The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLUA-06-024_Report 1n " , , :! , , , - , f I ~ k" i ~' :.r::DL I\~i L:U ,,: I 1\;, ] , , , , ! ,! p .s ., , : --. .9-l '. ,,1I~b"t , , ~ ~ ~ :! , , --+1 " r i, , , , , -, , IT"~~'~-----r~=====-~I __ j I I I ,I I .: fc-'------II--:: rITll11 h,-, 1l------1t_'~' ==~,1::: [3] i/~~ ~ ,iL, ,¥ $-'Ii : '-,~i i " ~ I: : I . _~ I I ;L o ,- <[ , :> : : ill? I I _1 ~ : : 111_ ~,_B ,~ ~ " ~, I I II ',' , , 1 ~--:C~i-_: __ ;: , " ' " f , , , '1:1:: , , , , '1:1 ' , :~ --.s-.• , , r :::! Ilil " " " , , , -~ 1 ~~~ " '1:1 1 \ :i " " -" , I rf]~~~~n-ilti~:::::::f~rl " I 'I : \j :: II , , !' .' , 'r 'IIF"""-..!.==:~·_ 1"-....... ==:: \ i i : 1"-.,., : -\:: : : l:i "".,i ?i jl . 1rIJ :: ~=l~ []]JUJ 1 \J l.t"':'= I I __ ---.! I ~. _ .G-,' ' I #---.S-,L : I r- U- uJ --' , ------- ~ , -c" ,(1 . '1:/1 ~-,;::'1: ,f ., ~ 'I/~ 11,-" -" .~, 'S > .r,o£f '-,\0 f .. 'V't. S , , , I , " o l'l ~. " ... .,., ~!~ •• '" 1!1 ~ ... ~. '. X\; ,"" 'to f ~ £f }, .. ~ -,'f,: ,'t: .0 L ~ , , 0-0' " , 11-.10 tos r .~I\ 0\ _,~I 1 l!OH "". "01. ~! I . , ~~~I < r ---'I ~ , O-.1l1 ... ,-s t --<=-'1' ~ I i I i I -r'r -I l.VI ilION ! "".J .. " ~ ,., -, ... z • 0 , -" • , , S"~l -------.P .0-.01 ------ I ~ ~ -- "'~ ; ~ "" ~ --'--'-+ J ~ ~, , ~I , ~, , " " , , -, uc o o -' ll- cZ-« -' !L UC o o -' ll- -'1 uJ >~ uJ l -' , o cZ-o o uJ <fl 0 i i!' I 0: h ~ ~ .J R " :::: i-o ! 1c~-~--~~ , f ~ I~! " r,O, 0 ~~ , ,,\> ,0\ t,.-"'!-,~--r---01 ~ , , , ' , ~ it r-';: .. 0-.;:' "O-.l .0-.01 , 'C. ,0" _________ -#- , 1: f\ II-.\' , ::1 O-~~ l--:,ii-T , ,BI I ~ ~J. ,b .[ I~ O-.S " , 0-01 !I~\ o~~ • ~' " -HH-II!--j:-t-tt \nl:~:'~"::"f-" ,,~tl_'., '·"II+fjffi~~i~ m~-+---81/1l1"t 'I .,,0' , ' <ti : " I .-' :::t= 0- w ~~ ~!b -, ~i <p ., ., i~ L" , , z « -' [L 0<' o o -' Ll-, -' , uJ ~ :>l uJ' -' 0<' uJ [L [L ::> ,.. .... I " o ~ I 0: " ~I, # , ~£-'''~. --1- ------u-t\0\-1--~!' 'd- "01-,' I I ! , ,,01 .S\ ",.-[I .. -+-----;-~ ,-;.----- "b-,., , ~~, . , . " , '" • ---j~ tl "'; ------'---+~ OL ~ o! O. -' , u--. o Z-o o Ul <f) Z- <t J lL (lC 0 . 0 J ,. IL-~ :l9 o' J> ~~ Ulj §! >. ., Ul .. ,: J £(Il (lC Ul '3 0 J AI & Cyndie Provost PO box 1492 Renton, WA 98057 tel: 425-430-5668 (owner / applicant / contact) Brian Fife PARTIES OF RECORD Provost Shrln & Hght Variance LUA06-024, V-H Rebecca Wynsome & Gary Weil 3711 Lake Washington Blve N Renton, WA 98056 tel: 425-430-2794 (party of record) J. Mike Brown Eydie Hamilton 3714 Lake Washington Blvd N Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Inez Somerville Petersen 3613 Lake Washington Blvd N Renton, WA 98056 3703 Lake Washington Blvd N Renton, WA 98056 3306 Lake Washington Blvd ste: #3 tel: 425-260-4639 (party of record) Updated: 05/09/06 (party of record) Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) (Page 1 of 1) loo~,,.:x;. vJ£sr F'1tOK... 8. N. R.. i?. "570'\ sITE .' '-.~--"-~~:-'-----:)t Fffo~f (~V~O~TW Ris-Hr ~RlVd~ SI Pc of Iklt C¥ ...,-RJ,>C+C: 1$ t>p.J $eoTtf fp..of'. L I ~ £ LO~ltJG-",sr F~G""" LAK," WA. SLJI). pjolt't1 -e. 70" S I,..E _..L-____ . ::" ; :; :: i ..... L ..... , ..... R ·····8················· ..... ~ ....... :._ ........... r. _ ............. . . . ·N3?th NORHlIWIESr ]/.11\ SIECT~ON 32, TOWNS~~P 2.11\ INOIR7~, wtAINGIE 5 lEAST. W.~ 1'1' U A T cny Of wtIEN1fOIN, COUNTY OF ~~NG, SlATE OIF WAS~HING1'( I" -= I DI S UlL' :570'1 -LAKE: WA, 'ROVOS., f?~OJccT ,r I. a ! ! " , / OVERHANG 7'S, p ,< ! SEW,R L,Ne C~(k£#Jr # 7g..o3P-3D36S ! " aOA':"HQUSE (ro P-.,,,,,,,,,.v) " c -20 Or: ,;>OO~· :;'2 ::: fRoCK ,B."';; I.. t-t 1-1 fA D I 9'; o 5· , . t.,:, ~,' "E.' -. .~ /1 ' ~. \,~",- ~r-w ;: , "' "', j 'I -" WA (/0') '2.0' fl.""F yj)[Z-D :5e:Te.-x.k. /OC' I ~OOD ~ENCE Ie) <0>' SloE"""~ serTb'>G k ':"0 '1 ,~~-:: --+-ll' ~ . --_ ..... .. r ~ONCR~TE. ~ 7:":' :7-0' (O~(1l.'1O:: " ' '"'---~~-' . (" q _l", ~_o ..... ~ , SllllJArt~ ~'-t-~s. "q~ I '"'S-f.J6~91 I i?,wa R. .. !' 'Afj£""~NT" ~ #),6Z3S:<:;' p",wt"Po. fOL.E" _GG_' __ ,-:] " 1'; n,' ;l '" , -:;;;;;P;" -fr --~C' \~ 3 .,'j ... 0 / . ~ ",r:. D.,c,", " '. : '.J--I-----I-I. 17fU>,..".,eC? PP-N"."W, l.. .. ,>'P'=:,--.,,'J,'''' ........... "» " ... ,.....'.»::'''--,) ;1 ------,'. -",'-=, -",","IN<) om :;'_ _ I _55 s, ~, 8.0cK 19 "~ ROCK ,. ,. ~I ~ / a:. 'h f'o'f'-\ plRr ..,-OV'KHf".~r., \ -OP p.o-:."" /" " __ , ""r, , " ,", 0 , '" • ',' -Kj ELEVATION O~ LAKE . ./ 118, f ~ ,~ .... , ......... , ~~ ''>.~ " ": 1 .r AS OF 11-04-96· 17. I ;-----/ L.:nT . _ I _. . PI~T .L_J... / i ( J / ;) , TOP RoC, "cc J..'",,,EPt:.--_ /("--/ " , ie'a, I I ("'o~. J),,,,,'~ . ."~_ ,E).'/..,T,...........-.s-,. .", GARAGE , /1' .• ,. IJ co q,:)o~· 3'; ~o Lo"" 14//&7,£ ( Q / / / / / r TOP ~',Q%" WIlLL ~ ~s _ _ _ _ _ _____ 55 __ / 511)" se~e,,- / ~. 2· < <? :c-I Lu 2' / Q::- ~I -> 0- CITY ~F RENTON October 10, 2006 Alan & Cynthia Provost P.O. Box 1492 Renton, W A 98057 Re: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 612012006; City Clerk Bonnie I. Walton Variance Request -North of3707 Lake Washington Blvd. N. -LUA-06-024 Dear Appellants: At the regular Council meeting of October 9, 2006, the Renton City Council took action on the referenced appeal by adopting the recommendation of the Planning and Development Committee majority to modify the decision of the Hearing Examiner by granting a variance to allow a three- story residence. A copy of the Plauning and Development Committee report is enclosed. Unless the appropriate land use appeal of the decision of the City Council is filed with King County Superior Court as indicated in Renton Municipal Code, the decision of the City Council will be final. For information regarding continuation of the process, contact the Development Services Division at 425-430-7200. Please feel free to contact me ifl can provide further information or assistance. Sincerely, Bonnie 1. Walton City Clerk Enclosure cc: Mayor Kathy Keolker Council President Randy Corman Jennifer Henning, Principal Planner -I-O-SS-S-o-u-th-O-r-.d-y-W-a-y---R-en-to-n-, W-as-h;-ngt-on-98-0-SS---(-42-S-)-43-0--6-S-1O-'-F-AX-(4-2-S-)4-3-0--6-S1-6-~ * This paper contains 50% recycled material. 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE October 9,2006 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT AUDIENCE COMMENT Citizen Comment: Moore - Highlands Area Redevelopment, Task Force Citizen Comment: DeMastus - Fire Department Program, Highlands Zoning Task Force CUlLen Comment: Petersen - Various tl v-OIo~D'l-1 Citizen Comment: Provost - Provost Variances Appeal, Alan & Cynthia Provost, V -06- 024 ----- Citizen Comment: Pepper - Municipal Arts Commission, Evergreen City Ballet CONSENT AGENDA Council Meeting Minutes of 10/2/2006 Renton City Council Minutes Page 341 Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington reviewed a written administrative report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2006 and beyond. Items noted included: * A tour of the Henry Moses Aquatic Center will be included as part of the National Recreation and Park Association's 41 st Annual Congress and Exposition this week. • A "Friends of the Library" group is being formed to organize events to promote the library, conduct fundraising activities, help with programs and events, and provide volunteer help in Renton's libraries. Kirk Moore, 190 I Harrington Circle NE, Renton, 98056, expressed his displeasure that the Highlands redevelopment is depicted as an urban village on the City's website. He stressed that residents want a say in how the Highlands area is developed. Mr. Moore questioned why he was not selected to serve on the Highlands Zoning Task Force as he is a well-qualified candidate. He urged Council to give Highlands residents a chance to voice their opinions. Sandel DeMastus, Highlands Community Association Vice President, PO Box 2041, Renton, 98056, stated that she has been working on a program regarding the Fire Department, and she presented a copy of the film to Council President Corman. Ms. DeMastus noted that she was also not selected to serve on the Highlands Zoning Task Force, and suggested that Council review the proposed task force members. Inez Somerville Petersen, PO Box 1295, Renton, 98057, questioned whether a developer would have been treated the same way the Provosts were in regards to their variance appeal. On another subject, Ms. Petersen stated that some changes were made to the City's new website as a result of her input, and she praised staffs efforts on the project. Additionally, she thanked Mayor Keolker for the way she responded at last week's Council meeting on the topic of why firefighters did not attend the Highlands Community Association (HCA) picnic. Concluding, Ms. Petersen announced her resignation as secretary of the HCA. Al Provost, 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. N., Renton, 98056, spoke on the subject of his variance appeal, and thanked Council for its decision granting the three-story variance. In regards to the shoreline set-back variance modification, which was denied, Mr. Provost pointed out the existence of three houses that are 'well within the shoreline setback that he is not allowed to build within. He oted that this appears to be a double standard, and suggested Council review of setbacks. Pat Pepper, 28934 229th PI. SE, Black Diamond, 98010, indicated that she is a member of the Municipal Arts Commission and a member of the Evergreen City Ballet (ECB) Board of Directors. Ms. Pepper stated that she wants Renton to become a destination for cultural tourism. She announced upcoming performances of the ECB, and noted ECB's partnership with an opera company and the creation of the ECB orchestra. In conclusion, Ms. Pepper introduced ECB Board of Directors President Dave Ellison. Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Approval of Council meeting minutes of 10/2/2006. Council concur. , October 9, 2006 APPEAL Planning & Development Committee Majority Report Appeal: Provost Variances, Alan & Cynthia Provost, V -06--024 - Renton City Council Minutes Page 339 Displaying the new website, Mr. Santos-Johnson explained that the site is organized into six primary sections: Living, Working, Visiting, Business, Government, and Emergencies. He reviewed various features of the site, and encouraged citizens to visit the website and complete the online survey to provide feedback aboul the site. Councilwoman Briere stated that she is impressed with the new, fresh look of the site. Council President Corman noted some of the new content on the site. Mayor Keolker thanked all staff who worked on this project. , Planning and Development Committee Chair Briere presented a majority report regarding the Provost variance appeal. The Committee heard this appeal on 10/5/2006. Applicants Al and Cindy Provost appealed the Hearing Examiner's decision denying their variance request for three stories, and sought a modification of the Hearing Examiner's decision approving their setback variance from ten feet to fifteen feet. (When the applicants previously applied for the same variance in 1997, the requirement called for a 20-foot setback from the shoreline. They were granted a ten-foot variance. Since that time, the Shoreline Management Program came into effect and the requirement now calls for a 25-foot setback, On this application, the applicants were again granted a ten-foot variance, but now, given the new Shoreline Management Program standards, this resulted in a IS-foot setback for the applicants.) On the shoreline setback modification request, the Committee recommended that the City Council find no substantial error in fact or law and affirm the decision of the Hearing Examiner. On the issue of the story variance, the majority of the Committee recommended that the City Council find that the Hearing Examiner made a substantial error in fact. Accordingly, the majority recommended that the City Council grant the variance allowing three stories. The subject property is located north of3707 Lake Washington Blvd. in the Kennydale area. The parcel extends into Lake Washington as it is located along the shoreline of Lake Washington. The applicants seek to construct a three- story single-family residence on the site. In order to do so, the applicants are required to obtain three variances, of which only two are at issue in this appeal. The applicants requested a variance: 1) to reduce the required front yard setback from twenty feet to five feet; 2) to exceed the two-story height limitation by one story; and 3) to reduce the required 25-foot setback from the Shoreline Master Program to a minimum of ten feet to the water's edge. Pursuant to City Code 4-8-ll0F(5) and (6), the Committee's decision and recommendation is limited to the record, which consists of, but is not limited to the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal, and the submissions by the parties. After reviewing the record, the submissions by the parties, and having heard oral argument, the Committee recommended as follows: as to the shoreline setback variance, the Committee found no basis to justify the additional five feet requested. The Hearing Examiner properly considered and applied the requisite variance criteria along with additional review issues brought about by the Shoreline Master Program. Therefore, the Committee recommended that the Council affirm the decision of the Hearing Examiner. With respect to the story variance, the Hearing Examiner's reliance on population control as a basis for denying the additional story was misplaced. Accordingly, the majority of the Committee recommended that the City Council find that the Hearing Examiner made a substantial error of fact, and that the Council grant the variance allowing three stories. * October 9, 2006 Planning & Development Committee Minority Report Appeal: Provost Variances, Alan & Cynthia Provost, V -06- 024 Renton City Council Minutes Page 340 Planning and Development Committee Vice Chair Clawson presented a minority report regarding the Provost variance appeal. The Committee heard this appeal on 10/5/2006. Applicants AI and Cindy Provost appealed the Hearing Examiner's decision denying their variance request for three stories, and sought a modification of the Hearing Examiner's decision approving their setback variance from ten feet to fifteen feet. On the shoreline setback modification request, the Committee recommended that the City Council find no substantial error in fact or law and affirm the decision of the Hearing Examiner. I concur with this recommendation. However, on the issue of the story variance, I respectfully dissent from the majority of the Committee. I recommend that the City Council find no substantial error of fact or law in the Hearing Examiner's decision. Accordingly, I recommend that the City Council affirm the decision to deny the three-story variance. The Hearing Examiner's decision should be afforded due deference. A review of his decision shows that the Hearing Examiner carefully considered the four variance criteria for the three-story request. Having done so, the Hearing Examiner found no basis to justify the request. In an area where further development is likely, the Hearing Examiner pointed out that granting this particular variance would create an undue precedent. "Every home on a small lot or future home on .malllots would be entitled to an additional story." (Hearing Examiner's decision, Provost Variance, 6/2012006, page 9.) Furthermore, the Hearing Examiner correctly pointed out that the applicants still have reasonable usc of the property and was hard pressed to see how the applicants would suffer an "undue hardship" to justify the variance. Based on this, I cannot join in the majority's recommendation to reverse the Hearing Examiner's decision on the three-story variance. Therefore, I recommend that the Council affirm the decision of the Hearing Examiner denying the three-story variance. Noting the constrained lot and irregular shoreline, Councilwoman Briere explained that regulations call for two stories in that location with a maximum height of 30 feet. The applicants requested a three-story house within the 30- foot height limit. She indicated that the majority felt this request was reasonable, and that the Hearing Examiner made an error of fact based on his reliance on population control as one of his reasons for denying the request. Councilman Clawson stated that Council has adopted an ordinance limiting buildings in this zone to two stories. Rather than legislating through variances, he indicated that the building code should be reviewed in regards to allowing three-story buildings in these areas. He pointed out that an exception such as this will set a precedent for future requests. *MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE MAJORITY COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Councilman Law abstained from voting as the applicants are his neighbors. Noting the 30-foot height limit and the two-story building limitation, it was MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL REFER THE ISSUE OF MULTIPLE-STORY BUILDINGS WITHIN THE HEIGHT LIMITATION TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. CARRIED. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT October 09, 2006 App~al of PROVOST VARIANCE MAJORITY REPORT . File LUA-06-024, V-H Referred July 17, 2006 APPAOV~DBY CITY COUNCIL Date /0-9·:(0010 The Planning and Development Committee ("Committee") heard this appeal on October 5, 2006. Applicants AI and Cindy Provost appealed the Hearing Examiner's Decision denying their variance requestfor three stories, and sought a modification of the Hearing Examiner's decision approving their setback variance from 10 feet to 15 feet. I On the shoreline setback modification request, the Committee recommends that the City Council finds no substantial error in fact or law and affirms the decision of the Hearing Examiner. On the issue of the story variance, the majority of the Committee recommends that the City Council find that the Hearing Examiner made a substantial error of fact. Accordingly, the majority recommends that the City Council grant the variance allowing three stories. The subject property is located north of3707 Lake Washington Boulevard in the Kennydale area. The parcel extends into Lake Washington as it is located along the shoreline of Lake Washington. Applicant seeks to construct a three story single-family residence on the site. In order to do so, the Applicant is required to obtain three variances, of which only two are at issue in this appeal. The Applicants requested a variance: I) to reduce the required front yard setback from 20 feet to 5 feet; 2) to exceed the two-story height limitation by one story; and~) to reduce the required 25 foot setback from the Shoreline Master Program to a minimum of 10 feet to water's edge. Pursuant to RMC 4-8-11 OF(5) and (6), the Planning and Development Committee's decision and recommendation is limited to the record, which consists of, but is not limited to the Hearing Examiner's Report, the Notice of Appeal and the submissions by the Parties. After reviewing the record, the submissions by the parties and having heard oral argument, the Planning and Development Committee hereby recommends as follows: As to the shoreline setback variance, the Committee found no basis to justify the additional5-feet requested. The Hearing Examiner properly considered and applied the requisite variance criteria along with additional review issues brought about by the Shoreline Master Program. Therefore, the Committee recommends that the Council affirm the decision of the Hearing Examiner. With respect to the story variance, 1 When the Applicants previously applied for the same variance in 1997, the requirement called for a 20-foot setback from the shoreline. They were granted a 10-foot variance. Since that time, the Shoreline Management Program came into effect and the requirement now calls for a 25-foot setback. On this application, Applicants were again granted a 10-foot variance, but now, given the new SMP standards, this resulted in a 15-foot setback for the Applicants. 1 ! " Planning and Development Co Page 2 lee Report the Hearing Examiner's reliance on population control as a basis for denying the additional story was misplaced. Accordingly, the majority of the Committee recommends that the City Council find that the Hearing Examiner made a substantial error of fact, and that the Council grant the variance allowing three stories. Terri Briere, . Marcie Palmer, Member ee: Neil Watts lennifer Henning Lawrence I . Warren Fre.d KQ/./..f!I?t<ln Nof IJpprored .. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT October 09, 2006 . Appeal of PROVOST V ARlANeE MINORITY REPORT File LUA-06-024, V-H (Referred July 17,2006) . . The Planning and Development Committee ("Committee") heard this appeal on October 5, 2006. Applicants Al and Cindy Provost appealed the Hearing Examiner's Decision denying their variance request for three stories, and sought a modification of the Hearing Examiner's decision approving their setback variance from I 0 feet to I 5 feet. On the shoreline setback modification request, the Committee recommends that the City Council find no substantial error in fact or law and affinn the decision of the Hearing Examiner. I concur with this recommendation. However, on the issue ofthe story variance, I respectfully dissent from the majority of the Committee. I recommend that the City Council fmd no substantial error of fact or law in the Hearing Examiner's decision. Accordingly, I recommend that the City Council affinn the decision to deny the three-story variance. The Hearing Examiner's decision should be afforded due deference. A review of his decision shows that the Hearing Examiner carefully considered the four variance criteria for the three- story request. Having done so, the Hearing Examiner found no basis to justify the request. In an area where further development is likely, the Hearing Examiner pointed out that granting this particular variance would create an undue precedent. "Every home on a smaIl lot or future home on small lots would be entitled to an additional story." (Hearing Examiner's Decision, Provost Variance, June 20, 2006, page 9.) Furthennore, the Hearing Examiner correctly pointed out that the Applicant still has reasonable use of his property and was hard pressed to see how the Applicant would suffer an "undue hardship" to justify the variance. Based on this, I cannot join in the majority's recommendation to reverse the Hearing Examiner's decision on the three-story variance. Therefore, I recommend that the Council affirm the decision of the Hearing Examiner denying the three-story variance. Dan Clawson, Ice Chair ce: Neil Watts Jennifer Henning Lawrence] . Warren Fred KalA" rna n ) October 13, 2006 State Department of Ecology Northwest Regional Office 3190 160th Ave. SE Bellevue, WA 98008-5452 SUBJECT: Shoreline Management Variance for File No. LUA-06-024, V-H, SME Dear Sir or Madam: CIT'-OF RENTON PlanningIBuildingIPublic Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator Enclosed is the Shoreline Variance approval for the above referenced project. The permit was issued by the City of Renton on June 20, 2006, that decision was appealed to the City Council on June 30, 2006. The City Council upheld the original decision issued by the hearing examiner on October 9, 2006. The project was determined to be exempt from SEPA review. We are filing this action with the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General per WAC 173-14-090. Please review this decision and attachments and contact me at (425) 430-7219.if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, c7{~ Project Manager Enclosures: City Council Decision Applicant's Appeal Hearing Examiner's DeciSion Neighborhood Detail Map Proposed Site Plan Approved Site Plan Legal Description Copy of Master Application Project Narrative Notice of Application cc: Office of Attorney General ApplicanUOwner y ~.~ffi~ffi~'~.'~'iHre~II~'i~.d~ •• ~-----------------------------------------~R· ENTON 1055 South Grady Way -Renton, Washington 98055 ~ This paper contains 50% re<::vded material. 30% oostconsumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE ~~\",G WI",1'f. "tOI'l o€"~~~ Of"''' l~ PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITfEE 1 O'C\ \ ~ COMMITTEE REPORT .. <Nt\') ?~v~ October 09, 2006 ~l ,;f"'" ~ ..,.. ;;.: '-. , -' -~{-'-+~.;:;.:--:.--. AtJP"ofPROVOST~~ MAJORITY ~t.":!' File LUA-06-024. V ... ··' . Referred July 17, 2<tQ6 , , The Planning and Development Committee ("Committee") heard this appeal on October 5, 2006. Applicants AI and Cindy Provost appealed the Hearing Examiner's Decision denying their variance request for three stories, and sought a modification of the Hearing Examiner's decision approving their setback variance from 10 feet to IS. f«:t. 1 On the shoreline setback modification request, the ColIllIlittee'~ommends that the City Council finds no substantial error in faGt orlaw and affirms the decisu,n Of the Hearing Examiner. On the issue of the story variance, the majority of the Committee t!IOOnunends that the City Council find that the Hearing Examinermade a substantial error offuet. Accordingly, the majority recommends that the City Council grant the varianceliltowing three IIlories. The subject property is located north of 3 707 Lake. washington B:!mlevard in the KennydaIe area. The parcel extends into Lake Washington as it is located along the shoreline of Lake Washington. Applicant seeks to construct a three story single-familyresidence on the site. In order to do so, the Applicant isreqqired to obtain three v!\l'f~,ofwhich only two are at issue in this appeal. The Applicants raquested a variance: 1) to rcquoo ~e required front yard setback from 20 feet to 5 feet; 2) to exceed the two-story height li,mitaticm by one story; and3) to reduce the required 25 foot setback from the Shoreline Master Pr. to a minimum of 10 feet to water's edge. ' Pursuant to RMC 4-8-llOF(5) and (6), the Planning and Development Committee's decision and recommendation is limited to the record, which consists of; but is not limited to the Hearing Examiner's Report, the Notice of Appeal and the submissions by the Parties. After reviewing the record, the submissions by the parties and having heard oral argument, the Planning and Development Committee hereby recommends as follows: As to the shoreline setback variance, the Committee found no basis to justify the additional 5·feet requested. The Hearing Examiner properly considered and applied the requisite variance criteria along with additional review issues brought about by the Shoreline Master Program. Therefore, the Committee recommends that the Council affirm the decision of the Hearing Examiner. With respect to the story variance, I' When the Applicants pnWiouslyapplied for the same variance in 1997, the requirement called for a 20-foot sethack from the shoreline. They were granted a 10-foot variance. Since that time, the Shoreline Management Program came into effect and the requirement now calls for a 25-foot setback. On this application, Applicants were again granted a IO-foot ~ce, but now, given the new SMP standards, this resulted in a IS-foot setback for the Applicants. Planning and Development C iltee Report Page 2 the Hearing EX$11iner's reliance on population control as a basis for denying the additional story Was misplaced: Accordingly, the majority of the Committee recommends that the City Council find that the flearing Examiner made a substantial error of fact, and that the Council grant the variance allowing three stories. Terri Briere, . Marcie Palmer, Member cc: NeB Watts . l~_" Lawrence/.Warren Fr~dKQtd!nto.n i _; , ;'c • , I JUN 30io06 APPEAL OF BEARING EXAMINER'S DECISIONIRECOMMENDA ~ 1JIroe1VeO FILENO.~()ai2£;; ~ V-f{ ,,,,:;S/J,m'fl.,u L A ~\ f)~ TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL '_ ~'S OFFICE APPUCATIO~NAMF(/kM) c1 GtJrl-({~O\/(J.$ r (M,e./o"vce The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated ::ruNt: d2 0 . 2011-6 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPEILA}IT: C0 REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY): Name: II?I!A.J :tC0VJ1i111 J71 oiJJsr Name: _________ _ Address;t:o, /50)<' (l(9...-2, Address: _________ _ /CtNTD;.j, u)1l, «?reG Z 2, SPECIFfCATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: FINDING OF FACT: (please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's Report) NO."tZ Error: gEe drr dC/-{cD Co~tioE ______ ~ _____ ~~ _____________________ ___ CONCLUSIONS: No.L Error: ,See: .4TTlK 11£72 11,2 -:#-3 Correction: ___________________ ~ ________ _ OTHER: No._ Error: .S'e=e ArT 4CI-IEo Correction: ___________________________________ _ 3, SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: X explanation, if desired) Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: ;::;Ce IfTrI1CH~J> Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: L~-~ ~tlRepresentatiVeSignat~ NOTE: Please refer to Tille IV, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8·11 OF, for specIfIo appeal prooedules, H:\C1TY CUlRK\APPBALIAPPBAL to Council.doc City of Renton Municipal Code; Title N. Chapter 8. Section 110 -Appeals '1 " j T .. it ., o 0 • 4r/l-lHI01 The notice ofappeaJ shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC4-1-170. the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658. 9-13-82) 4-8-I IOF: Appeals to City Council -Procedures 1. Time for Appeal; Unless a specific section or Slate law providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court or any other body. any intereSted party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the Qty Council, upon a form furnisbed by the City Clerk, within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. 2. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal. the City Clerk sbaII notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 3. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 4. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to Ihe members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents. including the written decision or recommendatiou, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report, the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982) 5. Council Review Procedures: No public bearing sbalJ be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence conld not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required, the Council sbaJl remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record sbaJl be borne by the applicant In the absence of an enlly upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, and a remand to the Hearing Examjner for receipt of such evidence or testimony. it sbaJl be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony bas been aocepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4389.1-25-1993) 6. Council Evaluation Crileria; The considecation by the City Cotmcil shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. 7. FIndings and Conclusions Required: H, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050FI. and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the proceeding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. 8. CouncU Action: If. upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1 -0501'2 and F3, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the recotd. or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner sbonid be distegarded or modified, the City Council may / remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsidecation, or enter its own decision upon the .. application. 9. Decision Documentation: In any event, the decision of the City Council sball be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conc/usions other than !hose set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Eacb material finding sbaJl be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof sba/l rest with the appellant (0nI3658. 9-13-1982) 10. Council Action FinaJ: The action of the Council approving. modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames established under subsection G5 of this Section. (Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997) Alan and Cyndie Provost P.O. Box 1492 Renton, WA 98057 Re: AITACHMENT TO APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION 2. SPEClFICATION OF ERRORS AND PROPOSED CORRECTIONS FINDING OF FACT #7 Error: That the applicants did not meet conditions placed upon the granting of these same requested variances in 1997. Correction: The evidence presented at the hearing, along with record of the City of Renton a copy of which is attached, proves that the applicant did record the necessary restrictive covenants. The only reason these variances granted in 1997 expired is delay in construction of the house. ERRORS IN CONCLUSION OF LAW #1 A The erroneous implication that one is less entitled to a variance because one acquires property knowing that the code will cause building problems. This is contrary to the holding in Hoberg v. City of Bellevue. 76 Wn. 2d 810,854 P.2d 1072 (1993) which was that the mere purchase of property with knowledge of defects requiring a variance does not disqualify the owner from seeking the variance. B. The erroneous implication that a variance should only be granted to the extent necessary to allow reasonable use of the property. This limited relief is contrary to the much broader purpose of variances mandated in both Renton Municipal Code 4835,3-27-2000 and RCW 36.70.020(14). The code seeks to use variances so as to not deprive a subject property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. The statute echoes this equal privilege goal in its definition of a variance: "a variance is the means by which an adjustment is made in the application of the specific regulations of a zoning ordinance to a particular piece of property, which property, because of special circumstances applicable to it, is deprived of privileges commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone and which adjustment remedies disparity in privileges". ERRORS IN CONCLUSION OF LAW #2 A The erroneous statement that "There is no reason to approve a variance for a three-story house". . B. The erroneous conclusion that granting a variance regarding a third story would create a precedent entitling every home in the city on a small lot to add a third story. By definition, a variance depends upon the unique characteristics of the particular lot and its location. The Examiner's reasoning ignores the evidence that the subject lot is on the waterfront where other houses being built are large, and that this particular lot has characteristics not shared by the other waterfront properties (a "Z" shape and a peninsula jutting into the water) such that it needs a variance in order to build a home on it like others being built in the same vicinity without a variance. C. The erroneous conclusion that the purpose of the limitation on the number of stories is to control the number of inhabitants including noise and traffic caused by more people. There was no evidence presented at the hearing to support this conclusion, nor was there a citation to the legislative record In fact, the number of inhabitants is controlled in this zone by the fact that it is to be used only by a single filmily for that family's residence. This is supported by the fact that the city staff: who would be the ones to raise such issues as traffic etc., in fact supported this proposed variance. The stories ordinance, like all dimension regulations, is a matter of aesthetics, and three stories fits well in this neighborhood. ERRORS IN CONCLUSION OF LAW #3 A The error of failing to consider the fact that the unique shape of the lot provides more shoreline than anticipated by the 25 foot setback That even with the requested variance from the 25 foot setback, this lot would leave approximately 1,520 square feet of shoreline whereas the typical 40 foot wide waterfront lot with a 25 foot set back would leave only 1,000 square feet of shoreline. PROPOSED CORRECTED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW A As stated in the staff's report in support of the variance allowing the 3n1 story, the variance is consistent with the goal in the Renton Comprehensive Plan of promoting re-investment and upgrade of existing neighborhoods through redevelopment of small underutilized parcels. B. Conclusions of Law #'s 2 through 5, and #'s 7 through 10 reached by this same Hearing Examiner in 1997 pursuant to a substantially identical application and evidence should be made again. A copy of said 1997 decision is attached. 3. SUMMARy OF REOUESJED RET.TRf: Reverse the decision denying the variance for the third story and for a ten foot setback - ----------- AugUst J 4, 1997 omCE OF THE DEARING EXAMINER CI1Y OF RENTON BEPORTANl> DECISJON APPUCANT: LOCATION: SUMMARY OF REQUEST: SUMMARYOF AClJON: DB\'E'.LOPMBMT SBR.VICBS REPORT: PUBUC HEABING: Mitch Williams MF Williams Cm$ftuc(ion Provost Variance File No.: WA-97-06S, V NOI1b of 3707 Lab Washington Blvd. N Variance of the SboreIiue Mast!>r ~1111 to Jed1K1e the .-eqni=I20 foot setback fiom the wafzr'~ edp to 10 feel; and varitln<:e to ex.ceed the two-story beigIIt Umic by OlIO &IoIy. nevcl<ipment Scrvicts Rec • .,nnClldatioQ: Appm'fe with couditioos The DevdOJl"""# Ser ,. Report was n:ceioted by the Examiner on July 29,1997. After rev~ the I>evcklfo cat Services RqIort, eqmining available infurmaDoo on fiJe wilL doe app'iratioa, field cbN:king the propa I:j aDd _".ii_Vag an:&; the Bxm._ COIIducted " public bc:ariac on tile suIF lIS iDIJows: MINUTES rTutftllA...,,· t uueaslUlUlllllYqftMAItpsI5,l"""eIIrlIrt. ne /q:tllrecord tr ~_ ~ Tho bearing opeaed on Tuesdq, Aap$tS, 1997, at 10:05 a.m. ia thecWacilOw II Cq on the SCCODCI floor of tile Renton MWlicipaI BaiIdiug. »lilies wisIIfa& to Iestif'y Mft affinDed IIythe&amiDer. R ... _ ,...." ~ map application, proof ofl""";"& pnIOf of ..... 1i; 8IbI aud oIhar docwpCiltlldou .... 1i&eal1O dIis r , r ,1lf".3: ..... -~ . 'NoILS, ~ ..... map F-'N,,-" 1m... .7: ,- , &IoIy limit " . Mitch Williams MF Williams Construc:tKm Provost Variance File No.: LUA-97-06S, V August 14, 1997 Page 2 ---------- TheheariDgopened wi1baprcs d'tiooofthe $faffreportby JENNI'FJjR HENNING Project Manager, DevelopmeutServices.CilyofReotoa,200MiIIA_SovtL;RcntoD. Washloglm 9805S. lhupplicantis requesting two variances. The first is a wrimce fiQm the ShoIdine Master Program (SMP) requirements and is • request fonednccd rceryani setbadc The SMP leq""" !hat tbue be a nriuimlllD of20 feet fi'om the water's edge to the strucIlIIe. The appIbnt is .r.tpstiDg!hat a pootioo of the home be a1Iowed to be located witJaia 10 feet of thO water's edge. The secood tariancc being SOII&fIt is .... iaace IiDm tho City's ZDDiug code pcrWaiog to the hci&ht ofasiagko&mily lesklmfjel SfliiClmc. Thosr:den:lOjlillad 6flmr:IadB speoifythat Ibo height shall be limited to 30 leer, orfo two stories.. The -w/icant is poposiuga builttiag that wouJd be betMen 29 and 30 feet iIllDlallldgllt, but -'d be dJR:e stories. This site is Iooated aa the &:hon:sofLab W..biagton and isreachc:d by III ~ prime access_t. The neigblJorbood bas devdopcd generally willi siogIc fluniJy n :sidealial ~ aIong!be" shore.. 1hcse lois are ""iqne ia that the land __ is I3Iher small. The lois that comprise the subject pIIICcl8l'e 49 and SO ad the land area is about l,3OO sqoare feet. It tIleD ""lends to the west to the iaaer harIJo£ line of the lake. A sub$tanlial portion ofthepopuly is-UYander_. Theboat housoanlhcpoped)'wiII remaio. All existing shed IIld page 011 !he property wuaId be +nv+hcd Because !his propeII;V is Iocafr:d 011 bodllaad aod water. lad ~ E all$l Ibae is aa exi<*ing rock wall across LoI 49. wbicbisthe-ahaJfoflhcsuLjectpaKd.itCP:ldcsa z 'h ,ed laDd_inwbidtthe appIicmrtcould develop 1II& ..... 1icuIm piljl<2f;y. To IBCCtsellidsuquitCillCllts> the m" il 11'111 boiIdiagpad area-'d be 960 squue fi#.. The water is at least S6 feet IiDm tho SOU1& .. 'IOSt COfDCt or!be .. opost:d structare. The 10 lOot "iii""", ~ is from-a column that is ueartho I:CIII« of the home out to the rock wall. lheR: Is just. vay shon area, from 5 to 17 feet, that 1VOUId be in the n:duccd setback area. The cri1eria tor the SMP variaacc is that then: _~ .. illlflaotdilwy c:irrum...,......or coaditiOll$ appIyiag IU tho~jlJOJICOt,y chat a-Jly do not appIyIU odIet pupetties or shoieliDes in tho same vicinity. The land _of tho sullied pm:eliU~611 ahat 'Btvl fl!lIClIlllllofdoeoislfngroc:twallwlticb sItonms tho Jaud an:a IUd c:mIIeS a Z * pcd lInik'ing pad area. Tbe ..... · a LIlias f' "'eOOed 1II1II tho shape of the lot ooupIc:d widt !be 20 fOot IdIJect ~ fiIlm doe Wllkr's edae does 1IJ!iastIy RAriet 1he building pad site for tho honac. A limber oriIeria is 1II1II the nn-ce is ReceSS ., fbrpn:senratioD ad cqjoyaHat of a mbslaDtial propcdy ri&IIt of the appfi08Jit thai is also p us. esse ~ by doe _ of ada-popcdies 011 sUtdines iJltbo same viciJlity. The FCqllll' ~. ___ wuuId pc:nDft !be awl» • IIID CDb1iuet a sin&Jc family home that bas. mllXimum fooIpintoflLfjAhH· *"y 960 ~feetofo--_011 each oflhrco Io'nots. This would proservo tho app&aot's rit\Id to develop. n:sldeIIdAI home tba1 is c:iIIa-ClOIItpU8bIo or lc.ss tINta compIII1Lblo to the oCher cxistiag hotnes ill tho ihiJ IIIiIdc y' 'alIJ ofdie. Jill op95tId che 'Rot Auother criIcria is that doe vmaacc pcmtit -'" not be deIrimcoIal to the puWic: ......... Uf iIIjtn ........ 011 die sItoIeE : in1be s_ y/oinity, This particulanariaDcc requat -W _1CSIJIt in impact to a"""" beado area _. ~- point Tho rcdnecd sefbadc ~ _ impede views to. tium or alaugdie.w&:r's edge. ... SMl' eucourageJ uses lloag the sboreIine that 110_ obsrruct views. fhatdonot ~tfoe -..m, ........ Jaave_ 8pp10p0 ide desip theme. The applIcaat is P"'I" • t" siagJc faBJiJy home chat_ dIo use. -. alibillty IIIld ~.tfecIs pm1icm ofdoe SMP. "Ilaa IIJlPC8r to be adcqvate UliJilics ~ IU _1be area. The ptoposed lISe would _ exeeed cfeaslty ILIIowe4 bytJ.o zooiDt c:ocIe Iitd It does _die criteria DOled in !be midenlial development portion of die SMJ>. .' I .' .. , Mitch Williams MF Williams ConsIruction Provost Variance File No.: WA-97.()6S,V Angust 14,1997 Page 3 ·-'-·f The:: de$ign oflhc site and _appear to be bamJOJrious with the sIldt;d policies of the SMP. The:: first floor- oftbe proposed ctructurc would be garage. • beacb room and. bach __ The scamd story would be JcitchcD, diuhlg. badaroom. and the Ibird sIOqwould bave a master bccLOOID. bath area, and a small guest room. It would IaIIIt in approximately 2,480 square feet of living area. It would have a flat roof RegardiDg !be maiDg varima:, !be _Wliulll is requesting relief from !be story requirement as defilIed in tho belsJrtportiao oflbem.uogc:ode. 1beywoald likcto build _ stnIClmcthal isbc:tw=l29aod J01i:etinbeight whicIJ is permitted by tbcaxle, ~~ likcto do tms in ~ $UJrics; DOt two stories as dicr.md by code. 1hc acljaceat bometo the~ a pitched roof and ~ about lS feet in J.eigbt. The ~ c:onIaIds that the height variaAcc is DC< 11' because of !be sizciiDd rhapcoClite WS!' C pared and in Older to """'Ply with the scd.t n:quircwc:ub oflbe llOOing code. GiTm tho cmeollelbad:s tho DI8ldlI1um bm1ding footprint would be 9CiO SiJII8IC feet. 1luit _Id allow -tuIaI of l.92O SiJII8IC feel iftflq wq-e to build a two- story dwelling. bod would include the two-car garage. The actuaJ living spac:e oflhc hoose would be 1,480 square fed. There arc two existing _Iiomcs Iocak:d to the aortb that arc 1bree atoIy strucIures and_ c:onsidcrabIy 1aJ&cr.1hm 1,920 sqII8rCfect. The SMP does allow Sli_esaloag the sboraIine apto 3S feet in beight, but !be City's maing code cIocs not a:IIow IbaI height. Granting oftbe height variaoce docs aot affect adjacent sight Jines wlliclldow views to Ute Wasbington. This is bec"ISC of tho low eIewtioA oflbc subject pan:eI in relation to thora:Jged Jlur\iIIsIOa IiiOI1IienI rigbt-of- w.y to tbeeast. In addition. !be .... i"'II'D height of tho dueo stelly BIIIJCtln woukl DOt~ the oVeran height limit wbich is 30 feet allowed in doc R-ll:mne. The pcoposed stlliC-.e ~ DOt e:ItCeed die exlstiDg height of the IIdjace:nln,sQ 0_ 10 tile south. Sbi1f recommeods approva/ ofbotb tho SMP variance for the redueed rear yard seIback iiDd also tile height variance fiom the zoning axle, s.bject 10 CODditioas. The first cuuditioo is that thoheiPt oftberelicicllce would DOt c:u:ccd the _mi. aIJcnwod bcigIIt of the applicable ZIJQe as m II 5 ed in feet tbaI is in cffecC III the time the appIicatioo is IIIIIde for "'riIding penait. The second coaditioII is that !he miaimum iiIJowUJe sethack ftom die WI\er', edge'" _ be liD)' less dam 10 feet bciac ~ udODl;y in that area that is problematic with recard to die rock waiL SIafr woaJd also request • Iestiidive __ It be n:cordc:d that does JK)l a:IIow any sort of SInICbireS wilhin that 10 toot area;mel Ihat it be maillbjaw::d as opeo pIanIed irra or gJOIIIIIIlc¥eI patio. A fllrtber ftlOOIIUllCIIde c:nndifioa is thai appIicalll be requirccI to obIiiin all the _ , pamits iiDd appcoval5 for Ihc proposal, including batldingptlamts. c:a1ificatc of WIIIcr mel sewer ayajLMlly, mdlo CGDpIywitb all code requir'emClDls. rdjtph Wi.llmns P.O. Boa:361,Maar1slmd, WasIUngtoo, 91040, ~hereiD, illuslratccllhcsetbackarea requated. He expIaincd 1hat thcputiQaJar dcsigg ofthc sb iiClutc is two-foJd -10 DIIIke tile house more ~ aesdIc:licaIIy, and to proricIe a sma:IJ access area to act fiom the J:III1I&C and out to tile beach iUid provide a bath area for wak:diout LeacL acIivities. The baiJdiDg fooIpciDt itself is raJbcr small. Whcu the applicant purebascd1be JXopcil.7 in 1986 !be zoning codo allowed tlm:elloly lSbiiCIUiC5. Mr. WiUiams stated 1hat they had aceammodated 1hc parfdagfortho piopt:fty immcdietcIy 10 !he souIb as requmcd by $tafT. He added 1hat the ovaall clJamc:tcrislk$ of the .-. homes to the IiOdh .... of. mrty bi&h IIevcc of c:onstruction standards. They ""' a~ pJeasing 8Dd the initial imjliessioo is they are aI' IargertIiraD the proporty COIISbucUon being pi oposed here. Milch Williams MF Williams ConstnlOtion Provost variaDee Pile No.: LUA-91·065,V August 14,1997 Page 4 AII'rovmt 1224 N. 32nd, ReuIon, Walfriugloo 98056. 0WIIef' hereiao expI8iaed!he hisIcry ofhis owaenbip of the sulUect site and adja(:eDt LoIs 5 1 and S2.. RefIudiug!he misting hoaIhoasco, he reIared the -=ats of a rcc:cnt windstorm wherein a ponien of m lllI8dIed I_had blown onto a ncighbw's docIe. He sfaII:d tbc boathOUllO bas been UJere for along lime and is sInMIIIaJly $OOIId, built with fuur 14 x 10 inch beams ovcdtcad. He would be WIlling to have lite boaIhouse inspectled Mr. Provost fiIr!IJer explained some ofdle lDI'" citwn·stam:cttbltpompll:d!hemiOidiuo variaslee, parUculuty the 8IIg1ed _ 011 Lot 49. hi JootiDg III the J3 houses that are IKe J offlhe sIreet CIJat goes to tho JIOlIb,.1here would still be 911ou1es out oflhose 13 IIOuscs tbIt are blg:rdum IIIeir pcOpOSed Iaousc, - witb tile 'Ylliances. & also scmd flat Lv> aSf. ofdle Ioc:aIion oflhe site, IIKR willlIc DO impac:t to Ihe riew from adjaceathoases. 'IbIn are CIIImItIy_ c, =t>-.1Iees oallle pUjlCil,) wLidl appIicent pIaIls ID-bcp.. Sleven AItrinur. 3701 WdlsA_ North, RenIon, WasbingIDR 980S6, scmd 1hal1le0WllS 600 foci from Lake WnlJinstoa BouImud to WdlsA_ aIIlhe wrt¥ up Ibcloill.. He_DO ~ follle baiJding. bat he would like to see !he trees .aDO.ed. His main COPCUn _ wilhlhe _pnarfancc and wlJclheritwas settiIIga flKedeucc forfimm---.... At _lime iD IhcfubnhcpJmsto shortpWhis popcalyand will ask: for Ibc same variance. The Epmigeraplaillcd Ihaldais IPPfieaut -deeliac willa 11ft 1MI8SUIdlysmali ~ surfiIcc land --. __ Mr. AlII.., 'MIIIIIIllllmoto sm.~_1otis b .... ·'os and 1hc physiad mel topogIaphieal c:oo&1IaiJds _ -.w aIowa _ianw. 'The Exa.i .... ca11ed fW fiuulhcrlGSr hi) IcpuIiug daispcqect. 'IbIn_lIOoooeisc wisbiagto speak,and DO furIhcr-COIIlIDeJII$ fiom staB: The bcariag closed III 11:00 LID. FINDINGS. mNq.DSJOlf8 & DECfflIQN FINDINGS: I. The appJic:aut, Miccb Williams for Alaud CiaoIy Pr-. filed wequests for approval of. variance to allow a thJeHtory single family , ...... ee,,. for .",.uwal ofa •• __ 10 dow. 10 fOot rear yard seIbact 110m the dtoroJiae of Lake WaslHrlflOD. 2. The yellow file COOhiniaa Ihc saft'npIlIf. dae S-ERvin-tal Policy Ad; (SEPA) documeadlllion mel odIer pcrtiDeut materials was edt=( iIdo the ReORI. emibit fl. 3. The &"iJ-WRe\'iowC mmiJW (EIlC), Ihe City's "'fgqRbleof6cial , detenuiaed that tile proposal is =-pI from 8ft ea,."" I IISS S I ent. 4. The subject proposal was nMewcd by all dcparbacDts wid! _ iuIerost iD Cbc JBlitlec. 5. 'The subject site is focaled 111310f Lake Wad,' &toe BouIetanI NardI. ActIWJy.!he lite is __ eel by a sepIIIaW JOadovay off Lake Wasliins1Da BOlII".d. The popen;)I. (elIIsidi'lg of two sidc-by.sido parcels, is located on the shoreline of Lake WasiriooglDu. .-, ", , Mitda Willi8ID$ MF Williams Construction Provost Variance File No..: LUA-97-06S,V August 14, 1997 PageS 6. The subject site -was _ed to the Cityover-a nomberofmonlfls with the adoption ofOnlinaoees 1791, 1800 and l804eoac1ed bet\Wen SepiembenllldDeceml;erof1959. 7. The map element of the Comp .. :llcasMo Plan desiguatcS the area in which the sui!jec:t site is Iocatl:d as suitable for the development of single filmiJy uses, but does DOt .mind"", AId! development wkbOUI cousideraIion of 0!heI policies of the Plan. 8. The subjea: site is:mncd R-B which permits up 10 eishl single family homes per 8Cl"C. 9. Ju DOled. the subjedsitccotlSlsts oft\wllots with partofeadl /Cl( sobmuged below the surfacoofthe lake. These parcels are each approxlmatcIy 20 feet wide. n.. aplmd IX" dry portions of these lois VIIJY in 1engIh. The oortbernmost pam:J is appJUXimately 71 feet long IIIId the _diem adjoinillg pucel is IppI'Oximatdy 100 feet long. 10. The 5hosdine Of" edge ofthesc parcels is clearly defined by. zigzagging roclc wall or bulJchead. There is no natwal shoreline. I I. CwmrtIy. a 20 foot 'Wide and 40 foot deep boIIhouse G locatccl approxinIatdy 12 feet out fium the shore of the JKXtbem ~ aDd is c:onnected 10 the shore by a nmow pier. It suftUed willd damage this winter and is in need ofrepair. 12. An approximately 8 foot square shed is Ioca&ed aJong the ~s edge 011 the aorIhcnt lot. It will be remond. 13. SeclioP 4-31-S(DX9Xa) _kts thelleight ofsingle familydwellings as follows: The height of. dwelling or SInICtUrC shalJ oeiIher exceed two (2) stories nor thirty feet (30') in height and shaIJ not coafiic;t With the aiJport height n:sIric:tions ofScc:tion 4-31· 17 of this CIapier'. 14. 1hc:refOrc, the app1icaJlt has ""PI( sa ~ a variance to allow the building to be dIree (3) stories tall. 15. The C~s Shoreline MasI:ei-PlOCK"" requires single family lIomes to beset-back 20 feetfiom the sIKnIiDeofLakeWasbingtoo(Sedfoa4.67..o2(D». ThuppticauthasproposedamiaiDwmsetbackof teo (10) feet fiorD the Jake. 16. The proposed fuotptintand Iilree steal height is inteudecl foyield ueuodabluiqlo famiJydwdling. There would be a ground Ie¥d fix>tprint of 960 S'qU3JC feet. The two-cIF garagoo of 400 square feet would Jeave a ~ IIOII1c with l,soo SlJll3R>feet. Picjeeted Oftr" IIm:c sIflries, the home would be approxiJnately 2,180 square feet less 400 square feet or .... DQiimatdy2.480 sqaarcfeet. J 7. 'I'M plot plan MIl buildin& footprint &!tows the house follows the irregular stepped ... IJlm or shoreward JIIopei Iy line. This CJeaIe$ a setbadc in 0IIe Jocation which is reduced to 10 feci: at a oomer or angle wbcte the house facade bJmS back away from the shomJiac. 18. The IIIIderiying applicants own the a.ljoining two parcels to the south. An existing home is located on that pi openy. ~.- ----- Mitch williAms . MF Williams Constnoetion P",vost Variam;e File No.: WA-91-065,V August 14. 1997 Page 6 19. There.., single family '-boIh norfh mel south ofthc subject site. A.mew ofthc __ shows !hal the shorelioe makes .. sobstautiaIjog di=tly iIl1flc middle of1flc IIpJIUcant's c:omnt fIIOPC'l11. Tho clevclopment of a dwelling as pmposed \WlUld not sevcreb' iJDpa<;t 1htc views of aIj .. cAt pm:eIs due to the s1aggerecI natUre of the sI!orcIinc. Other homes in tile __ bolt. '-IF and small« 1bmIdaat proposed in this case. 20. The puposed home would boJess ..... the 30 teet hdght peamitllxl ill thezooe, bat .. rcccalclumge jl\ regulatioas limited h!&es to two sIIJries is boight. 21. A nm-ofvariaacc appIicalioas fur pope. lies aIoag the sbcJRIiae ~ varimc:es boIh denied and 1ijJjli0\l~ It appears thatcac/a ___ ~'-' 1htc l81iqacc:in:ulPot>wces of eadtpatcel vis a vis IJpJand _ md paroeI width and depdL CONCLUSIONS: "*,,t Varian"" •• The appIiceDt suffers IIIIdue IIardsbip caused by special cir _~"";C5 sudJ II$: the size, shapo, topography.« Jocatiop ........ cede m£ __ twould dqui ... the~ ofrights UId privilep cqjo,ed by 0Ihcrs simikdy .i· . tI; b. The gaating of the variaaca woakIllOt ma.cdaMy lIarm eirba-the pabtic wdfan: or other JIRlPE:t1Y in the vii:iaity; C. The ....."o.aI wiD not oesaa* a spcc:iaI pri¥iIege iac _iilOP' willi die lilBi • 41$ OD. other property in • Yicinity, and d. The ¥Uiance isthc _im ... _iaace.,... It to dow __ aWe IIImIIopmcnt of!he subject site. The applicant. poper1y appealS ripe fiIr the vallnee lCCjl I d Tho poperty in question whidt CWIbinns ~ ........ irMIely 1O fOot wide lois III Older toQU!r1oae building pad is Je1Icoc:ly oonsIniaecS bytheofaJleliue _ Lab Wesh.... Net only _dJeparcels of unequallen&da, bat 8 lalpponiort of*'" ~ lois am suIHIaagod below the Iab'S ~ MOSt of. _____ aIoac the ...t.u.eIiuo irr this YioiHy Juwe flrRyaploilel1heir Hmired IUlSUbmctged IRa by r-&-=iag_er_ ssd des to ike. c s the ~irrS ..... Ja dIis -. tile lot still caastaaiDs the cIovelopJate.lt of.,........w. dwellia& particuJady wfx,u C ClDF .... d willi tJIese newer neighbors. 3. Approftl of a v.n..acc to aIJow a lInee sfOfy home will not mataiaIIy fIann eiIJIer. pabIic: or ~ propedies. ne .... _ Wna tbatthczoacpermils a homcto bolO teet tall in any event....t the p....,scd homc will not -r IhIt limit. It also appca , that .... to tile shape of1he shoreline and 1M Ioceboa ofotberhomcs aIoag1lle mo.clbtc!hat this cIwdIiug -ad_ ~Iy intrude ill the existin& vicwscape. . .' , -. ·-----------------"-.----------.. ,. . ' •. 1 . ,-Mjtcb Willimns Mf" Willimls Construction Provost Variance FJlc No.: WA-97-065,V August 14, 1991 Page 7 4. As noted, oIher-variances have bec:u issued when me undcdyiog patceIs were signiftCalltly constrained by their size or shape. Granting of this variance shouJd DOt _ 811)' special privilege and is DOt inconsistent with what has occurred on other nearby pcopaties. S. The vuianee for oDe additiouaI floor is the miaimum. given Cbe otba" <:OJJSIraiats that aIRady limit the deYdopablc lot area. Again, the edditional floor will not exceed the lbsoIute 30 fOot height limit imposed 011 this ZDIle. Slwrdine Vari'Dee 6. In addition 10 the airaia DOled above, sl)(~eline variances He subjeet 10 _ additional RYiew c:riteria falcing into ~!he unique and 1JagiIe eU¥uonment along the shoreline.. Those particular criteria~: a. ExcepIiODal Of' cxtraonIiIJary cireumslances or contfdiGas IIfIPIYUtg to the ~ JINIlC*ty, Of" 10 the intondod use 1IIemo( !bat do not apply ~ to OIhet"properties 011 sbordioes in the same viciDil¥. b. The variaIICC ponnit is -I)' of the prcsc:mdioG _ CIIjoymcIit of a A' 51 ilia! property right of!be apptiamt pel : j by the owners of o&c pIOptl1ies Oft dsoIdiDes ill the same vicinity. c. The ~ pcnnit wiD not belllHlrially dcbitiiWlldtDCbe public wcIfB OF iqjvrious to property on !be sborciines ill the samo vicinity. d. The variaDce ~ will be in harmony with the p<:nIl jAhpo$eaad intant of this Master Program. Co The pUblic welfare .... iatCR8I wiD be pre .cd; if_ MrIIl will be ~ to the..". by granting the variaaae !han wauld be done to the IIJIPIjcmt by de!lyiag if, Cbe ___ win be denied, but each POJICiiI, 0WIlCr shall be eutided tD die masAllllleuse IIDIf ~~ oflUs lands as long 11$ sucb lISe aad cIcvdopJncat is in haaiJUJii)' willi tIIo pc:raJ purpose aad intent of the SboreIioe M8nagemeat Act of 1971, and the pvvisions oftbls Mamr Progt __ 7. As discussed above. the shape 8IId maaII dep!h ofdlC upImd. 'IUS l ICrpI COIIIbinaI pawol CJeIde unicpae Of" mcccptiooaI cit· w nnces justifyiu& variance reIie£ 'DIe 00IDbiaed width of the two JNII=Is is appruximardy 40 feet wide. 'DIe two pan:eIs ...e two diffCn:at!coJados, Cll'CIItiDe .. awlwauf IPld mass 011 whict 10 cons:rruct a '=1 "lilly sized siogIe family home. 'the home _ or Icss.aempts to follow the outline of the cqpbinod .-cd and one coma' or Ihe.bomo would be wiIItia 10 feet ofdle ~wb'-le most ofllle bIIR<: would be set bacIc a ~disrance overall 8. SiDc>e variances ftom the $Itoreline sdback have been pilillt>d UDder similar cirnnn~ wbcrc the 101 depdt or ovetaIJ widIh was genaaIIy~ the .... 09a1 oflbis vujaqce. wiIJ JIIescne 1110 prvperty right for Ibis .... JicInn as is eqjoycd by slmiJady sibwod properties aIcmg the sboreIine. 9. Due to the dIape ofllle property and !he nature of Ihe shordine. the Jddit!on oftbe home peurriUed by variance .... v...! will not bet iii*' iaIIy deIrimenIaI '" oiIIaer tbe pobIic ~ or OCher popmty in this vicinity. Slaft"has J'eCOIIIIIIeQIIIhat no additional above 8JOIIIId iIIIrusioos be pcmricred in the remaining setback, thereby _iug that any inlruoion wiD lie limited. The existing home to !he souJh -_._---- M"atdI Willbms Mf Williams Coostruction Provo$l Variance File No.: WA·97-06S. V August 14, 1991 PageS T"I.~CI$ (ON Or t-{~.41< .)1".. [;XAMIJJH ... ~ >,7 and !he boones and boaIhousc 10 the aorCh ODd 011 this lot also aIRady impac:l 0Ihcrs' views to some extent. 10. The public welfare ~ be pesa feel Apjn.!he property _er is merely beiDg permilkd to exercise riJIII$ exaclsecI by oIIx:rs ill ibis yicillilywllo have had $imiIar c:oqstraims daD 10 Jot size or cIepch or width. ThcwJicoutwiD beohses oiu&:*f"D'Iiniag Lalk61andads _ \9biIoaddiag_1IdditioDaI $lOry by not iDIrudids _ .. eel ,;t ,.JsorCJIC wfiag 1he pc:naiUcd30 mot hei&bL II. In<OOllClusioo,thevarilllcesrequcsleelllfPCU_lbIyne' iytoallowthe~ofaaot IJID'-easooabIe siDgIe DmiIy dwdIiogin this IDeation 011 1ltese l1IIU preexisting legal afIhaugh sub.standard .-:eJs. DECISION AND RECOMMENDADON: The VIIriauct$ to allow a ",. ~ story siugIe 6miJr bo!no wiIhia 10 fi:ct oftJ.e shanJiu8 is approved subject to the following ""'"'ilioas" I. The applicmt sbalI cbIc10p asiu&fcfllail)' home., ~ in BxhibIt 3. 2. AppIic:aarsllalh'ClCOlda*CiUi Ii can II ptllatdoes:notaUowaySDltof,..r.titiona1 slruc:tureSwitIiD 8111 of the SdllCk _ad tbarilbemaincaineclllS~ pJentrd area or groIIIId Jm:I PIICio. 3. The boathouse may be .epaired but sbaIIllOt be exp .... decl ill aay diredlon orllaYc IIGY c:haDge in its bulk. .c. The actual pIaysical ha&ht oflhe I"'SideaQo sid DOt Rceecla plane oflO feet __ pound Jcw,J. S. The .,.,ticaat IIbalI be '''eeI to oIoIaia • eIIier _ III I ry petw._ .,..owats for the proposal (i.e. ........ penaif.c:alifocale of'fl'8ler 1IDII_IlYIiIIbiUty, CIlC.). ORDERBD nns 14Ith clay of AIIgasI, 1997. I_Iter Harming 200 MiflA_S RootoI!t.WA 98&SS MiIda Williams P.O. BOlt 361 Mauer ..... WA ·91040 AlProvO$l 1224N32Dd R-.WA 98056 . .' . '\ . ~ April 14. 