' r~ ~ ,, ~ I -1 ~ .A lb 0 V 4 LJtV\Osc 1rP2 PLA~ i !;) ~ ~1 oc:;- 0 ... 1 P~Z ?!'. <t" -~ ~ &121N coc.vr,11.s ~ ~ ~-:> 1-Q t)C IS, TI 1-IC.. ~T,..re5 ? k, tt.l-e>Q;; < bd-L{fee,1.{ 100~ ~e'CK ~1-'. ©) 4~ .p,(_e>PQl.Ef:i ~N<Xi ~ @_ ,,E! @ ~~@-NbS~IIU!. (r)) / ~- ~)(.t5Tl1'1G-CONC. WlrLI( t)(l.}TrNG ROOCE:.eY 2.o' I:,. ,t. t:, K Of..l !) $ -A \/<t £x,srrNG CONC. bRIV£ N€~ 8'!/CK COWMN5, NCIU 'o.A-Te i I <> CITY Of RENTON RECEIVED OCT 2 7 2006 BUILDJNG DIVISION £~e~o{ @ -Swq(/ Or1{Q"'4_ftlfr/ , L. tf T' -u.e ,n:eJ. G & -1( ~ -+,'c:,u. (.f) --, &, -6 !; 2. -= . ll () ,- 0 - t z.. er, -~ :t. ~ f:;j q ~ A . Jb 0 V t I> ... ~ :=(~0·1 ~ 1 ~ ~ ~I o-C) {/\ :? :::l 1)1-~ z 'I!. ~ -~ ~ eer('tl COLUr,M.S 3'<;." <,si,1,4.s ~P,,l\lc. El' r S -rr /.IC.. ~T~rl!5 100~ Rm1seD SJ~ hecK £~1S.TrNG CONc. 6R(V£ N€1dl 81!/CK CoWMNS N(:~'0,4-7£" ;f)'.rsTr"1G-co~c. WA-LI( t)( 1.}Ttt,IG R~~y 4 2.o' ... -t. ~t'{Ot,.I ~ $ -A '1<t PLA;t/ i ra :::;ITYOFPE'/l;TOI\ RECEIVED OCT 2 7 20G6 BUILDING DIVISION ~y ~~" 0.-/' u",~ ,., • ..II • j) ~ < Kathy Keolker, Mayor "'-.-"'-0 ""1-,J\. February 27, 2007 Farkas Tiberiu 2509 NE 18'" Street Renton, WA 98056 CIT-~ OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P .E., Administrator Subject: Approved Fence Gate Design and Landscape Plan City of Renton File No. Dear Mr. Tiberiu, On February 23, 2007, I received a second set of revisions for the gate design and landscaping plan for Special Fence Permit LUA06-101. This letter is to inform you that the revised set of plans addressed the City's concerns for a sliding gate along both driveways, as well as the requirements for landscaping. City staff has therefore approved these revised fence detail and landscaping plans. As a reminder, all landscaping must be completed within 90 days of approval. Please notify me if the fence has not been built by then, so that I can adjust the inspection visit. If you have any questions I can be reached at (425) 430-7270. Sincerely, Andrea Petzel, Planner Development Services Division cc: City of Renton File LUA06-10 I Paul Baker, Code Compliance Inspector Parties of Record -------10_5_5-So_u_th_G_r_a_dy-W-ay--R-e-n-to_n_, W-as-h-in_g_to_n_9_8_05_7 _______ ~ @ This paper contains 50°/, recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE ~y ~~~ A >+- + ..& + ~~ ~ Kathy Keolker, Mayor &'NctO January 29, 2007 Farkas Tiberiu 2509 NE l 8 1h Street Renton, WA 98056 CIT-Y >F RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator Subject: Resubmit Fence Gate Design and Landscape Plan City of Renton File No.:Zdh.311111 Dear Mr. Tiberiu, On January 25, 2007 you submitted a letter addressing the revised conditions for Special Fence Penni! LUA 06-101 (attached). A written letter is not acceptable to address the requirements set by the Hearing Examiner for approval of Special Fence Permit LUA 06-101. You are required to submit the following: 1) A revised drawing of the gate design (two gates) to make sure that they do not interfere with the public right of way. The gate must be designed so that it either slides across the driveway or swings inward, and should include fence elevations. An inward swinging gate should not interfere with the requisite onsite parking. An outward swinging gate is not allowed because it would interfere with the public right-of-way. 2) A revised landscape plan with planting details that includes the specific names of the pine and palm trees, as well as any other ornamental shrubs or flowers. No plants greater than 42" in height are allowed in the clear vision area of NE 181h Street and Edmonds Avenue. Please limit plantings in this area to ground cover, flowers and small shrubs. These revisions are required conditions of approval for your special fence permit. Please submit the revised gate design and landscape plan to my attention by February 26, 2007. If you have any questions I can be reached at (425) 430-7270. Sincerely, i/1 I ~~· I /JI,/,,,.,, I (_/VVv'VU{., Andrea Petzel, Planner Development Services Division cc: City of Renton File LUA06·l01 Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager Parties of Record Neil Watts, Development Services Director Attachment ~~~~~~-!-05_5_S_o_ut_h_G-,ra~dy-w-·a-y---R-en_t_on-.-W-a-sh-i,-,g-w-n~98_0_5_-,~~~~~~-~ t;\ ThK.-.-crnnt,.ins:<;nO/",...,....,,..lo<>ftm-.'-'I <l;ry:,ih~r:nnc:.o,.,....,.. AHEAD OF TH.E CURVE 25 January 2007 Neil Watts Director Development Services Division City Of Renton File LUA 06-101 Subject: Revised Conditions for Approval of Farkas Special Fence Permit 1) At this time please approve the design for the fence and columns oi. I will subllJit the plans for two sliding gates at,abter date. -,-h .• ,e u-,o I ix:' :._; 11, 1 11./. '7 ,;µ/,:,. '-' , , , l_ d Ii 1£ Cv<~ f ( S ,J,}_c-··< « fro'-<+} 2) Landsca(Jing: 'tor the sides and front will consist of Gupressus (S. Glauca), Moonglow Juniper, Emerald green Arborvitae. Landscaping for the comer will consist of Dwarf English Boxwood, Red Tip Photinia, Tam Juniper. Farkas Tiberiu Kathy Keolker, Mayor December 19, 2006 Farkas Tiberiu 2509 NE 181h Street Renton, WA 98056 CITY JF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P .E., Administrator Subject: Revised Conditions for Approval of Farkas Special Fence Permit City of Renton File LUA 06-10 l Dear Mr. Tiberiu, On November 20, 2006 the Hearing Examiner issued a decision on the above-referenced special fence permit. Based on that decision, the issue of the design and function of the gates was remanded to the Development Services Director. The following are revised conditions of approval for special fence permit LUA 06-101: ,I I) Submit for review and approval a revised drawing of the gate design (two gates) to make sure that they do not interfere with the public right of way. The gate must be designed so that it either slides across the driveway or swings inward. An inward swinging gate should not interfere with the requisite onsite parking. An outward swinging gate is not allowed because it would interfere with the public right-of-way. The revised design plan should be submitted to the Project Manager (Andrea Petzel), no later than January 31, 2007. 2) Submit for review and approval a revised landscape plan that includes the specific names of the pine and palm trees, as well as any other ornamental shrubs or flowers. No plants greater than 42" are allowed in the clear vision area of NE I 8'h Street and Edmonds Avenue. Please limit plantings in this area to ground cover, flowers and small shrubs. As a reminder, once the landscape plan is approved all plants shall be installed within 180 days. The revised landscape plan should be submitted fo the Project Manager (Andrea Petzel), no later than January 31, 2007. Appeals of this decision may be filed with the City of Renton Hearing Examiner at the City Clerk's Office, 7'h Floor of Renton City Hall, by 5:00 PM on January 2, 2007. Appeals require a $75 application fee. For information on the appeal process call ( 425) 430-6510. Sincerely, Neil Watts, Director Development Services Division cc: City of Renton File LUA06-l01 Parties of Record Andrea Petzel, Assistant Planner ------10_5_5_S_ou_th_G_r-ad_y_W-ay---R-en_t_on-.-W-a-,h-in-gt_o_n_9-80_5_7 ______ ~ , Ci) This paper contains 50% rer:yclBd material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE • AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) ss. County of King ) Nancy Thompson being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states: That on the 20th day of November 2006, affiant deposited via the United States Mail a sealed envelope(s) containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties ofrecord in the below entitled application or petition. Signature: Application, Petition or Case No.: Appeal of Farkas Special Fence Permit LUA 06-101, SF The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record. , ' November 20, 2006 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPELLANTS: PROPERTY OWNER: PUBLIC HEARING: Bylund & Phyllis Wik 2616 NE 18th Street Renton, WA 98056 Farkas Tiberiu 2509 NE 18th Street Renton, WA 98056 Saro! Nicholson 2609 NE 18th Street Renton, WA 98056 Appeal of Farkas Special Fence Permit LUA-06-101, SF After reviewing the Appellant's written requests for a hearing and examining available information on file, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the November 7, 2006 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, November 7, 2006, at 9:03 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: Hearing Examiner's file containing the Exhibit No. 2: Yellow file with Information ori<>inal anneal letter and site information. regarding the Anneal (by reference) Exhibit No. 3: Nei2:hborhood Detail Mao Exhibit No. 4: Original Site Plan Exhibit No. 5: Revised Site Plat Exhibit No. 6: Landscape Plan Exhibit No. 7: Pronosed Detail of Fence Exhibit No. 8: Prooosed Gate Detail Exhibit No. 9: Photograph taken from NE 18'" Street Exhibit No. 10: Photo of the corner of 18"' Street and looking to the South of the Farkas house Edmonds looking to the southeast Exhibit No. 11: Photograph from Edmonds looking Exhibit No. 12: Photograph showing corner of east toward rear of the house Edmonds and 18th tooography The hearing opened with comments by Jennifer Henning, Development Services Department Manager. The fence in question would have four columns seven feet in height, two flanking each side of the two driveways with wrought iron fence up to six feet in height. Appeal of Farkas Special Fenw • ermit LUA-06-101 November 20, 2006 Page 2 The Special Fence Permit was approved with conditions, which had to do with adding landscaping and modifying the comer at 18"' and Edmonds in order to prevent obstruction of the clear vision area. A second drawing was submitted in response to those conditions. The columns would need to be lowered to a height of six feet. Landscaping would be located in the strip between the fence and the street. The fence would be setback five feet from the sidewalk. Certain of the conditions required by the Administrator had performance dates tied to them, the landscaping plan must be submitted to the City within 45 days of the decision, giving them until the middle of November. The new landscaping plan has been submitted. There are other performance standards as well. Mrs. Wik stated that one of her primary concerns is the height of the fence and the fact that it goes around the front of the house where no other house in the neighborhood has a fence of any kind along the front between the house and the street. The fact that it is at least 6-feet high makes it very obvious, it is seen from the street and is not appropriate for the neighborhood. It gives the home a prison-like outlook. She was further concerned as to why the house would be surrounded with a fence, including the driveways. Another concern is that the fence would be 5-feet in from the sidewalk, there is quite a rise in elevation on the land from the sidewalk towards the house, if the fence is placed at the current elevation 5-feet from the sidewalk, it would be approximately 8 or 9 feet high. The Examiner stated that first it must be established that a fence would be permitted on this property. Ms. Henning stated that a fence is permitted on this property, 48" in the front yard (NE 18"' Street), side yard 48" (Edmonds Avenue NE), in the rear yard 72" in height. The Examiner, the applicants can put up a fence that is 48 inches. The only issue in this appeal is the fence and whether it is a proper administrative determination. Ms. Nicholson stated that the visibility leaving NE 18th on the comer is very bad. The house has been converted into bedrooms and the garage taken out, which leaves very small parking spaces in the driveway. With the small parking space available, cars will be parking on Edmonds and blocking the view. Why would they want a fence in the front yard and no fence in the back yard? There is no back yard, just a driveway. They want to keep their neighborhood as a neighborhood not having a fence that looks like they are in a prison. Mr. Wik questioned the design of the gates, particularly the one fronting NE 18"' Street. They are swing gates and apparently the must swing into the property. The Examiner stated that they probably could swing either way, but could not block the street when they were open. Mr. Wik stated that if the gates were to swing in, besides the additional 5-foot setback into the existing driveway in front of what was the garage, there would be further mitigation of any use of that driveway for parking because the gate would be right up to the house. If a gate were in that area, it seems it would eliminate anyone parking in front of the house, therefore the spill over would be on Edmonds or NE 18"' Street. His proposal would be to eliminate the front fencing and tie it off at the northwest comer of the house and then he would have a fenced in area in the back of the property like the rest of the neighbors have. Ms. Henning showed Exhibit 11 and demonstrated where the gates would be located and how they would function. The illustration shows that the gate would swing at the midpoint of the column and the span between the two columns is !&'feet at this location. Each gate section would be approximately 9-feet. Staff did not \ ' , ' Appeal of Farkas Special Fence Pennit LUA-06-101 November 20, 2006 Page 3 review whether the gate opens inward or outward because there were no codes to address that issue. There appear to be practical difficulties, if it opened inward, there would be no room to close it once the cars were in, and ifit opened outward, it would block the sidewalk and portions of the street. This applies to the NE 18" Street gate only. The gate on Edmonds has the same width of 18-feet, however it does have enough depth to operate proper! y. The item was before the council three years ago when the Special Fence Permit Regulations came into effect. A number of people in the City had the need to install a taller fence than code allowed in order to improve privacy or create a safe situation for pets or children. The only relief afforded an applicant at that time was to go through the variance process, they had to meet all the criteria. The regulations now say that this fence in the diagonal area between the front and side yards must be 42-inches high, the rest of the fence could be six-feet in height. The visibility of the materials proposed does allow, because it is metal with spacing between the pickets, it does allow a view through. It appears that the slope rises approximately 3-feet, the height of the fence is measured from the finished grade, not the street level, but where the fence is being placed on the ground and then measure up from that point. Mr. Farkas stated that there is an SUV parked on the street all the time and no one has complained about visibility issues. He has called the police several times, they have come with tape measures and told him that the vehicle is legally parked. The gates on Edmonds Avenue will swing out, but the columns are far enough so that the swing will not block the sidewalk. The columns will be six feet in height. There may be no cars parked in the drive off NE 1 s•• Street, or a sliding gate may be installed. He believes that the fence is appropriate, very nice looking and will add to the look of the property. Mrs. Wik, Mrs. Nicholson and Mr. Wik gave closing statements. They were concerned about the privacy issue and how could there be privacy without a fence in the backyard. They would further urge the City to enforce the limits of the code and keep the fence within the height limits. 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 I 0:00 am. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: DECISION: I. The appellants, Teri Towle, Saro! Nicholson, Phyllis Wik Stan Ruppert, Christine Grubesic and Julee Walsh hereinafter appellants, filed an appeal of an administrative decision approving a fence taller than otherwise permitted by code. 2. The applicant, Farkas Tiberiu, applied to erect a black wrought iron fence with brick columns along the front and side yard ofa residence located at 2509 NE 18th Street, Renton, Washington. 3. The appeal was filed in a timely manner. The persons filing the appeal all live in the immediate vicinity of the subject site. Appeal of Farkas Special Fenw. ennit LUA-06-101 November 20, 2006 Page4 4. Fences along front and side yards are limited to 48" and to 42" in an area at the corner of the lot, an area designed as the "clear vision area." Landowners may install fences that are taller than otherwise permitted by code by submitting an application for a Special Administrative Fence Permit. The applicant applied for a permit to install a fence with seven foot tall elements and a combination of brick and black wrought iron pickets around the front (south) and side (east) ofa corner lot located on the northwest comer of the intersection of NE 18th Street and Edmonds Avenue NE. 5. The appellants raised a number of objections to the fence including its height, its intrusion into sight- lines for vehicles at the intersecting streets adjacent to the subject site, its styling and the way the gate functions. The appellants objected to the seven-foot (7') tall columns as well as the six-foot (6') tall black wrought iron pickets. They objected to the wrought iron pickets, both their style and points claiming they looked "prison-like" and substantially out of character with the neighborhood. They did not believe that the fence achieved the privacy sought by the applicant. They also were concerned that the swing gates would open across the sidewalk and possibly the streets. The appellants also alleged facts about possible conversion of the use to a group home but such issues are not relevant to this appeal, which strictly is limited to the issuance of a Special Fence Permit. 