Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA-05-058AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) ss. County of King ) Julia Medzegian being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states: That on the 20th day of December 2005, 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: ,2005. ~~ Notary Public i~ for the State of Washington Residing at .:hfJ, therein. c Application, Petition or Case No.: Hizzey Fence Permit Appeal File No.: LUA 05-058, SF The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record. HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT , REPORT AND DECISION APPELLANT: CONTACTS: SUMMARY OF REQUEST: PUBLIC HEARING: OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON William & Jacki Hizzey 601 Rosario PI NE Renton, W A 98059 Ann Nielsen Assistant City Attorney City of Renton Keri Weaver, Sr. Planner Development Services Division City of Renton LUA 05-058, SF December 20, 2005 Denial of Conditions Imposed on Special Administrative Fence Permit Evaluation Requesting a determination on the required heigh( for a fence. After reviewing the Appellants' written requests for a hearing and examining available information on file, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the December 6, 2005 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, December 6, 2005, at 9:00a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No.1: Yellow file containing the original application, various reports, and correspondence file. Exhibit No.2: Order to Correct dated 3/1 0/2005 The Examiner stated that it was his understanding that there were a number ofthese fence requests, however, the file only shows the name of Brian Mannelly. The only appeal is that of William and Jacki Hizzey, it does state in the file that there are various addresses involved. Keri Weaver stated that Harbor Homes, the developer of this sub-division, put in some or all of the fences that were addressed under this blanket permit. They were required to come in after the fact to apply for the special permits for all the fences within the sub-division. Brian Mannelly was the contact person for Harbor Homes. Hizzey Fence Permit Appeal December 20, 2005 Page 2 The Examiner asked if the only people appealing were the Hizzeys. Ann Nielsen stated that that was correct. She noted for the record that under the code the only applicants for purposes of this hearing and Harbor Homes are the Hizzeys who have submitted their fee within the required 14- day period. Some of the other homeowners may appear, but they do lack standing and cannot testify in today's hearing. The Examiner stated that other than the people identified today there is no one else in attendance today. William Hizzey stated they purchased their home in September of2004. In February of the following year they installed the fence in question. At the time of putting in the fence, they checked the Homeowner's CC&R's to make sure they were in compliance there and then he went to the City of Renton's website, clicked on the link for permits and found "work exempt from permits", the second item on the website said "fences not over 6' high". At that point there was no other infonnation or notice to go to another page, it simply stated that fences not over 6' high did not require a permit. They proceeded to put in the fence. About a week after the fence went in they received a letter from the City of Renton saying that they needed a permit for the fence and that they were against code. They were asked to respond by April 1 and the City would respond with a decision within 4-6 weeks. Approximately the first of June they received a call from the City stating that Harbor Homes had been informed and that a separate special permit had been filed. The City would be sending them a refund check for the initial filing fee. In October of2005 they did hear from the City, which stated that the fence would have to be moved and that there would be some restrictions against the existing fence. That is what brought us to this appeal process today. Their main concern is that they went to the City's website, checked to see if they needed a permit, found that they did not need a permit. Today if you check the website, the same page has been altered to state the facts that there are restrictions against fences in this area. Ann Nielsen, Assistant City Attorney, upon questioning Mr. Hizzey confirmed that they did purchase their home in September 2004. After moving in, the Hizzeys did talk with the site supervisor and learned that being on a comer lot there was a clear vision area of 15' from the corner so as to not block traffic site. Their fence is 36' back from the corner. Harbor Homes did not have anything to do with the building of their fence. Mr. Hizzey stated that they did go to the City of Renton's website but that they did not look at any of the City's Municipal Codes, they only checked the pennit area. Mr. Hizzey confirmed that they did receive a Notice of Violation from the City of Renton. He further stated that upon receipt of the Notice, they did go back to the website and look up the code section that was cited. The City told them that they would be required to file for a special fence permit and that was the first time they knew anything about needing a permit. A copy of the Order to Correct was made and added to the file. The Order stated that in order to have a fence adjacent to the sidewalk it could be no more than 48" or to maintain the 6' height, it must be setback three feet from the sidewalk. They stated that they were not properly notified and the website did not properly identify where they should look for fence regulations. Keri Weaver, Sr. Planner, Development Services Division stated that the language on the permit which the applicants received, there is some generic permit language stating under what conditions a fence may be constructed. When the original notice of violation was sent, it was due to the issue of height, not the clear vision ... I Hizzey Fence Permit Appeal December 20, 2005 Page 3 area. The correction that is needed is the setback if they wish to maintain a 6' fence it must be three feet from the sidewalk and to do landscaping in that 3' setback area. The site plan was prepared by Harbor Homes, not by the applicants. It shows the Hizzey property and the location of the fence itself. The Examiner stated that it does appear that the City's website had one set of information when the Hizzeys first reviewed it and a new set of information more recently that clarifies some of the issues that were raised by this case as it progressed. The Hizzeys stated that the clear vision area was addressed today due to the fact that Mr. Watts letter stated that their fence was a traffic hazard. The Examiner read the conditions for fence placement as stated in Mr. Watts letter. Ms. Nielsen clarified that that letter refers to not just the Hizzey lot, but five different lots. The conditions of approval that were read are if the particular lot is in violation of these conditions, not stated clearly to the Hizzeys. Mr. Hizzey questioned how an average person could interpret this letter and know what exactly was pertaining to his property versus what was pertaining to another lot. Ms. Weaver stated that what the applicant has attached with the appeal were two different copies of one page from the City's website regarding work exempt from permits. One was from March 2005 and the other November 2005, there were some changes and updates made to this page on the website. The applicant seems to have looked at residential fences less than 6' in height, it is noted that a building permit is not required, that is true; however, code does require that a fence of 6' in height located in a side yard abutting a street there are additional requirements that do apply and a special fence permit is necessary. This is apparently som~thing that the applicants were not aware of. Ms. Nielsen stated that this is just one page of the entire website and for the purposes of this hearing it cannot be stated exactly what the content of each page and hyperlink of the Planning, Building and Public Works website would contain. At issue is the page that the Hizzeys have referred to. Patricia Benson, 564 Rosario Place NE, Renton, W A 98059 stated that she is one ofthe five residents listed on the appeal. Since she was one of the five listed, she presumed that the decision made on the Hizzey property would also apply to the rest of the people on the application. The Examiner stated that the only parties that appealed the decision were the Hizzeys, they are the only people that can raise any issues here today. The decision will be final respecting the other parties. Ms. Benson stated that Harbor Homes made ajoint application for all 5 parties listed. It was quite confusing when she received the appeal notice for all the properties. It was her assumption that they would all be treated in like manner with a decision. Her fence is very similar to the Hizzeys, she is not in violation of the clear vision area, but she does abut the side property line. Ms. Nielsen requested a Motion to Dismiss based on the fact that this case is not proper to come before the Hearing Examiner. The basis of their appeal is that they were misled by the City's website. The Examiner denied the request. Hizzey Fence Permit Appeal December 20, 2005 ---Page 4 The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 9:44 a.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: I. William and Jacqueline Hizzey, hereinafter appellants, filed an appeal of an administrative determination imposing conditions as part of a request for a Special Fence Permit (File LUA-05-058). 2. The appellants own a single-family home at 601 Rosario Place NE in the City of Renton. The home is a corner lot located on the northwest corner of the intersection ofNE 6th Street and Rosario Place NE. The home is located in the Maureen Highlands Division I. 3. The appellants purchased the home in September of2004. They constructed a fence the following February 2005. The appellants apparently checked on the City's Website to determine if any permit was required. Links on that site led them to believe that no permit was required and they proceeded to erect the fence. 4. The fence that the appellants erected is made of cedar wood. The fence is six feet (6') tall. The fence is generally located in the NE 6th Street side yard and is positioned at the property line and then continues around the rear and other side yard. Diagrams show the fence runs approximately 88 feet from the rear property I ine toward the front of the home. The fence then jogs toward the interior of the yard toward the home. It is the portion of the fence on the south side of the home located adjacent to the street side yard ofNE 6th that is at issue. Those portions of the fence adjacent to the non-street yards are not at issue in this appeal. 5. In a letter dated March 10,2005, approximately a week after the fence was erected the appellants were informed that a permit for the fence was required and that the fence was not permitted. They were instructed to comply or respond to the City by April 18,2005. 6. The appellants then submitted a request for a permit in a timely fashion after receiving the notice. 