1998 Mr. and Mrs. AI Provost 1224 N 32nd R.entoII. WA 98056 Rc: Provost Variance F"dcNo. LUA97-06S,V Dear Mr. and Mrs. Provost: Your ieuet'to Jay CoviDgfoa was redirected to tIDs ofIke as you had the WIOIlg DIIIDC for the Heariug Examiner. ' This offioc bas 1eVicmcd.your lcUecand conca:ns. nc c:oteumts do IUD. with the land bttt so do the variances ~ -ruby the appIicml. 'IlIe .. ,i._ wiI1 alk:rthe c::haIacfa" and rcdncc thercquired sed:: __ b as long as the stIJdmeJ:ftIWIIS ' The covenants can probablJ rdJect the filet that they would lapse when IBId if the $!IUCIUle or stmc:tweS wac reoiOved amd the let RSton:d to a vaamt state. atwilidl time _ t'4,"jtS and varianceS, !file( sacy,1WlUId beJCqUired under th&~aOi=dlverepWiGes If !he cooditioos ;'!'1mad ~ thcapptoval. we.te WI! .1s!;"$*1. ftJii.,piamt sMnJd ~ spoken up at that tinIe. It IS _too late to .""stmdmlly abrzthedcr,,,,Nl. Some of1his could have boen handled more ~ if1he aweuauls ill drqJlfonn bad bcea 5IIbwitted for review to the City AttonIe)' as inmwted m the conespondeuoe fiom 1his oJIice,. Sincerely, Hearing Examiner cc: Jar Covington LanyWmeu. Jennifer Henning " 200 MiD Avenue SouIb -Renton, WashiJI&Ion 980SS -185-2593 Ii I f I i I ~ r -iJ J i r s·ll i € IfIl ~ ~ !Z . r -] QI' !h~~il' ! 1" · [la l i i Ita m ~ fil i ~ " ij Il ! ~.8 ~ I I it . i i .. it' Q; II I[ r · t ~ It ~ ~. ~ ... i I:' Irs. (I'fll) [t; IJII" Ii I ~ [i ttl:Ji ilr~r I J ~.! ~ ~ n ·~.jrl it'r t[ If-~J.lfrf !lt~1 f ~ l -.. ~~S OIl' 0;;' ~:: a ~i l ~ ~ i' ~ ~ i 8 I';' ~ ~ .... Ii! r i' § jC: :: ~ 0 b 0 1 I: Ii ..... fi ~ '" i\;l Iil. 11 ~ S! ~ >~~ ~rJ,i~ ~l l}~I' P ;t '}i-~B 'II U ~ ~ I h ~ t;i i J. ~ l. ~ ~~ if II J ~ 1 i (riJ t i a: ~ ~ I f~ [~ i I~ j J ~ ~f ,'" ~ r § i I G ~ j & ~ I r I § II i tl .. ~ If ~~ r ... If ~ ~ ~ Jl If r Ii t ·r, .f .. ftltl ·11 111~;t I~ ~ 18 1'1 !"li~ s: i'l a-sf'lcr ~l 2, l~ ~§~ ~~l~it it '~9ir ~l ~I .. ~ lrrl ' . • I I I March 30, 1998 Page 2 and 4. I furwanlcd a copy of the c:cm:mnts to Larry W ........ for review. He approved !he CQVemInts as to (onn, provided the somset clause is removcxl, as Con<fition No. 2 \Vas intended to nm with the lam, in JllllPdUity. I have bad scwetaI div<rssjon. with the pl"O\'OSts. They thought !bat the sample rmrictRte oovcoaot "duratioD" dale was standsud I 'C'R&c and occded to be ind.+! ill !heir document They WCtC not happy with the 27~ period that the covenant would be iA eflilc:t, bot they s.ipcd ("Uader PfOIest") and recorded the ~ The Provosts were quite smprBed to iind out that the tcM:DadI needs to be re-reconIcd to Il1II with the land "ill pe.petuity". . II appcam that the _ ~ cIoc:s not need to inchadc W!pagc reaardiog the boIdbouse and building height (previously """"lied Restrictive Coveuants No. 2 and No. J). The Heariug Examiner Decision did not specify that u.y of !he other cooditiod& of approval. other tbaII Cogditioa No. 2. (reprdiDg struc:tvres ia the It:Ibad:; ama). be recorded. . The Pro\'OSts·1eIfer ofMan:h J9Ih appears to raise o¥.rill as that sboaId have bcca ookd during the recoosidoralioalappeal pcriof1 &-cr, they do raise a'llllid _ ia 1hc last ~ Ifill the fUture. Oty requin:mt:oou .. to be more pennissM. ... tbcy sbouId be RqUimI to meet the same rt$!rlctioas irnpcoml 011 GIla" propcdies. There is a p_ they touId &0 Ihnlu&L 110 \'CIDOOe !be resuidive com-. ifCil;r ".,,,,,,.,,,, DO longer apply IIOtbepmd. A desci4*m oftbe mIIbod is :otqrJx:d (see PuIicy aod Pioccdw .. No. 400-13). The anacfrd leU« tma tbe l'rovosr's was addn:ssed to lay ClIwi¥n It sbNId haw been directad to you. A rqJly nom JOIII" olIica appears to be in onIcr. CouId)'Ol1 dino;t the rep1y to 1be owners? They are: AI .... c,a Pnnust, PO Box 823, Mercer IsIaDIi, WA 98040. A alp)' sboaId also be seD! to die appJicaor: Mik:b Williams. MF Williams ~ PO Bale 361, Men= JsIaad. WA 98040. Please feel fi'ec to IXlIIIlKt Il101116116 sbould you have any questions. ~Ffe CITY OF RENTON Review Comments I PermltNumIiea CP98095 BNBR.GY~: JJlN COlIntLLN 425-277-6176 1. COMl'LETB #6 ON CBBC&LIS'l' FOR BXHADST P2\NS. sP~rt ALL FANS TO BE IN8TALLBD IN Krl'CBBltS. BATJIS, LADHDRY ROOMS. SRLF VBNTBD RANGK DOBS JIOT HImT CODB RBOUIRBItBRT FOR VlmTING TO 'l'BB EX'lElUOR. SBPARATB t'.IIN RBQUIRBD. BUILDING/ PLANNING RBVlEti': CRAIG BUlUIBLL 1. PROVlDR A COMPL8'l'BSITB PLAN wrrB S1JBMIT'l'AL PER RBtITON RBQUIREMmrtS • 2. PROVlDR ATTIC VENTILATION 3. MINDmM VBNTILATION ARBA REQtT.tRBD IS st OF FLOOR AREA. SHOW FLOOR ARBA AND lIRBA OF OPmamB ON FLOOR 2. 4. SlfOW ONR HOtJR. FIRE SRPARATION BB'l'ImB1I GARAGB .AND HOUSB. 5. SHOW ONB HOUR FIRE SBPARATl!OJJ ONDBR S'l2I.IRS. 6. PROVIDS VERIFICATIOR OF <Da>LIAIfCB wrrB HBARING EXAMINER COMiIJ:l IOIf #2. 7. BliGINBBR SHOmD BVALUATB DBPLBC'l'XON OF S'l'BBL PRAMB '1'0 DmcNS'l'RA"l'B IT rs 1IJ:'l1lDI ACCEPrABLB LIMITS. 8. APPLICANT MOST PROVmB TIIO OFP'~STRBB'1' PARnNG SPACKS PER SINGLE PAK/LY RESIDERC'B. TANDBK PARDNG rs Af.!.QWBD. THB HBJf PA1UtING SHOiiii FOR THE EXrS'l'DIG BOMB DOBSJII'T MBET cODE RBQI.JJ:REHBN'l. 'l'BB APPLIClUt'r1iOULD NBBD TO PROVIDB MINIMUM DIMBIfSION OF 9 PBBT WIDB BY 40 PJmT LONG 'l'O AC."fXH)DA'l'K THE TIIO PARICDIG SPACES lOR·· SBBlt A IIODtP'ICA'l"IOIT FROM THE PARKDIG AND LOADING ORDIDJICB. FOR THB MODIFICATION, THB APPLICANT HOULD NBBD TO SUBKI'l' A LE'h'Ek TO mE AIIMIHIS'l'RA'rR OF P/B/PW DBPAR'DIBN'l'. THB LB'rl'Ek HUS"r nt'CLllI>B A HlUUIht JUSTJ:FJ:CATJ:ON AND 'l'BB REQUBS'rBD I«lDIPICATrON MOST: CONFORM TO THB IN'l'BNT AND PURPOSR OF TBB CODB; BE SHOIIH TO BB JUS'l'IFJ:BD AND RBQUIRBD FOR THB WlR &: SrTUATION llitl'l!ilIILlJW; wn.L NOT CREATE ADVBRBR D«PAC'l'S TO OUIBR. PROPBRrrBS IN THB vrCINrl'Y: AND THB RBQUBS"1 MUST BE MADE PRIOR TO DB'DULSD BRGrNRBRDiG. 9 • APPLICANT S'l'ILIB NBBDS 'l'O COMPLY wrm RBARING BDMDIER CONDITIONS, ESPECIALLY RBG;ARDING THB RBIQUJ:RBD RBSTIUCTIVE COVBNAN'l' • 8D3»k1 1\1/113 dt< _._--,----------- To: FroIO: Date: Subject: MEMORANDUM lC!111.limrToth HtMiDg LaWIal(;eJ. Warren, City Attorney Mardll3, )998 CIT, )_ RENTON Office of die City AtfllrM:J LaWIHICleJ. Warnu ~~G CfTY OF RSNlO~ MAR 16 1998 RECElVED DecIamion of Restrictive Covenants -Provost Residence Shoreline Variance (FileNo. WA-97-065, V) The covenants are approved as to Icgal funn with the excepIioII that 1hey should be in peqretuity, untiJ the suucrures coverc:d by the variance are removed or UDtil fiIrther.YBrianees are obtained. UW;as. cc: Jay Covington A8:138.24. POSt OfTJCt Box 626 -100 S. 2nd Streer -Renron, Wasbingron 98057 -(425}2S5-8678 ~""""-uw.N~~~tc:J'5.""CiIIMIftIIr '\. ..... DEq.ARATION OFRESTRlCflVE COVENANTS . WHEREAS AI and Cyndie Prm'OSt 111\\ the 0WIleIS of the folloWing real propeny in !he City of Rerlton, County of King, Slate ofWasblJl8lOn. described as E.wbir 'A' a!taehed hereto. .. WHEREAS, the owners of said <kscribed property desire to ~pose the following restrictive CO\"enants nDllling with the land lIS 10 use, present and future. of the above dm:ribed rcaI property. NOW, ~.th!: afOnlSaid O\\uers hereby establish, grant and impooe restrictions and covenants nJnI1ill8 \\ith !he ltnd herein abo\--e described with respect to the use by the undersi8iJCd. their SUCCC5SOf'S. heirs. and assigns as (01100"5: RESIRIcnVE COvalANTS 1. No nddifiona/ struCl\lre$ wilbin any of the setback area ~ permilled, and that these areas shall be P1ainlllined as open planled area or flJOUIld le\'eI patio. 1. The boathouse Pllly be rqlIIired bul sbaIlnot be expanded in any direction or ha\"e any chan!l! in its bulk 3. The iIClUaI pIJ)"Sical height of the resideaoe shaIJ not cxceecI a plane of 30 feet above ground Ie\'el. DURATION These coveoantsshall run with the landande."Cpire 011 December31.:z02s.lf at any time ImpiOfemralS are installed punuaIIt to these covCllltllCs, the portioo of the OOiCDWU penaiDiDg to the specific iasIaIled improvements required by the QrrIinanrPs of 1he City ~lWttooshaU ~ "itbout necessity of further dtw uhlMtali<n AD)' viollllion Of breach of these ~ CO\'eII8Dls may be eafom:d by proper legal ptaeedures in Ibe Superior COUrt of King County hr eitba: the CiIy of &nron or lIllY property ()WJIeI$ adjoining subject popeity who are am 'ersely alTeaed by SIIid breac:h. ~ ~ . STATE Of WASHINGTOO IS. County of RlNG On Ibis day of 1997, before me personally appeared the persons who executed !he \\ithin and foregoing iBsIrument, and acknowledged said insInunent to be the (ree and ,,'Illuntary nct and deed of sail! persons for the 1J5CS and pnposes 1hetdn mentioned. IN WTI'NESS WHEREOF, I bave beieu1iio set my haDd aud afl-"'(ed my official seallhc my and year fin;! . -. /<lQ\llll}' Public in and (or fheS1ale of WashilJ8lOn. residing at ________ ----""--'o- -~------- SHORELINE SETBACK VARIANCE AND VARIANCE TO AlLOW A THIRD STORY. THE PROPOSED SF RESIDENCE WOULD BE LOCATED ON LOTS 49 AND 50 AND WOUW NOT EXCEED THE 30 FOOT HEIGHT UMITATION OF THE R-B ZONE. THE APPlICANT RESIDES TO THE SOUTH OF THE PROJECT SITE AT 3707 lAKE WASHINGTON BL N. A VARIANCE FROM THE SHOREUNE MASTER PROGRAM IS REQUIRED IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT THE PROPOSED RESIDENCE CLOSER WITI-IIN 10 FEET OF THE SHOREUNE. WHILE VARIANCES WERE CONDrnONAll~VED BY EXAMINER ON 8-17-1997. THIS APPROVAl WAS LATER12~ DISMISSED AND TREATED AS DENIED' BY ruE EXAMINffi~4EQUIRED CONDITIONS OF 11 APPROVAL WERE NOT CQMPUED WITI-I. l PcJIL1>/N6!-(if2.J.N f tl'fl/UD -- 181111l1lY 24, 2000 CERI&lBD MAIL . . . RETURN MCI!'lPT REQUES lED Mr. AI Provost 1224N32nd RCIltOD, WA 9B056 Re: ProV05t Variance Yllc No. LUA97-06S,V Dear Mr. end Mrs. PzoYOSt: OF RENTON Hearidi Bxaininer ....... .J.K· ........ .. ' This ofIicc issued a JJccis!m GIl tie abovw f .......,;d IIJIItta"m Aupsl14, 1997.~ 1bal . DccisiOll~ a ~COYtiMIItwlddl.:-WDQtallowany~ to bcpJaced within any of1hc ....... k..-. aad _it be e' daj .... d as opeaplantcd area or ground Jem paIio. A draft 10nn was seotGll AlIgU5t 26. 1997. but this office bas neverreceivcda n .. ,dd. deo;czant. Ifwe do DOl eceiwa c"'1} 'til tlOW.IIailt by FcmIaIy 7.aooo. tbis office wm dismiss the appIic;aUoIl wiCh po Ij .&ce. _it. be III lOr i as adeDialof1hc ........ Sinccnlly, '. -0 ,:! ·FIedl.~' Hc:ariD8 Bxamlner FJK:mm 00: Larry Wama, ay AttImt>y JCDPifa Henning, Dco9~ .. .,." Scatbs l05S South GnIdy Way -lteaD. W I' ! BIN!IfIOSS -(425)430-6515 .~_ ............ -....... ......... 'tMC. __ ~ " ; .~., .. ..... M.F. WIlllAMS CONSIRucrION CO., INC. P.O. BOX 361 MERCER ISLAND, WA. 98040 DECLARATION OFRESTRICI'IVE COVENANTS WHEREAS AI and CyndieProvost are the owners of !be foJJowins real paoperty in the City of Rentoo. County of King. StIle of Washington, described as . LarS 49 AND 50, BLOCK MAn, C.D. HlLI..MANS LAKE WASHINGTON GARDEN OF EDliN ADDITION TO SEATTLE, NO. 2, ACCORDING TO 1lfE PlAT RRXlIDED IN VOUJME II OF PLA.TS, PAGE 64, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; TOOErHER WllH SBXlND a....ASS SHORELANDS AD1OINlNO; AND 1HE WESIFRLY 15 fEEr OF THAT PORTION OF FORMER NORTHERN PACIRG RAILWAY COMPANY RIOHf-OF-WAY AS l1ES BEl WEEN TIm NORTHERLY ANDTHBSOUTHERLY l1NES OF SAID LOIS 49 AND SO. TAX PARCEL IDI: 334270-0250-03 WHEREAS, the 0WJJeD cf said described propetty desim to jmpose the following IIlSIricIivc covcnanlS IlIDDing with the Japd as k) -. pn3'I1t and (1IhIRl. of 1IJe ~ described real JXOItlIupeloertrty. NOW,lHERI:R:lRE, rbeafomaid owners herebyesfaHiilr.gramaud ~mtrieIioos8lld oovenanlS Jl/IJIIiDg wilh the laad lIeft:m above desaibed with lespect to the USC by the undeIIigncd, their sua:essoas, heias, aJId assipo as follows: • • r' \.. RESTRlCIlVECOVENANTS J... ., e"~" I 1.' No acIdiIiOlllll st:r\I(:(Ul'e$ within all)' of the setback area 8R< peuait1D:i, and dJJl these areas sball '.J be mainWncxI as 0{lCD pbated _or gI'OUIId IeveI patio. 3. The actual physical height of the laidence sbaIl DOl eJtoeed a pIaue of 30 feet above ground level. . DURATION ~ coveuau1S :shall I1IIl with dte Jaqd and expire OIl Deceuabec31. 2015. If at my time improvemeutB ale installed p'''PPDt to Chese covenants. Ihe porIioa of the cova pis per1aiDidg to the specific ~"SIiIJIed ~, ...... !I$I"'*di.by ~ Qrtfiaancxo$ cL!be aty of ReoftlIIIJIalJ tennii1811: W11hout sec ali' d' furI&ec~ , -" ~ " • Any violation or breach d dIese n::3Irictive coYeIIaI1IS may be eilfoo::ed by poper legal proc;edUn!s in the SUpcricx-Court dKiug County by ci1ber!he <l1y of Ren100 or my property ~ ~oiDing sullject propelty wlio .-e adva'seIy afkaed by said breach. AI Provost STATE OFWASHINGroN liS, County dIaNa Onlbls rlcJS-dayd AffWb,'e<-1997,beCoiemcpersooally~ the pePIDIIS who executed the wid8u and (ort:tW>g iasInImcut, and acbowIedgcd said iDsIrument to be the free and wluaIIIIY aetascl'" cC said per80tiS for die _ aad pIIl'JIOSCS tbclein IJ.'."IIfioMI C Lf~e PA."'rPf-.f il-I£ p~ IN WITNESS WHERBOF, I have beiWPlO $!Chay hauIl aad affixed my ofrllliallJCl8l the day aud year ("US[ above WJiUea. _~~Paliicinaudfordle_dW~ R:SidiBgal_.!fut,,;:...>...;;;;;.o..;-...... _-;-__ ~ tfi/# , , \. .- "iLClALEAL LilLtlJMIe-..... I' """ lire I ' , WtsHlll , . '. June 20, 2006 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON JUN i' i 2006 Minutes APPLICANT/OWNER: PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: SUMMARY OF REQUEST: SUMMARY OF ACTION: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: PUBLIC HEARING: AI and Cindy Provost PO Box 1492 Renton, W A 98057 Provost Variance File No.: LUA 06-024, V-H North of 3707 Lake Washington BouleVllrd North Applicants have requested three variances: reduce 25-foot setback from water's edge to 10-feet; to exceed two-story height limit by one story; and reduce front yard setback from 20 feet to five feet. Development Services Recommendation: Approve with conditions The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on May 9, 2006. After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available information on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES Thejol/owing minutes are a summary ojthe May 16,2006 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, May 16, 2006, at 9:04 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testifY were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No.1: Yellow file containing the original Exhibit No.2: Neighborhood Detail Map application, proof of posting, proof of publication and other documentation pertinent to this re_quest. Exhibit No.3: Site Plan Exhibit No.4: Building Elevations Exhibit No.5: Lower Level floor Plan and Second Exhibit No.6: Second Level floor Plan and Upper Floor Framing Plan Level Framing Plan Exhibit No.7: Upper Level floor Plan and Roof ExhibitNo.8: Zoning Map Framing Plan Provost Variance File No.: LUA-06-024, V-H June 20, 2006 PageZ Exhibit No.9: Drawing of where the house would be drawn back with the 25-foot shoreline setback. Exhibit No, 11: Photo by Mr. Wei! of the large tree on the Provost property Exhibit No. 10: Copy of Covenants from the original filing. Exhibit No. 12: Five photos of three new homes under construction in the Barbee Mill area The hearing opened with a presentation of the staffreport by Jill Ding, Senior Planner, Development Services, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. The ~roperty is located along the shores of . Lake Washington, west of Lake Washington Boulevard, south ofN 38 Street and north ofN36th Street. The property is zoned Residential-8 dwelling units per acre (R-8) and is located within the Residential Single-Family Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation. There is a detached garage structure, shed, a boathouse and dock currently on the property, the shed and the garage are proposed to be removed. The applicant is requesting three variances to construct a three-story single-family residence with a maximum footprint of approximately 960 square feet. The variances include a shoreline variance from the required shoreline setback, a height variance and a front yard setback variance. The shoreline variance and height variance were previously granted under LUA 97-065 in August of 1997. A single-I'amily building permit was also issued on the property in April of 1998. Both approvals have c;xpired. The Examiner stated that he believed the covenants were never signed and so the application for the variance was dismissed. Ms. Ding stated that she had a timeline for the file and she noted that in January 2000 the Examiner sent a letter stating that he had not yet received the required covenants and that the variance would be dismissed if the covenants were not received by February 7, 2000. On February 1, a second covenant was filed that runs in perpetuity, as requested by the City Attorney, however there is no documentation of the attorney review or approval. The original covenant was not rescinded and both covenants currently encumber the property. There appear to be no copies of either covenant. The proposal for the single-family residence is consistent with the Community Design Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. . The variance requesting an additional story to the residence would not exceed the 30-foot height limit but would exceed the maximum number of stories permitted, which is two. Since the original variance was approved, the City's regulations have changed and front yard setbacks are required to be measured from the edge of an access easement rather than from the edge of the property line. They are now asking for a 5-foot setback from the edge of the access easement rather than the required 20-foot front yard setback. The height variance is necessary due to the size and shape of the existing parcel. The applicant proposes a three-story residence which would be 29-feet II-inches and would not exceed the 30-foot maximum height limit. A lot of the parcel is underwater and unbuildable, the land area is 3,363 square feet and by City's standards would be a substandard leit. The applicant is dealing with a very small land area combined with the shoreline setback and required front and side yard setbacks, there are a lot of cons1raints on this piece of land. In order to mitigate all those constraints, the applicant has proposed to construct a three-story residence, giving Provost Variance File No.: LUA-06-024, V-H June 20, 2006 Page 3 them an adequate buildable area within a minimal footprint. Living space area would be just under 1,500 square feet. Staff does support the three-story height variance due to the constrained lot area. The applicant contends that the front yard setback variance is necessary due to the size and shape of the existing parcel. It was also noted that the southeastern part of the existing garage is located within the access easement and the remainder of the garage is located closer than 5-feet to the access easement. The granting of the height variance would not be materially detrimental to the public, no adjacent sight lines or views of Lake Washington would be affected. The proposed 5-foot front yard variance would not be detrimental as the existing garage is located closer than five feet and actually is within the access easement. The existing homes in the neighborhood are located closer than 5-feet to the access easement. There is no special privilege in granting the three stories as there are existing residences in the neighborhood that have three stories so their residence would not be out of character. The 30-foot three-story structure allows approximately 10 feet of f1oor-to-ceiling height for each floor. The front yard setback would be 5 feet leaving a maximum footprint of 960 square feet, and actually less than that if the recommendation that the shoreline setback be moved back an additionaI5-feet. Shoreline Variance Criteria: The applicant is proposing a 20-foot setback from the shoreline on the north half of the proposed residence, which was the original setback requirement in 1997 when they applied for the original variance. The regulations have changed and a 25-foot setback from the shoreline is required. The southern portion of the residence is proposed to be 10 feet from the shoreline. The land area is unusual in that an existing block wall shortens the land area of the lot and creates a "Z" shaped building pad. The shape and the 25-foot setback requirement from the shoreline restricts the building pad size. Under the original variance the applicant was not requesting a variance for the north portion of the residence, it would have been in compliance at that time, the only variance was the northwest comer of the south portion of the residence which was to be IO-feet from the shoreline. Staff recommends that no variance on the north portion of the residence be granted, the residence should be permitted to encroach IO-feet into the 25-foot setback on the south portion of the residence. The original variance would permit at home that has a maximum footprint of 960 square feet on three levels. Staff has recommended a slightly reduced footprint due to the increase in the shoreline setback. The staff requirements for setbacks would not impact the natural beach area or public access points, nor would it impede any views for adjacent property owners. The Shoreline Master Program encourages uses along shorelines that are not view obstructing, that do not disturb the community and have an appropriate design theme, the applicant's proposal does meet these criteria. There are utilities available to the subject property and the residence would not exceed the 30-foot height that is permitted. The design of the site and structure appear to be harmonious with the stated policies of the Master Program. AI Provost, (mailing address) PO Box 1492, Renton, WA 98057 (Physical address: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. N., Renton 98056) stated that he owns this property and lives on the lot immediately south of the subject site. He is attempting to develop the lot to the north of his residence. Originally they applied for a variance to build on the subject site and at that time had a builder, some of the correspondence between the City of Renton and their builder was not communicated to them as owners of the property. They found out about the Provost Variance File No.: LUA-06-024, V-H June 20, 2006 Page 4 requirement for the covenants and agreed with them, there were some statements that pertained to the perpetuity of those covenants that was discussed with Renton City Attorney. When the issues were settled, the revised covenants were filed, he did not understand why the City did not have a copy of the revised filed covenants. He offered to provide a copy to the City. Regarding the height requirement, he stated that they were not requesting a variance in the actual height of the structure, but only in the amount of stories built in that structure. The only other issue with the recommendation from the City was that when they first applied in 1997 they have maintained the same building plans that were approved at that time, nothing in the neighborhood has changed with regards to conditions that were addressed and approved by the City and the Hearing Examiner. So, with the setback issues, they would like to maintain and get approval for the original 20-foot setback for the northerly portion and the 10-foot setback for the southerly portion of the building. The panhandle is approximately 20-feet wide. The general direction of the shoreline in this area is north/south, however there is a smaIl indent on this parcel and the shoreline direction becomes east/west and causes many problems, one being that by looking at it as a shoreline rather than a side yard or front yard. If viewed as a side yard for the short distance that it runs in the east/west direction they would be able to build in that panhandle. The existing house to the north was built approximately in the late '80's or early '90's, it was built to the 20-foot setback standard. If they are allowed to build to the 20-foot setback, their structure would not be closer to the shoreline than the several houses to the north of them. To the south of this lot, the full lot extends out that 56- foot distance to a north/south shoreline and was finalized in November 2005 and it is set back the 25-feet, but because the lot protrudes out farther there is no view along the shoreline from several houses to the north of their lot because their house sticks out farther to the west. The Examiner stated that the altered shape of the shoreline is the issue today. Some variances may cause all kinds of problems, however the issue is to protect the shoreline. Mr. Provost stated that the lot to the north is 45-feet wide and possibly some of that width was because the lots were not as deep and allowed them more square footage for the homes being built. The lots to the south were limited to a 4O-foot width. In 1997 the plans for this house were approved, the City at the time required some structural steel for vertical stability of the house and that was a surprise to the builder and themselves. It imposed a substantial monetary increase in the budget for building the house and so they were unable to continue. They paid for that variance and the plans to be drawn up and so they stayed with the original plans. They appreciate that the City is granting a variance, but if they have to reduce the size of the house again it will require going to an architect and redoing the plans because the foundation will be affected by that change. Ms. Ding displayed Exhibit 9 and clarified that where the arc has been drawn in at the northwest comer of the southern portion of the house would need to be a straight line to make sure that there is 15-feet from all portions of the rock wall. Rebecca Wvnsorne, 3711 Lake Washington Blvd. N., Renton 98056 stated that she and her husband Gary live just north of the Provosts. The Redwood tree is closer to the proposed structure than shown on Exhibit 3, the western portion of the tree is more in alignment with the boathouse. The building of the house would impact the tree and currently there is an immature eagle that lands there and other eagles also use that tree. They are in favor of the 25-foot setback, the impact to them from this new house is the privacy of their home, if there were windows on the side they would directly look into the windows of their horne. Provost Variance File No.: LUA-06-024, V-H June 20, 2006 PageS People are looking at the value of being on lakefront property, the boathouse has tremendous value, new boathouses are no longer allowed, this parcel is very valuable to potential buyers, the square footage of the home is not as important as the boathouse and the lakeshore in terms of value. Garv Weil, 3711 Lake Washington Blvd. N, Renton 98056 stated that in 1997 when the variances were originally applied for, it was his understanding that they had not been approved. Looking at the drawing, it appears that the side yard is as big as approximately half of the total width of the lot. Has this been verified, the side yard by the tree seems to be quite narrow when actually walking on the property and not a buildable piece of property. They previously signed a variance because the boathouse is over their property line and that is fine, but he does hope that the setbacks are being measured from the actual property lines and not where their fence is located. They own an additional18-inches to 2-feet on that side of the property. The Examiner stated that adverse possession or disputes of fence lines must be dealt with by the parties, however, the City must be aware of what is going on and a surveyor may be necessary to clarify the lines. Mr. Weil continued that the tree is within 5-feel of the water, he showed a picture of the tree, in which all easterly limbs would need to be removed to build a 30-foot building. When a foundation is dug to the roots and the tree is limbed, what happens to the tree? It is the requirement of the applicant to verify that the livelihood of the tree would be maintained. Mike Brown, 3703 Lake Washington Blvd. N, Renton 98056 stated that he is the neighbor to the south of the Provosts. When he was at the City earlier, be did pick up a copy of the Restrictive Covenants, which states that no additional structures within the setback areas are pennitted, these areas shall be maintained as open planted area or ground level patio. The boathouse may be repaired but not expanded or changed in bulk. The actual physical height of the residence shall not exceed a plane of 30-feet about ground level. It goes to December 31, 2005 and was recorded in 1997 on November 24. He is not sure what is being proposed, he received mail from Development Services showing that a house of approximately 3,953 square feet was going to be built He came to the City and met with Jill Ding and she told him it was a 960 square foot footprint. A footprint of 960 times 3 levels is 2,880 square feet. It was clarified that the boathouse was included in the square footage. (A drawing of the footprint and garage was shown to Mr. Brown) There was much discussion on how calculations were reached to determine the footprint and square footage of this proposed residence. The Examiner stated that what is going in is a home, it may be what the Provosts want, 3,226 square foot home or it may be what the City wants, 2,880 square foot home. It could be two stories or three stories. Mr. Provost stated that regarding the tree issue, in 1997 two separate arborists came to the property and inspected the tree and site. Both suggested that there was a way to minimize the impact to the tree and that was to be very careful in the excavation of the portion of the foundation that is adjacent to the tree. Once the roots were exposed decisions could be made as to how 10 proceed. They were to maintain that tree. Their attorney has assured them that the sales agreement can be written in such a way to provide protection for the tree. When they were notified that the easements were going to be increased, there are three brand new houses in the Barbee Mill area that are currently under construction, 3905, 3907, and 3909 Lake Washington Boulevard North. Five photos were entered as exhibits of this new construction. The edges of the homes are protruding out, some flat front and some angled. The foundations are within 10-12 feet from the edge of the lake. Mr. Wei! showed a picture of the eagle in the tree. Provost Variance File No.: LUA-06-024, V-H IlDle 20, 2006 Page 6 Ms. ping stated that there are several trees within the City that eagles use for perching and hlDlting or fishing. Unless it is a nesting tree there are no requirements. The Examiner caIled for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The bearing closed at 10:40 am. FINDINGS. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: I. The applicants, AI and Cindy Provost, filed requests for approval of three variances to aIlow a three- story, single-family residence on a shoreline lot. The variances are to allow a three-story home when code only permits two-story homes, reduce the required front yard from 20 feet to 5 feet and to reduce the setback from the shoreline of Lake Washington to 10 feet from a required 25 feet. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. 3. The proposal, while located on a protected shoreline is exempt from environmental review because it is a single-family home. 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located inunediately north of 3 707 Lake Washington Boulevard North. Access to the site is via a secondary road off of Lake Washington Blvd. As noted above, the subject site is located on the shoreline of Lake Washington. 6. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinances 1791, 1800 and 1804 enacted respectively between September, October and December of 1959. 7. The applicants sought similar variances in 1997 for the shoreline setback and the third-story addition. While variances had been initially approved the applicant failed to meet required conditions and the decisions became null and void. 8. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of Single Family uses, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 9. The subject site is zoned (R-8) which permits up to eight single-family homes per acre. 10. The subject site consists of property located along the shore of Lake Washington. Part of the property is submerged and a portion, the uplands, approximately 3,363 square feet in area, contains a garage, boat house and dock. I 1. The uplands parcel is an irregular, panhandled shaped property. The scale of the drawings are an lDlusual I inch equals 4.5 feet and may not be precise, therefore, the dimensions noted are approximate. The southern panhandle is approximately 18 feet wide andjuts out into the lake approximately 38 feet. Provost Variance . File No.: LUA-06-024, V-H June 20, 2006 Page 7 The lot is approximately 40 feet wide. The shoreline or edge of these parcels are clearly defined by a zigzagging rock wall or bulkhead. There is no natural shoreline. 12. A boathouse, approximately 20 feet wide and 40 feet deep, is located approximately 12 feet out from the shore. It will be retained. 13. Section 4-2-1 lOA restricts the height of single-family dwellings to two stories or 30 feet in height and requires a 20-foot setback from the edge ofthe access easement. 14. Therefore, the applicant has requested one variance to allow the building to be three (3) stories tall and a second variance to allow the front yard setback to be five feet (5'). 15. The Renton Shoreline Master Program (Section 4-3-090L.14.b) requires a 25-foot (25~ setback from the water's edge. This has been changed since the applicant applied for the variance in 1997 (it was 20 feet at that time). The applicant has proposed a minimum setback often (10') feet from the lake. Front yard setbacks had been measured from the property line but are now measured from the access easement. 16. The applicant has basically submitted the same plans that were submitted in 1997 which does not account for code changes that have occurred. This results in seeking greater variances from the shoreline requirements and the front yard requirements. 17. The plot plan and building footprint shows the house follows the irregular stepped westem or shoreward property line. TIlls creates a setback in one location which is reduced to 10 feet at a comer or angle where the house facade turns back away from the shoreline. Staffhas recommended that the home comply with the 25 foot setback from the shoreline for the northern portion of the home and that a 15 foot setback be pennitted for the southern portion of the home. Staff made their recommendation to reflect the prior 1997 variance request in light of the new, larger setback now required. The south portion of the home would have to be setback 15 feet from the shoreline as proposed by staffand this would follow an arc to reflect the angular shoreline. 18. On the east, the front yard, the applicant has proposed a setback of five (5') feet from the access easement rather than 20 feet. Staff has suggested that due to the small lot size, the request for a variance is appropriate. They suggest that a smaller setback on the east is a reasonable tradeoff to allow the home to be located fiu1her from Lake Washington on the west. An existing garage already comes within less than five feet of the easement along the front yard of the existing lot. 19. Staff recommended approval of the variance to allow a 3-story home. They thought it was reasonable. 20. As proposed the home would have a footprint of approximately 960 square foot. It would contain 1,920 square feet as a two-story home and 2,880 square feet as a three-story home. 21. The applicants also own the adjoining property to the south. An existing home is located on that property. 22. There are Single-family homes both north and south of the subject site. A review of the area shows that the shoreline makes a substantial jog directly in the middle of the applicants' current property. The development of a dwelling as proposed would not severely impact the views of adjacent parcels due to the staggered nature of the shoreline. Other homes in the area are both larger and smaller than that proposed in this case. Provost Variance File No.: LUA-06-024, V-H June 20, 2006 Page 8 23. The proposed home would be 29'11" tailor about 1(1") inch below the 30 feet pennitted in the zone. When the applicants first submitted their application in 1997 there had been a very recent change that limited buildings to two stories in height. That change is now about ten years old. It is a well- established height or "story" limitation. 24. A review of variance applications for properties along the shoreline show variances both denied and approved. It appears that each variance detennined the unique circumstances of each parcel vis a vis upland area and parcel width and depth. 25. Neighbors objected to the granting of the variances due to privacy concerns, bulk issues and the potential damage to a large redwood tree in which eagles sometimes perch. Eagle perching trees are not specially protected. CONCLUSIONS: 1. This office has no problems recognizing that the subject site has constraints that probably justify some variance relief. At the same time, the applicant acquired the property knowing full well that the buildable portion of the property was quite limited and that there would be limitations on what could be built on the lots. A variance or in this case, variances are required to provide reasonable use of the subject site, but a small upland lot cannot be expected to support 8 large spacious home. The lot already accommodates a mther large over-the-water boathouse of20 feet by 40 feet. In addition, one has to consider that the Cily specifically changed its code, thereby, in a way defining or redefining what might be reasonable or responsible use of property. The Cily is very aware of the small lots located along Lake Washington. Nonetheless, they increased the required shoreline setback from 20 to 25 feet. Obviously, they wanted a larger separation between structures and the water and not less. The Cily also specifically changed code so that single family homes would be no more than 30 feet in height and that such homes only be two-stories. The Cily limited homes to two-stories nearly 10 years ago Or when the applicants first requested a variance from this limitation. The Cily also enacted setback regulations that required homes with garages to have that garage sethack 20 feet from easements as well as public streets. In other words, the defmition of "reasonable" might be deduced from the fact that the Cily has enacted legislation restricting the size, scale, intensily and bulk of homes in general and homes along the shoreline more so. That sets the backdrop for the considemtion of the three variances that the applicant now seeks. In addition, the applicant merely resubmitted plans that were rendered in 1997 without even considering the code changes that have occurred since that time. Code specifically tightened up regulations and these plans do not even attempt to address those changes. Another significant change that reflects on the considemtion of this variance is the change in minimum lot sizes pennitted in the Cily. There are now a number of locations in the Cily that pennit small lots and all homes on these lots are constrained by the same two-story limit.· Three-Story Variance 2. Variances may be granted when the property generally satisfies all the conditions described in part below: 8. The applicant suffers undue hardship caused by special circumstances such as: the size, shape, topogmphy, or location where code enforcement would deprive the owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by others similarly situated; b. The granting of the variance would not materially harm either the public welfare or other properly in the vicinity; Provost Variance File No.: LUA-06-024, V-H June 20, 2006 Page 9 c. The approval will not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other property in the vicinity; and d. The variance is the minimum variance necessary to allow reasonable development of the subject site. There is no reason to approve a variance for a three-story house. The variance is not justified. A limitation on the number of stories carries with it a limitation on living space and that potentially limits the number of inhabitants. These may all be reasonable limitations to assure that a home and its residents are not out-of-scale with the size of the lot. There is no justification to grant a variance that allows a home with more stories. It would create an undue precedent. Every home on a small lot or future home on small lots would be entitled to an additional story. Many lots in the City are 4,000 square feet and new lots can be as small as 3,000 square feet Each of these lots could use the small lot justification to add additional stories. As noted here in this application: the logic is that this is hidden, unseen space. It has no visible impact. The home would not be taller. But as noted above, the limitation controls the number of inhabitants or population and, therefore, potentially the noise and traffic that a larger home, internal or external, might generate. There is no justification for the increased size whether it is internal or external and the precedent could be far-reaching for other smaller lots. The applicant has reasonable use of the property particularly given the approval or partial approval of the other variances requested. Shoreline Variance 3. In addition to the criteria noted above, shoreline variances are subject to some additional review criteria taking into consideration the unique and fragile environment along the shoreline. Those particular criteria are: a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the subject property, or to the intended use thereof, that do not apply generally to other properties on shorelines in the same vicinity. b. The variance permit is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant possessed by the owners of other properties on shorelines in the same vicinity. c. The variance permit will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property on the shorelines in the same vicinity. d. The variance granted will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Master Program. e. The public welfare and interest will be preserved; if more harm will be done to the area by granting the variance than would be done to the applicant by denying it, the variance will be denied, but each property owner shall be entitled to the reasonable use and development ofhis lands as long as such use and development is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and the provisions of this Master Program. Provost Variance File No.: LUA-06-024, V-H JlIIle 20, 2006 Page 10 4. The subject site is definitely constrained. The jog in the property's shoreline or western upland's property line makes accommodating a home harder. Allowing some intrusion into the setback will permit the development of a reasonably sized home. Stall's recommendation of no more than a ten (10) foot encroachment, that is a fifteen (15') foot setback, into the shoreline setback makes sense. The City specifically enIarged the setback and therefore, the variance the applicant applied for 10 years ago is no longer controlling or particularly relevant. The precedent for reducing the shoreline setback though has been created in the past -that is, most of the lots along Lake Washington have rather shallow upland areas since most of the property is submerged IIIlder the lake. Since these people do own the property under the lake, they are entitled to develop a reasonable home on the dry portion of their property. 5. It also appears that due to the shape of the shoreline and the location of other homes along the shoreline that this dwelling would not significantly intrude in the existing viewscape. If anything, the existing boathouse is the intrusive element in this area. 6. As noted, other variances have been issued when the underlying parcels were significantly constrained by their size or shape. Granting of this variance should not create any special privilege and is not inconsistent with what has occurred on other nearby properties. 7. Approving the variance should not result in harm and will permit the applicant to develop a single family home on the lot. Front Yard Variance 8. Again, the same constraints, the rather shallow uplands (dry) area, apply to the variance from the required setback from the easement. The actual uplands of the site is small which limits the footprint of any proposed home. 9. Similar variances from the setback from the easement or street have been granted for homes in this area to accommodate the development of a reasonable single-family dwelling. There is an existing garage already located in this setback area and allowing it to be demolished and replaced by the proposed home appears reasonable and will not create any additional impacts. 10. As noted, other homes in this area have been approved and it would not grant the applicant a special privilege to approve this variance. Nor would it be creating an unacceptable precedent. Again, the lot owned by the applicants extends under the lake. That is, they own a larger lot but much of it is constrained. 11. It would appear that granting the front yard setback variance requested will allow the development of a reasonably sized home and probably is the minimum necessary for relief. 12. In conclusion, two variances that allow the home to encroach on the normally required setbacks appear necessary to allow the development of a reasonably sized horne and since the underlying lots are actually larger and the requests create a lIIlique fact situation. The variance to allow more stories than . pennitted by code is not supported by the facts in this situation and would lead to potential precedents that could be used by anyone to allow a home with more stories than code permits. The variances should be approved with conditions that do not allow any further structures being developed on the site and that all setbacks be maintained as open planted area or ground level patio and that no changes, other than repair, be allowed for the boathouse. Provost Variance File No.: LUA-06-024, V-H June 20, 2006 Page 11 DECISION: The Variance to allow a three-story home is denied. The Variances to the Shoreline Setback and the Front Yard Setback are approved subject to tbe following conditions: 1. The minimum allowable setback from the water's edge shall be no less than 15 feet for only that portion of the proposed structure on the south half of tbe property that is nearest to the existing rock wall. The applicant shall be required to maintain the minimum required building setback from the water's edge (25 feet) for all other portions of the site. The setbacks are illustrated in Exhibit 9, although the exhibit may not be drawn to scale. 2. The applicant shall be required to obtain all other necessary permits and approvals for the proposal (i.e. building permit, certificate of water and sewer availability, etc.). 3. The applicant shall record a restrictive covenant that does not allow any sort of additional structures within any setback areas and all required setback areas shall be maintained as open planted areas or ground level patio. 4. The boathouse may be repaired but shall not be expanded in any direction or have any change to its bulk. ORDERED TIllS 20tb day of June 2006. HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED TIllS 20" day of June 2006 to the parties of record: Jill Ding 1055 S Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Mike Brown 3703 Lake Washington Blvd. N Renton, W A 98056 Al and Cindy Provost POBox 1492 Renton, W A 98057 Rebecca Wynsome GaryWeil 3711 Lake WlIl!hington Blvd. N Renton, W A 98056 Provost Variance File No.: LUA-06-024, V-H JlDle 20, 2006 Page 12 TRANSMITTED TIllS 20" day of June 2006 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker 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 COlDlty Journal Stan Engler, Fire Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section lOOGofthe City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed In writing on or before 5:00 p.m.. July 5.2006. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. 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 ou or before 5:00 p.m.. July 5. 2006. If the ExarnJner'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 ofthe 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 ColDlcil. 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 ouly to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. 1----------- --- -- -- --~ ---------- --------- --------- ~ ZONING ~ ::: _ocu.IIIlVDI COR COR C3 • !YO toO ...... 31 T24N R5E E l/~31 'I I ~ .. -"---:i::.,-----1, ~~~r-~-~-~·~';'~-~-i·t~~<-~;;'-;~-·~'~-';-ilHr;;;;;;;;;~-r'--t --;: " " " " " " L..;.'---- , " < , ( , t. :1 " W!=~~~o'd " " " " " " " " , , , " .""""""19nlr:: --u ~ ::;z: ,-'\. :: 0 '\ ::;:: "'-,,, :: « Jgj"" .~ "', ''''\ • • . , " >-t :: Ul :: ...J ~ " U1~ • " " " " " , , " '-+ .' . ! i: • " " " " " " -" ,,~ " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " ---"":;:.", -If.-r..,: !k=~'~" ~'~.~~ It·~t-i~:t .... !.-.1-.' t, '~~'-----~--u " • -" ... 1<101-.5\ o ,. i'----.", -- ,I- ,/ , , t- 11- U1 -' NORTHWEST 1/4 SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST. W.M ru CIT Y OF REN TON, COUNTY OF I " I :: J () S (:JtLC 57" 'I ~ L.A I<e W"'.~ 'R..OVOS'T' i?R.oJ err ) "-.'': S. / f" I r S£"-'''Il. L, Ale 6fS€_pT _ IIf 762.0 3;t3 0365 , I , I / F f I " ~ I ••• ( , , , OY(itH.tNG -'" l j. s.s, .0 ELE!.TION OF LAKE AS OF 11·00·96 • 17.~~ I ., / I f / ., jI04T'«>U$t q. ~"l'O .. ~. ItOOf:· 32 2 ,~$ ---$1.1>7 uiiili: -_ss -- () / ";t: I _t._1 3 ·1 ____ (e)..?' ~ 'T'¥D " H-oposd KING, STATE IT:.) ~' ;)'CIi.-Yhp.c:> ... ____ ~ ~ t.... e" ,1h- OF WASHINGl'C , gNa.uATIA. .~ ~~ -€ . EIO(""'~lIJr 'J.......... ~*"613S;J'- ,":-l~" S& I J.JJ.r--.. Pb "' .... fOl' . ~ ?iSCrZ ~t? ,p~w... . CO !.c d w;p~ " :." . , .... ' ":: 'f. w t· Rli'~""" . 1 _,". .. .: o:! ,: I :'i. .' ..:: { « --~ ~/ (v ~, / <l:-~I . '> . " I "0 • I 50 ELEVATION OF LAKE AS OF "-04-96 -17.6 .~ I ; 52. BOATI-IOUSE F F • 20.06 ROOF· 32 2 ROC~ RETAINING WALL \ TOP ROCII. WAL L 19. 2 o -:r:: E 3 -1h- .-.IU"_ .... tt7~ OECK HOUS£ F F • 26 J'!i Approv~ tJ7// I .. .o.SE:lttttvr t w S' °3' WALL " .} ~ '. 'ltv Fy t'\,b~ "1 / ,..c / / I .wlAlAA - EXHIBIT A Lots 49 and 50, Block "A", C.D. Hillman's Lake Washington Garden of Eden Addition to the City of Seattle, No.2, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 11 of Plats, page 64, records of King County, Washington; Together with Second Class Shorelands adjoining; and The Westerly 15 feet of that portion offormer Northern Pacific Railway Company right of way as lies between the Northerly and the Southerly lines of said Lots 49 and 50. End of Schedule A Page 3 of9 Order Number: 372201 11{ N q,.,. City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) NAME:A ,/ f(wAF': / ...... , '---. .....,~-:;:::A ..... ',/c s: r ADD~ESS:t? /i{9~ .po. ox. . CITY:R, < £A)"/tJ tJ , u.JA ZIP: 9 8' (JS ? TELEPHONE NUMBER: '2/~S I 430-· $' £b"K' - APPLICANT (if other than owner) NAME: COMPANY (ff applicable): ADDRESS: CITY: ZIP: TELEPHONE NUMBER CONTACT PERSON NAME: o /I} /J E f2.. S (54. a hwe ) ". COMPANY (if applicable): ADDRESS: CITY: ZIP: TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS: Q:weblpw/devserv/fonnslplaoninglIIWlerapp.doc PROJECT INFORMATION P OJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: ovosT PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)ILOCATION AND ZIP. CODE: "370't LAke J..Wt 8Lv(:) iJofJ.t-1f 18056' KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): ·::r3l.f~70 -0;<50-03 EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP 0 SIGNA TlON: 10 PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable): EXISTING ZONING: R-8 PROPOSED ZONING (If applicable): ? -::;J /" "=' f-' SITE AREA (in square feet): ;:) I ..J 6 ":, fJ,k( <: /A) SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED: SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable): NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if appficable): 1 NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): 1 07129/05 Pf JECT INFORMATION (contin_ ... d) NUMBER OF EXISTING lWELLING UNITS (if applicable): PROJECT VALUE: .,,) I A IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ~9UAi.'\~ 'iIDeTAGE OF PROPOSED RESI9fNTIAL / , ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA. PLEASE INCLUDE .l UlllfJ(NGS (il ap~liQable): 3 951 -. 3$;; ". /?';,s. SQUARE FOOTAGE (il applicable): SQU~;FooTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIA!; BcA1'N'4 ~ BUILD! GS TO _ (il appficable): ),071 ;." oVFI!.. /{, r""'" o AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE SQUAR~~TAGE OF PROPO~D NON·RESIDENTIAL o AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA TWO BUILDINGS (il applicable): ,.J, 'f} o FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. It. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON'R~ENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (il applicable): I..) /! o GEOLOGIC HAZARD sq. fl. o HABITAT CONSERVATION NET FLOOR AREA Of NON·RESIDENTIAL BUILDiNGS (if sq. fl. applicable): Iv' r . t!SHORElINE STREAMS AND LAKES ~:1~"3 sq. It. NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE o WETlANDS sq. ft. NEW PROJECT (if applicable): LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY . (Attach legal description on separate sheet with the following Information IncludedL SITUATE IN THE klo R -r!i ;UP > -rQUARTER OF SECTION32, TOWNSHIP~ RANGE5.f IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES List all land use applications being applied for: 1. ,s110(Z.€VNE. Uft7Z.lrJl\,(.£ 3. 2. 4. Staff will calc\ilate applicable fees and postage: $ AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I. (PrInt Namels) A! fi& {;; if C Y'-'T,LlIA Ii... -fkOv~ IhaII am (please checl< one) ){ the current owner of.the PJOP9rty Involved in Ihis application or __ Ihe authorized representatlve to act lOt' a COtporation (please attach proof of authorization) and thet the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the Information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my l5n<>y(Iedge and beI~. ., ~ I certlfylhatl knoworhevesatislacloryevidencelhat A-II'II'I 7 L~11111 ti rll7\l">t tJ:;i:. S~ signed this Instrument and ~edged n to be hislherllhelr free a ;o[untary act for Ihe use. and purposes mentioned .. the instIumenl --< (Signature of OwnerlRepresantative) " ~!~ Notary Public Slate of Was/ljngton /vt( KHANH lRAN My Appa/nImenI Expires Nov. 19. 2008 Q:weblpw/devservlfonnslplanningfmasterapp.doc lor the State 01 Washington Notary (Print) M~ 1;11 C( 11 h .\\ I \~ I'f:, My appointment ""Pires : __ ,--+ __ ·'-11.~-___ _ 2 OOn9IOS , . Project narrative-Provost project 3709-Lake Washington Blvd. N. Renton,WA. Project name: Provost project Project owners: Alan E. and Cynthia M. Provost (since 1986) Project address: 3709-Lake Washington Blvd. North, Renton, W A.98056 Project purpose: Construct new single-family residence Permits required: Building permit and two variances-one for an additional story (3 total) and the other for reduced setback from the shoreline. Both are detailed in the "Justification for the Variance Request" section. Current zoning: R-8 Current use/improvements: Detached double car garage, garden shed, and covered boathouse Site features: Lake Washington waterfront Total estimated construction cost: S500.000. Estimated fair market value: $1,600,000. Only one significant tree on comer of property-every effort will be made to save tree, Arborist will be used. Shoreline: Lake Wa. Waterfront, "Two-man" rock bulkhead Closest work area to ordinary high water mark is 10 feet (if pending variance is approved) This project will involve demolition of an existing detached 24 ft by 30 ft. double car garage and 6 ft. by 6 ft. garden shed and removal of existing concrete driveway to facilitate construction of a new single-family residence on the site. The existing boathouse over the water will be repainted and have roof repair done, and remain on the site. Proposed house will be of similar size and height to houses to the north and south of site. Even if pending requested variances are approved, because of a jog in the shoreline to the east at this site, the proposed house will not affect the view of the lake or shoreline from the residence to the north of the site (3711 Lake Wash.Blvd.N), or south of the site (3707 Lake Wash. Blvd.N) The site also has a 60 foot Redwood tree on the SW corner of the site. We love this tree and we have already consulted 2 arborists regarding the preservation of the tree during and after construction. Their expert opinions are that if care is taken during the foundation phase, the tree can most probably be saved. 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 NAMEINUMBER: Provost Variances I LUA06-024. V-H PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Applicant has requested a Shoreline Setback Variance, Front Yard Setback Variance, and a Height Variance for the construction of a 3,951 square foot 3-story single family residence on a 3,363 square foot pancellocated along the shoreline of Lake Washington. The subject property is zoned Residential-8 dwelling units per acre (R-8). The subject site is currently developed with an existing detached garage, garden shed, and boat house. The garage_ and shed are proposed to be removed and the boat house is proposed to remain on the. The shoreline designation of the property is urban. PROJECT LOCAnON: 3709 lake Washington Blvd N PUBLIC APPROVALS: Hearing Examiner Variance approval APPUCANTIPROJECT CONTACT PERSON: AI & Cyndie Provost; Tel: (425) 430-5668 PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing is tentatively scheduled for May 9. 2el06 ,before the Renton Hearing Examiner In Renton Council Chambers. Hearings begin at 9:00 AM on the 7th fioor of the new Renton City Hall located at 1055 South Grady Way. Comments on the 8.119.8 appllcatlon must be submitted In writing to Jill Ding, Associate Planner, Development Servfces Division, 10SS South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on April 26, 2Q06. If you have questions about this proposa, or wish to be made a party of record and receive addltional notification by mail, contact the Project Manager at (425) 431)..7219. Anyone who submits writien comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notifi/!d Of any decision on this project. I P~'$j;i&mtffE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALUNG FOR PROpER FQ.E.r.~t.i,1N '.J DATE OF APPUCATION: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: DATE OF NOTICE OF APIPU;A l'ION March 7, 2006 April 12, 2006 If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete thiS fonn and return to: City of Renton, Development Planning, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. File Name f No.: Provost Variances f lUA1J6.024, V·H ~E: ______________________________________________________ _ MAILING ADDRESS: ___________________________ __ TELEPHONE NO.: _________________ _ STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Northwest lIegional Office. 