6. The applicant originally applied for a fence with seven-foot (71 brick columns between open, wrought iron pickets. The director conditioned the permit to reduce the height of the fence, including the brick columns to a code permitted six feet (6'). The director also required that the fence and landscaping meet the "clear vision" requirements and be no taller than 42 inches in height in that area and that landscaping be planted in front of the fence. 7. In completing the Special Administrative Fence Permit the Director noted the use of permanent landscaping, quality fence materials, modulation and ornamental materials. The Director also noted the fence would improve privacy, limits the blank walls along walkways, is aesthetically pleasing and does not create a traffic hazard and approved the fence with conditions. The conditions required the fence to meet the clear vision requirements, limited the height, and required permanent landscaping and provide deadlines for accomplishing the redesign and installation of the fence and landscaping. 8. As noted, the proposal included a black wrought iron fence with brick columns. The tops of the wrought iron pickets terminated in spear-like points, fairly typical of some wrought iron designs. The pickets were spaced approximately 4 inches apart. Two driveways, one along 18th and one along Edmonds, would each be secured with a pair of swinging gates, also of wrought iron but with a curving top design. The gates would span a distance of approximately 18 feet so each half would be approximately 9 feet. 9. The fence was proposed to be set back from the sidewalk five feet. The lot slopes upward from the sidewalk. The topography would result in the fence being above sidewalk and road grade. I 0. Staff at the hearing tried estimating as best they could from the dimensions of the fence and location of the fence how the swinging gates would operate. It was determined that an inward swinging gate, a gate that opened into the property might interfere with parking on the site and wiWn driveways and an outward swinging gate could interfere with the sidewalk and potentially the driving right-of-way. 11. It was unclear at the hearing if there were regulations that would restrict the gates' interference with either a sidewalk or roadway. 12. The fence provisions are found in the following sections: ' , Appeal of Farkas Special Fence Permit LUA-06-101 November 20, 2006 Page 5 Section 4-4-040(D)(2) provides: 2. Height Limitations for Corner Lots: a. Front Yard Setbacks: Fences, walls or hedges a maximum of forty-two inches (42") in height may be allowed on any part of the clear vision area. Fences, walls, or hedges a maximum of forty-eight inches (48") in height may be allowed within any part of the front yard setback when located outside of any clear vision area on said lot. b. Interior Side Lot Line: Fences, walls or hedges a maximum of seventy two inches (72") in height may be located on interior side lot lines to the point where they intersect the required front yard setback, in which case they shall be governed by subsection D2a of this Section. c. Side Lot Line Abutting Street: Fences, walls or hedges a maximum of forty-two inches (42") in height within any clear vision area and forty-eight inches (48") in height elsewhere. F ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF VARIATION FROM HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS: A property owner wishing to vary the height restrictions or placement of a fence or hedge on a lot may make written application to the Development Services Division for an administrative review of the situation. The Department's staff shall review the application and prepare a written determination based upon criteria listed in these regulations. 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 Planning/Building/Public Works Department: 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. Electric fences. 2. Evaluation Criteria: The Development Services Division may approve the issuance of special fence permits provided that the following objectives can be met: • The proposed fence improves the privacy and security of the adjoining yard space; • 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; • The proposed fence compliments the environment it serves in an aesthetically pleasing manner; and • The proposed fence does not present a hazard to vehicular or pedestrian traffic. a. Acceptable Measures to Meet Criteria: Fences located within the front or side and/or rear yard along a street setback may be a maximum of seventy two inches (72") in height, provided the evaluation criteria are met. Acceptable measures to achieve these criteria include, but are not limited to the following: • Permanent landscaping along the front of the fence; • Quality fence material, such as cedar fencing; • Modulation of the fence; • Similar design and material as other fences in the surrounding neighborhood; • Increased setbacks from the adjacent sidewalk; • Ornamental materials or construction treatment, such as wrought iron; • Orientation of the finished face of the fence toward the street; and • Other comparable construction or design methods. Appeal of Farkas Special Fen--• 'ermit LUA-06-101 November 20, 2006 Page6 CONCLUSIONS: b. Clear Vision Area: The fence proposed for special permits must have no portion in the clear vision area over forty-two inches ( 42") in height. The location and height of the fence must not obstruct views of oncoming traffic, or views from driveways. (Amd. Ord. 5008, 4-28-2003) 1. The appellants have the burden of demonstrating that the decision of the City Official was either in error, or was otherwise contrary to law or constitutional provisions, or was arbitrary and capricious (Section 4-8-11 O(E)(7)(b ). The appellants have demonstrated that the action of the City should be modified or reversed. The decision is modified only in respect that the gate portions of the fence are remanded to the Director. 2. Arbitrary and capricious action has been defined as willful and unreasoning action in disregard of the facts and circumstances. A decision, when exercised honestly and upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances, is not arbitrary or capricious (Northern Pacific Transport Co. v Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, 69 Wn. 2d 472, 478 (1966). 3. An action is likewise clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing body, on the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. (Ancheta v Daly, 77 Wn. 2d 255, 259 (1969). An appellate body should not necessarily substitute its judgment for the underlying agency with expertise in a matter unless appropriate. 4. The code appears to provide wide latitude for what constitutes an acceptable fence. It would appear that a combination of brick and wrought iron would be acceptable. While the materials may be aesthetically quite different from some fence materials such as cedar or newer plastics intended to mimic wood fencing, wrought iron and brick are certainly quality materials and should not be prohibited from a neighborhood because others on individual lots prefer wood or wood-like appearing materials. Wrought iron gives an open appearance avoiding what the code calls "blank walls along walkways." It will also afford more visibility through the fence on this corner lot. On the issue of privacy, the fence may not block views into the property but privacy is a matter of degree and keeping people out of a property might be as important as blocking views into property. 5. The fence as conditioned by the Director would not be taller than six feet. A six-foot tall fence is not out of scale with the community, particularly, since the wrought iron designs have widely spaced, narrow pickets that will not create a wall. 6. It would appear that as long as a fence is well designed and of some open visual quality, it would be acceptable. That basically means that almost any fence can be taller than 48-inches. That might be what was intended by the City Council and should not be upset unless it is being misused in too many instances. That is a decision for the City Council and not this office. This fence appears both reasonably designed and proposed to be of quality materials. 7. The only issue, which leaves some doubt for this office, is the design or functioning of the gate. It needs to be designed so that it does not affect either pedestrians or vehicles when it swings either open or closed. The design must be of a type so that an inward swinging gate would not interfere with the requisite onsite parking and so that an outward swinging gate will not interfere with pedestrians or vehicles. This office will remand that aspect of the gates' design and function to the Director for a further review and the possible imposition of an additional condition or conditions. ' , Appeal of Farkas Special Fence Permit LUA-06-101 November 20, 2006 Page 7 DECISION: The decision is affirmed in part and remanded in part. The Director shall review and appropriately condition the design and functioning of the two gates proposed adjacent to the driveways on the subject site. ORDERED THIS 20th day of November 2006. HEARINGE TRANSMITTED THIS 20th day of November 2006 to the parties of record: Jennifer Henning Andrea Petzel Bylund & Phyllis Wik Development Services Development Services 2616 NE 18th Street City of Renton City of Renton Renton, WA 98056 Saro! Nicholson Farkas Tiberiu Teri J. Towle 2609 NE 18th Street 2509 NE l 8'h Street 2625 NE 18th Street Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Stan Ruppert Christine Grubesic Julee Walsh 1725 Edmonds Avenue NE 2508 NE l 8'h Street 2624 NE 18th Street Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Wendelin & Eva Richter Beverly Rootvik 2608 NE 18th Street 2524 NE 18'' Street Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 TRANSMITTED THIS 20th day of November 2006 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker Stan Engler, Fire Marshal Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services King County Journal Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services Appeal of Farkas Special Fenc~ • ermit LUA-06-101 November 20, 2006 Page 8 Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section IOOGof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be ftled in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., December 4, 2006. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors oflaw 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. 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., December 4, 2006. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Connell 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. ' CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING November 7, 2006 AGENDA COMMENCING AT 9:00 AM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7TH FLOOR, RENTON CITY HALL The application(s) listed are in order of application number only and not necessarily the order in which they will be heard. Items will be called for hearing at the discretion of the Hearing Examiner. PROJECT NAME: Farkas Special Fence Appeal PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-06-101, SF PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Appeal of the administrative approval for a special fence permit for a 6' fence for a front yard and a side yard along a street. Document3 December 4, 2006 Saro! Nicholson 2609 NE 18"' Street Renton, WA 98056 Bylund & Phyllis Wik 2616 NE l S'h Street Renton, WA 98056 Re: Farkas Special Fence Permit LUA-06-101, SF Dear Mrs. Nicholson and Mr. and Mrs. Wik: CITY )F RENTON Hearing Examiner Fred J, Kaufman This office has reviewed your request for reconsideration. The request contains no information that would lead this office to alter the original decision. Privacy is entirely subjective. The fence is more than tasteful and the original decision required the manner in which the gate opens to be reviewed by staff. Landscape materials on any comer lot can get out of hand, fence or no fence. The City will always monitor intersection safety. You may file an appeal of this decision to the City Council at the City Clerk's on the 7"' Floor of City Hall. All appeals must be accompanied by a $75.00 filing fee. Sincerely, ~5~~,o Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton FK/nt cc: Neil Watts, Development Services Jennifer Henning, Development Services Larry Warren, City Attorney Farkas Tiberiu ----l-05_5_S_o_uth-G-ra-dy-W-ay---R-e-nt-o-n,-W-a-s-hi-ngt_o_n-98-0-55---(-42_5_) 4-3-0--6-5-15 ____ ~ @: This paper contains 50% 1ecycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE CITY OF RENTON To: Fred Kaufinan DEC O 4 2006 RECEIVED Re: Farkas Special Fence Pennit LUA-06-101 December 4, 2006 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Dear Mr. Kaufinan: ·{;/ Z ,V"( J5 !-larvJ J>t!/,· I)~ ,(!.I This letter is a request for reconsideration pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section IOOG of the City's Code. We hope a second appeal will not be necessary, however, if we have to proceed we would like a copy of the revised site plan, which we have never received. We question how Mr. Farkas was allowed a special fence pennit from the beginning. At the November 20, 2006 City Council meeting it appeared that Mr. Warren and Mr. Clawson both had a problem with the wheelchair bound man who needed a special fence permit to keep the cats from entering his backyard so that the cat feces would not contaminate his tires. We believe they indicated that the code should be enforced as to the height of the fence. Mr. Farkas has stated that the fence he is requesting is for privacy. According to Black's Law privacy is defined as heing secluded from the presence of others and to be free of unnecessary scrutiny. In the evaluation of Neil Watts on September 26, 2006 he states that the matter of privacy is achieved. The fence in the site plan does not provide privacy according to the definition in Black's Law. Mr. Watts's evaluation was that the fence was NOT in scale with the neighborhood. He also evaluated the design offence as aesthetically pleasing. To whom is it pleasing? The IO people who are parties of record do NOT think the fence design is pleasing. This type of fence might be pleasing on a home with acreage but on Mr. Farkas' 7397 square foot city lot, it definitely is not aesthetically pleasing because ofits design and height. The traffic hazard problem is another very big issue with the residents of NE 18 Street. As you noted at the hearing of November 7, 2006, the gates could not swing outward because as designed they would block the sidewalk. This limits the parking spaces available to Mr. Farkas' property. Where will he park his vehicles and where will his guests park and last but not least, where will the vehicles for his intended business park? The number of cars most likely parking on the street will also limit our clear vision view when turning from NE 18 St. to Edmonds Ave. NE. Will we have to wait until there is an accident before we get the city's attention? You have required Mr. Farkas to have permanent landscaping outside the fence area. How can we as neighbors be assured that this landscaping will be maintained in the future so as not to create more visual obstructions? All of these facts affect our rights and our neighborhood. Many of us have lived on this small cul-de-sac street for over 43 years and are very worried about property values and the quality of our neighborhood with this out of scale fence. This fence, if approved, will set a precedent for similar fences in the future in our neighborhood. Giving this your utmost reconsideration would be greatly appreciated by the I 0 parties of record. We would also like a written response as well as a revised copy of the site plan. Thank you. Saro! Nicholson Phyllis Wik Cc: Neil Watts, Development Services Jennifer Henning, Development Services Larry Warren, City Attorney ) .: /\. ~ " . Jh,, /,,:.7,,,. l lJ.,~ ( Bylund Wik October JO, 2006 Sarole Nicholson 2609 NE 18"' Street Renton, WA 98056 Plyliss Wik 2616 NE 18"' Street Renton, WA 98056 CITY Re: Appeal of Farkas Special Fence Permit, LUA-06-101 Dear Ms. Nicholson and Ms. Wik: i" RENTON Hearing Examiner Fred J. Kaufman Please be advised that the appeal hearing you have requested in the above matter has been scheduled for Tuesday, November 7, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. The hearing will take place in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. The address is I 055 S Grady Way in Renton. If this office can provide any further assistance, please address those comments in writing. Sincerely, Nancy Thompson Secretary to Hearing Examiner City of Renton cc: Neil Watts, Development Services Jennifer Henning, Development Services Lany Warren, City Attorney ----10_5_5_S_ou-th_Gra_d_y_W_a_y ___ R_en_t_on-, -W-a-sh-in-g-to-n -9-80_5_5---(4-25_)_4-30--6-5_1_5 ----~ @ This paper contains 50% recycled material. 