7. Apparently, the developer of the subdivision, Harbor Homes, got involved in the permit process since a number of similar fences were at issue in this subdivision. The City informed the appellants that Harbor Homes application would be considered and that the appellants would receive a refund of their permit fee. 8. The City on October 20, 2005 issued a decision covering not only the appellant's fence but four (4) other fences for a total of five fence permits. The record does not reflect why it took till October for the City to issue a decision in this matter. 9. The notice of October 20th addressed five fences including the appellants' fence. The decision approved the various fences but subjected that approval to certain conditions. The decision is not entirely clear since it addressed five fences and involves issues including height, setback and clear vision area. 10. At the hearing the conditions imposed on these appellants were clarified. The fence with must be moved three feet (3') in from the property line or be reduced in height to not more than 48 inches. \ Hizzey Fence Permit Appeal December 20, 2005 Page 5 I I. It is not clear what occurred in the interim but the appellant received notice that the fence was approved subject to certain conditions. As noted above, the fence needed to be moved from the property line at least three feet or it would have to be reduced in height to no more than 48 inches. 12. Section 4-4-040(0)(2) provides: 2. Height Limitations for Corner Lots: a. Front Yard Setbacks: Fences, walls or hedges a maximum of forty two inches (42") in height may be allowed on any part of the clear vision area. Fences, walls, or hedges a maximum of forty-eight inches (48") in height may be allowed within any part of the front yard setback when located outside of any clear vision area on said lot. b. Interior Side Lot Line: Fences, walls or hedges a maximum of seventy two inches (72") in height may be located on interior side lot lines to the point where they intersect the required front yard setback, in which case they shall be governed by subsection D2a of this Section. c. Side Lot Line Abutting Street: Fences, walls or hedges a maximum of forty two inches (42") in height within any clear vision area and forty-eight inches (48") in height elsewhere. 13. The Special Fence Permit provisions does allow exceptions and may involve the imposition of additional conditions such as fences that are taller than 48 inches outside of the clear vision area. In this case, the landscaping setback of 3 feet was required for a taller fence. F ADMINISTRA TIVE REVIEW OF V ARIA TION FROM HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS: A property owner wishing to vary the height restrictions or placement of a fence or hedge on a lot may make written application to the Development Services Division for an administrative review of the situation. The Department's staff shall review the application and prepare a written determination based upon criteria listed in these regulations. G SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE FENCE PERMITS: I. Fences Eligible for Administrative Review Process: Persons wishing to have one of the following types of fences may submit a letter of justification, site plan and typical elevation together with the permit fee to the Planning/Building/Public Works Department: a. Fences exceeding forty-eight inches (48") within front yard or side yards along a street setback but not within a clear vision area. b. Electric fences. 2. Evaluation Criteria: The Development Services Division may approve the issuance of special fence permits provided that the following objectives can be met: The proposed fence improves the privacy and security of the adjoining yard space; The proposed fence does not detract from the quality of the residential environment by being out of scale or creating vast blank walls along public roadways; The proposed fence compliments the environment it serves in an aesthetically pleasing manner; and The proposed fence does not present a hazard to vehicular or pedestrian traffic. a. Acceptable Measures to Meet Criteria: Fences located within the front or side and/or rear yard along a street setback may be a maximum of seventy two inches (72") in height, provided the evaluation criteria are met. Acceptable measures to achieve these criteria include, but are not limited to the following: Permanent landscaping along the front of the fence; Hizzey Fence Permit Appeal December 20. 2005 Page 6 Quality fence material, such as cedar fencing; Modulation of the fence; Similar design and material as other fences in the surrounding neighborhood; Increased setbacks from the adjacent sidewalk; Ornamental materials or construction treatment, such as wrought iron; Orientation of the finished face of the fence toward the street; and Other comparable construction or design methods. b. Clear Vision Area: The fence proposed for special permits must have no portion in the clear vision area over forty-two inches (42") in height. The location and height of the fence must not obstruct views of oncoming traffic, or views from driveways. (Amd. Ord. 5008,4-28-2003) 14. While the approval letter referred to the clear vision area, a setback area that provides adequate sight distances at intersections or near driveways, it was determined not to be applicable to the appellants' fence or situation. 15. While the notice of decision was not the epitome of clarity since it involved a number of properties and site situations, it did provide the appellants sufficient notice that they were able to file an appeal in a timely fashion. That notice along with the appeal hearing further provided the appellants a sufficient opportunity to make their case on appeal. 16. The appellants allege that they relied on the language that was on the City's Web page when they checked on the requirements for building a fence. That language appeared on a page titled "Work Exempt from Permits." On that page it stated: "A building permit shall not be required for the following: 2. Fences not over 6 feet high." 17. The appellants claim that they were led to that page from another link about "fences". 18. The appellants point out that the page cited above has been altered by the City and now contains the following language: "Residential fences that comply with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-4-040D." 19. The City maintains that while the original Web page might not have been as precise as the current one, the original referred to the need for a "building permit" and does not provide any exemption from following code provisions on fence height or locations. 20. While the City decision involved five fences, the only party to file an official appeal was the appellants. No other parties perfected jurisdiction and no other fence permits are subject to this decision. CONCLUSIONS: I. The appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the decision was either in error, or was otherwise contrary to law or constitutional provisions, or was arbitrary and capricious (Section 4-8-110. The appellant has failed to demonstrate that the action of the City should be modified or reversed. The decision of the City is affirmed. Hizzey Fence Permit Appeal December 20, 2005 Page 7 2. Arbitrary and capricious action has been defined as willful and unreasoning action in disregard of the facts and circumstances. A decision, when exercised honestly and upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances, is not arbitrary or capricious (Northern Pacific Transport Co. v Washin::,rtcn Utilities and Transportation Commission, 69 Wn. 2d 472, 478 (1966). 3. An action is likewise clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing body, on the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. (Ancheta v Daly, 77 Wn. 2d 255, 259 (1969). 4. The appellant has failed to demonstrate that the decision was founded upon anything but a fair review of the criteria as they pertain to fences. The appellant has failed to demonstrate with cogent evidence that a mistake was made. 5. The appellants have failed to show that the City action was improper. Specific code provisions define how tall a fence may be or where a fence may be located vis-a-vis a street side yard. The appellants' fence violates those standards. While it may be true that a building permit is not required for such a fence, it is not necessarily true that there are no standards for such a fence. Code does not exempt parties from standards when building such a "building permit exempt-fence." That is while the fence that the appellants constructed might not need a building permit, it still must comply with provisions specifying setbacks from property lines or a height limitation. As an example might show, building permits are not required for stick-built doghouses. While a building permit for a doghouse would not generally be required, if it exceeded a certain height or was constructed in the wrong location other code standards would apply. Merely being exempt from building permit requirements does not exempt a party from complying with all other provisions of the underlying code. 6. So even if the appellants relied on language found on the City's web page, that language ollly exempted the appellants from seeking a building permit. That web page did not exempt them from other requirements of City Code. Admittedly, the City has changed the earlier possibly vague language and now specifically refers to the Fence Provisions. But the failure to do that originally does not mean the height and setback limitations were not effective. Besides, the language on the web page cannot be used to justify ignoring Code. That web page language cannot sanction actions that are otherwise prohibited by Code. 7. Inasmuch as the burden of demonstrating error is on the appellant, and no such error was demonstrated, this office must decide that staff made the correct determination. The decision below must be affirmed. DECISION: The appeal is denied. ORDERED THIS 20th day of December 2005. FRED J. KAU AN HEARING EX INER TRANSMITTED THIS 20th day of December 2005 to the parties of record: Hizzey Fence Permit Appeal December 20, 2005 Page 8 Ann Nielsen Assistant City Attorney City of Renton William & Jacki Hizzey 601 Rosario Place NE Renton, W A 98059 Patricia Benson 564 Rosario Place NE Renton, W A 98059 TRANSMITTED THIS 20th day of December 2005 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Larry Warren, City Attorney Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services All Parties of Record Larry Rude, Fire Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transpiration Division Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services King County Journal Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 1 OOGofthe City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., January 3, 2006. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors oflaw or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75 .00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., January 3, 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 Councilor 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. ~~) CITY OF RENTON :!I ~ Hearing Examiner 1055 South Grady Way -Renton Washington 98055 * This paper contains 50% recycled paper, 20% post-consumer ~ , .. --,~-""",, .... -----.