3190 160th Avenue Sf' Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452' (425) 649-7000 November 22, 2006 Al & Cindy Provost PO Box 1492 Renton, W A 98057 Dear Mr. & Mrs_ Provost: I certify that I mailed a copy of this document to the persons and addresses listed herein, postage prepaid, i a r,epeptacle for United States mail in II e v~ Washington, on z"v, Signature,_i..=&:~""&~'k.=~ Subject: City of Renton Local Permit #LUA 06-024, V·H Provost -Applicant Shoreline Variance Permit 2006-NW-10027 -CONDITIONED Purpose: Notification of Receipt and Approval of Variance Permit with Ecology Conditions On October 31, 2006, the Department of Ecology (Ecology) received the City of Renton decision on your Shoreline Variance Permit for a reduction IS-foot reduction to the required 25-foot shoreline setback. By law, Ecology must review all Variance Permits for compliance with the following: • The Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW) • Ecology's Variance Permit approval criteria (Chapter 173-27-170 WAC) • The City of Renton Local Shoreline Master Program After reviewing Variance Permits for compliance, Ecology must decide whether to approve, approve with condition~, or disapproVt: a Variallce Pemlit Our Decision: Ecology approves your Variance Permit provided your project complies with the conditions required by the City of Renton and the following Ecology conditions: I. The applicant hereby authorizes Ecology staff and their designees to have access to the subject property for the purposes of compliance inspection and monitoring_ Such right of access shall begin from the date of the receipt of this letter, during construction, and extend for a period of five years following project completion. Ecology staff must provide reasonable verbal notice to the applicant or their designee prior to coming onto the site. Al & Cindy Provost November 22, 2006 Page 2 of2 2. Comply with conditions listed within the City of Renton's SMP approval dated 10/9/2006. 3. Planting of an average of 5-feet of native vegetation along the shoreline of the parcel. Please note, however, that other federal, state, and local permits .may be required in addition to this shoreline permit. What Happens Next? Before you begin activities authorized by this permit, the law requires you to wait at least 21 days from the mailing date of this letter (see certification above). This waiting period allows anyone (including you) who disagrees with any aspect of this permit, to appeal the decision to the state Shorelines Hearings Board. You must wait for the conclusion of an appeal before you can begin the activities authorized by this permit. If no appeal is submitted you may begin activities any time after December 19, 2006 The Shorelines Hearings Board will notify you by letter if they receive an appeal. We . recommend, however, you contact the Shorelines Hearings Board before you begin permit activities to ensure no appeal has been received. They can be reached at (360) 459-6327 or http://www.eho.wa.gov/BoardslSHB.asp. If yon want to appeal this decision, you can find appeal instructions (Chapter 461-08 WAC) at the Shorelines Hearings Board website above. They are also posted on the website of the Washington State Legislature at: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac. If you have any questions, please contact Joe Burcar at 425-649-7145. Sincerely, ~~ Geoff Tallent, Section Manager Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program GT:jb:cja Enclosure cc: City of Renton THIS SECTION FOR DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY USE ONLY IN REGARD TO A CONDITIONAL USE OR VARIANCE PERMIT. City of Kent Shoreline Variance # LUA-06, V-H APPLICANT: Al and Cindy Provost DEPARTMENTOFECOLOGYPERMIT# ____ ~2~00~6~N~W~I~00~2~7 __ _ DATE RECEIVED BY THE DEPARTMENT: __ -"1""0/""-3...,,1/,,,,20,,,,0,,,,6_ APPROVED: Yes November 28, 2006 THIS VARIANCE PERMIT IS APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 90.58RCW with the following additional conditions: 1. The applicant hereby authorizes Ecology staff and their designees to have access to the subject property for the purposes of compliance inspection and monitoring. Such right of access shall begin from the date of the receipt of this letter, during construction, and extend for a period of five years following project completion. Ecology staff must provide reasonable verbal notice to the applicant or their designee prior to coming onto the site. 2. Comply with conditions listed within the City of Renton's SMP approval dated 10/9/2006 3. Planting of an average of 5-feet of native vegetation along the shoreline of the parcel. DATE: 11128/2006 (Signature of authorized department official) CIT' August 8, 2006 APPEAL FILED BY: Alan and Cynthia Provost OF RENTON Renton City Council CITY OF RENTON AUG 1 5 2006 RECEIVED OIlY CLERK'S OFFICE RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 6/20/2006 regarding the Provost Variances application, located at 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. N. (File No. LUA-06-024, V) To Interested Parties: The Renton City Council's Planning & Development Committee will meet to deliberate the above- referenced item on the following date: Thursday, October 5, 2006 3:00 p.m. 7th Floor/Council Chambers City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington This Council Committee meeting is open to the public, but it is not a public hearing. It is a working session of the Planning & Development Committee. No new testimony or evidence will be taken. However, the parties are expected to attend and be prepared to explain why the Council Committee should uphold or overturn the decision of the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions regarding these meetings, please phone Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison, at 425-430-6555. Sincerely, Vuu·~ Terri Briere, Chair Planning & Development Committee Renton City Council ----l-OS-S-S-ou-th-o-rad-y-W-ay-.-R-e-nt-on-,-W-a-sh-in-gt-o-n-9-8~OS-S-.-(4-2-S)-4-3-0.-6S-0-1----~ ® This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE Al & Cindy Provost P.O. Box 1492 Renton, W A 98057 • Rebecca Wynsome GaryWei1 3711 Lake Washington Blvd. N Renton, W A 98056 -I C;; 07 Mike Brown 3703 Lake Washington Blvd. N Renton, W A 98056 -1'5 0 1 August 7, 2006 , Community Services: Maplewood Golf Course Reserve Fund Use, Water Rights Attorney Fees, Budget Amend Planning: East Renton Plateau P AA Future Zoning Planning: 1-40S/NE 44th St ROW Plan, HUD Grant Payment Processing, Budget Amend Annexation: Leitch, SE 136th St & 140th Ave SE Plat: Shy Creek, Jericho Ave NE & NE 2nd St, PP-06-009 Airport: Aerodyne Lease, Addendum #12, LAG-84-006 WSDOT: 1-405 Cedar River Vicinity Charette Concept Concurrence Transportation: 2007-2012 TIP Utility: Springbrook Creek Wetland & Habitat Mitigation Bank Lot Line Adjustment Map CORRESPONDENCE Citizen Comment: Wynsome/Weil -Provost Variances Appeal, Alan & Cynthia Provost, V -06-024 Renton City Council Minutes Page 263 Community Services Department requested authorization to use funds in the amount of $20,000 from the Maplewood Golf Course reserve fund balance for water rights attorney fees to assist in perfecting a water rights claim. Refer to Finance Committee. Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department recommended setting a public hearing on 911112006 to consider future zoning for the remaining unincorporated portions of the East Renton Plateau Potential Annexation Area. Refer to Planning Commission; set public hearing for 9111/2006. Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department recommended approval to amend the 2006 Budget to add authority to process payments for the $300,000 HUD BED! (Housing and Urban Development Brownfield Economic Development Initiative) grant awarded to the City for the 1-405/NE 44th St. right-of-way plan. Council concur. (See page 265 for ordinance. ) Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department submitted 60% Direct Petition to Annex for the proposed Leitch Annexation and recommended a public hearing be held on 8/2112006 to consider the petition and future zoning; 14.59 acres located in the vicinity of 140th Ave. SE, 143rd Ave. SE, SE l36th St., and SE 138th St. Council concur. Hearing Examiner recommended approval, with conditions, of the Shy Creek Preliminary Plat; 61 single-family lots on 16.1 acres located in the vicinity of SE 2nd PI., NE 2nd St., and Jericho and Hoquiam Avenues NE. Council concur. Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of an addendum to the airport lease LAG-84-006, which: increases the rate, extends the term to 8/31120 16, and assigns the lease from Southcove Ventures, LLC to Aerodyne, LLC. Refer to Transportation (Aviation) Committee. Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of a concurrence letter with Washington State Department of Transportation regarding the 1-405 Cedar River Vicinity Charette concept. Council concur. Transportation Systems Division submitted the annual update of the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and Arterial Street Plan. Refer to Transportation (Aviation) Committee; set public hearing on 812112006 to consider the TIP. Utility Systems Division recommended approval of the Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank lot line adjustment map. Council concur. MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. A letter was read from Rebecca Wynsome and Gary Wei I, 3711 Lake Washington Blvd. N., Renton, 98056, concerning the appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision regarding the Provost variances application. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY BRJERE, COUNCIL REFER THIS CORRESPONDENCE TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. CARRIED. 06/12/1994 23:11 2062831924 WATERS EDGE sj7/o~ Ii f • J::, P~ ... ,ow. &m.m ~ CtTY OF RENTON P~~~JUlI7l006 Li<fI-ofo-t;;~", V RECEIVED PAGE €l2 9:S?'Q,m, Iuly 14, 2006 OITY OLeRt<'S OFFICE Dear Fred Kauffman I ~ 0) ~ Hearing Examiner Dear Mr. Kauffinan, ~ c..-s ~;:~f We were satisfied with your compromise decision in the Provost Hearing, but we understand the Provosts' are appealing both the setback from the lakeshore and the 2 story requirements. We feel strongly that the shoreline setback should not be further altered. There are muhiple new homes to the south of us that are within the 25 foot setback rule. For example: 3601 Lk. Wash. Blvd. N. measures more than 30 feet back in respect of his northern neighbor, Darius Richards, and 3613 Lk. Wash. Blvd. N. is 25 feet back in respect of the code. These are the 2 closest to us. The northern properties on the Barbee Mill site are on commercial property, which possibly explains why their set backs are not 10 code? If the Provosts are permitted 10 build any closer to the huge -75 foot redwood tree, it will require more cutting oflimbs on the east side ofthe tree as well as further damage the root system. The tree has already been weakened recently by a fire, then the building of the house on the Provost's south lot. There are only S feet between the tree trunk and the water. We are seriously concerned about the tree's livelihood. Please see the III enclosed document ofa study that was done recently for a 25 foot redwood tree at 360 I Lk Wash Blvd. N. This study was done June 06 in preparation for the teardown and building ofa new home on this small lot. We'd like to draw your attention to the Discussion and Recommendations and Attachment I -Tree Protection Measures This -7S foot tree is one oftbe few remaining old growth trees on the south end ofLk. Washington. We would like to see an environmental impact statement on protecting its livelihood. When we met with Laureen Nicloay, AICP Senior Planner in February '06, she mentioned that vegetation within 10 -25 feet of the lakefront can not be touched. Is this correct? She cited Ordinances 5136 and 5137. Please review Ordinance 5136 pg. 24 (i) Preservation of critically important vegetation and lor habitat features .... And Ordinance 5137 Section VI, 4-4-130 A Purpose discusses why trees are important to the environment and human health. We'd appreciate knowing someone in the planning department is accountable for reviewing these, and letting us know that this was done and by whom. AI and Cindie Provost are non-residents who live in Gig Harbor and are developing the 2 lots they own to the south of us for resale. I submit that pennanent residents should get a say 8S to what their neighborhood will look and feel after the developers have moved on. They will be gone within 8 year or so and over 8 2--5 year period we will be living with the potential death of this stately tree, not the Provosts. Is it ethicaVpermitted to reduce an existing neighbor's privacy and views, and impact the environment negatively for short sighted larger economic gain that will come as a result of not following the codes? We understand the Provost's have a right to develop their property, and having purchased this property, they have assumed the limitations that come with a srnalllot. We are okay with development, but think it fair and just that it be to code. It seems that the Provosts have development plans that are excessive, have disregard for the stewardship of the old growth tree, shoreline protection and neighbor goodwill. Their existing development house is 17 feet from the water on the northernmost corner, as seen in a sink hole in the lawn that shows the lake water beneath. This is already a variance granted to them. How can a Senior Planner, Jill Ding, testify to something she has never seen or inspected? We repeatedly asked her to come out to the site before the last hearing, and she never did. She made no critical analysis of the situation. What were the enviromnental decisions made in regards to this lot? When will the next public hearing be scheduled? To be clear, we wish the front of this development house to have no more than 2 stories, as all the other homes here have and the code states. We are okay with 3 in the back to allow for a daylight basement. A smaller home on this small lot will have less impact in vehicles, people, noise, view blockage, privacy, etc. We wish it stated directly that there will never be a deck, or people, on top of the existing boathouse. It has been an eyesore for years. It blocks our view significantly, which we accepted when we purchased our property, but we do not want to see people out on top of it ever. In summary, we respectfully request an on-site inspection, and Enviromnental Impact Statement, and consideration of return to code instead of offering any variances. The Provosts obviously are not grateful for the variances given. Please let us know the answers to our questions. Concerned, .. • 05/12/1994 23:11 2052831924 WATERS EDGE PAGE 04 • Gilles Consulting -Brian K. Gilles -- 4 2 5 -822 -499 4 EVALUATION OF SELECTED TREES AT RICHARDS PROPERTY 3605 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD NORTH, RENTON, WA 98056 June 9, 2006 PREPARED FOR: !hrius lIud Vicki Ri(h,n'\ls .%05 L:;.ki: WashingtoJl BOulevard North kt"ntoll, W.'\ 9i)()56 PREPARED BY: _ GILLES CONSULTING Brian K. Gilles, Consulting Arborist lSA Certified Arborist # PN-0260 ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist # RCA--II X Fax: 425-822-6314 E-mail: bkgllles@comcast.net P.O. Box 2366 Kirkland, WA 98083 ~b/l~/l~~4 ~3:11 WATERS EDGE PAGE e5 Evaluation of Trees for Darius and Vicki Richards • , Gilles Consulting CONTENTS Ju". Y. 200(, Pagc20fll ASSIGNMENT .............................................................................................................. 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................... 3 METHODOLOGy ........................................................................................................ 3 OBSERVA TIONS ......................................................................................................... 3 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................ 4 House Design: ................ . . .5 Preconstruction Treatment: ...................... . ..5 Protection of the Soil in the Yard Area: .... . .. 5 Pruning of Limbs .......................... .. ........ ................. ...... ...... .. . .......... 5 Tree Protection Measures ....... ......... ....... ........................... . 6 WAIVER OF LIABILITY ............................................................................................ 6 A ITA CHMENTS ......................................................................................................... 7 06/12/1994 23:11 2062831924 WATERS EDGE PAGE 06 Evaluation of Trees for Darius and Vicki RIchards Gilles Consulting June~. 2006 Page3 of II ASSIGNMENT Darius and Vickie Richards contracted with Gilles Consulting to provide them with an evaluation of the current condition of a large tree on their waterfront yard. They also requested a set of tJ:ee protection measures to provide the architect and general contractor to be able to save the tree during the demolition of he existing house and the construction of he new house on the lot. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The tree in question is a stately and old Western Red Cedar tree in good condition The demolition and removal of the existing house as well as the construction of he new home should be able to be completed while retaining the large tree if adequate tree protection measures are followed. The critical root zone of the tree is restricted and must be protected during construction. The remaining branches and the trunk must also be protected during construction. If the tree protection measures outlined below are followed the tree should survive the stress of construction and survive long-term. METHODOLOGY To evaluate the tree and to prepare the report, I drew upon my 25+ years ofexperience in the field of arboriculture and my formal education in natural resources management, dendrology, forest ecology, plant identification, and plant physiology I also followed the protocol of the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) for Hazard Tree Assessment that includes looking at the overall health of the tree as well as the site conditions. This is a scientifically based process to look at the entire site, surrounding land and soil, as well as a complete look at the tree itself In examining the tree, I looked at such factors as: size, vigor, canopy and foliage condition, density of needles, injury, insect activity, root damage and root collar health, crown health, evidence of disease-causing bacteria, fungi Or virus, dead wood and hanging limbs. While no one can predict with absolute certainty which trees will or will not fail, we can, by using this scientific process, assess which trees are most likely to fail and take appropriate action to minimize injury and damage OBSERVATIONS TREEN I SPECIES Western Red Cedar, Thujap/;cala DIAMETER STD 34.3 inches HEIGHTH • The live canopy, expressed as a percentage of the entire LIVE CROWN RATIO. tree height is 80%. This is considered adequate photosynthetic capacity for the 05/12/1994 23:11 2052831924 WATERS EDGE PAGE 07 E""luation of Trees for Darius and Vicki Richards ' • SYMMETRY • FOLIAGE • • CROWN CONDITION • • • TRUNK • • ROOT COLLAR • ROOTS • • COMMENTS · • HEALTH RATING RECOMMENDATION' Gilles Consulting tree to SUDDOrt itself. June ~. 200t> Page40rll The canopy is generally symmetrical with an even weight distribution around the trunk. Average density though slightly pale The tree was trimmed and thinned recently The top 10% to 15% of the canopy is healthy. This is an indication of good health and vigor. The tree was previously topped @ appx. 26 feet There are 5 new trunks growing above the old topping wound. The entire tree has a lean to the northwest toward the neiiWbor's boat house. Where the trunk enters the soil and flares out into buttress roots, there are no apparent defects, no apparent insect infestations, no aDParent fungal or bacterial infections. The amount of soil volume available for root growth is restricted. There are hard surfaces to the north with the neighbor's boat access, paved patio, and the house, to the east are concrete planters and the existing house. The only root area available is the small lawn between the existine: house and the shorelinelbulkhead. Minor branch loss on South side in mid-canopy likely due to ice storm in Januarv 2004 The tree is in good health and vigor at this time The structure of the tree is slightly compromised at the old topping wound. Close observation with binoculars did not reveal any indications of internal rot or decay at the old topping wound. The structure is weaker than an un-topped tree. However the tree appears solid and worthy of extraordinary measures to retain. Follow strict Tree Protection Measures DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The size and majesty ofthe tree combined with its good condition mean that this tree adds thousands of dollars of value to your property and is worth the extra effort to protect. The major issues in preserving this tree and having it survive long-term will be protecting he trunk from physical damage and protecting the critical root zone from compaction. Key to this will be planning work flow and supply flow prior to the construction to be able to keep the lawn and critical root zone free of any use during the construction. Given the limited space of the lot and access this will be an important issue to deal with your architect and your general contractor in the bid discussions. Lt:JbLtl.jl 'jL4 House Desiin: WAIc.I'(~ c.LJbc. Evaluation of Trees for Darius and Vicki Richards GIlles Consultin~ June 9. 20()!> Page~ofJI One consideration is to design the new house on piers and beams for the western portion The piers can be excavated using an air spade. If the design is flexible enough to allow the piers to be moved a foot in any direction then the piers can move to accommodate large roots rather than risk the long-term health of the tree by cutting them. The amount of large roots cut is critical to the long-term health of the tree This is a case where "less is better." The more roots retained the better for the health of the tree and the better for safety. The minimum distance from the base of the tree that I would recommend for excavation is 5 feet to the east and 6 feet to the south. If that can be pushed to 10 feet and 12 feet it would be better. Preconstruction Treatment: In an effort to assist the tree in dealing with the stresses of construction, specifically the loss of root volume and photosynthetic capacity due to additional trimming, I recommend that you treat the tree with a soil injection of tree based fertilizer and beneficial fungi and beneficial bacteria. Trees have different chemical requirements than shrubs and grass Tree based fertilizer is specifically formulated to meet those needs. Beneficial fungi, known as mycorrhizal fungi form a symbiotic relationship with tree roots that result in stimulated root growth and better absorption of water and nutrients. Beneficial bacteria Protection of the Soil in the Yard Area: Given the amount ofhardscapes surrounding the tree there is little doubt where the majority of the [oots are located. This lawn area and planter bed areas must be protected from compaction and direct damage of the roots. Soil compaction is an insidious problem that is out of sight and can take 2 to 20 years to kill a tree. Soil compaction is the problem of compressing the voids in between the mineral particles of soil. It is a result ofparking equipment, soil, building supplies, debris, vehicles and anything heavy on the soil. These voids life vital for the absorption of water and air. Without adequate pore space tree roots wither and die. This results in a long slow death oflarge trees. The weight of vehicle tires o[ other objects can tear the top and side layers of bark off the roots. Once this happens the roots succumb to disease and begin to rot This can slowly kill the tree. Pruning of Limbs The limbs to the east and south will need to be trimmed in order to accommodate the new house and the space needed to safely build the new house. I strongly recommend that you hire a qualified International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist to "clean climb" the tree and cut the required branches carefully and one at a time. Given the increased stresses of construction, I strongly recommend that you only remove the minimum amount offoliage to safely build the house at this time. Two o( four years in the future when the tree has had some time to adapt to the new environment and recover from the construction you may want to remove a few more branches that improve view or 05/12/1994 23:11 2~52B31924 WATERS EDC>E Evaluation of Trees for Danus and Vicki Richards Gilles Consullmg June 9. 2006 Page 6 o() I shape of the tree. For now, especially since the tree was recently thinned, having the most photosynthetic capacity possible will better serve the long-tenn health of the tree. Tree Protection Measures In order for trees to survive the stresses placed upon them in the construction process, tree protection must be planned in advance of equipment arrival on site. IftIee protection is not planned integral with the design and layout of the project, the trees will suffer needlessly and will possibly die. With proper preparation, often costing little, or nothing extra to the project budget, trees can survive and thrive after construction. This is critical for tree survival because damage prevention is the single most effective treatment for trees on construction sites. Once trees are damaged, the treatment options available are limited. The minimum Tree Protection Measures are included on three separate sheets in Attachment 2, Tree Protection Measures so that they can be copied and introduced into all relevant documents such as site plans, permit applications and conditions of approval, and bid documents so that everyone involved is aware of the requirements. These Tree Protection Measures are intended to be both specific to this tree generic in nature specifically about excavation and other construction practices. They will need to be. adjusted to the specific circumstances of your site that takes into account the location of improvements and the locations of the trees. WAIVER OF LIABruTY There are many conditions affecting a tree's health and stability which may be present and cannot be ascertained, such as, root rot, previous or unexposed construction damage, internal cracks, stem rot and more which may be hidden. Changes in circumstances and conditions can also cause a rapid deterioration of a tree's health and stability. Adverse weather conditions can dramatically affect the health and safety of a tree in a very short amount oftime. While I have used every reasonable means to examine these trees, this evaluation represents my opinion of the tree health at this point in time. These findings do not guarantee future safety nor are they predictions of future events. The tree evaluation consists of an external visual inspection of an individual tree's root flare, trunk, and canopy from the ground only unless otherwise specified. The inspection may also consist oftsking trunk or root soundings for sound comparisons to aid the evaluator in determining the possible extent of decay within a tree Soundings are only an aid to the evaluation process and do not replace the use of other more sophisticated diagnostic tools for determining the extent of decay within a tree. As conditions change, it is the responsibility of the property owners to schedule additional site visits by the necessary professionals to ensure that the long-term success of the project is ensured. It is the responsibility of the property owner to obtain all required penn its from city, county, state, or federal agencies. It is the responsibility of 05/12/1994 23:11 2052831924 WATERS EDGE PAGE 10 Evaluation of Trees for Darius and Vicki RIchards Gilles Consulting June Y, lUU6 P-dge 7 of II the property owner to comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and permit conditions. If there is a homeowners association, it is the responsibility of the property owner to comply with all Codes, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&R' s) that apply to tree pruning and tree removal. This tree evaluation is to be used to inform and guide the client in the management of their tree. This in no way implies that the evaluator is responsible for peJforming recommended actions or using other methods or tools to further detennine the extent of internal tree problems without written authorization from the client. Furthennore, the evaluator in no way holds that the opinions and recommendations are the only actions required to insure that the tree will not fail. A second opinion is recommended The client shall hold the evaluator harmless for any and all injuries or damages incurred if the evaluator's recommendations are not followed or for acts of nature beyond the evaluator's reasonable expectations. such as severe winds, excessive rains, heavy snow loads, etc. This report and all attachments, enclosures, and references, are confidential and are for the use of the client concerned. They may not be reproduced, used in any way, or disseminated in any form without the prior consent of the client concerned and Gilles ConsUlting. Thank you for calling Gilles Consulting for your arboricultural needs. Please call me if I can provide more information or be of further service. Sincerely, ~'iJ/ " . /1)'[/ '~ultm bost International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist -PN-0260A American Society of Consulting Arborists, Registered Consulting Arborist -RCA-418 ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT 1 -TREE PROTECTION MEASURES ATTACHMENT 2 -REFERENCES 06/12/1994 23:11 2062831924 WATERS EDGE PAGE 11 Evaluation of Trees for Darius and Vicki Richards Gilles COlIsuJling June 9. 2006 PagcSofl1 ATTACHMENT 1 -TREE PROTECTION MEASURES • Tree Protection Fences will need to be placed around the tree and the lawn area o Tree Protection Fences must be inspected prior to the beginning of any construction work/activities. o Nothing must be parked or stored within the Tree Protection Fence-no equipment, vehicles, soil, debris, or construction supplies of any sorts. o Cement trucks must not be allowed to deposit waste or wash out materials from their trucks within the Tree Protection Fence. • The area within the Tree Protection Fencing should be covered with wood chips, hog fuel or similar materials to a depth ofS to 10 inches. The materials should be placed prior to beginning construction and remain until the Tree Protection Fencing is taken down. o Iftbe area is totally free from construction activities the area could be left as lawn ifit is watered. o The Tree Protection Fences need to be clearly marked with tbe tbllowing or similar text in four inch or larger letters: "TREE PROTECTION FENCE DO NOT ENTER THIS AREA DO NOT PARK OR STORE MATERIALS WITHIN THE PROTECTION AREA Any qUelitions, cIIII Brilln K. GiBes at Gilles ConSUlting @ 425-417-0850" • Excavation: When excavation occurs near the tree, an air spade would be best. This unit uses compressed air to blow soil away from the rOOIS to create a trench or a hole for a pier. The loosened soil can then be shoveled carefully away. Roots can then be cut cleanly as noted below. o If an air spade is not available, and when removing existing concrete structures and walkways, the following procedure must be followed to protect the long term survivability of the tree o An International Society of Atboriculture, (ISA) Certified Atborist must be working with all equipment operators. o The Certified Atborist should be outfitted with a shovel, hand pruners, a pair ofloppers, a handsaw, and a power saw (a "s8wsall" is recommended). o The Atborist will instruct the equipment operator to comb the concrete and soil away from the tree in small shallow bucket movements. 06/12/1994 23:11 2062831924 WATERS EDGE PAGE 12 Evaluation of Trees for Darius and Vicki Richards Gilles Consulting June 9. 2006 PageYofll o When any roots of one inch diameter or greater, of the tree to be retained, is struck by the equipment, the Certified Arborist should stop the equipment operator. • The Certified Arborist should then excavate around the tree root by hand/shovel and cleanly cut the tree root • The Certified Arborist should then instruct the equipment operator to continue. • Boring or Tunneling: o Boring under the root systems of trees (and other vegetation) shall be done under the supervision of an {SA Certified Arborist. This is to be accomplished by excavating a limited trench or pit on each side of the critical root zone of the tree and then hand digging or pushing the pipe through the soil under the tree The closest pit walls shall be a minimum of7 feet from the center of the tree and shall be sufficient depth to lay the pipe at the grade as shown on the plan and profile. o Tunneling under the roots of trees shall be done under the supervision of an ISA Certified Atbonst in an open trench by carefully excavating and hand digging around areas where large roots are exposed. No roots I inch in diameter or larger shall be cut o The contractor shall verify the vertical and horizontal location of existing utilities to avoid conflicts and maintain minimum clearances; adjustment shaH be made to the grade of the new utility as required . . ~: o The tree will require signi fiean! watering throughout the summer and early fall in order to survive long-term. As we discussed, the best watering is to be done using soaker hoses placed at least three feet from the trunk of the tree and spiraled around the tree where possible. One 75-foot soaker hose should be adequate. It is best to place the soaker using landscape staples, (available from lID Fowler in Bellevue for pennies apiece) then cover the area with composed materials. The composted material will act as a mulch to minimize evaporation and will also stimulate the microbial activity of the soil which is another benefit to the health of the tree o Water the tree to a depth of 18 to 20 inches. I recommended leaving the water on the soaker hose for a couple hours and then digging down to determine how deep your water is penetrating Then adjust accordingly o Once the water reaches the proper depth, tum off the hose for four weeks and then water again. Water more often when temperatures increase- every three weeks when temperatures exceed 80 degrees and every two weeks when temperatures exceed 90 degrees. This drying out of the soil in between watering is important to prevent soil pathogens from attacking the trees. 05/12/1994 23:11 2052831924 WATERS EDGE PAGE 13 Evaluation of Trees for Danus and Vield Richards Gilles Consulling June 9, 2006 Page lO of II Slgni1lcant Existing Tree Continuous chainlink Fencing Post@ MaJ( 10' O.C. Install as shown on plans a minimum of 5 feet outside dripline of tree(s) 1. Six-foot high temporary chain link fence shall be placed as shown on plans. Fence shall completely encircle tree(s), Install fence posts using pier blocks only. Avoid driving posts or stakes into major roots, 2, Make a clean straight cut to ramove damaged portion of root for all roots over 1" in diameter damaged during construction. All exposed roots shall be temporarily covered with damp burlap and covered with soils the same day, if pOSSible, to prevent drying. If not possible, burlap must be kept moist at all times, 3, Work with the protection fencing shall be done manually. No stockpiling of materials, soil, debris, vehicle traffic, or storage of equipment or machinery shall be allowed within the limit of the fencing, 4. Cement trucks must not be allowed to deposit waste or wash out materials from their trucks within the Tree Protection Fences. 5. The ansa within the Tree Protection Fencing must be covered with wood chips, hog fuel, or similar materials to a depth of 8 to 10 inches. The materials should be placed prior to beginning construction and remain until the Tree Protection Fencing is taken down, 06/12/1994 23:11 2062831924 ATTACHMENT 2 -REFERENCES WATERS EDGE Evaluation ofTtees for Darius and Vicki Richards Gilles Coruultmg June 9. 2006 Page II of II 1. Harris, Richard W et ai, Arbor/culture, Integrated Management of [,andscape Trees. Shrubs. and Vines. Fourth Edit/on. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. 2004. 2 Matheney, Nelda P. & Clark James R., Evaluation of Hazard Trees. Second Edition, The International Society of Arboriculture Press, Savoy, Illinois. 1994 3. Matheney, Nelda P. & Clark James R, Trees & Development. A Technical (;uJde fO Preservation of Trees During Land Development, The International Society of Arboriculture Press, Savoy, Illinois. 1998. 4. Mathews, Daniel, Cascade • OlympIc Natural History, Raven Editions withe Portland Audubon Society, Portland, OR 1992. 5. Manheck, Claus Prof and Ass. JUT Mrs. Helge Breloer, The Body Language 0/ Trees. A Handbook/or Failure Analysis, HMSO, London, England. 1994. 6. Pojar, Jim & MacKinnon, Andy, Planfs of the Pacific Northwest Coast, Lone Pine Publishing, Redmond, W A 1994 7. Scharpf, Robert F. Diseases of Paqfic Coast Conifers, USDA Forest Service, Agriculture Handbook 521, revised June 1993 8. Watson, Dr. Gary W., & Dr. Dan Neely Editors, Trees & Building Site.l, The International Society of Arboriculture Press, Savoy, IL. 1995. ~luly 17, 2006 CONSENT AGENDA Council Meeting Minutes of 7110/2006 Appointment: Municipal Arts Commission CAG: 06-108, Maplewood Golf Course Driving Range Netting, NETServices City Clerk: Quarterly Contract List, 4/1/2006 to 613012006 Appeal: Defoor Short Plat, Terry Defoor, SHP-05-089 Appeal: Provost Variances, Alan & Cynthia Provost, V -06- 024 - Comprehensive Plan: 2006 Amendments EDNSP: Legislative Consulting Services, Doug Levy EDNSP: SLake W A Infrastructure Improvement Project Grant, Economic Development Administration Annexation: Maplewood Addition, Maple Valley Hwy Renton City Council Minutes Page 247 Johnson stated that bikers fail to dismount their bikes when they cross the bridge by the Renton Senior Activity Center. On another subject, he thanked Council for its support of the senior center, and conveyed how much he enjoys the center's planned hikes. Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Approval ofCouneil meeting minutes of7110/2006. Council concur. Mayor Keolker appointed Evelyn Reingold, 833 SW Sunset Blvd., L-56, Renton, 98055, to the Municipal Arts Commission to fill the unexpired term of Edythe Gandy, who has resigned (term to expire 12/3112006). Refer to Community Services Committee. City Clerk reported bid opening on 6130/2006 for CAG-06-108, Maplewood Golf Course Driving Range Netting Replacement; three bids; engineer's estimate $100,000 -$110,000; and submitted staff recommendation to award the contract to low bidder, NETServices, LLC, in the amount of$\35,449.81. Council concur. City Clerk submitted Quarterly Contract List for period of 41112006 to 6/30/2006; 51 contracts and 20 addenda totaling $9, I 08,034.81. Information. City Clerk reported appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision regarding the Defoor Short Plat; appeal filed on 6/22/2006 by Terry Defoor, represented by Karen Orehoski, Ricci Grube Aita, PLLC, 1601 2nd Ave., Suite 1080, Seattle, 98112, accompanied by required fee. The appeal packet includes one additional letter received as allowed by City Code. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. City Clerk reported appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision regarding the Provost variances application; appeal filed on 613012006 by Alan and Cynthia Provost, PO Box 1492, Renton, 98057, accompanied by required fee. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department requested approval of a one-time exception to the December 15 filing deadline for two additional City-initiated 2006 Comprehensive Plan amendments, and referral of the amendments to the Planning and Development Committee and Planning Commission. Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department recommended approval of an agreement in the amount of $53,200 with Doug Levy for legislative consulting services for 2006-2007. Council concur. Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department recommended approval of an agreement with the U.S. Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration for a $2,054,314 Financial Assistance Award for the South Lake Washington Infrastructure Improvement Project. Council concur. Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department recommended a public hearing be set on 81712006 to consider the proposed Maplewood Addition Annexation (located in the vicinity of Maple Valley Hwy.) and associated zoning, for which the City's requested boundary expansion was approved by the Boundary Review Board (from 60.5 to 340 acres). Council concur. L 'OF RENTON COUNCIL AGEND _ I AI U: Submitting Data: For Agenda of: 0711712006 Dept/Div/Board .. AJLS/City Clerk Staff Contact. ..... Bormie I. Walton Agenda Status Consent. ............. Subject: Public Hearing .. Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 6/20/2006 Correspondence .. regarding the Provost Variances application. (File No. a rdi nance ............. LUA-06-024, V) Resolution ............ Old Business ........ Exhibits: New Business ....... A. City Clerk's letter (7/7/2006) Study Sessions ...... B. Appeal-Alan & Cynthia Provost (6/3012006) Information ......... C. Hearing Examiner's Report & Decision (6120/2006) Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer to Planning and Development Committee. Legal Dept.. ...... . Finance Dept.. .. .. Other. ............. . Fiscal Impact: N/ A Expenditure Required .. . Transfer/ Amendment. ...... . Amount Budgeted ...... . Revenue Generated ........ . Total Project Budget City Share Total Proiect.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Appeal of the Hearing Examiner decision on the Provost Variances application was filed on 6/3012006 by Alan & Cynthia Provost, accompanied by the required $75 fee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Council to take action on the Provost Variances application appeal. cc: Jennifer Henning Larry Warren Remonnetlagnbillf bh X CIT July 7, 2006 APPEAL FILED BY: Alan and Cynthia Provost OF RENTON City Clerk Bonnie I. Walton RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 6/20/2006 regarding the Provost Variances application, located at 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. N. (File No. LUA-06-024, V) To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the hearing examiner's decision on the Provost Variances application has been filed with the City Clerk. In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-1 !OF, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. Other parties of record may submit letters limited to support of their positions regarding the appeal within ten (10) days of the date of mailing of the notification of the filing of the appeal. The deadline for submission of additional letters is 5:00 pm, July 17,2006. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Conunittee .. The Council Liaison will notify all parties of record of the date and time ofthe Planning and Development Committee meeting. If you are not listed in local telephone directories and wish to attend the meeting, please call the Council Liaison at 425-430-6501 for information. The reconunendation of the Committee will be presented for consideration by the fuIl Council at a subsequent Council meeting. Copy of the appeal and the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeals of Hearing Examiner decisions or recommendations are attached. Please note that the City Council will be considering the merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unless a showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, no further evidence or testimony on this matter will be accepted by the City Council. For additional information or assistance, please feel free to call me at 425-430-6502. Sincerely, Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Attachments --------------------~---~RENT""O" N" lOSS South Grady Way -Renton, Washington 98055 -(425) 43()..6510 I FAX (425) 430-6516 (i) This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE ClTYOF RENi'ON / . JUN 302006 APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISIONIRECOMMENDA~' BliCeIVEt> ~. TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL • ~:-(jyy W!RI<'. OFFICE FILENO.UU'-~ ,V-H IJ:;5/J,m'/pJ APPUCATIONNAME(/jL!iA3 8 CYA)rf(I.tf~o,!O.s r ()qg/,4ttJctS- The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated :::ru iJt: ..;? 0 , 2oa....6 l. IDENTIFlCATIONOFPARTY APPELLA)IT: ~ REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY): Name: /{tlVJ :tC0)J/{1l4J;€o'LhSr Name: _________ _ AddreSs£!2 l50x 1'-19.;2, Address: ________ _ R..ENTDjJ z,VIl! ?flc£ 2 f • 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: FINDING OF FACT: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's Report) NO.'!Z Error: gEe tfrrdCl-fED Correction: ______________________________________________ ___ CONCLUSIONS: NO.,L Error: ,Sec drTlKiI€D Ii 2 ~~ Correction: ______________________________________________ _ OTHER: No. _ Error: ---,O.'>...-L..l.e:".....!=:.e_L4LLT.J.T....I4=t;.· Lc-1:/-I':LC.6J.ll!....-__________ _ Correction: ______________________________________________ _ 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REOUES1ED The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: X explanation, if desired) Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: ::; oCt: IITrI1CH~l> Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: L~~--hL-, ~tlRepresentative Signature ~ NOTE: Please refer to Tdle IV, Chapter 8, 0/ the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8·11 OF, for specific appeal procedures. H:\CITY CLERK\APPEALIAPPEAL to Council.doc City of Renton Municipal Code: Title lV, Chapter 8, Section I IO -Appeals -, ,. 4.8-JlOC4 The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170, the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-IIOF: Appeals to City Council -Procedures J. Time for Appeal: Unless a specific section or State law providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court or any other body, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Council, upon a form furnished by the City Clerk, within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. 2. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal. the City Clerk shaH notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 3. Opportnnity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 4. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report, the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Oni 3658, 9-13-1982) 5. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required, the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the applicant In the absence of an entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner, (Ord. 4389, 1-25-1993) 6. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. 7. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050FI, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the proceeding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. 8. Council Action: If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050F2 and F3, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a reconnnendation of !be Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified, the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application. 9. Decision Documentation: In any event, the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord 3658, 9-13-1982) 10. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames established under subsection G5 of this Section, (Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997) Alan and Cyndie Provost P.O. Box 1492 Renton, WA 98057 Re: AITACHMENT TO APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS AND PROPOSED CORRECTIONS FINDING OF FACT #7 Error: That the applicants did not meet conditions placed upon the granting of these same requested variances in 1997. Correction: The evidence presented at the hearing, along with record of the City of Renton a copy of which is attached, proves that the applicant did record the necessary restrictive covenants. The only reason these variances granted in 1997 expired is delay in construction of the house. ERRORS IN CONCLUSION OF LAW #1 A. The erroneous implication that one is less entitled to a variance because one acquires property knowing that the code will cause building problems. This is contrary to the holding in Hoberg v. City of Bellevue, 76 Wn. 2d 810, 854 P.2d 1072 (1993) which was that the mere purchase of property with knowledge of defects requiring a variance does not disqualify the owner from seeking the variance. B. The erroneous implication that a variance should only be granted to the extent necessary to allow reasonable use of the property. This limited relief is contrary to the much broader purpose of variances mandated in both Renton Municipal Code 4835,3-27-2000 and RCW 36.70.020(14). The code seeks to use variances so as to not deprive a subject property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. The statute echoes this equal privilege goal in its definition of a variance: "a variance is the means by which an adjustment is made in the application of the specific regulations of a zoning ordinance to a particular piece of property, which property, becanse of special circumstances applicable to it, is deprived of privileges commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone and which adjustment remedies disparity in privileges". ERRORS IN CONCLUSION OF LAW #2 A. The erroneous statement that "There is no reason to approve a variance for a three-story house". B. The erroneous conclusion that granting a variance regarding a third story would create a precedent entitling every home in the city on a small lot to add a third story. By definition, a variance depends upon the unique characteristics of the particular lot and its location. The Examiner's reasoning ignores the evidence that the subject lot is on the waterfront where other houses being built are large, and that this particular lot has characteristics not shared by the other waterfront properties (a "z" shape and a peninsula jutting into the water) such that it needs a variance in order to build a home on it like others being built in the same vicinity without a variance. C. The erroneous conclusion that the purpose of the limitation on the number of stories is to control the number of inhabitants including noise and traffic caused by more people. There was no evidence presented at the hearing to support this conclusion, nor was there a citation to the legislative record. In fact, the number of inhabitants is controlled in this zone by the fact that it is to be used only by a single family for that family's residence. This is supported by the fact that the city staff, who would be the ones to raise such issues as traffic etc., in fact supported this proposed variance. The stories ordinance, like all dimension regulatious, is a matter of aesthetics, and three stories fits well in this neighborhood. ERRORS IN CONCLUSION OF LAW #3 A. The error of failing to consider the fact that the unique shape of the lot provides more shoreline than anticipated by the 25 foot setback. That even with the requested variance from the 25 foot setback, this lot would leave approximately 1,520 square feet of shoreline whereas the typical 40 foot wide waterfront lot with a 25 foot set back would leave only 1,000 square feet of shoreline. PROPOSED CORRECTED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW A. As stated in the staff's report in support of the variance allowing the 3rd story, the variance is consistent with the goal in the Renton Comprehensive Plan of promoting re-investment and upgrade of existing neighborhoods through redevelopment of small underutilized parcels. B. Conclusions of Law #'s 2 through 5, and #'s 7 through 10 reached by this same Hearing Examiner in 1997 pursuant to a substantially identical application and evidence should be made again. A copy of said 1997 decision is attached 3. SUMMARY OF REQUESTED RELIEF: Reverse the decision denying the variance for the third story and for a ten foot setback. ------------------------------ ) Mitch Williams MF Williams Cons1nJCtion Provost Variance File No-: LUA-97-065,V Augtlst 14, 1997 Pa&e6 19. 20. 21. There are single family homes both north and south ofUle subject site. A review of the area shows1hat the shoreline makes a substantial jog directly in the middle of the applicants cunmt property. The developmcnt of a dwelling as proposed would not severely Impact the views of adjacent parcels due to the staggered narure of the shoreline. Other homes in the area arc both larger and smaIlet than that proposed in this case. The ",uposed home would be less than the JO feel beight pennitted in the zone, but a recent obange in .egulations limited b!llDes to two stmies in height A review of -umce appIi<:aIioos fur properties a10ag til<: shardine show vmiances boCb denied and "PI" 0YCd.. ]t ~ that each varian<:c deteqnined the w>Ique circumsfmll:es of eadJ pamel vis a vis upland lN8 and parcel width and depth. CONCLUSIONS: Height V:ni ... nce I. Variances may be granted when the property generall.y satisfies aU the ooaditioas described in part below: •. The applicallt suffers II1IIIue hardship caused by special circ:umSlaDccs suc:b .: the size, siNlpc, wpograpby, or-locatioa wbc:n: code enfOlUllleat woald deprive the ~ of rights and privileges eajoyal by 0Ihers similarly situated; b. The granting of tile variance would not materially harm either the pUblic welfare or other property in the vicinity; c. The approvaJ wiD IIOIIOIIIISIitutc a special privilege iI. """istePt with the limitations Oft other property in thevicinily; and II. The variance is the minimwn variance foGCCSSaly to allow n:asonable lbcJopmmt of the subject site. The applicant. ",openy appeaB ripe for the variance requested. 2. The property in queslion wItkb combines two approximately 20 foot wide lots 10 order to _ <me building pad is SCYady oonsIraiDacI by the shoreline ad Lm Wasbiogtou. Not only ~ the pamels of unequal IengdI, but a lalJe ponioa ofthesc sidc-by-sidc 1m; ~ sulm=gc:d below the Jake's IWface. MoSt of the newer houses aJoac the shoreline in this vicinity have filiI, exploited their limited WlSUbmcrged IRa by ,..mciDg one or more setbacks to iuClease the footprint...... lD this case, the lot still coostrains the development of. reasonable dwening, p;IIIicuIarIy when compared with IIIese newer neighbon. 3. Approval of a variance to allow a three-stOI)' hom. willltOl materially harm either the public OJ' neighboring properties.. The ........ reasoo being that the zone permits • home to be 30 teet taB in lID)' event ..... the proposed home will_ exceed that limit. It also appeaiC that doe to the shape of tile shoreline and the Ioealion ofother homes along the shoIeline that lb. dwelling would not signif'tc8lJlly intrude in the existing viewsc:ape. .' -. ------ -~~,w-· - ADpst 14. 1997 OFFICE OFllIE DEARING t:XAMINER aTY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPLICANT: LOCATION: SUMMARY OF Rl!QUEST: SUMMARY OF ACllON: DEVELOPMENT SERVlCllS REPORT: PUBUC HEARlNG: Mitd1 Williams MF Williams Cons1Nction Provost v.n-:e File No.: LUA-97..()6S. V Nor1h of3707 LKe WasbiDgtaa Blvd.. N Variance of !be Shon:Iiac MasIer Program fD Jeduc;e the required 20 foot setbzck Iiom 1tte water'r edge to 10 feet; ud ___ to exceed!be~ heigllt IiIIlit by ODe story. ~ Services ReDD"'aw11tion: Approve with cooditiuus TheDevelnpm .... Services Report was ~ by the Eumiocc on July 29. 1997. After reviewiag the Devciopa"iI Sornccs RqJoct, examining available iofilnBaIioa on file \Wi1h die -wJicatioa, field ell" king 1be property aDd suu-'iog IIIrlII; the EumiDer CODdIlCtcd • public: heariDa 011 !be sui!ja:t lIS follows: MINUTES 'Ilutfi rr .. ., 7 " trrlln._.UiYo./lII4A. ... S.l".,"aubrt. ne IegIlI reetmlis r«#rdd_1tIp& The hearing opened 011 Tuesday, AapstS.l997. at 10:05 a.m. iatheoM.:aQ t CIS .. dIe SCCOIIdfloor of !be Renton M\IIIicipaI Building. l'IIties wisIifII& to IeSIifY _IIff"JIIIMd by the Eumbler. The foIJowio1g exlIibiIs __ eMIled inIo 1IIc ~ EddIIit I!I .. 1: YeUc.w file Q>i" . . 8 !be oriPaI '''''itN-.2: V"1Cinity map application, proof ofy'S'. proof ofJllll'Icarioa'" oda cIocuaJcpwjou paliueat 10 dIis m ... ., EJblblll! .. ~ Plarplao ExIaihIt tin. !to BaiJdiog oJewtiocRs ElIII!!!! I!IA. s: Water boundary map ;twhlbit 6 __ Ii; SbeeISCtpe of pnlPOscd sire E"lhl!lll'fa. 2: IJIusIratioa afhaildiDs IIeight lind story limit ----_.--' Mitch Williams MF Williams ConsInK:Iion Provost V monee File No.: LUA-97-065, V August 14, 1991 Page 2 ---_.---------- The hearing opened with a p'.5 utation of the staff report by .IJlNNIFER 1ffiNNING. Project Mauager, Development Services, Ci1;y ofReaton. 200 Mill Avenue South; Ilcuton, WashiuglDn 980SS. Tho applicant is requesting two varianocs. The IJtSt is a variance from the Shocdine Master Pro~ (SMP) noqulraneots IIId is a request for reduced rear yard seIbMc The SMP requites that thete be a minimum of20 feet timllhe water's cdgo 10 the sInICtUrC. The applicant is requesting that. pGl1ioo of tile home be aIJoMd 10 be located withia 10 ~ofthe waw'sedge.. Tbcsec:oodvariaocebeingSOll&ht is. wriaaceftomtheCity's :moillgcode pcrWaing 10 the beigbt of a single family residential sb nctme. Those dcvdopnmt standardr specify that the height shall be limited 10 30 mer. or 10 two fI1Ories. The applicant is proposing • IluiJdillg that would be between 29 and 30 feet ill -' height, but would be three stDries.. This site is located 011 the shores oflAlce WashinglDn and is rcacbed by ID cxjstiDg priyate access eo_t. The ueighborhood bas dtNeIoped geacrally with single fiuniIy rcsidcntiaJ homes along tbe Wee shore. Tbcse lots _ unique ill that 1he Imd IIU is raIber small. The lots that c:omprisc the subject pucel are 49 and SO and the Imd area is ~bout 3,300 square feel. It then CI<teods to tbe west to tbe imler harbor tine of 1he Jake. A substanlial portion oCtile property is actually under water. "The boal house 011 tbe jlioped>' will""""';'" lui existing sbed IDd gsrage Oil the 1*upet1¥ would be demolished. Because this property is located lID boIb land and water, and because IheIe is I2l ex.isQng rock walla:ross Lot 49, which is 1he IlOItb half of tbe suiject .,-cl. it creates a Z-dIaped Iaad area ill which the applicant could develop tIIis panicularpropc:rty. To _setbacks requiremea1s, tile liiaiP."" building pad area would be 960 square feet. The walel" is at leasI S6 fcetfium the south..estc:orucroftbe jlioposed sIructlIre. "The 10 foot vmaacc requested is fi'oma column 1hat is Dear the center ofllle home out 10 the rock wall. "There is just a vel)' short area, from.5 to 17 feet. that would be ill the reduced setback anoa. The criteria for the SMP variance is that then: are exceptiooaI or emaordiDary cln:um_ or CODditions applyillg to the ~ p:opcnythat geaerally do not apply to oIher properties 01" shordiacs in the same vicillil¥. The land ueaoftbe 5Ub.itd pan:el is somewhat ,_'1Iecause of the existing rock waD wIdc:h sbortens the land area and __ a Z-5baped bwldio& pad area. ne appIicMt lias COIIleaded thai the shape of the 101 coupled with the 20 fOot IdIIact ....... emeot from die __ • edp does 1IJ!iustly Jestric:t 1he building pad site for the home. A fimber criteria is th&t the ~ is _say for Jll'escn<atioa and Clijoymeot of a substantial plOp .. ty rightoftbe eppf''''IIIUbat is also possessed by die owners mother popenies OIl shcreIincs in 1he same vicinity. The requesIed ~.imce would pennit the applicant to CClIlSbox:t a single f:amily home that has a maximlllD foolpriol of approximaIely 960 square fcet of floor area OIl each of three!ems. This would preserve the appIicuat's right 10 dewIop • resi rJeatial home thai is eiIbc£ c:ooopaIabic or Jess 1hIm COIIIpIII8bIe to the other exisIiDg bootes ill the imulcdiate viciuity of the jlioposed dwelliDg. Anotha-erilcria is that !be V.oIllCC pcmlit would not be detrimeotal1D the public welfare or injun: jliOjiCiUes OIl the sbordiae ill the same vicinity. This particular "Yali8DCC request would not result ill impaIlt to a ~ bea<:b area nor a public access point. The Jeduced setbItc:k would Ilol impede views to, from or aIoug!he watc:rs edge. "The SMP ""comages uses aloug the sItoreliue thai do not obsIruc:t Yiews, that do not disturb the community and that haw ... appropn8le dcsi&n theme. The applicaat is proposing a single family Itomc that medS the use, eotapatibilil¥ and aesthetic.tfects ponion of the SMP. TItcre appear to be adcqu81e utitities available to sesvethe ana. The proposed use would not exceed cIeDsity allowed by the zooin, code IDd it ~ meet tbe criteria DOled in the residenlial deveIoptneuJportion oftbe SMP. .. , . J " .