30"/o post oonsumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE To: Renton Hearing Examiner Mr. Fred Kaufman Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington Action Appealed: APPEAL CHY OF RENTON OCT 1 O 2006 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE , 1 : 1-;-r; ,,1, ):S Director of Development Services Neil Watts decision to approve the Farkas Tiberiu special fence permit with conditions that is designated LUA-06-101, SF, in City Records. Address of Property appealed: 2509 N.E. 18th Street, Renton Washington 98056 Introduction: The above action of the Director is hereby appealed to the Hearing Examiner, because of an erroneous and illegal approval of an administrative variance in order to grant a permit for a "special fence" that is not allowed by the Renton Code. The Appellants in this case · are the undersigned neighbors of the subject site property that is located at 2509 N.E. 18th Street. Under Renton's code, the Director was required to promote compliant , neighborhoods and fencing in accordance with 4-4-030 RMC. He did not, and in addition approved a fence that violates the zoning code intended to accommodate only uses that are compatible with and support an asthetically pleasing residential environment and add to a sense of community. His conditions of approval imposed as a result of the application were insufficient to establish compliance with the Renton code. The fence at issue here is out of place and in fact is suspected only to enhance the property to become another adult home convalescent business in addition to the other illegal ones that are already present on N.E. 18th Street. What happens is that entreprenuers are attracted to buy the properties, modify the houses, (without the required permits) create a home care business, and then move out and hire employees to operate the business. Those businesses are also being conducted outside the Renton code but will be appealed in a different appeal. Violations of the "special fence" provisions and zoning code will occur with only the conditions of approval as decided by the Director, the fence is an illegal variance of the code, and therefore review is now requested. The decision of the Director to allow the fence described above violates the provisions of the zoning code 4-2 RMC residential requirements which states, Interpretation of uses and project review in this zone shall be based on the purpose statements, and objectives and policy direction established in the Residential Single Family land use designation. The fence the Director approved at the site is not within the above criteria can not be granted a variance without modification of the plans, imposition of additional conditions, and should be therefore be referred to the Director as further outlined in this appeal. Timeliness: This appeal comes before the Hearing Examiner in a timely manner and within the time limits prescribed by the Renton Code and 4-8-1 IOE RMC and therefore cannot be considered untimely. Jurisdiction and Standing: The Appellants in this case are neighbors that live in the immediate vicinity of the subject property, they are adversely affected by the erroneous and illegal decision and will suffer loss of sense of neighborhood community, damage to the appearance of the street, and loss of property values, all of which are interests that should be protected by the plain and express language of the Renton code. This appeal comes before the Hearing Examiner as an appeal of an administrative decision, pursuant to 4-8-110 RMC, and therefore Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hear and decide this appeal. Hearing Examiner should hear and decide this appeal in favor of appellants. This appeal is accompanied by the $75.00 appeal fee. I. The applicant applied for a variance for a fence that has 7 (seven) foot high brick columns in the front, side, and rear yards areas of the site. The code requires the fence to be no more than 48 inches. 2. The applicant also applied for a fence that has sharpened wrought iron points located 6 (six) feet above the adjacent ground. The above facts are located on a site plan drawing that was submitted by the applicant and is attached as exhibit "A". The code requires the fence to be no more than 48 inches in height on front and side yards. There are restrictions for the rear yard required by the code as well. 3. Over time, the applicant has converted the rear yard of the site into a parking area for a businesss use which is accessed from Edmonds avenue, a major arterial street in the area. Metal rods with sharpened points do not increase privacy. 4. The front yard area is on and facing N.E. l S'h Street. Applicant converted the existing use of the garage to additional rooms, and uses the driveway for additional parking. 5. It appears that the tree notated on the site plan is mislocated and there has been no legitimate survey done of the property for purpose of a special fence. 6. There is not topography noted on the site plan submitted by the applicant other than the rockery shown which is on or about 4 (four feet) above ground level. In other words the house is already up about four feet above the street. There should not be a fence in the clear vision area even ifit is less than 42 inches, a clear requirement of the Renton zoning code. See 4-2-110 RMC. 7. To summarize, the new fence has been unlawfully approved in a residential zone (R-8 zoning) the front facing an established neighborhood, side facing an established major arterial street and neighborhood without legal justification according to the Renton code. Applicant has modified the house from its original purpose of single family residential and is now proceeding pursuant to an illegal approval of a variance for construction of a fence that is out of place in the neighborhood. Neighbors now have the right to a decision in favor of values that favor the neighborhood and community. 8. The applicant has, in the past marketed the home for sale as ideal for an Adult care facility. That type of use requires different wning but one home on N.E. 18th street and possibly two more (one of the other houses posted a sign for "adult care") are already violating the single family designation which is not intended for business use. He was unsuccessful in that marketing attempt. The neighbors realize that it is likely that the owner will attempt to make the home an adult care facility. There is already one operating illegally without the owners residing in the home, and in addition to the Farkas house, there is one other that is setting up on the street. 9. The required justification for the special fence variance have not be met, and numerous specific sections of the code will be violated without reversal/modification of the erroneous and illegal decision of the Director. Argument: 4-4-030 RMC requires fences to be no more than 48 inches in height in the front yard and in the side yard along public streets. In order for a variance to be granted the fence must meet certain criteria which this fence application does not. There are not facts in the record showing that the fence will improve the security and privacy of the adjoining property owners or the applicant, because it is clear it would not and applicant can not demonstrate that it would without changes to the plans. You can see through the sharpened metal bars that are proposed. The same applies because the fence is out of scale with the residential environment because it is totally different from and out of place in the area which does not allow 7 foot high columns, and six foot high wrought iron metal points in the front, side and rear yard areas facing a street and on a corner lot. All of the neighbors like to fence their back yards with six foot high cedar fences, and then provide a smaller or no fence in the side and front w/landscaping. The above facts justify reversal of the Directors decision according to subsection 2. Evaluation criteria: of 4-4- 030 RMC, because the requirements can not been met with the design submitted by the applicant, and therefore the decision of the Director is in error and illegal. The proposed fence may purport to compliment a business environment for an adult care home in a business environment, but it is not legal to do so because it is located in a residential zone (R-8) and violates the code that requires an esthetically pleasing residential and family environment. The fence does not serve to compliment the surrounding environment, but rather, violates the code for the height and type of fences. In addition, there are already visibility problems evidenced in the record, with the grade of the property well above the street, and therefore there should not be allowed to have any fence in the clear vision area that is regulated by the Renton code. Neighbors would not be able to see when they would drive out of the street onto Edmonds Avenue. (an arterial through street) Conclusion: The interests that are violated by the erroneous and illegal approval of the special fence are those same interests of the code and of numerous neighbors in the area. The people of the area are those that will suffer if those laws are not properly applied, because they want to encourage adherence to the code which requires the feeling of spaciousness along neighborhood streets and minimization of the closed city atmosphere which tall fences along public rights-of-way can create. see requirement in 4-4-040 RMC. The appellants want to minimize damage to the ability to promote the high quality development and environment envisioned in 4-2-020 RMC. The neighborhood has never had any front yard fences all up and down the street and this new decision would change that. The above and herein interests are those intended to be protected by the fence regulations 4-4- 030 and without enforcement of those regulations the interests of Citizens will not be protected. The interest of the surrounding properties being protected from more and more 7 foot high columns and 6 foot front yard metal sharp point fences in the area is more important than Farkas Tiberiu. The interests of the neighbors are the same as the code which is intended to regulate fences according to particular requirements of the Renton code the main provision being the provision that states, "particulary in the front yard areas of homes", see 4-4-040 Renton Code; FENCES AND HEDGES: A. PURPOSE: The Director did not protect the area in the particular area of the front yards of the neighborhoods according to code. He should be required to change/modify his decision. The decision of the Director should be remanded for correction. He evidently did not realize all of the facts and circumstances surrounding his decision. Request: This request to remand the decision to the Director should be granted because there has been no showing that; 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. He wants it to merely enhance the ability of the property to become an adult care home. There has been no showing that the granting of the variance should not be reversed because it would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare and injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone and community in ' ' which subject property is situated with the fence that is non-compliant with the code; There has been no showing that the approval would 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; It is requested that Farkas Tiberiu be responsible to make the above showing or change the way he designs his fencing, to be in tenor with the code and purpose of the neighborhood. It is requested that the approval as determined by the Director should be remanded because it has not been shown that it is a minimum variance that will accomplish any purpose other than to be out of place in the neighborhood and detract from the sense of community that has been present for some time. It is requested that the decision to grant the fence permit be reversed and decision of the Director be remanded with direction to allow only a 48 inch high fence, without the sharpened metal points, with direction that none of which may protrude into the clear vision area outlined in chapter 2 zoning code of Title 4 of the Renton Municipal code. Respectfully, Parties ofrecord K-zs AJ~ 1s fri st ~. ~~.A0-1Jt_=-1.k CITY 1F RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator RE: Your Comment Letter Regarding Farkas Special Fence Permit (City of Renton File# LUA06-101) Dear Interested Party(ies), Thank you for your comment letter regarding the Farkas Special Fence Permit application (LUA06-I O I). In your letter you express concern that the proposed development would negatively impact your property. This letter serves to address your concerns based on information found in Renton City codes and regulations. Your first concern was that the fence would look out of place with the rest of the street and create a prison-like appearance, thus reducing your property values. I have enclosed for your review the architectural drawings of the proposed fence so that you will have a visual concept of what Mr. Farkas intends to build. City code requires that the applicant use quality fencing materials; Mr. Farkas has proposed brick posts with wrought iron fencing. In addition, the property between the fence and the sidewalk will be landscaped to improve the appearance of the property. If you have any questions regarding the design of the fence, please feel free to contact Mr. Farkas at (425) 233-1839. Your second issue was the ability to see oncoming traffic. The proposed fence will be outside of the clear vision area on the corner of the lot, and will not reduce visibility around the corner. In addition, the open nature of a wrought iron fence is a better option than wooden slats, which would allow zero visibility through the yard. No landscaping will interfere with the clear vision area (please see attached site plan). Your third concern was with regards to the possibility of the property becoming an adult family home. Mr. Farkas submitted an application that pertains exclusively to a special fence permit and at this time there is no material to review regarding the conversion of the property to an adult family home. I have included your comments in the official Land Use file and you have been made a Party of Record for the project. You will receive any additional correspondence or decisions made on the Farkas Special Fence Permit application. Feel free to contact me at (425) 430-7289 with any further questions. Sincerely, (Ak~tJJ_ Andrea Petzel Assistant Planner cc: City of Renton File LUA 06-10 I Farkas Tiberiu Jennifer Henning _______ I0_5_5_S_ou_th_Gr_ad_y_W_ay---R-c-nt-on-,-W-as_h_in_gt_o_n_9_8_05_5 ______ ~ AHEAD OF THE CURVE City of Renton PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE FENCE PERMIT EVALUATION FORM.& DECISION Date: September 26, 2006 City of Renton File Number: LUA-06-101, SFP Project Description: Applicant requests a Special Fence Permit for a 5' IO" fence with four 7' brick or stone columns along the front and side yards facing a street. Distance from fence to property line rangesfrom 3.0 ft to 3.5 ft. Proposed fence materials are W' wrought iron pickets spaced at 4" inches, with two stone or brick colutnriS"pl!1!;1,d at the entrance to both driveways. The columns would support gates with similar size and stn?ctyre to the rest of the fence. . \(',,,_ Proposed landscaping would include palms, small pine ~s apttt1owers. > ,. ;i'i,' "7'.t,, Location: 25Q9 NE 18th Street· King County Assessor's Property Identification N111n'bkf: 53;8200010 \ Owner/Applicant Name and Phone.Number: Farka/1'11:ib'tinu (42~ 2&:o/1$9 , .. ,( ., " Fence Location (check ALV.ipplicable boxes): X Front Yard"'· X Side Yard.Along a Street D Rear Yard Along A Street D Clear Vision Area Fence Design (Which of the following measures have been employed?)*: X Permanent Landscaping X Quality Fence Materials X Modulation of Fencing 0 Similar to Design and Material of Surrounding Fences D Increased Setbacks from Sidewalks X Ornamental Materials or Construction *Conceptual plan only, fence has not been built. • Evaluation Criteria (Do the measures checked above satisfy the following objectives): Evaluation Criteria Achieved·· Not Achieved Imoroves Privacy X In Scale With Neighborhood .. X Limits Blank Walls Along Walkways X Aestheticallv Pleasing X Does Not Create a Traffic Hazard X D Approved X Approved with conditions n Denied Advisory Note: The applicant should contact the Call Center, by dialing 800-424-5555, to determine the location ofunderground utilities (telephone, street lights; crab\~ electric), which may be located behind the sidewalk. · · • ·,,, ".1(. __ i-\,," -,,,., Conditions of Approval: '•:,\_ .. '• ,;;J '\:· 1} Revise the site plan soJhat fence placement is out of the,.cle!it vis1tin area so as not to restrict visibility. Please subi:hit the revised site plan::,Vithin,45 d:tys ofr°i:de,i11ing this permit. (Note: the clear vision area is defined as the area bour1d6~:J;f~. street property lines of comer lots and a line joining points along,said~treet lines twenty (iititgo;}from theirpoi~tofintersection.) ,:-·:, .. ·• -'.{).?-\::-:''->.-'>·:-i ~-t}~> :.: . 2) No portion of the fence including the brick pillijrs shall exceed 72"($ix feet) in the front and side yards. · · ' 3) The area in front ofth~fence shall be permanently lanqscaped;angmaintained with appropriate landscaping material sue!) as trees, shrubs, groundcover, f!O\yen;:Jind landscape bark, etc. A planting plan shall be submitted for approvalb}' tbe DevefopII)eht Ser11ices Division Ptoject Manager within 45 days ofreceiving this permit. · · •· 4) Landscaping in the clear vision area shall be lig1ited to'ground cover and shrubs less than 42" in height so as not to interfere with traffic visibility. 5) Once thP-landscape platJ is approved all plants shall be insta!!ed within 180 days. Approved by the City of Renton Development Services Division Director 5-c,,;,,12 l ,zoOG Date 1 1 · Appeals: Appeals of permit issuance may be filed with the City of Renton Hearing Examiner at the City Clerk's Office, 7"' Floor of Renton City Hall, by 5:00 PM on October 10, 2006. Appeals require a $75 application fee. For information on the appeal process call (425) 430-6510. . ' I':=-'f l":7'1' IN ~ CON.e:,. D~t\Jl::: ,-.. .,._/;_:r·:' -1--l~W,.