-----y--,-,~,-... -.,...,""'~ .... "-'""" ~ !t(~) CITY OF RENTON =f'1 ~ Hearing Examiner 1055 South Grady Way -Renton Washington 98055 * This paper contains 50% recycled paper, 20% post-consumer Patricia Benson 564 Rosario PI. NE Renton, WA 98059 William & Jacki Hizzey 601 Rosario PI. NE Renton, WA 98059 STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING } AFFIDA VIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Tom Meagher, being first duly sworn on oath that he 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 on November 25, 2005. The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $58.00. d~ \\\\\"""i" ~"" \... B..4 "'; * S) '"{ .......... l?». ,., Tom Meagher ~ 0 ... ·~OTJ\l?;· ... 0 ~ Legal Advertising Representative, King County Journal : ..., l \ ~ ~ Subscribed and sworn to me this 25th day of November, 2005.: en! 04 E28XP. 5 E -'-3 \ I /2009 : ~ :: .-.-]. IR-~~... ..-~ ~ ~""i .... Pl!BUC •••• " ~ .". <l' 0 ... -•• ~~~ ~ "'" 'P WA':j'r~\",'" ~arton 111,,, ... ,\\\ ~-~ I _' ,/ -------- Notary Public for the State of Washington, Residing in Auburn, Washington PO Number: Cost of publishing this notice includes an affidavit surcharge. 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 December 6, 2005 at 9:00 AM to con- sider the following petitions: Maureen Highlands Fence Permit Appeal LUA05-058, SF Location: 601 Rosario Place NE. Description: The applicant is requesting an appeal of the con- ditions of approval of the Admin- istrative Special Fence Permit requiring the applicant to lower and/or relocate the fence out of the clear vision area. 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. Published in the King County Journal November 25, 2005. #848064 ;R1f~ ..A - CITY F RENTON PlanningIBuildinglPublicWorks Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator Kathy Keolker-Wheeler. Mayor ORDER TO CORRECT Date: 03-10-2005 Service Request No. SR05-0262 Violation Index No. C05-0168 Location of Violation: Owner(tax-payer) : Issued To: Address: 601 ROSARIO PL NE HARBOR HOMES INC JACK! & WILLIAM HIZZEY 601 ROSARIO PL NE RENTON WA 98059-4581 An inspection of the above premises revealed violation(s) of the City of Renton codes and ordinances listed below. The City would appreciate voluntary compliance or corrective action completed by: 04118/2005. Be :1dvised, however, if voluntary compliance is not achieved, a Civil Infraction Citation WILL be issued, and civil penalties assessed in the amounts noted, for each and every day or portion of a day in which the violation continues following the date and time set for correction. First three days of Violation: $100.00, per day. Second Three Days of Violation: $200.00, per day. Third Three Days of Violation: $300.00, per day. Each Additional Day of Violation: $500.00, per day. CODE SECTION CITED: Renton Municipal Code 4-4-040 D 2 c DATE OF INVESTIGATION: 03/09/2005 DESCRIPTION OF VIOLATION: Fence exceeds allowed height. CORRECTIVE ACTION: THE CITY OF RENTON HAS ADOPTED REGULATIONS GOVERNING FENCE HEIGHT FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF A FENCE LOCATED ON THE SIDE LOT LINE ABUTTING A STREET IS FORTY EIGHT (48) INCHES, EXCEPT IN CLEAR VISION AREA. THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF A FENCE LOCATED IN THE CLEAR VISION AREA IS FORTY TWO (42) INCHES. A SIDE Y ARDFENCE OF A CORNER LOT MAY BE SEVENTY TWO (72) INCHES IF THE FENCE IS NOT LOCATED IN THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SET BACK AREA. mE MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK IS TEN (10) FEET FOR LOTS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO FIFTY (50) FEET IN wmm, AND UP TO FIFTEEN (15) FEET FOR LOTS GRATER THAN FIFTY EIGHT (58), FEET IN WIDTH. IN THIS REGARD BY APRIL 18,2005 LOWER mE FENCE TO A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF FORTY EIGHT (48) INCHES ON THE SIDE LOT LINE ABUTTING THE STREET OR BY MARCH 31, 2005 MAKE APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL FENCE PERMIT. YOU MAY BE ELIGmLE FOR A "SPECIAL FENCE PERMIT" THAT WOULD ALLOW A A DEVIATION FROM THE REQUIRED SETBACK DISTANCE. IF THE DEVIATION IS APPROVED, THE SEVENTY TWO (72) INCH IDGH FENCE WOULD HAVE TO BE RELOCATED AND REQUIRED LANDSCAPING INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED BETWEEN THE FENCE AND SIDEWALK. A SPECIAL FENCE PERMIT APPLICATION IS ENCLOSED FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE. Issued By: Paul Baker Code Compliance Inspector Planning/Building/Public Wodes Department Development Services Division Phone No: 425-430-7386 1055 South Grady Way -Renton, Washington 98055 * This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF ~c;KRVE:L-- ~R Kathy Keolker-Wbeeler. Mayor Date: 03-10-2005 Location of Violation: Owner(tax-payer) : Issued To: Address: CITY )F RENTON PlanningIBuildinglPublic Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator ORDER TO CORRECT Service Request No. SR05-0262 Violation Index No. C05-0168 601 ROSARIO PL NE HARBOR HOMES INC JACKI & WILLIAM IDZZEY 601 ROSARIO PL NE RENTON WA 98059-4581 An inspection of the above premises revealed violation(s) of the City of Renton codes and ordinances listed below. The City would appreciate voluntary compliance or corrective action completed by: 04118/2005. Be :ldvised, however, if voluntary compliance is not achieved, a Civil Infraction Citation WILL be issued, and civil penalties assessed in the amounts noted, for each and every day or portion of a day in which the violation continues following the date and time set for correction. First three days of Violation: $100.00, per day. Second Three Days of Violation: $200.00, per day. Third Three Days of Violation: $300.00, per day. Each Additional Day of Violation: $500.00, per day. CODE SECTION CITED: Renton Municipal Code 4-4-040 D 2 c DATE OF INVESTIGATION: 03/0912005 DESCRIPTION OF VIOLATION: Fence exceeds allowed height. CORRECTIVE ACTION: THE CITY OF RENTON HAS ADOPTED REGULATIONS GOVERNING FENCE HEIGHT FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF A FENCE LOCATED ON THE SIDE LOT LINE ABUTTING A STREET IS FORTY EIGHT (48) INCHES, EXCEPT IN CLEAR VISION AREA. THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF A FENCE LOCATED IN THE CLEAR VISION AREA IS FORTY TWO (42) INCHES. A SIDE YARD FENCE OF A CORNER LOT MAY BE SEVENTY TWO (72) INCHES IF.THE FENCE IS NOT LOCATED IN THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SET BACK AREA. THE MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK IS TEN (10) FEET FOR LOTS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO FIFty (50) FEET IN wmm, AND UP TO FIFtEEN (15) FEET FOR LOTS GRATER THAN FIFTY EIGHT (58), FEET IN WIDTH. IN THIS REGARD BY APRIL 18, 2005 LOWER THE FENCE TO A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF FORTY EIGHT (48) INCHES ON THE SIDE LOT LINE ABUTTING mE STREET OR BY MARCH 31,2005 MAKE APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL FENCE PERMIT. YOU MAY BE ELIGmLE FOR A "SPECIAL FENCE PERMIT" THAT WOULD ALLOW A A DEVIATION FROM THE REQUIRED SETBACK DISTANCE. IF THE DEVIATION IS APPROVED, THE SEVENTY TWO (72) INCH IDGH FENCE WOULD HAVE TO BE RELOCATED AND REQUIRED LANDSCAPING INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED BETWEEN THE FENCE AND SIDEWALK. A SPECIAL FENCE PERMIT APPLICATION IS ENCLOSED FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE. Issued By: Paul Baker Code Compliance Inspector Planning/Building/Public W orIes Department Development Services Division Phone No: 425-430-7386 1055 South Grady Way -Renton, Washington 98055 * This paper oontains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE Kathy Keolker-Whee1er, Mayor November 8, 2005 William and Jacqueline Hizzey 601 Rosario Place NE Renton, W A 98059 CITY Re: Appeal of the Special Administrative Fence Permit Evaluation LUA 05-058, SFP Dear Mr. & Mrs. Hizzey: F RENTON Hearing Examiner Fred J. Kaufman Please be advised that the appeal hearing in the above matter has been scheduled for Tuesday, December 6, 2005 at 9:00 a.m. The hearing will take place in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. The address is 1055 S Grady Way in Renton. If this office can provide any further assistance, please address those comments in writing. Sincerely, ?;t2 c:f fr~.~. .. /,. / ---71 :/.--_ .. Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton FKlnt cc: Larry Warren, City Attorney Neil Watts, Development Services Jennifer Henning, Development Services Joshua and Laurelle Graves Robert and Annabell Gomez Michael and Shari Beck Patricia Benson and EI Sprole ----lO-S-S-s-ou-th-G-ra-dy-W-ay---R-e-n-to-n-, W-a-s-hl-'n-gt-o-n-9-g0-S-S---(4-2-S)-4-3-0--6-S-1S----~ * This paper contains 50% recycled material. 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE November 3, 2005 City of Renton Attn: Hearing Examiner 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 !~ITY OF RENTON NOV 0 3 2005 RECEIVED . ,fry CLERK'S OFFICE RE: Appeal of the Special Administrative Fence Permit Evaluation Form & Decision City of Renton File Number: LUA-05-058, SFP Location in question: 601 Rosario PL NE, Maureen Highlands Lot #56 K.C. Tax ID #: 5214500560 Location of fence: Side yard fence on NE 6th St. To Whom It May Concern: This letter is to appeal the evaluation received in response to our application to obtain a Special Fence Permit submitted on March 29,2005. Our original application was approved by the City of Renton; however, the approval came with conditions. The conditions include that we must either lower our fence to a maximum of 48 inches, that our fence be moved back out of the clear vision area, and/or we relocate our fence to at least three feet back from the sidewalk. The reason we are appealing this evaluation is that we feel we were misled by the City of Renton when we conducted our research related. to building our fence. Our research included going to the City of Renton website to see if a permit was required. The PlanningIBuildinglPublic Works link of the website outlined work exempt from permits, where number 2 of the list stated that fences not over 6 feet high do not require a permit (see attached printout of the website page printed on March 15,2005). This link, at the time of our research, did not mention anything about building fences on comer lots nor did it direct the reader to visit the RMC website, which would have further detailed the requirements listed in the original notice and now the evaluation. As this was the information we found and our fence was within the guidelines outlined in our neighborhood's CC&R's, we felt we were in complianc.e. Subsequent to the receipt of the evaluation and in conjunction with the preparation of this appeal, we went back to the "Work Exempt from Permits" link on the City of Renton website and noticed some changes. Item number 2 of this link now states that "Residential fences that comply with RMC Section 4-4-04D" whereas it used to only read "Fences not over 6 feet high." In addition, the City of Renton added another item to the list in regards to commercial and industrial fencing with a reference to the appropriate RMC that was not on the list we originally referenced. We have included a printout of the updated link for your review. Furthermore, the evaluation states that our fence intrudes on the "Clear Vision Area" The defInition of the "Clear Vision Area" per the City of Renton is that "no structure or planting shall be allowed between the height of three and ten feet" within 20 feet of the comer. Our fence is outside of the "Clear Vision Area" as it is approximately 36 feet from the comer. In addition, our house is located on the west side of the street, thus traffic approaching from the direction of our fence is on the other side of the street allowing a vehicle to be seen for at least one block. In conclusion, we ask you to once again review our argument and our appeal in regards to obtaining a Special Fence Permit. We hope that you approve our appeal as we feel that we were misled by the City of Renton website when we were conducting our research in regards to the construction of the fence. Thank you again for your time, and we are looking forward to a positive resolution of this matter. Sincerely, .