• .. , Mitch Williams MF Williams CoasIJucUOIl Provost Variance File No.: LUA-!l7-065,V August J 4, 1997 Page 3 "-~'I The design of the me and 51n1c1ureappearto be banDouious with the IIaI£d poIicicsof!he SMP. The first floor of1he proposed &tn1CIure woulcI be page, • beach mom and • bad! area. The SCCDIId 5IoIY would be Ititc:heD. diniDg, baIIuOOlll, and the third SIOly would baYe • master bed!oom. bad! area, IIIId • small pest room. It woulel J'CSWt in lJI»IOXimaJdy 2,-480 square fed of living area. It would haw a flat roof. RegardiDg!he 7JOJ1ing ~ !he app!icmt is requesainc relief from !he stmy requirement as dcfiaecI in tho helgbt portion of!he maing code. 'fky would like to build • stnIcIurc that is betNCell 29 aod 30 fed in height which is penniUed by !he code, ~ .. 'lfOIIId like to do 1his in fJIICc stcrics; DOt two sIDrics as IIictakd by code. The Idjeccat hom .. to the~ a piIdJed roofand is Moot 3S feet inheigbt. The ~ conb:DcIs !bat the height variaacc is ace 'f bceausc of the size and sbape of the eJCistiag parcel and in order to complywitb the sdbKt rcqubaacats of the ZlOIIiag code. Gilaa 1bc __ uIbacks die IllQiIl1I1111 building fooIpriut would be !160 SOJIIUC feet. 11nIt 'I\'OIJld allow • fDIaI of l,92O square feel if1bey were to build a lwD- sIol)' dwelling. "'" would indado tho two-car p-age. The actt.I Jiving ..-oflhe house wouJd be 1,480 square feet. There .... two eQsUng _ homes JocaII:d to the IIOI1IIIbat Ire 1brc:c stmy s1ndwe;; and IIC considerably Iarger.than 1,920 square feet. The SMP docs allow __ cs along the sbotcIiac up to 3S fcot in height, but !he City's mniDg code docs not aJIow!bat IIeigbt. GranIiDg of the height VlIriaDee docs DIll affect acijaecut sigbt lines which aJIow vjcws to Lake WII!IbiJIsIon. nis is becauso of the low elevation oflbe suI!ject pan:el ill reIatioa to the raised BurliIIgIQa .... diem right-of. way to tho oast. lu addition, die IDIIXimum IIei&fIt ofllle 1Ine SfOIy lInICtlUe wau/d DOl crcced tile oVeran beight limit which is 30 fed allowed ill tbe R-I _ The jHOjIOSiid SCI .... e would DOl exceed die exis1iDg beight oEtho ~ rcsidalcoto the south. Staff recommends approvaJ ofboth the 8M]> VIrianco fOl'dIe reduced rear yard seIbacIt and aim tile height variance from the zoning code, IUbjeet to cooacfitioIIs. The tint cooditioa is that the boigIJt oftbe rosicIeac:e would not ew:eed the m.rjp .... allowed beigbt althe applicable ZOQO as_ rum' ill f.ub ... is ill effect ... the time the eppIicIIIion is made for baiIdiag permit. The secoud COIICIiIiOII is !bat the IlliDimIUll IIIJowabIe setback fiom die WIler', edge sballnot be lIP)' less doau 10 feel being requesa:d ..t 0DIy ill that __ that is problematic with reprd to the rock WIlL Staffwoald aim ~ a .atlidive CQ'ca •• be recoaded!bat docs noullow auy sort of stnICtUi'eB wi!hin !bat 10 foot area and ..... it be __ """' lIS opeII pIaIaIed __ or ground JeYflI patio. A l\Irther _nded cmdiIioa is tim IIppIieur be ftlI(IIiraIlo obcaio aD the .... y pennits and awrovaJs for the ptqIOSaI, including buildiugpomails, catificate of _ aod __ availability, aod to comply wid! all code requirements. MjlGb Wjlliams.P.O. Bm:361,Mcacer1slaacl, Washiogton, 98040, 1I)IIJIjQatbcaeia, iIJusIraIed die sctbackarea requested. He expIaiacd that the paniaalar dcsiga of the stnac:Iuac is two-foJd -to mako the bouse more ~ .esdIcticaIly, and 10 pto" a SIIIaIJ IIOOe:SS _to p:t m. the ~ II1Id out 10 the beach 8IId provide. bath 8Jeafor_fioot beaclaaclivitics. ThebaiJdiugfuolpaiutitsclfiu.!hrnmall. Whon the applicant purchasod the propeIty in 1916 the zoning code IIIlowed tIm.e BIoIy sta_cs. Mr. Williams sbrted that they had aa:ommodliCd tbeparkiugfortbe jHOPOry immediatdyto the south as reqllCii1ed by staff. He added that ths o\'eIaIJ charactcaistic:s of the ..-homes to the north .... of. &my hip ~ of c:onstruc:tiOll standatds. They arc aesthaIicaJIy pleasing and the iuitiaI iaupaasioo is !bey are all Jarser than the proporty COIISIiuctiOil being proposed here. Mitch Williams MF Williams ConsllUction Provost VII'ian<;e File No.: LUA-97-065,V August 14, 1997 Page 4 ----------- AI Provost. 1224 N-32nd, Renton, Washington 98056, own ... herem. expJiIincd the history of his owucrship of the subject site and adjac:eot Lots 51 and 52. Regarding the existing boathouse, he reIared the CMIIIts of a _t windstorm wherein .. portion of an auached lean-to had brown onto a neighbor's dock. He stated the boathouse has been 1bere for a long time and is s1rucIImIIly sound, built with fuur 14 x 10 inch beams overhead. He wOuld be willing to have the boatboIIse inspected Mr. Provost futtber explained some oftbe lDIusuaI circumstaru:es drat prompb:d the shweliae varianee, partic:ularfythe angled CUrv$OII Lot 49. 10 looking at the 13 houses that an: ac:c:esscd offllle street that goes to the north,.Ihete would still be 9 houses out oftbose I J houses drat arc bigger than their pioposed house, even with the variances. He also stated that ....... • ... of the location of the site, there will be DO impact to the riew from adjaccnthouscs. 1bcre arc cumntlytwo ""etgJ=<l1rees 011 the propc:rtywhicb IfIPIic;antplus tokecp. Sleven Altrinl'er. 3101 Wells Avenue North. RcnIOn, Washington 98056, $Wed that he owns 600 fcct from Lake Washington Boulevard to We/Is AWllIle all the way up the hill. He has,DO objedioD 10 the building. hilt he would libo to see thetrecs removed. flis main concern was withthcbeightvariancc and whctberitwas setting a preccdeDce for furure variances. At some time in the filtt= be pIaas to short plat hi!; property and will ask for Ibe same variaIIcc. The Exaariner cxplaincd that this appIic:ant ,.. dealing willi 8ft IJIIUSU8lIy small nOlI-submerged surfiIcc land area, aad that Mr. AItringcr wouJd have to show fie wrious lwdsbips and the physical mel topographical COIISII'aiots that would allow a wrianeco. The EUllliDer called to.-M1bcr tt:.stimooy ~ing 1his JBO.iect. Thecc was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 11:00 lUll. FJNDJNGs, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION Having nwicwed the recotd in 1his _. the Examil= DOW makes and enters the following: FJM>INGS: I. The applicant, Mitc:b William$ for AI and Cindy Provost, riled requests for-approval of a variance to allow a tbree-SlOIy single family residence, and for approval of a variance to allow a 10 foot ,..".,. yard setback from the sborcline of Lake Washington_ 2. The yellow file containing the $IlIft'report. the State EnYironmennI Policy A<:t (SEPA) documentation and oIhcr pertinent matetials was entered into the m;onlas Exhibit 111. 3. The Eo'DOiJOIIentaI Review Coauniltce (ERe). the City's respomtlJleofficial, detemrined tIlat the proposal is exempt fi'om an enviroomeutal as=sment. 4. The subject proposal was rmewed by all dcpartmcDts with 8D interest in Ibe matter. S. The subject site is located all70f Lake Washington BouIcvard North. Ac:tuaIly. the site is accessed by a sepaJ1Itc roadway off Lake Washington Boulevard. TIle JHope.ty, coosistiag of two side-by-side parcels, is located on the shoreline of Lake Washington. " Mitch Williams \ MF Williams Construction PrOVost variance File No.: LUA-97·06S,V August 14. 1997 PageS 6. The subject site was _ed to the City ova-a namber of montbs with the adoption ofOrdin_ 179 I. 1800 and 1804 ell&l>led betweeII SeplaDber ad December of IgSg. 7. The map element of the CompJC:llcosiw Plan dcsigoates the area in wbich the ~ site is \ocat£d as suitable for the development of single family uses, 1M does not mandaIe sud! development without CODSidera1ion of ather policies of the Plan. 8. The subj_ site is :zooed R-II wbich pennits up to eight siogle family homes per acre. 9. As noted, the subject sire COIISists of two lots with part of cadi lot SDbmerpd below the surface of the lake. These.puceIs are eaeh ~20 feet wide. 11Ie DpI8Dd prdry portions of these Jots vary in length. The IIOI1bemmost pan;e.I is iippoxim.Uely 71 feet long IIIId the routhem 8djoiniaj; parcel is approximately 100 feet long. 10. The sbordiae or edge of these pucds is m-Iy defined by .. zjgzagzing roc:Ic wall or buB:llead. There is no nllural sbordine. II. Currenlly. a 20 foot wide and 40 foot deep boIthouse is Joc:efcd approximately 12 feet out from the shore of the IIOI1hem puofi and is conn c\ed to the sbcn by a nanvw pier. It sufJeaed wiad damage this winter and is in need ofrepair. 12. An approltimately 8 foot SIIjU8I'C shed is l<>c:I£d aIoag the water's edge Oft the 1IOtfhcm lot. It will be removed. ]3. Secfjon 4-31·5(D)(9Xa) lesbim tbelicigbt ofsiJlgle familydweltiags as follows: The height of. dwelling or sU aetw'C: shall neiIba-exceed _ (2) stories nor thirty feet (30') in beight and shall not coafJict Willa the aiIport height restrM:tioos of Section 4.3 J. 17 of this Cbapter. 14. Ihen:fiJn!, the appJicanthas ICIf p h •• i&ot:e to allow the buiJcIii18 to be:tbree (3) stories lIlI. 15. The City's Shoreline Mastel-Program requires siiIcIt fliilily lIoines to be sel Net 20 feet fum tbe shamble of Lake Washingtoa (Sectioa 4.07 .o2(D». The appIiCIIIC has pcoposed a miaimam Idbaek of ten (10) fa>tfrom the lake. 16. The proposed fuotpciulaod bee sluiy heigbtis iuIeocIedtoyieJd a..-blesingle famalydwellillg. There would be a ground level &.otpriat of 960 ~ feet. The t--.car pnge of 400 square feet would leave a two-story home with 1,soD SIJII8ft' fi:et. Pnljeeted _1Iuec: sIIlries, the 1Iomc would be approximately 2,180 sqvme feet Ic&s 400 sqIiII'e feet or appIOXimaaely2,4lIO sqaMO feet. 17. The plot piau and building footprint shows the bouse follows tIie irregular stepped western or shoreward property line. This creM£S a sethadt in """ 10caticIII wbicb is redoa:d to 10 feet at a oomer or angle where the house (aeadc _ bed. flWI1Y from tbe sbotdinc:. J 8. The unclertying applieaDls own the actioining _ pm:eJs to the south. An existing home is IOCIiIed on that property. .. -"_.-------_.-------------- ."' .," , . Mitcb Williams MF Winiams Construction Provost Variance File No.: WA-97-065.V August 14. 1997 Page 7 4. As noted, 0Ihet vuiauc;es have been issued whea the UIIdcdyinc parcels were significantly constrained by their size or sbapc. Granting of tbis variaace shouJd DOt c:mI1e any speciaJ privilege and is DOt inconsistent with wbat has _led on other nearby ",~. S. The variance for one additioaal floor is the miaimum, ~ the other consIIaints !bat aIteady limit the cIevdopIIblc lot area. Again. die additional Ooor will not cxceecI the absoIuIe 30 toot height limit imposed on Ibis zone. 6. In addition 10 the criteria DOled above, shclIetine variances He subject 10 _1IIIditi0Ral review criteria taking into CXIII8id-non the ~ and &agiIc eaYilonmeat along the sboreIiDec Those JIIII1icuJar criteria .-e: a. Exceptional 01' IIXtraonIiIwy circumsIanccs or coacIition$ appIyiag to the sub.i«:t proper1y. 01' 10 !he intended use thereof; !hat do not apply geaenIJy 10 oIher properties 011 shorelines in the same vic:iaity. b. The variaIIce pamit is IICCcsSI.y of the prescorvation and Clljoymeoit of a substantial property right of the applicoult pcJ ss • ~ by the ownen of oIher Popeo1ies 00 sIIoreIiDcs ia the same vicinity. c. The vaoia&c pamit will DOt bem ' iaUy detrimcatal tothepublie weIfioe or iqjwious to property 00 the sbardincs ia Ihc same viciniIy. d. The variaoocc ~ ,..jU be in hannoay with the sencraJ purpoSe ami intent of Ibi. Master Program. e. The public welfare omd iatc:n:st wm be 1'1"1 5 ned; if _IlarDI will be doIIe to Ihc __ by granting the vuiIace dI8II would be ~ to !he.,..,...... by ~ it. the variaIIce wiD be denied, but each POjl&l)' __ shooII bemti"...s 10 the,.,.....,.., usc aad deYelopwCllt ofms lands as laue as $UCIi lISe -' deYeIupuacut is in Ioamooay wiIIIlho ~ JIIIrPIlI5'I and inleot of !he SbcIliIIiDe ManagemeutA«:t ofl91I,1IId the provisions ofrbls MasII:r ProgtMh, 7. As divulsed above, the shape IIId cmuH depIh oftbc upIud, ~ combiucd pan:cl ~ unique orexcep!ional "iI. 411'_csjtl$li(yiacvaoioulce oeIicl: The ........... widlh oftbc two pen:eIs is approxilJoatdy 40 feet wide. The two pen:eIs "'" two diIfezaat Ieops, oreatiog ... awk •• d land mass 01\ wbic:J& 10 construct a rei! JfJ aJ,1y sizaI sin&Ie r-iIy home. The lIome mOftl or less aaempcs to follow Ibe outline of the combined IJIIICCI ud 0IIe lXHIICtofthellomewould be wiItlin 10 feetoflbc shooeliae while most of the beJk would be set loacIc a 8Je3ta' disfanee oveoall. 8. Sin<:c variances fiom the shoreline scIbadr have bceD grIiIdcd omder similar cin:unt-..cs wbcte the lot depth or overall width was generally ~ die aopprovaI otlbis ~ Will po os .'C the property right for Ibis .""Iicaot as is eqjoyed by simiJarly w .... "" pmper1ies along Ihc shoreline. 9. Due to the shape of!he propeltf ud !he iIlIluIe of the shoRJinc, the .ddition of!he home pamiltod by variance app:oo.a1 willlllitbelllJllerially clcbiueutzl to eilheclhe poobtic ~or oftlerproperty in Ibis vicinity. Slaffhas recommended dw 110 additional 0Ib0¥e ground intrusioas be pemoilrod in the remaining .". ...... k. thereby ..suring that any iutrusion wiD be limited. The cxisling home to the soUlb • -_._-----------.------ "CISlO}) or li~/fR.I/J .(;XAMI{J{f?-. Mitch Williams r Cf.7 MF Williams ConslnlCtiOll Provost Variance File No.: LUA-97-065. V AUgust 14, 1997 PageS and the homes and boaIhousc 10 the north and on this lot also almIdy impa<:I OIh"",' views 10 some extent. I O. The public _If an .win be presened. Again, the poperty OWDer is merely being permittallO cxercise rigbtS exercisod by oIhcrs ill dlls vicinity who bave bad similar consIraiurs duo 10 lot size or dcpCh Of width. The applicant will be obseMng the remaining bIIIk ....... ds rmn while adding OIte additiooal story by not intruding ioto required sidcy.uds or exceeding the petIIlittod 30 root hoighL II. In <;:OPC:IusiOll, the variaocos requested lIppCIII reasonably _suy 10 .now the cIcvelopmeot of a DOl uareasonable singIo family chveIIiag in this location OIl t!Jese two preexisting legal a/dloagh substandard patcels. DECISION AND RECOMMENDAnON: The varianc:es 10 allow a Ibrcc: story single funily boIne withio 10 fed oflbe sboroIine is approved subject 10 the following conditions: 1. The applieant shall develop a single tianily "'-IS ~ ill Exhibit 3. 2. AppliIiaDl sball record • resII icti.c coveuant that does not allow any sort of .ddirioual slnJctUleS withio any oflbe setbaclr; area and that it be majnlaincd as ~ planted area or ground )cveI paW. 3. The boaIhouse may be repaired but shall not be expanded in any diRction or !lave MY change in itS bulk. 4. The actual pIIysicaI height of the ..-csideoc:o shaD not exceed • p1aoo of 30 feet above sround \cw:1. S. The applic:aot sbaU be nquirallO obtain aD 0Iber oem i pemticsalld appro,a1s for the proposal (i.e. baildingpermit, catificate ofwata-aod __ avulability, etc.). ORDERED'mIS 14th day ofAugusl, 1997. FREDJ. HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMJ1TED lHlS 14th day of August, 199110 the pmtics ofRCOrd: Iconifer Henning 200 Mill Avenue S Renton, WA 98055 Mitch Williams P.O. 80><361 Men:er Island, WA 98040 AlProvost 1124N32JK1 ReoIon, WA 98056 .' April 14, 1998 Mr. and Mrs. AI Provost 1224 N 32nd Renton. WA 98056 Rl:: Provost VariaDce FileNo. LUA97-06S,V Dear Mr. and MIs. Provost: ~, .. Your ieuea:to Jay CoWagfnD was reditectcd to this ofiicc as you bad the WIOOg oamc for the Heariug Examiner. This offioc has ~ your 1cUcr and O"P>jI$. The aneuants do I1Dl with the land but SO do the variances that were applied for by die appJicant ne , .. iw_ 'eS will alter the characIer and reduce the I.ed seIbacb for as Ioag as die ~ -ms. . The coWlllllltS can probably Ieflect the fact that 1bey would Iapsc ~ 8Ild if tile structure 0[ structmes _.emoved aad the lot mIIoied to a YaCIIIIl state. at wbidllime new j#4"'jts and variances, iflllC( 5 .y, would bcaequirahmdertbe1hcnafredivereguillions If1hc corxIitioDs imposed widl1he8f4iiOval_ ...... !lsllw.'*1.1hc ~iamlsbould have spoken up at that time. It is now too late to SI .... aM.1ly alfIIIr die deciSlO'L Some of 1his could have been lumdIed mon: eftecIivdy if1hc w.CIDaIds ill t/rqftfonn bad bcm sW,uitted for review to the City ~ as iumided in die cuucsp""'moe fiom 1bis oftice. Sincerely, ~j~~ FrcdJ.~ Hcaring Examiner cc: Jay Covington Larry WIlIIal Jennifer lJcnnlng 200 Mill Avenue South -Rearoo, Wasbingtoo 980SS -.lllb235-2593 . li\ ..... ~,.,.... ... ..,.,.. ..... 2K .... ---' ----------------------~ - DATE: TO: CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGIBUILDINGIPUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM March 30, 1998 FROM: Fred Kaufinan. Hearing Examiner JeaoiJilr Toth Henning Q'(\'1 SUBJECT, Provost Variance (File No. LUA-97-06S,V) The Provost'. application fur two Variances (OIIe from the Sborel.ine Master P"'lIJaJIl, and the olhei from the development staodan\s of the R-S Zone) was approved iD Aup, 1997 ",ith coaditions. The applicant wisbed 10 WI)' tram the Sboreline Master Program RqUiremeors fur a minimum 20-fOot setback from the water'. aJse, and proposed a 10 fbot sethad< from the water's edge. The second variance.q1lCSlCd V/Utoexceed the two-sIOIy bui1diDg bt>igbl\imit of the R-8 Zone by one-story. The rcconsidel2lioolappeal period (or the decisioo eudcd OIl August 28, 1997, and no appcaIs or : .quests fur m 005Q: 'atiua llI/CIe fiIcxI. On August 26. 1997, prior 10 the eod of the appeal period. a Jetter was scot tram the HcariDg &amine.-to the appIicaDt, Mitch Williams (archilectlCOlltractor for the 0_), mnindiug him of the appeal deadline. and providing iDstructions fur !be mcecution of the required R::5Iric:li\'C CXNtUiIIIS. CoodiIion No. 2 states that the: ''AppItotmt mall m:ord .. rumeN"" rovenanl tim doos no{ allow cmy sort of additional strucluru wlthi" ....." U/lhe setbaclc area and tim II be maillldiMd as f1/W1l plmued area Of' grmmd lwei paIiIJ. H The Jetter (copy attadJed) states that: "Reslricrtve COIIUItIIIfs. as (JIltlined ill th~ Emminu's Report and D«inan, lrifl haw /0 be f!Xectdd '/heu 00>JeIIQt1h musl aIro be a~ by a legal descriptitJn 0/ the properly. Santplu o/the formDt are mc/O.Nd. 1M rutrictJve ~ must be approwd by the CUy Anomey prior to !F!'!!"!ffi-Therefore, pleDse provide II copy 0/ the drtift cowmatrIS /0 Ollr office tIIId we will then forward them 10 the City Attomq for revitllO. The required legal descrlplion will tdso retpd~ nNl_ tIIId apptoWJI by the City as 10 00I'l'«I fonnol. After the tmmanB and legal description CUe apJ1I'OI1«i. tIIIII the c:tMfttInt.r execuIui, the nratur WIll be considered Jinal and the COVC1JQtJtS will be Jilsd With KIng Cmmly by rhe City Clerk. H . The property 0WIICtS (the plOYOSfs) appareot1y recejved a copy of the sample fonnat fur the restrictive covenants from the appIiea1It. widIout bePefit of the amllllJllUlYing letter from your officc. The Provosts recorded restnctM COWIWIIS for the property. UafOttuDIlieIy, the c:oveaaats were not Itfit:wCd by your ollioe oc the City Attorney, prior to m:onIiug. 1bc am:oants isIcIudcd a sunset clause dlatwould """'hiD the expUaOOn of tile rovcoaDis <Ill De=nbct 31. 202S. ADd, the restrictive coveuaoIs went bcyood the Jfaring E.xamiDer's Cooditioo No. 2 aod included Coodjrjoos No.2. 3, MardI 30, 1998 Pagel and 4. I forwarded a «:OpY of the covenaDts to Latry Wam:n for review. He approved the c;ovenants as to fOnt\, provided the sunset c:IIdSC is removed, as Condition No. 2 was inteoded to nut with the IlIJ1d, in petpctuity. I have had se-aI di$cussions wiIb the Prowsts. They dIougbt !bat the sample restricIivc C0\'C03IIt "duration" dale was standaJd ..... and neecIed to be ioduded in their document. They wete not happy witb the l7-year period !bat the c:owoaat _Id be ill e&ct, but they siped ("uDder protest") and recorded the <IoCII_ The Provosts wcno quite smprised to find out !hat the c:oveaaIII: needs to be nHcaxdcd to IUD with the IaDd "ill perpetuity". . It appears !hat the ""'" covenant does DOt need 10 include lanatlftgl' regarding !be boaIbouse and building height (pn:viously recorded Restrictive Ccm=naats No.2 ami No.3). The Hcariog Examiner Decision did DOt specify !bat asry of !be other cooditioo!s of approval, oIber Iban Condition No. 2 (regardq structutes ia tile aed>ack area), be ",willed. . The ProYOSIs letter ofMarnb 19dt appears to raise objecrioas !hat should ba-.e ...... acnd durioa the .eeoasicleralioolappea! period. ~, tbc:y do raise a 'faIid CXlDCerII in thc Ia<t JI3IlIaIllPb. If in the filture, City requin:lneuls dIaDgc to be mare permissi~ thea they shoukI be noquiRd to mc:et the same restrictions imposed co OIlIer proper1ies. l'bere it a process they could go tbrwgb to ..--thc restrictive COYCDaDI if Cil¥ R(!.1datioas DO longer apply to the paroel A descripioq of thc maIhod is amchcd (see Policy aad PIt.coduRl No. 400-13). Thc amcbed \etta" fiuPI the ProvoSl's was addRsscd to Jay C<wiDgtoo. Ir should have been direacd 10 you. A reply fIcm your office appears 10 be in onII:r. Could,au dime! thc reply to the owners1 They are: AI aad c,ndie ProvoSl, PO Box 823, ~.I.sIaad, WA 98040. A c;apy shou1d also be SCIlt to lhe appliamt: Mib:h Williams, MF Williams CoastnICIioa, PO Box 361. Mcn:e£ IsIaod, WA 98040. Please feel lite 10 COIIIII(t ... ur 6116 sbould you have lIllY questions. ~Ft! CITY OF RENTON Review Comments I J>esomIt Number CP9 B 0 9 5 ENERGY C~: JAN CONKLIN 425-277-6176 1. COMPLETE #6 ON CHECKLIST FOR EXHAUST FANS. SPBCIFY ALL FANS TO BE INSTALLED IN KITCHENS, BATHS. LAUNDRY ROOMS. SBLF VENTED RANGE DOES NOT MEBT CODB REQtJlRIi2IENT FOR VENTING TO THE BX'l'BRIOR. SEPARATE FAN R.EQUIRBD. BtrrLDrNGl PLANNING REVIEW: CRAIG BURlIlELL 1. PROVIDB A COMPLBTB SITE PLAN WITH SUBMITl'AL PER RENTON REQtnREMENTS • 2 . PROVIDB ATl'IC VBNTILATION 3. MINIMIlM VENTILATION AREA REQUDUID IS 5t OF FLOOR AREA. SHOW FLOOR AREA AND AREA OF OPENINGS ON FLOOR 2. 4. SHOW ONE HOUR FIRE SEPARATION BBTMBBN GARAGE AND HOUSE. 5. SHOW ONE HOUR FIRE SEPARATION UNDER STAIRS. 6 • PROVIDE VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCB WITH HEARING RXAMINBR CONDITION #2. 7. ENGINBBR SHOULD EVALUATE DEFLECTION OF STEEL FRAME TO DJM:lNSTRATB IT IS WITHIN ACCEPTABLE LIMITS. 8. APPLICANT MIJST PROVIDE TWO OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES PBR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. TANDEM PARIaNG IS ALLOWED. THE NEW PARKING SHOWN FOR THE EXISTING HOME DOESN'T MEET CODE REQUIREMENTS. THE APPLICANT WOULD NEED TO PROVIDE MINIMlJM DIMENSION OF 9 FImT WIDE BY 40 PBBT LOlIlG TO ACcot«>DATB THE TWO PARKING SPACES; OR SEEK A MODIFICATION FROM THE PARKING AND LOADING ORDINANCE. FOR THE MODIFICATION, THB APPLICANT WOULD NEED TO SUSHIT A LETTER TO THE ADMINISTRATOR OF P/B/PM DBPAR'1!4EtIT. THE LB'rrEII. MUST INCLUDE A WRITl'BN JUSTIFICATION AND THE REQUES'l'BD IIJDIFICATION MUST, CONFORM TO THE lNTBN'l' AND PORPOSB OF THE CODE; BE SHOWN TO BB JUSTIFIED AND RBQUIRBD FOR THE USB Ii: SITUATION IN'TBNDBO; WILL NOT CREATE ADVERSB IMPACTS TO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE VICINIT\,: AND THE REQUEST MUST BE MADE PRIOR TO DBTAILBD BNGINBERIHG. 9 • APPLICANT STILLS NBlIDS TO COMPLY WITH RBARING EXAMDIBR CONDITIONS, ESPECIALLY REGARDING THE REQUIRED RESTRICTIVE COVENANT. BD3lO4d 'Oi9l 0" MEMORANDUM To: lenniferTotb Hcnning From: Lawrence 1. Warren, City Attorney Date: March 13, 1998 CITY -F RENTON Office of !be City Attorney Law.eaceJ. WIIl'RII DEVELOPMENT pU,NNtNG CITY OF RENTON MAR 16 1995 RECEIVED Subject: DecIamion of Restrietive Covenants • Provost Residence Shoreline Variance (File No. LUA-97.C)6S, V) The covenants are approved as to ieglII funn with the ~ that they should be in perpetuity, until the SIlUCllIreS covered by the variance are removed or until further ·variances are obtained. UW;as. cc; lay Covington A8:138.24. l.awfence 1. Warren POSt Of rICe Box 626 -100 S. 2nd Street -Reman, Washington 98057 • (425)255-8678 Q ..... _IIIWIIMBM'~ ....... ZD1Ioposl.......". -------------- DECLARATION OF RESTRlCOVE COVENANTS . WHEREAS AI and Cyndie ProvOSt are the owners of the following real property in the City of Renton, County of King, State of Washin!ton. described os E.~ibit' A • atrached hereto. WHEREAS, the owners of said.cJescribed property desire to impose the following restricti\'C COl'enants running with the land as 10 use, present and future, of the above described real property. . NOW, THEREfoRE. the aforesaid o\\'1\CJS hereby establish, gnlllt aod itllpo5C restrictions and covenants running \\ilh the land herein nbo,'e described with respect 10 the use by the undeT5i~ed, their successors. heirs, and assigns as follows: RESTRICTIVE COVENANfS 1. No additional structures \~ithin any of the setback area are pennil1ed, and that Ihese areas shall be mainlllined as open planted area or ground 1e>'CI patio. 2. The boathouse rnay be repaired btu shaJl not be expanded in any direction or have any change in its bulk. 3. The acrual physical height of the residence shall not exceed a plane of 30 feet above ground level. DURATION These covenants shall run \\'ilh the landande)(pire on Decernber31.2625.lfat anytime improvements are installed pursuant 10 these covenants, the portioo of the covenants perIllining to the specific instaIled improvements required by the Ordinances of the City ~ Renton shall {erminall: \\ithout IIfCe$Sityof further documentation. An)' violation or breach of these JeSlrictive co\'enants may be enforoed by proper legal procedures in the Superior Court of King County by either the City of Renton or any property ()t\.1Ier$ adjoining subject property woo are adversely affected by IlIid breach, STATE OF WASI-DNOTON 5S, County of KING On this _____ day of _______ 1997, before me personally appeared the persons who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged said instrument to be the free and ,uluntary act and deed of sail! persons for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. IN WITIiIESS ~F, I ba"e hei-eufiio set my band and aflj:Q:d my official seal the day and year first abo\'c "'"-Iten. /llQU1lIY Public in and for the State of WashiuglOn. residin! at ___________ - SHORELINE SETBACK VARIANCE AND VARIANCE TO ALLOW A THIRD STORY. THE PROPOSED SF RESIDENCE WOULD BE LOCATED ON LOTS 49 AND 50 AND WOULD NOT EXCEED THE 30 FOOT HEIGHT LIMITATION OF THE R-8 ZONE. THE APPUCANT RESIDES TO THE SOUTH OF THE PROJECT SITE AT 3707 LAKE WASHINGTON BL N. A VARIANCE FROM THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM IS REQUIRED IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT THE PROPOSED RESIDENCE ClOSER WIlliIN 10 FEET OF THE SHORElINE. WHILE VARIANCES WERE CONDmO=~!21l.QVED BY EXAMINER ON 8-17-1997. THIS APPROVAl WAS LA2=~>'DISMISSED AND TREATED AS DENIED' BY THE EXAMlN REQUIRED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAl WERE NOT COMPUED WITH. t J)UIL1>/,J6'-Rill'" r tl"flJUD --. ------ January 24, 2000 CERTIFIED MAIL RElURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Mr. AI Provost 1224N32nd Renton, WA 98056 Re: Provost Varia!M;e File No. LUA97-%S,V Dear Mr. and Mrs. Provost: CIT OF RENTON Heumg BxaiDiner FrHIJ.x· ......... This office issued a Decision on Ihe above-ccf....ooccd mattec on August 14, 1997:-lbat Decision ~ a restrictive co'lOl8lll wbich.~ DQt allow any stx.uctures to be placed wiIhin any of1hc setback areas., and that it be maintajned as ope:o. planted area or ground 1evelpatio. A draft Conn was sent on August 26, 1997, but 1hilI office bas Dever received a completed covenant. lfwe do not receive a completed coYallUlt by FebnIaIy 7, 2000, this office will dismiss the appticatioo with pR;judice., and it will be 1lcated as a denial of1hc request. Sincerely, -0 ~:I ·FredJ.~. lIcarWg ExamIner FJK:mm '. cc: Larry Warren, City Attorney Jennifer Henning, Development Services 1055 Sooth Grady Way -Renton, Wao.i,i.,gtm 980SS -(42S)430-6S1S Q T1IIiol-.-.....--~-....I.rt----' IIIW. __ ~ ; .. ~/· . M.E WIUIAMS CONSIRUCTION CO., INC. P.O. BOX 361 MERCER ISLAND, WA. 98040 DEClARATION OFRESTRICJ'IVE COVENANTS WHEREAS AI and Cyndie Provost are tile owners ca !he following =I prope.ty in tile City of Renton, County of King, State of WashiDgton, described as LOrS 49 AND SO. BLOCK "An, C.D. HrLLMAN'S UKE WASHINGTON GARDEN OF EDEN ADDITICN TO SEA"ITU.. NO. 2, ACCORDING TO TIlE FlAT RBX.1IDfI) IN VOLUME 11 OF PLATS, PAGE 64, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; TOOErnER wrIH SECOND <l.ASS SHORELANDS ADJOINING; AND ruE WESIERLY 15 FEET OF THAT POlUJON OF FORMER NOlUHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY RIGHT-OF-WAY AS l.lJ:S BEfWEEN TIlE NOKrHERLY AND TIlESOUI'HERLY UNES OF SAID LOTS 49 AND SO. TAXPARCELIDI:3~ WHEREAS, die 0WDeI$ of said described ptopel ty deSre toimpCl'C !he CdJowing restric1ive covenants nmnin; wi1h !he land as 10 -. p-esent aod f~ of the;d:Jove described real property. NOW,l1iEREFORE, tlleaCoraaid OWDCl"$ bt:IebyestaHish, gIlIIItaad iUlposerestriclioosand OOVeRllllfS l1IDJ2ing widl the Iaad herein above described with aespect 10 dle II!IC by the mdelsigned, tbeir SIlCCe$9OfS, heirs. aad assigns as fallows: • .,. (., RESlRIcnVECOVENANrS Jo." ."" t"'.' ! 1. \ No addi1ioPal sttuaures wi1IIin any ca the setbri: area are permitlicd, and Ibal tbese _ shall '.J be rnaillfllincd as Ilp8 plMted an:a or srOUIId level patio. 2. The boaIbouse DIllY be rqlIired but shaJI POl be CJlP"pdM in any diRdion or have any cbange in illl bulk. 3. The actual physk:al height of the residcIK:e shall DOl ~ a plane ca 30 feel above ground level. DURATION Tbese 00YeIIaIllS shall run widl the Iaod aadexpire on Decculllei 31, ms, If alany 1i1ne improvemeufs are iDstaIIed pIIlSUiI1Il to ChesB c:oveJB1(S, !he podiw of tile coveoanfB per1ainiDg to the ~c ~nsIaDed iJDP.O"~1 '[ RqUikd.by ~ Qrdiuana$ of !he City ofReabl shall renniJIIIIe WIthout DeC .... ty of furtIIa-docunc:utatiOll. ---.-----------.-------- Any violation or breadI c:i dIese n:sIrictive covenants may be enfom!d by paper legal procedures in the Superior Court c:i King County by either the City 0( Renton or any property owners adjoioing ~ property who are adversely affected by said breach. -f!. ' AI Provost STATE OFWASHlNGfON 5S. County of KING On this :-,'$ day .... r~L .... /I.{N¢<1f.eL 1m. beforemepenooallyappearcd the persoos who eRiCUted the wilhin and foregoing iaslrUllleDt. and ack:oowledgcd said illsttument to be the flee and volUJUary act and deed of said persous roc tile uses and purposes tbel'ein mentiooed. C "1w1 e f.,..N{JIlf-..f 4-Ie P Qt4U..,at- IN \Vl1'NmS WHEREOF. I bave hereunto set my band and affIXed my offICial seal the day and year rust above written. cDt4., ' Non8ly Public in and foc IbeState of WasbingloD. residing 81 ..J;.utre . . _ L'{_ ro ~_< . OF! iClALSEAL SfWI)N GIUIERTSON ..,,.-.. ,,. p """ ..,C . 7 Iiqies »Ot June 20, 2006 O~CEOFTBEHE~GE~R CITY OF RENTON Minutes APPLICANT/OWNER: PROJECf NAME: LOCATION: SUMMARY OF REQUEST: SUMMARY OF ACTION: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: PUBLIC HEARING: AI and Cindy Provost POBox 1492 Renton, W A 98057 Provost Variance File No.: LUA 06-024, V-H North of3707 Lake Washington Boulevard North Applicants have requested three variances: reduce 25-foot setback from water's edge to 10-feet; to exceed two-story height limit by one story; and reduce front yard setback from 20 feet to five feet. Development Services Recommendation: Approve with conditions The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on May 9, 2006. After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available information on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The/ollowing minutes are a summary o/the May 16,2006 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, May 16, 2006, at 9:04 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No.1: Yellow file containing the original Exhibit No.2: Neighborhood Detail Map application, proof of posting, proof of publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No.3: Site Plan Exhibit No.4: Building Elevations Exhibit No.5: Lower Level floor Plan and Second Exhibit No.6: Second Level floor Plan and Upper Floor Framing Plan LevelF Plan Exhibit No.7: Upper Level floor Plan and Roof ExhibitNo.8: Zoning Map Framing Plan Provost Variance File No.: LUA-06-024, V-H June 20, 2006 Page 2 Exhibit No.9: Drawing of where the house would be drawn back with the 25-foot shoreline setback. Exhibit No, 11: Photo by Mr. Weil of the large tree on the Provost property Exhibit No. 10: Copy of Covenants from the original filing. Exhibit No. 12: Five photos of three new homes under construction in the Barbee Mill area The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Jill Ding, Senior Planner, Development Services, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. The ~roperty is located along the shores of Lake Washington, west of Lake Washington Boulevard, south ofN 38 Street and north ofN36th Street. The property is zoned Residential-8 dwelling units per acre (R-8) and is located within the Residential Single-Family Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation. There is a detached garage structure, shed, a boathouse and dock currently on the property, the shed and the garage are proposed to be removed. The applicant is requesting three variances to construct a three-story single-family residence with a maximum footprint of approximately 960 square feet. The variances include a shoreline variance from the required shoreline setback, a height variance and a front yard setback variance. The shoreline variance and height variance were previously granted under LUA 97-065 in August of 1997. A single-family building permit was also issued on the property in April of 1998. Both approvals have expired. The Examiner stated that he believed the covenants were never signed and so the application for the variance was dismissed. Ms. Ding stated that she had a timeline for the file and she noted that in Jannary 2000 the Examiner sent a letter statiog that he had not yet received the required covenants and that the variance would be dismissed if the covenants were not received by February 7, 2000. On Febrnary I, a second covenant was filed that runs in perpetuity, as requested by the City Attorney, however there is no documentation of the attorney review or approval. The original covenant was not rescinded and both covenants currently encumber the property. There appear to be no copies of either covenant. The proposal for the single-family residence is consistent with the Community Design Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. . The variance requesting an additional story to the residence would not exceed the 30-foot height limit but would exceed the maximum number of stories permitted, which is two. Since the original variance was approved, the City'S regulations have changed and front yard setbacks are required to be measured from the edge of an access easement rather than from the edge of the property line. They are now asking for a 5-foot setback from the edge of the access easement rather than the required 20-foot front yard setback. The height variance is necessary due to the size and shape of the existing parcel. The applicant proposes a three-story residence which would be 29-feet II-inches and would not exceed the 30-foot maximum height limit. A lot of the parcel is underwater and unbuildable, the land area is 3,363 square feet and by City's standards would be a substandard lot. The applicant is dealing with a very small land area combined with the shoreline setback and required front and side yard setbacks, there are a lot of constraints on this piece of land. In order to mitigate all those constraints, the applicant has proposed to construct a three-story residence, giving Provost Variance File No.: LUA-06-024, V-H June 20, 2006 Page 3 them an adequate buildable area within a minimal footprint. Living space area would be just under 1,500 square feet. Staff does support the three-story height variance due to the constrained lot area. The applicant contends that the front yard setback variance is necessary due to the size and shape of the existing parcel. It was also noted that the southeastern part of the existing garage is located within the access easement and the remainder of the garage is located closer than 5-feet to the access easement. The granting of the height variance would not be materially detrimental to the public, no adjacent sight lines or views of Lake Washington would be affected. The proposed 5-foot front yard variance would not be detrimental as the existing garage is located closer than five feet and actually is within the access easement. The existing homes in the neighborhood are located closer than 5-feet to the access easement. There is no special privilege in granting the three stories as there are existing residences in the neighborhood that have three stories so their residence would not be out of character. The 30-foot three-story structure allows approximately 10 feet offloor-to-ceiling height for each floor. The front yard setback would be 5 feet leaving a maximum footprint of 960 square feet, and actually less than that if the recommendation that the shoreline setback be moved back an additionaI5-feet. Shoreline Variance Criteria: The applicant is proposing a 20-foot setback from the shoreline on the north half of the proposed residence, which was the original setback requirement in 1997 when they applied for the original variance. The regulations have changed and a 25-foot setback from the shoreline is reqnired. The southern portion of the residence is proposed to be 10 feet from the shoreline. The land area is unusual in that an existing block wall shortens the land area of the lot and creates a "z" shaped building pad. The shape and the 25-foot setback requirement from the shoreline restricts the building pad size. Under the original variance the applicant was not requesting a variance for the north portion of the residence, it would have been in compliance at that time, the only variance was the northwest comer of the south portion of the residence which was to be 10-feet from the shoreline. Staff recommends that no variance on the north portion of the residence be granted, the residence should be permitted to encroach lO-feet into the 25-foot setback on the south portion of the residence. The original variance would permit at home that has a maximum footprint of 960 square feet on three levels. Staffhas recommended a slightly reduced footprint due to the increase in the shoreline setback. The staff requirements for setbacks would not impact the natural beach area or public access points, nor would it impede any views for adjacent property owners. The Shoreline Master Program encourages uses along shorelines that are not view obstructing, that do not disturb the community and have an appropriate design theme, the applicant's proposal does meet these criteria. There are utilities available to the subject property and the residence would not exceed the 30-foot height that is permitted. The design of the site and structure appear to be harmonious with the stated policies of the Master Program. Al Provost. (mailing address) PO Box 1492, Renton, W A 98057 (physical address: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. N., Renton 98056) stated that he owns this property and lives on the lot immediately south of the subject site. He is attempting to develop the lot to the north of his residence. Originally they applied for a variance to build on the subject site and at that time had a builder, some of the correspondence between the City of Renton and their builder was not communicated to them as owners of the property. They found out about the Provost Variance File No.: LUA-06..Q24, V-H June 20, 2006 Page 4 requirement for the covenants and agreed with them, there were some statements that pertained to the perpetuity of those covenants that was discussed with Renton City Attorney. When the issues were settled, the revised covenants were filed, he did not understand why the City did not have a copy of the revised filed covenants. He offered to provide a copy to the City. Regarding the height requirement, he stated that they were not requesting a variance in the actual height of the structure, but only in the amount of stories built in that structure. The only other issue with the recommendation from the City was that when they first applied in 1997 they have maintained the same building plans that were approved at that time, nothing in the neighborhood has changed with regards to conditions that were addressed and approved by the City and the Hearing Examiner. So, with the setback issues, they would like to maintain and get approval for the original20-foot setback for the northerly portion and the IO-foot setback for the southerly portion of the building. The panhandle is approximately 20-feet wide. The general direction of the shoreline in this area is north/south, however there is a small indent on this parcel and the shoreline direction becomes east/west and causes many problems, one being that by looking at it as a shoreline rather than a side yard or front yard. If viewed as a side yard for the short distance that it nulS in the east/west direction they would be able to build in that panhandle. The existing house to the north was built approximately in the late '80's or early '90's, it was built to the 20-foot setback standard. If they are allowed to build to the 20-foot setback, their structure would not be closer to the shoreline than the several houses to the north of them. To the south of this lot, the full lot extends out that 56- foot distance to a north/south shoreline and was finalized in November 2005 and it is set back the 25-feet, but because the lot protrudes out farther there is no view along the shoreline from several houses to the north of their lot because their house sticks out farther to the west. The Examiner stated that the altered shape of the shoreline is the issue today. Some variances may cause all kinds of problems, however the issue is to protect the shoreline. Mr. Provost stated that the lot to the north is 45-feet wide and possibly some of that width was because the lots were not as deep and allowed them more square footage for the homes being built. The lots to the south were limited to a 40-foot width. In 1997 the plans for this house were approved, the City at the time required some structural steel for vertical stability of the house and that was a surprise to the builder and themselves. It imposed a substantial monetary increase in the budget for building the house and so they were unable to continue. They paid for that variance and the plans to be drawn up and so they stayed with the original plans. They appreciate that the City is granting a variance, but if they have to reduce the size of the house again it will require going to an architect and redoing the plans because the foundation will be affected by that change. Ms. Ding displayed Exhibit 9 and clarified that where the arc has been drawn in at the northwest comer of the southern portion of the house would need to be a straight line to make sure that there is IS-feet from all portions of the rock wall. Rebecca Wvnsome, 3711 Lake Washington Blvd. N., Renton 98056 stated that she and her husband Gary live just north of the Provosts. The Redwood tree is closer to the proposed structure than shown on Exhibit 3, the western portion of the tree is more in alignment with the boathouse. The building of the house would impact the tree and currently there is an immature eagle that lands there and other eagles also use that tree. They are in favor of the 25-foot setback, the impact to them from this new house is the privacy of their home, if there were windows on the side they would directly look into the windows of their home. Provost Variance File No.: LUA-06-024, V-H June 20, 2006 PageS People are looking at the value of being on lakefront property, the boathouse has tremendous value, new boathouses are no longer allowed, this parcel is very valuable to potential buyers, the square footage of the home is not as important as the boathouse and the lakeshore in tems of value. Garv Weil, 3711 Lake Washington Blvd. N, Renton 98056 stated that in 1997 when the variances were originally applied for, it was his understanding that they had not been approved. Looking at the drawing, it appears that the side yard is as big as approximately half of the total width of the lot. Has this been verified, the side yard by the tree seems to be quite narrow when actually walking on the property and not a buildable piece of property. They previously signed a variance because the boathouse is over their property line and that is fine, but he does hope that the setbacks are being measured from the actual property lines and not where their fence is located. They own an additional 18-inches to 2-feet on that side of the property. The Examiner stated that adverse possession or disputes of fence lines must be dealt with by the parties, however, the City must be aware of what is going on and a swveyor may be necessary to clarify the lines. Mr. Weil continued that the tree is within S-feet of the water, he showed a picture of the tree, in which all easterly limbs would need to be removed to build a 30-foot building. When a foundation is dug to the roots and the tree is limbed, what happens to the tree? It is the requirement of the applicant to verify that the livelihood of the tree would be maintained. Mike Brown, 3703 Lake Washington Blvd. N, Renton 980S6 stated that he is the neighbor to the south of the Provosts. When he was at the City earlier, he did pick up a copy of the Restrictive Covenants, which states that no additional structures within the setback areas are permitted, these areas shall be maintained as open planted area or ground level patio. The boathouse may be repaired but not expanded or changed in bulk. The actual physical height of the residence shall not exceed a plane of30-feet about ground level. It goes to December 3 I, 2005 and was recorded in 1997 on November 24. He is not sure what is being proposed, he received mail from Development Services showing that a house of approximately 3,953 square feet was going to be built. He came to the City and met with Jill Ding and she told him it was a 960 square foot footprint. A footprint of 960 times 3 levels is 2,880 square feet. It was clarified that the boathouse was included in the square footage. (A drawing of the footprint and garage was shown to Mr. Brown) There was much discussion on how calculations were reached to determine the footprint and square footage of this proposed residence. The Examiner stated that what is going in is a home, it may be what the Provosts want, 3,226 square foot home or it may be what the City wants, 2,880 square foot home. It could be two stories or three stories. Mr. Provost stated that regarding the tree issue, in 1997 two separate arborists came to the property and inspected the tree and site. Both suggested that there was a way to minimize the impact to the tree and that was to be very careful in the excavation of the portion of the foundation that is adjacent to the tree. Once the roots were exposed decisions could be made as to how to proceed. They were to maintain that tree. Their attorney has assured them that the sales agreement can be written in such a way to provide protection for the tree. When they were notified that the easements were going to be increased, there are three brand new houses in the Barbee Mill area that are currently under construction, 3905, 3907, and 3909 Lake Washington Boulevard North. Five photos were entered as exhibits of this new construction. The edges of the homes are protruding out, some flat front and some angled. The foundations are within 10-12 feet from the edge of the lake. Mr. Wei! showed a picture of the eagle in the tree. · Provost Variance File No.: LUA-06-024, V-H June 20, 2006 Page 6 Ms. Ding stated that there are several trees within the City that eagles use for perching and hllllting or fishing. Unless it is a nesting tree there are no requirements. 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 10:40 am. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicants, Al and Cindy Provost, filed requests for approval of three variances to allow a three- story, single-family residence on a shoreline lot. The variances are to allow a three-story home when code only permits two-story homes, reduce the required front yard from 20 feet to 5 feet and to reduce the setback from the shoreline of Lake Washington to 10 feet from a required 25 feet. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEP A) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit # I. 3. The proposal, while located on a protected shoreline is exempt from environmental review because it is a single-family home. 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located immediately north of3707 Lake Washington Boulevard North. Access to the site is via a secondary road off of Lake Washington Blvd. As noted above, the subject site is located on the shoreline of Lake Washington. 6. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinances 1791, 1800 and 1804 enacted respectively between September, October and December of 1959. 7. The applicants sought similar variances in 1997 for the shoreline setback and the third-story addition. While variances had been initially approved the applicant failed to meet required conditions and the decisions became null and void. 8. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of Single Family uses, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 9. The subj ect site is zoned (R-8) which permits up to eight single-family homes per acre. 10. The subject site consists of property located along the shore of Lake Washington. Part of the property is submerged and a portion, the uplands, approximately 3,363 square feet in area, contains a garage, boat house and dock. 11. The uplands parcel is an irregular, panhandled shaped property. The scale of the drawings are an unusual I inch equals 4.5 feet and may not be precise, therefore, the dimensions noted are approximate. The southern panhandle is approximately 18 feet wide and juts out into the lake approximately 38 feet. Provost Variance File No.: LUA-06-024, V-H June 20, 2006 Page 7 The lot is approximately 40 feet wide. The shoreline or edge of these parcels are clearly defmed by a zigzagging rock wall or bulkhead. There is no natural shoreline. 12. A boathouse, approximately 20 feet wide and 40 feet deep, is located approximately 12 feet out from the shore. It will be retained. 13. Section 4-2-1 lOA restricts the height of single-family dwellings to two stories or 30 feet in height and requires a 20-foot setback from the edge of the access easement. 14. Therefore, the applicant has requested one variance to allow the building to be three (3) stories tall and a second variance to allow the front yard setback to be five feet (5'). 15. The Renton Shoreline Master Program (Section 4-3-090L.14.b) requires a 25-foot (25~ setback from the water's edge. This has been changed since the applicant applied for the variance in 1997 (it was 20 feet at that time). The applicant has proposed a minimum setback often (10') feet from the lake. Front yard setbacks had been measured from the property line but are now measured from the access easement. 16. The applicant has basically submitted the same plans that were submitted in 1997 which does not account for code changes that have occurred. This results in seeking greater variances from the shoreline requirements and the front yard requirements. 17. The plot plan and building footprint shows the house follows the irregular stepped western or shoreward property line. This creates a setback in one location which is reduced to 10 feet at a comer or angle where the house facade turns back away from the shoreline. Staffhas recommended that the home comply with the 25 foot setback from the shoreline for the northern portion of the home and that a 15 foot sethack be permitted for the southern portion of the home. Staff made their recommendation to reflect the prior 1997 variance request in light of the new, larger setback now required. The south portion of the home would have to be setback 15 feet from the shoreline as proposed by staff and this would follow an arc to reflect the angular shoreline. 18. On the east, the front yard, the applicant has proposed a setback of five (5') feet from the access easement rather than 20 feet. Staffhas suggested that due to the smaIl lot size, the request for a variance is appropriate. They suggest that a smaller setback on the east is a reasonable tradeoff to allow the home to be located further from Lake Washington on the west. An existing garage already comes within less than five feet of the easement along the front yard of the existing lot. 19. Staff recommended approval of the variance to allow a 3-story home. They thought it was reasonable. 20. As proposed the home would have a footprint of approximately 960 square foot. It would contain 1,920 square feet as a two-story home and 2,880 square feet as a three-story home. 21. The applicants also own the adjoining property to the south. An existing home is located on that property. 22. There are single-family homes both north and south of the subject site. A review of the area shows that the shoreline makes a substantial jog direct1y in the middle of the applicants' CWTent property. The development of a dwelling as proposed would not severely impact the views of adjacent parcels due to the staggered nature of the shoreline. Other homes in the area are both larger and smaller than that proposed in this case. · Provost Variance File No.: LUA·06-024, V-H Jooe 20, 2006 Page 8 23. The proposed home would be 29'11" tall or about 1(1 ") inch below the 30 feet pennitted in the zone. When the applicants first submitted their application in 1997 there had been a very recent change that limited buildings to two stories in height. That change is now about ten years old. It is a well- established height or "story" limitation. 24. A review of variance applications for properties along the shoreline show variances both denied and approved. It appears that each variance determined the unique circumstances of each parcel vis a vis upland area and parcel width and depth. 