~\Gk CC?.L !Jf!Ns- ---------·--------------- ,·.,.,··. 'NE:-W F~NGI,; . . . . .. ,. -~·'·.·-.·· ":t·"'-~" ' ' ..t:.,'·. -·· .: ~. •":f- ,-·,t, , ' .. . -· ' . ' ~ ~ _, ,- ' . ,_· -'' '·'"" .. , . _-. . ' I ,,, , ,Q ' ',A ...... .., ' ~- ... ..· ~ -~-:"'.\' " ~ .. JI ... .. ·,; " '-.. ,, ... ,-. ' .\. .. : . . . • \-•~ ,;A ' •,. 0 ;: • ::. ~\ .. ~:.-' I -,\ ,. '/" ~" . f . .-,~ I, ·. :· -' . " ' () "' ,, r- ' ' ..,-r-· . . -~--,-~,..... ... ~ ·. ': . .. -6*:'.IC.k "t w _1-· ~· COL. l.ll ll) ' . '' ' " ~ &¢1V~WA'Y 4tATft PE.7' A\~ If;{-=\ '--o" OP::AW 11'-J.G I , ML>Y ,.-, ? ,.-, ,--o.,..., c:.. ,, ,~,-- G:?Cash CITY OF RENTON City Clerk Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 425-43()..6510 0 Check No .. ____ _ D Copy Fee [WA.ppeal Fee Receipt N~ 0662 ., D1'lotary Service D ________ _ Funds Received From: I I I. , I Amount $ ?,,). 0 0 Name 5.z ro e A/11',.Aa!rt.W? .... ______ ____, Address {)ti Y / 1 ;; .J /111 /< :jl,{) 9 /k'.e IS' fir Sf -t, City/Zip Zlt,l/p ,11'£ /8'"f/i .Sf- /&111twt/ q t~s-t,, • AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) ss. County of King ) Nancy Thompson being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states: That on the 201h day of November 2006, affiant deposited via the United States Mail a sealed envelope(s) containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties ofrecord in the below entitled application or petition. Signature: Application, Petition or Case No.: Appeal of Farkas Special Fence Permit LUA 06-101, SF The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record. November 20, 2006 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPELLANTS: PROPERTY OWNER: PUBLIC HEARING: Bylund & Phyllis Wik 2616 NE 18th Street Renton, WA 98056 Farkas Tiberiu 2509 NE 18th Street Renton, WA 98056 Saro! Nicholson 2609 NE 18th Street Renton, WA 98056 Appeal of Farkas Special Fence Permit LUA-06-101, SF After reviewing the Appellant's written requests for a hearing and examining available information on file, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the November 7, 2006 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, November 7, 2006, al 9:03 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: Hearing Examiner's file containing the Exhibit No. 2: Yellow file with Information original aooeal letter and site information. re11:ardin11: the An=al (bv reference) Exhibit No. 3: Neighborhood Detail Mao Exhibit No. 4: Orioinal Site Plan Exhibit No. 5: Revised Site Plat Exhibit No. 6: Landscape Plan Exhibit No. 7: Proposed Detail of Fence Exhibit No. 8: Prooosed Gate Detail Exhibit No. 9: Photograph taken from NE 18'" Street Exhibit No.10: Photo of the corner of 18th Street and looking to the South of the Farkas house Edmonds lookin11: to the southeast Exhibit No. 11: Photograph from Edmonds looking Exhibit No. 12: Photograph showing corner of east toward rear of the house Edmonds and 18'' tooom-aohv The hearing opened with comments by Jennifer Henning. Development Services Department Manager. The fence in question would have four columns seven feet in height, two flanking each side of the two driveways with wrought iron fence up to six feet in height. Appeal of Farkas Special Fenc" rermit LUA-06-101 November 20, 2006 Page2 The Special Fence Permit was approved with conditions, which had to do with adding landscaping and modifying the corner at 18"' and Edmonds in order to prevent obstruction of the clear vision area. A second drawing was submitted in response to those conditions. The columns would need to be lowered to a height of six feet. Landscaping would be located in the strip between the fence and the street. The fence would be setback five feet from the sidewalk. Certain of the conditions required by the Administrator had performance dates tied to them, the landscaping plan must be submitted to the City within 45 days of the decision, giving them until the middle of November. The new landscaping plan has been submitted. There are other performance standards as well. Mrs. Wik stated that one of her primary concerns is the height of the fence and the fact that it goes around the front of the house where no other house in the neighborhood has a fence of any kind along the front between the house and the street. The fact that it is at least 6-feet high makes it very obvious, it is seen from the street and is not appropriate for the neighborhood. It gives the home a prison-like outlook. She was further concerned as to why the house would be surrounded with a fence, including the driveways. Another concern is that the fence would be 5-feet in from the sidewalk, there is quite a rise in elevation on the land from the sidewalk towards the house, if the fence is placed at the current elevation 5-feet from the sidewalk, it would be approximately 8 or 9 feet high. The Examiner stated that first it must be established that a fence would be permitted on this property. Ms. Henning stated that a fence is permitted on this property, 48" in the front yard (NE 18"' Street), side yard 48" (Edmonds Avenue NE), in the rear yard 72" in height. The Examiner, the applicants can put up a fence that is 48 inches. The only issue in this appeal is the fence and whether it is a proper administrative determination. Ms. Nicholson stated that the visibility leaving NE 18th on the corner is very bad. The house has been converted into bedrooms and the garage taken out, which leaves very small parking spaces in the driveway. With the small parking space available, cars will be parking on Edmonds and blocking the view. Why would they want a fence in the front yard and no fence in the back yard? There is no back yard, just a driveway. They want to keep their neighborhood as a neighborhood not having a fence that looks like they are in a prison. Mr. Wik questioned the design of the gates, particularly the one fronting NE 18"' Street. They are swing gates and apparently the must swing into the property. The Examiner stated that they probably could swing either way, but could not block the street when they were open. Mr. Wik stated that if the gates were to swing in, besides the additional 5-foot setback into the existing driveway in front of what was the garage, there would be further mitigation of any use of that driveway for parking because the gate would be right up to the house. If a gate were in that area, it seems it would eliminate anyone parking in front of the house, therefore the spill over would be on Edmonds or NE 18"' Street. His proposal would be to eliminate the front fencing and tie it off at the northwest corner of the house and then he would have a fenced in area in the back of the property like the rest of the neighbors have. Ms. Henning showed Exhibit 11 and demonstrated where the gates would be located and how they would function. The illustration shows that the gate would swing at the midpoint of the column and the span between the two columns is 18'feet at this location. Each gate section would be approximately 9-feet. Staff did not ,· , Appeal of Farkas Special Fence Permit LUA-06-101 November 20, 2006 Page 3 review whether the gate opens inward or outward because there were no codes to address that issue. There appear to be practical difficulties, if it opened inward, there would be no room to close it once the cars were in, and ifit opened outward, it would block the sidewalk and portions of the street. This applies to the NE 18th Street gate only. The gate on Edmonds has the same width of 18-feet, however it does have enough depth to operate properly. The item was before the council three years ago when the Special Fence Permit Regulations came into effect. A number of people in the City had the need to install a taller fence than code allowed in order to improve privacy or create a safe situation for pets or children. The only relief afforded an applicant at that time was to go through the variance process, they had to meet all the criteria. The regulations now say that this fence in the diagonal area between the front and side yards must be 42-inches high, the rest of the fence could be six-feet in height. The visibility of the materials proposed does allow, because it is metal with spacing between the pickets, it does allow a view through. It appears that the slope rises approximately 3-feet, the height of the fence is measured from the finished grade, not the street level, but where the fence is being placed on the ground and then measure up from that point. Mr. Farkas stated that there is an SUV parked on the street all the time and no one has complained about visibility issues. He has called the police several times, they have come with tape measures and told him that the vehicle is legally parked. The gates on Edmonds Avenue will swing out, but the columns are far enough so that the swing will not block the sidewalk. The columns will be six feet in height. There may be no cars parked in the drive off NE 18th Street, or a sliding gate may be installed. He believes that the fence is appropriate, very nice looking and will add to the look of the property. Mrs. Wik. Mrs. Nicholson and Mr. Wik gave closing statements. They were concerned about the privacy issue and how could there be privacy without a fence in the backyard. They would further urge the City to enforce the limits of the code and keep the fence within the height limits. 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 10:00 am. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: DECISION: I. The appellants, Teri Towle, Saro! Nicholson, Phyllis Wik, Stan Ruppert, Christine Grubesic and Julee Walsh hereinafter appellants, filed an appeal of an administrative decision approving a fence taller than otherwise permitted by code. 2. The applicant, Farkas Tiberiu, applied to erect a black wrought iron fence with brick columns along the front and side yard of a residence located at 2509 NE 18th Street, Renton, Washington. 3. The appeal was filed in a timely manner. The persons filing the appeal all live in the immediate vicinity of the subject site. Appeal of Farkas Special Fenc~ rennit LUA-06-101 November 20, 2006 Page4 4. Fences along front and side yards are limited to 48" and to 42" in an area at the corner of the lot, an area designed as the "clear vision area." Landowners may install fences that are taller than otherwise permitted by code by submitting an application for a Special Administrative Fence Permit. The applicant applied for a permit to install a fence with seven foot tall elements and a combination of brick and black wrought iron pickets around the front (south) and side (east) ofa corner lot located on the northwest corner of the intersection of NE 18th Street and Edmonds Avenue NE. 5. The appellants raised a number of objections to the fence including its height, its intrusion into sight- lines for vehicles at the intersecting streets adjacent to the subject site, its styling and the way the gate functions. The appellants objected to the seven-foot (7') tall columns as well as the six-foot (6') tall black wrought iron pickets. They objected to the wrought iron pickets, both their style and points claiming they looked "prison-like" and substantially out of character with the neighborhood. They did not believe that the fence achieved the privacy sought by the applicant. They also were concerned that the swing gates would open across the sidewalk and possibly the streets. The appellants also alleged facts about possible conversion of the use to a group home but such issues are not relevant to this appeal, which strictly is limited to the issuance of a Special Fence Permit. 6. The applicant originally applied for a fence with seven-foot (7') brick columns between open, wrought iron pickets. The director conditioned the permit to reduce the height of the fence, including the brick columns to a code permitted six feet (6'). The director also required that the fence and landscaping meet the "clear vision" requirements and be no taller than 42 inches in height in that area and that landscaping be planted in front of the fence. 7. In completing the Special Administrative Fence Permit the Director noted the use of permanent landscaping, quality fence materials, modulation and ornamental materials. The Director also noted the fence would improve privacy, limits the blank walls along walkways, is aesthetically pleasing and does not create a traffic hazard and approved the fence with conditions. The conditions required the fence to meet the clear vision requirements, limited the height, and required permanent landscaping and provide deadlines for accomplishing the redesign and installation of the fence and landscaping. 8. As noted, the proposal included a black wrought iron fence with brick columns. The tops of the wrought iron pickets terminated in spear-like points, fairly typical of some wrought iron designs. The pickets were spaced approximately 4 inches apart. Two driveways, one along 18th and one along Edmonds, would each be secured with a pair of swinging gates, also of wrought iron but with a curving top design. The gates would span a distance of approximately 18 feet so each half would be approximately 9 feet. 9. The fence was proposed to be set back from the sidewalk five feet. The lot slopes upward from the sidewalk. The topography would result in the fence being above sidewalk and road grade. 10. Staff at the hearing tried estimating as best they could from the dimensions of the fence and location of the fence how the swinging gates would operate. It was determined that an inward swinging gate, a gate that opened into the property might interfere with parking on the site and within driveways and an outward swinging gate could interfere with the sidewalk and potentially the driving right-of-way. 11. It was unclear at the hearing if there were regulations that would restrict the gates' interference with either a sidewalk or roadway. 12. The fence provisions are found in the following sections: ' Appeal of Farkas Special Fence Permit LUA-06-101 November 20, 2006 Page 5 Section 4-4-040(0)(2) provides: 2. Height Limitations for Comer Lots: a. Front Yard Setbacks: Fences, walls or hedges a maximum of forty-two inches (42") in height may be allowed on any part of the clear vision area. Fences, walls, or hedges a maximum of forty-eight inches (48") in height may be allowed within any part of the front yard setback when located outside of any clear vision area on said lot. b. Interior Side Lot Line: Fences, walls or hedges a maximum of seventy two inches (72") in height may be located on interior side lot lines to the point where they intersect the required front yard setback, in which case they shall be governed by subsection D2a of this Section. c. Side Lot Line Abutting Street: Fences, walls or hedges a maximum of forty-two inches (42") in height within any clear vision area and forty-eight inches (48") in height elsewhere. F ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF VARIATION FROM HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS: A property owner wishing to vary the height restrictions or placement of a fence or hedge on a lot may make written application to the Development Services Division for an administrative review of the situation. The Department's staff shall review the application and prepare a written determination based upon criteria listed in these regulations. G SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE FENCE PERMITS: I. Fences Eligible for Administrative Review Process: Persons wishing to have one of the following types of fences may submit a Jetter of justification, site plan and typical elevation together with the permit fee to the Planning/Building/Public Works Department: 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. Electric fences. 2. Evaluation Criteria: The Development Services Division may approve the issuance of special fence permits provided that the following objectives can be met: • The proposed fence improves the privacy and security of the adjoining yard space; • 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; • The proposed fence compliments the environment it serves in an aesthetically pleasing manner; and • The proposed fence does not present a hazard to vehicular or pedestrian traffic. a. Acceptable Measures to Meet Criteria: Fences located within the front or side and/or rear yard along a street setback may be a maximum of seventy two inches (72") in height, provided the evaluation criteria are met. Acceptable measures to achieve these criteria include, but are not limited to the following: • Permanent landscaping along the front of the fence; • Quality fence material, such as cedar fencing; • Modulation of the fence; • Similar design and material as other fences in the surrounding neighborhood; • Increased setbacks from the adjacent sidewalk; • Ornamental materials or construction treatment, such as wrought iron; • Orientation of the finished face of the fence toward the street; and • Other comparable construction or design methods. Appeal of Farkas Special Fence Permit LUA-06-101 November 20, 2006 Page6 CONCLUSIONS: b. Clear Vision Area: The fence proposed for special permits must have no portion in the clear vision area over forty-two inches ( 42") in height. The location and height of the fence must not obstruct views of oncoming traffic, or views from driveways. (Amd. Ord. 5008, 4-28-2003) 1. The appellants have the burden of demonstrating that the decision of the City Official was either in error, or was otherwise contrary to law or constitutional provisions, or was arbitrary and capricious (Section 4-8-11 O(E)(7)(b ). The appellants have demonstrated that the action of the City should be modified or reversed. The decision is modified only in respect that the gate portions of the fence are remanded to the Director. 