~;"-;e~:"""Z;~;;r -=:- ~l~ Property Owners 601 Rosario PLNE Renton, W A 98059 (425) 220-1979 (206) 218-5297 Enclosures 1-) 'I (A -;'.It Ii -ft /l( l\ l.)l/T) l A 4';t {A ~'~ /\ {j'~l/ '--"-. ( -' .. ~ () 1) lA~) l;;~/ ){J()v/c1/ developmentservice~/~ rnainteJl~np~jr:.1ransportatioRJi,uUlities Work Exempt From Permits A building permit shall not be required for the following: Page 1 of 1 1. One-story detached accessory buildings used as tool and storage sheds, playhouses, and similar uses, provided the floor area does not exceed 120 square feet. "" 2. Fences not over 6 feet high. 3. Movable cases, counters and partitions not over 5 feet 9 inches high. 4. Retaining walls that are not over 4 feet in height measured from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall, unless supporting a surcharge or impounding Class I, II or III-A liquids 5_ Painting, papering and similar finish work. 6. Window awnings supported by an exterior wall of Group R, Division 3, and Group U occupancies when projecting not more than 54 inches Unless otherwise exempted separate plumbing, electrical and mechanical permits will be required for the above exempted work. Development Services Home work exempt from permits Page 1 ofl . P1UvVt¥tiKu;fl'B'A.il~liA/l7f{ PW}lU~ lQoyk~ Work Exempt From Permits A building permit shall not be required for the following: 1. One-story detached accessory buildings used as tool and storage sheds, playhouses, and similar uses, provided the floor area does not exceed 200 square feet. ~ 2. Residential fences that comply with. Renton MuniQiQalC()dsL Section 4-4-0400 .. --" 3. Commercial and industrial fences that are 6 feet or less in height and that comp1y with RE3ntonMLJoi~iQal Cod~Section 4-4-0S0E. 4. Movable cases, counters and partitions not over S feet 9 inches high. S. Retaining walls that are not over 4 feet in height measured from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall, unless supporting a surcharge or impounding Class I, II or III-A liquids. 6. Painting, papering and similar finish work. 7. Window awnings supported by an exterior wall of Group R, Division 3, and Group U occupancies when projecting not more than 54 inches Unless otherwise exempted separate plumbing, electrical and mechanical permits will be required for the above exempted work. R~ home page http://www.ci.renton.wa.us/pw/devserv/adexbswefp.htm City of Renton PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION REC'O OCT 2 6 20D5 SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE FENCE PERMIT EVALUATION FORM & DECISION City of Renton File Number: LUA-05-058, SFP Project Description and Analysis: The proposal is to allow 72-inch high cedar fencing on five corner lots in the Maureen Highlands Division I subdivision that have side yards abutting streets. The fences, which were previously installed without permits, are located adjacent to sidewalks of public streets, as shown in Exhibit 1. For corner lots, RMC 4-4-040D.2.c. allows fences that are a maximum of 48 inches high, or a maximum of 42 inches high within any "clear vision area". RMC 4-11-030 defines the clear vision area as that area bounded by the street property lines of corner lots, and a line joining points along those street lines, 20 feet from their point of intersection. Exhibit 4 is the graphical illustration of clear vision area measurement as provided in RMC 4-11-010. The location and height of fences must not obstruct views of oncoming traffic, or views from driveways. In order to retain 72-inch high side yard fences, fence corner setbacks must be increased to comply with the clear vision requirements. For areas outside of the clear vision area, the fence must be set back at least 3 feet from the sidewalk. All setback areas must be permanently landscaped and maintained with appropriate landscaping materials. Landscaping in the clear vision area must be less than 3 feet in height, or (for trees) more than 10 feet in height. Location: 13 20 40 51 56 Owners: K.C. Tax ID # 5214500130 5214500200 5214500400 5214500510 5214500560 Street Address 6204 NE 4th Ct. 6200 NE 5th Circle 454 Rosario PI. NE 564 Rosario PI. S 601 Rosario PI. NE Location of Fence Side yard fence on Shadow Ave. NE Side yard fence on Shadow Ave. NE Side yard fence on NE 4th Place Side yard fence on NE 6th St. Side yard fence on N E 6th St. Joshua and Laurelle Graves (Lot 13) Robert and Annabell Gomez (Lot 20) Michael and Shari Beck (Lot 40) Patricia Benson and EI Sprole (Lot 51) William and Jacqueline Hizzey (Lot 56) Applicant Name and Phone Number: Brian Mannelly, Harbour Homes, (253) 838-8305 Fence Location (check ALL applicable boxes): o Front Yard X Side Yard Along a Street o Rear Yard Along a Street X Clear Vision Area Fence Design (Which of the following measures have been employed?): o Permanent Landscaping X Quality Fence Materials X Modulation Of Fencing X Similar to Design and Material of Surrounding Fences o Increased Setbacks From Sidewalks o Ornamental Materials Or Construction Evaluation Criteria (Do the measures checked above satisfy the following objectives): Evaluation Criteria Achieved Not Achieved Improves Privacy X In Scale With Neighborhood X Limits Blank Walls Along Walkways X Aesthetically Pleasing X Does Not Create a Traffic Hazard X D Approved X Approved with conditions D Denied Conditions of Approval: 1; The side fence sections shall either be lowered to meet code requirements (48 inches or less in height), or shall be set back at least 3 feet from the sidewalk, or more within clear vision areas if additional setback is required according to Condition #2 below. 2. Consistent with RMC 4-2-110A and RMC 4-11-030, fence corners at street intersections shall be set back from the sidewalk to at least the minimum distance required to provide adequate clear vision area, as shown in Exhibit 4. 3. For fences higher than 48 inches, all setback areas in front of the fences shall be permanently landscaped and maintained with appropriate landscaping materials such as flowers and other plantings, trees, grass, beauty bark and landscaping gravel, etc. Landscaping in the clear vision area must be less than 3 feet in height, or (for trees) more. than 10 feet in height. A setback planting plan for each lot must be sumitted for approval by the Development Services Director. Approved by the City of Renton Development Services Division Director Date Appeals: Appeals of permit issuance may be filed with the City of Renton Hearing Examiner by 5:00 PM on November 3,2005. Phone: (425) 430-6510. .".', . , , , , , .' ., ~ to ':: I? ....J m··.· .. ~ '(.b .' :::>.Co " ••• . '. '. ....... :. .' ..... '.' '",,~ I----l .' .. (OL~I .. ~; __ I 1 ..... to I I . ........ : ........ . ':.:: ..... . '. "',"" w- ····,.·.TRACT I '.' ..... 1",_, '.'. .. •• ' •••• , •••••• "0 ',',' ';'. t, I I n~ .... :... .': Il') ~~......... .................. :~ ..... ,. ~ -I I ~ui ...•. , ........ a oe" I.. .:' z-I I .:.::§.g ~, .... ". ': .... ::... ,!L II I 3: ,... , " .. ,:. "",. ". o .,'.... C? I ... : t -1 Zi5 .'.1"") ~ 3:> "'W I : I 8 .:~ ~ ''','''''' . : ~ :::.~ "..~ ......... ~ TR~·~~··:D 1_ -i I ~., .. ..r .. ~ . ":'L I 3: .'. ';:'. '., 13? I I ~ 1 I ..... J ... ~ ~ .~, ......... ',,'.~: ,>.; \ 1--l 1 ...... · .. N":~:·.6m ST. ...... . ...... N. E l.:::, \ --.J I ~W(' -I~"""~" .: ····51.. :' .• : .. ~rH· ____ .--!' L ~ 124~ S_T. ~'. ~ r-~ ...... ".:.:. '2-8" 26 N87'S4'28"W ~ ~ . '::. ". I .... -:'.,' ','. ;=0200 I I .0 &oJ • • "'!"!""":-1 . 58 '.t:J\ -l ~:}2 e :: L"j, ~:g " ~"': ... ~ ~I :'8 &oJ" 1"", 56 \59 49 • .... 30 ~-~tO J I I.~ z ·t. ~ ", tn OJ L ~ ~ J I :... ~ ::. . l :'.~ ~ .~o 48 31 21 22 23 I Z on .~ .': I -rJ.::::::g~ ~. 61 ~: I I :",. z .: :: ~ e! q:> 47 32 19 r ~ ~ -:::: ··:· .. ·····t.. ~;:.~~ i~: m 62 ~ 46 33 18 ~ ~ _I ~ I .... I '.~. z ..'--l 3 I ~ I .......... ~ ... ~ '.:' 63 ~J--""'&""--i '":: "".1 "'.' .' .' ' . . . .' h < -45 34 -~ .... ·:I·:· .. ..J~ :: ~ ~4-4-r-3-5-i~ ~ _ I < I .. .... 8· 43 36 I----+--+--t~ I ~ I •.•.. .~ ::',. 66 ---, ~ I .' .. :: .. :: .... : ................ .. .' .. , , .... " :t" •. 0" J :.0 10: .. .'. .' . "',' I' I' ", I . .. . .1 ••••• '" . ......... .. -' ""..,..--1 I .. , ' . . . , '" .. .. , " .' ....•. "', ". ". . ':: ,: "~:, 42 37 l-I 1 ........ ,.. 41 38 .': •.••• :',' 68 7 II \ 0" :1' .' I" I •••• , • , .' J . \ .:' ""', .. ' .... .' , .' .' .' .' 39 t----i\ ( 69 6 N.E. 4TH PL 5 4 70 71 72 ," • 0', "0 • ..... \ r--il ~-il .......... .:':" TRACT A ~ ~ 1 .... ..... ......... : .. : .. ::::::: \ , 74 4,> (' N88'21'27"W ::y" ••••••• 101L -- ' .... _ N88'21'27"W LOT 1 180 .• 03~ I ". 1311.17 L.:-NOO'11 55 E 766 .. 24 .......... 15 14 N8S'21'27"W (BASIS OF BEA=RI77NG::-:S::-;-)---=-26~2-::-2-::.3-=-3-1=::1 00.03 """ .. p .'. < '. \D y 128 ST en. rol ... : .... '.' .......... '" ---- --N.UTH STREET- •.•...•.•.•... \... FOUND BRASS DISK SURFACE MON ' ........ :. S 1/4 COR SEC. 11-25-5 V1SlTED"y25.{~3 "" __ _ ---- \ --.!,!. 14 ----, -----~----I\I---~-=---=-=--=--' .-:-: .......... I" u,.u.>. t:"~rt fTY6~\CV\c:i ~ HARBOHG074L3 I Base Plan Number: '2P~~1? Lot#: \3 I Lot Size: (0 L.t62. SQ. FT. Property Address: 61-0'-\ 10 e.. L\~ I eo..,,-+ Footprint Size: 2\ 2. "2-SQ. FT. Parcel Number: b 2., "1 S 00 '~=O",,",' __ h~~.ec.fViOUS C~verage: :0 % ~ o~~,~ __ ~~~~~~~~ __ ~ __ ~ __ ~.,..o- :F..e.. . t-\-".ke'l -T 10'1. ( 0 .... ~"-hu." 0"0,,", 'oc,c..\L 'Iro? \~.e.. ... \ 'co , ,4: \ ... 1 4' I i: .' . "\. 'I. .1 -'1 I 2.8' I --- I ;0' I I I I I I I I l Scale: 1"= 20' ------_._------+\ ---,--~--- W-Water S-Sewer ST-Storm J.. FO H d t Legend: "\ ~~ -Ire y ran G-Gas p-Powe~ T-Trees -' ~ X X (. e-Ihf P" R(fI&1f UlA-flON DEVELOPMENT PlANNING· CITY OF REmON APR 222005 RECEIVED III 2. ~ -------._-•• -----". ! I HARBOHG074L3 Lot#: 20 Property Address: Parcel Number: G1..00 1'.11£ J ck\{ ? -z.. 1'-\ S 0 () 2..6 d I '... fVl~,e'"'\ ~'jhlCN<\.J~ Base Pia •• Number. 25 <j 8 A Lot Size: I 0 ~ 3S SQ. FT. Footprint Size: 15J4 SQ. FT. ImJJ8F.Viou& Coverage: t q, % s,,~ to ~--~ .. --~--~--.. ~~~--~~--~ , to v-t'\~y'( e.~"" \ \ " .-......-. F~..e. ~~'''h.y .0' bf11 ~ ~"'-\-+ . L~ 31,2.,)' W-Water Legend: G-Gas 'It " / tvC co--e c.vJ.e- S-Sewet ST-Stonn P-Powe I T-Trees ! CebAIl. reM I J,..'Pc..ATIDN Scale: 1"= 20' o -Fire Hydrant / '. DEVELOPMENT ?LANNING CITY OF RENTON • APR 222005 RECEIVED Ma~ 19 04 09:17a D ·· ... tis ~ . .... ._ ..... _ ... -. -... -.