25. Neighbors objected to the granting of the variances due to privacy concerns, bulk issues and the potential damage to a large redwood tree in which eagles sometimes perch. Eagle perching trees are not specially protected. CONCLUSIONS: I. This office has no problems recognizing that the subject site has constraints that probably justify some variance relief. At the same time, the applicant acquired the property knowing full well that the buildable portion of the property was quite limited and that there would be limitations on what could be built on the lots. A variance or in this case, variances are required to provide reasonable use of the subject site, but a small upland lot cannot be expected to support a large spacious home. The lot already accommodates a rather large over-the-water boathouse of 20 feet by 40 feet. In addition, one has to consider that the City specifically changed its code, thereby, in a way defining or redefining what might be reasonable or responsible use of property. The City is very aware of the small lots located along Lake Washington. Nonetheless, they increased the required shoreline setback from 20 to 25 feet. Obviously, they wanted a larger separation between structures and the water and not less. The City also specifically changed code so that single family homes would be no more than 30 feet in height and that such homes only be two-stories. The City limited homes to two-stories nearly 10 years ago or when the applicants first requested a variance from this limitation. The City also enacted sethack regulations that required homes with garages to have that garage setback 20 feet from easements as well as public streets. In other words, the defmition of "reasonable" might be deduced from the fact that the City has enacted legislation restricting the size, scale, intensity and bulk of homes in general and homes along the shoreline more so. That sets the backdrop for the consideration of the three variances that the applicant now seeks. In addition, the applicant merely resubmitted plans that were rendered in 1997 without even considering the code changes that have occurred since that time. Code specifically tightened up regulations and these plans do not even attempt to address those changes. Another significant change that reflects on the consideration of this variance is the change in minimum lot sizes permitted in the City. There are now a number of locations in the City that permit small lots and all homes on these lots are constrained by the same two-story limit. Thrce-S tory Variance 2. Variances may be granted when the property generally satisfies all the conditions described in part below: a. The applicant suffers oodue hardship caused by special circumstances such as: the size, shape, topography, or location where code enforcement would deprive the owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by others similarly situated; b. The granting of the variance would not materially harm either the public welfare or other property in the vicinity; Provost Variance File No.: LUA-06-024, V-H June 20, 2006 Page 9 c. The approval will not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other property in the vicinity; and d. The variance is the minimum variance necessary to allow reasonable development of the subject site. There is no reason to approve a variance for a three-story house. The variance is not justified. A limitation on the number of stories carries with it a limitation on living space and that potentially limits the number of inhabitants. These may all be reasonable limitations to assure that a home and its residents are not out-of-scale with the size of the lot. There is no justification to grant a variance that allows a home with more stories. It would create an undue precedent. Every home on a small lot or future home on small lots would be entitled to an additional story. Many lots in the City are 4,000 square feet and new lots can be as smaIl as 3,000 square feet Each of these lots could use the small lot justification to add additional stories. As noted here in this application: the logic is that this is hidden, unseen space. It has no visible impact. The home would not be taller. But as noted above, the limitation controls the number of inhabitants or population and, therefore, potentially the noise and traffic that a larger home, internal or external, might generate. There is no justification for the increased size whether it is internal or external and the precedent could be far-reaching for other smaller lots. The applicant has reasonable use of the property particularly given the approval or partial approval of the other variances requested. Shoreline Variance 3. ill addition to the criteria noted above, shoreline variances are subject to some additional review criteria taking into consideration the unique and fragile environment along the shoreline. Those particular criteria are: a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the subject property, or to the intended use thereof, that do not apply generally to other properties on shorelines in the same vicinity. b. The variance permit is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant possessed by the owners of other properties on shorelines in the same vicinity. c. The variance permit will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property on the shorelines in the same vicinity. d. The variance granted will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Master Program. e. The public welfare and interest will be preserved; if more harm will be done to the area by granting the variance than would be done to the applicant by denying it, the variance will be denied, but each property owner shall be entitled to the reasonable use and development of his lands as long as such use and development is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and the provisions of this Master Program. , ' • Provost Variance File No.: LUA-06-024, V-H lWle 20, 2006 Page 10 4. The subject site is definitely constrained. The jog in the property's shoreline or western upland's property line makes accommodating a home harder. Allowing some intrusion into the setback will pennit the development of a reasonably sized home. Staff's recommendation of no more than a ten (10) foot encroachment, that is a fifteen (15 ') foot setback, into the shoreline setback makes sense. The City specifically enlarged the setback and therefore, the variance the applicant applied for 10 years ago is no longer controlling or particularly relevant. The precedent for reducing the shoreline setback though has been created in the past -that is, most of the lots along Lake Washington have rather shallow upland areas since most of the property is submerged Wlder the lake. Since these people do own the property under the lake, they are entitled to develop a reasonable home on the dry portion of their property. 5. It also appears that due to the shape of the shoreline and the location of other homes along the shoreline that this dwelling would not significantly intrude in the existing viewscape. If anything, the existing boathouse is the intrusive element in this area. 6. As noted, other variances have been issued when the Wlderlying parcels were significantly constrained by their size or shape. Granting of this variance should not create any special privilege and is not inconsistent with what has occurred on other nearby properties. 7. Approving the variance should not result in harm and will permit the applicant to develop a single family home on the lot. Front Yard Variance 8. Again, the same constraints, the rather shallow uplands (dry) area, apply to the variance from the required setback from the easement. The actual uplands of the site is small which limits the footprint of any proposed home. 9. Similar variances from the setback from the easement or street have been granted for homes in this area to accommodate the development of a reasonable single-family dwelling. There is an existing garage already located in this setback area and allowing it to be demolished and replaced by the proposed home appears reasonable and will not create any additional impacts. 10. As noted, other homes in this area have been approved and it would not grant the applicant a special privilege to approve this variance. Nor would it be creating an unacceptable precedent. Again, the lot owned by the applicants extends under the lake. That is, they own a larger lot but much of it is constrained. II. It would appear that granting the front yard setback variance requested will allow the development of a reasonably sized home and probably is the minimum necessary for relief. 12. In conclusion, two variances that allow the home to encroach on the normally required setbacks appear necessary to allow the development of a reasonably sized home and since the Wlderlying lots are actually larger and the requests create a Wlique fact situation. The variance to allow more stories than . permitted by code is not supported by the facts in this situation and would lead to potential precedents that could be used by anyone to allow a home with more stories than code permits. The variances should be approved with conditions that do not allow any further structures being developed on the site and that ail setbacks be maintained as open planted area or ground level patio and that no changes, other than repair, be allowed for the boathouse. Provost Variance File No.: LUA-06-024, V-H June 20, 2006 Page 11 DECISION: The Variance to allow a three-story home is denied. The Variances to the Shoreline Setback and the Front Yard Setback are approved subject to the following conditions: I. The minimum allowable setback from the water's edge shall be no less than 15 feet for only that portion of the proposed structure on the south half of the property that is nearest to the existing rock wall. The applicant shall be required to maintain the minimum required building setback from the water's edge (25 feet) for all other portions of the site. The setbacks are illustrated in Exhibit 9, although the exhibit may not be drawn to scale. 2. The applicant shall be required to obtain all other necessary permits and approvals for the proposal (i.e. building permit, certificate of water and sewer availability, etc.). 3. The applicant shall record a restrictive covenant that does not allow any sort of additional structures within any setback areas and all required setback areas shall be maintained as open planted areas or ground level patio. 4. The boathouse may be repaired but shall not be expanded in any direction or have any change to its bulk. ORDERED THIS 20" day of June 2006. HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED TIllS 20" day of June 2006 to the parties of record: Jill Ding 1055 S Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Mike Brown 3703 Lake Washington Blvd. N Renton, W A 98056 AI and Cindy Provost POBox 1492 Renton, W A 98057 Rebecca Wynsome Gary Weil 3711 Lake Wal!hington Blvd. N Renton, W A 98056 .. .. • Provost Variance File No.: LUA-06-024, V-H June 20, 2006 Page 12 TRANSMmED TIllS 20th day of Iune 2006 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Gregg Zimmennan, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services King County Journal Stan Engler, Fire Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100Gofthe City's Code, request for reconsideration must be fIled in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., July 5, 2006. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. 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., July 5, 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 ofthe 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. = [l ??I • ----,----I' .' --------- , .-~-.. --------- ---------CO R --------,- I---------COR --------- I--------- --------_\oJ ---------'G,~ ---------z ---------- --------;ld: ~ I' ;j~1'j,/419~b' st; ---', -------7-~ , -------- ------ --('/:-/ , ' , 1--, j U j ------- -~ 1 " .... ~. -', j"" 1-------. ~ ... !~~ , 1-,/ i r'TI1--1=f' ." .. ,' ~. it ~ I 77 01l~I.L J I .... -; , ,~ ,=- ----, ---Z 7 '-nlr J!38t~T '1' i L.2.~! I 's: 1------' ' '--~ 1-7 7111" 'I' ,,", = -----, ", ' i ' , ! ,L :;q, L,L' ,', I~ ---~J'·\a lJ ·~I,.JI Rt~:::h: :~rI ; t-'r-~ Ii I~ 5 'l>! ,L 1JNrttw-,'~ 'il"::t I-~I! ,~"""'--:' ~~~[Qi I-,i'I,)1 I 111--J1 ~T l~ :: ~ , ~j..J I ; -~_-:-: ! ' I~ -=1 -7..:....: i [11 1't1lHRf !:it LJJ l' : '-_-_-_-, " ,~ i 1~1 ~ or -rl ~H~ ,,··t-"I'-'-, , I-i~ r-j:E I-- -'[gr'~~~'~ PP~lll~L"'1nql,' ',f-~Is !O 1---J -I~XBI~i ~!fd!Mffi&~H ~'v,",I'~T ~~ , ~ fro*f#! r#N! h'l~ l~ 1 " - I-_--~m ,~, QJlhlhhl!M 151111t~' I' ; '-- 1 -r,~ _I~tli Iii iillili!fW bW I~I' N nhn !~1 .I ,-'/~ ~IJI II 11-9 I '! ! i-I I I--}-J I~ ,mild, 11:1 Uihlfl ~~/ ~q II/ ~td rr C}I---r-- .7::7~ I~ ~ 00 II~ I! I PiA Ii lij 1~~fr'l Wti%4o/I--'CN ~ ~;@I!11 mtt~l~ fqtili~~ Mltro/' CN/ 'c~ ;=r; --.:\.... >I Ii i 11111 IHf) 1 ILl i N 'J Btl I ~ --'~~~ ~ I in 11m I' I i [ / ...f"'. .J~: ,llrn! --'" "~QIIIH\' lrl ,VTl1 ,,/-z::J -rlf , !I,g too C3 e ZONING ----....... ...,,-...... " " = 't'IfCBNIOAL_YKlBS 31 T24N R5E E l/~11 fil: --AT---t 'II: '. • . 4>UIL"~ '0 ~B ' . i8 ' . : -, . , ' , -, '-' ;;- " . " , • • , I .i i , .: ,< 4r ~·-·--:'.T·-··':+i t '---:e:::,-• • -_to " 1:;] " " Q · , " " • " · . " · , !1ii · . " • . · · 0 " 'IS] " [J " : -'. " · .... , " · ". " " : " " · " • " --u • " • " "-~ ., • " • .. . . · " , ~ • '.., "-" . • " · .. " 0 .. !~ .. " "Jf .. " " " .: ..... '-, .. • , , • • '! -lJ -'i' : , 0 ,., 'f " . , I I , !: :1 I: ~ 0 .. I-.. " <! " " >-" ~ " " " Ul " " I-::r: " " (l! " " " -" ,,~ " " , " , " " " " " " " " " ,., " , ~ ~ i • • , ! .1 '. • • ! ! ~ :1 · . ,. . , I i -, Il'~mj/~[+: ~-,lIt====~i~-~ .. , ; I-;...------,r, -:: ~1i]J!1~;;~~~l~i~:--_,.·:i:iDl.~ I.!! k.ll1i4 '1j1J '. n. '-1~' . ~n -$-,'~' . 01 '. "" 0 " r . : '"1'1 ' " o " ' " · .. -'-T;,-t. ~ 1L---if,F-li---:~--n-' , " " o " o " · .. o .. · .. ' " ' " · ., · " ' " o .. o " : fl : -W,::" " • 1..._.,-, · '. · " • 0, o '. · '. o " '. '. '. 't ..r, tI II · " ' " · " 10'----.... 1 --I I I ~ r i ~ii ~, I~I,~ jO;;;I;;,~~JJ'~lL~,i,i~,r-~~~~.~~r., . --r--'~.,!,r!! w:; .~ -"t. • , . . --.. 7~. : #-:.i--.' t- tl- 111 ..J • '. NORTHweST 1/4 SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, !RANGE 5 leAST. W.N. TU cny OF RENTON, COUNTY OF K~NG, STATIE OF WASHINGT( D IN /" I =-I () SUIt. ~noq -LAK£ w"'~tS£IVe:R. L'Nt; :::> . C ""£""~" r 1 R.ovosrt?R.Qj eCT' 'ft 7{).o3;J.3036S" ,- , . / , , , 'P<>iot<: / OVERHAHG , p 1 -' --I --"if:!- 1 s. S. R.ocK I' ",£1 ~O' / l3vCKfiE~~l'\' -. ELEVA"ON OF LAKe: ~ ,/ AS OF I r ·04·96 -17 I' , I / , r ? I / / ' i I~ I , I I ~ .JO.A. T\.IOtfS:£ (P~"l'o~~. ~O()F. J2 2 \ !MP /!;Ft. WAll '" '" JII. 'f TOP ROC'" WALL " , I~S - - -5\,1). U>fJ€ti: -_55 - - , - / / / / " I Roc.K ~~~t-<~E~b I 9 ~'f"'j<-t> ~ Ie) ",' 5100.Y"p-p ~e.rb')G1:::.. ~.. ~c.~... 71:"Of~ ,.tt .• 11'1 ,~, (T". !,< ,P,,,,,~,) ~/"'1r""'''''''''' GAAAG£ ' ~F·~69.s-· q';)OF' 3; f / , gil WA re,!- J,...JJ,::---.. p",~('~ POl.f ~ ?P<>I"""'h~t? P"""",,,"" -1%0 ~o'~ 1 •• O.t?E ~Fru."1"r"'F-D " '.- -, r ~'P ~\Ql' ~'." i.:" ~'" ~ ~ "" iJJ .. .. ~~. ",,' )' "' /, ~'I' I ...... 2· '?-j «: . ~I '> ,S' ,/ / / 1.8· 49/ OVERHANG I 50 ELEVATION OF LAKE AS OF 11-04-96 -17.6 , / I -$ , 52, / I eOATI-fOUSE FF-2006 ROOF. 3Z 2 / ROCK RE1AINING WALL \ TOP ROCII. WAll 19.2 / I o , I I , t"t[ DECK ' .. INE 2." :>&, IO'>Co«. '57// . --, _.-. ~ '\ G WOOD FENCE , . , ......... ' HOUSE F F -26 35 .. t .... J / ) Z / I "'4St~lvr ,~,_~t; , «0 La" I WALL <. I, } [',h.b;" "i '""" / I .1 I July 7, 2006 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING ST A TE OF WASHINGTON ) )§ COUNTY OF KING ) BONNIE I. WALTON, City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that she is a citizen or the United States and a resident oflhe State of Washington, over the age of21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter. That on the 7th day of July, 2006, at the hour or 5:00 p.m your affiant duly mailed and placed in the United States Post Office at Renton. King County, Washington, by first class mail to all parties of record, notice of appeal filed by Alan and Cynthia Provost of the Hearing Examiner's decision regarding the Provost Variances application. (File No. LUA-06-024, V) Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 7th day of July, 2006. 1a on A. Seth N tary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing in Bothell CITY July 7, 2006 APPEAL FILED BY: Alan and Cynthia Provost )F RENTON City Clerk Bonnie I. Walton RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 6/20/2006 regarding the Provost Variances application, located at 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. N. (File No. LUA-06-024, V) To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the hearing examiner's decision on the Provost Variances application has been filed with the City Clerk. In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-1 \OF, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. Other parties of record may submit letters limited to support of their positions regarding the appeal within ten (10) days of the date of mailing of the notification of the filing of the appeal The dc:adline for submission of additional letters is 5:00 pm, July 17,2006. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee.· The Council Liaison will notify all parties of record of the date and time of the Planning and Development Committee meeting. If you are not listed in local telephone directories and wish to attend the meeting, . please call the Council Liaison at 425-430-650 I for information. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for consideration by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting. Copy ofthe appeal and the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeals of Hearing Examiner decisions or recommendations are attached. Please note that the City Council will be considering the merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unless a showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, no further evidence or testimony on this matter will be accepted by the City Counci I. For additional information or assistance, please feel free to call me at 425-430-6502. Sincerely, Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Attachments -10-5-5 -South--Grad-y-W-a-y---Re-nt-on,-w-.-sb-jn-gto-n-9S-0-SS---(4-2-S)-4-30-6-5-'O-I-FAX-(-4-25-) 4-3-0--65-'-6-~ *' Thlspaper contains 50% recyc:led material, 30% postconsumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE I JUN 3 0 2006 APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDA~' jj;ECEIVEO L. A ~\ r)~ TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL TV ~'e OFFICE FILENO._()._~ ~ V-H,' /J..~S t:mfpJ APPLICATIONNAt.Ii.Il) 8 Cy&"ft/~()\/()-S r (M,e../IiA!CC:-' The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated JUAJe: ,;;2. () ,2o~6 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLA~T: y-: ,---:--. Name: /I LA;,) $i.YNT7j( Ad 0 i/)ST Address£a t;Q>< /l.6;2., R.EJJTNJ lUll, 7'8'0-:;-7 REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY): Name: ________________________ ___ Address: ________________________ __ , , 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: FINDING OF FACT: (please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's Report) No.~ Error: gEe drrA-eYeD Correction: __________________________________________________ _ CONCLUSIONS: No .. L Error: ,Sec Anile Nt-D 112 -#-3 Correction: _________________________________________________ _ OTHER: No. Error: ~5-d'--e'_..;-__'e:"_____L4.L.LT_TL.L&oLi .L(--1f::z.(....lF.:....t.I.D _____________ _ Correction: __________________________________________________ _ 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: ex explanation, if desired) Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: 5'CE IfTr/lCH~i> Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: L~~ ~tIRepresentative Signature NOTE: Please refer to THie IV, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-110F, for specific appeal procedures. H:ICITY CLERKIAPPEALIAPPEAL to Council.doc City of Renton Municipal Code; Title IV. Chapter 8. Section 110 -Appeals 4c8-11OC4 The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC4-1-170, the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-IIOF: Appeals to City Council -Procedures 1. Time for Appeal; Unless a specific section or State law providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court or any other body, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Council, upon a form furnished by the City Clerk, within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. 2. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 3. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 4. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report, the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982) 5. Council Review Procedures; No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required, the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the applicant. In the absence of an entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testinnony, and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testinnony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4389, 1-25-1993) 6. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solei y upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. 7. Findings and Conclusions Reqnired: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050FI, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the proceeding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. 8. Council Action: If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-J-050F2 and F3, and after examination of the record, the Council determines tbat a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified, the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application. 9. Decision Documentation: In any event, the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and sball specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord 3658, 9-13-1982) 10. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames established under subsection 05 of this Section. (Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997) Alan and Cyndie Provost P.O. Box 1492 Renton, WA 98057 Re: ATTACHMENT TO APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS AND PROPOSED CORRECTIONS FINDING OF FACT #7 Error: That the applicants did not meet conditions placed upon the granting of these same requested variances in 1997. Correction: The evidence presented at the hearing, along with record of the City of Renton a copy of which is attached, proves that the applicant did record the necessary restrictive covenants. The only reason these variances granted in 1997 expired is delay in construction of the house. ERRORS IN CONCLUSION OF LAW # 1 A. The erroneous implication that one is less entitled to a variance because one acquires property knowing that the code will cause building problems. This is contrary to the holding in Hoberg v. City of Bellevue, 76 Wn. 2d 810,854 P.2d 1072 (1993) which was that the mere purchase of property with knowledge of defects requiring a variance does not disqualify the owner from seeking the variance. B. The erroneous implication that a variance should only be granted to the extent necessary to allow reasonable use of the property. This limited relief is contrary to the much broader purpose of variances mandated in both Renton Municipal Code 4835,3-27-2000 and RCW 36.70.020(14). The code seeks to use variances so as to not deprive a subject property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. The statute echoes this equal privilege goal in its definition of a variance: "a variance is the means by which an adjustment is made in the application of the specific regulations of a zoning ordinance to a particular piece of property, which property, because of special circumstances applicable to it, is deprived of privileges commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone and which adjustment remedies disparity in privileges". ERRORS IN CONCLUSION OF LAW #2 A. The erroneous statement that "There is no reason to approve a variance for a three-story house". B. The erroneous conclusion that granting a variance regarding a third story would create a precedent entitling every home in the city on a small lot to add a third story. By definition, a variance depends upon the unique characteristics of the particular lot and its location. The Examiner's reasoning ignores the evidence that the subject lot is on the waterfront where other houses being built are large, and tbat this particular lot has characteristics not shared by the other waterfront properties (a "z" shape and a peninsula jutting into tbe water) such tbat it needs a variance in order to build a home on it like otbers being built in the same vicinity without a variance. C. The erroneous conclusion that the purpose of the limitation on tbe number of stories is to control the number of inhabitants including noise and traffic caused by more people. There was no evidence presented at the hearing to support tbis conclusion, nor was there a citation to tbe legislative record. In fact, tbe number of inhabitants is controlled in this zone by the fact tbat it is to be used only by a single family for tbat family's residence. This is supported by tbe fact that tbe city staff, who would be the ones to raise such issues as traffic etc., in fact supported this proposed variance. The stories ordinance, like all dimension regulations, is a matter of aesthetics, and three stories fits well in this neighborhood. ERRORS IN CONCLUSION OF LAW #3 A. The error of failing to consider the fact that tbe unique shape of the lot provides more shoreline than anticipated by the 25 foot setback. That even with tbe requested variance from the 25 foot setback, tbis lot would leave approximately 1,520 square feet of shoreline whereas the typical 40 foot wide waterfront lot witb a 25 foot set back would leave only 1,000 square feet of shoreline. PROPOSED CORRECTED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW A. As stated in tbe staff's report in support oftbe variance allowing the 3,d story, the variance is consistent with the goal in tbe Renton Comprehensive Plan of promoting re-investment and upgrade of existing neighborhoods through redevelopment of small underutilized parcels. B. Conclusions of Law #'s 2 through 5, and #'s 7 through 10 reached by this same Hearing Examiner in 1997 pursuant to a substantially identical application and evidence should be made again. A copy of said 1997 decision is attached. 3. SUMMARY OF REOUESTED RELIEF: Reverse the decision denying the variance for tbe third story and for a ten foot setback. 08/30/06 09:'4 FAX:08 340 8837 Il.I002 t(f)-' -------- ~14,1997 omCE OF THE HEARING t:XAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPllCANT: LOCATION: SUMMARY Of REQUEST: SUMMARY OF ACDON: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: PUBUC HEARING: Mitc:b Williams MF Williams ConStJUetiOll Provost Vari8Dce File No.: LUA-97-46S.V North of 3707 La.: Wsshingroa Blyd. N Variance of the Share_ Masb:r Propam to Jeduc:e the required 20 foot setba<:k from tile -*r's edge to 10 feet; and variance to exceed the twcHtory heigbt Ilmit by ODe story. Development Services R_mendatioq: Approve with conditions The Developmcnl Scnices Report was received by the Examiner on July 29, 1997. After reviewing the n.:velopmeul Savices RqIort. examining available in£ormdioe 011 file with die ~ field checking the property aDd SUiI-.diDg an:&; tile Examiner conducted a public: heariac 011 the subject as follows: MINIITES Dtr~"". , lin II sultllNllY oltluu'~_ 50 1"7 Itmrilrg. 77re kg..t record is ,econled fill tqe. The be.ingopened 1m Tuesd.y, AogustS,l997, at 10:05 a.m. iDtheeo.cil? t CIS 011 the !CCOIId floor of the Renton Municipal Building. hrties wisUIg 10 testify were aff"1J'JDed by the Examiner. The followias exhibits were enIIeIed into tile record: E"lnlliUi .. J: Yellow file C~ , • '8 the qinaJ ~ .... iIIit No.l:: V"acinity iUp BPPlic:stion, proof of posring. proof oC pobIlcation and other docmnentatioD pel 'i._ to this .....-. !111M &:. 3: Plar pllilJ E'I[h~N .... ': BuiJding eJevIltioots J:xhil!lt N!I!o S: Water boundary map Exbilliil!lll. ~ Sb'eelSCapo of proposed sire J::rllihit No.1' IHusInIIion ofbuiIdiDg beis/Il and stol)' limit 08/30/06 09: U FAX Z08 340 8&37 WOLFSTONE PANCBOT • BLOC ------_.---------------. Mitch Williams MF Williams Construction Provost Variance File No.: LUA-97-065,V August 14, 1997 Page 2 The h-mg opened with a pi ,tatioo oftbe aWf report by ffiNNIfER lfENNING Project Manager, 141003 Development Scrvioes. CiI;y of~ 200 Mill Avenue Soutb, lleoton, W .... ingtoo 91055. Tho..,picaDt is requesting two variances. The {"IISI: is a Val iiiiW from the Shoreline MISler Program (SMP) requircmaJts uod is a request foc reduced rear,........... The SNIP requires 1hat there he a minimum of20 feet Ii'om !be water's edge IOtbe _. The 1IIP1ic:ant is ~ing that. pootion of the home he aIJoMd 10 he Ioc:ated wiIIIin 10 feet of tbe Wllla"s o:dge. The secoed variance heinZ ..pi is • ".iw:e from tbe City's ZODiDg code portaiaingtotbe bcigbl or. ~t.aiIy Jesidmlial sIJUCture. Those cbdolpi.1aIt ...... ds spceifYthat the height shall he limited 10 30 _ 01" 10 _ SIOries. The appIicaat is pi oposia& I building !hat _Id he ~ 29 I11III30 feet in -' bcigbt, but _Id be three stories. This site is IocMed 011 tbe ......... ofUb Washington and is ,cadIcd by ID ~ prMok: ICCt!SS easemeat The neighborbood bas developed penlly with single family n:sicIc:ntiII homes aIong the lake shore.. These lots lie unique in that the land mea is ratba" SlDalL The lots tbal ...... JAisc the subject parcel lie 49 and SO and the land IIrt:a is about 3,300 sq.re feet. It thai =tends 10 the _10 !he inner haJbc.1iae of the lake. A substanDaJ portion of1be property is -..By under water. The boat home 011 tbe JA ...... lj wm remaia. All existing shed and garage 011 Ibc property -'d be demolisbed. Bec:ausc this plOJl""lY is Jocmd 011 bodt Jand and water, and hecIuse IIIere is an eyisIjng rock waD ac:ross Lot 49, which is tile nmth half of tile subject pan::cI, it creates a z..shaped land area .. wbic:h tile applicant could develop 11015 p;onicuIar popo:rty. To _ sedlacks requiranads, .. ....maim building pad .. ~ he %0 square feet. The water is alleasl 56 feet from the so~ ___ of the I*oposed slruc:ture. The 10 foot \lUi....,., requested is from a ~ 11081 is _ the center of tile hmae _10 tile rocIt WIllI. TheIe is just a very short area, /Tom 5 to 17 feet, that would he iD the reduced setback mea. The criteria for the SMP varimcc is thoolthcre are exceptional ... eatrIOrdilluy circum ..... es or coodition5 applying 10 the subjecl popedy that ceocrally do not apply 10 oCher propenies 01" shorelines in tile same vicinity. The land __ of the subject parcel is somewhat un~ bee .... of the ..,.;sting rocIt wall which shortens tbe land __ and creaIeS • Z-sbaped building pad area. ne 1IppIic:mt .... conteacIed that the shape of the 101 coupled with tile 20 foot IICIbaI:k raprement from the __ 5 cdp does _justly res1rid the building pad site for the home. A fm1bcr eritcria is that the variance ;s noo:essaty rm-preservation and enjoyment of. suhslantial properly right of the eppliCllllt thai is also possessed by !he 0"'III2S of .......... opalies 011 shorelines in the same vicinity. The~ nriaoce would peomit tile app6autt to ",_tnd a sinSIc WniIy home that has a maximum footprint of "J'PI'O'limaIely %0 square feet of floor area 00 each of Ihnc Jems. Thill would preserve tile eppIicaut'$ right 10 develop •• esideJltial home thai is eilhar ..... .,.able or less \blIn comparable 10 the other existing hoInes in tbe imIIIed .... vicinity of the p,oposod dwelJiD&. Aoo1ha-eritcria. is that Ibc varilnCC permit would not be ckIrim ....... 1O 1Ioe public woolf ..... or;"jure JAiIjICIlies 011 !be sIaoreliae in the same vicinity. This partic:uJar varimcc nqae&t would not result in impact 10 a natural beach area"... a public access point. The reduced setback woold not impede views to, from or aloeg the _'s edge. ]be SMP OIIcourages uses along tile shoreline thai do _ obsIruet -news, that do nat distuib the commUllity I11III thai have an appropriate desigD theme. The applicant is proposing a single family IIome thai meets tile use, COOIpatibility and aesthetic affects portion orthe SMP. There appear to be adequate utilities available 10 serve the area. The proposed use would _ eueed density allowed by the zooi,,!: code IIId it does meat the criteria DOled in the residential development portion of the SMP. .' I ',. ----_._---------_ .. _.---- .' .. , . Mitch Williams MF WiIIillllls CoosIIuctiOll ProvOlSt Varianc:e File No.: LUA-97·065,V AUl!IIst 14, 1997 Page 3 1bedesign of the Au: end strucIme"l¥"'"to be hanlJooious with .... llal£dpolicicsofthe SMP. Thetirslfloor oftbe pmposcd _ would be page, a beach room and a bath -. The SCCODd story would be kitcbeo, dining, boothtoMo. and the Ihird stoly _Id have. master bcohoom. bath area. IIIId • small guest room. II would rauIt in ~_Iy 2,480 square feet ofliving area. It would have a flat root: Regarding 1he _inC variaao%. the awJi " is requesting relief from die story requiJement as defined in the heigbtportiou ofthezoaingcodc. 1bey.....Jd like to build a structwe1hat is bct" ..... 29 I11III 30 feet in height which is permitted by 1he axle, _~:e to do Ibis in IhRc stories; nat two stmies as dictmd by code. !be ~ home to tIoe a pitched roof end is obcut 35 feet in hcigbt.. The ~ c:ont<:ads that .... height vari_ is DeC ~ ., because oflhe size IllllllIbapeofthe existing parcel end ia order to comply with .... seIbIet requUamas oflhe ZlOIIing code. Giyca .... __ setbeeks the _imam butlding footprint would be 960 sqIWO feet. 1HI would allow. toIaI of l.92O sqan= feet iftlley _ to build a two- story dwelling, but wouJd iadude .... two-ear garage. The -' living ..,..,eofthe house would be 1.480 sqoare fed.. There.., two exi'*in& _1IclIIIcs located to the IIOI1k IbM Ire three stoly structures end He considerably laJger.than 1.920 ~ fed. The SMP does allow _ along the shoreline up to 35 feet in height, but the C"1ty's moiog code does not allow that beight. Granting of the beight variance does iiOl.tfec:t adjacent sight lines wbicIi allow views to Lake Washington. This i. bcc:a1iSC of the low e\eYatioll of the sul!ject parcel ia reJatioa to die raised BtirlillgI(Ja DOrdiern right-of- way to the east. ID addition, the .uimum boight of the 1hree stoly IItniC:tln would nat exceed the overall height limit which is 30 feet allowed in die Jl-8 zone. The jHoposed S1nICtUrf; wuuId DOt exceed tile existing height of the IIdja<>enl ..... idence to the south. StBff recommends approval of both the SMP variance for the reduced rear yard setboiclr. and also tile height variance from the ZODing code, subjecI to c:onditions. The first conditiou is !hat the height of the resideace would not exceed the iDIIlWn_ aJJowm beigbt of the applic:able ZODe as .easumI ill feel thai is in effect II the time the application is m ..... for baildiDg permit. The second COIIdidoII is that the minimum aJJowaItle setback from !he water's edge shall_ be any Icss doan 10 feet being reqUCSlied ud GIlly in that...,. thai is problematic with regard to the rock wall Staff would also request a restricIive __ be -.Jed that does not allow any sort of stnICtUTa "lithia that 10 fOot uea and thaI it be mairoitled as opetI pl8iIkd ... or ground level patio. A f\lrtber ~ CODdiIiooa is that applicant be required to obtain all the _ , pennits and approvals for the proposaJ, includiDg building permits, certificate of _ md __ availability, and to c:cmply with all eode requirementL Mitch WjlliamL P.O_ Bmr. 361,Mcnzr 1sIaud, Washington, 98040, appliCllllthereia, iIIUS1rated the setback ....... requested. Heexplaiaed tbat .... puticuJarclesign of the sbucbiie is two-fold-to make the house mOR illtereSling aesdIeticaIl" and to JHO,ide a small access area to r:et m.a the &anac and out to the beach and provide a bath area for wat .. diwl beach aclivities_ The building footprint itself is ratIiu small. When the applicant purchased the Jliopeily in 1916 the zoning c:ode allowed Ihree sIDIy sIr_ ....... Mr. Williams!lbrtec! that they hIId aa:ommodllred the parkinc fOl"the JliOpCJ1}' immediately to the south as requested by $iliff. He added that the overall chlltllCteristi<:. oflhe new homes to the ncxth are of. fairly hieb degree of construction stancIards_ They are aesthetically pleasing _Ihe initial impressioa is they are all larger than the property construction being plDposed beo'e. 08/30108 09:45 FAX Z08 340 8837 WOLFSTONE PANCHOT. BLOC Mitcl1 Williams MF Williams Construction Provost Variance File No.: LUA·97-065,V August 14, 1991 Page 4 -----.---------llIoo! A I Provost, 1224 N. 32nd, RaJIon, Washington 98056, own ... here ... expIinned the hisIory of bis ownership of the subject site md adj-m Lots S I ..., 52. Regarding the ""istinc oo.dumse. be n:IIted the ew:ats of a recent windstorm wherein a pottion of III attached lean-to ~ad blown onto a neighbor's doclc. He s1atIld the boathouse bas been tbere for a long time IUd is sIJuctmaIIy sound, built with foor ) 4 x ) 0 inch beams ovcrbcad. He wOuld be willing 10 have the boathouse in"f""""". Mr. Provost further explained some of the oousual circumstJmc:es Ihat prompkd the sbORIiue variance, particularly the angled curve 011 Lot 49. In IooIdng at the 13 houses thai arc 81 c .. offdle street !bat goes to the uOJ1b,tbere would sUI) be 9 houses 0IIt oflbose 13 houses that arc bigger dum their jHoposed 1Iouse, CVOD with the variances. He also sIIIted 1bal because of the locatiOll of the site, there will be DO impact to the view from adjaceot houses. 'Jber'e arc cumotIy two evergreen \lees 011 the JII'OIlCIt) ,.,bicb appIicaIIt pIaDs 10 keep. Sleven Altringcr, 3701 Wells Avenue North, :Renton, WashinglDll980S6, -.,d that be awns 600 fccl from Lake WasbingtoD Boulevan1lO WeDs Avenue all the way up the IillI. He bas DO objection to tbc building. but be would like to see die trees removed. His main concern was with the beitht v.-ianoe and whether it was setting a precedeuc:e for f\IIIII'C yuiauces. At some time in the future be pIaDs to short plat his pi operty and will ask for the same variance. The b •• iDa' aplained thai this appIic:omt _ dealing widt 8ft unusuaJ1y small non-submaged swfaoe lend area, and Ih.a Mr. Allringer woWd have to sMw tile ....tovs bIrdships and the physical and topographicaJ c:onstraiots dad would allow 8 van ...... The Eu.iJH:r called for fur1her testimony rq:ording this project. There was no one else wishiug to speak, and no further COIDIIIents from stafJ. 'The beariIIg closed at II :00 a.m. FJNQ1NGs, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION Haviug reviewed the rceord in this _. the Examiner DOw makes and enters the following: I. The applicant. Mitch Williams for AI and Cindy Provost, filed ""Iuests for approval of a variance to allow a thr_StOry single family residence, and for approval of a variauc:e 10 allow a 10 foot Je8l' yard setback from the shoreline of LaM Washington. 2. The yellow file containiug the $IlIft'rq>ort. the Stale Enyironmeutal Policy Act (SEPA) documentation and other pertinent materials ,.,.,s entered into the reamI as E>dtibit "1. 3. The Enviroummtal Review Committee (ERe), the City's reapoIIsible offic:iaJ, dctl:mJinecI that the proposal is eumpt from an .... ironmental assessmcnL 4. The subject proposal was n:viewed by all departments with .. interest iu the matteI. S. The subject site is Joa.ted at 370f Lake Washiugton Boulevard North. Acnaally. the sire is accessed by a sepal1lte roadway off Lalce Wasbington Boulevard. The jHoperty, COIIsistiDg oflWO side-by.side parcels, is located OD the shoreline of Lake Washington. ., ." Mitch Willi""" MF Williams Construction Provost Variance File No.: LUA-97-06S,V August 14, 1997 Page 5 6. The subjcc:t site __ cd 10 the City over a number of months with the acIoptiOD ofOniinances 1791, ISOO and ISlMeoacted betweeII September and Dec:e.Dberof1959. 7. The map elemeut of the Com.,.' i ... Plan designaleS the area in which the sul!icc:t site is located as ,wlable for the development of sioalc family uses, but does DOt mandate AJCh development withoul ~n of other policies of the Plan. 8. The subjeu sit" is ZIlIIed R-S which pmmits up to eight single family homes per acre. 9. k noted, !he subject siko comists of two lots with part of cadi lot sabmerge<l below the surface of the lake. These parcels .,. ad! IJIIWOximetcly 20 feet wide. 'The up ...... !ll'dry portions of these Jots vary in length. The northernmost pan:eJ is approximately 71 fed lone and the southem ..tjoiniq: parceJ is approximately J 00 feet long. J O. The shoreline or edge of these parcels is clearly defmed by • zipgging rocJr. wall or bulkhead. There is no natural shoreline. J I. CUIJ'CIllly. a 20 foot wide end 40 fool deep boathouse is IocBted approximately 12 fed out tlnm the shore of the oorthem !*'COl and is ~ to the sborv by a DlIIIVW pier. It suffered wind damage this winter and is in need ofrepair. 12. An approximately 8 foot ~ shed is Jocated along the water's edge on the 1IOI'IhcnIlot. It will be removed. J 3. Section 4-3 1.5(DX9Xa) ICSIrb the height of single family dwellings as follows: The height of. dwelling or stnICture sball neither exceed two (2) S1or:ies nor thirty feet (30~ in bcigbt and shall notcoaflict with the aiIportbeight restrictions ofScction 4-31- 17 ofth;' Chapter. 14. Therefon; Ibe applicant has requesred a variance to allow the building to be Ihree (3) stories tall. IS. The City's Sho<eline MIISICr Program requires single family homes to be set back 20 feet from the shoreline of Lake WashingtoD (Sectioa 4.07.02(0». The appIicmt bas proposed a minimum setback of ten (10) fi:et from the I.ke. 16. The proposed fuulpaint and three-story height is intended to yield a reasonable single family dwelliog. There would be a ground level footprint of 960 square feeL The two-ca.-garage of 400 square feet would leave a two-story home with 1,500 square feet. Prujc:ctcd.,.,.,..1lm:e stories, the home would be approximately 2.880 squ.e feet less 400 sq1J8(C f<:et or ..",roxinaatcly 2.430 square feet. 17. The 1'101 plan and building footprint pows the house fDIlows the im>gular stepped western or shoreward property line. This creates • setback in one location which is reduced to 10 feel at • comer or angle who ... the bouse Pcade Ilims back away from the shoreline.. 18. The lInderlying applicants own the adjoining two parcels 10 tbc south. An existing home is located 00 thai property. 08/30/06 09: 4S FAX 208 340 8837 ____ WOLFSTONE PANCBOT • B~ --------------- Mitch Willi2J\\. MF Willi ..... ConstlUCtion P,ovost Variance File No.' LUA-97-065,V Aupst 14, 1997 Page 6 III 007 19. There are single family'-boIh north and south of1he subject,ite. A JeViewoftbe area showstbat the shoreline makes a Sllbstantialjoc directly in the midcDc of tile applicant's culJ'CDl Pi ...... ". The development of a dwelling as proposed would not severely impact the vY:ws of lOdj..,.,.,t patcels clue to the staggered uarure of the shorr:linl!.. Other homes in the area are boIh larger and smaOet llwllbat proposed ill this case. 20. The PhipOSed home would be less tbM the 30 feet heWrt permitted in the zone, but a recent change in regulations Iimiled ~es to two 5IIIries in height. 21. A review of vari"""" app\ic:aljoPs for properties along !be ........ line show wrimces boIh denied and appo oved. It oppears thai: CIICh varimc:e deteqnined the IIIliqoe eircumSllmCeS of each parcel vis a vis upland area and parcel width and depth. CONCLUSIONS: Height V:::n;anee 1. Variances .nay be granted when the property generally satisfies all the COIIditioDs described ;n part below: •• The applicant suffers aodue hardship caused by special ciIaJm_ such as: 1he size, shape, topography,« location...t.:R code enforcement wouJd deprive 1he 0_ of rights and privileges mjoyal by 0Ihas similarly situated; b. The granting ofthc variance would not materially harm either the pUblic welfare or other property in tile vicillity; c. The approval will DOt <:OIIStitute a special privilege iDcoosil\ledl with the limitamlns 011 other property in the vicinity; and d. The variance is the millimmn variance llece.5SaJ)' to allow rmsonable development of the subject site. The applieanes property appears ripe for the variance requesud. 2. The property in question which combines two approximately 20 foot ",ide lou in order to create one building pad is sevae1y cons1rained by the shwelioc and Lake WashingtoD. Not only.-the parcels of unequal lengda, but a large portioD of these side-by-side Jots .-subonergcd below the lake's surface. MOSt of the newer houses aIoo& the shwelinc in this vicinity bave foolJy exploited tbei1' Iimi1ed unsubmcrged ....,.. by redDciag one 01' mwe setbacks to ioaease the footpriDt uea. hi this case, the lot still constrains the development of a reasonable dwelling, particularly when COIIlparcd with these DeW.,. neighbon. 3. Approval of a -variance to allow a three·story home will not materially harm either the public or neighboring prupcaties. 11Ie ....... reasoo being that the moe pennits a home to be 30 feci. tall in any event ad the proposed home will oot exceed Ihatlimit. It also appear6 thai due to the shape of tile shoreline and the location of other bQmes along the shoreline that this dwelling would not signif"1CIIII1ly intrude in the existing viewscape. -. 08/30/08 08:(8 FAX 208 3(0 8837 WOLFSTONE PANCBOT • BLOC _.------- '"," . ------------._-----~008 .. 1 . . ,' Mitch Williams MF Winiams Construction Provost Variance File No.: LUA·97-065.V AUgust 14, 1991 Page 7 4. As DOled, odIer variances ....... boca issued when the 1IIKIcrlying parcels were sipif"1C8II11y constrained by their .iu: or sbape. Gtantint!: oftlUs "art",," sbould DOt <rate Illy special privilege and is DOt inconsistent with what has occon-ed on other nearby properties. S. The variaace for one additiooal floor is the minimum, givea the o1her collSlnoints dial elready limit the deYeIopablc lot area. Again, die additional floor wiD not exceed the IIbso/nIe 30 fOot height limit imposed on this zooe. Shoreline Vari,ace 6. In addieion to the criteria noted aboYc, shoreline variances .., ..t>ject to 10IIII> additionaJ review c:riIeria taking iDto ~ion the unique and fragile environm_ along the shorelioe. Those psnic:ular criteria are; a. Exceptional.,.. cxtraonIiJwy circumstsn<:es 01' CODdilions IIfIPJyiag to the subject propeny, or to the intended use thereof, that do not apply geoalIlly to other properties on shorelines in !be same vicinity. b. The variance pennit is DCCeSSOry of the preservation and enjoymart of a substantial property Tight of the applicaJlt possessed by the owners of o1her properties on shorelines in the sBlDe vicinity. C. lb. variance pennie will DOt be materially d.1rimentaI to !be public welfare or iqjwiO\lS to property on the shorelines ;,. the same vicinity. d. The variance granted will be in hannony with the penl purpoSe and intent of this Master Program. e. The pUblic welfare aDd iDtCR8t will be preserved; ifmore harm will be done to the.ea by gnmting the variance dim would be done to the IIfIPJicmt by denyiDg ic.1he variance will be denied, but each piOpell) owner shall be entided 10 Ihe JP!ISClINIbIe ..... and developuoent ofhis lands as long as such use ..... development is ill Iamooy witII tile gtmenIl pwpose and intent of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and the ...... visions of this M ...... Progiam. 1. As discussed above, !be shape and overall depth of the upland, UIIS1Ibmcrged COIIlbined parcel crealI: uniq"" or c:xcepIional cm:.'ID_ justifying variance reW n.e combiaed width of the two \*CC1s is approximarely 40 feet wide. n.e two parccls are two different lengths, creating m awkwanllend mass on which to 00IISInJct a reasonably sized single family home. The home more or less altempts 10 follow the oodine of the combined Jllll'Ccl and one comer of the home would be within 10 feet of \be shoreliue while most of the bIllk wou1d be set back a gnoala' cIisIance overall 8. Since variances from the shmeline sdback have been gnonted under similar circumsbmcC$ where the 101 depth or overall width was generally ... bstandard, the ippJOVal of this wriaoee ,.,iII prescn-e the property righl for this applicant as is enjoyed by similarly siwakd properties along the shoreline. 9. DIIt: to the shape of the property and !he nature of the shoreline, the additioa of the home pennilted by variance approval will not be matt:riaJ1y detrimental to eitber the public welfare or other property in this vicinity. $laffhas recommended that no additional above ground intrusions be penniaed in the remaining setback. thereby assuring that any intrusion will be limited. The existing bome to the south Mitch Williams MF Williams Construction Provost Variance File No.: LUA-97-065,V AUgust 14, 1997 PageS J) and the homes and boaIhouse to 1he north and on this lot also ahady impa<:l odIers' views to some extent. III 009 10. The publie _Ibn ~win be preserved. Again, the prOperty _er is merely being permitted 10 exercise rigllts exercised by odIers in tills viciIIity woo have bad similar constrainrs due to 101 s1zc 01" dcptb or width. The applicant will be obIr:rviog the remaining bulk ........ CftII wi1i\e mdiDg ODe additional sIOry by DOt inlJulting into required sidcyards or exccediag the pennitted 30 foot heigbL 11. In <:OIIdusioa, the .-.rian<:cs ""J'ICSkd appear reasooabIy JJe' ..... ,) 10 .now the deveIolpmeot of a DOl u_ble siDgle family chrelliag in this location on these twO preexisting legal a\1hough substanOrd parcels. DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION: The variances to .11_ ......... srory single family boJne within 10 feet oflhc sbonoline is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The appUeant shall develop a single family home IS deInonstrared in Exhibit 3_ 2. AppIica.n Ihall record • noslriclive covenant that docs aot allow any sort of additional structwes within ary of the setback area and that it be maintaiDed as opea planted uea or ground Jcvcl podio. 3. The boathouse may be repaired but shall not be expanded in any diIecl:ion or have ..,y change in its bulk. 4. The actual piJysic:a\ height of the resjdence sbaIl DOt exceed a plane of 30 feet above ground level. S. The applicant shaH be required 10 obtain all oilier .. 11 ry permits .. apjlIowals for tile proposal (i.e. boilding permit, certificate of water and sewer availability, etc.). ORDERED nns 14t11 day of August, 1997. -Q~ FREDJ.~ HEARING EXAMINER TRANSM11TED THIS 14th day of August. 199710 the parties ofmoord: Jennifer Henning 200 Mill Avenue S Renton, WA 98055 Mitch Williams P.O. Bo" 361 Mercer Island, W A 98040 AlPtovost 1:224 N 320d Renton, WA 98056 " ~ , . '. April 14. 1998 Mr. and Mrs. AI Provost 1224N32nd Renton, WA 98056 Re: Provost Variance File No. LUA97-06S,V Dear Mr. and Mrs. Provost: Your ieueito Jay CoviDgton was redirected to this oflice as you bad the wrong name for the Heariug Examiner. III 010 This office bas reviewed your letter aod concerns. 1bc c:o_ts do nm with the \and but so do the variances that MIl: lqIplied for by the applicant. The variances will a1ter the character and reduce the required setbaeks fur as lcmg as the structure tcmains. The covenants can probably tefIect the fact that they would Iapsc: when and if the structure or structures _ remowd and the lot restored to a vllClllll state. III which time new p:m&its and variances, if IXCCS$IT}', would be required under the theD aIfectIw rcgulatioDs. If the eonditioDs impo5ed with the approval were uncatisf"""'Y. the llJIlilIicant should bave spoJcen up at that time. It is now too late to substantially alter the decision. Some of this could have been handled more effectively if the covenants in drlfft form bad been subIUitted for review to the City Attomey as insttutted in the correspondeoc:e from this oftice. Sincerely, ~j~~ FredJ.~ Hearing Examiner cc: Jay Covington LarryWarrm Jennifer Heming 200 Mill Avenue South -Renton. Washington 980SS -"'235-2593 . t;) Thf5~(;DIW!Io""5O"'-recy4IIIM ~ 20% ... ~ 06/30/06 09:48 FAX 208 340 8837 WOLFSTONE PANCBOT • BLOC ilion ------------ DATE: TO: FROM: CITY OF RENTON PLANNlNGIBUILDINGIPUBLlC WORKS MEMORANDUM March 30, 1998 Fred Kaufinan. Hearing BxamiDsr JI!IIIIifer Toth Hen.niDg ~ SUBJECT: PRM>St Variance (File No. LUA-97-065,Y) The PtoVosl'S application fur two Variances (one from Ibe Shoreline Master Prognun, amllbe olb"': from the development SIaDdatds of the a·g Zone) was appre>ve4 ill August, 1997 with conditions. The applicant \WSW to vary tram the Shoreline Master Program requiremcDts fur a minimunt 20-foot setb.1dc from the water's ed&e. 8IId proposed a 10 foot seIbacl< from the water's edge. The second variance requested was 1Oc:xeeed tile two-story building bcigbt limit of the It-8 Zoae by oae-slOry. The reamsideratioolappcal period for the decision coded 011 Aupst 28, 1997, and no appeals or : requests fur remnside ...... were filed. On August 26, 1997. prior to the cod orlbe appeal period. a Iener was seol trom the lIc:aI-q E>aInUner \0 the applio:aDl, Mitch Wdliams (arcllicettlOOlltrac:tor for the owner), mniMing him of the appeal deadline, and ~ iastructions for the IlXflCIIIioo of the required restricIive COWWiiiilS. Comlition No.2 slates Ibal the; "Applicant slulll rwcord .. rutrictive cawmant that does nDl allow any sort of addttiorml structures wlthi" any of the setbad area and lhalll be maintained as open pllmted area or groJmd I_I patio. " The leUer (copy attached) states that: "Restricrive co_Is, as olltlined in the Extmrincr's Report and [Reision, .,1lI have to be aeCJlled. These C01Ie1I<lIIt.s must also be {1ccompanl~ by a kgal description of the property. Samples oflMformat are melos.d. The restricttve covenants must be approved by the City Attomey Prior to ~Dft. Therefore, please pravitk a copy of the drafi _Is 10 orlT office and ,.... will tMn forward them 10 the City Anomey for revi...... The required legal description wiU also mpnre revi.w and approval by the City as 10 COlT"" fOmtDL After the CO_ts and legal description arc app1'DII«i. tmtI 1M cownants f/UC/l./ed, the matIR will be considered jiml emd lhe c(1VeflQtJJS wiU be jiled WIth King County by lhe City Ckrk. " The property 0WIIetS (lLe Provosts) apparently received a copy of the sample funnat for the mttictive eovenants furm the applicant. without beoelit of the 1£C00000nying 1euer trom your office. The Provosts t=>rded rcstric:tiw cCMlIIaIIIS for the property. lJDbtuuaicly. the COVCDaDIs were not Itricwcd by your oftic:e or the City Attorney. prior 10 reconlin£. The COVCIIaDts ineluded a sunset claus 1bal1VOllld ...... 1t in the cxpiJatioo oflbe coveoaDis <Ill December 31. 202S. ADd., the restrictive comJaIII$ weal bcyood !be lfariJIg Examiner's CoodiIion No. 2 ami included Conditiom No. 2, 3. 08/30/06 09:(8 FAX ZOO 3(0 8837 WOLFSTONE PANCHOT • B~ ------------- March 30. 1998 Page 2 and 4. I forwarded a copy of !he covcnaats to Larry WllI1'I'D for review. He approved the c:oven(UltS as to fonn. provided !he suasct dadse is removed. as Condition No. 2 was imeaded to nsn with the land, in perpetuity. I have had several di1co,ssian< wirb the Provosts. They rhougbIlbal!he sample ~tWc coveoant "duration" date was standanI ~ IIIId needed to be inclI,dec! in 1heir doo:»meot. They were not happy with the 27-year period tbaI the amnant would be ill dlect. but they sigJlCd (''lmdet protest") and recorded !he doc:umeut. lhc Provom were quite swprised to find out thai the cova.nl needs to be re-recorded to IUD with the !aDd "in perpetuity". - It appears thai !be DeW covenant does not need to incIlide Iaa&uage JeilIrding !he boathouse and building height (previously leCO,ded Rmrictive COveIlllllts No. 2 ad No.3). lhc Hearing Examiner Decision did not specify thai :my of the other conditioos of aopproval. other than Condition No. 2 (reganliDa Slruetu~ ill tba setback area), be recorded. - The Provosts letter of March 19th appears to raise objections !hat sllould ha,.., been DOtr:d during the reconsideratioolappeal period. Ho_. they do raise a valid c:oocem in the last para,srapb. If ill the future, City requiremeots dIanp to be more pennissive, thoo tbc:y should be requUed to meet tile same restrictions imposI:d 00 oIbor properties. There is a proc:css they could go through to ~ the restricti"" COvmaol if City u8111atioas DO longer apply 10 the pan:cl. A description of the method is auarhcd (see Policy and Procedure No. 400-13). 1bc auached 1etter fiOPl the PrOVllSt's was addressed to 1"Y CoviDgtoo. Ir sbouJd haw been ditected to you. A "'Ply from yow' office appears to be in order. Could you din:cr the "'Ply to the owners? They are: AI and C}Ddie PIOYOSt, PO Box 823. Mercer IsIaud, WA 9&040. A ccpy sboold also be sent to the applicaol: Mib:b Williams, MF Williams Coustruction, PO Box 361, Men:e£ Island, WA 98040. Please feel free to alIIIIiCtlllll at 6186 should you have 1lIIY questions. 111012 08/30/08 09:48 FAX Z08 340 8837 WOLFSTONE PANCHO! • BLOC 1lI013 ·~Fe CITY OF RENTON Review Comments I PotmItNumber CP9B095 ENERGY COMMBNTS: JAN CONKLIN 425-277-6176 1. COMPLETE #6 ON CHBCKLIST FOR EXHAUST FANS. SPBCIFY ALL FANS TO BE DlSTALLED IN KITCHENS, BATHS, LAUNORY ROOMS. SELF VBNTIID RANGE DOBS NOT MEET CODE REQUIREMENT FOR VENTING TO 'mE EXTERIOR. SEPARATE FAN REQUIRED. BUILDINGI PLANNING REVIEW: CRAIG BURlIIELL 1 • PROVIDE A COMPLETB SITE PLAN WITH SUBMITTAL PER RENTON REQUIREMENTS • 2. PROVIDE ATTIC VENTILATION J. MINIMUM VENTILATION AREA REQUIRED IS 5% OF FLOOR AREA. SHOW FLOOR AREA AllD AREA OF OPENINGS ON FLOOR 2. 4. SHOW ONE HOUR FIRE SEPARATION BBTWEEN GARAGE AND HOUSE. 5. SHOW ONE HOUR FIRE SEPARATION UNDBR STAIRS. 6 • PROVmE VERIFICATION OF COMPLIlINCB WITH HEARDiG EXAMINER CONDITION #2. 7. ENGINBER SHOULD EVALUATE DEFLECTION OF STEEL FRAME TO DBf«)NSTRATB IT rs WITHIN ACCEPTABLE LIMITS. B. APPLICANT MOST PROVIDE TWO OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES PER SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. TANDEM PARKING IS ALLOWED. THE NEW PARKING SHOWN FOR THE EXISTING HOME DOESN'T MEET CODE REQUIRP:MKNTS • THE APPLICANT WOULD NEED TO PROVIDE MINIMUM DIMENSION OF 9 FEET WIDE BY 40 FEET I.ORG TO ACCOK>DATB THE TWO PARKING SPACES; OR SEEK A M)DIFICATIOR FROM THE PARKING AND LOADING ORDINANCE. FOR THE MODIFICATION, 'mE APPLICANT WOULD NEED TO SUBMIT A LETTER TO THE ADMINISTRATOR OF P/B/PW DEPARTMEN'l'. THE LBTTER MUST INCLUDE A WRITTBN JUSTIFICATION AND THE REQUESTED MODIFICATION MUST: CONFORM TO THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE CODE; BE SHOWN TO BE JUSTIFIED AND REQUIRED FOR THE USE &, SITUATION INTENDED; WILL NOT CREATE ADVERSE IMPACTS TO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE VICINITY: AND THE REQUEST MOST BB MADE PRIOR TO DETAILED BNGINHERING. 9 • APPLICANT STILLS NEEDS TO COMPLY WITH HEARING EXAMINER CONDITIONS, ESPECIALLY REGARDING THE REQUIRED RESTRICTIVE COVENANT. 06/30/06 09:47 FAX %08 340 8837 To: FroID: Date: Subject: MEMORANDUM JenniferToth Henning Lawrence J. Wuren, City Attorney March 13, 1998 CITY,-._' RENTON Office of !be City AttOrney Lawieae J. WIII'RD DEVELOPMENT IMNNING CITY OF RENTON MAR 16 1998 RECE1VED Declaration of Restrictive Covenants -Provost Residence Shoreline Variance (Fde No. LUA-97-065, V) The covenants are approved as to legal fonn with the exception that they should be in perpetuity, until the structures covered by the variance are removed or until further ·variances are obtained . LJW:as. cc: Jay Covington A8:138.24. . ~ Lawrllllce J. Warren , 08/30/08 09:47 FAX %08 340 8837 lVOLFSTONE PANCHO! I; ~ 1lJ015 DEClARATION OF RESTRICflVE COVENANTS 'WHEREAS AI and Cyndie Provost are the owners of the following real pr~rty in the City of Renton, County of Kina State of Wasbinoton. described os E'lhibit' A' a!lached hereto, '" ~ WHEREAS, the owners of said-described property desire to impose !he following restrieti\'e cO\'cnants runnin@ with the land as 10 use. present and futUre. or the llbove described real p~, NOW, THEREfORE. the aforesaid owneJS hereby establish, grant and impose restrictions and co\'enants running with the land herein above described With respect to !he use by the undersigned. their successors, heirs, and assigns as follows: RESTRlcnVECOVENANfS I, No additional structures \\ithin any of the setback area :Ire permil1ed, and that Ihese areas shall be maintained as open planted area or ground le\-el patio, 2, The boathouse may be repaired but shall not be exp<l1lded in any direction or have any change in its bulk. 3 _ The acrual physical height of the residence shall not exceed II plane of 30 feet above ground level. DURATION These covenants shall run with !he land and e)(pire on December 31. 2025, If at any time improvements are installed pursuant to these covenants. the portioo of the covenants pertaining to the specific installed improvements required by the Ordinances of the City o! Renton shall 'terminale without necessity of furlher documentation An)' violation or breach of these restrictive co\'enants mil}' be enfon:ed by proper legal procedures in the Superior Court of King County by either the City of Renton or any property owners adjoining subject property who llre adversely aJTected by said breach, STATEOFWASHlNOTON 55, County of KING On this _____ day of ________ 1997, before me personally apperu-ed the persons who executed !he within and foregoiD@ instrument, and aCknowled@ed said instrument to be the free and ,-oluntary net and deed of said persons for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. IN WITI'IESS WHEREOF. I have bei-euhio set my hand and affi;'(ed my official seal the day and year first abo,'e 'Wrinen. l'IQlf/lIY Public in and for the Slate of Washington. residing at ____________ ~ 06/30/06 09:47 FAX Z06 340 8837 WOLFSTONE PANCBOT UJ.QC SHORELINE SETBACK VARIANCE AND VARIANCE TO ALLOW A THIRD STORY. THE PROPOSED SF RESIDENCE WOULD BE LOCATED ON LOTS 49 AND 50 AND WOULD NOT EXCEED THE 30 FOOT HEIGHT LIMITATION OF THE R-8 ZONE. THE APPLICANT RESIDES TO THE SOUTH OF THE PROJECT SITE AT 3707 LAKE WASHINGTON Bt N. A VARIANCE FROM THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM IS REQUIRED IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT THE PROPOSED RESIDENCE CLOSER Wm-lIN 10 FEET OF THE SHORELINE. WHILE VARIANCES WERE CONDITIONALl~~PRQVED BY EXAMINER ON 8-17-1997. THIS APPROVAL WAS LATE~2000.J)DISMISSED AND TREATED AS DENIED' BY THE EXAMINE REQUIRED CONDITIONS OF 1/. APPROVAl WERE NOT COMPLIED WITH. l DUIL1>/"vG-fif2J.A-1 I tl'fl/UD ~016 06/30/06 09:47 FAX 206 340 8837 WOLFSTONE P ANCBOT ~ BLOI; . ; .. :~~/ .. M.E WIUIAMS CONSTRUCllON CO .