2. Arbitrary and capricious action has been defined as willful and unreasoning action in disregard of the facts and circumstances. A decision, when exercised honestly and upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances, is not arbitrary or capricious (Northern Pacific Transport Co. v Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, 69 Wn. 2d 472,478 (1966). 3. An action is likewise clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing body, on the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. (Ancheta v Daly, 77 Wn. 2d 255, 259 (1969). An appellate body should not necessarily substitute its judgment for the underlying agency with expertise in a matter unless appropriate. 4. The code appears to provide wide latitude for what constitutes an acceptable fence. It would appear that a combination of brick and wrought iron would be acceptable. While the materials may be aesthetically quite different from some fence materials such as cedar or newer plastics intended to mimic wood fencing, wrought iron and brick are certainly quality materials and should not be prohibited from a neighborhood because others on individual lots prefer wood or wood-like appearing materials. Wrought iron gives an open appearance avoiding what the code calls "blank walls along walkways." It will also afford more visibility through the fence on this comer lot. On the issue of privacy, the fence may not block views into the property but privacy is a matter of degree and keeping people out of a property might be as important as blocking views into property. 5. The fence as conditioned by the Director would not be taller than six feet. A six-foot tall fence is not out of scale with the community, particularly, since the wrought iron designs have widely spaced, narrow pickets that will not create a wall. 6. It would appear that as long as a fence is well designed and of some open visual quality, it would be acceptable. That basically means that almost any fence can be taller than 48-inches. That might be what was intended by the City Council and should not be upset unless it is being misused in too many instances. That is a decision for the City Council and not this office. This fence appears both reasonably designed and proposed to be of quality materials. 7. The only issue, which leaves some doubt for this office, is the design or functioning of the gate. It needs to be designed so that it does not affect either pedestrians or vehicles when it swings either open or closed. The design must be of a type so that an inward swinging gate would not interfere with the requisite onsite parking and so that an outward swinging gate will not interfere with pedestrians or vehicles. This office will remand that aspect of the gates' design and function to the Director for a further review and the possible imposition of an additional condition or conditions. Appeal of Farkas Special Fence Permit LUA-06-101 November 20, 2006 Page 7 DECISION: The decision is affirmed in part and remanded in part. The Director shall review and appropriately condition the design and functioning of the two gates proposed adjacent to the driveways on the subject site. ORDERED THIS 20'" day of November 2006. FREDJ.KA AN HEARING E INER TRANSMITTED THIS 20'" day of November 2006 to the parties ofrecord: Jennifer Henning Andrea Petzel Bylund & Phyllis Wik Development Services Development Services 2616 NE 18th Street City of Renton City of Renton Renton, WA 98056 Saro! Nicholson Farkas Tiberiu Teri J. Towle 2609 NE 18th Street 2509 NE 18'" Street 2625 NE 18th Street Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Stan Ruppert Christine Grubesic Julee Walsh 1725 Edmonds Avenue NE 2508 NE 18°' Street 2624 NE 18th Street Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Wendelin & Eva Richter Beverly Rootvik 2608 NE 18th Street 2524 NE 18'" Street Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 TRANSMITTED THIS 20th day of November 2006 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker Stan Engler, Fire Marshal Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services King County Journal Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services Appeal of Farkas Special Fenc~ Pennit LUA-06-101 November 20, 2006 Page 8 Pursuant to Title N, Chapter 8, Section IOOGofthe City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m .. December 4, 2006. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors oflaw 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. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title N, 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., December 4, 2006. 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. October I 0, 2006 Sarole Nicholson 2609 NE 181h Street Renton, WA 98056 Plyliss Wik 2616 NE 181h Street Renton, WA 98056 CIT'! Re: Appeal of Parkas Special Fence Permit, LUA-06-101 Dear Ms. Nicholson and Ms. Wik: )F RENTON Hearing Examiner Fred J. Kaufman Please be advised that the appeal hearing you have requested in the above matter has been scheduled for Tuesday, November 7, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. The hearing will take place in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. The address is I 055 S Grady Way in Renton. If this office can provide any further assistance, please address those comments in writing. Sincerely, Nancy Thompson Secretary to Hearing Examiner City of Renton cc: Neil Watts, Development Services Jennifer Henning, Development Services Larry Warren, City Attorney ----l0_5_5_S_ou_th_G_ra-dy-W-ay ___ R_en_t-on,_W_a-sh-i-ng-to_n_9_8_05-5---(4_2_5_) 4-3-0--6-51_5 ____ ~ @ This paper con1ains 50% recycled material, 30o/o post oonsumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE To: Renton Hearing Examiner Mr. Fred Kaufman Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington Action Appealed: APPEAL CITY OF RENTON OCT 1 O 2006 · RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE ,,:rs-r;,,1, j:S Director of Development Services Neil Watts decision to approve the Farkas Tiberiu special fence permit with conditions that is designated LUA-06-101, SF, in City Records. Address of Property appealed: 2509 N.E. 18th Street, Renton Washington 98056 Introduction: The above action of the Director is hereby appealed to the Hearing Examiner, because of an erroneous and illegal approval of an administrative variance in order to grant a permit for a "special fence" that is not allowed by the Renton Code. The Appellants in this case are the undersigned neighbors of the subject site property that is located at 2509 N.E. 181h Street. Under Renton's code, the Director was required to promote compliant , neighborhoods and fencing in accordance with 4-4-030 RMC. He did not, and in addition approved a fence that violates the zoning code intended to accommodate only uses that are compatible with and support an asthetically pleasing residential environment and add to a sense of community. His conditions of approval imposed as a result of the application were insufficient to establish compliance with the Renton code. The fence at issue here is out of place and in fact is suspected only to enhance the property to become another adult home convalescent business in addition to the other illegal ones that are already present on N.E. 18th Street. What happens is that entreprenuers are attracted to buy the properties, modify the houses, (without the required permits) create a home care business, and then move out and hire employees to operate the business. Those businesses are also being conducted outside the Renton code but will be appealed in a different appeal. Violations of the "special fence" provisions and zoning code will occur with only the conditions of approval as decided by the Director, the fence is an illegal variance of the code, and therefore review is now requested. The decision of the Director to allow the fence described above violates the provisions of the zoning code 4-2 RMC residential requirements which states, Interpretation of uses and project review in this zone shall be based on the purpose statements, and objectives and policy direction established in the Residential Single Family land use designation. The fence the Director approved at the site is not within the above criteria can not be granted a variance without modification of the plans, imposition of additional conditions, and should be therefore be referred to the Director as further outlined in this appeal. e C La~-v 1Jr,1ftvl ' C ~ ({ th (11,, 'I ,tie,\ ivr,tf-5 1 Dev', 5.>,·-s z:;,,,·ee--fc~ Timeliness: This appeal comes before the Hearing Examiner in a timely manner and within the time limits prescribed by the Renton Code and 4-8-11 OE RMC and therefore cannot be considered untimely. Jurisdiction and Standing: The Appellants in this case are neighbors that live in the immediate vicinity of the subject property, they are adversely affected by the erroneous and illegal decision and will suffer loss of sense of neighborhood community, damage to the appearance of the street, and loss of property values, all of which are interests that should be protected by the plain and express language of the Renton code. This appeal comes before the Hearing Examiner as an appeal of an administrative decision, pursuant to 4-8-110 RMC, and therefore Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hear and decide this appeal. Hearing Examiner should hear and decide this appeal in favor of appellants. This appeal is accompanied by the $75.00 appeal fee. 1. The applicant applied for a variance for a fence that has 7 (seven) foot high brick columns in the front, side, and rear yards areas of the site. The code requires the fence to be no more than 48 inches. 2. The applicant also applied for a fence that has sharpened wrought iron points located 6 (six ) feet above the adjacent ground. The above facts are located on a site plan drawing that was submitted by the applicant and is attached as exhibit "A". The code requires the fence to be no more than 48 inches in height on front and side yards. There are restrictions for the rear yard required by the code as well. 3. Over time, the applicant has converted the rear yard of the site into a parking area for a businesss use which is accessed from Edmonds avenue, a major arterial street in the area. Metal rods with sharpened points do not increase privacy. 4. The front yard area is on and facing N.E. 18 1h Street. Applicant converted the existing use of the garage to additional rooms, and uses the driveway for additional parking. 5. It appears that the tree notated on the site plan is mislocated and there has been no legitimate survey done of the property for purpose ofa special fence. 6. There is not topography noted on the site plan submitted by the applicant other than the rockery shown which is on or about 4 (four feet) above ground level. In other words the house is already up about four feet above the street. There should not be a fence in the clear vision area even ifit is less than 42 inches, a clear requirement of the Renton zoning code. See4-2-llORMC. 7. To summarize, the new fence has been unlawfully approved in a residential zone (R-8 zoning) the front facing an established neighborhood, side facing an established major arterial street and neighborhood without legal justification according to the Renton code. Applicant has modified the house from its original purpose of single family residential and is now proceeding pursuant to an illegal approval of a variance for construction of a fence that is out of place in the neighborhood. Neighbors now have the right to a decision in favor of values that favor the neighborhood and community. 8. The applicant has, in the past marketed the home for sale as ideal for an Adult care facility. That type of use requires different zoning but one home on N.E. 18th street and possibly two more (one of the other houses posted a sign for "adult care") are already violating the single family designation which is not intended for business use. He was unsuccessful in that marketing attempt. The neighbors realize that it is likely that the owner will attempt to make the home an adult care facility. There is already one operating illegally without the owners residing in the home, and in addition to the Farkas house, there is one other that is setting up on the street. 9. The required justification for the special fence variance have not be met, and numerous specific sections of the code will be violated without reversal/modification of the erroneous and illegal decision of the Director. Argument: 4-4-030 RMC requires fences to be no more than 48 inches in height in the front yard and in the side yard along public streets. In order for a variance to be granted the fence must meet certain criteria which this fence application does not. There are not facts in the record showing that the fence wilJ improve the security and privacy.of the adjoining property owners or the applicant, because it is clear it would not and applicant can not demonstrate that it would without changes to the plans. You can see through the sharpened metal bars that are proposed. The same applies because the fence is out of scale with the residential environment because it is totally different from and out of place in the area which does not allow 7 foot high columns, and six foot high wrought iron metal points in the front, side and rear yard areas facing a street and on a comer lot. All of the neighbors like to fence their back yards with six foot high cedar fences, and then provide a smaller or no fence in the side and front w/landscaping. The above facts justify reversal of the Directors decision according to subsection 2. Evaluation criteria: of 4-4- 030 RMC, because the requirements can not been met with the design submitted by the applicant, and therefore the decision of the Director is in error and illegal. The proposed fence may purport to compliment a business environment for an adult care home in a business environment, but it is not legal to do so because it is located in a residential zone (R-8) and violates the code that requires an esthetically pleasing residential and family environment. The fence does not serve to compliment the surrounding environment, but rather, violates the code for the height and type of fences. In addition, there are already visibility problems evidenced in the record, with the grade of the property well above the street, and therefore there should not be allowed to have any fence in the clear vision area that is regulated by the Renton code. Neighbors would not be able to see when they would drive out of the street onto Edmonds Avenue. ( an arterial through street) Conclusion: The interests that are violated by the erroneous and illegal approval of the special fence are those same interests of the code and of numerous neighbors in the area. The people of the area are those that will suffer if those laws are not properly applied, because they want to encourage adherence to the code which requires the feeling of spaciousness along neighborhood streets and minimization of the closed city atmosphere which tall fences along public rights-of-way can create. see requirement in 4-4-040 RMC. The appellants want to minimize damage to the ability to promote the high quality development and environment envisioned in 4-2-020 RMC. The neighborhood has never had any front yard fences all up and down the street and this new decision would change that. The above and herein interests are those intended to be protected by the fence regulations 4-4- 030 and without enforcement of those regulations the interests of Citizens will not be protected. The interest of the surrounding properties being protected from more and more 7 foot high columns and 6 foot front yard metal sharp point fences in the area is more important than Farkas Tiberiu. The interests of the neighbors are the same as the code which is intended to regulate fences according to particular requirements of the Renton code the main provision being the provision that states, "particulary in the front yard areas of homes", see 4-4-040 Renton Code; FENCES AND HEDGES: A. PURPOSE: The Director did not protect the area in the particular area of the front yards of the neighborhoods according to code. He should be required to change/modify his decision. The decision of the Director should be remanded for correction. He evidently did not realize all of the facts and circumstances surrounding his decision. Request: This request to remand the decision to the Director should be granted because there has been no showing that; 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. He wants it to merely enhance the ability of the property to become an adult care home. There has been no showing that the granting of the variance should not be reversed because it would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare and injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone and community in which subject property is situated with the fence that is non-compliant with the code; There has been no showing that the approval would 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; It is requested that Farkas Tiberiu be responsible to make the above showing or change the way he designs his fencing, to be in tenor with the code and purpose of the neighborhood. It is requested that the approval as determined by