----. Harbour Homes: Site Plan HARBOHG074L3 Lot -= L\ 0 .,.-~_ . .,....... Property Address: L h 1. iV.2. L-t l"-~'L Parcel Number: !\ 1... 3> c> 2 100 l ::P '? " -0 " '& "t .f' "" ,- (> \J ~. r 01\ (,'\ J' ~ ~ I' ." J z. (T\ '" -~ n, ~ . )to ~l (' .,.. 0+ ; 'J \ \ " "-'- "'--- ~. .... =0 1\ I'V q ~- 4 '26-5243 p.2 uevelopmeth.. 1·\4¥e.eA t:hi5b~~­ Base Plan Number: 2t4oct. C Lot Size: Bq I f..r, SQ. FT. Footprint Size: \ '\ '_lu SQ. FT. Impervious Coverage:-1:1L:-% l 1"- ; 15' '1) r ~o » z ~..c N 0;:-' """ g ~ rr_ --, T- N .\ /(.) I u+: I .. .f.y E.S"'lT N E.. '-{"It-. P L .•. _._------_._-_._--_._------_._- w-Water S-Sewer ST-Storm Legend: G-Gas p. Power T-Trees K )( CB'OAP. Fe N('~ f"oc.kr(O tJ Scale: 1"= 20' ---_._-------- '.J -Fire Hydrant '. DEVECLOPMENT PLANNIN', lTV OF RENTON le. APR 222005 RECEIVED -f-if) tl -.,J ,til < HARBOUR HOMb,,,,frE PLAN HARBOHG074L3 LOT HUM.IiR: 5 I BASE PLAN NUMBER: 2.1-\ 0<7 0 PROPERi 'I ADDRESS: 5l,L{ ~("'~O PL t-:>t.. PARCEL NUMBER it 2. 30$ ~oo I LOT Size 111'1 SQ. FT. FOODRINT8.ZE: 0]1 SQ. FT. ~~?o Lor Cc~e~l.. I L I b;'ctP I I .,~' "]..,1 to", p"t\O ...----.. PLAN 2409 REVERSE 1"=20' qt,~ j o IOf U{; l~{.7' E:,....-t + ........ -".-.--.--.. --~. SCALE 1 INCH. 20 FEET <l-N- .. ~. _________________________ D_EV~E2.[L0!lP:.QfMENTPLANNING ~ITY OE AEWTON WATER GAS SEWER. POWER STORMDRAIN APR 2 2 2005 TREES RECEIVED "Z. rn b \1 -, HARBOUR H.~~:SITE P~-------------~~VELOr'-• .ENT: "'9--.).,:<£",,-\-\J-0~\c-.d~ __ " "ARBOHG07~--- LOT NUMBER: 51:? BASE PLAN NUMBER: '393 t., B PROPERTY ADDRESS: (,o~ 3ceAr':o ?L. IJE LOT SIZE: \O\S1sQ. FT. PARCEL NUMBER \ \ h 3D S'1 00 , 2\· '70 FOOTPRINT SIZE: 1.\ '2.. "l-SQ. FT. b11 L \ If) '" 12.- ? ... .po '-10 1 \ 31' 1 I ;(,0 , I t \ - SCALE 1 INC~~~~EET -_ CITY ~~'M:~'1>~NING LEGENP: WATER SEWER STORMD~PR 222005 )( G~~ POWER TREES REce. I )E C€P/tP-peRce Lv CA naN --VEO Typical Elevation Height: 6' -0" Material: Cedar Wood Fence wi Cedar Fence Posts Color: Natural Cedar DEVELOPMENT PLANNING-CITY OF RENTON APR 222005 RECEIVED r 2" [51 MM] r---8' -0" [2438MM] SECTION WIDTH CTR TO CTR-----j I (16 BOARDS & 0 SPACES) I ~ 1 1/2" [38MM] I lilT I ~ I 1111 1111 1111 2' -10" [B64MM] 1111 1111 1111 1111 I-~rt -----1-----1--------t--- '-Itt f--1----I-----f-- 1111 1111 1I1I 2' -10" [864MM] 1111 L I111 1111 1111 4" [102MM] ~ 1 T 1m I ~ ~ 6" [152MM] FENCE BOARD I 111I I 2' -6" [762MM] I 1111 I I 1111 2' [610MM] I I11I I I 1111 -Lt __ f--I WI I -'-------1- FENCE SECTION ELEVATION *** f--10" [254MM] Maureen Highlands: Special Fence P~TII1it Submittal 11111 -rmf 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 >---ttlt - JIlt - 1111 1111 11I1 I111 1111 1111 I11I II : :r I 1111 I I I 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 WI I I t 6' [182 9MM] ~ L 2" NO [51 MM] M r tnl _... ... . . ...J ~ STREET -,.-~ ---=L.~'O ____ ~ I ;, -\ . • .--.~ PROPERTY _ LINE "l I • • I J , --...... ..-.. ..- PROPERTY LlNE--- STREET _ .. _--- • • (j) PROPERTY I ~ LINE ': ~ I -\ NO STRUCTURE OR PLANTING SHALL BE ALLOWEJD • CLEAR VISION AREA BETWEEN THE HEIGHT OF THREE AND TEN FEET F'~"r .. 1 FrS"rc. 2. FI.sUf& 3 • ". '" CITY OF RENTON City Clerk Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 425-430-6510 o <;ash i I ILYtheck NO . .....L/_~--=-g_'-f.:....-_ Description: Funds Received From: o Copy Fee o Appeal Fee Name tAJ,' / / (aWl S. ((1. Address CitylZip Receipt N:: 430 Date --</t4,./+-/-"""3'+,t....::::O ..... s:t---_ o Notary Service 0 _________ _ I Amount $ 7 S-tro City Staff Signature November 3, 2005 City of Renton Attn: Hearing Examiner 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 ,'::ITY OF RENTON NOV (I 3 2005 RECEIVED .j fy CLERK'S OFFICE RE: Appeal of the Special Administrative Fence Permit Evaluation Form & Decision City of Renton File Number: LUA-05-058, SFP Location in question: 601 Rosario PL NE, Maureen Highlands Lot #56 K.C. Tax ID #: 5214500560 Location of fence: Side yard fence on NE 6th St. To Whom It May Concern: This letter is to appeal the evaluation received in response to our application to obtain a Special Fence Permit submitted on March 29, 2005. Our original application was approved by the City of Renton; however, the approval came with conditions. The conditions include that we must either lower our fence to a maximum of 48 inches, that our fence be moved back out of the clear vision area, and/or we relocate our fence to at least three feet back from the sidewalk. The reason we are appealing this·evaluation is that we feel we were misled by the City of Renton when we conducted our research related. to building our fence. Our research included going to the City of Renton website to see if a permit was required. The . Planning/BuildinglPublic Works link of the website outlined work exempt from permits, where number 2 of the list stated that fences not over 6 feet high do not require a permit (see attached printout of the website page printed on March 15,2005). This link, at the time of our research, did not mention anything about building fences on comer lo!s nor did it direct the reader to visit the RMC website, which would have further detailed the requirements listed in the original notice and now the evaluation. As this was the information we found and our fence was within the guidelines outlined in our neighborhood's CC&R's, we felt we were in compliance. Subsequent to the receipt of the evaluation and in conjunction with the preparation of this appeal, we went back to the "Work Exempt from Permits" link on the City of Renton website and noticed some changes. Item number 2 of this link now states that "Residential fences that comply with RMC Section 4-4-04D" whereas it used to only read "Fences not over 6 feet high." In addition, the City of Renton added another item to the list in regards to commercial and industrial fencing with a reference to the appropriate RMC that was not on the list we originally referenced. We have included a printout of the updated link for your review. Furthermore, the evaluation states that our fence intrudes on the "Clear Vision Area." The definition of the "Clear Vision Area" per the City of Renton is that "no structure or planting shall be allowed between the height of three and ten feet" within 20 feet of the comer. Our fence is outside of the "Clear Vision Area" as it is approximately 36 feet from the comer. In addition, our house is located on the west side of the street, thus traffic approaching from the direction of our fence is on the other side of the street allowing a vehicle to be seen for at least one block. In conclusion, we ask you to once again review our argument and our appeal in regards to obtaining a Special Fence Pennit. We hope that you approve our appeal as we feel that we were misled by the City of Renton website when we were conducting our research in regards to the construction of the fence. Thank you again for your time, and we are looking forward to a positive resolution of this matter. Sincerely, .~--~ .. ~zt;~;;:--==:- ~~~~rl/\ 0vill~ and Jacqueline NtzieXJ Property Owners 601 Rosario PLNE Renton, W A 98059 (425) 220-1979 (206) 218-5297 Enclosures g -) { {;{ ~ (t /i-'t ~>Vt (:J!~r ) l A 4;l{X~A'\ {".j'/j-... -~_ (.If .. J (,I rJ lA)) l/:~/ \{J()-V/ci/ \;ft~~veloprrrent~i!r;yipe'/;~~mainten~.Il~rr;;;t>:~~!p~~fa.{!eU,~~Hlities Work Exempt From Permits A building permit shall not be required for the following: Page 1 oj' 1 1. One-story detached accessory buildings used as tool and storage sheds, playhouses, and similar uses, provided the floor area does not exceed 120 square feet. ..j 2. Fences not over 6 feet high. 3. Movable cases, counters and partitions not over 5 feet 9 inches high. 4 Retaining walls that are not over 4 feet in height measured from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall, unless supporting a surcharge or impounding Class I, II or III-A liquids. 5. Painting, papering and similar finish work. 6. Window awnings supported by an exterior wall of Group R, Division 3, and Group U occupancies when projecting not more than 54 inches Unless otherwise exempted separate plumbing, electrical and mechanical permits will be required for the above exempted work. Development Services Home . CitY .. 2.f~ R f!";"-h \A./ yW: _ ... r .. rv orne page worK exempt rrom penmlS rage 1 ?I 1 Work Exempt From Permits A building permit shall not be required for the following: 1. One-story detached accessory buildings used as tool and storage sheds, playhouses, and similar uses, provided the floor area does not exceed 200 square feet. -? 2. Residential fences that comply withRentQIJMLJl1i~iQCiL~Qc:JeSection 4-4-0400 .. -"7 3. Commercial and industrial fences that are 6 feet or less in height and that comply with Renton MuniGipCil.cQc:Je_ Section 4-4-0S0E. 4. Movable cases, counters and partitions not over S feet 9 inches high. S. Retaining walls that are not over 4 feet in height measured from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall, unless supporting a surcharge or impounding Class I, II or III-A liquids. 6. Painting, papering and similar finish work. 7. Window awnings supported by an exterior wall of Group R, Division 3, and Group U occupancies when projecting not more than 54 inches Unless otherwise exempted separate plumbing, electrical and mechanical permits will be required for the above exempted work. 'R~ . home page http://www.ci.renton.wa.us/pw/devserv/adexbswefp.htm City of Renton PLANNINGlBUILDINGlPUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION REC'D OCT 2 6 2005 SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE FENCE PERMIT EVALUATION FORM & DECISION City of Renton File Number: LUA-05-058, SFP Project Description and Analysis: The proposal is to allow 72-inch high cedar fencing on five corner lots in the Maureen Highlands Division I subdivision that have side yards abutting streets. The fences, which were previously installed without permits, are located adjacent to sidewalks of public streets, as shown in Exhibit 1. For corner lots, RMC 4-4-040D.2.c. allows fences that are a maximum of 48 inches high, or a maximum of 42 inches high within any "clear vision area". RMC 4-11-030 defines the clear vision area as that area bounded by the street property lines of corner lots, and a line joining points along those street lines, 20 feet from their point of intersection. Exhibit 4 is the graphical illustration of clear vision area measurement as provided in RMC 4-11-010. The location and height of fences must not obstruct views of oncoming traffic, or views from driveways. In order to retain 72-inch high side yard fences, fence corner setbacks must be increased to comply with the clear vision requirements. For areas outside of the clear vision area, the fence must be set back at least 3 feet from the sidewalk. All setback areas must be permanently landscaped and maintained with appropriate landscaping materials. Landscaping in the clear vision area must be less than 3 feet in height, or (for trees) more than 10 feet in height. Location: 13 20 40 51 56 Owners: K.C. TaxID# 5214500130 5214500200 5214500400 5214500510 5214500560 Street Address 6204 NE 4th Ct. 6200 NE 5th Circle 454 Rosario PI. NE 564 Rosario PI. S 601 Rosario PI. NE Location of Fence Side yard fence on Shadow Ave. NE Side yard fence on Shadow Ave. NE Side yard fence on NE 4th Place Side yard fence on NE 6th St. Side yard fence on NE 6th St. Joshua and Laurelle Graves (Lot 13) Robert and Annabell Gomez (Lot 20) Michael and Shari Beck (Lot 40) Patricia Benson and EI Sprole (Lot 51) William and Jacqueline Hizzey (Lot 56) Applicant Name and Phone Number: Brian Mannelly, Harbour Homes, (253) 838-8305 Fence Location (check ALL applicable boxes): o Front Yard X Side Yard Along a Street -----IoO~ Rear-Yard AJoI'lg-Ga~S~tr __ eQetl----------- X Clear Vision Area Fence Design (Which of the following measures have been employed?): o Permanent Landscaping X Quality Fence Materials X Modulation Of Fencing X Similar to Design and Material of Surrounding Fences o Increased Setbacks From Sidewalks o Ornamental Materials Or Construction Evaluation Criteria (Do the measures checked above satisfy the following objectives): Evaluation Criteria Achieved Not Achieved Improves Privacy X In Scale With Neighborhood X Limits Blank Walls Along Walkways X Aesthetically Pleasing X Does Not Create a Traffic Hazard X D Approved X Approved with conditions D Denied Conditions of Approval: 1; The side fence sections shall either be lowered to meet code requirements (48 inches or less in height), or shall be set back at least 3 feet from the sidewalk, or more within clear vision areas if additional setback is required according to Condition #2 below. 