• INC. P.O. BOX 361 MFRCER ISLAND. WA. 98040 DECU.RATION OF RESTRICflVE COVENANTS WHEREAS AI and Cyndie Provoel are the owners of the following real Popelty in IIIe City of RenIOll. Calmty of King, State of Washington, described as . LarS 49 AND SO. BLOCK. "An. C.D. HlI...lMAN'S lAKE WASHINGTON GARDEN OF f.I:)fN ADDmON TO SEATTIE, NO.2, ACCORDING TO THE PlAT RECaIDB> IN VOWME 11 OF PLATS. PAGE 64. IN KING COUNTY. WASHINGTON; TOGETHER WITH SECOND CLASS SHORELANDS ADJOINING; AND 11JE WEStERLY 15 FEET OF THAT PORTION OF FORMER NORTHERN PAOFlC RAn.WAY ~ANY RIGHT-OF-WAY AS LIES BEIWEEN-mE NORTHERLY AND THE SOUTHERLY LINES OF SAID LOl'S 49 AND SO. TAXPARCELIDI:334270-02S0-03 WHEREAS. the 0WIII:n of said described propeny desire to jmpose the following rrstrictive covenanls numing with the land as 10 use. present and f~ of the above described real property. NOW, THEREFORE, tile aforesaid owners hereby establish. graIIt and iJDpose restrictions and covenants rlIIIIIing wilh the land bcrein alxwe described with Iespccl to the use by the undetsigned, their suca:ssors. heirs. aod assips as follows: RESTRICflVE COVENANTS ''', ! I. " No additional SI:nIc11Ira wi1hin any of the setback area are permitlDJ. and Ihilt these areas shall ',_/ be maintained as 0JICIl planted area or ground level patio, 2. The boathouse IIIllY be repaired but shall not be expmded in any diR.ction oc have any change in its bulk. 3. The acrual physical hei8bt of the RSidence shall DOl exceed a plane or 30 feet above 8fOUDd. level. DURATION Tbese covenants sbaIl J1III willi the land and expire on Decemba" 31. 202S. If ill any time improvements are instaIJed pusuant to these covenants, the portion of tile covenanlll perlaiaiJig to the specific illSlalJed iJDpmoUDWIS required by the Ordi_ of tile City of Renrat sball tenninate without IIoIMSiiity of further documentation. 1lI016 S ::. -S ;i 08/30/06 09:47 FAX 206 340 8837 --_._---III 019 ... o ... N ~ N ... ... S; Ally violation or breach cl dIese restrictive covenants may be enforced by J¥opet legal procedures in the Superior Court cl King Couacy by ei titer the City 0( ReIIIcn or any property owners adjoiuing subject property who are adVersely affected by said breach. qif f'.;? . ,t7 L<~--- @~~ Al Provost STATE OF WASHINGTON 55. County of KING 1\ ( 6,re <It k 199'7. befOlC me peuoually appeared the pelsoos who executed the within and foregoing instrumenl, and acknowledp1 said insIrument to be the free and voIunlaly act and deed of said persons for tile uses and purposes tbelein mentioned. C '1~e PAN""+-.f 4 Ie Po'N.at- IN WlTNFSS WHEREOF. I have hercullto set my band and affixed my offICial seal the day and year first above wrilttJll . ~ Public in and for !be State of Washmgton. re$jding aI_...,~{f...!~4&~:!;... __ .-,-__ ~q. 6/, . • , CI LlCIALSEAL SHARON GILBERTSON IlriblrMlr.SIIIt .. • r lIDo lire t. &Ioho Ist-O! ~~~~~~~.~ ------------- lippeal 8/ 1fE. b?c/s,olJ [u/i' {j1,J-O 1.11/ bl-H ·~pJiude (tt(;f~ f)/tdf'cI . Bonnie I.o Walton CltyOerk / Cable Mana CityC ger lerk Division bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us ~;;;osn City Hall· 7th Floor outh Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 (425) 430·6510 Direct (425) 430·6502 FAX# (425) 430-6516 ***************************HH******* DUPLICATE DUPLICA IE DUPLICATE DUPLICATE r; ity of Renton City Treasurer *****'**************, *>*******'** I' , .. a* Reg# #/Rcpt#: i)02-00:)96299 [ Accounting f!u':';:'; ,I; _iun ji, , 'I Date/Time: h· I,.,,,', ,i)u!. ,i'I *********'*th:\-..i...-, :'~. -, d n'n 8000/ APP!'", C:F H" I', ,ie, REF#: l ~:/) :~-!! Ie ,r "', 'j-•• : , ~' . i.'; , I 1 1 1 I 7 3 I ~~ 1 I I City Clerk's Office Distribution List Appeal, Provost Variance LUA-06-024, V June 30, 2006 Kin~ County Journal City Attorney Larry Warren City Council .. Julia Medzegian EDNSP/Economic Development Alex Pietsch Fire Dept/Fire Prevention Stan Engler Planning Commission Judith Subia Parties ofRecord** (see attached list) PBPW / Administration Gregg Zimmerman PBPWlDevelopment Services Neil Watts ::rllll>11~ Jennifer Henning Larry Meckling Janet Conklin Stacy Tucker PBPW ITransj)Ortation Services Peter Hahn PBPWfUtilities & Tech Services Lys Hornsby LUA-06-024 • "Cover Letter & POR List only AI & Cindy Provost P.O. Box 1492 Renton, W A 98057 Rebecca Wynsome Gary Weil 3711 Lake Washington Blvd. N Renton, W A 98056 Mike Brown 3703 Lake Washington Blvd. N Renton, W A 98056 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) 55. County of King ) Nancy Thompson being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states: That on the 20th day of June 2006, affiant deposited via the United States Mail a sealed envelope(s) containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition. Signature: ) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this .2t!fitday of " [un,! ,2006. -""uJ-' .... """'"'--- Application, Petition or Case No.: Provost Variances File No.: LUA 06-024, V-H The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record. HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT June 20, 2006 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Minntes APPLICANT/OWNER: PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: SUMMARY OF REQUEST: SUMMARY OF ACTION: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: PUBLIC HEARING: Al and Cindy Provost PO Box 1492 Renton, W A 98057 Provost Variance File No.: LUA 06-024, V-H North of3707 Lake Washington Boulevard North Applicants have requested three variances: reduce 25-foot setback from water's edge to 10-feet; to exceed two-story height limit by one story; and reduce front yard setback from 20 feet to five feet. Development Services Recommendation: Approve with conditions The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on May 9, 2006. After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available information on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the May 16, 2006 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, May 16, 2006, at 9:04 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The follOwing exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No.1: Yellow file containing the original Exhibit No.2: Neighborhood Detail Map application, proof of posting, proof of publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exbibit No.3: Site Plan Exhibit No.4: Building Elevations Exhibit No.5: Lower Level floor Plan and Second Exhibit No.6: Second Level floor Plan and Upper Floor Framing Plan Level Framing Plan Exhibit No.7: Upper Level floor Plan and Roof Exhibit No.8: Zoning Map Frami~Plan Provost Variance File No.: LUA-06-024, V-H June 20, 2006 Page 2 Exhibit No.9: Drawing of where the house would be drawn back with the 25-foot shoreline setback. Exhibit No, 11: Photo by Mr. Weil of the large tree on the Provost property Exhibit No. 10: Copy of Covenants from the original filing. Exhibit No. 12: Five photos of three new homes under construction in the Barbee Mill area The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Jill Ding, Senior Planner, Development Services, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. The property is located along the shores of Lake Washington, west of Lake Washington Boulevard, south ofN 38th Street and north ofN36th Street. The property is zoned Residential-8 dwelling units per acre (R-8) and is located within the Residential Single-Family Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation. There is a detached garage structure, shed, a boathouse and dock currently on the property, the shed and the garage are proposed to be removed. The applicant is requesting three variances to construct a three-story single-family residence with a maximum footprint of approximately 960 square feet. The variances include a shoreline variance from the required shoreline setback, a height variance and a front yard setback variance. The shoreline variance and height variance were previously granted under LUA 97-065 in August of 1997. A single-family building permit was also issued on the property in April of 1998. Both approvals have expired. The Examiner stated that he believed the covenants were never signed and so the application for the variance was dismissed. Ms. Ding stated that she had a time line for the file and she noted that in January 2000 the Examiner sent a letter stating that he had not yet received the required covenants and that the variance would be dismissed ifthe covenants were not received by February 7, 2000. On February I, a second covenant was filed that runs in perpetuity, as requested by the City Attorney, however there is no documentation of the attorney review or approval. The original covenant was not rescinded and both covenants currently encumber the property. There appear to be no copies of either covenant. The proposal for the single-family residence is consistent with the Community Design Element ofthe City's Comprehensive Plan. . The variance requesting an additional story to the residence would not exceed the 30-foot height limit but would exceed the maximum number of stories permitted, which is two. Since the original variance was approved, the City's regulations have changed and front yard setbacks are required to be measured from the edge of an access easement rather than from the edge of the property line. They are now asking for a 5-foot setback from the edge of the access easement rather than the required 20-foot front yard setback. The height variance is necessary due to the size and shape of the existing parcel. The applicant proposes a three-story residence which would be 29-feet II-inches and would not exceed the 30-foot maximum height limit. A lot of the parcel is underwater and unbuildable, the land area is 3,363 square feet and by City's standards would be a substandard lot. The applicant is dealing with a very small land area combined with the shoreline setback and required front and side yard setbacks, there are a lot of constraints on this piece of land. In order to mitigate all those constraints, the applicant has proposed to construct a three-story residence, giving Provost Variance File No.: LUA-06-024, V-H June 20, 2006 Page 3 them an adequate buildable area within a minimal footprint. Living space area would be just under 1,500 square feet. Staff does support the three-story height variance due to the constrained lot area. The applicant contends that the front yard setback variance is necessary due to the size and shape of the existing parcel. It was also noted that the southeastern part of the existing garage is located within the access easement and the remainder of the garage is located closer than 5-fect to the access easement. The granting of the height variance would not be materially detrimental to the public, no adjacent sight lines or views of Lake Washington would be affected. The proposed 5-foot front yard variance would not be detrimental as the existing garage is located closer than five feet and actually is within the access easement. The existing homes in the neighborhood are located closer than 5-feet to the access easement. There is no special privilege in granting the three stories as there are existing residences in the neighborhood that have three stories so their residence would not be out of character. The 30-foot three-story structure allows approximately 10 feet of floor-to-ceiling height for each floor. The front yard setback would be 5 feet leaving a maximum footprint of 960 square feet, and actually less than that if the recommendation that the shoreline setback be moved back an additional 5-feet. Shoreline Variance Criteria: The applicant is proposing a 20-foot setback from the shoreline on the north half or the proposed residence, which was the original setback requirement in 1997 when they applied for the original variance. The regulations have changed and a 25-foot setback from the shoreline is required. The southern portion of the residence is proposed to be 10 feet from the shoreline. The land area is unusual in that an existing block wall shortens the land area of the lot and creates a "Z" shaped building pad. The shape and the 25-foot setback requirement from the shoreline restricts the building pad size. Under the original variance the applicant was not requesting a variance for the north portion of the residence, it would have been in compliance at that time, the only variance was the northwest comer of the south portion of the residence which was to be 10-feet from the shoreline. Staff recommends that no variance on the north portion of the residence be granted, the residence should be permitted to encroach 10-feet into the 25-foot setback on the south portion of the residence. The original variance would permit at home that has a maximum footprint of 960 square feet on three levels. Staff has recommended a slightly reduced footprint due (0 the increase in the shoreline setback. The staff requirements for sethacks would not impact the natural beach area or public access points, nor would it impede any views for adjacent property owners. The Shoreline Master Program encourages uses along shorelines that are not view obstructing, that do not disturb the community and have an appropriate design theme, the applicant's proposal does meet these criteria. There are utilities available to the subject property and the residence would not exceed the 30-foot height that is permitted. The design of the site and structure appear to be harmonious with the stated policies of the Master Program. AI Provost, (mailing address) PO Box 1492, Renton, WA 98057 (physical address: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. N., Renton 98056) stated that he owns this property and lives on the lot immediately south of the subject site. He is attempting to develop the lot to the north of his residence. Originally they applied for a variance to build on the subject site and at that time had a builder, some of the correspondence between the City of Renton and their builder was not communicated to them as owners of the property. They found out about the Provost Variance File No.: LUA-06-024, V-H June 20, 2006 Page 4 , , requirement for the covenants and agreed with them, there were some statements that pertained to the perpetuity of those covenants that was discussed with Renton City Attorney. When the issues were settled, the revised covenants were filed, he did not understand why the City did not have a copy of the revised filed covenants. He offered to provide a copy to the City. Regarding the height requirement, he stated that they were not requesting a variance in the actual height of the structure, but only in the amount of stories built in that structure. The only other issue with the recommendation from the City was that when they first applied in 1997 they have maintained the same building plans that were approved at that time, nothing in the neighborhood has changed with regards to conditions that were addressed and approved by the City and the Hearing Examiner. So, with the setback issues, they would like to maintain and get approval for the original20-foot setback for the northerly portion and the 10-foot setback for the southerly portion of the building. The panhandle is approximately 20-feet wide. The general direction of the shoreline in this area is north/south, however there is a small indent on this parcel and the shoreline direction becomes eastlwest and causes many problems, one being that by looking at it as a shoreline rather than a side yard or front yard. If viewed as a side yard for the short distance that it runs in the eastlwest direction they would be able to build in that panhandle. The existing house to the north was built approximately in the late '80's or early '90's, it was built to the 20-foot setback standard. If they are allowed to build to the 20-foot setback, their structure would not be closer to the shoreline than the several houses to the north of them. To the south of this lot, the full lot extends out that 56- foot distance to a north/south shoreline and was finalized in November 2005 and it is set back the 25-feet, but because the lot protrudes out farther there is no view along the shoreline from several houses to the north of their lot because their house sticks out farther to the west. The Examiner stated that the altered shape of the shoreline is the issue today. Some variances may cause all kinds of problems, however the issue is to protect the shoreline. Mr. Provost stated that the lot to the north is 45-feet wide and possibly some of that width was because the lots were not as deep and allowed them more square footage for the homes being built. The lots to the south were limited to a 40-foot width. In 1997 the plans for this house were approved, the City at the time required some structural steel for vertical stability of the house and that was a surprise to the builder and themselves. It imposed a substantial monetary increase in the budget for building the house and so they were unable to continue. They paid for that variance and the plans to be drawn up and so they stayed with the original plans. They appreciate that the City is granting a variance, but if they have to reduce the size of the house again it will require going to an architect and redoing the plans because the foundation will be affected by that change. Ms. Ding displayed Exhibit 9 and clarified that where the arc has been drawn in at the northwest comer ofthe southern portion of the house would need to be a straight line to make sure that there is IS-feet from all portions of the rock wall. Rebecca Wvnsome, 3711 Lake Washington Blvd. N., Renton 98056 stated that she and her husband Gary live just north of the Provosts. The Redwood tree is closer to the proposed structure than shown on Exhibit 3, the western portion of the tree is more in alignment with the boathouse. The building of the house would impact the tree and currently there is an immature eagle that lands there and other eagles also use that tree. They are in favor ofthe 25-foot setback, the impact to them from this new house is the privacy of their home, if there were windows on the side they would directly look into the windows of their home. Provost Variance File No.: LUA-06-024, V-H June 20, 2006 Page 5 People are looking at the value of being on lakefront property, the boathouse has tremendous value, new boathouses are no longer allowed, this parcel is very valuable to potential buyers, the square footage of the home is not as important as the boathouse and the lakeshore in terms of value. Garv Weil, 3711 Lake Washington Blvd. N, Renton 98056 stated that in 1997 when the variances were originally applied for, it was his understanding that they had not been approved. Looking at the drawing, it appears that the side yard is as big as approximately half of the total width of the lot. Has this been verified, the side yard by the tree seems to be quite narrow when actually walking on the property and not a buildable piece of property. They previously signed a variance because the boathouse is over their property line and that is fine, but he does hope that the setbacks are being measured from the actual property lines and not where their fence is located. They own an additional18-inches to 2-feet on that side of the property. The Examiner stated that adverse possession or disputes of fence lines must be dealt with by the parties, however, the City must be aware of what is going on and a surveyor may be necessary to clarity the lines. Mr. Weil continued that the tree is within 5-feet ofthe water, he showed a picture of the tree, in which all easterly limbs would need to be removed to build a 30-foot building. When a foundation is dug to the roots and the tree is limbed, what happens to the tree? It is the requirement ofthe applicant to verity that the livelihood of the tree would be maintained. Mike Brown, 3703 Lake Washington Blvd. N, Renton 98056 stated that he is the neighbor to the south of the Provosts. When he was at the City earlier, he did pick up a copy ofthe Restrictive Covenants, which states that no additional structures within the setback areas are permitted, these areas shall be maintained as open planted area or ground level patio. The boathouse may be repaired but not expanded or changed in bulk. The actual physical height of the residence shall not exceed a plane of 30-feet about ground level. It goes to December 31, 2005 and was recorded in 1997 on November 24. He is not sure what is being proposed, he received mail from Development Services showing that a house of approximately 3,953 square feet was going to be built. He came to the City and met with Jill Ding and she told him it was a 960 square foot footprint. A footprint of 960 times 3 levels is 2,880 square feet. It was clarified that the boathouse was included in the square footage. (A drawing of the footprint and garage was shown to Mr. Brown) There was much discussion on how calculations were reached to determine the footprint and square footage of this proposed residence. The Examiner stated that what is going in is a home, it may be what the Provosts want, 3,226 square foot home or it may be what the City wants, 2,880 square foot home. It could be two stories or three stories. Mr. Provost stated that regarding the tree issue, in 1997 two separate arborists came to the property and inspected the tree and site. Both suggested that there was a way to minimize the impact to the tree and that was to be very careful in the excavation of the portion of the foundation that is adjacent to the tree. Once the roots were exposed decisions could be made as to how to proceed. They were to maintain that tree. Their attorney has assured them that the sales agreement can be written in such a way to provide protection for the tree. When they were notified that the easements were going to be increased, there are three brand new houses in the Barbee Mill area that are currently under construction, 3905, 3907, and 3909 Lake Washington Boulevard North. Five photos were entered as exhibits of this new construction. The edges of the homes are protruding out, some flat front and some angled. The foundations are within 10-12 feet from the edge of the lake. Mr. Weil showed a picture of the eagle in the tree. Provost Variance File No.: LUA-06-024, V-H June 20, 2006 Page 6 Ms. Ding stated that there are several trees within the City that eagles use for perching and hunting or fishing. Unless it is a nesting tree there are no requirements. 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 10:40 am. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicants, Al and Cindy Provost, filed requests for approval of three variances to allow a three- story, single-family residence on a shoreline lot. The variances are to allow a three-story home when code only permits two-story homes, reduce the required front yard from 20 feet to 5 feet and to reduce the setback from the shoreline of Lake Washington to 10 feet from a required 25 feet. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEP A) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. 3. The proposal, while located on a protected shoreline is exempt from environmental review because it is a single-family home. 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all deparIments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located immediately north of3707 Lake Washington Boulevard North. Access to the site is via a secondary road off of Lake Washington Blvd. As noted above, the subject site is located on the shoreline of Lake Washington. 6. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinances 1791, 1800 and 1804 enacted respectively between September, October and December of 1959. 7. The applicants sought similar variances in 1997 for the shoreline setback and the third-story addition. While variances had been initially approved the applicant failed to meet required conditions and the decisions became nulI and void. 8. The map element ofthe Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of Single Family uses, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 9. The subject site is zoned (R-8) which permits up to eight single-family homes per acre. 10. The subject site consists of property located along the shore of Lake Washington. Part of the property is submerged and a portion, the uplands, approximately 3,363 square feet in area, contains a garage, boat house and dock. 11. The uplands parcel is an irregular, panhandled shaped property. The scale of the drawings are an unusual I inch equals 4.5 feet and may not be precise, therefore, the dimensions noted are approximate. The southern panhandle is approximately 18 feet wide and juts out into the lake approximately 38 feet. Provost Variance File No.: LUA-06-024, V-H June 20, 2006 Page 7 The lot is approximately 40 feet wide. The shoreline or edge of these parcels are clearly defined by a zigzagging rock wall or bulkbead. There is no natural shoreline. 12. A boathouse, approximately 20 feet wide and 40 feet deep, is located approximately 12 feet out from the shore. It will be retained. 13. Section 4-2-1 lOA restricts the height of Single-family dwellings to two stories or 30 feet in height and requires a 20-foot setback from the edge of the access easement. 14. Therefore, the applicant has requested one variance to allow the building to be three (3) stories tall and a second variance to allow the front yard setback to be five feet (5'). IS. The Renton Shoreline Master Program (Section 4-3-090L.14.b) requires a 25-foot (25') setback from the water's edge. This has been changed since the applicant applied for the variance in 1997 (it was 20 feet at that time). The applicant has proposed a minimum setback often (10') feet from the lake. Front yard setbacks had been measured from the property line but are now measured from the access easement. 16. The applicant has basically submitted the same plans that were submitted in 1997 which does not account for code changes that have occurred. This results in seeking greater variances from the shoreline requirements and the front yard requirements. 17. The plot plan and building footprint shows the house follows the irregular stepped western or shoreward property line. This creates a setback in one location which is reduced to 10 feet at a corner or angle where the house facade turns back away from the shoreline. Staff has recommended that the home comply with the 25 foot setback from the shoreline for the northern portion of the home and that a IS foot setback be permitted for the southern portion of the home. Staff made their recommendation to reflect the prior 1997 variance request in light of the new, larger setback nOW required. The south portion of the home would have to be setback 15 feet from the shoreline as proposed by staff and this would follow an arc to reflect the angular shoreline. 18. On the east, the front yard, the applicant has proposed a setback of five (5') feet from the access easement rather than 20 feet. Staff has suggested that due to the small lot size, the request for a variance is appropriate. They suggest that a smaller setback on the east is a reasonable tradeoff to allow the home to be located further from Lake Washington on the west. An existing garage already comes within less than five feet of the easement along the front yard of the existing lot. 19. Staff recommended approval of the variance to allow a 3-story home. They thought it was reasonable. 20. As proposed the home would have a footprint of approximately 960 square foot. It would contain 1,920 square feet as a two-story home and 2,880 square feet as a three-story home. 21. The applicants also own the adjoining property to the south. An existing home is located on that property. 22. There are single-family homes both north and south of the subject site. A review of the area shows that the shoreline makes a substantial jog directly in the middle of the applicants' current property. The development of a dwelling as proposed would not severely impact the views of adjacent parcels due to the staggered nature of the shoreline. Other homes in the area are both larger and smaller than that proposed in this case. Provost Variance File No.: LUA-06-024, V-H June 20, 2006 Page 8 23. The proposed home would be 29'11" tall or about 1(1 ") inch below the 30 feet pennitted in the zone. When the applicants first submitted their application in 1997 there had been a very recent change that limited buildings to two stories in height. That change is now about ten years old. It is a well- established height or "story" limitation. 24. A review of variance applications for properties along the shoreline show variances both denied and approved. It appears that each variance determined the unique circumstances of each parcel vis a vis upland area and parcel width and depth. 25. Neighbors objected to the granting ofthe variances due to privacy concerns, bulk issues and the potential damage to a large redwood tree in which eagles sometimes perch. Eagle perching trees are not specially protected. CONCLUSIONS: I. This office has no problems recognizing that the subject site has constraints that probably justifY some variance relief. At the same time, the applicant acquired the property knowing full well that the buildable portion of the property was quite limited and that there would be limitations on what could be built on the lots. A variance or in this case, variances are required to provide reasonable use of the subject site, but a small upland lot cannot be expected to support a large spacious home. The lot already accommodates a rather large over-the-water boathouse of 20 feet by 40 feet. In addition, one has to consider that the City specifically changed its code, thereby, in a way defining or redefining what might be reasonable or responsible use of property. The City is very aware of the small lots located along Lake Washington. Nonetheless, they increased the required shoreline setback from 20 to 2S feet. Obviously, they wanted a larger separation between structures and the water and not less. The City also specifically changed code so that single family homes would be no more than 30 feet in height and that such homes only be two-stories. The City limited homes to two-stories nearly 10 years ago or when the applicants first requested a variance from this limitation. The City also enacted setback regulations that required homes with garages to have that garage setback 20 feet from easements as well as public streets. In other words, the defmition of "reasonable" might be deduced from the fact that the City has enacted legislation restricting the size, scale, intensity and bulk of homes in general and homes along the shoreline more so. That sets the backdrop for the consideration of the three variances that the applicant now seeks. In addition, the applicant merely resubmitted plans that were rendered in 1997 without even considering the code changes that have occurred since that time. Code specifically tightened up regulations and these plans do not even attempt to address those changes. Another significant change that reflects on the consideration ofthis variance is the change in minimum lot sizes permitted in the City. There are now a number of locations in the City that pennit small lots and all homes on these lots are constrained by the same two-story limit. Three-Story Variance 2. Variances may be granted when the property generally satisfies all the conditions described in part below: a. The applicant suffers undue hardship caused by special circumstances such as: the size, shape, topography, or location where code enforcement would deprive the owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by others similarly situated; b. The granting of the variance would not materially harm either the public welfare or other property in the vicinity; Provost Variance File No.: LUA-06-024, V-H June 20, 2006 Page 9 c. The approval will not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other property in the vicinity; and d. The variance is the minimum variance necessary to allow reasonable development of the subject site. There is no reason to approve a variance for a three-story house. The variance is not justified. A limitation on the number of stories carries with it a limitation on living space and that potentially limits the number of inhabitants. These may all be reasonable limitations to assure that a home and its residents are not out-of-scale with the size of the lot. There is no justification to grant a variance that allows a home with more stories. It would create an undue precedent. Every home on a small lot or future home on small lots would be entitled to an additional story. Many lots in the City are 4,000 square feet and new lots can be as small as 3,000 square feet. Each ofthese lots could use the small lot justification to add additional stories. As noted here in this application: the logic is that this is hidden, unseen space. It has no visible impact. The home would not be taller. But as noted above, the limitation controls the number of inhabitants or population and, therefore, potentially the noise and traffic that a larger home, internal or external, might generate. There is no justification for the increased size whether it is internal or external and the precedent could be far-reaching for other smaller lots. The applicant has reasonable use of the property particularly given the approval or partial approval of the other variances requested. Shoreline Variance 3. In addition to the criteria noted above, shoreline variances are subject to some additional review criteria taking into consideration the unique and fragile environment along the shoreline. Those particular criteria are: a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the subject property, or to the intended use thereof, that do not apply generally to other properties on shorelines in the same vicinity. b. The variance permit is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant possessed by the owners of other properties on shorelines in the same vicinity. c. The variance permit will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property on the shorelines in the same vicinity. d. The variance granted will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Master Program. e. The public welfare and interest will be preserved; if more harm will be done to the area by granting the variance than would be done to the applicant by denying it, the variance will be denied, but each property owner shall be entitled to the reasonable use and development of his lands as long as such use and development is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and the provisions of this Master Program. Provost Variance File No.: LUA-06-024, V-H JWle 20, 2006 Page 10 4. The subject site is definitely constrained. The jog in the property's shoreline or western upland's property line makes accommodating a home harder. Allowing some intrusion into the setback will permit the development of a reasonably sized home. Staffs recommendation of no more than a ten (10) foot encroachment, that is a fifteen (15') foot setback, into the shoreline setback makes sense. The City specifically enlarged the setback and therefore, the variance the applicant applied for 10 years ago is no longer controlling or particularly relevant. The precedent for reducing the shoreline setback though has been created in the past -that is, most of the lots along Lake Washington have rather shallow upland areas since most of the property is submerged Wlder the lake. Since these people do own the property Wlder the lake, they are entitled to develop a reasonable home on the dry portion of their property. 5. It also appears that due to the shape of the shoreline and the location of other homes along the shoreline that this dwelling would not significantly intrude in the existing viewscape. If anything, the existing boathouse is the intrusive element in this area. 6. As noted, other variances have been issued when the Wlderlying parcels were significantly constrained by their size or shape. Granting of this variance should not create any special privilege and is not inconsistent with what has occurred on other nearby properties. 7. Approving the variance should not result in harm and will permit the applicant to develop a single family home on the lot. Front Yard Variance 8. Again, the same constraints, the rather shallow uplands (dry) area, apply to the variance from the required setback from the easement. The actual uplands of the site is small which limits the footprint of any proposed home. 9. Similar variances from the setback from the easement or street have been granted for homes in this area to accommodate the development of a reasonable single-family dwelling. There is an existing garage already located in this setback area and allowing it to be demolished and replaced by the proposed home appears reasonable and will not create any additional impacts. 10. As noted, other homes in this area have been approved and it would not grant the applicant a special privilege to approve this variance. Nor would it be creating an unacceptable precedent. Again, the lot owned by the applicants extends Wlder the lake. That is, they own a larger lot but much of it is constrained. II. It would appear that granting the front yard setback variance requested will allow the development of a reasonably sized home and probably is the minimum necessary for relief. 12. In conclusion, two variances that allow the home to encroach on the normally required setbacks appear necessary to allow the development of a reasonably sized home and since the Wlderlying lots are actually larger and the requests create a Wlique fact situation. The variance to allow more stories than permitted by code is not supported by the facts in this situation and would lead to potential precedents that could be used by anyone to allow a home with more stories than code permits. The variances should be approved with conditions that do not allow any further structures being developed on the site and that all setbacks be maintained as open planted area or ground level patio and that no changes, other than repair, be allowed for the boathouse. Provost Variance File No.: LUA-06-024, V-H June 20, 2006 Page 11 DECISION: The Variance to allow a three-story home is denied. The Variances to the Shoreline Setback and the Front Yard Setback are approved subject to the following conditions: I. The minimum allowable setback from the water's edge shall be no less than 15 feet for only that portion of the proposed structure on the south half of the property that is nearest to the existing rock wall. The applicant shall be required to maintain the minimum required building setback from the water's edge (25 feet) for all other portions of the site. The setbacks are illustrated in Exhibit 9, although the exhibit may not be drawn to scale. 2. The applicant shall be required to obtain all other necessary permits and approvals for the proposal (i.e. building permit, certificate of water and sewer availability, etc.). 3. The applicant shall record a restrictive covenant that does not allow any sort of additional structures within any setback areas and all required setback areas shall be maintained as open planted areas or ground level patio. 4. The boathouse may be repaired but shall not be expanded in any direction or have any change to its bulk. ORDERED THIS 20th day of June 2006. HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 20 th day of June 2006 to the parties of record: Jill Ding 1055 S Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Mike Brown 3703 Lake Washington Blvd. N Renton, W A 98056 Al and Cindy Provost POBox 1492 Renton, W A 98057 Rebecca Wynsome GaryWeil 3711 Lake Wa~hington Blvd. N Renton, W A 98056 Provost Variance File No.: LUA-06-024, V-H June 20, 2006 Page 12 TRANSMITTED THIS 20th day of June 2006 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker 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 Stan Engler, Fire Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services Pursuant to Title N, Chapter 8, Section 100Gofthe City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m .• July 5. 2006. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. 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.. July 5. 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. ~ ZONING o = Tl!CIDOO.\L DllVI",," - - - -RentoD dit,y I.ImIt,I COR / o :00 toO ...... C3 31 T24N R5E E 112 ~31 .' .. 11-;1. l " -}-: " " " " " " " " " " " " --, , " " " " ;Z 0 r- <l: :>1 uJ' -' uJ -+H:·· r- " ::r: :: u ~: 02 " -" "-u " " " " " , , , , , , , , , " " " , " " , , , I ,I tJ ~J ., ~i ~-_I-.~ i ',I ,:~ " 1I~/i't , " I ! ~ :! , : , , : [] NORTHWEST 1/.4 SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 2.4 NORTH, IRANGE 5 lEAST. W.N. TlI I" =-10/ S c.J!L£" 870'1 ~LAK~ vVA.J5L1nl1 CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHING1'( PR.ovos-r i?R.oJ eCT /, .-10 ') / / I I / s.s. /' p t '~ / J OVERHANG , , /.'';'f,..,......-;:;;' S,:S, RocK I' ,£1 I BVCKHE~9\~1\ ELEVATION OC LAKE ~~ AS OF' 11-04·95 .. 17. I " 'f I / / ' / /~ Se:"':>f'R L.v~ Cl4Sc",,~pr # 76103;l.303~ I .' I " :t! at' ;~ ~~ ~ \ , I ~r"F-C> '111000 FENCE , " 1-0 11:.) ,?' SIOE.Y"p-", :>erlO'><.k , ~'il. ~_ , ',' 90A, TIoIOUS.E ~ (1'>1": "'to' o. ~ . (.~"','" !f \1 ~1h.1\' <" ~;c "'$«'":,, . -.~--~ ~"'7'J.:! -if I~ . 'f' '" """ " ROOf· 32 2 ~I 'Ni~' ." 7, ~'~~~~i;!'~'~~QO~~~~ ~ ~~r ~ " ,~~ ROCK ",.,NO"" .OLL I ' '. rR~ I ~ 10," WAll \~ ....... ~ (-no .,IT br~~~ 1fW,.,,.. .... ......,. GAUGE j ~F·}o93' qOOF' 3; -; \ '9' ,A', ~"". 5S ~O"'\ ~~._ £t1R.T ..... ,,/ S ~ ~ / /. '" '" L ... ,A:r ../ TOE P.LA"'~E.=! ~ '-<.,,"". 'Tll< / 'I'.c ; \.To ~""",.f} / ,,,.L ,::-:jia~':":i' "::. '". ~~4k~r£ s / "'"'-~ -, I.. " " .. S' n' TOP Itoe;. WALL " , " I ~s ___ -_____ -55-- I _I / StilE' Se~£R. I , 8h",",ATC~ .~ . --..Jt~,o. I ~~., . ., . -19,? R,,,,,, p~ vJ('f4. POLE .-1-+-1#-.. /?/U>,.-4!l7 """""""' ..... 110 !.o,./ lof.U&l"£ " , ," " :---. , r r,oP ~}Qi~ !It"~~ ",::-" """," ")' •• 1 ,', .'. ":~ 1-". " 2. .; ... ( '" --~ ~, :c / tu ?/ ,<' ~/ '> t:3' . I " / // I. , 49/ OVERHANG I 50 ELEVATION OF LAKE AS OF 11-04-96 • 17.6 5 52. INE / / BOATHOUSE FF'2006 ROOF· 32 2 / ROCK RE1AI~ING WALL T9. ! ~ / ~ o J e llrf DECK HOUSE F • 26 JS ~ "">->~~!\~ .............. ....,.....,,"', ." .... ....., .... ' ...." ~ .... > . , , I I ~<lSEME"lVr " ~ppo~c. . eo [.0'/ I WAL I / / / I t-1 kb;~ 9 STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING} AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Jody 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 form 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 May 5, 2006, The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $105.00. -~~ Jo n gal Advertising Representative, King County Journal Subscribed and sworn to me this 5 th day of May, 2006, p D Uvn i:L/ fin \\\\\\lii;Ui/ .'\ D r' /1/ \' · ..... 0 // ~,." ...• '}l'. "-'", ,'-" )~nmISSI-".I$)~ ~ " o..~).O~ I), ~"''''::. .'Ol)~: - I {i) .. _ ~. -:·oL ::-. ~ ... ~ .... ",:-'." ~ B D Cantelon . . .. ' .'~' -. -$' Notary Public for the State of Washington, Residing in Ken!, Washil,lgto!Y ,\\"" PO Number: ··~·J".~~oIi~\\\· NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RENTON HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on May 16, 2006 at 9:00 AM to consider the following petitions: Provost Variances LUA06-024, V-H Location: 3709 Lake Washington Blvd N. Descrip- tion: Applicant has requested a Shoreline Setback Variance, Front Yard Setback Variance, and a Height Variance for the construction of a :1,9.:,) 1 squar~ foot 3-story single family residence on a 3,363 square foot parcel located along the shore- line of Lake Washington. The subject property is zoned Residential -8 dwelling units per acre (R-B), The subject site is currently developed with an existing detached garage, garden shed, and boat house. The garage and shed are proposed to be removed and the boat house is proposed to remain on the. The shoreline designation of the property is urban. All interested persons are invited to be present at the Public Hearing to express their opinions. Questions should be directed to the Hearing Examiner at 425-430-6515. Publication Date: May 5, 2006 Published in the King County Journal May 5, 2006. #860402 CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 9th day of May, 2006, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner documents. This information was sent to: Name AI & Cyndie Provost Rebecca Wynsome & Gary Weil Eydie Hamilton Brian Fife J. Mike Brown Inez Somerville Petersen (Signature of Sender; &.ttj''' 1u (if I~I/ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) Representing Owners/Applicants/Contacts POR POR POR POR POR 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. .:-, ....... 't~~\\II',1 ~ ~." .... '''''I AJ:.:1,,1. :;' _~~~o; '~'o~,I~~,,~l/~ Dated: 5-9 -D(p :;'~,... < • £\ for the State of wa§hi~rt_ "'-'\ il ~::; --.. ~ S .V>(l .. III~.. ~ _ Notary(Print):A,),\,wl L'nD )'1tn\-\y\.ClO \-;\ "e'''' ff & My appointment expires: "'_ 1'1-lC. i ~"A'~,,f,·19-:~O._,_{ct.§ ry I,~ n..::llh~WI'\~~:h' ~ :~~t.Nam~: . , ;PrQJe~!ll!umber: Provost Variances LUA06-024, V-H /,/'1"" WAS1'l':~~-c- 111111\\\"" ...... CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING May 16, 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 fotheating at the discretion of the Heating Examiner. • •• PROJECT NAME: Ireland Short Plat Appeal PROJECT NUMBER: LUA05-148, SHPL-A PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Appeal of the Administrative Decision to approve the Ireland Short Plat. Neighboring property owner alleges the presence of a wetland within 100 ft of the Ireland property, and states that the Administrative Decision does not indicate that a Wetland Assessment has been performed. PROJECT NAME: Provost Variances PROJECT NUMBER: LUA06-024, V-H PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicants have requested three vatiances: (1) from RMC Section 4-3-090L.14.b of the Shoreline Master Program in order to reduce the required 25 foot setback from the water's edge to a minimum of 10 feet; (2) from RMC 4-2-11 OA in order to exceed the two-story height limit by one story; and (3) from RMC 4-2-110A in order to reduce the required front yard setback from 20 feet to 5 feet. Variance approval would result in the construction of a 3,226 square foot 3-story single family residence on a 3,363 square foot (land portion only) site. An existing detached garage and shed would be removed an existing boathouse is proposed to remain. The subject property is located within the Urban Shoreline Environment. HEX Agenda 5-16.Q6 PUBLIC HEARING City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST: Public Hearing Date: Project Name: Applicant/Owner/ Address: File Number: Project Description: Project Location: May 16, 2006 Provost Variances AI and Cindy Provost PO Box 1492 Renton, WA 98057 LUA-06-024, V-H Project Manager: Jill K. Ding The applicants have requested three variances: (1) from RMC Section 4-3-090L.14.b of the Shoreline Master Program in order to reduce the required 25 foot setback from the water's edge to a minimum of 10 feet; (2) from RMC 4-2-110A in order to exceed the two-story height limit by one story; and (3) from RMC 4-2-110A in order to reduce the required front yard setback from 20 feet to 5 feet. Variance approval would result in the construction of a 3,226 square foot 3-story single family residence on a 3,363 square foot (land portion only) site. An existing detached garage and shed would be removed an existing boathouse is proposed to remain. The subject property is located within the Urban Shoreline Environment. North of 3707 Lake Washington Boulevard North (parcel no. 334270-0250) City of Renton P/BIPW Department PROVOST VARIANCES May 16. 2006 B. EXHIBITS: Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA-06-024. V-H Page 2 019 Exhibit 1: Project file ("yellow file") containing the application, reports, staff comments, and other material pertinent to the review of the project. Exhibit 2: Neighborhood Detail Map Exhibit 3: Site Plan Exhibit 4: Building Elevations (dated March, 1998) Exhibit 5: Lower Level Floor Plan and Second Floor Framing Plan (dated March, 1998) Exhibit 6: Second Level Floor Plan and Upper Level Framing Plan (dated March, 1998) Exhibit 7: Upper Level Floor Plan and Roof Framing Plan (dated March, 1998) Exhibit 8: Zoning Map sheet C 3 E Y, (dated 12/28/04) c. GENERAL INFORM A TlON: 1. 2. 3. 4. Owner of Record: Zoning Designation: Comprehensive Plan: Land Use Designation Existing Site Use: 5. Neighborhood Characteristics: North: East: South: West: 6. Access: 7. Site Area: 8. Project Data: Existing Building Area: New Building Area: ProvostHEXRPT AI and Cindy Provost Residential -B DU 1 Acre (R-B) Residential Single Family Existing garage structure, shed, boathouse and dock single family residential; railroad right -of -way, Lake Washington Boulevard North, and single family residential; single family residential; Lake Washington. via private access drive from Lake Washington Boulevard North 3.363 square feet (land area only --parcel extends into Lake Wash.) area comments 1.771 s.f. 1,071 boat house (over water), 100 s.f. shed. 600 s.f. garage 2,BBO s.f. Per area listed under onginal building permit (CP98095) that expired. City of Renton P/BlPW Department PROVOST VARIANCES Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA.o6.o24, V-H May 16,2006 Page 30f9 Total Building Area: 3,951 s.f. 100 s.f. shed and 600 s.f. 9arage would be demolished, boat house would remain over water D. HISTORICAUBACKGROUND: Action Annexation Shoreline Variance Single Family Building Permit E. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Utilities: Land Use File No. N/A N/A N/A LUA-97 -065, V CP98095 Ordinance No. 1791 1800 1804 N/A N/A Date 9-8-59 10-13-59 12-8-59 8-14-97 4-1-98 Water: availability to subject site not confirmed, 8-inch water line in Lake Wash. Blvd., 8-inch line available north of site in private access drive Sewer: private sewer in private access drive --subject to availability Surface Water/Storm Water: exempt 2. Fire Protection: per City of Renton 3. Transit: N/A 4. Schools: Located in Renton School District 5. Recreation: Parks per City of Renton Parks System F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE: 1. Chapter 2 Land Use Districts Section 4-2-020: Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts Section 4-2-070: Zoning Use Table Section 4-2-110: Residential Development Standards 2. Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations and Special Districts Section 4-3-090: Shoreline Master Program Regulations 3. Chapter 4 Property Development Standards Section 4-4-030: Development Guidelines and Regulations Section 4-4-060: Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations Section 4-4-080: Parking, Loading and Driveway Regulations Section 4-4-130: Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations 4. Chapter 9 Procedures and Review Criteria 5. Chapter 11 Definitions Provos!HEXRPT City of Renton PIBIPW Department PROVOST VARIANCES Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA-06-024, V-H May 16, 2006 Page 4 of9 G. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan Designation The subject site is designated Residential Single Family (RSF) on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The objective established by the RSF designation is to protect and enhance single-family neighborhoods. The proposal is consistent with the RSF designation in that it would provide for the future construction of a single- family home. The proposal is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan objectives and policies for Community Design and Housing Elements: Community Design Element Objective CO-C: Promote re-investment in and upgrade of existing neighborhoods through redevelopment of small, underutilized parcels, modification and alteration of older housing stock, and improvements to streets and sidewalks to increase property values. The existing parcel currently is underutilized as the existing structures on the site are limited to a detached garage, shed, and boathouse, The proposal would result in an upgrade of the existing housing stock in the neighborhood through the construction of a new single family residence on an existing underutilized parcel, Policy CO-14. Architecture of new structures in established areas should be visually compatible with other structures on the site and with adjacent development. Visual compatibility should be evaluated using the following criteria: a. Where there are differences in height (e.g" new two-story development adjacent to single- story structures), the architecture of the new structure should include details and elements of design such as window treatment, roof type, entries, or porches that reduce the visual mass of the structure. b. Garages, whether attached or detached, should be constructed using the same pattern of development established in the vicinity. c. Structures should have entries, windows, and doors located to maintain privacy in neighboring yards and buildings. Based on pictures supplied by the applicant it appears that the proposed single family residence would be visually compatible with other existing residences in the neighborhood. H. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM: 1. RMC 4-3-090J Urban Environment: (4-3-090J,5 Use Regulations). 2. RMC 4-3-090K General Use Regulations: (4-3'{)90K.3 Compatibility and Aesthetic Effects). 3. RMC 4-3-090L Specific Use Regulations: (4-3-090L.14 a-c Residential Development -a, Adequate public utilities are available; and b. Residential structures are set back inland from the ordinary high water mark a minimum of 25 feet; and c. Density shall not increase beyond the zoning density outlined in the Renton Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. 4. RMC 4-3-090M Variances and Conditional Uses. I. ZONING CODE VARIANCE CRITERIA The applicant is requesting a variance from the two-story height limit and the 20-foot front yard setback requirement of the Zoning Code. RMC 4-2-110A states that the height of the structure shall not exceed two stories nor 30 feet in height. The applicant proposes a maximum height of 30 feet and three stories. In addition a 20-foot setback from the edge of the access easement is required for an attached garage. ProvostHEXRPT City 01 Renton P/B/PW Department PROVOST VARIANCES Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA-06-024, V-H May 16,2006 Page 5019 The applicant has proposed a 5-foot setback. The variances requested must be considered with regard to the criteria noted below. Renton Municipal Code Section 4-9-250B.5.a - d The Hearing Examiner shall have authority to grant a variance upon making a determination, in writing, that the conditions specified below have been found to exist: a. 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: Height: The applicant contends that the height variance is necessary due to the size and shape of the existing parcel, and in order to comply with the setback requirements of the Zoning Code. The proposal is to construct a 3-story residence that would not exceed the 30-foot maximum height limit. Given the current setbacks, the maximum building footprint would be 960 square feet, or a total of 1,920 square feet for a two story dwelling. The actual living space within the house would be 440 square feet less, or 1,480 square feet, since the 440 square foot two-car garage would be deducted from the living area. The applicant states that the two existing new homes located to the north are three-story structures which are considerably larger than 1,920 square feet. Those homes are located on similar parcels with identical R-8 zoning. Staff concurs that permitting the construction of 3 stories provided that the total height doesn't exceed 30 feet would provide adequate living space. Front Yard: The applicant contends that the front yard setback variance is necessary due to the size and shape of the existing parcel. The applicant contends that due to a large portion of the existing lot being located under water it would be difficult to comply with the front yard setback requirement from the access easement and the required setbacks from the shoreline of Lake Washington. In addition, the proposed residence would be setback further from the access easement than the existing detached garage structure is. The applicants are requesting a 5-foot setback from the access easement. Staff concurs that the requested 5-foot setback would be a reasonable setback from the access easement as it would still provide some space between the residence and the edge of the easement, while at the same time allowing the residence to be located further from the shoreline. b. That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which subject property is situated: ProvostHEXRPT Height: The applicant maintains that granting the height variance would not be detrimental to the public as no adjacent sight lines to views of Lake Washington would be affected. This is because of the low elevation of the subject parcel in relation to the raised railroad land (Burlington Northern right-of- way) to the east. In addition, the maximum height of the three-story structure would not exceed the overall height limit of 30 feet allowed in the R-8 Zone. City of Renton PIB/PW Department PROVOST VARIANCES Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA-06-024, V-H May 16,2006 Page 60f9 Front Yard: The applicant contends that the granting of the front yard setback variance would not be detrimental to the public as the existing garage is located closer than 5 feet to the access easement with a portion of the garage actually being located within the access easement. In addition, the applicant indicates that a large portion of the existing homes in the neighborhood are already located closer than 5 feet to the access easement. Staff concurs that the proposed 5-foot setback would not be detrimental to the public welfare as the residence would be setback further than the existing garage, which would result in an improved situation. c. That approval shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property Is situated: Height: The applicant states that the granting of the variance to exceed the number of stories permitted to 3 is not grant a special privilege since the proposed residence would not exceed the maximum height permitted of 30 feet. In addition, the proposed structure would not exceed the height of the existing adjacent residence to the south. The applicant also indicates that a number of the existing residences in the neighborhood currently have 3 stories, so their proposed residence would not be out of character with the other residences in the existing neighborhood. Front Yard: The applicant contends that the granting of the variance to encroach 15 feet into the required 20- foot front yard setback area is not a grant of special privilege as the existing detached garage is located closer than 5 feet to the access easement and a portion of the garage is located within the access easement. In addition, the applicant notes that a number of existing residences in the neighborhood are located closer than 5 feet to the access easement. The proposed residence would be located 5 feet from the access easement which would be further from the access easement than the existing garage and would therefore improve the existing situation. d, That the approval as determined by the Hearing Examiner is a minimum variance that will accomplish the desired purpose: Height: The applicant is proposing a 30-foot structure height for a three-story structure. This allows approximately 10 feet of floor-to-ceiling height for each floor. Given standard building codes and floor-to-ceiling ratios, a three-story structure is the minimum required to meet the applicant's purpose to achieve a reasonable amount of interior living space. Front Yard: The applicant is proposing a 5-foot setback from the edge of the access easement. The proposed setback would permit the applicant the ability to build the proposed single family residence. The applicant has proposed a residence with a maximum building footprint of 960 square feet and indicates that this is the minimum necessary to accomplish their purpose of constructing a single family residence with an adequate amount of living space. J. SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM VARIANCE CRITERIA: The applicant is requesting a variance from Shoreline Master Program in order to reduce the required setback of the structure from the water's edge. A 25-foot setback from the water's edge is required, and the applicant is proposing a minimum setback of 10 feet for one portion (the southwest corner) of the new ProvostH EXRPT City of Renton PIB/PW Department PROVOST VARIANCES Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA-06-024, V-H May 16,2006 Page 7 of9 structure and a minimum setback of 20 feet for the remainder of the structure, The criteria noted below must be considered with regard to the variance request. Renton Municipal Code Section 4-9-1901.4.b.i-vi The Land Use Hearing Examiner must find each of the following: i. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the subject property, or to the intended use thereof, that do not apply generally to other properties on shorelines in the same vicinity. The land area of the subject parcel is unusual in that an existing rock wall foreshortens the land area of the lot, and creates a Z-shaped building pad area in which the proposed residence could be constructed. The applicant contends that the shape of the lot coupled with the 25- foot setback requirement from the water's edge, unjustly restricts the building pad size for the home. The furthest portion of the structure would be 56 feet from the water's edge, while the closest portion of the structure would be a minimum of 10 feet from the water's edge due to the property's unusual shape. The original variance granted for the proposed single family residence under LUA-97-065 permitted no variance from the shoreline setback requirements for the northern portion of the structure and permitted a 10-foot projection into the required 20-foot setback. The City has since adopted a new Shoreline Master Program which increased the required shoreline setback from 20 feet to 25 feet. Therefore, the applicant's request is an increased variance from the originally approved variance. As the setback from the shoreline has increased by 5 feet, staff recommends that the applicant be required to setback from the shoreline an additional feet. Staff is recommending approval of the variance provided that the magnitude of the variance granted remains the same as the originally approved variance. Therefore, the north portion of the residence shall be required to comply with the 25-foot setback as no variance was originally granted for that portion of the residence and the southern portion of the residence shall be permitted to encroach 10 feet into the 25-foot setback, which is the same encroachment as was originally permitted. ii. The variance permit is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant possessed by the owners of other properties on shorelines in the same vicinity. The requested variance would permit the applicant to construct a home that has a maximum footprint of up to 960 square feet of floor area on each of three levels. This would preserve the applicant's right to develop a residential home comparable or less than comparable to the other existing homes in the immediate vicinity of the proposed dwelling. Staff recommends that the applicant be required to setback an additional 5 feet from the shoreline, which would result in the applicant receiving a variance from the shoreline setback requirements of the same magnitude of the originally approved variance under LUA-97-065. The additional 5-foot setback would bring the north portion of the residence into compliance with the 25-foot shoreline setback, which is required of other property owner's located along a shoreline. iii. The variance permit will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property on the shorelines in the same vicinity. ProvoslHEXRPT The proposed variance would not damage the public welfare or injure adjacent properties as staffs recommended setback of 15 feet for the southern portion of the house and 25 feet for the northern portion of the house would not impact a natural beach area, or public access point. Nor would the reduced setback impede views to, from, or along the water's edge. The subject parcel has a Z-shaped land area created by an existing rock wall, that severely City 01 Renton PIB/PW Department PROVOST VARIANCES Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA-06-024, V-H May 16. 2006 Page 8019 constrains the development area available for a home. The reduced setback would affect only that portion of the structure adjacent to the rock wall. The same building facade further to the south would maintain a 56-foot setback from the water's edge. iv. The variance granted will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Master Program. The Shoreline Master Program encourages uses along the shoreline that are not view obstructing, that do not disturb the community, and that have an appropriate design theme. The applicant's proposal would meet "Use Compatibility and Aesthetic Effects" portion of the Shoreline Master Program. Adequate utilities are available to serve the use, and the proposed use would not exceed density allowed by the Zoning Code. If the variance is granted, then the proposal would satisfy the criteria noted in the "Residential Development" portion of the Shoreline Master Program. v. The public welfare and interest will be preserved; If more harm will be done to the area by granting the variance than would be done to the applicant by denying it, the variance will be denied, but each property owner shall be entitled to the reasonable use and development of his lands as long as such use and development is In harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and the provisions of this Master Program. The requested variance would not result in harm, as staff recommends that the majority of the residence comply with the 25-foot setback requirement. The reduced setback would apply only to the southern portion of the proposed residence. The deSign of the site and structure appear to be harmonious with the stated policies of the Master Program. K. DEPARTMENT ANAL YSIS: 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND ProvoslHEXRPT The applicant is proposing to construct a new single family residential dwelling on two existing parcels located adjacent to Lake Washington. The site land area equals 3,363 square feet, however the parcel extends into Lake Washington, and the actual parcel area is approximately 9,840 square feet. The applicant would develop a new residence with a maximum proposed building footprint of 960 square feet on three levels, or a total new building area of 2,880 square feet. A two-car garage would comprise 440 square feet, leaving 2,440 square feet for the residence. An existing detached garage located on the parcels would be demolished. Access would be via a private access road from Lake Washington Boulevard North. The proposal would require minimal grading in order to remove the existing garage building, footing and concrete pad. Additional grading may be needed to remove the existing concrete paving in order to accommodate the new residence. The proposed structure would be three stories in height with a proposed front yard setback of 5 feet, side yard setbacks of 5 feet (on each side), and a rear yard setback that ranges from a minimum of 10 feet from the water's edge to a maximum of 56 feet from the water's edge. The minimum rear yard setback of 20 feet as required by the R-8 Zone would be met, as the actual lot lines for parcels abutting Lake Washington extend into the lake. The proposal appears to comply with maximum lot coverage requirements which allow up to 35% lot coverage on parcels that are greater than 5,000 square feet in size and permits 50% lot coverage on parcels that are less than 5,000 square feet in size. Lot coverage would be approximately 29% for the new residence as compared to the available land area. City of Renton PIB/PW Departmen PROVOST VARIANCES Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA-06-024, V-H May 16, 2006 Page 90f9 As proposed, the new residence would require three variances; two from the development standards, and a third variance from the setback restrictions of the Shoreline Master Program. Specifically, the applicant requests to vary from RMC 4-2-110A which limits the height of structures in the R-8 Zone to two (2) stories or 30 feet in height. The applicant is proposing a structure that would be three (3) stories and a maximum building height of 30 feet. A variance to reduce the 20-foot front yard setback to 5 feet is also requested. In addition, the applicant requests to vary from the Shoreline Master program which requires a minimum 25-foot set back from the water's edge. A minimum 10-foot setback is proposed from the water's edge. Staff has reviewed the proposal with regard to the applicable variance criteria for the height, front yard setback, and the shoreline variance as noted in Sections I and J above. 2. STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS Representatives from various city departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address site plan issues from the proposed development. These comments are contained in the official file, and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report and the Departmental Recommendation at the end of the report. Generally, no major impacts or comments were noted by staff reviewing this proposal. L. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Provost Variances, Project File No. LUA-06-024, V-H subject to the following conditions: 1. The height of the residence shall not exceed the maximum allowed height of the applicable zone (as measured in feet), that is in effect at the time application is made for a building permit. 2. The minimum allowable set back from the water's edge shall be no less than 15 feet for only that portion of the proposed structure that is nearest to the existing rock wall. The applicant shall be required to maintain the minimum required building setback from the water's edge (25 feet) for all other portions of the site. 3. The applicant shall be required to obtain all other necessary permits and approvals for the proposal (i.e. building permit, certificate of water and sewer availability, etc.). ProvostHEXRPT ---- ............. ............ ............ . ........... . ........ ,.... . .......... . .. , ... ...... "' .--... , N37th • 35th·······stR~ NORTHWEST 1/4 SIECnON .5 lEAST. W.M J :.1 J TOWNSHIP 2~ NOIRTH, IRAINGE IlrllJA1IED IN /" / cnv Of IRENTON, COUNT V Of IK!NG, SlATE OIF WASIHINGTC = J 0 SG~L' '570'1 -LAKE WA, 'R-oVOS., YR.oJEcT , 8 / / / OvERHANG S[v.JCR L,Ne tJ+So ..... ~f.jr #79-0 3:;<30365 -,-, --; - , " fRoCK BVL~HfAD: <) ::; I (E l 1.0 )2""'1'-Y"'po se:rer..c:.k. IE) ",' S'De-l''''p-p SSr'b">GK /-~ ~ -.. -. WOOl) ~ ~N(E 7 I:" 0 /I -i=--~ -~--------... -.----. -----_ •• -'11-.. _._ r ----"20J . ~ONCRErE f POGt£ BOATI-IQVSE (ro p-[k","") ;" F • 20 06 ~OO;:·322 J ~"""'., .,~;~l..AUr: J; ..... ,~-"">f' ,~~?,Q --z:~ ".1~-I~ i ................. "l~,_ -----;' .~ 5,S, ROCK / ( I BVLt<'HfAD 1-1'~i1 ELEVA,T ION OF LAKE '.~ ...,I\~.'j.l AS OF II -04 -96 • 17, ~ (0 / / I I ) /. , ( ( , ! ;' ic: .......... ~, .. Gli J ITC.~--;·1 ~_ ~-.. ,,'-.'.1 ROCK RE,A\NI~G ~ALL \ '.::>P "',.::,:~ 'HALL . 'j L pJj~. r r{)p ROC" WALL Ie 8 y / / /~s __ -SIJ>~ S£jAI£R...- __ 5S ____ / / :?"I/ .'2) _55 PIRT,/ .... , .... /' f(:( P,-.o.N-E'l DIll., 't ( " I' ,~ " 1-_+--y-'t ' loo':or" / ~ z. \ 8/1WA n'-p- ~S'_ ~~4 ,·~.°<"4b I ;¢S"fj6~9; ~c --, PowI!' ""'t.E EASt" ~ 'It )..63,,53;). Pc> <J.}("fl. POL£" ~ Pf2.0,.-6(? p~",w, 1:0 (...o~, W//.7,e' r m~ B! P' ... 'II~ll . 27 8 . i .' ( c " Q:c <: .. :c / (u '-/ ,:;. Q:c fl; ~~ I: o ~ ----.s-.• _,-1 0, L.I ; -----.1.:.<; \"i, I , -----:.-.7, 6~:5", -----t I ~---.li-.' , , .,...-,', , , , , , , , , H []' Ir ~' I~ ~ , , f- U-, uJ; ~! , ,~-.Z;/I~~'~ ---OI--.~----~-_~_ ~<, ,d;. _-' ,c, (5,--,VI ' ~ ----I"=--.Ol-=!l--t I' ,< .,.----I L __ -~-l--- i I I 'I ~i -, ! 9 ~ :' 7W-~ 9 , , , ,- , <-, "1-£' , " 0 ,+ , , , ~~~:~~ .O-.B ."1-,.; --", "o...---~.:.. -.--.1 ~-,\ .. -,-- , ~1 &,1 , 'I ~ . ---. I 'I I o ----'\, 9, ---"" r'~-- ~: ~. "" ,...,: ... '!£.--,~-- '. ;,.,~ ~'~ " ~ ~--" i'O-,£ , -1 ~ i': ,,-t ~.!i -\1-~, ,~-\P ' , ,,-,., , , o-~ , o-.-ei- =t.-,~ 'l"- , ., "10---"1.-..,. ~I I ;~i.cl' ,,:~I E. ~I al .' I ' , <J J ':0',' .,r ' :6--~" -, . ;r=====¥==lt~ ~: ~:=:~ \1 ~ 00 ~, 9' ",' 00 ;<i " 9 ------.: ..... ---'10 , W " z « ---' , D- z « --' D- oc o o --' Ii- --' , uJ: >~ uJl --," §2 o u uJ <J) o o -f\ ----'10 , "'-'1,---- , 0>-, ~-' ":"-1:',0 'i -- ~~.,. ," ,. .0-... ','~,I .,. 0 .6--~O: -----#-~.~ -~ , . -~ 0-£., "-,,,--~ o-~~ ~ ~.\I-£ ~ -" o " '(~ , l ., -. ----~------ , .' , ;", ~! I ---4 ~I r<"t'in ! - -----'10-----.----' --~ o ----'10------'1" -'10 ;Z « -' D- O!: o o -' J.L ~ -' < J..L.l ~- :> 1 uJ • -' / / I ---I -------/ -------/ I f s ~ ----~\~ I r I CDR .. ~. .o;l . I' ~ --- --5~ ~~'t1 5. _______ _ .:: R-8.g I I ~==::=; til ... ~ <fI o - .'c., ..... ······ P-. ~ ..... ; R-8 . ~====::::;:~===::=:::~ .. N 34thSt R-S I i _._. Q) Ixl· :.: I E R-S N·· 301hiStR .. lliAd C ~==;=-!IIR-8 N 29th,' hlR-,'EJ eN. C N N ZHtlI, ;~I R'---S' I .. , ... ···R -4 8 R~8 •. l..,,;,. i ~ ZONING o := m:tINICAL naV1C18 ------ReDton dit,' Umit411 o 200 too C3 , ..... 31 T24N R5E E 112 5431 )NING MAP BO( ( RBBIQINTL\L ~ Res",urce CODlLerYaUOD ~ ft",j4_DUaI 1 dulac ~ ResideDti.1 • dn/ao I R-S I Residential 8 dulac I RIIH I Rssidential Manufactured Bonlell 111'-10 I Rellidential 10 dulac I "-I" I R91dential 1<1. dulac I RM-rl Residential )lulU-Family II!M-T I Residential MulU-hDill1 Traditional IRH-U I Residential MulU-Family Urban Center'" MJXID usr; ClNTER ~ Center Villll.lc IUC-NlI Urban Center -North IUC-N21 Urban Center -Norib 2 ~ Center DO'WDtowo· ~ Commerolai/OIfiCil/ReBidential COyMgRCl,u. ~ Commercial Arterial- ~ Commercial Otlt~ ~ Commercial Neichborhood INDUSTRIAL W Indulltrial -Heavy [EJ Industrial -Medium o Indu8t.r11l -LlI;ht (Pl Publicly owned ____ Renton Clly Limite ___ Adjacent City Umit.. _lkJok Papa Boundar;r PAGE • y.,. Include Over"Y Dl8trictll. See Appendb: mapa. Fo:r addition..l re,waUolUI In Overlay Diltriet-.. plene lee RYe 4-3. PAGE# INDEX Pmted by Prinl & Mail Svcs, ely 01 Renton NOT~CE PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way. Renton, Washington, on May 16. 2006 at 9:00 AM to consider the following petitions: Provoat Variances FILE NO. LUA6·024, V-H Loc.ation: North 01 3707 Lake Washington Boulevard North Description: The applicants han requested three variances: (1) from RMC Seellon 4·3..(l90L14.b of thlt Shoreline Mastar Program In order to reduce the required 25 foot setback from the water's edge .to 8 minimum of 10 feet; (2) from RMC 4-2-110A in order to exceed the two-story halght limit by one story; and (3) from RMC 4-2-110A In order to ulduce the required front yard setback from 20 feet to 5 feat. Variance approval would result in the construction of a 3,226 square foot 3-story 8ingle f.lmlty residence on a 3,363 square foot (land portion only) site, An eXisting detached garage and shed would be removed an existing boathouse I. proposed to remain. The subject property I. located within the Urban Shoreline Environment. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER'S OFFICE AT 425-430.6515 DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Pleat_Include the project NUMBER whan calling felt.),o .t fila IdeotIfication. CERTIFICATION I, DCC4 Jor"'&'", , hereby cel1ify that 3, copies of the above document were posted by me in ~ conspicuous places or nearby the described property o~""~~\~II', ~ ~ \,.. , ....... 'W\,;..,~,t:.',1 S/s/ OJ ;'\, n ~=~.","1"\O" t:':t:"',,~~ DATE:}O SIGNED: ,1..1'1"<", _~ -.;;: -1 An "?.!, n ;::,.. ;...') 'T~ ")':~ V ~ :0 ~ ~~ ~ . ...: ~O "'~ ~ ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington resldmg if ~ E ~ ",-i':A) C,t--~ "'~~ Ue~~ ff~E stY'-~ r"l~',I~<~,~,,,, -~ <;) ~..,.""'" :: , on the day of ":)~i"l:V~.:'C". \-""""=-------.1.,;;.""'~.L...;;ll..fJt::>.a::::u:t.L.LJ!. = . \\~:'''' .. ~~~.:?' , ! . f.' W"-Sr-;" ...... ' 1111\\\\""" May 5, 2006 AI & Cyndie Provost PO box 1492 Renton, WA 98057 Subject: Provost Variances LUA06-024, V-H Dear Mr. & Mrs. Provost: CITY .F RENTON PlanningIBuildinglPublic Works Department Gregg ZimmermanP.E., Administrator This letter is to inform you that the appeal hearing scheduled for May 9. 2006 for the above subject project has been rescheduled for May 16, 2006. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant are required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you prior to the scheduled hearing. If you have any questions, please contact me at (425) 430-7219. Sincerely, (pJ 1{:12- t?"Jili K. Ding ~ Associate Planner U cc: Rebecca Wynsome& Gary Weil, Eydie Hamilton, Brian Fife I Parties of Record -------------IO-s-s-So-u-fu-am--d-y-W-a-y---R-en-to-n-,-w-as-h-in-~-o-n-9-80-S-S----~------~ * This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE May 5, 2006 Gary Weil and Rebecca Wynsome 3711 Lake Washington Blvd N Renton, W A 98056 CIT~ :>F RENTON PlanninglBuildinglPublic Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator RE: Your Comment Letter for Provost Variances (File No. LUA06-024, V-H) Dear Mr. Weil and Ms. Wynsome: Thank you for your comment letter dated April 24, 2006 regarding your concerns for the proposed Provost project. Your comments have been added to the file and you have been added as a Party of Record. The decision maker will consider your comments when rendering a decision on this project. A Public Hearing on the Provost Variances is scheduled for May 16th at 9am in the Council Chambers. You may wish to attend and testifY. If you have any additional questions feel free to contact me at (425) 430-7219. Sincerely, CjJJ 1{ p. t?Jill K. .Ding ~ Associate Planner V -------------,o-s-s-so-u-m-Grnd---y-w-a-y---R-en-to-n-.-W-a-sh-jn-~-o-n-9-80-S-S------------~ ~ This OI;IOQrconlRino; ,,(J% rF!<";vr.i<'lri matArial ::10% oost Nlnsumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE May 5, 2006 Eydie Hamilton 3714 Lake Washington Blvd N Renton, WA 98056 CIT' :>FRENTON PlanninglBuildinglPublic Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator RE: Your Comment Letter for Provost Variances (File No. LUA06-024, V -H) Dear Ms. Hamilton: Thank you for your comment letter dated April 23, 2006 regarding your concerns for the proposed Provost project. Your comments have been added to the file and you have been added as a Party of Record. The decision maker will consider your comments when rendering a decision on this project. A Public Hearing on the Provost Variances is scheduled for May 16th at 9am in the Council Chambers. You may wish to attend and testify. If you have any additional questions feel free to contact me at (425) 430-7219. Sincerely, CjdJ 1{ 12' t/hll K. Ding ~ Associate Planner V -------------,o-s-s-so-u-m-G-r-w-y-W-a-y---R-en-m-n-,-W-a-sh-in-~-o-n-9-80-S-S------------~ ~ This oaoercorrtains 50% recvcled material. 30% oosI consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE City enton Depat1ment of Planning I Building I p, ' Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: 'Plan 'he-¥ I ( , ( ,", APPLICATION NO: LUA06-024, V-H APPLICANT: AI & Cyndie Provost PROJECT TITLE: Provost Variances SITE AREA: 3,363 souare feet LOCATION: 3709 Lake Washington Blvd N COMMENTS DUE: APRIL 26, 2006 R F'r.vi:"lItE D DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 12,2006 .. PROJECT MANAGER: Jill Ding ArK I L lUUO PLAN REVIEW: Jan lilian BUILDING DIVISION BUILDING AREA (gross): 3,951 square feet I WORK ORDER NO: 77558 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Applicant has requested a Shoreline Setback Variance, Front Yard Setback Variance, and a Height Variance for the construction of a 3,951 square foot 3-story single family residence on a 3,363 square foot parcel located along the shoreline of Lake Washington. The subject property is zoned Residential -8 dwelling units per acre (R-8). The subject site is cunrently developed with an existing detached garage, garden shed, and boat house, The garage and shed are proposed to be removed and the boat house is proposed to remain on the. The shoreline designation of the property is urban. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Informat/on Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Hew';n, Air AesJhel ie, Warer Uoht/G, Plants LandiShorelin9 Use Animals ~ Environmental Health Public SeMee, Energy/ Natural Resources Ar~~:; B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED 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 where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or A Date City ~ enton Department of Planning / Building / P J Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:Tnt ()<~(-bsi l' . II COMMENTS DUE: APRIL 26, 2006 • APPLICATION NO: LUA06-024, V-H DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 12,2006 APPLICANT: AI & Cvndie Provosl PROJECT MANAGER: Jill DinQ RECEIVED PROJECT TITLE: Provost Variances PLAN REVIEW: Jan lilian API) 1 , ?M!: SITE AREA: 3,363 SQuare feet BUILDING AREA (Qross): 3,951 square feet LOCATION: 3709 Lake Washington Blvd N I WORK ORDER NO: 77558 OUILU"", UIVI;'IUI' SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Applicant has requested a Shoreline Setback Variance, Front Yard Setback Variance, and a Height Variance for the construction of a 3,951 square foot 3-story single family residence on a 3,363 square foot parcel located along the shoreline of Lake Washington. The subject property is zoned Residential -8 dwelling units per acre (R-8). The subject site is currently developed with an existing detached garage, garden shed, and boat house. The garage and shed are proposed to be removed and the boat house is proposed to remain on the. The shoreline designation of the property is urban. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable AI"", Element of the Probable Probable Alore Environment Minor Alajor Information Environment Minor Alajor information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary ,rth Housjn Aesthetics 'ater LighVGlare 'ants Recreation , Use Utilities Transportation Public Services ~=:, Historic!Cunural Preservation Airport Environment 10,(}()OFeet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identdied areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature 0 Date City~. ~ ~enton Department of Planning / Building / P ~"Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Sllr+ttceiVJas,k Li~(( it v COMMENTS DUE: APRIL 26, 2006 APPLICATION NO: LUA06-024, V-H I DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 12,2006 c", APPLICANT: AI & Cvndie Provost PROJECT MANAGER: Jill Ding RECEIVED PROJECT TITLE: Provost Variances PLAN REVIEW: Jan lilian SITE AREA: 3,363 souare feet BUILDING AREA (gross): 3,951 squ<l[,6. feet LOCATION: 3709 Lake Washington Blvd N I ~u, YVORK ORDER NO: 77558 IJIVISION SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Applicant has requested a Shoreline Setback Variance, Front Yard Setback Variance, and a Height Variance for the construction of a 3,951 square foot 3-story single family residence on a 3,363 square foot parcel located along the shoreline of Lake Washington. The subject property is zoned Residential -8 dwelling units per acre (R-8). The subject site is currently developed with an existing detached garage, garden shed, and boat house. The garage and shed are proposed to be removed and the boat house is proposed to remain on the. The shoreline designation of the property is urban. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Envlronmenf Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Ak Aesthetics ~ Light/Glare Recreation Utilities Trans anon Public Services "orgy:. Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,(}(JO Feet 14.000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED 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 where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Date City ~~ ~ ~enton Department of Planning / Building / P ~~ ~ Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: f£~SP COMMENTS DUE: APRIL 26, 2006 APPLICATION NO: LUA06-024, V-H DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 12, 2006 APPLICANT: AI & Cyndie Provost PROJECT MANAGER: Jill Dinq PROJECT TITLE: Provost Varianoes PLAN REVIEW: Jan lilian SITE AREA: 3,363 square feet BUILDING AREA (qross): 3,951 square feet LOCATION: 3709 Lake Washington Blvd N I WORK ORDER NO: 77558 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Applicant has requested a Shoreline Setback Varianoe, Front Yard Setback Varianoe, and a Height Variance for the construction of a 3,951 square foot 3-story single family residenoe on a 3,363 square foot parael located along the shoreline of Lake Washington. The subject property is zoned Residential -8 dwelling units per acre (R-8). The subject site is currently developed with an existing detached garage, garden shed, and boat house. The garage and shed are proposed to be removed and the boat house is proposed to remain on the. The shoreline designation of the property is urban. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earlh Housln Air Aesthetics Water LightIGlare Plants Recreation LandlShoreline Use Utilities Animals Trans ation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cu/tural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10.000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED 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 where addWonal information is needed to properly assess this proposal. /!!/J~ Signature of Director or AuthOrized Representalive Date r I City ... ~ ~enton Department of Planning I Building I P ~ Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ~ APPLICATION NO: LUA06-024. V-H APPLICANT: AI & Cvndie Provost PROJECT TITLE: Provost Variances SITE AREA: 3.363 SQuare feet LOCATION: 3709 Lake Washington Blvd N COMMENTS DUE: APRIL 26, 2006 DATE CIRCULATED: ApclI PROJECT MANAGE"j( Jil(Dinq ,J ) PLAN REVIEW: Jan lilian --, 0 ~. BUILDING AREA (<lross): 3.951 sQu~re feet I WORK ORDER NO: 77558 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Applicant has requested a Shoreline Setback Variance. Front Yard Setback Variance. and a Height Variance for the construction of a 3.951 square foot 3-story single family residence on a 3.363 square foot parael located along the shoreline of Lake Washington. The subject property is zoned Residential -8 dwelling units per acre (R-8). The subject site is currently developed with an existing detached garage. garden shed. and boat house. The garage and shed are proposed to be removed and the boat house is proposed to remain on the. The shoreline designation of the property is urban. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable II"", Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earlh Air Water ~ Plants LandiShoreline Use Animals ~ Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources :~::g~::: B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED 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 where additional info~on is needed to properly assess this proposal. rka ~ t/-11~Ch Signature of Director or AuthorizedRePl"entative Date City _ enton Department of Planning / Building / P Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Po.x1G8 COMMENTS DUE: APRIL 26, 2006 APPLICATION NO: LUA06-024, V-H DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 12,2006 APPLICANT: AI & Cyndie Provost PROJECT MANAGER: Jill DinQ PROJECT TITLE: Provost Variances PLAN REVIEW: Jan lilian SITE AREA: 3,363 square feet BUILDING AREA (Qross): 3,951 square feet LOCATION: 3709 Lake Washinglon Blvd N I WORK ORDER NO: 77558 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Applicant has requested a Shoreline Setback Variance, Front Yard Selback Variance, and a Height Variance for the construction of a 3,951 square foot 3-story single family residence on a 3,363 square foot parcel located along the shoreline of Lake Washington. The subject property is zoned Residential -8 dwelling units per acre (R-8). The subject site is currently developed with an existing detached garage, garden shed, and boat house. The garage and shed are proposed to be removed and the boat house is proposed to remain on the. The shoreline designation ofthe property is uriban. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable Mo," Element of the Probable Probable More Environment MInor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Air Water Plants LandiShoreline Use II Animals Envfronmental Health Public So",;cos Energy/ Natural Resources A~~~" •• , ';';'~": B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED 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 where additional informati n is needed to properly assess this proposal. City j, •• enton Department of Planning / Building / Pu Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Col r+r UC1 . ~ ~~---'. ·)I./C·) COMMENTS DUE: APRIL 26,2006 APPLICATION NO: LUA06-024, V-H DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 12,2006 APPLICANT: AI & Cyndie Provost PROJECT MANAGER: Jill DinQ PROJECT TITLE: Provost Variances PLAN REVIEW: Jan lilian SITE AREA: 3,363 square feet BUILDING AREA (Qross): 3,951 SQuare feet ArK I' LUUO LOCATION: 3709 Lake Washington Blvd N I WORK ORDER NO: 77558 BUILDING DIVISION SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Applicant has requested a Shoreline Setback Variance, Front Yard Setback Variance, and a Height Variance for the construction of a 3,951 square foot 3-story single family residence on a 3,363 SQuare foot parcel located alon\! the shoreline of Lake Washington. The subject property is zoned Residential -8 dwelling unils per acre (R-8). The subject site is currently developed with an existing detached garage, garden shed, and boat house. The garage and shed are proposed to be removed and the boat house is proposed to remain on the. The shoreline designation of the property is urban. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g, Non-Code) COMMENTS Elemenf of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable Moro Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use fflm.s Animals Environmental Health Energy! Natural Resources :~:~g~::: B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED 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 whe / )addWonal information is needed to properJy~ssess this proposal. Date City ~~ ~ ~enton Department of Planning / Building / P Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Fi rC APPLICATION NO: LUA06-024, V-H APPLICANT: AI & Cyndie Provost PROJECT TITLE: Provost Variances SITE AREA: 3,363 SQuare feet A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earlh Air Weter Plants LandlShoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS COMMENTS DUE: APRIL 26, 20j)9-~_ DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 12, 2006 PROJECT MANAGER: Jill Ding .! AP~ PLAN REVIEW: Jan lilian Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary lousing r. ~ Public Services A~Fi~Fe~t ,:;;",;, c; . h particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or eeded to pror;e. assess this proposal. Signature Date - . , \ NOTICE OF APPLICATION A Moter AppllClUon has been filed and ~CC"pI8d with the ely"topmen! ServlcH Dlvlalof'l of th City of Renton. The following briefly dHcrlb .. IhI.ppllc~tlon and th" neclllury PLlbllc: Approva". PROJECT NAME/NUMBER: Pre,-ost Vananoos! lUA06·024. V-H PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Applicant has requesled a Shore~nB Setb3Ck Variance, Front Yard Setbadl Variillnoe, and a Height Varianoe!Of the construclion 01 a 3.951 square foot 3.story single family retidenCfl on a 3,363 square foot ~r<:ellocated along the stJO(eline oi La~e Wa~hlnglon The subjeCt property ,. zoned R&aidenllal..g dwelling units per acre (R_B). The subJect sile is currently developed with an eld.~ng detae!1ed garage, garden shed, and boat house, The garage and m&d are proposed to be remcveo and the boat house is proposed to remain 011 the Tile shoreline designation olthe property is urban PROJECT LOC"TION: 3709 Lake Was"ilnglon Slvd N PUBLIC APPROVALS: lieanng Examiner Vananoe approval APPt.ICANTIPROJECT CONTACT PERSON AI & Cy~die Provos~ Tel (425) 430-5688 PUBLIC HEARiNG: Comments on the ebove Ippllo;ltton muat be eubmltt8d In writing to Jill Ding, A .. oelm Planner, Development Servlc .. OIvI.'on, 1055 South Grady Way, Ranton, WA ~80SS, by 5:00 PM on AprO 28, 2006. If yo>.! have qlll!sl,ons about thl! proposal, or W~h to be made a party of record ~nd receive addrtionaf notifICation by ma,', co~tact the Project Mar\9ger at (425)430-7219. Anyone who SU\:lmlt~ wntte~ com'llents Will automatiCally become a party of record and will be no1if\ed 01 Bny de<:islon on Ihis projecl PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION DATE OF APPLICATION: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: March 7, 2006 Apri112,200& If you would lika to be made a party of record 10 receive furtMr information On this proposed project, complete this klrm and ratum to City of Renlon, Development Planning, 1055 South GradyWa1. Ranton, WA 98055 F~e Name I No.: Provost Variances I LUA06·024 V-H NAME: ______________________________________________________________ __ MAILING ADDRESS ______________________________________________________ _ TELEPHONE NO.: ______________________ __ CERTIFICATION I, _~'__=-=k._--,J:-:o--"r,t.:c:_"~,,_'_:c_=__--, hereby celtify that 3. copies of the above document were posted by me in ~ conspicuous places or nearby the described property on SIGNED:.--'PR=---....:... ::""..-J,~~~--- (7 DATE:'i/JJ.../Of ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington residing in CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 12th day of April, 2006, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing NOA & Acceptance Letter documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing AI & Cyndie Provost Owners/Applicants Surrounding Property Owners -NOA only See Attached (3;9""W'" of 3,"d")'~ 0;1.c/u¥ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ( ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) 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. ~""""~~'~~~\'II' ...$" ·(" ........ ~'\\:I •. , )~~~llh tt. ..... ... .... "_""':'11 I. u , --' -.. ~\\-:, ) VIr "Ir : '~I L -~ ~' ~"l, A'~ te of Waj-,i _-" ~ _ "" ... ' A~ \\ ,,~ .-:=:, Dated: '<..1-I~-Ol.p Notary Public i Notary (Print): ,),,)) ,\-.1.' L", VI \(\ \'\c) }~V""Ci' V\ ~"'~... ~:: ".. \ .... , -- ""1); ... ve! "" ff:= ~ >'I:' " 1 $~ -~ .. <" '"'" 9-10 ... _-O'.-=- -'1 .. 0,;. '"'-~~~'" ~ My appointment expires: @ _ \ r; _ Co t.,' Project Name: Provost Variances ProjllctNumber: LUA06-024, V-H '1" I WASI1"'" ~,,<:' Ihll''''''-C< 334270037503 AL TRINGER STEVEN BRENT PO BOX 2903 RENTON WA 98056 334270030003 DEJONG STEPHANIE C 3613 LK WASH BL N RENTON WA 98056 334270021101 KENDRICK JOYCE 3715 LK WN BL N RENTON WA 98055 334270019006 LINDAHL KEVIN L BYUS REBECCA A 3719 LAKE WASH BL N RENTON WA 334270033007 RICHARDS DARIUS F 3605 LAKE WASHINGTON BL N RENTON WA 98056 334270023008 WElL GARY+WYNSOME REBECCA 3711 LAKE WASHINGTON BL N RENTON WA 98056 334270036505 BELL DONALD R & NANCY L 3616 LAKE WASHINGTON BL N RENTON WA 98056 334270020004 DENNISON DAYTON P 3717 LAKE WASHINGTON BL N RENTON WA 98056 334270029005 KREICK CONRAD R+JOY A 3619 LAKE WASHINGTON BL N RENTON WA 98056 334270031001 PEHA ROBERT D+DONNA V 3611 LAKE WASHINGTON BL N RENTON WA 98056 334270032009 RILEY TIMOTHY J+VIRGINIA L 3607 LAKE WASHINGTON BL N RENTON WA 98056 334270024006 WELLS REBECCA L 3713 LK WASHINGTON BL N RENTON WA 98056 334270027009 BROWN JOHN MICHAEL 3703 LK WASHINGTON BL N RENTON WA 98056 334270038006 HAMILTON EDITH M 3714 LAKE WASHINGTON BL N RENTON WA 98056 334270028007 LAW DENIS W+PATRICIA 3625 LAKE WASHINGTON BL N RENTON WA 98056 334270026001 PROVOST ALAN E+CYNTHIA M PO BOX 1965 GIG HARBOR WA 98335 334270036901 ROCHELLE SARAH J 3626 LK WASHINGTON BL N RENTON WA 98056 Printed: 04-03-2006 Payment Made: :ITY OF RENTON 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Land Use Actions RECEIPT Permit#: LUA06-024 04/03/2006 12:01 PM Receipt Number: Total Payment: 250.00 Payee: ALAN E PROVOST Current Payment Made to the Following Items: Trans Account Code Description Amount 5022 000.345.81.00.0019 Variance Fees 250.00 Payments made for this receipt Trans Method Description Amount Payment Check 6622 250.00 Account Balances Trans Account Code Description Balance Due 3021 5006 5007 5008 5009 5010 5011 5012 5013 5014 5015 5016 5017 5018 5019 5020 5021 5022 5024 5036 5909 5941 5954 5955 5998 303.000.00.345.85 000.345.81.00.0002 000.345.81.00.0003 000.345.81.00.0004 000.345.81.00.0006 000.345.81.00.0007 000.345.81.00.0008 000.345.81.00.0009 000.345.81.00.0010 000.345.81.00.0011 000.345.81.00.0012 000.345.81.00.0013 000.345.81.00.0014 000.345.81.00.0015 000.345.81.00.0016 000.345.81.00.0017 000.345.81.00.0018 000.345.81.00.0019 000.345.81.00.0024 000.345.81.00.0005 000.341.60.00.0024 000.341.50.00.0000 604.237.00.00.0000 000.05.519.90.42.1 000.231.70.00.0000 Park Mitigation Fee Annexation Fees Appeals/Waivers Binding Site/Short Plat Conditional Use Fees Environmental Review Prelim/Tentative Plat Final Plat PUD Grading & Filling Fees Lot Line Adjustment Mobile Home Parks Rezone Routine Vegetation Mgmt Shoreline Subst Dev Site Plan Approval Temp Use or Fence Review Variance Fees Conditional Approval Fee Cornprehensi ve Plan Arnend Booklets/EIS/Copies Maps (Taxable) Special Deposits Postage Tax Remaining Balance Due: $0.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 R0601663 ~ v -./ j DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS LAND USE PERMIT SUBMITTAL WAIVED MODIFIED COMMENTS: REQUIREMENTS: BY: BY: Calculallons, Colored Maps for Display 4 Construction Mitigation Description 'AN04 Deed of Right-of-Way Dedication, Density Worksheet 4 Drainage Control Plan, Drainage Report, Elevations, Architectural J AND' Environmental Checklist, Existing Covenants (Recorded Copy), Existing Easements (Recorded Copy) , Flood Hazard Data. ()\V\ Floor Plans 3 AND 4 Geotechnical Report2ANo J ~ Grading Plan, Conceptual, irLI Grading Plan, Detailed, O\Y\ Habitat Data Report 4 chvl Improvement Deferral 2 Irrigation Plan 4 King County Assessor's Map Indicating Site, ~ Landscape Plan, Conceptual, J1l;i ..,j Landscape Plan, Detailed. Legal Description. List of Surrounding Property Owners, Mailing Labels for Property Owners, Map of Existing Site Conditions. Master Application Form 4 Monument Cards (one per monument) 1 Neighborhood Detail Map 4 This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services Section 2. Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building Section 4. Development Planning Section Q'\WEB\PW\DEVSERv\Forms\Planning\waiver.xls d'1J.-l . PROJECT NAME !'n:lj t sf V{J-M.'h--7c r(jl;tJJ--dih r) DATE: _,-'><ft:----=---:y=--_2-----'-! _-~_tl_U_·..:..tf_ 11/04/2005 J DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION " . '.~ ,', WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS LAND USE PERMIT SUBMITTAL WAIVED MODIFIED COMMENTS: REQUIREMENTS: BY: BY: Parking, Lot Coverage & Landscaping Analysis, Plan Reductions (PMTs) , Plat Name Reservation, Postage, Preapplication Meeting Summary , 'J771 Public Works Approval Letter, Rehabilitation Plan, Screening Detail. Site Plan, AND 4 Stream or Lake Study, Standard. dIrt: j Stream or Lake Study, Supplemental. d"vI ./ Stream or Lake Mitigation Plan 4 d"1' Vl Street Profiles, Title Report or Plat Certificate, Topography Map 3 Traffic Study, Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Plan. Urban Center Design Overlay District Report • Utilities Plan, Generalized, Wetlands Mitigation Plan, Final 4 d\I1 Wetlands Mitigation Plan, Preliminary • diII\ Wetlands Report/Delineation. dl"1 Wireless: Applicant Agreement Statement, AND 3 Inventory of Existing Sites, AND 3 Lease Agreement, Draft 2 AND 3 Map of Existing Site Conditions 2 AND 3 Map of View Area 2 AND' Photosimulations ,AND 3 This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services Section PROJECT NAME: 2. Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building Section 4. Development Planning Section Q:\WEB\PW\OEVSERV\Forms\Planning\waiver.xls 11/04/2005 Project narrative-Provost project 3709-Lake Washington Blvd. N. Renton,WA. Project name: Provost project Project owners: Alan E. and Cynthia M. Provost (since 1986) Project address: 3709-Lake Washington Blvd. North, Renton, WA.98056 Project purpose: Construct new single-family residence Permits required: Building permit and two variances-one for an additional story (3 total) and the other for reduced setback from the shoreline. Both are detailed in the "J ustlfication for the Variance Request" section. Current zoning: R-8 Current use/improvements: Detached double car garage, garden shed, and covered boathouse Site features: Lake Washington waterfront Total estimated construction cost: 5500,000. Estimated fair market value: 51,600,000. Only one significant tree on comer of property-every effort will be made to save tree, Arborist will be used. Shoreline: Lake Wa. Waterfront, "Two-man" rock bulkhead Closest work area to ordinary high water mark is 10 feet (if pending variance is approved) This project will involve demolition of an existing detached 24 ft by 30 ft. double car garage and 6 ft. by 6 ft. garden shed and removal of existing concrete driveway to facilitate construction of a new single-family residence on the site. The existing boathouse over the water will be repainted and have roof repair done, and remain on the site. Proposed house will be of similar size and height to houses to the north and south of site. Even if pending requested variances are approved, because of a jog in the shoreline to the east at this site, the proposed house will not affect the view of the lake or shoreline from the residence to the north of the site (3711 Lake Wash.Blvd.N), or south of the site (3707 Lake Wash. Blvd.N) The site also has a 60 foot Redwood tree on the SW comer of the site. We love this tree and we have already consulted 2 arborists regarding the preservation of the tree during and after construction. Their expert opinions are that if care is taken during the foundation phase, the tree can most probably be saved. April 23, 2006 Jill Ding Associate Planner Development Service Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Project Number: Provost Variances! LUA06-024. V-H 3709 Lake Washington Blvd N Dear Ms. Ding, - Following up to my telephone call of last week, I do have a concern with variances to height structure. The overall exterior height of the home should not exceed the current standards. I also expressed some concerns re how to the height of a building is measured with respect to the roof line/peak and how the city inspects to ensure the standards are not exceeded. I do want to be a party of Record. Thank you for your time. reZ -~~i~~,~ Hamilton 14 Lake Washington Blve No Renton, WA 98056. • • Rebecca Wynsome and Gary Weil 3711 Lake Washington Blvd. No. 425-430-2794 206-369-5555 April 24, 2006 Re: Provost VariancesILUA06-024,V-H for 3709 Lake Washington Blvd. N. Dear Jill, We appreciate your colleague, Laureen making the time in February to educate us about the building guidelines along the lakefront in Renton. As we expressed when we met with Laureen, we would like to see the rulings for the lot just to the south of us remain as the codes state. This is difficult for us, as we may potentially alienate our neighbors Al and Cindie. They are nice people, have been friendly to us, and we are new to the neighborhood. Our primary concerns are: I) Maitrtaining the 30 foot height restriction on new buildings to protect onr light and privacy. 2) Maintaining the 25 foot minimum set back to protect the health and livelihood of the redwood tree that is within 5 feet of the lake shore, and habitat to immature eagles (see digital photos 4123/06), mature eagles and other wildlife. Onr neighborhood eagles land in this tree regularly. Onr view and privacy will also be most profoundly affected by a variance from this minimum 25 foot setback code. We notice that the other two new homes being built on our block are 25 + feet back from the lake. We are aware that the new setback code is actually 100 feet and that the city has been granting 25 foot setbacks still. The evergreen tree is located closer to the proposed bouse footprint and lakefront than the Provost drawings show. 3) Maintain the height of the existing boathouse. or less . (We do not want a new deck or new railing on top). 4) North footprint should be 5 feet from our property line. not our fence. Our property line extends 2.5 feet from the fence at the water's edge. We are aware that the Department of Ecology will be involved if there are any variances granted on the minimum 25 foot setback for building codes along the lakefront. We are also aware that the ruling states that vegetation within 25 feet of the Iakefront is not to be disturbed. We will be participating in the review hearings and meetings for development plans for the lot south of us adjacent to our property. Please keep us apprised of all hearing dates (and changes to those dates), and make us a party of record for any development plans for this Jot. We will be out of the country May 26 through June lIt],. Please thank Laureen again for the education and your department's professionalism. We look forward to meeting and working with you Jill. Sincerely, Rebecca Wyusome and Gary Weil _'@w,,,, ... ,, ~ ti/J To: Development Services Division-Attn. Laureen Nicolay / Jill Ding From: Alan and Cynthia Provost Subject: Justification for 3 Variances for constru<;tiQIlJlfa~W')~[1I1109 Lake , ! 'I 0,' r,'_'", ." Washington Blvd. N. Re: Permit # LUA06-024 APR -3 2co~enton,WA. 98056 •. ,', ;f "0 'c"-j.."".,~l"~~ '_" r;,..;'_~ .., .... , Date: December 29,2005 (amended April 2, 2006*)'" This letter is the required project narrative and justification for the variance requests for the proposed construction of a single family residence at 3709 Lake Washington Blvd. N., Renton, WA. 98056. The construction as proposed will require three variances, (I) for reduction of the required 25 foot setback from the water's edge (backyard) to 10 feet; (2) for reduction of the required setback of 20 ft. to 5 ft. from the private access easement (front yard) , and (3) to exceed the two-story height limit by one story (3 story total). Two of the requested variances, (numbers 1 & 3), were previously applied for and subsequently approved by the City of Renton and the current Hearing Examiner, Mr. Fred Kaufman, in August, 1997 (copies inc1 uded), but expired with the building permits after a requirement by the City for a extensive amount of structural steel added a substantial unbudgeted cost to the project, and forced us to abandon the project at that time. The current # 1 and #3 variances being applied for are exactly the same as were previously examined and approved by the City of Renton and Mr. Kaufman. The same reasons for requesting the variances and current conditions still apply, and several City of Renton Developmental Services officials who reviewed and approved the original variances still work for the City. The subject property is a 40 foot wide (2-Twenty foot adjoining lots), Lake Washington waterfront lot with a detached 24ft. by 30ft., double car garage, 8ft. by 8ft, garden shed and a boathouse over the water. The lot is directly north and contiguous with our residence lot at 3707 Lake Wa Blvd. N.,Renton, WA.98056. We have owned both lots since 1986. To the north of the subject property is an existing 3 story house, built with a 20 foot setback from the lake, with dimensions larger, but similar to our proposed house. The house proposed is the exact same one submitted with the original variance and building permit, again both approved by the City in 1997. In order to use the same plans as previously approved by the City, we would also request that the portion of the previously approved variance that refers to the then standard "20 foot setback" be left at 20 feet (as opposed to the current 25 foot setback). This would save us from the additional cost and time of redesigning the existing plans and engineering involved in the original variance and building permit process and approval. This would not change any impact to the neighboring properties or conditions or other requirements set forth by the City's previous approval of this project. The first variance request is for a reduction in the shoreline setback to 10 feet for a portion of the west (lake) side (rear yard) of the proposed house. The special circumstance that precipitates our variance request on this setback is that our parcel, unlike surrounding parcels, has a unique, 42 foot easterly jog in the shoreline in the middle, which, with existing setbacks, creates a "Z" shaped building site which would severely limit a conventional/functional building design on this parcel. We are asking for only a short length of the westerly exterior wall (5 to 17 feet) to be allowed within the current setback. The majority of the west wall of the proposed house would not require the requested 10 foot setback (see attached site map). If this setback variance is approved, it would not impact the view of any neighboring houses because of the aforementioned jog in the shoreline. Because of the "stair-stepped" nature of the existing shoreline and existing house placement on the adjoining lots to the north and south., our proposed house will not impede any views to, from, or along the shoreline or the lake. The second variance request is a new request not required by the City during the aforementioned 1997 variance request, and pertains to a change in the measurement requirements for front yard setbacks by the City. Instead of front yard setbacks being measured from the property line (old rule), they are now measured from the public right- of-way, or, as in our case, from the edge of a private access easement. We are requesting a variance to build within 5 feet of the west edge of the existing private access easement. Because of the site constraints, both as to size and shape alluded to in our other variance justifications and the proximity of97% of the other houses along the shoreline to this same easement (see photos of east side of site), we are not asking for any more consideration than our neighbors already enjoy. In fact, most of the houses along this access easement are built closer to it than the 5 feet we are requesting. Also, the proposed house will not be closer to the easement than the existing detached 2-car garage that is currently there and has been for over 25 years (see photos of east side of site) Our third variance request is for one additional story over the two story limitation for R-8 zoning. As with the 1997 variance request, the additional story (3 total) is requested because of the very limited size and shape of our existing parcel and the setback requirements of the current Zoning Code. As with all the neighboring houses to the north, our parcel is mostly under Lake Washington, the land area being only 3,363 sq. ft. With the required setbacks, and even if all 3 variances are approved, we will have a building pad of only 960 sq. ft. The surrounding houses are 3 story configurations with more square footage than our proposed house will have. Note that we are NOT requesting a variance from the 30 foot height limitation in the code, so our house, even with 3 stories, will be within the height range of the surrounding houses. Although the proposed house will obviously impact the current view from a few existing houses to .the east·morethan the existing single story detached garage, the recent trend of the City has been to approve these "3 story" variances along this segment of the Lake Washington shoreline. As stated before, all the special circumstances for these variance requests were previously examined and approved by the City of Renton and the variances granted by the current Hearing Examiner in August, 1997. None of the conditions that led to that prior approval of these variance requests have changed. The house proposed during that process is the same design and size as the one in this current application. The two parcels to the south of this parcel have since had larger houses built on them. Because of the limited size and unusual shape of our parcel, even with the approval of these variances, our proposed house will be smaller than the existing houses immediately surrounding our project (see large colored drawing) Because there were conditions imposed on the 1997 approval, we specifically agree to all the conditions required by the City in its previous approval of these variances. Thank you, in advance, for your consideration of this request. AI & Cyndie Provost Ph. (425) 430-5668 HMJ (206) 755-3452 Cell P.O.Box 1492 Renton, W A. 98057 • = The City of Renton, due to a change in regulations regarding the measurement of setbacks, has required a third variance to request a reduction in the Front (street) yard setback. 4/23/2006 10:33:48 AM ® DENSITY WORKSHEET City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, WA 98055 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 1. Gross area of property: 1. :3 ( '3 b 3 square feet .t!I I) LA/Jr; fiR-C'R O~LY-r"h~ce-f. 2. Deductions: Certain areas are excluded from density calculations. fiX7(;foJb.~ 1,"';T8 These include: l-1t~1f ~ ... 4t5.HIMG-"()I.. Public streets·· Private access easements·· Critical Areas· Total excluded area: 3. Subtract line 2 from line 1 for net area: 4. Divide line 3 by 43,560 for net acreage: 5. Number of dwelling units or lots planned: 6. Divide line 5 by line 4 for net density: g' square feet f:Y square feet 8' square feet 2. d square feet 3. ~1363 sqllare feet , 4 .• 077 acres 5. OJ£' unitsllots 6.14'87..· = dwelling units/acre ·Critical Areas are defined as "Areas determined by the City to be not suitable for development and which are subject to the City's Critical Areas Regulations including very high landslide areas, protected slopes, wetlands or floodways." Critical areas buffers are not deducted/excluded. ** Alleys (public or private) do not have to be excluded. Q:lWEBIPWlDEVSERVlFonnslPlanning\Alensity.doc Last updated: III0811004 1 ,---------------_._ ... _ ..... . It\ .... I ~~~ ... -.' ... \ - ··f 1 t --, .. . \-/ -. ·-1 ... CDR P-RO\LOST -pR,O:JEe., - N 36thSt i , R-8 N 34th St ~ i , R-8 N·32nd St. R-8 C CN )'_/ ~R-8 N 35th St R-8/ (3 --..... --i.-j!-.tJIR-8N 34thStR-8 3 JI~011~R-S N 33rdPIR~~/1 --feB. § LQ![R-S% R-S 1'1 33rd .~t --.. -.u-h / I ~ _ N 32nd St· R-S: I -c~r-_/ <tr ::;;:~;;:=~. ~.r:::l=R=S=======~ . . ;/ 1f~ RR_SS I I R-S / . L:!.:l1 . . R-S 11 31st ~L . I . <l) I'flI R-S / L Q /-. R -:-8 ro ~Ii R-S L R-S N 30th St R-S!flOl CN CN ."-, II R - 8 N 29th -st . R-::9 ,. R-S I R 8 ',-F. ~~9';F; ~2R1!ltfl'lhr=l"'fllF==:=R_"='S=j R-8 .. \.~ .. :====~====: -. ~.-.. -R-S ~~~~ .-,7; ..... -'\ , o !too .. 00 C3 1;4300 e • ZONING .~. = ttCHNICAL SBRVlCB8 31 T24N R5E E 112 5431 I <@) .... NO~T~J¥~rES u ~ I Jl1 S[ECluLN [Rfo.NGfE :3 :2 ; r Q Vl N 5) ~'i ~ fP 24 1r..11 0 i~ T iLo1 u -~ u --r~; 5 rE fo" 5) 1 , ... 6' .1 \~f\\l Y~-1 ~rUfoIJ~D ~' r~; 'l.;1 :e j, :b; C j r y r=-~~=F""l~'l ';=r~~~~=r:N1 IF':-..? v _~:::.:.-~ ~:::;-;:: ~ =-= ~,...,... n fEr !9:~ :~l ~: !I~; (( \ ,'; " ,I 'i"'~1 ')1 !\ ;) i? i:( 'Jf\..,? ~ "::::_,' ft, ::=:. ,'()l:~ '~ ." = , '. ~" .. j '= '='.,=" -. ,~, u ; " ''''~ J ,,= ,~ = '='" lJ ,,~ /I '~L ~~A~/ p.~ ;} J-; / If / = lOs CAL£" ~~ 70 q -LA K£ LJ,q, ~IP.,J r/R..O\'/OSi ~ 3 1' ...... "'. " ...... , i~ " '" ~ '- :'- -PR.OJ fcT / I l ss, / k ~. O\,~~~;lNG I L q ~ vl \ I' II::::: S£t.0CR.. LI0C ~ t ;45 D ...... e '"' I #7{)..o3?303G5 seA -:-c~..:s=:. (to..) p..;; f.-\.A 1/0,.-) -:-~ ~J ':: ;,':-.::= '. , .. ~ -, " , , , ,,, " " '" .'1 Doer<. ~ ; ~ ~ ~o , "'" ;'/'0, '> ,)'0,", '-~~""" ' ,,=o,=o,~~"/' '_'---'" ,~ , 'f s, s; ReCK ~ ,c : \ / BvLt<HE,4.P i,..-p..t~ \. .. ;= = __ '. " :::LEVATiO,'1 0= '-.:.~::: ~ ; " AS OF 'I-C4"96· 17, ' / H P,A.T ..... ,-..., .... -. "--" ....... ROCK RS~~,Ni~G ~.' ) ) / R ,') c. ... ','1:!_L.. I C,e; 1.0 j2<=1>(Z 'fJ)F-D 5E:T&>'-K. (E) 0 1 '51DE-Y/.>JZ-D S E T1C::;x:. k.. Roc~ B~-~HEAD ; ~I ".-.-,,--- ~ NC'-'--i' ____ ",'-1 ,.="1,-- i = --:. f // ~ 7/-0 - iii IE g I,,' .... ~ , " : '),J -\..(\1 "~r\' T----·~7 ~. 'r:" . "" I -::"c=~":::. ---r". '.' b=--.,,-,--,-----"7; .... 0 "" / '-t<'I<-AY' "1 ',-~C .... I :'. :::'~W -ca""''''.7': ~:::c", -:~ ::....'. .... I . r -, .. " 'r "--7: /" /~ ~ £x/<;7"~ " I: l -:-',"0': ,0. :tToo&-:::~;:~) PJll.r I ~ , . 1:, :, ~r: / :. iD-../.. ,~'-, ';0 6.:' D"kC'(~) I' <" j I " ~'",J/';7"/~~. "', ' ............ 55 i' ? : ~ :;=: ;1 ~," .~ ...... / i"" J /" t'!R..!/ ! ~< . (J' ~ /'./ '::::/:_~"':" / } _ I i / .L -~-' ':'-~r" :,~ "':::1. -7 i -3: 1.--~ -----~' ~...-. --r-:-=.......... . ~ tJ\ If' ',." I ", 3\'-"1 T. R- /o-1..j4,/J 1---____ . --<"I.~ , . £. -~ ;:" r:-....O..q/:) / ;;t "-""_0. , S-;c~,..:'"" .;.. ~ ",:c. --I..." " '- ." .... ~ ;;::-".. :::-, -.;; J '~ ~d p~!.,uc.02. PcI...C E ,00<"'<-" "'-, ~ ~ -;r: )..62353;A p" >vt!"P-fo~f / l . ; / I , , , " i r-'. jg .. . \\ a P';z.of"~CC? Pft.AI:::W~ 1i!O {.. 0 '/ w//.?E' (e:.) 