the Director should be remanded because it has not been shown that it is a minimum variance that will accomplish any purpose other than to be out of place in the neighborhood and detract from the sense of community that has been present for some time. It is requested that the decision to grant the fence permit be reversed and decision of the Director be remanded with direction to allow only a 48 inch high fence, without the sharpened metal points, with direction that none of which may protrude into the clear vision area outlined in chapter 2 zoning code of Title 4 of the Renton Municipal code. Respectfully, Parties ofrecord ~~JQ]AveQ -f!b "25 A)[: /8 fri 61 ~ L ~"t:t·'= KathyKeolker, Mayor CIT~ OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P .E., Administrator RE: Your Comment Letter Regarding Farkas Special Fence Permit (City of Renton File# LUA06-I01) Dear Interested Party(ies), Thank you for your comment letter regarding the Farkas Special Fence Permit application (LUA06-IOI). In your letter you express concern that the proposed development would negatively impact your property. This letter serves to address your concerns based on information found in Renton City corles and regulations. Your first concern was that the fence would look out of place with the rest of the street and create a prison-like appearance, thus reducing your property values. I have enclosed for your review the architectural drawings of the proposed fence so that you will have a visual concept of what Mr. Farkas intends to build. City code requires that the applicant use quality fencing materials; Mr. Farkas has proposed brick posts with wrought iron fencing. In addition, the property between the fence and the sidewalk will be landscaped to improve the appearance of the property. If you have any questions regarding the design of the fence, please feel free to contact Mr. Farkas at (425) 233-1839. Your second issue was the ability to see oncoming traffic. The proposed fence will be outside of the clear vision area·on the comer of the lot, and will.not reduce visibility around the corner. In addition, the open nature of a wrought iron fence is a better option than wooden slats, which would allow zero visibility through the yard. No landscaping will interfere with the clear vision area (please see attached site plan). Your third concern was with regards to the possibility of the property becoming an adult family home. Mr. Farkas submitted an application that pertains exclusively to a special fence permit and at this time there is no material to review regarding the conversion of the property to an adult family home. 1 have included your comments in the official Land Use file and you have been made a Party of Record for the project. You will receive any additional correspondence or decisions made on the Farkas Special Fence Permit application. Feel free to contact me at (425) 430-7289 with any further questions. Sincerely, ~!~ Assistant Planner cc: City of Renton File LUA 06-101 Farkas Tiberiu Jennifer Henning ------1-o""'ss_S_o-uth_Grad_y_W-ay---R-en-t-on-, _W_as_hin_' -gt-on-98-0-55 ______ ~ AHEAD OF THE CURVE <1:Y 0 (;~,<) ;~;, &'N'f9 City of Renton PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEPAR1MENT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DNISION SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE FENCE PERMIT EVALUATION FORM,& DECISION Date: September 26, 2006 City of Renton File Number: LUA-06-101, SFP Project Description: Applicant requests a Special Fence Permit for a 5' 1 O" fence with four 7' brick or stone columns along the front and side yards facing a street. Distance from fence to property line ranges from 3.0 ft to 3.5 ft. Proposed fence materials are Y," wrought iron pickets spaced at 4" inches, with two stone or brick coltllftnS'],l~~d at the entrance to both driveways. The columns would support gates )N'ith similar size and stnlaw.-e to the rest of the fence . .. -'tk. Proposed landscaping would in9Juqe palms, small r,ine trj'!es f~owers. . ~--··,_-,.~ . ~ Location: 2509 NE 18th Street<' · ··. . -~- ,. ~ ~ '-.-'~".,;i' Y\-'_.'i).''··.,. 1~ ,t'" / '\\ King County Assessor's PrCJjlerty Id.entilication Nuiirbiir,(_53582000t0 '', . ' . -, : . -_ ". ',' '·--:·._· _?·;;: ;_ -i Owner/Applicant Name and PltbileNumber: Far~'.tilfliriu (42~ ·1~9 Fence Location (check ALL:;;1pplicalile boxes): ·\ ,,,_{;;·> X Front 1'.:_ara'· X Side Y~'4A.l~ng a Street D Rear Yard Along A Street D Clear Vision Area Fence Design (Which of the following measures have been employed?)*: X Permanent Landscaping X Quality Fence Materials X Modulation of Fencing D Similar to Design and Material of Surrounding Fences D Increased Setbacks from Sidewalks X Ornamental Materials or Construction *Conceptual plan only, fence has not been built. Evaluation Criteria (Do the measures checked above satisfy the following objectives): Evaluation Criteria Achieved Not Achieved lmoroves Privacy X In Scale With Neighborhood X Limits Blank Walls Along Walkways X Aesthetically Pleasing X . Does Not Create a Traffic Hazard X D Approved X Approved with conditions · n Denied Advisory Note: The applicant should contact the Call Center, by dialing 800-424-5555, to determine the location ofundergromtd utilities (telephone, street'fl'gnfs; tiablfu electric), which may be located behind the sidewalk. , .· '"'' ·.'• -~Y:;;,. I . ,_ -· '""t:·,' Conditions of Approval: , , ' · · · · '\,, . I) Revise the site plan so;~at fence placement is out of t1te,9ipa( vis\n area so as not to restrict visibility. Please_ subffiit therevisecl sitep~~~!J,15 ctar pfred'\ivi~ this permit. (Note: th~ ~l~ll: VIsto? area ts d¥i_ned as the area bo~~i~;!?X.~ street pr?pel}'. hue~ of comer lots and a hne 2) ::n::~:ntn;::::1:t!~:::~;::~:::~t~t~1:::!:~~1: :::;;::: 1;~:t and sicle yards. · •,,,, .. , 3) Thearea_infront o_fu:~fe!1Ceshall be pennanent1/ian4s(~pecVanj:naintained with appropriate landscapmg matenal su"C);t asirces, shrubs, ground~over, 4,joV'(er~d landscape bark, etc. A planting plan shall be sulirniited for approValby !}ie ~evet'opr#ht Services Division Project Manager within 45 days of receiving this permit. · l· ?'. 4) Landscaping in the clear vision area shall g~Jiroited'fif;ound cover and shrubs less than 42" in · height so as not to interfere with traffic visibility. 5) Once the landscape plan is approved ~!! plants shall be installed within ! 80 days. Approved by the City of Renton Development Services Division Director Appeals: Appeals of permit issuance may be filed with the City of Renton Hearing Examiner at the City Clerk's Office, 7"' Floor of Renton City Hall, by 5:00 PM on October 10, 2006. Appeals require a $75 application fee. For information on the appeal process call (425) 430-6510. 8 R-1 St. R-1 RC /~ ·' t. ~ ZONING ~ = TICHNICAL IBRVICBI ----Renton Cit., Umlll SE 99t c= .... 'r---+...l..._~::;~F-i iR-1 ' ~ ; 0 ........ I Cl".'. 1 N • eyo too ueoo D.5'6 o 4 200s 4 T23N R5E W IVED ST ATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING } AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Jody L. Barton, being first duly sworn on oath that she is the 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 fonn 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 October 27, 2006. The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $72.90. ,. .. -.-..~ ... , JodY,,, Leghl..Advertising Representative, King County Journal•· . Subscribed and sworn to me this 27th day of October, 200~, /;" L1 Cb-; 2/t:L.lcP') B D Cantelon Notary Public for the State of Washington, Residing in··i:;.ent, Washington PO Number: ·· ·.,~ . .'!,. <\ ... .··_;·_.·· ' . ·,,._, l NOTJCE OF APPEAL HEARJNG RENTON HF,AR!NG EXAMJNER RENTON,WASHINGTON A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Cowicil Chambers on the seventh floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on November 7, 2006 at 9:00 AM to consider the following petitions: Farkas Special Fence Permit Appeal LUAOG-101, SF LcX'atinn: 2h09 l\'E•~ 18th St.reef.. De~cription: Appeal of the administrative approval for a special fem.-e permit for a 6' fence for a front yard and a riide yard along a street. All interested persons are invited to he present at the Public Hearing to express their opinions. Questions should 'be direded to the Hearing Examiner at 425-430-6515. Published in the King County Journal October 27, 2006. #861949 AP?r1()VED BY Csi'i COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT 0 ~vf(g;,~~~0 ~:NNIN~ October 9, 2006 Fence Waiver Request (Referred Au2nst 7, 2006) cir/·.),:: c-~··11,-or) 1 'l.,;J RECEIVED Th.e Finance Committee met to consider a request by the applicant to waive the application fee for a variance. The applicant intends to seek a variance from the City's Fence Regulations for · an existing overheight fence. He appeared before Council to request that the variance application fee be waived because he is low income and cannot afford the fee. The established administrative variance fee is $100. Similar fee waiver requests have not been granted for land use permits in the past. Granting the waiver would set a precedent for future requests. Therefore, staff recommended. that the requested fee waiver be denied. However, the Finance Committi::e recognizes that the aJ?pl~t has extenuating circumstances in that he is low income and disabled. Therefore, .<the Couunittee recommends that the Council approve the requested fee waiver. ~-~ ~ersson,Chair Denis W. Law, Vice Chair ~~I Toni Nelson, Member cc: Gregg Zimmennan, P/B/PW Administrator Neil W~ltts, Development Services DiR:Ctor Sennlll:r Henning, CUmmt Planning Manager fi~.doc\ fDe_, je; ,J,SLL· Yf(/M l))k f1\e.t (:k;~ 13S /f ){lit~ ~ Rov OI/06 bh I To: Renton Hearing Examiner Mr. Fred Kaufman Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington Action Appealed: APPEAL CITY Of RENTON OCT 1 O 2006 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 1/ ',1<; q,.:,t, ).S t:EIIEL.OPMl::N I SE:RVICES C11Y OF RENTON OCT 1 O 2006 RECEIVED Director of Development Services Neil Watts decision to approve the Farkas Tiberiu special fence permit with conditions that is designated LUA-06-101, SF, in City Records. Address of Property appealed: 2509 N.E. 18th Street, Renton Washington 98056 Introduction: The above action of the Director is hereby appealed to the Hearing Examiner, because of an erroneous and illegal approval of an administrative variance in order to grant a permit for a "special fence" that is not allowed by the Renton Code. The Appellants in this case are the undersigned neighbors of the subject site property that is located at 2509 N.E. 18th Street. Under Renton's code, the Director was required to promote compliant , neighborhoods and fencing in accordance with 4-4-030 RMC. He did not, and in addition approved a fence that violates the zoning code intended to accommodate only uses that are compatible with and support an asthetically pleasing residential environment and add to a sense of community. His conditions of approval imposed as a result of the application were insufficient to establish compliance with the Renton code. The fence at issue here is out of place and in fact is suspected only to enhance the property to become another adult home convalescent business in addition to the other illegal ones that are already present on N.E. 181h Street. What happens is that entreprenuers are attracted to buy the properties, modify the houses, (without the required permits) create a home care business, and then move out and hire employees to operate the business. Those businesses are also being conducted outside the Renton code but will be appealed in a different appeal. Violations of the "special fence" provisions and zoning code will occur with only the conditions of approval as decided by the Director, the fence is an illegal variance of the code, and therefore review is now requested. The decision of the Director to allow the fence described abC\ve violates the provisions of the zoning code 4-2 RMC residential requirements which states, Interpretation of uses and project review in this zone shall be based on the purpose statements, and objectives and policy direction established in the Residential Single Family land use designation. The fence the Director approved at the site is not within the above criteria can not be granted a variance without modification of the plans, imposition of additional conditions, and should be therefore be referred to the Director as further outlined in this appeal. CC Lc;;ry ti{tr/',1. (_,~ //1/~r,uy Ne,\ 11)r,tf5. D(v' 5ty~ p,,e(.hv Timeliness: This appeal comes before the Hearing Examiner in a timely manner and within the time limits prescribed by the Renton Code and 4-8-11 OE RMC and therefore cannot be considered untimely. Jurisdiction and Standing: The Appellants in this case are neighbors that live in the immediate vicinity of the subject property, they are adversely affected by the erroneous and illegal decision and will suffer loss of sense of neighborhood community, damage to the appearance of the street, and loss of property values, all of which are interests that should be protected by the plain and express language of the Renton code. This appeal comes before the Hearing Examiner as an appeal of an administrative decision, pursuant to 4-8-110 RMC, and therefore Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hear and decide this appeal. Hearing Examiner should hear and decide this appeal in favor of appellants. This appeal is accompanied by the $75.00 appeal fee. I. The applicant applied for a variance for a fence that has 7 (seven) foot high brick columns in the front, side, and rear yards areas of the site. The code requires the fence to be no more than 48 inches. 2. The applicant also applied for a fence that has sharpened wrought iron points located 6 ( six ) feet above the adjacent ground. The above facts are located on a site plan drawing that was submitted by the applicant and is attached as exhibit "A". The code requires the fence to be no more than 48 inches in height on front and side yards. There are restrictions for the rear yard required by the code as well. 3. Over time, the applicant has converted the rear yard of the site into a parking area for a businesss use which is accessed from Edmonds avenue, a major arterial street in the area. Metal rods with sharpened points do not increase privacy. 4. The front yard area is en and facing N.E. 181 h Street. Applicant converted the existing use of the garage to additiondl, rooms, and uses the driveway for additional parking. 5. It appears that the tree notated on the site plan is mislocated and there has been no legitimate survey done of the property for purpose of a special fence. 6. There is not topography noted on the site plan submitted by the applicant other than the < rockery shown which is on or about 4 (four feet) above ground level. In other words the house is already up about four feet above the street. There should not be a fence in the clear vision area even ifit is less than 42 inches, a clear requirement of the Renton zoning code. See 4-2-110 RMC. 7. To summarize, the new fence has been unlawfully approved in a residential zone (R-8 zoning) the front facing an established neighborhood, side facing an established major arterial street and neighborhood without legal justification according to the Renton code. Applicant has modified the house from its original purpose of single family residential and is now proceeding pursuant to an illegal approval of a variance for construction of a fence that is out of place in the neighborhood. Neighbors now have the right to a decision in favor of values that favor the neighborhood and commnnity. 8. The applicant has, in the past marketed the home for sale as ideal for an Adult care facility. That type of nse requires different zoning but one home on N.E. 18th street and possibly two more (one of the other houses posted a sign for "adult care") are already violating the single family designation which is not intended for business use. He was unsuccessful in that marketing attempt. The neighbors realize that it is likely that the owner will attempt to make the home an adult care facility. There is already one operating illegally without the owners residing in the home, and in addition to the Farkas house, there is one other that is setting up on the street. 