2. Consistent with RMC 4-2-110A and RMC 4-11-030, fence comers at street intersections shall be set back from the sidewalk to at least the minimum distance required to provide adequate clear vision area, as shown in Exhibit 4. 3. For fences higher than 48 inches, all setback areas in front of the fences shall be permanently landscaped and maintained with appropriate landscaping materials such as flowers and other plantings, trees, grass, beauty bark and landscaping gravel, etc. Landscaping in the clear vision area must be less than 3 feet in height, or (for trees) more. than 10 feet in height. A setback planting plan for each lot must be sumitted for approval by the Development Services Director. Approved by the City of Renton Development Services Division Director Appeals: Appeals of permit issuance may be filed with the City of Renton Hearing Examiner by 5:00 PM on November 3, 2005. Phone: (425) 430-6510. ' . . , . ..... , , , I , , .' . .... ..... . ,.":.' ..... '0' ," ... . ..... . .. ' ....... ' ... . ~ :;j. -J m··.· §;; 'W ..•. =>.Go .: •• '. '. .1" .' ", , . ···',·.TRACT I .... . ... ., .... '0'. •• •• '." •• , •••••• "0 "I'·' .' .' ~ (' ~·2~7"WI _ ----.;,,=fi-__ ~~0:.1.....~~~_..l..--..II..\-LOT 1 80.03~ I ". '" :::r ......... 10 lL 1311.17 .... -N88'21'27"W 544.89 1 .... _· N06'l1'55"E 766.24 . ..... p. .......... 15 14 N88'21'27"W (BASIS OF BEARINGS) 2622.33 100.03 ....... (i5 .......... '" - - - - --N.E.4.TH STREET- yen. .............. ~ FOUND BRASS DISK SURFACE MON 128 ST ............. I......... S 1/4 COR SEC. 11-25-5 VJSI~.D .. ~/25,(~3 .. __ _ \ -.!!. 14 I --------=-: .. :--=--=---. ~ •. : ..... ; • .:.-j. ~I ~.t'rl t'tY5\'\.\Cvld.~ HARBOHG074l3 I Base Plan Number: ?:P ~t, 12 Lot#: \1> lot Size: (0462. SQ. FT. Property Address: 6z()<-\ tve.. q\\1ICour+ Footprint Size: 2\ 2. 'l-SQ. FT. I Parcel Number: b 2 i ., S 00 ,30 ImpeFYious Coverage: v::> % :1" S ,ok. . --o"t .., 0'" f\ce.. . ~ke",1- 10'1.' 0" ~"-~O'" 0"0,", b<;c..\L ,(ro? \~~ Legend: .-, ,-• ~ -' " .. • -I. w-Water G-Gas X X \ S-Sewe~ P-Powe~ ST-Storm T-Trees Scale: 1"= 20' Q -Fire Hydrant / , OEVaOPMEJIlT PlANNING-CITY OF RENTON APR 222005 RECEIVED >... Mcw-ree'"'\ fu~\"'l~J~ Base Pia,. Number. 25 <j 8 A lot Size: I 0 t...I3B SQ. FT. Footprint Size: 1514 SQ. FT. ~ -' §~='-'G2~ ~~J(l\{ Parcel Number: ? 'l-I L..\ S D 0 1-0 d I fmP~~9 Coverage: I ~ ( % ~--~~------~~~~~~----~----~+ l.l.l 2 t to ~\~Y'i ~~"t F«-t. ,,"~rt,,-\-fbi ~ ,*",c,\-~ Legend: \ \ "-.-- 60' L~ 31,2.,)1 W-Water G-Gas ~ )( /" .vi:. &~ v.~e, S-Sewe~ ST-Stonn p-Powe' T-Trees ! CebAI/. reM I t-'PC.ATf{»/ ScaI~: 1"= 20' J~,. -Fire Hydrant DEVELOPMENT P!.ANNING: CITY OF RENiON APR 2 2 2005 RECEIVED Ma~ 19 04 09:17a D--... t i s \;:------~--- Harbour Home~ Site Plan HARBOHG074l3 Lot 11:: '-\0 .,.-~ __ ~. Property Address: L l \ 1. iV; L-il:-t' L Parcel Number: f\ 1-3> c> 2 Cj 00 l .. _-..,. ::P Y-o -, 'G IJ\ -C' .. " "". 0 \J ~. ---, I I I I I I • I I 0 __ • __ - (,'\ ~. ,. ~ ~ C' -r ->1\ ." J c:. fI\ '" -~l [1 ~l 0, ~ :: II I'V q ~, \ \ \ , "-....... 4 '26-5243 p.2 ueve.opmet.,. l't4.oJrU A ~~~ Base Plan Number: 2-,-\oC(. C Lot Size: B~IL. SQ. FT. Footprint Size: 1'l~L,. sa. FT. Impervious Coverage: 2. 3· % r "'D .-» Z N .,.. 0 t! co l ~o .'IC or;a ; 161 ~- It} I u\-:, .. -f-y E.S~T Nt. '-t~ PL ._._-------_._-_._---------- Legend: W-Water G-Gas K l< s-Sewer ST-Storm p-Power T-Trees CgOAA Fe~~ f"oc.kr(O '" Scale: 1":: 20t ---_._------- ;:J -Fire Hydrant ,. ". OEVELCITYOPMENT PLANNIN(. OF RENTON " APR 222005 RECeiVED- HARBOUR 80Mb ...,fTE PLAN HAftBOHG074L3 LOT "u.aliA: . 5 i BASE PLAN NUMBER: 2. !.{o<; 0 PROPER I V ADDftE$$; 51..'-t ~~Q PL t-:>t. PARGEL NUMBER \\ 1.. "OCs ~OO f LOT SIZE: 'ill ~ $Q. FT. FOOTPRINT SIZE: OJ I SQ. FT. ~ L>1-Ccve~!. c"t. 1.,' I L IfJ'N p"t\o ,---""" <l-N- -t-I if) PLAN 2409 fJ " .W < I L\~' Wi 10' ?8,Sf,' REVERSE V(J 1it=20' 4S' o 16' ut; l:-f.y E::",~-t- SCALE 1 INCH • 20 FEET DEVaoPMENT PLANNING ________________________________________________ ~~~ITYYQfQFRE~QN LEGFJmi WATER SEWER. GAS POWER -I)(Ifo--¥)(-(.eolttt. Pe",U; 'oC/t1Io/J STORMDRAlN APR 2 2 2005 TREES RECEIVED HARBOUR HI __ n~~SITE PI.AN DEVEL_r--~'.ENT: ''\'\f'->J!:se,"\. \\J'-8"'-\~~~ HARBOHG074L3 LOT NUMBER: ~& BASE PLAN NUMBER: '303 (, \3 PROPERTY ADDRESS: lSi i3,w..r':o 1''-N E. PARCEL NUMBER j \ ].., 30 S'1 00 \ LOT SIZE: \ 0' 5jSQ.. FT. FOOTPRINT SIZE: 2\ 2.. 'l-SQ. FT. LEGEND: WATER SEWER GAS POWER \( ,e" I' __ . I ..... -.~ - 2\· % o ---_ .. --------.-.---~.-..... -' SCALE 1 tNC~~asfAE&T ,CITY ~~~~NING STORMD~PR 222005 TREES RJ:rcnlEh Typical Elevation Height: 6'-0" Material: Cedar Wood Fence wi Cedar Fence Posts Color: Natural Cedar DEVELOPMENT PlANNING· CITY OF RENTON APR 222005 RECEIVED r--8'-0" [2438MM] SECTION WIDTH CTR TO CTR---j I (16 BOARDS & 0 SPACES) I ~ 1 1/2" [38MM] r 2" [511,,11,,1] I 1111' ~ I "" IIII 2' -10· [864MM] "" L "" I" I " II -~; -----f----f----------- ---f--i-_ --f------ "" " II I" I 2' -10" [864MMJ I" I L " II " I I IIII ::1 4" [102MM] f I "" I .~ l--6" [152MM] FENCE BOARD I IIII I 2' -6" [762MM] I IIII I I '" I 2' [610MM] I 1111 1 I I I II -Lt __ 1--1 WI I -'-------1- FENCE SECTION ELEVATION *** I--10" [254MM] Maureen Highlands: Special Fence Pep:nit Submittal 1111• ~ "II "" "" "" "" II" f--ttlt - ~1tt - "" 1111 1111 I" I I I II I I " " II II ::1: I "" I I I " II " I I I I " "" 1111 WI I I t 6' [182 9MM] ~ L 2" NO [51MM] M 1 . I I (j') -... ... ..-1 ~ S T R E ET '" '2.0 '" B I • .---... . ... PROPERTY _ LINE -I I • • I J I -..... ..-.. _ .. - PROPERTY LlNE--- STREET -.. _---- • • (j') PROPERTY I ~ LINE .: ~ , --\ NO STRUCTURE OR PLANTING SHALL BE ALLOWE • QEAR VISION AREA BETWEEN THE HEIGHT OF THREE AND TEN FEET F'~"r& 1 FrS" .... 2. FI~ur& 3. CITY OF RENTON City Clerk Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 425-430-6510 o <;ash j/ mheck NO . ....LI_s-._!?_'-f"--_ Description: Funds Received From: o Copy Fee o Appeal Fee Name tAl,' 11'"0.00 S, 01. Address CitylZip Receipt N:: 430 o Notary Service 0 _________ _ I Amount $ 7 S-O"ll City Staff Signature COMMENCING AT 9:00 AM, ---------------------------~ CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING December 6,2005 AGENDA COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7TH FLOOR, RENTON CITY HALL The application(s) listed are in order of application number only and not necessarily the order in which they will be heard. Items will be called for hearing at the discretion of the Hearing Examiner. PROJECT NAME: Maureen Highlands Fence Permit Appeal PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-05-058, SF PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting an appeal of the conditions of approval of the Administrative Special Fence Permit requiring the applicant to lower and/or relocate the fence out of the clear vision area. HEX Agenda 12-6-05 CITY F RENTON Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor PlanningIBuilding/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator November 15, 2005 Patricia Benson and EI Sprole 564 Rosario Place NE Renton, WA 98059 RE: Special Administrative Fence Permit LUA05-058 564 Rosario Place NE Dear Ms. Benson and Mr. Sprole: This letter is regarding the Speci;:!1 Administrative Fence Permit (LUA05-058) that was issued for the fence located at 564 Rosario Place NE, on October 20, 2005. The appeal period for the permit ended on November 3, 2005, and no appeal was filed regarding this fence. As described in the permit conditions, ydu are required to lower the side fence sections and/or set them back to meet cade.requirementS and provide landscaping in the setback areas. The fence must be lowered and/or relocated out of the clear vision area in compliance with the permit conditions, no later than January 15, 2005. The required landscaping plan must also be submitted· for review by the same· date. All landscaping must be completed within 180 days of the Division's approval of the landscaping plan. If you have any questions, please contact me at (425)430-7382. Sincerely, ~~ Keri A. Weave.r, AICP Senior Planner --------:-10~5::-::5-::S:-ou-t-:-h-::G:-ra--:d:-y-=W-:-a-y--=-R-en-to-n-, =WC:-a~sh--:-in-g-to-n-9:-:8--:-05=-5::-------.~ * This paper contains 50% recycled material. 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE CITY F RENTON Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor PlanningIBuildinglPublic Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator November 15, 2005 Michael and Shari Beck 454 Rosario Place NE Renton, WA 98059 RE: Special Administrative Fence Permit LUA05-058 454 Rosario Place NE Dear Mr. and Mrs. Beck: This letter is regarding the Special Administrative Fence Permit (LUA05-058) that was issued for the fence located at 454 Rosario Place NE,. on October 20,2005. The appeal period for the permit ended on November 3, 2005, and no appeal was filed regarding this fence. As described in the permit conditions, you are required to lower the side fence sections and/or set them back to meet code requirements and provide landscaping in the setback areas. The fence must be lowered and/or r.elocated out of the clear vision area .in compliance with the permit conditions, no later than January 15, 2005. The required landscaping plan must also be submitted for review by the same date. All landscaping must be completed within 180 days ofthe Division's approval of the land,scaping plan. If you have any questions, please contact me at (425) 430-7382. Sincerely, Keri A. Weaver, AICP Senior Planner -------lO-S-S-s-o-ut-h-G-ra-d-y-W-a-y---R-en-to-n-, -W-as-h-in-g-to-n-9-8-0-SS------~ * This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE CITY F RENTON Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor PlanningIBuildinglPublic Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator November 15, 2005 Robert and Annabell Gomez 6200 NE 5th Circle Renton, WA 98059 RE: Special Administrative Fence Permit LUA05-058 6200 NE 5th Circle Dear Mr. and