1.0 1 FrzcNff/~ ?e.j"e:Ock. ;·U. ~ ~ -~ '< <- <: }:- L.J '" , , -~. / G::- 0, </ '> ~-. , 0/ i-... { ( , f ( rJ.. 1 0 1m 0 1--~ , \~ , , \- , II) , , ~ , I 1m 2 ~ '" " /~ ol I - " cQ 0 () 1 I " " " ~ ¢-- , -------------" L~ '" ,-1-~ ~ M 1-.. ""1l ~Cll .. .. .. .. ,. .. .-.. ,. .. • ,. • • • • • • • • • • • • .. • • • • • lIP '" • .! ! 5- 1 f:~ j'" I I OOO,.:T 002 , . _ 886l aAVN -"<1 --0'1 . I(U"Q1II -voo 'ZII .M. 3:SlI N('Z~ S -to 'ZII .M. 3:SlI Nt'Z~ 6'Z -ta SO/U/ta ~lAlilIS 1YOINHOlLl. A\dI8/d m";JsAs UI.lO;JS ---"11""" v • DliVel.OP elroy ~Nr Pw.... 'ieNfO/V'lVING Lawyers Title Agency of Washington M4R., 12fJ06 Eastside Title Unit RECE/J;ED Shawna R. Cruikshank, Sr. Title Officer, Unit Manager' Bill Quast, Sr. Title Officer Suzanne Desseau, Title Officer • Joann Leadley, Assistant Title Officer Direct: (425) 283-1420 • Fax: (425) 637-9820 Email: etu@lawyerstitlewa.com 15014'· Avenue, #308 • Seattle, Washington 98101 SCHEDULE A To: Coldwell Banker Bain 150 Bellevue Way SE, Suite 101 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Attn: Pam Parker 2/1 1. Effective Date: MARCH 28, 2005 at 8:00 AM 2. Policy Or Policies To Be Issued: ALTA Owner's Policy, {I 011 7/92) Homeowner's Resale Rate ( X ) Standard ( ) Extended Proposed Insured: (X) ALTA Loan Policy, (10/17/92) Simultaneous Rate () Standard (X) Extended Proposed Insured: To Be Determined Amount: Premium: Tax: Amount: Premium: Order Number: 372201 Your Reference: $800,000.00 $2,821.50 $242,65 To Be Determined To Be Determined 3. The estate or interest in the land is described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is: Fee Simple 4. Title to said estate or interest in said land is at the effective date hereof vested in: Alan E. Provost and Cynthia M. Provost, husband and wife Page I of9 Order Number: 372201 .J .. ;.-,J~4.bp, .. ' qat .k:tirtt1.f:'c,~· 5. The land referred to in this commitment is described in Exhibit A. Lawyers Title Agency of Washington, Agent for Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation Shawna R. Cruikshank, Sf. Title Officer, Unit Manager Page 2 of9 Order Number: 372201 - EXHIBIT A Lots 49 and 50, Block "A", C.D. Hillman's Lake Washington Garden of Eden Addition to the City of Seattle, No.2, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 11 of Plats, page 64, records of King County, Washington; Together with Second Class Shorelands adjoining; and The Westerly 15 feet of that portion of former Northern Pacific Railway Company right of way as lies between the Northerly and the Southerly lines of said Lots 49 and 50. End of Schedule A Page 3 of9 Order Number: 372201 r .if.. ¢..t.i 4 ;,,~ J. SCHEDULEB2 Special Exceptions: I. Payment of real estate excise taxes, if required. The property described herein is situated within the boundaries of local taxing authority of: City of Renton. Present rate of real estate excise tax as of the date herein is 1.78%. 2. Delinquent general taxes and charges: Year: 2004 Amount billed: $4,825.27 Amount paid: $2,412.64 Amount due: $2,412.63, plus interest and penalties Tax Account No.: 334270-0250-03 Lery code: 2100 3. General taxes and charges: I" half delinquent May 1, if not paid; 2nd half delinquent November I, if not paid. Year: Amount billed: Amount paid: Amount due: Tax account no.: Lery code: Assessed value of land: Assessed value of improvements: 2005 $4,824.40 $0.00 $4,824.40 334270-0250-03 2100 $387,000.00 $19,000.00 4. Liability for supplemental taxes for improvements which have recently been constructed on the land. Land improvements are not presently assessed, but may appear on future rolls. 5. Matters of ALTA extended Owner's coverage which are dependent upon an inspection and a minimum standard ALTA survey of the property for determination of insurability. THE RESULTS OF SAID INSPECTION WILL BE FURNISHED BY SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT. PLEASE SUBMIT A COPY OF SAID SURVEY AT YOUR EARLIEST CONVENIENCE FOR REVIEW .. 6. The legal description in this commitment is based upon infonnation provided with the application for title insurance and the public records as defined in the policy to issue. The parties to the forthcoming transaction must notifY the title insurance company, prior to closing, ifthe description does not confonn to their expectations. Page 5 0[9 Order Number: 37220 I &$ X.Lv §1.4iiJ 7. Matters set forth by Survey: Recorded: April 6, 2004 Recording No.: 20040406900010 8. We find no pertinent matters of record against the name(s) of the proposed insured owners. 9. Easement and the terms and conditions thereof: Grantee: Purpose: Puget Sound Power and Light Company, a Massachusetts corporation Electric transmission and distribution line Area affected: Portion of the herein described land Recorded: Recording No.: July 30, 19731 2683532 10. Easement and the terms and conditions thereof as disclosed by Quit Claim Deed: Recorded: July 8, 1966/ Recording No. 6052562 v' Purpose: Ingress, egress and utility rights Area affected: Portion of the herein described land II. Easement and the tenns and conditions thereof: Grantee: Purpose: Area affected: Recorded: Recording No.: City of Renton, a municipal corporation Public utilities including water and sewer Portion of the herein described land March 23. 1972 7203230365 / 12. Covenants, conditions or restrictions, all easements or other servitudes, and all reservations, if any, set forth by instrument: Recorded: Recording No.: November 24)997 9711242101 13. City of Renton, Washington Ordinance No. 4774, and the tenns and conditions thereof. Recorded: April 9, 1999 Recording No.: 9904091058 ./ 14. Easement and the terms and conditions thereof: Grantee: Purpose: Area affected: Recorded: Recording No.: City of Renton, a municipal corporation Utilities and utility pipelines Easterly 10 feet August 10, 1999 19990810001648./ 15. Covenants, conditions or restrictions, all easements or other servitudes, and all reservations, if any, set forth by instrument: Recorded: Recording No.: February I, 2000 / 20000201001128 End of Schedule B2 Page 6 of9 Order Number: 37220 I • t ;010:"-" I •• e l1aJ.:-j - g-1 . -r t t , Notes: A. Abbreviated Legal Description: CD Hillman's Lake W A Garden of Eden Add, Lots 49 & 50, BlkA B. Property Address: Vacant Land Renton, Washington c. Investigation should be made to detennine if there are any service, installation, maintenance or construction charges for sewer, water, telephone, gas, electricity or garbage and refuse collection. D. In the event this transaction fails to close, a cancellation fee will be charged for services rendered in accordance with our rate schedule. E. Unless otherwise requested, the fonns of policy to be issued in connection with this commitment will be ALTA 1992 policies, or, in the case of standard lender's coverage, the CLTA Standard Coverage Policy-1990. The Owner's Policy will automatically include the Additional Coverage Endorsement, when applicable, at no additional charge. The Policy committed for or requested may be examined by inquiry at the office which issued the commitment. A specimen copy of the policy fonn(s) referred to in this commitment will be furnished promptly upon request. Page 7 of9 Order Number: 372201 ... ,. / i , -.-"""'!" .. 'IJD TICOR TITLE SlINSURAr :: Filed for Record at Request of AFTER RECORD!NG MAl" TO: Alan E. Provost P.O. Box 82) Mercer Island, WA 98040 KING COut1 ry--"" EXCiSE TAX PAlO '\ ,/lOV121986 ) ~09{)9Z0S Statutory Warranty De<.d ,~ '" .,. ~ l~' ':'"~ ~ ~;:~ r::-r "w.;> -; o ~Ld w.. :; ._' Cl ",>= ~~ -nu;CI1..ANn>R. William-C. Goddard, as his separate estate :::. <, FOAM L·s,., (3-&') (or and in considentioa or Ten u(..llars ($10) and other good and valuable cons..:..deration in band paid, conv.:rs and \1rVI'8nt.$ to I,lan E. Provost, an unmarried i -dividual ;:S the folJooNiDg dC::3cribed real estate. situated in the: County of King • State of Washingtoo! I.Ol'S 49 ar.rl 50, Bleck A, C.O I-OI.I11AN I S !.ARE WA.SHINGICN ~ C1? &:iN == 'It) SEATrLE, lD. 2, a=clir>:; to the plat ","""cle:l in Vol"", 11 of Plats, po.,., 64, in King =01, washirqtm; 'lllC -=ly 15 feet of that porticn of former Northern Pacific Railway O:mpany Right-of-Way as lies ret:-"""" the Northerly am Scutherly lines of said Lots 4S an:l 50. St1lJ'l:X::!" 'It), •.. E>sem:!nts-, re"oervat1u1s an:l rest:rtctial,n>t-==rd; Dated this 5th dayo! November, 1986. -~ ~ - ~ -~ i o:ilo~:· By ........ ,', •• , .......... , .• , ............. , .... , .... , •.. " .,." .... By "". -P.I.IUII_ .. _:E STATE OF WASH1NGT'QN C01Jl"ITY OF .l'iA •. n.q ... _...............} IS On Ihil dar pmonaJly IH'~ bero~ me Will~am C. Goctdard ~·~·~·~·;~··b;;·th~·~id~·~~··l~·~;i"~h~ C!t«\Ited the wilh.in .1)d fOrqoina: ilUtNftlCQl.. .uw:l ~ed th&l .,_.b.e.__ Aantd .the _e AI •. ..b..1.s... __ .., fTw and" ~hUlwy kt and deed, for lbe \lIeS .Ild. ptll1)QtCS :nema menuoned. . & . Ai . $TAlE OF W.4.SHI/'iGTOf'oI COUi'ITY Of .................................. } $I On this ..... ,.. I1ay or ....... " ....... " ... , ................ , ........... , .......... 19 _ .. _ , ~ro~ me, (l>c ,,~;Jll(d. ~ NOLlfY Puiriic in and for tIM-" .. II. or Wbhin.:lOO.lJlIl)" commintooed UlI3 SWOn:!. personalty appcami ............. . .-n<I ........................................ , ............................ .. 10 !1le knO'>'l"1l to be 1M ............... " .••• PTaidenl and ..................... Secntar)'. ....... , ....... . I I I I 1 i J I ; rl i ~ 3~ = ... -C ... c" .... .-'! @CHICAG01 E INSURANCE COMPANY PlLED f-OR RECORD I\T R£QUESTOf CHrc~c;o TITLE INSURANCE COMPASY 10500 NE 8tH S~P£ET. SUITE 1760 BE:':'E"'"..r.:.r!. ~ASHINGTON 98004 TIll.') SPACE rRO~'1DED fOR H,!;(x)RD!'.R'S USI'. j ~ i WllE." RECOflDED Rl!iL"R..'I TO ALA., ... ?ftOVOS'l" 1224 N" 32ND ST RENTON', WASl:H~:GTON 98056 '---____ ~I 46iS69 ~~-----------------------------------------------------~ THEGRA~TOR A1JL~ E. PROVOST (or and in con.~deral.iOQ of EC'SB.\o. .... O '!Q iH?E CCI:veys and q\!il claims tn QUIT CL;'IM DEED AL;./i ~. p~OVOS':' AND CYN"I':i:A H. ?,,::::<":CS:-, ::TsaANO AND ''''HE the foUcwir.g. tlescribed rCll =:'J:alc sin:..1!cd i..:t :hc CG'Jn!~ d X:NG tostthcr wit.!: all after acquired title (lrthe gral1:or(s; (!J:cre:::: SUIt: ofWas.!lingtoll. LO'I'S 49 ~'D SO I a.r..oc!: ",,", C. .D. HI L~."!...;"'1 ." r....u:E IiDL.SH!NG:'CN GA.~.=I!:::l OF EDEN ,\Don rON Ie SE'A'I"n.Z, NO.2, ACCORD!NG TO r.=z ?LAT T;;Z;-tEOf, RECORDED !~ VOL:"'/1..E 11 OF PLATS, PACEi$; 64, IN KING COU~~Y. WASHI~C':'ON; ':Q(j:ZTHE:::l 'ioIITH Si:COND c~s SHCRz~NDS A£:';:J!:i::SG; AND T3:E '-'ZS:'E'R.:.Y 15 YZ!''r'' OF THAT POR':':~N OF F0~~;t NORTHE'?...."i PACIFIC RA:U.rAY COM?A.N'l RIGh"'1' OF WAY ~S :.rES g;:;:T'..JEE.N THE ~O~-:-!-'.E:-".:.':' .~.NJ "'."~::: SCUTHZRLY L:NES or SA::-LOTS 49 A.UD 50. "AN E~ROVOST ~ -------------------------------., STAT3 Of WASH!NGTON 5S COUNTY OF" KING ON nIIS I '-(11----DAY OP NO\1E}'3=:R , 19~6 3EFORE !'OC. 't'SZ ONDERS!CiNEO. A NOTARY PlIBL:C !N ~~D FOR TSZ STrt~~ OF WASHING40N, DU:'Y cc~MISStON3C AND SWORN, PERSONALLY A?PEAR~D A..:..A..'II E. t'ROVOST J'tNO~H ro HE TO 3£ THE I:-1t:·:V:CllAI.(S} DESCRIBeD IN AND wHO E~ECIJTE~ TH~ WIn/IN IHsnllMENT A.'W SEALED T~E S.At1!: AS HIS F'RES AND VOL~n~ ! ACT AND ?~~?OS!S HEREIN HENT~ONEC. ;' (11 t PRINTED N~E: NOTARY PlJaLrc RES I D!NG ~!! Lf.!?f // fir?::}'?' . / . V'r, MY CCHX!SSION E'XPI~S ON (j' ~ ~/ ...... / E1514374 11/15/96 .00 .00 1-: , ~6i/0ST fioJt!c r "3 709-{1Ik'e uJpj /;L;/J), M LOis yC( t5:o, MfLll-',-fCftJ'S A])~(rlcJ · ! :,-'~l . J'l. ~ .fI.~t • til _~ 1?C1It.ftet:;fi Ii;,,"~~l ~t.ie 1'\,,$., J ••• ~Jt ',' ,. , .. , eg I KIHG :~""TY •• '"~. f'\'" "'I -r·· ... · " ..... f ~ ...... IL ~~\~ ~ .... -. i I a ] -.... QuIt Clafm DeecI THE CRANTOR. S, JILL E. Kr.::t:C:7T, .'I!:' um.:A.MIt!' ~','O::Al! A:::' :AVr:: J. :'~Ulnr. an:! n.'.RL i..::..RTD!, his w1h, 'orUld III _"'" 01 = DOLLAR CIa"", 1IDcf"", daIIII 10 A::XT: HOUmERG GOClDAR,?, a I1IAl'rio>! \lomon State of Waah1qtoa 1Dc1u~ aa;r hIt.,..,t ther.1D wh1cla putor IU7 bereat&eJ' .cquln I 7.:.'.~ FC.'';'IC:' CF l'P.E ::::STERL'.' 15FT OF '!'HE FO~:ER 11. P. RAILtlAY RIGIIT-OF-' . .'.'.7 1:" S:~TIa:: ~2, T~·.'SIIIr 241:, ~_';::;2 5 •• :·:., Ln::o BE'I"o1lll:l: THE !:cnH LI:" OF LCT ~~ '::: 'l'!!: SOUTH Ln'!S or LOT 52 l'RO:UCE."' EAST, or BLOOK A, C.:i, HILIJ.:A!·' S L:'M ... t;~,:::.~,:,c:: CM:-.":"!:' or S!;-!X !'!O. 2 • . r::m-: C::" I::~7ESS. ::~?3:;S AI:':' UTILI!': RIQHTS ?C:l ALL PnCPE?T': O'.;:v.s, C? .:::::cr. , c::' s r 1':'F':. sr.!}" 1,~T:G ~::'7:::::: m::: :;-C!lTH LI:'7E OF LeT !~C, :: -;n ':,;" set':':: :.r.= cr I.e: ::c. ~4 r.: O;H:;: .',BC'r:;: =SSORI!r TO'.::S!!IF :;TC. L It:: . 11.._ . ~A1.:ES T I~\ X -~:. "', l" .r~. ~ I' ~ ." '0 .- ST.a,TE OF WASHINGTON'I" ("QUIll), 01 doyol ~ ) If/. (, (~~~~ ...... _n(_) L-J-~.~~ . _ ~Z_) ~~~--------- ,~ UHH!!! ~707 ~ W~ f:,. ... ...J D '-> llflS INSTRUIEIIT, ... de tl11~day of Z. ~ 19 'l6.; by IIId between ?ui'H ... Cl. ~ Ik..l:: Q@tr'(tt.ft!td ; ________________________ ~lIId~ ________________ ___ __________________ -"and'--_________ _ "'relnafter called "Grantor(.), , and the CITY OF RfifTON,. I IUIiripal Corporation of King Coun~, Wls~1ngton. hereinafter called MGr.ntee". WITNESSEllf: That said Grantor(.), for Ind in con.iderltlon of the .... of S /.1'1' paid by Grantee, and other valucle consideration. ~dOc:--,;by::'"'tIIO;;;:::-se~p:-:re=$ ... :::;ts:;-.-:g:-:r::;I"'ntt, bargaln, .ell, convey. and warrlnt unto the said Gmtee. lts SUCCHSO" and asslgns. In easnent for pubHc utllitie. (lncluding wlter Ind sewer) wi th necessary appurtenanccs over. through. ICroSS and upon the followi", described property in King County. Wlshington. more porticularly described IS follows: A utIlity Easeoent for the installatIon. rep.lr. rephct1lltllt, ... intenan," and operation of I unitll")' seWl!r IM;n 11ne and appurtenlflteS within SIfI1tll')' Sewer Locil I~roveoent District No. 270 over and arros. t'" following described property: Lots 49 and 50. Block /.'1 (;.::. H1llIDRDS Lake liashlngton ':;~,J"'der. or Eden ::;t'fls1on :';0. 2, accordlng to the plat recorded in Volum~ :1 of ~19tSt rage 64, records of K1Lg County, Washington: Together ~lth 2nd Class ShorelandB adJo1n1ng. To~ether wlth the "~sterly 5 feet of the Bur11ngton North~~ (Xorth~rn Pac1f1c) Railroad ri~ht-or-wa7 adJ01n1ng. ""~ .. - Slid heretofore .... tloned grontee. Its successors or assigns. sh.ll h .... the rI ght. wi thout prior noti ce or proceeding .t 1 ... at such thes as IIIOY be neceo .. ." to en' .. r upon Sltd abo ... described property tIIr the purpose of con- struettng ... tntatnlng. rep.trlng •• 1terlng or reconstructing s.td utiltty. or .. king any connections therewith. end such constructton ... tntetnlng. rep.t rtng • • lterlng or reconstruction 'f such uttltty shall be Iccompllshed tn such ..... n.r th.t the prl.ate t""ro ..... nts e.isttng in the right rlght(s)-of-way sh.ll not be disturbed or _ged. or in the .... nt they are disturbed or d .... ged. they will be replaced in as good • conditton .s they were l_dl.tely before the property was entered I4JOf\ by the brllltee~ lhe Grutor 5n4i i fully use ar.d enjoy the .fol1!'desc:ribed preJllises. Including the right to retoin the right to use the surhce of said right-of-".y if such USe does not interfore ~ith installation .nd IIItntenanee of the ut,lity line. However, the grantor shall not erect buildings or structures over. under or ICrosS the right·of-way during the e~1stence of such utility. This easement, shall be a covenant running with the land and shall be oi,'d- ing or. the Grantor, his successors. he; rs and assigns. Grantors covenant :hat they are the lawful owners of the above properties and that they have a go:)d :snd lawful right to execute this agreenent.. .. • t?/JA e??d.-Jand 4;? ;d C'.LY'C l' and .'1 STATE OF WASHINGTOIi COIllTY OF KING ss and I. the undel"St~ed. a notary PUbl,£, in and for the State ('f WashUtgtc-n, hereby certHy that on th;~. day of 2:__ dfey' 197&-personally appeared before .. fIe • ~ ...-:: 1 •• d1 ... 1f, ..... (? ~«d 4t!\4l, li'M,h L. fie",! ~d ; / Jnd ; IfId ; to 171! kiiown to be 1 ndl Vl dua 1 ( in end WIiO ... eutid thO fore~~tru ... nt. and acknowledged that si9Md and sealed the SIR! IS '..tA.. free and yo1ll1Ury act and dee a.d purposes therein ... nttone . the uses ~~~--. -.'---.- , w q .... I I It\ '" M <3 .... N .... <3 N t- o- n o o o . -·-~··_c _ ....... OF ..... _ •••• •••••• REQUEST OF I9IZ l~" 2:S • 10 115 0tIIECT0R IIECaI!Da .. EL£cnc~s KINO COUNTY. W.".1. s ... ~ N ... ... ~ ·L?71l'Jt(:;/tbj ~ ... -.--. ..... -. -' M.f. W1WAMS CONSTRUCfION CO., INC. P.O. BOX 361 MERCER ISlAND. WA. 98040 DECLARATION Of RESTRlcnVE COVENANTS WHEREAS AI ond CyDdie Provost .... 1he ownera of Ihe followinl raI propet1)I in die Ciry of ROIl""', Counry 0( King. Slale of Washington. described as L01'S 49 AND SO, BLOCK "A", CO. HUMAN'S lJ\KE WASHINOTON GARDEN OF EDEN ADDmON TO SEATI1£, NO.2. ACCORDINO TO THE PlAT RBXlRDED IN VOUlME \1 Of PlATS, PAOE 64. IN KINO COUNTY, WASHINOTON; TOOEI'HER WITH SECOND CLASS SHORELANDS ADJOINlNO; AND THE WFSrERLY IS FEEf Of THAT PORIlON OF RJRMER NORrnERN PACIAC RAILWAY COMPANY RlGHT-Of·WAY AS UES BEfWEEN THE NORrnERLY AND THE SOUTHERI..Y UNES OFSAlD LOI'S 49 AND SO. TAX PARCEL IDI: 33427().()25().()3 WHEREAS. the 0WII0tS 0( said described properly desire 10 impose .... fdlowina restrictive COV .... IS running wilb Ibc land as 10 ..... prescnland fulure. of dleobove deoc:ribed real properly. NOW, THEREFORE. die oforc:said ow .... hereby esIabIish, pI and impose resIricIicos ond COV_ nmaing with Ibe lond herein above described with respecllD Ibc usc by .... undersigned. lheir SUCCCSSOI3, bci.., and assil"" as follows: RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS I. No additional 5InICNI'CS widlin any of !he Sdbock area are pennillOll,lIId IbaIIbcsc areas sbln be maintained IS open pIlIDIed area or ground Icvd pallo. 2. The "'"Ibouse may be RpIIiJed but shall DOl be clp'Jldcd in any direcIioo IX' bavc any choftae in ilS bulk. 3. The actual pbyliCli bcightoflhe"";dcncc .baIl JIIlIcxcccda pIanc of 30 feet above ground level. DURATION These covcnanlS shall nm willi Ibe land and ""(lire on Docembcr 31, 202S.1f II any lime improoemcnlS are imIaIIcd pusuanllO Ibesc COVCDaIIIS, Ibc pldion of Ihe __ palDininSID .... spear", i.-llcd impnm:mcn1S r<qUiR:d by Ihe OrdiIllDCOS of Ibc Ciry of Realm shall lelmmare wilboat ..,.,...;ry 0( furlber documentalioD. t: • . , ... • '. R(c,1:tcr 711.J.'-IJIOJ srATE OF WASHINCiI'CJ'I SS. CouQly of KING On dJis de day of /VW"fI!k\ I!WUe("", me penoaoIIylf'PClRd the pmons who cxccuI<d the wilhin and foresoina ilISIrumeuI, IIId lIdcDowIedpd 1Iid __ 1 to be die f~ and valllDlII)' ICI and deed of said pmons r ... the IlSaIlld pDlpcM61bmia 1ll<ll1ioncd. C '1IJAe f,..lVoA~ f 1'1 Ie PMf.,at- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, f have bemuIro lei my haad and IIfwd my oft"JdaI allhe day and year fUll above wrillell. ~ Pu7 i,and f ... the Slate of Wasbi .... reaidlna • ..;:./(.gre=:::J,;L.. ___ _ CIft'ICW._ 8HNION IIUIERISON .... --11 .... ... _r.,iIIl-HI ...... - - • • C! ill I I I • , , &1JI11I Addrar. City Cleat', Office CiIy ofRcnlon lOSS S. Grady Way Rmton WA 98055 ....... ,"'" .. IJpe_. _Tllll(t): • - Ctt)' of lentoo Ordinallce No. ~774 -LID 336 Propetty A8.eal.ent IleIaute N •• ~ otDoalmob AIIIpcd or released: I .. __ "~» N/. Groator(o) (\.Ist .......... 1hcn filii ..... and 1aldIIs): I. 2. 3. 4. D AdditloIIII DllDClOIPlJC:_otdocume.t Grutte(J) (\.1st _ ..... dMo tint ..... one! iIIItIok): I. 2. 3. 4, C AdditicHtIJnllKloapa&e_or_Ol Lqllllacdpti!a ~te4: I.e. 101, block, plM Of --.........,. ..... ): The land, 'Deluded within the BNHI Loea1 l~rov..ent Dl.trlct boucdary are tho.~ portlool of S~etlon8 lJ and 32 t .11 In tovaebip Z. Nor~h, RaDge S Ealt, V.H., City of Renton, County of King, State of V •• h1n&ton. and adJolDtDI ,borel.Dda d.,crLbed II follows: Lota Hi throqh 61, laelualve, Block A of C.D. HUI .. n", LIIIke I!I~"'''"-~''-,, _ •• .....vTu •• mII_lI_ o ",_",bOl __ oIdoc:waco, I !!:.!!":~~ ~!,'!.,:"Iho:."!'_"'-""'bm. 11Io .... .mllOCnod .... .. ... ., __ or... __ ........ - - • • , • • CITY OF RBHTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 4774 AN ORDINANCE OF TIlE CITY OF RENTON, WASIDNGTON, ORDERING THAT ASSESSMENTS BE MADE AGAINST PROPERTY INCWDI!D WITIIIN LID NO. 336 FOR IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTED AT THE 3'MO BLOCK OF lAKE WASIDNGTON BOULEVARD; PROVIDING ASSESSMENTS VPON PROPERTY IN LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 316 (lID NO. 336). WHEREAS, by ItesoIutiOll No. 3006 pwcd and opproY<d on October 4. 1993, tho City Council of the Cky or Renton declared its intention 10 ..... tnICl and iM1.l1I • public 1111I0I<l crossing with roadway modiflCatioll$ to include a retaining .. II and .11 necessary appul'1CnallCeS thereto at the 3100 block or Lake Wuhi"8lOn Boulevard; and WHEREAS. such construction has now been completed and In .... 15 therefore recehed; and WHEREAS. the City Council did estJblish and fIX February I, 1999. in the _ Municipal Court Building. Itenron. Washi",,,,,,. IS the time and place for _ing .11 _ .. llti", to Slid improvements and all objections thereto and for delUJlllnil\l the method of payment for said improvements; and WHEREAS, there has been prepared. disgnm (See Eahibk 0 A 0) showing thereon the I .... traCIS. pan:ds of land. and other property which will be rpu:iaIly bener...s by the proposed improvement wichin aid District; and WHEREAS, no protes15 IS to the propooed __ rrom pan:ds within the Local CERTflCAlE t lite Ufldlrsl&fttd, Depaq City Clerk CllIIte CIl1 of ReAIon, WasIllq!GI, ceIIIIJ tbt litis "I true wi COtllct COW 01 - - • • • • , ORDINANCE NO. 4n4 WHEREAS, at JOId hearing the City Couocll ... given due ...... !dention .. the special beftefllS .. be ....:II<d ftom such propot<d Imp~ by .. I 01 doe ~ Included wilhln the 1.<Jcal1 .... .."..",.". Oislric~ NOW, mEREFORE, TIlE CITY COUNCiL OF 11IB CITY Of RENTON. WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTJON " The co"' and expense 01 Local Improvement OisIriCI No. 336 including the cost and .. pense of 011 engineering. lepl, ioupeaion, advenlsin&, publication 01_, and other elIpCIISU inciden131 _, b hereby deeIIre4 10 be $76,880.64, which coslS and ',pense .hall be paid !rom Letal Improvement DistrieI No. 336. SF.CDONfI. The ........... roU. aslJlPfO'lOd .... confinned, shaU be filed with the Admini_ 01 the Financ:e It Inronl\llion SeMea ror _on and Aid Adminitlnl."" 01 the Finanoe It InrOl"lDOlion .~ Is benby"'-.... _ .. pubUIb nalioe as.....,;...t by law, ... tina chal said roll is in her hands for c:oUection and 1M! pa,..... 01 III)' ..... I .... lhereon or any portion 01 said _ CIlI be made .1 any lime wiIhIn IJIirty days from d.te 01 fom pubii<alion of said notioe. wil ..... ' penalty, ........ or co... and thai thefeaI\er the .... remainins unpaid i. 10 be p';d by _ or the 14 panidpanu reIpOIIIibIe lor Sl,203.36 01 !he ..... In fIYe equ.I ....... Install ....... wilh interest !hereon fiaed II ..... or 6.S%. The fir" instaUmeot or .. oessm .... on !he ._ roll ,hall become due .... payobIe durins the thirty day period suca:eding lhe date _ year after I he dole 01 !he lint pubIicoIion by the AdminIstrator or the rmanc:.e & lnfonnation SCMW of notice that the Issesrmaa roI. in her hind. for c:oIIecdon and • ..-Ilytherull .. each .. cceecfing InsI3II_ """becomedueoad pl)'Jblein like _. If the INbole or any !'""ion 01 the useosmenu ranaIn u ...... oller the ~ day ptriod, inIereot upon the whole unp.;4 ..... 1hoJI be cIwaed'lt the rate as deIei.oined -. and ..." year therafter _ 01 I - - ~ • • j • • '. ORDINANCE NO. 4724 .... .............. IDIfCIher wi1h interest due on .... ..,paid Iialan<e, ohaII be coItected. AIry inltJllmeallIOI paid priG< 10 tlte expiration of ~ tbirIy day period do ... wIIicb lUeII iNtaJlmeat i. due and payable IbalIIher<upon b«:ome delinqueot. AU delioquent InoIaIIments IbaII be IUbjcd to I chtIJIC Co< _ I',he nt •• pecified abo .. tncI rot an tdcIitional chqe of I 0% ..... '" IeW:d upon both prin<ipal and.int ...... due upon IUcb inIt~1ment or instollmenU. The _ion for IUcb delinquent iaIttIlmenII will he en/"crc:ed in the: _provided by law. IIEC'!'ION m. flY< days after publialion. This ordinaace wm be eff"";" upon ill flW'I&e, apprcmol and PASSIID BY THE CITY COUNCILthb..llllll... dayoC "arch , 1999. ~ "PPROVBD BY THE MA YOR Ibis ~ day or Much AW~ La ....... ,. Wuren, City Attorney Dall:ofPlblieation: IIarch 26, 1999 (Su .. aryJ ORD.761:2I22i99:1S. 3 , 1999. - - ( • • • • , EXHIBIT A CITY OF RENTON" TRANSPORTATION DIVISION LOCATION ,. PROJECT ,-----,lID PI/1iCip .... f:!i!l!illN!i.CJ lilt ,...,.- _ PI"", IMII. MAP ~I ) "Public RR X'Ing N 3700 Blook 01 Lake WISh Blvd) • • - - -. • • EXHIBrTB DNIIR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT P/STIUCI' 31tO BLOCK OF LAKE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD The I, .... indocJed wi.ljnllle BNNR I.ocall_ Diltriclboundory "'" I'-poi.,.. of . SccIiom J I Old 32. ,II in T.-hip 24 Nonh. R.",. 5 EaR. W.M .• Ci.y or ReIIIM. QuIII)' cI King. SU.e orW..mnctm and "JOinlng ,hord,nds _ IS 1_: La! 14 _&II 67,inclusl ... Block A 01 C.D. nlllntan', Lu. Wahl..,... Oorden clEdcn_ to Seaule N<I. 2. "" Pla'ItOOIde<i in Volume II ofPloU. Paze 64, _cHeiac eou .. y: TOGETHER WITH .... ' I dmlgh 10. incluslw:. Block A OfC.D. HJIIman',Lu.WlShingIaIClarden oft;den Addilloo to SeaIlIeNo. I. "" Pl •• r=rdcd in Volume 11 of PIaU, Pa", 6). R<alrdsclKing CoonIy. Wdlin,ltnD; also TOGETHER wmt lhew: pnrIioo.o; or IIdjoiNftJ Mounllln V"~. Avaue. ... ~M IU'C:CCS. if any. which. upnn vacation. IIIlidled 10 sakJ prq!01io1 hy ~11m nr law; also TOGETIlER WITH ..... panlan 01 the lormer Northem Pocific Rlflway em.,.ny'. ri&Il,or.way r ... it.'1 Bell Unel)'iRCMSlerl)'Qfa pirJllcllinc 3S rea WCIIa'Iyof"dlcceder&nedo.e mala lfackohaid Belt LI .... ka1<d in Aid S<ction 31. and fyin, DIhe<Iy cI the _Ill obcrib<d I ... : • Bq:innilll'" pol .... Il1eC3~"ly ptOOuctiondthe nar1h 1ine00sold .... I. BIockAclC.O. Hill .... ·' Lu. Wuhi.,.,., Oardcn ofEdeo A<illlion fn Seattle No.l.1yinz 35 reet _yd. as meam-ed II righl :Illites. (rom me cenler line or said Din U'lck U nnw tMSmJCIc:d JDd qxnled; ~ 1k'IUlhwwerly illon& a ~rai!tu.li~ 10 • poinI on a paralkt line 25 rea .... therly ofsald ~crlr JII1lducdon or lhe: fIO{1h line (lr said (.0( I and4-' reel wattrl)' or, U lnCIL'Wraf at ri .... angles. rKIIIIIId main trade: c:mIer line; l11t:IIte _yo panlld '0 .aid _my protIucod toe line. to 1ft _iOn wllh the tutaIy Hne or uid Let I .nd· ltx: taminus or said 1ft; also TOGETHER WITH IIIl1I portion of the (firmer NOI1hi:m Ptaftt: Raihtal Company', riJhr-of·way (or lis Belt u"" l)'i ...... ..-Iy nI. parallel line;$ r... _, ct"""-Uae 01"" malDttact 01 said Be" U ... Iocaled '''aid Sa:liOfl ;2 .• nd 1~.U.u""'1y dille 1oI1ow101J dcoc:ribed line: Bqinni-':.I tin IMII pipe If ,he nmhc:a.u ClII',lC£ofl.d 2.S ofBkld .. "," of aid CoD. Hil_n's uk< Wuhi ...... 0""," or Eden _'0 Sa"', No. 2: l11t:IIte "",_..-Iy ~0IlfI1IIe emedy IIDe of ..... LoI:IS 1bII. "'"""' lite 1dI,1tnI1lI' radius of 2.1ll8.S9 r .... ao ,re distance or 6 r .... to ~ inIII pipe .... "" .... pal" orbql""" 01 Aid line: 1beocoSIlIIIh73"0l' 49" East.. diJtanced 15.661 ...... "".-Jy 1 .. 01 ..... -..ty 35 fed 01 said BdllJne and "" 1<I1M, .. 01 IIId line. ~~ ~ ~~j~~~ ~~~~~:~- - ~ I " f'- j /<-t -fr ft 10q 07 locri • (QQ90SIOOO(b48' ki!lurn A.ddress: CilY Clem's Office Ciry or Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton. WA 98055-3232 Tille: UTILITIES EASEMENT • Property Tal. Parcel Numbe.r: 33417(t..015O 334270-0260 PMJ«I Fde Kmnydalc Walttmaln Rtplaccmcnt Lake Wash~ JIouIC\:IJd@ 1'4 J6d1 SCreeI b.--------------------------------Gra.tor(.): Grantcc(a): Alin E Provost L'(f City of Renton, a Municipil Corporalion 1 1 1 PjiiillIIII II 1 TM Crll:ld.r.1t$-umcd afIo\.~.loror aad in considcfation ar QMu.1 bcndils. hrnby a,nnts. bupins.. :sells.nd dcli\'CfS to Ihc: above named Grf..-. the fo4lc!wing described proftI."n)': LEGAl. DESCRIPTION. Tbe cuccrly I 0 f~tt within ChIC existins road easement in dM: foliowir\e property: Lob .. 9· 52. Block A. HID.lllm IAI Wn Garden of Edcl Wl. TGWW ISh orrol1M1"N P RlWldJacenl, TGW SII U. Adj For the purpose of constructlnK. teconstructmg. insuilling. repairing. rcplllCin&, enlarging, 0JICfIlinc and m.mlainins utilities ~d ulilit), pipelines, includms;. but nollimik:d 10. water. 5C"tt and stann. dralftaJ,c lincs. t0f:f;ther with tht righl of ingrtss and egress thereto wilhout prior illSlilUlion of any suit or proc«dings of law and wilhout incurring iUl)' lepl obligalion Of liability lhcrefor. Following Ute: initial constrvrtion of its fall:ilities. Ofllnttt may from lime to liSM «Hl!ttruct sl,lC:~ additional fKilitlc5 as. it mBY Rquirc. Tbis easement is &raniN 5ubJtcito die (oUO\\ing terms and condilio,!s; I TheGlantft'shaU, upon I;Gmpletloo of an)-"'Nt with", the fWOpCrt) covt'I'cd b) Weasmetlt. teSIofc &he JUffal;< of lite curmcnt.. and an)' ptn-lilt iIJlPl"O"cmcnts dlstllfbcd or destroyed dunng ~ion uribe woct... IS aeart). as (lJKttublc:: 10 Ibc condition the~ \O.en: in Immcdl.leI~ bdorc commcnctrnml ,,(dIe .. 'Oft or envy b)'1hc Gnntcc. , GraAtOf shall mun die,'" kl usc lhe ~urfk't' oflhc ~nl as kina: ItS StIth usc cIoa tKJt entcrfm "lib !he: ~t tiJ:hl$lfWItc:d \0 11M: Grantee This e.&SCnIcnl5hall run with Ihe land described ht'rcin. and shall be bindin,g upon lite pani£s. their heirs. sucCt!~ in "'Ieresl and ISCiaM. Gr~lors COVi!n~t thai they are Ibe lawful OWDers ofthc above properties and dW lhc)o have • ,ood and lawful rig.hl 10 exccult this agreement. By Ibis coDveyln"-GfWIIDr will wananl and ddmd the sale hcrdJy made unlO the Granltc against aU lind ~ery person or persons. whomsoe\ler. lawfully claiming or to, claim Ihe same. This conveyance shall bind the heiu. encutors, admiaiSlnlOfS and luigl'ls rnor .... _ ~ Jill:' ff '~~'EREor ..... " .. "'~~7"'''<vtoI -yo rut I. - V c:--' ~ --, /--~ d&:· -__ -__ , • . ., - - 'I l Nnt'-II') NfJ'1l 1-;.,'1;1,,1 A Til 'I; £1M'" Of' A( ·A· .... ·Olll./~J',.;sr Sl'ATEOF Vo.'ASIIIN{iTON 'ss COl 'N'TY OF KINO , I C'Cl1lr~ ."-,, I "'nm, (If M\ I; !oII11~ral:ln~ c\ idencc thltl _ 'o.I!;Rcd Ihl-m~lUfm('flI.'1lI ,,~!h \r~~r~;' Ihal hV~h~'~ ,\"',,"'\\ctc aulh<'ra/.td t~ C\«ulC' the 1""ft'111(:1I1 ...,d ;I(~nm.\ kdJ.!coJ ., lI.< the ;a'l.! "f In ~ tlie frcr and H>lunla~ ;ld "I 'll~h r.u1~ ,-:;-,lfl"-' f"r 'lie w~ urn.t I"Jlr(>~~ n'CfII1f'nc,lln 'he-II1<trUr,ICflI Nl1taf') I'!lllli, in and for the Siale (\fWashill~lr," L N"I"lr~ (l'rint) My appointmellt c\pircs:_ . ___ -'-"J)"'at"'cd=' ______________ . __ ~ '. COR rOil ~ 1 f; UJR,1I0"'AlC;:f\'f)N1J.bC,.VI:\' SiAl I" 01-WA\Hn'hfON ISS ("ot'f',;rYOT J..:IN(i l .to h(orC\fC 'Il~ I'tr""n.lll~ ;\r~.lre..1 h' me i._n 10' t'C "llh!'~"~OI";a(",",Tb.!1 C't":LJI~J rio .. \'Ith;~ 1II,'''r~lI:nI. ~nJ ackil"~kJ~I·-(i;;-;';ld In<lntmt,"nili' N' Ihe Irt'(' ~u., \ ,.Iunl!l) a{ t ,uloi,itcd nr !laId l'"tlfT"'lallI'li. I .... the-u.....:~ .;tI1J J'1lrf"'«"~ Ihcu:m In.:ntlt>n,·,J. 41lul colLhnn oath !-lilled lhallw: Jobi:"'~ 1\11\1""1/ ... 1 f,' "c .. ull."" ....... 1 Irl,lnUlll'nl .lnd Ih,-. 11K-'0("."11 ;Ifn'cd t~ Ihl.'" \.t'I"f"".w~ '<!"0111 •• J ....".1 ",'r""r.lhl'" ._---- ,1\i111ar.:--Puhlrc 11I3l1d for fhl' ~Iidl" 1.( Wa.,hingh'll Nf'lia r-. tllrlllll I ~h a~r"int",c't"ro;c; . flitted· --. ------------_._--_. '" 1_1_1649 PACt ..,. 1ft ee .... II'I999 12 lei It"Irc COOIffY, .. J . .., = = = ~ = = = = <'-' RETURN ADDRESS PROVOST COy I .... Please pram neatly or cypc informauon Document Title(s) ])€CtAfAJL;M) N b.s71!JC 77 II( C;uItUJA-JJr Reference Numbers(s) of related documents k'.C PApe t!L #-:S"3 'f!2 7C) -OtlSD-_OS-=--__ Addilionll Refermc:e: "$ on PlP_ Grantor(s) (Las!, rust ODd Middle 1altlaJ) ~CJVOS r: iJLAN C > Grantee(s) (Last. Fint ODd MMIdIc 1DItial) AddibOnl.l,narees on pace _ Legal Description (abbn""", rOnd' i. •. lot, block. plot or -. to..-.p, .--, q ....... lq_) -S-O-I LJt1kl '/I s H) M;.101J Assessor's Property Tax Parcell Account Number ~ 34 ,9,70 -0':;" 50-Os Addiciona1 partel "s on pq:c_ ~ Audilor/Reeordu will rely on Ule informatioo provided GIll this form. 1bt staa wiD DOt read &be documeat to Yerily Che accuracy or comp1d.rnm of the indexiDe: information provi&d bereib. = c:> = ...... = CO:> = = c-... DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANT WHEREAS Alan E. Provost is the owner of the following real property in the City of Renton. County of K"tng. State of Washington. described as ExhibH 'A' attached hereto. WHEREAS, the owner 01 said described property desires to impose the followtng restrictive covenant running with the land as to use, present and future, of the above described real property. NOW, THEREFORE. the aforesaid owner hereby establishes, grants, and imposes a restriction and covenant running wHh the land herein above described wHh respect to the use by the undersigned, their successors. heirs, and assigns as follows: RESTRICTIVE COVENANT No additional structures wHhin any of the setback area are permitted, and that these areas shall be maintained as open planted area or ground level patio. DURATION This covenant shalt run With the land In perpetuity. H at any time improvements are installed pursuant to this covenant, the portion of the covenant pertaining to the specHic installed improvements required by the Ordinances of the City of Renton shall terminate wHhout necessity of further documentation. Any violation or breach 01 this restric1lve covenant may be enforced by proper legal procedures in the' Superior Court of KIng County by either the CHy of Renton or any property owners adfolning sub/ect property who are adversely affected by said breach. STATE OF WASHINGTON _~1~ AI.i!fi.£~st ---'o/'l B. It'l, -x-.<i:. . ...... (!/' ..... 'I f t:-... ~~SlOI\Is.::. ''\pl, .: /:0)' "",,". (' / : ;:~ tlOTAR'r ",', (I\~ ~ :0" -~-~:-</. • . 7 ", PuBUC:: County of KING " ~" ,.: .: " -9~,.2. 9. 0 ~,.-fl".:- On this I day of ::firS., ,Q;~e me personaUy appeared the who executed the wHhin and foregoing instrument. and ackhclw1edgoo said instrument fo be the free and voluntary act and deed of said person for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my offlCiaJ seal the day and year first above written. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at -'!0..'1:~~~~-,J<=..!..!-- = = = c--J =- = = = c--J - LOTS 49-50, BLOCK A, INCLUSIVE CD HILL"iAN'S LAKE WASHINGTON GARDEN OF EDEN NO.2. RECORDED IN VOLUME II OF PLATS AT PAGE 64. RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASH I NGTON. NW 32 -24 - 5 . . :'"~'L'"' ... -• ".c .. -, .. , .. ",:,"-.~~ .. - cticvos T fioJ EC r 3709-Llrk![ VI/; 6Li/j), M La IS L{ q t ~o) H (L l v,-~tJ (s A]):p ( T/O,J £J4seJ.A-£AJ'{S ~ C~VE~A-AJ,(~ DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON MAR -72006 RECEIVED " , es I KING :O~TY .,"'~. ~\!E m -r-D "'. :t~ ---, ~. ...... l ~ '1:\ ~ ~ .... ""MID ~:if-"'-"-"-""'"'' . •••. . •••. R£Q'Jt:Sl 01 ~ II) I I I ::: ':o! ~, ~ J ,; J I ,., " ::.. % ~ ;, a I J I -.... THE GRANTOR. S, JILL e. xr.'l~C::T, :L!: tr.".v!ArtP.:m:-~.·C::AI·~ .\..;:' :,Avn J. :':'~::l.'l'II7 on:! n.."RL ;t.::'RTn:, his wlh, ... one! 10 _liDo 01 a:r.: DOLLAR .... r ......... _ m1_, 1111II1ed 10 ... Cow" 01 KII:G Stat. of W .. biDp:MII1Delu_ aG7 latere.t there1D wh1eII poaator .." _redtw _quire I 7:::.: FC.'l7IC:· CF TJ!E: '.:ESTERL': 15FT OF THE !'011I:ER II. P. R.lILIIAY RIGIlT-Ol"-'.:.\! 1:' S=~'l'IO:: ,2, =·:smr 241:, ~_\;:GZ 5~.:·:., L!1::3 BET.·Im: THE I:OHI! Lil:!! OF LOT 4~ .':~: T!!: SOUTH LIm: or LOT 52 PRO:UOE:' EAST, 01' BLOOK A, O.~. HILIJ.:A!·'S L.~X;-; ... ~~':::'~':'C·:~ 3~:'.":"!:" OF S:~!r. ~!O. 2 • . !ll~ Cr-' I::~:\ESS, ::S?':;:;S AI:':' UTILIT': RIGHTS ?C~ ALL PRCPE?1": u..::US, C7 :'::;C!: , C:" S r '~F':'. S'r.rF" 1,:T~.j :;::':".::::;:: 'I'H! :~c.~'1'H LI!:E C? LCT !7C. :;.:-~n -'.;:--:cr::: :.r.:: CF LC~ ::c. :-,4 r.~ TH: -".Be·,r: ~§3I!r ro.':73!~IF :;~. L ie: . ,~. SAtES Tl,X -;~". l" t" " ' , "\.. ." ST.\TE OF WASHINGTON, I .. ('ounty DI r.: ... m ~ i -~ .,01 ~ )/f/'t. ~'~'.-~.~. ~" ..• ~ ......... ( .... ) , . 1'//: . '7"--.~... . -~....&. ....... flUlo) -~~------- JIll D. Xr::·:Oi:1', :m uu!:nrrl·~.~ l:eot: .... !l .~ Ohda1s.,.~ ........ bNn:_ ':"·71': J. ::";R'I'I:~ :.r"· r-;.-,:-l, ::·,~'l'I:·r :~!.: "~':". ' .... k_ ....... __ '_100001 __ ... _0001 ......... _~ ... ... _,......._ ... ~,... ...... ... _.. ",'1T ,... 0001 -,. OCI .... _, lot ... "'"Mi4'~'.''''''' -W' , I GI\~" .:....;;;,:'~ .... _ ... IWI I ~"'of. _. <~'l --b...;<t;;~~~z;:.:..-£~.r;. •. >;. :. I ,--ILED far AM .. ' at -,~ _/", ~ .....,. ''-~i?H i J -oJ Jt-t ret. 01-Ht[ ~(;U,~ "-'-;6& Wft! :I''PdlO:: At IklAl ; .:~ MILL AVE. SOUTH feell lOll, "ASA. m; UHH!!! ~707 ~ w.--...... f-:., ... ....,D "-> lHlS INSTRlJllENT, .. de t11l>~day of Zt ~ 1976.; by ond between wjJl.i", &, {i Hdtlld a".;tr;{t. Ji.. IUd ; V Md V • --------------~----' __________________________ ,md, ______________ ------- _____________________________ •• nd, ______________________ _ herelnlfter called "Grontor(s)", and the CITY OF RE~TON. a IlInlclpal eo."oraUon of King County, W .. ~ln9ton. herelnlfter c.lled "Grlntee". WITNESSETH: That Slid Grllltor(s), for and in conslderltlon of the s ... of S /. t't) , paid by Grantee. Ind other yaluable :onilaerat1Oft. "dO::--'by::-1thi=s"'.:-:p:::re=s"'.::n:::U:-, -:g:::r=.n::;'t. bargain. sell, CDnvey, -and warrant unto the-said GTOntee, Its successors and Isslgns, an e ....... t for public utilities (Including w.ter .nd ,ewer) with necesSlT)' appurtenanC4!s over. through. ICf'OU and upon the following described property in King County, Wlshlngton, more plrtlc.llrly described IS follows: A Utility Elselent for the 1nstallat1Qn. rep.tr. replicelltnt. maintenance and operation of I sanitary sewer .... in 1tn~ IIId appurtenlilc:es within Sanitary Sewer Local I""rooe .... t District No. Z1!l ooer ond across the following described property: Lots Ll.9 and 50. Block ;.'. :.~, Hl111llar.lB Lake ';a.shlngton ':;:::.rcier, of Eden :a1'lslon :';:0. 2, accordlng to the plat recorded 1n Volum!! :1 of ~lat8, r~ge 64, records of King County, Wash1ngton: Together w1th 2nd Class Shorelanda adJoin1ng. Together klth the ·lIiesterly 5 feet of the Burlington North<el"n (Xorthern Pac1fic) Ra1lroad r1ght-of-NaY adjOining. ... ..--.. Slid heretofore .... tioned grantee. its succe$5ors or .ssigns. shan h .... the ri~t. without prior notice or proceecHng at I •• at such till!S IS may be neCl!SSOI'l' to en .... r upon Sli d Ibo ... described property ft.r the purpose of con- structing .... intaining. repairing •• Itering or reconstructing soid utility. Or IIII<tng any connecttons therewith. and such construction. "'intaintng. repairing. altering or reconstruction 'f such utility shill be ac_ltshed tn such a maMer that the Pri.lte t~ro ....... ts extsttng in the ri~t ri~t(s)-of-way shill not be disturbed or _ged. or in the _vent they Ire disturbed or _ged. they will be repllced In IS good a condition IS they were i_cHltely before the property wa entered upon by the t.irantee. lhe Grantor snai i fully use ar;,d enjoy the aforedescribed premises. tncludtng the ri~t to retlin the ri~t to use the surf.ce of Slid right-of-w.y if such us. does not interfl'" ~ith tnstallatton Ind NIn.tenance of the ut:lity 11ne. However. the grantor shall not erect buildings or structures over, ""nder or across the right-of-way during the existence of sUCh utility. This ....... nt. shall be I covenant running with the land Ind shall be otrd· ing or. the Grantor. his successors. he; rs and assigns. Grantors covenant :hat they ore the lawful owners of the above properties Ind tha.t they have a good ,nd lawful right to execute this agreenent.. .-- M/L: e::#~and 4';? .xl CL.Yt--'? and .'1 STAT!' OF WASHINIiT(IIj COIJITY OF KING 55 and I I the undersigned. it. notary PUbljt in and for the State cof W'ash;n~tcfl. hereby certify that on thi~. day of d____ HCy' 1~7~ personally appeared be~reR ~ Ind1.";U.",=, C ~ M1.4l, MWh L. f' Me"" and ; And " and , to me known to be lndivldUal( in IIId WhO ... cuted the f.re~~trument. and Icknowledged that Signed ... d selled the s_ as ~ free and voll1\tary act and dee end p.",. ••• therein .... tion •. -';-' '" '!;A,",::---. -.'-'-.-' -_.- , w q n I I 0- on <> <> '" 'laIlDED _ ••••• OF ••••••••••• ••• _.nEClUEST OF DIlEc.Oft IIECOII08 , EU:cnc~s 1(", COUNTY. ~,,,,':;,i, ME W1WAMS CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. P.O. BOX 361 MERCER ISLAND, WA. 98040 DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS WHEREAS AI and CyndIe Provost ate !he 0W1lCII 0( !be followiDg raI properly in !he CilJl of RedID!!, CounIJl 0( IGn,. Slalc 0( Washinglon, described as LOrS 49 AND SO, BLOCK "AM, C.D. HIllMAN'S LAKE WASHINGTON GARDEN OF EDEN ADDITION TO SEATJ1£. NO.2. ACCORDING TO THE PlAT RECORDED IN VOUIME 11 OF PLATS, PAGE 64. IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; TOOETHER WITH SECOND CLASS SHORELANDS ADIOINlNG; AND THE WESTERLY 15 fEEf OF THAT PORIlON OF FORMER NORTIJERN PACIAC RAILWAY COMPANY RlGHT-OF·WAY AS UES BETWEEN THE NORTHERLY AND THE SOUTHERLY UNES OFSAlD J.OrS49 AND SO. TAX PARCEL 101; 334270-025().Q3 WHEREAS. !he.......rs cI said described property dcsin: 10 impose .... following ralliCtive cove .... rs IlhIllint! wilh .... land as 10 use, present and fUlUre. cI!he above describod n:aI property. NOW.11IEREFORE. .... .r<nSOid ownm hereby establish. e:nuu ond impose n:sIric1ioos and <OVeIWIU running wilh lite land hen:in above described wilh n:specIlD!he use by .... UIIIImi@lll'd, !heir suc:cessors. hei15, and assigns '" follows: RESTRJCTIVECOVENANTS 1. No additional structures wilhin any of lite oetbock ..... an: penninod. and dtallbcse ..... shall be maintained as opeD planlCd area ot ground level paIio. 2. 1110 baubouse may be repaired but shall 001 be c'P'""ed in l1li)' din:cIioa or have any change in irs bulk. 3. 1110 IICIUaI physicnl beishl o(!he n:sidence shalllIOIexoecd a pi""" cl30 feetahove ground level. DURATION Thooe cov ...... rs 5ball nm wilh lite !aDd and expire on December 31, 202S.1f II III)' lime improvcmems an: insIaUed pursuant 10 Ibese covenaars, .... porIiOD d!he corenaaII pertaining 10 !he specific insrallcd impuvemenrs RqUiIed by !be ClnIiIllDCa cI!he CiIJl clReaIaI sIJaIl It11IIUIaI< widtout .".,.,..;ty cI further documenllJioD. :1 • '. R(c,ilcr 711J.L(J./O) Sf ATE OF WASHJN(Il'ao/ .S. COIIDIy O(KINO ClII dIis de day of MWh.y.. 1m. Wen me penclIIIIIy~ !be paIOIIS wbo executed !be within and foo:goins inslrumcat, ond lIObowIedJCd IBid ..... - ID be !be free and vcllIIIIIIIY oct and docd 0( said pcnoaI fer !be IlleS ond pIIIpClIII8lbaoil1 _1ioaed. C '1t.J.e fANV'~.( 4 It: PMI..at- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hemuIID ICI my ....... ond «1mI my cffIdII allbe day and ~ rual above Wliaca. ~ Miic iaand for !be Stale 0( WubilJ8lOll, Iaidlns. _./r..d7e=::::I~ ___ _ ~U?, fil< ClftWIfAL 8HAIIOH0IJISII8()H ----" ....... __ r..RoH-liI ..... - - - • • hlrlrll.ilddtrsr: City elodt', 0IIicc CityoCReoIon lOSS 5, G,ody •• y Renton WA 91055 _'TIde(I): • • Cit)' of bnton Ordinance No. 4174 -LID 336 Prope~ty A88~8.aent W ...... N .. I>u(o) oIiloa1 ..... wlped or ......... , laa ___ ar_,! HIA _r(1) ().oot ..... lInt, then IiIIt oame and IaItIoIsl: I. 2. l. 4. C _ ........ ,. .. _ar_' Grutco(I) ().oot -lint, _In! ..... and ioItIIIt): I. 2. l. 4.0 AddI_ ........ __ oldo<umenl Lcpl Dacrip,~ (llllmbl<d, le.1ol, block, pIaC or -. ~ .... "t, 1he laads tDCluded with!D the SNKR Locel I.proveaeat Dl.trlct bOdndiry are thOle portionl of Seetions 3J end 32, .11 in ~OWD.h'p 24 North, RaGge S !alt, V."., City of Rentoa, County of Kiag, State of V •• hlD1ton, and adjotalDI .horel.Dda described •• follow.: Lot. 14 throUJh 67. lDelu'l~e, Block A of C.D. Hlll •• n's Lake l!I_kaoI .... _~of_ol _.r.....vTu'.mII_N.-. o AtldllIootIkaoI .... __ of-.' 'IIIo~WWJdr .. lho:iD6I_...-........... n. .. WWIOI ....... _ .. ;..v.iM_or ... __ ...... t-.ailllll II. ....... - - • • , • • CITY OF RENTON, WASHINuroN ORDINANCE NO. ~ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, ORDERING mAT ASSESSMENTS BE MADE AGAINST PROPERTY INCWDI!D WITHIN un NO. 3U FOR IMPROVEMI!NTS CONSTRUCTED AT 1lfE 3100 BLOCK OF LAKE WASHINGTON BOUIEVARD; PROVIDING ASSESSMENTS UPON PROPERTY IN LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTlUCT NO. 336 (LID NO. 336). WHEREAS, by l\esoIulion No. 3006 pwcd ond .".,..,..., on October 4. 1m. rho CilY eouncil of !he C~y of Renlon declared lIS inIe.,ion 10 COfISIIIICI and i ..... 1 a public rollrood ..... ing wilh roadway modlf"""ions 10 include a _inhle wall ond all n«essary appunena...,.. !he_., .... 3700 block of Lake Washi""". Boulevard; and WHI!ItEAS, such conslrUClion has now been complelcd ond all <OSIS ...... fore _lved; WIlERE.tS ..... Cily Council did esllblish ond fll February I, 1999, in .... RenIon Municipal Court 8uild"". RenIDn. WashinglOn. as the tim •• nd placz for hearing all maum relali", to said improvemenlS and III objections !hereto Ind for dctermini .. !he metIIod of pay .... , for said imp ..... m.nrs; and WHEREAS, !here has been prepared a diqtaJh (See I!lhibk 'A') _ing ........ rho lOIS ........ part:ds of land. ond olher property which will be opcclaIly be .. rll<d by .... proposed improvement wichin alel Putrid; and WHEJIEAS, no prOfeSU IS 10 .... ~ ...... _ from pon:eIs wldtln !he Local Improvement District were flied; and - - • • • • • , ORDIN,\NCB NO. 4774 WHEREAS, II sold hearing the CII)' CowIclI his given d .. COIISiclenlion ... the tpOCiai beoefllS to be -=hod fioom such propos«! illlpllMlllelll by all of tile properties Included wiIIIin the lA>caIlmpromncnt Dislrict; NOW, 11IERIFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF TIll! CfI'Y Of RENTOtI. WASHINGTON. 00 ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SEC!1OH I, The =1 and upense or Locallmpromnent Dlsttict No. 336 Including the cost and .. pcnse or olt <ngi_ring. ltaal, illlj>O<fion. ad ..... ing. publication of _. and other CIjlCIIJU incidental then:to. is hereby decIamI to be $76.880.64. which costs and .. pense .halt be paid from Locallmprovcmenl DisIticI No. 336. Sf"fT'ON II. TIt< .. SWlMM roll, IS _vcd aad confinn<d. "'"II be filed ";!h ~ the AdminillfalOr of the Financo II. Infonnation Services for c:o/IecIion and said AdnVniJIra!o< or ~ the Finance II. 1_ Smoices I. henby __ and _ ... pubiiIb IlOIioc IS ....,;red ~ by law. sta ... thaI said roll is in her hinds for c:oIlc:clion and that ...,,-of any E I ,_ g, thereon or IllY ponioa of said ........... an be made 11111'/ .... within thirty daY' Ii'om daCe or ~ 6m publication of said nolla. wilhoul p •• aily, iIIIemt or cost, and thai thereafter the .... ....... nB unpaid i. to be poid by each of the 24 poIIidputsrapo!llible foc S).203.36 or the costs in f ......... I ..... 1I i_lmentE with interest ~ fixed II ..... or6.5%. The lim WtaIimenI of meum .... on the ..... went roll .haII -. due and paydIo durina the thirty day period 1Ucc:eedinJ the date one ,..... all" the daJe or Il1o filii publication by the AdminisUotor or the Fina_" Information Services of notice IhIt tile __ roB II in her banda far ...-and IftIIUIIlythcreafter ach lU«:ec:ding itlJlallmentllull .......... _ payobIt In like _. If the whole ot 1ft)' ~ of the _II remain unpaid after the dWIy day period, irIIereot 1IJ'Oft the whole unpoid JURI JhaII be dwpd'" the .... IS deteuui"od ..... and .... ,..,. theraftcr _ or - - " • , , 'j • J " • • '. ORDINANce NO. 4774 the insIdInenU, IOBdher lWh int ....... due 00 the ... paid Iiolo-. ..... bo 00_. Any iostIlIment lOt paid prior 10 the expintian of the Ihiny day paIocI duriQg wIoidt MIdi instll_ is ... due and payable ..... 1 thereupon b«:ome delinqueot. All delinqueft! imUIImcnts ..... 1 bo oubj ... to • dials. (0< _ lithe rat. opecificd _ and for an additioc1ll chap of 10% pcoalty levied upon both principal and.int ....... due upon such installment or iout.u.-.. The coIIecIion ror such delinqueot ioItIIlmcntI will bo enforced in the_provided by law. SECIJQNW. This ordillll1OO wHi he .rrective upon its pISSICC. approral and five days aftu pabliea1ion. PASSW BY THE CITY COUNClLthb...llrul... clay or "uch • 1999, APPROVED BY 11IE MAYOR Ibis ~ clay of " ... h • 1999 . • Mayor App~~ La_I. Wur .. , CIty Attorney OlIo of Publieatlon: M. reh 26, 1999 ( __ ary) ORD.761:2122199: ... 3 - - ( \ • • • • • , EXHIBIT A CITY OF RENTON· TRANSPORTATION DIVISION LOCATION .. ,--~IIO""" Iji/jjjrW1&:<J CIIJ ...... _ _ '',,,,,li0ii. MAP -Public RR X'Ing N '700 Blook 01 Like Wllh Blvd) ) • • - - - • • , EXHIBrrB DNRR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 3700 BLOCK OF LAKE WASHINGTON BOULBVARD The"neIs induded w1'I~. "" 8NNR L<x:>11..........-DbIri<I ........ ry III: dec ",,"ions or . 5 ........ 31 ,nd 32. ,U i.TowtIShip 24 North. Ro..,.' Eaot. W.M .. CityoCReoIoo. a.rruyoCKi"l. 5, ... orW .... nctm ..... djoini., ,hofeI.nck des<ribed II rol ..... : I.ds 14tJwauP67. iodult ... Block A orC.D. HII ..... •• LoIieWuhi""", OllldeooC EdcnAddirJon '0 Scali" No. 2. per PI.I ~ in Volume II orfr.U. Pq.64. _ oC King eou .. y; TOGETHER WITH LnlIIIbouj:h 10. inclusi ... BIocIt A OCC.P. H1U .... •• LoIie Wuhiogt ... Oord<o of Eden _ .. S",III< No. I. per Pia' .-in V",""" 11 oCPIW. Page 63, Reoords oC King CflUN~~~:.ho TOGETffE:."R WI11f IheR ponion.( of udjoining Moonlllln View Avenue: and (IIher' strcd.S. "any. which. ufJnn vacation. lllbelled Itl Sllid properties hy opct;dkln of Ilv. .tso TOGETHER WITH ..... por1lon or Ii1e rormer Nor1i1cm """m,, R,M",y Cnq>any'. rigIt~.way for ;,. Rd. U .. lyi", _my or a parallel Ii .. )l r ... _y oC ""........u .. oc .... mal.1nck or IIIid Bell U ... lncaltdi ... IdSettlonJI. and lyillJ: northerly or.hefdlowlngdelcribed Ii .. : • Beginning ... pol .. OG"" .... "Iy proWcIion or Ihe _line or said Lot 1. BIocIt A or C.O. HiH .... ·' LoIie WuId .... "" Carden of ""'" Addllion In SeIIIIe Na.1.1yiaJ 1S reet _yor. os mea.wred It ri&fX aDJlts. rrom lhc center line m Wd main tndl: IS IKlW cnastnJCtcd and operated; nlClL'C 511tlhwa;tm), Ikq il :'1rlighllin:.IO. poi .. on a paralld line 25 red MUlherly or said "'~"'yJllllClualonof'''' oorlhlineor"IdLolllnd41 fccI_"'yoC ............... ri .... angles. from aid main trade center line; ".,..,. _yo paralld 10 "id "",erlyproduud ""1",,10 .. _ wIlhlhe_ytino ofliaidl.cw.1 aadttEtcrminus ofsald line; also TOOETtfER WITH Ihlat(lOrtion or rhe r,ll'mc:r NortIaA PiKifIC RalI\F.l)' Company's ri,r.-or·ft), (or '" Bell Unelying-..1yof. parallel line)l r ... .....t' ....... C<IIIaU ......... mal.lnCltor ... d Bele Une. klalat in Aid Stctlon 32. and lying loutherly d the t'd1owi1l8 dcsa'ibcd line: 8eginninc II an Ironpipc at the northeasl (U1lC£ofLol2S orBIOtt ··A"dIlidC.D. Hillman', t.'" WIIIhi!WUin Gard<n nf Eden Addilion 10 $WIle 110. 2; ".,..,. .... _1 .. 1' ""'" Ihe ""''''y line or aid Lot 2$ oJong ............ ldI.lIIYir1a • .- or l.03I.59 recl. on ... dlslaRCt of 6 r .... '0 anlnJn pIp: ............ poi" orbealllllina or IIIid line; ".,..,. SOUIb 73· 02' 49" East •• d1"""" or ISM r .......... 0IIICIIy K .. or aid _, 3$ r ... orAId Bdt Unc .... "" _au' of IIld line. _. :~'~2~>~ ~:~ c151 - 1 I • f" j /<-t< -1:-S gOlf 0'7 fC's=r:i • (QQ90'i51 0 CO(£4 g' JWUI7I~SS: City Clerk's Office ChyofRenton 1055 SGrady Way Ren,on. WA 98055-3232 • Till.: UTIUTIES EASEMENT Property Tax Parcel NumMot: 334110-0150 JJ427tJ-0260 Pm,,", File Kcnn}'''atc Wa!ttlnlin Rcpiaccmrnl Lake Washm,uoo no~~ @ I'i J6Ib Stree: i..--------------------------------Gn.tor(s): Graotll!e(.): Alan E Provost ~(f City of Renton. a Municipal ~tion -I Ia: JI,. ... II r ~ THCf" •• '.r.6NMlcd aN\~.fot orand in consideraIionor tnuCuai bcncfli.J. ~ pants. here.As.. 5dI,ndcliven,&n 1M above named Grallfft. Chc foIlewinc: describt.d ~r1y: I.EGAI. DESCRIPTION. The easterly 10 rc:e( within. the existing road CIIStnttlU in the followine property: Lots.., -51. Blor:k A H.O ... nr; 1.11 Wn Gardtn of £efe, 111. TGW W 1.5 R 0' forDltr N P RIW adjacent. TGWSU.."dJ For \he purpose of conStnltlins. rccoostructLng, ins,.Uina. repairing. rcpiacillJ:, cnllrgiAg. opaalinc. aod millnlaining utilities.and utilil)' pipelines;, inf;luding. but nDilimilcd 10, water. $ewer and stann draifta&e Unes, 'oce(her with the right or InCJeSS and egress thcn::lo wilhout prior institution of any suil or proceedings of I ..... • nd wilhoul im;uJTing an}' 1e,.1 obligation or liability Ihucfor. Following the: initial tonsltUcI.ion or its filcililies, OraIKcc mily from ItrM to til1M!' e:on!ttrUd suc,", addilional facilities as il may require. TIl" eascmcnl is granted $uhJm 10 the: following terms and oondiliOlls; , The Vranla shall. UfJOn Qlmpletloo of an)" W(\n: wilhan ,be prorcn) covacd b) lheeasanenl. reslofC!be surr.ee or 1M Q.~,ncnt.. IIiId lin}' pm_ imP'"O"ClI'ICflIS dlJtlJJbcd or destroyed ctunna ~lXVIion oflhc: wOlt.. asnarly as .,.-.cttcabk 10 Ihr:con(lItionihe} "en: iJl Irnmcdlarcl~ bcJon; a:mwmc:cmcAI MI~",ukor~·bylhrGnntCX". , Grutor 5ball retain she 'Jlbllo usc the wn.1.'(' oftIK-ItaSaIlCnllS 1oa8 IS 5UCh use doa nut 1nkIfm: " .... Chc ~o;c:oacnt ",bts .,..mcd 'II' Ilw: Grantee This useraent shall run with 1he land described herein. lind shill be: binding upon the parties.. dteir heirs, succeSSOrJ in interest and &S'iens. GTanlors cov~ .... t thai they art Ihe lawful OWDCrs oflbe Ibove properties and Ih~ the) haw. good and lawI'W right 10 e:xecu.1r this agrcc:::menl, By dI" eonvc):'tIlcc, Grmtorwill wam.nl and dcftnd Ihc: $11(" hereby m_ unlo!hC' Grantee against all md ~vety person Of pmom. ",·homsocver.llwfully clalmmg or 10 cllim the same. This conveyance wit bind the heif1;, e.;CaJlors. administniot'S and auigns f,."" ~ r.Ji!!I ff 'a ~IEREOF. .... {j,""w~7"""""'·.. -0 't.)l ,. -~c-'~ --'-~ d _dZ _______ .. _---- • . ., - 'I I , - -ttf!:3')¥ 1·' iSg (177 offlO 001£ Lj 1 NnLllr, F .. ~ml.J .... '''' "'I t ( I~!I !~Ji /I I ----. "'~ I~ "' .. 'DI170UAL f"OR£lflFA,cK ... ·OH'Un • .11£.'\ SlATE Of WASlltNGlON )SS COUNTY or KIN'i ) I (,"ir ... Ihall I..no\\ II line S.lIISr.clCW'\.' c\ Idrn.:e thai fl..(((~,! __ f, J'!-'~_i&~t: ... __ "I!II'oJ Il.hm~lrurn.·,11 oIII,t ~~"no""Ie(,\t!cd 1110 he: tltvRC'r/lhe 'ree and \,\lun1~' 8(1 hI' thr UO\("~ aJd rul'J'?'C'- mCtllmucd In the ,n<lrumCfU NoCill~ :-'(.1 mll!>t I'< v,lthm lM; .. :---'C'''F.''.'''''''C''·F.;:.''N'i1''A''T7"C·F.'.'FO;;;.''.iif~Oi,.·'A"'·"·.'''·O;;,i'Il'.',:m.n7.:;."ii",·,O·Te------------, SlATE or \A.' MilllNCiTON I SS COI'NTYOF KING _ .... I>ntd .h" ,1I)tfUII1(11I, lin .... ll, 'tilled 1hlt! hcl~ht~ "a'l.'1Acrc ItUIht>n/~d tn ('-('cute Inc In'lrul~nl .tnt! ,,( ... k dlt het' and ~~>1unta" ;,d "I 'lk:h r.u1::-p.nll\-' r.~r tht 11>«. ;.Ind ru'rf'''~ mcntrolltt! In tl.t 'TI<lIur';Cflt L Nntar: "uhlic in and for chc Siale l,f \\·ils.hin~t(ln N()t;,,-~ (prio!) My appoinlltu.'ut \'"\pires: _ .... f)alcd: I ---'-"= --------------' r"~;' '"I ",oo·' e, ""','" ".; I toRrO~ 41 1-. I·OR.U",., An'AUK ·I.F.lXa/,.:\, SIAl!" 01· W,\:o.IIIt'C,rON 'SS n)('r-..:rYOrKI""(j ) O!lIIH~ . ,. It, mt Lnl"'on I" I>c ,·1 'h~ ~,.rr.",;aI.,,:. tl!,ll C\~":LlI;J th," "Ilh;~ in,.b~IC:Ut. ,l;n.J ;Kf:";"~kJi~·-iiirqtd rn<lrum!.:"r h' f'(' Ike:-frco( ~1I.1' .'Iunl~~ 011:1 ,u.J,ItC"d or wd I:l'rr"ralM>A. "" Ute:-u"';,.,IIk1 rllrr"~' t~lcm In.:nt'(',,~J. ami cao..h on oalh ~llkd thilt he: >he .. "~ "'111I<>fI./ ... II,. (,t .. VI," .... 11.1 11I,lr1l1l1<"1I1 ~n.1Ih."'II""· -..cal ;dfi'-ed I~ the u"F""tltt' ....... 1 •• 1 ... 11.1 .. ,.'J" ........ ... t'lil)tar;.-I'uhltc III and for du.' Stlltc ,.fWa.,hin!!lclIl Notoro. (Print) ----_.- '. I ~{, "pp"""",en"'p,;c; (JOlted' --. -----------_ .. -----. J ... 1_1_1648 IIIIlGI:lI2or..u ...... 1'1'" It Ie !fltc; COlM1'v .... ..., = = = c-... = = = = ..... RETURN ADDRESS Please pram ne.ady or rypc informauon Document TitIe(s) })€CU1£4-1bIJCJ~ PeSTe/en*, c.,tlwtWr Reference Numbers(s) of related documents IGC ?ARea#-:53<tP-7CJ-O~-_O:S-=--__ Additional Reference: I's 011 page _ Grantor(s) (Last, Fint ODd Middle IDltJaI) fHo\lOS r: ALAN C r • Additioaal,rlJUOrS on PIle: _ Grantee(s) (Last. FInt .... Middle 1aitia1) Addibonal g.ranrecs on paae _ Legal Description (abb..,';a'ed to"", i.<. 101. bloclt. pial or _. _Po ,"-. q ....... I_1 Assessor's Property Tax Parcel! Account Number S 3Y /)., 20 -0 ~ ~ 0-0:3 Additional pareel "s on pqc: _ Th~ Audi'or/Recorder will rely on the information p.-oridcd on this rorm. lbt: .. tr wW DOC rae! the doaameDt _. ftriIylM a('~uracy or completeness of ,he inde:tdnc inlonnatiOft prorided bertia.. = c, = c--.. = <.::) = = c--.. DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANT WHEREAS Alan E. Provost is the owner 01 the following real property in the City of Renton, County of KIfIg, State of Washington, described as ExhibH 'A' attached hereto. WHEREAS, the owner 01 said described property desires to impoSQ the followtng restrictive covenant running with the land as to use, present and future, 01 the above described real property. NOW, THEREFORE, the aloresald owner hereby establishes, grants, and imposes a restriction and covenant running wHh the land herein above described wHh respect to the use by the undersigned, their successors, heirs, and assigns as follows: RESTRICTIVE COVENANT No additional structures within any 01 the setback area are permitted, and that these areas shall be maintained as open planted area or ground level patio. DURATION This covenant shall run with the land In perpetUity. H at any time Improvements are installed pursuant to this covenant, the portion of the covenant pertaining to the specific installed improvements required by the Ordinances 01 the City 01 Renton shall terminate wHhout necessity 01 further documentation. Any violation or breach of this restrlctive covenant may be enlorced by proper legal procedures in the SUperior Court 01 King County by e\lher the City of Renton or any property owners adjoining subject property who are adversely affected by said breach. _~l~ AI~£~sI _--<_~ B. ,y'I, --~" ........ , ~ ... " STATE OF WASHINGTON .;-, ........ "''''.0''' ~::. '~ftl, '" " e-~\ -,;0-.".. t : "'!~ "OTA"" <j>\ ~~ '=-.Q. ,. 'l, m'-<J ~ :0'----en: ~ ~ , PUBUC .: : County of KING " <l}," .. ~ I, 'f;~.:? 9 . 0 ~, .. :§ .E On this I day of rE~,.~~e me personaUy appeared the who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and aCKMWIeagec, said instrument to be the Iree and voluntary act and deed of said person for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. 73- Notary Public in and for the State 01 Washington, residing at ---' ..... """:>:..l"""'''''--t--''~=..!..!.. __ = = = "" = = = = "" t LOTS 49-50, BLOCK A, INCLUSIVE CD HILLIoIAH'S LAKE WASHINGTON GARDEN OF EDEN NO.2. RECORDED IN VOLUME II OF PLATS AT PAGE 64. RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. NW 32 -24 - 5 Printed: 03-07-2006 Payment Made: :::ITY OF RENTON 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Land Use Actions RECEIPT Permit#: LUA06·024 03107/200604:15 PM Receipt Number: Total Payment: 750.00 Payee: Alan Provost Current Payment Made to the Following Items: Trans Account Code Description Amount 5022 000.345.81.00.0019 Variance Fees 750.00 Payments made for this receipt Trans Method Description Amount Payment Check 6619 750.00 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 000.05.519.90.42.1 Postage 5998 000.231.70.00.0000 Tax Remaining Balance Due: $0.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 R0601135