9. The required justification for the special fence variance have not be met, and numerous specific sections of the code will be violated without reversal/modification of the erroneous and illegal decision of the Director. Argument: 4-4-030 RMC requires fences to be no more than 48 inches in height in the front yard and in the side yard along public streets. In order for a variance to be granted the fence must meet certain criteria which this fence application does not. There are not facts in the record showing that the fence will improve the security and privacy of the adjoining property owners or the applicant, because it is clear it would not and applicant can not demonstrate that it would without changes to the plans. You can see through the sharpened metal bars that are proposed. The same applies because the fence is out of scale with the residential environment because it is totally different from and out of place in the area which does not allow 7 foot high columns, and six foot high wrought iron metal points in the front, side and rear yard areas facing a street and on a comer lot. All of the neighbors like to fence their back yards with six foot high cedar fences, and then provide a smaller or no fehce in the side and front w/landscaping. The above facts justify reversal of the Directors decisten according to subsection 2. Evaluation criteria: of 4-4- 030 RMC, because the requirements can not been met with the design submitted by the applicant, and therefore the decision of the Director is in error and illegal. The proposed fence may purport to compliment a business environment for an adult care home in a business environment, but it is not legal to do so because it is located in a residential zone (R-8) and violates the code that requires an esthetically pleasing residential and family environment. The fence does not serve to compliment the surrounding environment, but rather, violates the code for the height and type of fences. In addition, there are already visibility problems evidenced in the record, with the grade of the property well above the street, and therefore there should not be allowed to have any fence in the clear vision area that is regulated by the Renton code. Neighbors would not be able to see when they would drive out of the street onto Edmonds Avenue. (an arterial through street) Conclusion: The interests that are violated by the erroneous and illegal approval of the special fence are those same interests of the code and of numerous neighbors in the area. The people of the area are those that will suffer if those laws are not properly applied, because they want to encourage adherence to the code which requires the feeling of spaciousness along neighborhood streets and minimization of the closed city atmosphere which tall fences along public rights-of-way can create. see requirement in 4-4-040 RMC. The appellants want to minimize damage to the ability to promote the high quality development and environment envisioned in 4-2-020 RMC. The neighborhood has never had any front yard fences all up and down the.street and this new decision would change that. The above and herein interests are those intended to be protected by the fence regulations 4-4- 030 and without enforcement of those regulations the interests of Citizens will not be protected. The interest of the surrounding properties being protected from more and more 7 foot high columns and 6 foot front yard metal sharp point fences in the area is more important than Farkas Tiberiu. The interests of the neighbors are the same as the code which is intended to regulate fences according to particular requirements of the Renton code the main provision being the provision that states, "particulary in the front yard areas of homes", see 4-4-040 Renton Code; FENCES AND HEDGES: A. PURPOSE: The Director did not protect the area in the particular area of the front yards of the neighborhoods according to code. He should be required to change/modify his decision. The decision of the Director should be remanded for correction. He evidently did not realize all of the facts and circumstances surrounding his decision. Request: This request to remand the decision to the Director should be granted because there has been no showing that; That the applicant suffers undue hardship and the variance is necessary because of special circumstances applicable to subject property, including size, shape, topography, location di: 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. He wants it to merely enhance the ability of the property to become an adult care home. There has been no showing that the granting of the variance should not be reversed because it would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare and injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone and community in ·- • which subject property is situated with the fence that is non-compliant with the code; There has been no showing that the approval would not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon uses of other prop·erties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated; It is requested that Farkas Tiberiu be responsible to make the above showing or change the way he designs his fencing, to be in tenor with the code and purpose of the neighborhood. It is requested that the approval as determined by the Director should be remanded because it has not been shown that it is a minimum variance that will accomplish any purpose other than to be out of place in the neighborhood and detract from the sense of community that has been present for some time. It is requested that the decision to grant the fence permit be reversed and decision of the Director be remanded with direction to allow only a 48 inch high fence, without the sharpened metal points, with direction that none of which may protrude into the clear vision area outlined in chapter 2 zoning code of Title 4 of the Renton Municipal code. Respectfully, Parties ofrecord ~ i00uv!2_Q K-z.s AJ~ 1E.rf11 s't 'ct h,4, ~"fr*· ' ' ' ' ' +~y;rv~ . TYi f;5 74 .8 I 3(! 1 I ?Z ·--=~-----r711 t l-7 t 2::J/ ,; .j S · t-1 J. j L 'iJ_ ~u__ $ C?S fj' ~..Ar~ .,,.,_ (Jl- CITY F RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator RE: Your Comment Letter Regarding Farkas Special Fence Permit (City of Renton File# LUA06-101) Dear Interested Party(ies), Thank you for your comment letter regarding the Farkas Special Fence Permit application (LUA06-101). In your letter you express concern that the proposed development would negatively impact your property. This letter serves to address your concerns based on information found in Renton City codes and regulations. Your first concern was that the fence would look out of place with the rest of the street and create a prison-like appearance, thus reducing your property values. I have enclosed for your review the architectural drawings of the proposed fence so that you will have a visual concept of what Mr. Farkas intends to build. City code requires that the applicant use quality fencing materials; Mr. Farkas has proposed brick posts with wrought iron fencing. fu addition, the property between the fence and the sidewalk will be landscaped to improve the appearance of the.property. If you have any questions regarding the design of the fence, please feel free to contact Mr. Farkas at (425) 233-1839. Your second issue was the ability to see oncoming traffic. The proposed fence will be outside of the clear vision area·on the comer of the lot, and will not reduce visibility around the comer. In addition, the open nature of a wrought iron fence is a better option than wooden slats, which would allow zero visibility through the yard. No landscaping will interfere with the clear vision area (please see attached site plan). Your third concern was with regards to the possibility of the property becoming an adult family home. Mr. Farkas submitted an application that pertains exclusively to a special fence permit and at this time there is no material to review regarding the conversion of the property to an adult family home. I have included your comments in the official Land Use file and you have been made a Party of Record for the project. You will receive any additional correspondence or decisions made on the Farkas Special Fence Permit application. Feel free to contact me at (425) 430-7289 with any further questions. Sincerely, i ~ ~! Assistant Planner ' cc: City of Renton File LUA 06-101 Farkas Tiberiu Jennifer Henning -------,-0-55-So_u_th_G_i_ad_y_W_a_y---Re-n-to_n_, -W-a-sh-in_gt_o_n_9_8_0_55------~ ~ AHEAD OF THE CURVE ~y • • . N City of Renton PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE FENCE PERMIT EVALUATION FORM & DECISION Date: September 26, 2006 City of Renton File Number: LUA-06-101, SFP Clear Vision Area Fence Design (Which of the following measures have been employed~)*: X Permanent Landscaping X Quality Fence Materials X Modulation of Fencing · CJ Similar tb D~ign and Material of Surrounding Fences 0 Increased Setbacks from Sidewalks X Ornamental Materials or Construction *Conceptual plan only, fence has not been built. Evaluation Criteria (Do the measures checked above satisfy the foUowing objectives): Evaluation Criteria Achieved· Not Achieved Imoroves Privacy .· X . In Scale With Neil!hborhood X Limits Btank Walls Along Walkwavs X Aestheticallv Pleasing X Does Not Create a Traffic Hazard X D Approved X Appro'ted with conditions · n· Denied Conditions of Approval: 5) Once the land.scape plan is approved al! plants shall be installed within 180 days. Approved by the City of Renton , Development Services Division DireclOr <Sry:L/2.G 1zoOG Date · · Appeals: Appeals of permit issuance may be filed with the City of Renton Hearing Examiner at the City Clerk's Office, 7"' Floor of Renton City Hall, by 5:00 PM on October 10, 2006. Appeals require a $75 application fee. For information on the appeal process call (425) 430-6510. CIT1~ OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator October 11, 2006 Farkas Tiberiu 2509 NE 18th Street Renton, WA 98056 SUBJECT: Farkas Special Fence Permit LUA06-101, SF Dear Mr. Tiberiu: This letter is to inform you that the appeal period for the Farkas Administrative Special Fence Permit (LUA06-101) has ended. However, an appeal has been filed. Therefore, a Hearing Examiner Public Hearing has been scheduled at 9:00 a.m. on November 7, 2006, in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant are required to be present. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (425) 430-7289. Sincerely, ~1~ Assistant Planner cc: Phyllis Wik, Bylund Wik, Wendelin Richter, Julee Walsh, Teri Towle, Eva Richter, Sarai Nicholson, Christine Grubesic, Beverly Rootvik / Parties of. Record -------10-5-5-So_u_th_Grad __ y_W_a_y---R-en-to_n_, _W_as_h-in-gt-on-9'---80_5_5 ______ ~ @ This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE "y cc'~. ~,<; +~ + ~~~ !!'N'fo City of Renton PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DNISION SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE FENCE PERMIT EVALUATION FORM & DECISION Date: September 26, 2006 City of Renton File Number: LUA-06-10 I, SFP Project Description: Applicant requests a Special Fence Permit for a 5' 1 O" fence with four 7' brick or stone columns along the front and side yards facing a street. Distance from fence to property line ranges from 3.0 ft to 3.5 ft. Proposed fence materials are Y:,'' wrought iron pickets spaced at 4" inches, with two stone or brick columns placed at the entrance to both driveways. The columns would support gates with similar size and structure to the rest of the fence. Proposed landscaping would include palms, small pine trees arid flowers. Location: 2509 NE 18"' Street King County Assessor's Property Identification Numbet: 5358200010 Owner/Applicant Name and Phone Number: FarkasTiberiu (425) 233-1839 Fence Location (check ALL applicable boxes): X Front Yard X Side Yard Along a Street D Rear Yard Along A Street D Clear Vision Area Fence Design (Which of the following measures have been employed?)*: X Permanent Landscaping X Quality Fence Materials X Modulation of Fencing D Similar to Design and Material of Surrounding Fences D Increased Setbacks from Sidewalks X Ornamental Materials or Construction *Conceptual plan only, fence has not been built. Evaluation Criteria (Do the measures checked above satisfy the following objectives): Evaluation Criteria Achieved Not Achieved hnoroves Privacy X In Scale With Neighborhood X Limits Blank Walls Along Walkways X Aesthetically Pleasing X Does Not Create a Traffic Hazard X D Approved X Approved with conditions D Denied Advisory Note: The applicant should contact the Call Center, by dialing 800-424-5555, to determine the location of underground utilities (telephone, street lights, cable, electric), which may be located behind the sidewalk. Conditions of Approval: 1) Revise the site plan so that fence placement is out of the clear vision area so as not to restrict visibility. Please submit the revised site plan within 45 days of receiving this permit. (Note: the clear vision area is defined as the area bounded by the street property lines of comer lots and a line joining points along said street lines twenty feet (20') from their point of intersection.) 2) No portion of the fence including the brick pillars shall exceed 72''(six feet) in the front and side yards. 3) The area in front of the fence shall be permanently landscaped and maintained with appropriate landscaping material such as trees, shrubs, groundcover, flowers and landscape bark, etc. A planting plan shall be submitted for approval by the Development Services Division Project Manager within 45 days ofreceiving this permit. 4) Landscaping in the clear vision area shall be limited tO ground cover and shrubs less than 42" in height so as not to interfere with traffic visibility. 5) Once the landscape plan is approved all plants shall be installed within 180 days. Approved by the City of Renton Development Services Division Director Appeals: Appeals of permit issuance may be filed with the City of Renton Hearing Examiner at the City Clerk's Office, 7"' Floor of Renton City Hall, by 5:00 PM on October 10, 2006. Appeals require a $75 application fee. For information on the appeal process call (425) 430-6510. CIT~ )F RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P .E., Administrator RE: Your Comment Letter Regarding Farkas Special Fence Permit (City of Renton File# LUA06-101) Dear Interested Party( ies ), Thank you for your comment letter regarding the Farkas Special Fence Permit application (LUA06-I 01 ). In your letter you express concern that the proposed development would negatively impact your property. This letter serves to address your concerns based on information found in Renton City codes and regulations. Your first concern was that the fence would look out of place with the rest of the street and create a prison-like appearance, thus reducing your property values. I have enclosed for your review the architectural drawings of the proposed fence so that you will have a visual concept of what Mr. Farkas intends to build. City code requires that the applicant use quality fencing materials; Mr. Farkas has proposed brick posts with wrought iron fencing. In-addition, the property between the fence and the sidewalk will be landscaped to improve the appearance of the property. If you have any questions regarding the design of the fence, please feel free to contact Mr. Farkas at (425) 233-1839. Your second issue was the ability to see oncoming traffic. The proposed fence will be outside of the clear vision area on the comer of the lot, and will not reduce visibility around the corner. In addition, the open nature of a wrought iron fence is a better option than wooden slats, which would allow zero visibility through the yard. No landscaping will interfere with the clear vision area (please see attached site plan). Your third concern was with regards to the possibility of the property becoming an adult family home. Mr. Farkas submitted an application that pertains exclusively to a special fence permit and at this time there is no material to review regarding the conversion of the property to an adult family home. I have included your comments in the official Land Use file and you have been made a Party of Record for the project. You will receive any additional correspondence or decisions made on the Farkas Special Fence Permit application. Feel free to contact me at (425) 430-7289 with any further questions. Sincerely, ~l* Assistant Planner cc: City of Renton File LUA 06-101 Farkas Tiberiu Jennifer Henning -------IO_S_S-So_u_th_Gr_ad_y_W_a_y---R-en-to_n_, W-as-h-in_gt_on-98_0_5_5 ------~ Ci) This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE City o ... enton Department of Planning I Building I Pub,., Norks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 APPLICATION NO: LUA06-101, SF DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 29, 2006 APPLICANT: Farkas Tiberiu PROJECT MANAGER: Andrea Petzel PROJECT TITLE: Farkas S ecial Fence Permit PLAN REVIEW: Ka ren Kittrick AU 9 2006 SITE AREA: N/A BUILDING AREA ross : N/A LOCATION: 2509 NE 18th Street I WORK ORDER NO: 77635 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Applicant requests a Special Fence Permit for a 6 ft. fence with 7 ft. columns along the front and side yards along a street, clear vision area must be maintained; distance from fence to property line ranges from 3.0 ft to 3.5 ft. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable Environment Minor Major Impacts Impacts Eart.h Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources 8. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS u~ C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS ).J~ More Information Necessary Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Housinn Aesthetics L/nht/Glare Recreation Utilities Tran~-orlation Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet To: Andrea Petzel Assistant Planner Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 9-5-06 Re: Farkas Special Fence Permit/LUA06-101, SF I wish to be made a party of record regarding the project being applied for at 2509 NE 18 Street, Renton, WA 98056 by Farkas Tiberiu for a special fence permit. I live three homes up the street from this house. This is a cul-de-sac street with 12 houses. We already have one Adult Family Care home on this street. A few years ago we had another Adult Family Care home which we were happy to see shut down. Parking cars on our small street made it seem like a business area. How many businesses are allowed in a residential area'!!? The Farkas Tiberiu home has had much modification in the last three years. This is a small split level home on a small lot. They removed the garage and made the house into a 7 bedroom home. Parking would have to be mainly on Edmonds Ave. NE. Visitors would have to park on Edmonds which would make safety for the other residents a big concern. Traffic is heavy at times on Edmonds Ave. NE and when you need to exit NE 18 St. it is often impossible to see the oncoming traffic. A fence of any kind would create a huge blind spot. I watch the Renton City Council meeting every Monday. The man in the wheelchair who wanted a fence in his backyard because he wanted his wheelchair wheels to stay clean had a problem with his permit. I'm questioning how in the world would you allow this permit to be granted. The Neighborhood Community Groups and the City of Renton are working together to try and clean up the Highlands. This fence would be worse than some of the blight and would certainly have an effect on our property values with its prison-like appearance, especially across the front of the property. I'm hoping we will be informed when a license is being applied for regarding a future business in the home in question. Thanking you advance for your help in not allowing this Special Fence Permit to be granted. I would appreciate a written response from you. Sarol Nicholson 2609 NE 18 St. Renton, WA 98056 Phone: 425-255-2088 To: Andrea Petzel Assistant Planner Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re: Farkas Special Fence Permit/LUA06-101, SF 2509 NE 18 St. 9-4-06 We live on NE 18 Street in Renton. This is a small cul-de-sac with 12 homes, all of which have double car garages and driveway parking spaces in front of the homes, except for the home in question which has converted the garage to bedroom space and now has 7 bedrooms with very little parking space. We are opposed to the application for a 6 foot fence with 7 foot columns along the front and side yards. This fence would look out of place on this street since the rest of the homes on the street have only their backyards fenced and no fences in the front. We already have trouble seeing oncoming traffic when we try to exit NE 18 St. because the residents of this home frequently park on the comer ofNE 18 St. and Edmonds Ave. NE, blocking the view of oncoming traffic. A fence will only add to this problem. What is the purpose of this fence? If it is privacy as stated by Ms. Petzel in a phone conversation with Mrs. Wik, an open fence as descnbed will not provide privacy. It seems to us that this home is being readied to convert to a business and is meant to keep people from leaving the property. How many businesses are allowed on one residential street? We already have one Adult Family Care Home on the street. The addition of several more cars to the neighborhood will mean increased traffic and more on the street parking resulting in poor traffic visibility. We are concerned that this fence would make the home look like a prison, would lower our property values and adversely effect the whole neighborhood. If you've been to the site, you can see what an eyesore this would be. If there has been no site visit, we strongly urge the Planning Department to do so. We would appreciate being made a party of record and would like a written response to this letter. Thank you for you consideration. Bylund Wik 2616 NE 18 St. .-87Lf!tJ;L Julee Walsh 2624 NE 18 St. ,1 / C:tJ.v_ lJ a_f.:d~ Phyllis Wik 2616 NE 18 St. ~,t,v/1v Wendelin Richter 2608~E 18 0St.(/ .. '~ -af~ Teri Towle Eva Richter NEru· 18 St. 2608 NE 18 St. A-li.'.v I ~, l City o .• __ nton Department of Planning I Building I Pub .. -. iorks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: APPLICATION NO: LUA06-101, SF APPLICANT: Farkas Tiberiu PROJECT TITLE: Farkas S ecial Fence Permit SITE AREA: N/A LOCATION: 2509 NE 18th Street COMMENTS DUE: SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 29, 2006 PROJECT MANAGER: Andrea Petzel PLAN REVIEW: Ka ren Kittrick BUILDING AREA ross : N/A I WORK ORDER NO: 77635 c.,11 l v, 1,c.•••v,, BUILDING DIVISION SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Applicant requests a Special Fence Permit for a 6 ft. fence with 7 ft. columns along the front and side yards along a street, clear vision area must be maintained; distance from fence to property line ranges from 3.0 ft to 3.5 ft. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable Mora Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housino Air Aesthetics Water . UahVGlare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transnrortation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic:/Cultura/ Natural ResoufCf3S Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 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 areas wh additional information i needed t properly assess this proposal. ' uthorized Date • NOTICE OF APPLICATION A Master AppUcatlon has been 1iled and accepted with tti• O.Valopmant Sarvlca• OIVlslon of the City of Ran1011. The following bri.tly d~rlbes the application and the necnaary Public Approvals. PROJECT NAME/NUMBER: FarKas Specia1 Fence Permit I LUA06-\01. SF PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Appl,canl reQuests a Special Fence Permit for a 6 ft. lence with 7 fl_ columns along tr,e front and side yards alOng a streel clear ,1s,or, area must be fT\aintained. Distance lrofTI lence to pro~y line ranges l'ium 3.0 II to 3.5 ft Ii appro,e<;!, la~clscap•~g alMg street frontage will be requ1rad PROJECT LOCATION: 2509 NE ; R" Street PUBLIC APPROVALS: Admin,strat,ve Special Fence Permit APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON Fa'l<as T1beriu: Tai: (425) 233-1839 Comm<1nt& on tha abOve appllcatlor, mus\ be submltttd In writing to Andrea Pirtzel, Aulstant Planner, t)<lveloprne,rt SeNloes Dlvlslon, 1055 South Grady Wey, R&nton, WA 9SOfiG, by &:00 PM on Septambff 12, 1006, II yQU have q1.18$t_Lons about this proposal. or w;sh 10 be made a party of r_11Cord and r11Ceive addiijonal nolificatjon by mail CQl'ltaci tM! ProJ&el ~ar,ager at (42~) 4J0-7289 Anyone who s<.1bmrts wntten comments will aulomat,cally become a party of record and w,11 be notified of a~1 dec,s1:i1 oP lh1~ pro1ec1 PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION DATE OF APPLICATION: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: 1' N August 4, 2006 August 29, 2006 August 29, 2006 If you would like.to be made a part\' 01 record to re_ce1ve further ,nformatiofl on this proposed pfDJect. complete tt,is form and relurn lo: City of Renton, Develnprnent Planrnng. 1055 Sollth Grady Way. Renton. WA 98055 Fie Name I No.: Farkas Special Fence Pe<rT1it .' LUA06-101, SF NAME------- MAILING ADDRESS ------ TELEPHONE NO· ----~ CERTIFICATION ·. CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 291h day of August, 2006, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Acceptance Ltr & NOA documents. This information was sent to: Name Reoresentina Farkas Tiberiu Surrounding Property Owners -NOA en iu J (Signature of Sender): . ~"ff dlLt.ku,,.- STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OF KING ) Owner/Applicant/Contact See Attached I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy Tucker signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. ,.,,'!;M'11 1111,11 ,, ,,s. :Jo ,, ~~~:,,,'"'""*" ~ .,,,,. =~.,,-""\}\-&,-~ '-\ Dated: Rfoo/o (,z Notary (Print): My appointment expires: l':&'·-/· ... -.:-,. ~ -. \ ~ · · · . : .SJ Farkas Special Fence Permit :!.r~ti~~~YP'~il LUA06-101, SF 334390024704 AHMED ABDU 1615 EDMONDS AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 535830011008 BOYDSTON JAMES R 2515 NE 19TH ST RENTON WA 98056 334390020504 CERON HECTOR C+VELASCO ZITA RETAMA- 2424 NE 18TH ST RENTON WA 98056 334390020405 GASPER JAMES 2430 NE 18TH ST RENTON WA 98055 535820012008 GRUBESIC GEORGE E 2508 NE 18TH ST RENTON WA 98055 334390025008 LEUNG YUET LAN LAM ET AL 2410 NE 17TH PL RENTON WA 98056 334390025206 PRIMEAU JENNIFER+CHO ERIC S 2411 NE 17TH PL RENTON WA 98056 535820010002 ROOTVIK DARRYL E 2524 NE 18TH ST RENTON WA 98056 042305927107 SHORT G J 1708 EDMONDS AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 334390020603 WATTS GREGORY M 2420 NE 18TH ST RENTON WA 98055 535820011000 ASTELEAN VASILE+VERONICA 2516 NE 18TH ST RENTON WA 98056 334390024803 BRADHAM WILLIAM W JR 1631 EDMONDS AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 334390025305 COSTARELLA LINDAEDWARDS TER 2405 NE 17TH PL RENTON WA 98056 535830009002 GAVIN DANIEL G 2601 NE 19TH ST RENTON WA 98056 334390024506 HELM GINNIE E 1709 EDMONDS AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 535830012006 NELSON JULIAN P+MAI X 2509 NE 19TH ST RENTON WA 98056 535820009004 RICHTER WENDELIN 2608 N E 18TH ST RENTON WA 98055 334390024308 RUPPERT STANLEY T 1725 EDMONDS AVE NE RENTON WA 98055 243450000506 ST MATTHEW LUTHERAN CHURCH 1700 EDMONDS AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 334390024902 WINCHESTER MR+MRS BRIAN FRA 1625 EDMONDS AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 535820005002 BLANCO GODOFREDO & AVELINA 3733 221ST PL SE SAMMAMISH WA 98075 535820002009 BRADY BROCK J 2517 NE 18TH ST RENTON WA 98059 535820001001 FARKAS TIBERIU M+MARIANA D 2509 NE 18TH ST RENTON WA 98056 334390024407 GOLDEN FEATHER REALTY SVCS 1600 SACRAMENTO INN WAY #220 SACRAMENTO CA 95815 334390024209 LENTZ EDWARD A+DORI R 1633 EDMONDS AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 535820004005 NICHOLSON SAROLE 2609 NE 18TH ST RENTON WA 98056 535830010000 ROOSE LILIANE M 2533 NE 19TH ST RENTON WA 98056 535820003007 SEBESEBIE ALMAZ 2525 NE 18TH ST RENTON WA 98056 334390025107 TAYLOR BRANDON & JESSICA 2404 NE 17TH PL RENTON WA 98056 042305907109 YOUNG VALERIE S K PO BOX 1237 BELLEVUE WA 98009 ~y 0'~~~ ·~ + (;i~~/,.:>: &'>NrrOY 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 NAME/NUMBER: Farkas Special Fence Permit/ LUAOG-101, SF PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Applicant requests a Special Fence Permit for a 6 ft. fence with 7 ft. columns along the front and side yards along a street; clear vision area must be maintained. Distance from fence to property line ranges from 3.0 ft to 3.5 ft. If approved, landscaping along street frontage will be required. PROJECT LOCATION: 2509 NE 181h Street PUBLIC APPROVALS: Administrative Special Fence Permit APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Farkas Tiberiu; Tel: (425) 233-1839 Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Andrea Petzel, Assistant Planner, Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on September 12, 2006. 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) 430·7289. 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: 1' N August 4, 2006 August 29, 2006 August 29, 2006 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, Renton, WA 98055. File Name/ No.: Farkas Special Fence Permit/ LUA06-101, SF NAME: ----------------------------------- MAILING ADDRESS:------------------------------ TELEPHONE NO.: -------------- August 29, 2006 Farkas Tiberiu 2509 NE 18th Street Renton, WA 98056 Subject: Farkas Special Fence Permit LUA06-101, SF Dear Mr. Tibeiu: CITY =>F RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator 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. You will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your application. Please contact me at (425) 430-7289 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Assistant Planner -------10_5_5-So_u_th_G_ra_d_y_W_a_y_--R-en-to_n_, _W_as_h-in_gt_o_n_9_80_5_5 ______ ~ @) This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE 2. 3. SPECIAL FENCE PERMIT APPLICATION Cll :>F RENTON 101 Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way, Renton WA 98055 Phone: (425) 430-7200 ALL REQUESTED ITEMS MUST BE PROVIDED IN ORDER TO PROCESS THIS APPLICATION Tax Assessor Number: 535S 200urO Property Owner: f/tRk'-4:.S ·-;rr;t'-/) fv{ Phonel42-5) 2'33 ··/cP.3 / Street Address:ZJb'9 AI'-F (J->7ff J'T City/State: -lf?/Tv!/ ; LU,f--Zip: 9' cf'0!6 4. Contact Person: +-"--lf---l?K--lf-.S 'r f/"'Je~'iC{ Daytime Phone: @2lJ c 's '3 "1'cf'3 / 5. s-' Maximum Height of Proposed Fence:, __ ,_-_·-_1_0 ___________ _ 6. Type of Material to be Use for Fence:--'-1'-f_-'l_,_f! __ --r--'/3:;;...12,f_C{G,,-'-------- 3 I!: 3.5 1 7. Distance from Proposed Fence to Property Line:_.,.,_""-_7!2.-'--"'_.;._· ____ _ 8. Project Value:. __ ;....;(...;~-L-"_,_c._)_a_. ___ _ 9. Describe Landscaping to be Installed (if any): / /u fa--rt..R..f--d -~ '(k-u.c..i::: t-\it '(( ff() i,(_;--C, !, IJ. r·.-o u '-< ,./1 i''--<-/U-f. ~(.0-,!/ ~ -free_<;.:;! I certify that the information on this application furnished by me is true and correct and that the applicable requirements of the City of Renton will be met. I understand that this application is valid for six months from the application date. If a permit is not issued during this time period, the application will become void, This application does not constitute a permit to work. Work is not to commence until the building permit is posted on premises where work is to be performed. Certification is hereby rendered that no work is to be d~as described, and that all work shall conform to the applicable codes. Work in public rights-of-way and/or utility easemen9> is not authorized under this application. Applicant Signature: ff l-'---7 Date: ~~r!fuTtW"NG AUG O 4 2006 Rev 3/03 RECEIVED i):web\pw\devserv\forms\building\BuildApp.doc 0EVEI_QP//ENT PLANNING C,lTY OF RFNTQr,! AUG D 4 2006 RECEIVED 8 r'I ' ;::. I'll ~ z .... ~ .,., R-1 ~ n_ ~ a, I "' R'--8 ' ""I z R-1 .::: '0 i _.l ' s:: :·~ R-B(P~ Jg RM-t' e ZONING = TBCHNlCAL IBR.VICBI e,e RC µCl z 0 (1) > ..-f «: I :x: O'.'. (1) "O .::: - ----Renton Cit;:, Umlta SE 99t !'-"---· SE 100t • 'r--+~---'-~,_.~ i ~ ; R-1 0 ..-f . w: I o, O'.'. h s:: 0 :::s·· 1' N 94W \ ; 4:}5W ;!§' , , c2 · ·c3 ·a4: 36 T24N R4E .·.{,;: '.a2',]24tf~.~~""'.'"- BESW!ilffiil ~ Resounie Conael"'nlt.:ioD ~ RefldenUal I du/•c ~ RffidenUal -l du/•c ~ RealdenUal 8 du/ec ( RtlH ( Res:ldenUal llanufact.unid Home• j 1HO I Reaidenlial 10 dn/11.c I R-1• I Relll.denUal U du/ac J RM-r I ReaidenUal llulti-Femi.lJ, jRM-Tj Residential llulU-FainUy Traditional IRH-u ( Residential llutU-F•mlly Urba11 Center• W'IBD 11$1 tBHDB [£2] Center Villap luc-Nij Urban Center -North l ~ Urban Cent.er -Nort.h 2 ~ Cent.er DoWDtown• j COR \ ColJll'U!roial/Office/RellideDUal COMlfflBCI.U. ~ Commeret•l Arlerlal• [§J Coomi.erclal Office• ~ Commercial NeflhbOrhood I .· . ', ' ' ·-::'!~ .:, ··a·· i ? :::_:;~.:'• 23 T23N A5E 2• 35T23N~ .... 633 J7 2 T22N ASE JNml'iPlPll W Jndu.trial -HeaY)' 0 Industrial -Medium m lnduetrial -IJrht (P} PubliclJ' owned --Renton City Limits --Adjacent City Umil9 36 , , e ~ "M 1T2 -Book Pap• Boundary PAGE • 11,ay include OYvlay Dilltricb. ~e Appendix :mapa. For addiUonlll rqulatiODa m 0.8l'la,y Dl9trlcbl. ple. .. e -RllC 4-3. PAGE# INDEX Printed by Print & Mall ~. Clly of RMlon Printed: 08-04-2006 Payment Made: CITY OF RENTON 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Land Use Actions RECEIPT Permit#: LUA06-101 Receipt Number: Total Payment: 08/04/2006 03:59 PM 100.00 Payee: TIBERIU FARKAS Current Payment Made to the Following Items: Trans Account Code Description Amount 5021 000.345.81.00.0018 Temp Use or Fence Review 100.00 Payments made for this receipt Trans Method Description Amount Payment Check #2004 100. 00 Account Balances Trans Account Code Description Balance Due 3021 303.000.00.345.85 Park Mitigation Fee 5006 000.345.81.00.0002 Annexation Fees 5007 000.345.81.00.0003 Appeals/Waivers 5008 000.345.81.00.0004 Binding Site/Short Plat 5009 000.345.81.00.0006 Conditional Use Fees 5010 000.345.81.00.0007 Environmental Review 5011 000.345.81.00.0008 Prelim/Tentative Plat 5012 000.345.81.00.0009 Final Plat 5013 000.345.81.00.0010 PUD 5014 000.345.81.00.0011 Grading & Filling Fees 5015 000.345.81.00.0012 Lot Line Adjustment 5016 000.345.81.00.0013 Mobile Home Parks 5017 000.345.81.00.0014 Rezone 5018 000.345.81.00.0015 Routine Vegetation Mgmt 5019 000.345.81.00.0016 Shoreline Subst Dev 5020 000.345.81.00.0017 Site Plan Approval 5021 000.345.81.00.0018 Temp Use or Fence Review 5022 000.345.81.00.0019 Variance Fees 5024 000.345.81.00.0024 Conditional Approval Fee 5036 000.345.81.00.0005 Comprehensive Plan Amend 5909 000.341.60.00.0024 Booklets/EIS/Copies 5941 000.341.50.00.0000 Maps (Taxable) 5954 604.237.00.00.0000 Special Deposits 5955 000.05.519.90.42.l Postage 5998 000.231.70.00.0000 Tax Remaining Balance Due: $0.00 .oo .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .oo .00 .00 .00 .00 .oo .00 .00 .00 .oo .00 .00 .oo .00 .00 .00 .00 .oo >F 1'EJ,QF'MENT PLANNING (,' I V OF REl\fl"O~I AUG O 4 2006 RECEIVED R0603932 NEW~,, F E:NCJ:; . ~ -~"' ........ -+--.,..+. r ' ~ ' I I S r:0T 1 NG C. C'N.G . DC. VE: Ne I ei:::•c.. _ c c,'...-;J H f\1&;;, 2 ) ~\ I u C\ UI . .!\ ,., ~- (., 11--...1 lL (\_ ( Ff=t-JGE I L A;~c::;~C.;'1.t::'jN{v -"----"---~-'-=--'-~-~-·-"----------· .... ---~-·-~-------'-------·--·--~-:.....--- N E. ----.---------... ---------~ 0 r, E.. P L r J l l( = I O I -0 11 I • I ! t •) I \) •' . Ii" I J ii ; -{; , i ' ... . ·- ) I t · \f\ , . - p \ I ' I t "" I I il ,/ • I lU I 2· • \) -.., . u.} 7 <... (\ <'{ \j '<. ,'i' -- )'- \U ) J/ ..... • l I I _I ! I I , I i ~ _, 0 ~ - -I \n . ' . I l I ----... 0 1/2..',sq., LI B ;::. ~ 4 ' '} .: T ...i 7. -() . -1 -----\;· I D E-1 A · L 11.:. -= 11 -o '' ~I f JI f I . =-, \J. I . -Bf'.\ k ~ ~ I ~ I I -I CO ,_. \9 '9 1 r- I I ' I l 0 1TE APOR.e ~? :2 S a "".,; N e , I 8 ii--! -::iT r:: E:: E -r f< EN TD f "-4. , 'NA cl g o 1:;;,,:;,, D V N t?-f<'. Tl E,E R I U FAR )<::.A 0 2 So'3 NE 10 1 H s ,1-2.ee.T K ~lTO N , \/I A 9 ·5..:>0~ TE: I-e : 4 2 s -2 S S -o 7 S 'Z t ~ l 1, 11 l · I I . 5 t I • I ~ 11 l 1 I I L E6AL PE ~Cf<'..iP1 )0f I L OT J ; Vic ~~{ C.:1 , g !=lb HS AC.L~t< 0 11"~ '; l · ~ PL A.T 1ttERt::.CF R;':CoF!PED ;N Y OLtJ/v'I E 7 / OF f LA1 S , P6, 38 C F ~ING GC.,L f I .I \!VA I 0 \l/,z ~ -~- ~ lf,.l',s ,·, -.... I ij F l ..-i....E S I +"o .cL f. ~ T1 P". ~j I i I t Jt ~ • . l"UE,E: 'I ' 4- 1 • '1 G \OF l 2.oos