Mrs. Gomez: This letter is regarding the Special Administrative Fence Permit (LUA05-058) that was issued for the fence located at 6200 NE 5th Circlejon October 20, 2005. The appeal period for the permit ended on November 3, 2005, and nb appeal was filed regarding this fence. As described in the permit conditions, you are required to lowe(the side fence sections and/or set them back to meet coderequirements and provide landscaping in the setback areas. The fence must be lowered anc;l/or relocated out of the clear vision area in compliance with the permit conditions, no later than January 15; 2005. The required landscaping plan must also be submitted for review by the same date. All landscaping must be completed within 180 days of the Division's approval of the landscaping plan. If you have any questions, please contact me at (425) 430-7382. Sincerely, Keri A. Weaver, AICP Senior Planner -------IO-S-S-S-ou-t-h-G-ra-:d-y-W,-=-a-y--R-e-n-to-n-, W,-as-h-in-g-to-n-9-:-S--:-0S-S------~ * This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE CITY F RENTON Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor PlanningIBuilding/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator November 15, 2005 Joshua and Laurelle Graves 6204 NE 4th Court Renton, WA 98059 RE: Special Administrative Fence Permit LUA05-058 6204 NE 4th Court Dear Mr. and Mrs. Graves: This letter is regarding the Special Administrative Fence Permit (LUA05-058) that was issued for the fence located at 6204 NE 4th Court, on October 20, 2005. The appeal period for the permit ended on November 3, 2005, and no appeal was filed regarding this fence. As described in the permit conditions, you are required to lower the side fence sections and/or set them back to meet code requirements and provide landscaping in the setback areas. The fence must be lowered and/or relocated out of the clear vision area in compliance with the permit conditions, no later than January 15, 2005. The required landscaping plan must also be submitted. for review by the same date. All landscaping must be completed within 180 days of the Division's approval of the landscaping plan. If you have any questions, please contact me at (425) 430-7382. Sincerely, Keri A. Weaver, AICP Senior Planner -------------lO-S-S-S-ou-t-h-G-ra-d-y-W-ay---R-e-n-to-n-,W--as-h-in-g-to-n-9-8-0S-S------------·~ * This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE City of Renton PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE FENCE PERMIT EVALUATION FORM & DECISION City of Renton File Number: LUA-05-058, SFP Project Description and Analysis: The proposal is to allow 72-inch high cedar fencing on five corner lots in the Maureen Highlands Division I subdivision that have side yards abutting streets. The fences, which were previously installed without permits, are located adjacent to sidewalks of public streets, as shown in Exhibit 1. For corner lots, RMC 4-4-040D.2.c. allows fences that are a maximum of 48 inches high, or a maximum of 42 inches high within any "clear vision area". RMC 4-11-030 defines the clear vision area as that area bounded by the street property lines of corner lots, and a line joining points along those street lines, 20 feet from their point of intersection. Exhibit 4 is the graphical illustration of clear vision area measurement as provided in RMC 4-11-010. The location and height of fences must not obstruct views of oncoming traffic, or views from driveways. In order to retain 72-inch high side yard fences, fence corner setbacks must be increased to comply with the clear vision requirements. For areas outside of the clear vision area, the fence must be set back at least 3 feet from the sidewalk. All setback areas must be permanently landscaped and maintained with appropriate landscaping materials. Landscaping in the clear vision area must be less than 3 feet in height, or (for trees) more than 10 feet in height. Location: 13 20 40 51 56 Owners: K.C. Tax ID # 5214500130 5214500200 5214500400 5214500510 5214500560 Street Address 6204 NE 4th Ct. 6200 NE 5th Circle 454 Rosario PI. N E 564 Rosario PI. S 601 Rosario PI. NE Location of Fence Side yard fence on Shadow Ave. NE Side yard fence on Shadow Ave. NE Side yard fence on NE 4th Place Side yard fence on N E 6th St. Side yard fence on N E 6th St. Joshua and Laurelle Graves (Lot 13) Robert and Annabell Gomez (Lot 20) Michael and Shari Beck (Lot 40) Patricia Benson and EI Sprole (Lot 51) William and Jacqueline Hizzey (Lot 56) Applicant Name and Phone Number: Brian Mannelly, Harbour Homes, (253) 838-8305 Fence Location (check ALL applicable boxes): D Front Yard X Side Yard Along a Street D Rear Yard Along a Street X Clear Vision Area Fence Design (Which of the following measures have been employed?): D Permanent Landscaping X Quality Fence Materials X Modulation Of Fencing X Similar to Design and Material of Surrounding Fences D Increased Setbacks From Sidewalks D Ornamental Materials Or Construction Evaluation Criteria (Do the measures checked above satisfy the following objectives): Evaluation Criteria Achieved Not Achieved Improves Privacy X In Scale With Neighborhood X Limits Blank Walls Along Walkways X Aesthetically Pleasing X Does Not Create a Traffic Hazard X D Approved X Approved with conditions D Denied Conditions of Approval: 1. The side fence sections shall either be lowered to meet code requirements (48 inches or less in height), or shall be set back at least 3 feet from the sidewalk, or more within clear vision areas if additional setback is required according to Condition #2 below. 2. Consistent with RMC 4-2-11 OA and RMC 4-11-030, fence corners at street intersections shall be set back from the sidewalk to at least the minimum distance required to provide adequate clear vision area, as shown in Exhibit 4. 3. For fences higher than 48 inches, all setback areas in front of the fences shall be permanently landscaped and maintained with appropriate landscaping materials such as flowers and other plantings, trees, grass, beauty bark and landscaping gravel, etc. Landscaping in the clear vision area must be less than 3 feet in height, or (for trees) more than 10 feet in height. A setback planting plan for each lot must be sumitted for approval by the Development Services Director. Approved by the City of Renton Development Services Division Director Date Appeals: Appeals of permit issuance may be filed with the City of Renton Hearing Examiner by 5:00 PM on November 3,2005. Phone: (425) 430-6510. , , , , , .' ,',_. I, I:' "i. I :.' 'I: . ' .. .'. '. "1'. II ',' .... . ' ....... ~ ~. c: ~··I' •• :z: '(0 .' => ,1:0 ", , • " ./~., "',·.TRACT I ........ I ••••• ,,'. .. .. ' .... , ...... ", ',',' '. "", '.' ", .... . ....... .. : ..... . .... :: "'". . ', . , "t •••• I")~ act··· .. iJ) N .... >ui "" Pc.!> ' •• • 0-':':8 co" '0 Ol 3:'~.. 0 I Cl.j''' . i~ ...... ~ 0. ~'" '.' ". 0.':. 8 ,: ~~ .:,1: .. . ~ ...... w ..... . .... " ... . . .. . .... ' .. ..... : .' :.' " . .... ,., .... 'I. " '1'0 .. ' ". ~ .':''1 ~ ...... ~ TRA~~":O ~., ... '<t .' l.J... • ","L' ';j. ·Y.. 5 ~ I I···') I g ···e·· ...... ":, , .. :': ?:\ : ...J '. i '" Z 56 .... "5' 2: .' n. ~ It,'.~ .... ':', '. ' . ., ',', '.' , . .. . .I". , ·N·""·,· 6· .... ..,.... I ". ': ......... ' .r:. •. ~ .. ST. ".' :'N~ .. :, .. ~:. __ --~ I..~' -I~""""t" . ····5f. .". : .~n::; sf: 1"), % '" . Sf'" to' F II '." ,. ',', c». ~ r. '. . .. :' 2'8", .~ ~ .. ::: . .:2 .. ~ "". 58 . ':~ 2;' , ~:12 en :: L· .. ··.' ... 10 " '10 :' b::;: -i". 5 'f \ 59 49':' .... ·~o I.~ z .'t. l-''', iJ) ~ 48 31 :... ~.. l :'.~~ .~o .~ .. : I -rJ.,' ::::: g ~ .' : .... '.... ~.: :: ~~ ~ 61 .\ 47 .' .... I .: ~--1 n W 32 .' ···· •. 1 I :.: 1LL,j:lE 0 • Ol 62 :Z J---Jr----t 1... 7 1% ::::. ~ ..J 46 33 . , .... '.' .',' " .. '. , .' L····~ ....... 63 o..l---'T---1 ., ...... ~.".J~ 64 ~o J--4_5_r- 3 _ 4 --t .... 0:: 44 35 "" .. .•.• " .,~ 65 a:: 1-----+----1 .... 0' •..•. 0:: :.",. 66 ..... :: .... : .... , ..... , ... .. " .. 43 36 .' . "" .... , ..... . . : . ' .. " " .. , '. '. , , ... , . " .:",1 '. I" :." .' I'· .... ' . , " ~ I /' .0 .... ' ". I . .. . , , ., ..•......•.... ::::. .. -' "-';""--i "'~'7 ... , , .' 69 .' .' .' 42 37 4 ---- \. ___ 11 , 14 I ----••• "" .. L.I·......,....t:"-t'rl 11Y5~\Cv\d.~ HARBOHG074l3 I, Base Plan Number: ?:P:,(,'P Lot#: \'2:> lot Size: (0462. SQ. FT. I za-l I.. \e.. L\~li Covr+ Property Address:_(J:::....:...~:........:...I...., ___ i--___ Footprint Size: 2\ 2 ?... SQ. FT. , I N b r_ 2.. ,-.u c:c~ 00 -, ,'7~ .. O_~, __ lR'lpervious Coverage: '20 % Parce um er: 0\ '-' ~ S ,-\-c. . :t o~~;~ __ ~~~ __ ~ .. ~l~~~ .. ;. .. ~ .. ~~,..o_ '" I , . • Z .\ : "\~, , ., Legend: I Z.8 I ---- I ;0' I I I I I I \ W-Water G-Gas x ./ \ S-Sewer \ P-Poweli ST-Storm T-Trees Scale: 1"= 20' c) -Fire Hydrant /", ..•. " DEVELOPMENT PlANNING· CiTY OF RENTON APR 2 2 2005 RECEIVED III 2 · -_ .... --_ ...... -••• --...,.. .... -• .. ! I HARBOHG074l3 J \ ~~W 1\ Property Address: &200 I'J~... C¥V t Parcel Number: S -z.. 1'-\ S 0 0 2..0 d I ~ "" ~ ---I --JVl ~, e,", rtl\jl.,. \ <:Y\. d ,s Base Pia •• Number. 2.21 B A Lot Size: I (:) <-I 3B SQ. FT. Footprint Size: IGJ4 SQ. FT. ImP9p't.ioU& Coverage: I q, % S,~ ... ~ 'I'-.-iw--~~~ ~ \O~,()~ Legend: W-Water G-Gas ! S-Sewe~ P-Powel I , ST-Stonn T-Trees J...PCATI fJIJ Scale: 1"= 20' /(.,~. -Fire Hydrant DEVELOPMENT ~J..ANNING CITY OF RENTON APR 2 2 2005 RECEIVED Ma~ 19 04 09:17a Dial ('-is 425 --6-5243 t-Harbour Homes Site Plan HARBOHG074l3 p.2 uevelopmeth. 11\~...x-UA ~h~~ Base Plan Number: 2,.t-.\oC(. C. Lollf.: '-\0 Property Address: L l t 1. iV~ L.i L::? L Lot Size: B'-ll L, SQ. FT. Footprint Size: \ 'l ,_~ SQ. FT. Parcel Number: ,\ 1.. 3> (:) '2 j 00 t :Jl '? " -0 " '& ~ " " ,. 0 \J ~- I ,j\ ~ J c:. ft\ '" -bi n, ~ ::.. ~l f 11: 0+ ~ I \ " '-.. '-... " "- G'\ $. J' ~ ~ ('00 .-:: 1\ 1'00.) q ,J: ~- Impervious Coverage:~~% l .: ; "'tJ r-~o »-z ~"J( !'oJ 0;' .JIo. J: 0 t: co --, f.'S' ~- '?- N . \ /(;)' U~"I;.j.y E.SIM.T N E.. '-\ i"\..., P L Scale: 1·'= 20' -_._--------_._-_._---_._-_. __ . __ ._---._--_._------- Legend: w-Water G-Gas K l< s-Sewer ST-Storm p. Power T -Trees CB'O A~ Fe Nc..~ f.,0 c.1tr{O t.J (') -Fire Hydrant ":--"" DEVELOPMENT P' CITY OF AENT~%NIN(". APR 2 2 2005 RECEIVED til < HARBOUR HOMIS$ >I'TE PLAN HARBOHQ074L3 LOT NUM81iR: 51 BASE PLAN NUMBER: 2.,-\0<7 0 PROPER1'Y ADDRIiSS: Sl.r'1. ~~Q PL t-'f. PARCEL NUMBER II "l. 30$ ~oo I LOT Size '[12.'7 SQ. FT. FOOTPIlINTS.ZE: OJ I SQ. FT. - I I I- I 10' lJ:>' '18, S" I PLAN 2409 REVERSE 1H =20' 1!l1 o 16' o{;lZ {.7' e:",.,..,,+ ....... _._. __ ........ -.. .. SCALE 1 INCH. 20 FEET <l-N- _________________________ D_EV....;Eg.{LnOPC!M;>.EENTPLANNING ~ITY Of RENTON WATER GAS SEWER. POWER STORMDRAIN APR 2 2 2005 TREES REceIVED HARBOUR HOM~ SITE PLAN DEVELO~ HARBOHG074L3 LOT NUMBER: ~ 0 BASE PLAN NUMBER: 303 (, B PROPERlY ADDRESS: £,0' ~r':o ?L toJE LOT SIZE: 10 \ 51 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT SIZE: 2\ 'L '-$Q. FT. t 3)' PARCEL NUMBER \ \ "2.... ~O S'i 00 , 21· ~o ... _-----.-._------_ ... _ ... __ .. -. SCALE 1 INC~~~ FEET '. C,.J~~~~~~NlNG LEGEM>: WATER SEWER STORM DuJPR 222005 G~~ POWER TREES RE -;)'t-( ~)(p. ce-PItP-PeNCe /'-OCATldN CEIVED Typical Elevation Height: 6' -0" Material: Cedar Wood Fence wi Cedar Fence Posts Color: Natural Cedar DEVELOPMENT PlANNING· CITY OF RENTON APR 222005 RECEIVED r 2" [51 MM] r---8' -0" [2438MM) SECTION WIDTH CTR TO CTR------j I (16 BOARDS & 0 SPACES) I ~ 1 1/2" [38MM] I 11111 jlill I IIII IIII IIII 2' -10" [864MM] IIII IIII IIII IIII f-~K -----!-------t----!-- f-Itt -f---t------!------f-- IIII IIII IIII 2' -10" [864MM] IIII L IIII IIII IIII IIII 4" [102MM] ;;1 1 I IIII I ~ ~ 6" [1 52MM] FENCE BOARD I IIII I 2' -6" [762MM) I IIII I I IIII 2' [610MM] IIIII I I IIII -Lt __ +--I WI I -'--------j FENCE SECTION ELEVATION *** I-10" [254MM] Maureen Highlands: Special Fence Permit Submittal - II1II lfffi IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII +---ttlt .- fttK - IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII ::1: I IIII I I I IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII WI I I t 6' [182 9MM] • L 2" NO [51MM) M r In I ..... ~. . . .J ~ S T R E E T ; 20 41' ~ I -\ . • .~.. .~ PROPERTY LINE .1 I • • I l I ,-.... ..-.. ..- PROPERTY LINE----o STREET ----.. - • I· ~ PROPERTY 7\J LINE • : ~ 1 -\ NO STRUCTURE OR PLANTING SHALL BE ALLOWEL m CLEAR VISION AREA BETWEEN THE HEIGHT OF THREE AND TEN FEET F'~",& 1 Fr" .... 2. Fl3\1f& 3. CITY 'RENTON SPECIAL FENC~ PERMIT APPLICA TION DevelopmenL Services Division 1055 South Grady Way, Renton WA 98055 Phone: (425) 430-7200 ALL REQUESTED ITEMS MUST BE PROVIDED IN ORDER TO PROCESS THIS APPLICATION 2. Tax Assessor Number: _ ........... ""'--......... """""""'''''''''""'"'-'-.! 3. Property Owner:_ ....... ~~· te~ . ...:::l4 ...... If,;L..t::I....Io<:iIrk~L~ _______ Phone: _______ _ Street Address: ___________ City/State: ________ Zip: __ _ 4. Contact Person: kllM A14I-1nLlIu.~ Daytime P~on~: ~~~,b~'d-tJ~/?S- (!!a.f/"Ftli/ ~s ~ tJ~/MM?/ /U/ut ~t?~t;) 5. Maximum Height of Proposed Fence:_ ..... kloL-_~-"-tJ_I/ __________ _ 6. Type of Material to be Use for Fence: t!eKt?f/ (wt'lltl &a) 7. Distance from Proposed Fence to Property Line: YA J//~$ $".<e t2 d'Rc/t..u( ; 8. Project Value: __________ _ 9. Describe Landscaping to be Installed (if any): 7i~v;4tr& .. ' £if /~l CtJw! rn de k/ <hUf,; ,~! <11",«'< ( an&«trfi. ; , I certify that the information on this application furnished by me is true and correct and that the applicable requirements of the City of Renton will be met. I understand that this application is valid for six months from the application date. If a permit is not issued during this time period, the application will become void. This application does not constitute a permit to work. Work is not to commence until the building permit is posted on premises where work is to be performed. Certification is hereby rendered that no work is to be done except as described, and that all work shall conform to the applicable codes. Work in public rights-of-way and/or utility easements is not authorized under this applicati0ry-:-) Applicant Signature: &//h«e= dfznH ~ ~')?~#';;": t;4-/~ Q:web\pw\devserv\fonns\building\BuildApp.doc Rev 3/03 DEVELOPMENT P CITY OF RENT'1~NING Fence Lot Locations Gomez 40 Beck 51 564 Rosario PL NE Graber 56 601 Rosario PL NE Special Permit Justification APR 222005 RECEIVED Cedar fencing, as described in the Special Fence Permit submittal at the above locations, was utilized within the Maureen Highlands subdivision for the following reasons: • As a material, cedar fencing is both a durable, quality fence material and aesthetically appropriate to the neighborhood and its immediate context. • Similar cedar fencing is utilized around the subdivision's storm ponds and wetland areas, which established a fencing precedent characterizing the neighborhood. • The fence modulation (8' -0" wide panels) is appropriate for the neighborhood scale, providing a material rhythm and texture to the road frontage while maintaining a safe structural form providing privacy and rear yard containment. • Fence gates provide unique detailing, identifying points of entry to rear and side yards. • The fencing is located outside of the Clear Vision Area as defined by City Code. • The fence's finish face is oriented towards the street, keeping a clean line along sidewalks and road frontages. Maureen Highlands: Special Fence Permit Submittal , , . . :: ....... /, '. :.' I,: . ' .. . ' . o o ~ o z 3 u... o .', . . . .... ~ . c .. . . LJ ... 't •• , .... ",... z· .. .' ., ',', ..... ",' ..... ·1'.·.··1 ....•....•..•. ...... I .... '.' '.' "', .. .' ~< n t= /'? ...J m··.· a.. 'm ". S co .... '. '. .. """ I I .. "1. I ••••• .. ". '.'., .... ..... '. ',,' , I ••• ·',·.TRACT I .... . . .'.'" '.' . . ...... , ........ '.' . ... ,... ,.: ..... • I ..' I ••••• , • ........ I. . .. . . .. . '.' :.' .... ., ','. '.' '.' .' .'. .. '.' . . '. , . . "":. .... '::", '.'./ .1 •• 1' ••••• :. \ I .' ' . . ' '. . .. " ' . f-----J .' <0 L ~ I ~ ; __ , I n I I w- ~ LO LO . .-r o o I I I I z-, I ,L ~ I I 1 J 1 1 ~ 1 ,~~ 1 ,:1 .-J : C S.E. 124 TH ST. --~~-.--~ --. r--- ~O .' a:I 61 .. ~/ .. : .. ~~ .'. '. 49 30 48 31 47 32 ul %1----'1-----1 -l a. 46 33 1-----t0 J--4-5-'r-3-4-1 ~1----+-----1 64 1--4~ 44 35 65 0:: N8T54'28"W ~~O~ I ~l ~~ J I l~~ J I I ~~ I I~~ -I I ~ I LJ I f"-._~. o (/) ~ I~, -I~I .. . . .... I~I I~! .' . .... .... I I I ", .. : . ' .. . ' .. . , ','. I....... . . '.' .1 ",'" 66 43 36 42 37 z .. .... , r---t I I .. •• I I '. "'. 41 38 I • • • I f---. --! :: :::., ... I I I .' r:: .. ".. 69 t---j 1 ' . •• .t'. ,. ',' I ,',. ::., I .. ,.'.! ( 5 4 f---l 1 ,.......".....~..... ..,'....... \ 70 71 72 ~ -1 I ---.-""""""......J.-< ...................... ,.:::::."::--\ I lRACT A 74 . (' ~'21'2t"WI ".' .'. .... -----I LOTl 180.03~ I ::r-. .....-N88'21 '27"W 544 89 -r-..... :. 1311.17 . 1 ... _ NOO'11'55"E 766.24 . ....... 15 14 N88'21'27"W (BASIS OF BEARINGS) 2622.33 100.03 ",' ' .. 1 "",. ::t:>-.'. < '. (D y 128 S1 0. [T1 ..•..•. "', '.' .' ......... \ --- - --N.UTH STREET------ - .............. ~ FOUND BRASS DISK SURFACE MON 1.-....... S 1/4 COR SEC. 11-25-5 VISITED 3/25/03 ···.·.J"lTV nt:' Dt:'MTf'lN r.pc; SlJRVEY CONTROL PT. '1852 ~ --.12, 14 Typical Elevation Height: 6' -0" Material: Cedar Wood Fence wi Cedar Fence Posts Color: Natural Cedar DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON APR 2 2 2005 RECEIVED r 2" [51 MM] r-8' -0" [2438MM] SECTION WIDTH CTR TO eTR-------j I (16 BOARDS & 0 SPACES) I ~ 1 1/2" [38MM] 11111 r--Will I 1111 1111 1111 2' -10" [864MM] 1111 1111 1111 1111 f--~H -----f-------1----f--- I-m ---1-----+-----l------!-- 1111 1111 1111 2'-10" [B64MM] 1111 L 1111 1111 1111 II 4" [102MM] ~L 1 I IIII I ~ I--6" [152MM] FENCE BOARD I 1111 I 2' -6" [762MM] I 1111 I I 1111 2' [610MM] I 1111 l : ~ ~ I FENCE SECTION ELEVATION *** --'---------j I-10" [254MM] Maureen Highlands: Special Fence Permit Submittal 11111 lJIll 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1---ttlt - 11 11 - 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 III ::1 I 1II1 I I I 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 WI I I t 6' [182 9MM] j l2" NO [51MM] M .......... I' """"" t:".t""l 1"Tf6\1\. \Ct.Ad ~ , i Base Plan Number: ?::O~(,1? ~:B\~G074l3 _ I Property Address: 6zo .... t t0c:... q'C ICovr+ I Lot Size: , 0 i.{ 62. SQ. FT. Footprint Size: 2.\ Z. 2.. SQ. FT. Iml3eMous Coverage: 2D % SA-{'o"t Parcel Number: b 2. i '-t S 00 i 3-=0;;;-. __ i f~'e.. , h'f~r(?'"I-'t . to'i I or. s"'~_bv, ~ro '" 'oC.L \.C '\' o? \ ~'" "- ' .. . , I.' . "-\ i "lc I .. , I ~ l -_ ... _--_ ... _-._-- Legend: w-Water G-Gas x ,.,"'- I I S-Sewer I i p-Powerl ST-Storm T-Trees Scale: 111= 20' Fire Hydrant DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON ' APR 222005 RECEIVED III 2. --_ .. -- ---.. --_ •• _--.~ • ~ ) ! HARBOHG074l3 I I ~Address: &1.,0-0 "';[ sf, ch\e. Parcel Number: S -z... 1'-\ S (;) 0 2..0 d I ---r, J... fVl 'kU'C"" <: f'''"\ me,4. \~J ~ Base Pic 'umber. 25 tjB A Lot Size: I 0 <...1 35 SQ. FT. Footprint Size: 614 SQ. FT. frftn&MQ'1& Coverage: I «::t; % "'s¥ . + ~--~~~~~~~~~~--~----~ ~ <\'t ~ ;). 'I'-.....,j+--~~-~ \O~.ot F~I"'C. ~~~r-t'\-\- \ ." &~I ~+"'" ~c..\-..,>" L~ 31.2.,)1 ~ I pe " I Scale: 1"= 20' -----------------------~! .~--------------------.----- Legend: W-Water G-Gas I I s-Sewe~ ST -Storm P-Powet T-Trees \ ! CebAtt re"f J,;~cATI()N I . I, .c~ -Fire Hydrant -' , DEV~w:OMEt,.JT PLANNING FRENTON ' APR 222005 RECeIVED Ma~ 19 04 09:17a DW (,,-... tis 425 '26-5243 \- , p.2 Harbour Homes Site Plan uevelopmel l' \G\.~e..eA tbitY' \c.v\C. ~ HARBOHG074l3 Base Plan Number: 2.'4 DC(. C. Lot II: 1.\0 P rty Add J . 1 _ .. -;:-,-.~. Lot Size: B.:.t' L-SQ. FT. rope ress: v \ i -iV..::. I-t::-t' L Ft' S' __..::::;..;..... ___ .....::;;. ___ ..!-....:=--__ 00 pnnt lze: \'\'_"" SQ. FT. Parcel Number: J\ 1-3> 6? 1 00 l Impervious Coverage: 2.3, % \J r -,j\ -' '" -~j n,' ~ t. > r f. f 0+ ., \ -~ ~- J ~l \ \. "- ....--...r-~~ -:-11 l I I I I I 1_ .. __ .. r=----"i .~ i .• ~~I G'\ ~. J' ~ ~ -0 foo -r- :: > \1 z I'-) ~ q ~ 1: 0 t:. to ,J: lJO_ '-- '?- N . \ -~ ID' U+: (;ty E.SM.T NE.. yT'\.... PL Scale: 1"= 20' .-.--... _-------_._-_._._----_ ...... _-----_._--_._-_.----_._-.. ---_ .. _-- Legend: w-Water G-Gas K )( s-Sewer ST-Storm p ... Power T-Trees C~OA~ FeNc.~ t,OC.ki(O f\/ '.-) '-Fire Hydrant DE:VELOPM .. ., CITY of~t!":~ANNlM? a:;''110N-' APR 2 2 2005 RECEIVED .-.--. ~ HARBOUR HOMI.':$ rE PLAN HAftBOHQ074L3 LOT Nu.aliR: 5 I BASE PLAN NUMBER: 2. L.\ 0'7 0 PROPERlY ADDRESS: S~"'\. ~r\Q PL ~f. PARCEL NUMBER \l Z. 3Q5 ~OO I LOT SIze: 112.'7 SQ.. FT. FOOTPRINT SIZE: IlJ I SQ. FT. - I I I I y~/ ( ~--4---------~---l zo' 10' I{)~ Pc..t,o 1 ~--~- b' PLAN 2409 REVERSE 1"=20' I L.\7. 4S' <3-N- SCAI E 1 INCH • ~ftEET c7Sf:oMENT PLANNING --------------------------------------____________ ~~~FREWON LEGwp: WATER SEWER STORM DRAIN APR 2 2 2005 ~)(~~)~-AS ceolttJ,. Pef'Jt..E ~~~/(J/t/ TREES RECEIVED HARBOUR HOM""~ SITE PLAN HARBOHG074L3 LOT NUMBER: ~ &. BASE PLAN NUMBER: 30.3 L, 3 PROPERTY ADDRESS: £'Ol ~r-:o ?L IV£.. LOT SIZE: \O\sjSQ. FT. FOOTPRINT SIZE: '2 \ 'L'L SQ. FT. tD ){\2. """""'---r--; ? ... 1-\ 0 N, ..... t:: PARCEL NUMBER \ \ "2. ~O S'i 00 , 2\-% o ---------- SCALE 1 INCH gE~i~~~~N/NG LEGEND: APR 12 2005 ~:;[ER ;~= ~~D~ECe'VED )( )( --C(2'PItp. peNce 1.-oeATloN Printed: 04-22-2005 Payment Made: ~ITY OF RENTON 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Land Use Actions RECEIPT Permit#: LUAOS-OS8 04/22/2005 06:20 PM Receipt Number: DEVELOPMENT P CITY OF RENT~~N/NG APR 222005 RECEIVED R0502154 Total Payment: 100.00 Payee: HARBOUR HOMES INC Current Payment Made to the Following Items: Trans Account Code Description Amount 5021 000.345.81.00.0018 Temp Use or Fence Review 100.00 Payments made for this receipt Trans Method Description Amount Payment Check #13746 100.00 Account Balances Trans Account Code Description Balance Due 3021 303.000.00.345.85 5006 000.345.81.00.0002 5007 000.345.81.00.0003 5008 000.345.81.00.0004 5009 000.345.81.00.0006 5010 000.345.81.00.0007 5011 000.345.81.00.0008 5012 000.345.81.00.0009 5013 000.345.81.00.0010 5014 000.345.81.00.0011 5015 000.345.81.00.0012 5016 000.345.81.00.0013 5017 000.345.81.00.0014 5018 000.345.81.00.0015 5019 000.345.81.00.0016 5020 000.345.81.00.0017 5021 000.345.81.00.0018 5022 000.345.81.00.0019 5024 000.345.81.00.0024 5036 000.345.81.00.0005 5909 000.341.60.00.0024 5941 000.341.50.00.0000 5954 604.237.00.00.0000 5955 000.05.519.90.42.1 5998 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 Comprehensive Plan Amend 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