Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA00-036 January 28,2002 Renton City Council Minutes Page 32 The Committee recommended approval of the proposed City Code changes which would establish a binding site plan process and outline the requirements for using a binding site plan. The Committee further recommended that the ordinance regarding this matter be presented for first reading. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY BRIERE,COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See page 34 for ordinance.) Development Services: 230 Councilwoman Keolker-Wheeler stated that on September 11, 2000, Council Williams Ave N Residence granted an appeal to allow the non-conforming single-family dwelling located Restoration,AAD-00-036 at 230 Williams Ave.N. which was destroyed by fire,to be rebuilt on the same site. Ms.Keolker-Wheeler reported that the owner has not yet applied for a building permit and the City sent a letter informing the owner that if a building permit is not issued by September 11,-2002,the approval becomes null and void. Utilities Committee Utilities Committee Chair Briere presented a report recommending concurrence King County: 2001 Solid with the recommendation of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department Waste Management Plan - that Council approve a resolution adopting the King County Final 2001 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. The Committee further recommended that the resolution regarding this matter be presented for reading and adoption. MOVED BY BRIERE,SECONDED BY KEOLKER- WHEELER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See page 34 for resolution.) Finance Committee Finance Committee Chair Parker presented a report recommending approval of Finance: Vouchers Claim Vouchers 200573—200964 and three wire transfers totaling $2,403,766.02; and approval of Payroll Vouchers 35989—36347,one wire transfer and 537 direct deposits totaling$1,732,739.14. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY PERSSON,COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Human Resources: Healthcare Finance Committee Chair Parker presented a report recommending changes to Plan Modifications the City's existing self-insured healthcare plan as proposed by the Health Benefits Task Force. One discretionary change involves extending medical coverage to the end of the month in which an employee no longer qualifies for coverage. The recommended changes are as follows: Preferred Provider Network—New regulations require that the name of the Preferred Provider Organization(PPO)network be listed in the Plan Document along with a description of the network being used; mandatory change. Revise the first paragraph under Level of Covered Benefits to read as follows: "The level of benefits received is based upon the participant's decision at the time treatment is needed to access care through either preferred or non-preferred providers. Benefits are payable at the preferred level by accessing your care through a Preferred Provider,Preferred Medical Facility or from a Preferred Hospital. Out-of-network charges will be paid at the out-of-network level of benefits. Your preferred PPO is....." Qualified Medical Child Support Order(QMCSO)—New regulations state that the Plan Document must now outline the QMCSO procedures of the Plan Supervisor; mandatory change. Add the following under the new heading Special Enrollment for New Dependents through QMCSO: "Section 609(a)of ERISA requires medical benefit plans to honor the terms of a QMCSO. The order must be a judgment,order of decree or a divorce settlement agreement related to a child support,alimony, or the division of marital property, issued September 11,2000 Renton City Council Minutes Page 316 Area 1, in most instances, existing residences are not required to connect to the City's sewer system unless the existing septic system fails. City Attorney Larry Warren added that under Renton City Code Section 8-5- 3B,if a property owner is not compelled to hook-up to the City's sewer,there could be a charge for the sewer service equal to what the normal monthly sewer charge might be. Claudia Donnelly, 10415 147th Ave. SE,Renton, 98059, said she supports the Issaquah School District Board members in their efforts to encourage Renton to increase the impact fees. She expressed concern regarding the effect surface water run-off from the subject site into Honey Creek will have on the fish, especially since the City is not a party to the Tri-County Endangered Species Act(ESA)4(d)Agreement. Mayor Tanner explained that.the Tri-County ESA Agreement is not yet in effect; therefore no one in King County is a party to the agreement. Marc Uhlig, 14415 171st Ave. SE,Renton, 98059,expressed his concern about over-development and loss of vegetation in the subject area, and urged the City to maintain the zoning at R-5 (five dwelling units per acre). Responding to Councilmember Keolker-Wheeler,Mr.Dennison confirmed that according the City's Comprehensive Plan,the maximum density allowed is five units per acre. Other applicable zoning includes R-1 (one dwelling unit per acre)and Resource Conservation(one dwelling unit per ten acres). Correspondence was read by Alan and June Holmquist, 12050 148th Ave., Renton, 98059, opposing the proposed Anderson Annexation saying there will be a significant environmental impact to existing wetlands if the subject site is developed. The letter also objected to increased noise,pollution and traffic. Electronic mail was read by Claudia Donnelly, 10415— 147th Ave. SE,Renton, 98059, expressing her concerns regarding storm water drainage problems and the destruction of salmon spawning beds due to development occurring above May Creek. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC MEETING. CARRIED. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY CLAWSON,COUNCIL ACCEPT THE 10%NOTICE OF INTENT TO ANNEX,AUTHORIZE CIRCULATION OF THE 60%PETITION TO ANNEX,REQUIRE ADOPTION OF CITY ZONING ON THE PROPERTY CONSISTENT WITH RENTON'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,AND REQUIRE THAT THE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSUME A PROPORTIONAL SHARE OF THE CITY'S EXISTING BONDED INDEBTEDNESS. CARRIED. Finance: Issaquah School Councilman Corman thanked the Issaquah School District Board Members and District Impact Fees citizens for expressing their concerns regarding the Issaquah School District (ISD)impact fees. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY PARKER, COUNCIL REFER THE SUBJECT REGARDING ISSAQUAH SCHOOL DISTRICT IMPACT FEES TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE. ROLL CALL: FIVE AYES: CORMAN, SCHLITZER,PARKER,KEOLKER-WHEELER, CLAWSON;TWO NAYES: PERSSON AND NELSON. CARRIED. APPEAL 'Planning&Development Committee Chair Keolker-Wheeler presented a report Planning&Development regarding the 230 Williams Ave.N.Appeal. This appeal is of an Committee administrative determination that a single-family residence located at 230 Appeal: 230 Williams Ave N Williams Ave.N.,which was destroyed by fire, could not be rebuilt on the September 11,2000 Renton City Council Minutes Page 317 Residence Restoration,AAD- same site. The administrative decision was appealed to the Hearing Examiner 00-036 and upheld. The owner appealed to the City Council. The Planning and Development Committee met on the matter on August 10,2000. Because the appeal might have been moot if the appellant's property could be reconfigured through a legal lot line adjustment, or other similar process, staff was requested to explore making such adjustments to the property to allow this burned home to be redeveloped without considering this appeal. Staff informed the Committee that it had been unsuccessful. The appeal turns to the meaning of City Code Section 4-9-120B.1.b., which permits a single-family dwelling damaged by fire or an act of God to be rebuilt on the same site subject to all relevant code and life safety codes. The language is clear and unequivocal. The members of the Planning and Development Committee further recall adopting this Code Section with the intent of permitting all nonconforming single-family dwellings destroyed by fire or an act of God to be rebuilt on the same site,without consideration of the date when the dwelling became nonconforming. Therefore,the Planning and Development Committee recommended that the appeal be granted and that City Code Section 4-9-120B.1.b.be interpreted by the full Council to allow this nonconforming single-family dwelling, damaged by fire,to be rebuilt on the same site, subject to all relevant fire and life safety codes. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY SCHLITZER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Public Works: Tri-County Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington explained that City staff has spent Endangered Species Act 4(d) considerable time trying to determine the City's course of action regarding the Rule Framework Tri-County Endangered Species Act(ESA)4(d)rule framework. He reported that this is an ongoing process and the City is diligently following the progress of the Tri-County Committee in an effort to determine what the impacts will be to the City. In addition,the City is heavily involved in matters concerning the Watershed Resource Inventory areas. Continuing,Mr. Covington said that to date,King County has taken the lead in organizing and funding these watershed efforts; however,the.County has recently indicated that it can no longer afford to support these efforts at the same fmancial level. Mr.Covington explained that Renton wants to play a greater role in directing the development of the recovery plan, and therefore, the City is involved in creating an interlocal agreement which would allow all cities in the watershed areas in King County to participate as equal partners based on their proportional share of the watershed. The primary purpose of the agreement is to direct and fund Watershed Resource Inventory planning which is the process by which a comprehensive salmon recovery plan will be developed. Concluding,Mr. Covington said that efforts are underway to bring the agreement before the Council within the next few months. ADMINISTRATIVE Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington reviewed a written administrative REPORT report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2000 and beyond. Items noted included: * On September 7th,the U.S. Senate passed S.2438,the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2000. Before it becomes law,this bill must be passed by the House of Representatives and signed by the President. • - _ APPROVED DV CITY COUNCIL_ .. Date 9— rl_&° • PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT - - - - --. ':September'11;2000.� - . , . . :PP.. (ReferredrJune 1 '=2000)"�� F This appeal.grows out of an administrative determination that a single family residence located at 230 Williams Avenue North,which was destroyed by fire, could not be rebuilt on the same site. The administrative decision was appealed to the Hearing Examiner and upheld. The - owner appealed to the City Council. The Planning and Development Committee met on this matter on August 10,2000. Because this appeal might have been moot if the appellant's property could be reconfigured through a legal lot line adjustment,or other similar process, staff was requested to = explore making such adjustments to the property to allow this burned home to be redeveloped - . . without considering this appeal._,-"Stafff has informed the Committee that it has been unsuccessful. This appeal turns on the meaning'of City Codef Section4-9-120B.1.b. That Section permits a single-family dwelling damaged by fire or an act of.God;to.be rebuilt on the same site -' - • subject to all relevant code and life'safety codes:;:Tlie:language is clear and unequivocal. The members of the Planning'and Development Committee further recall adopting this Code Section _ with the intent of permitting all non-conforming;single;family dwellings destroyed by fire or an - act of God to be rebuilt on the same site,without eOnsideration of the date when the dwelling became nonconforming. _ - Therefore,is the recommendation of the Planning and Development Committee that the - appeal be granted and that City Code'Section:4-9-120B.1.b.b'e interpreted by the full Council to allow this nonconforming single';family dwelling,damaged by fire,to be rebuilt on the same site, . subject to all relevant fire and life safety codes.,.;`: _ Kathy Keo er-Wheeler,Chair Dan.Clawson ember C La 'Warren = _ CITY)OF'•RENTON.., • City Clerk: n J.Petersen Jesse Tanner,Mayor • Marilyn. .. .. _. • • September 13, 2000= • • Mr. Bill Snell 1111 Third Avenue#2220• Seattle, WA 98101 Re: Wilbur&Bernadine Repp Appeal—230 Williams Avenue N. (AAD-00-036) Dear Mr: Snell: • At the regular Council meeting of September:.11, 2000, the Renton City Council adopted the recommendation of the Planning-and Development Committee to grant the referenced • • appeal, and interpret City Code Section 4-9-120B.1.b: to allow the nonconforming single family dwelling, damaged by.fire,to be rebuilt on the same site,-subject to all relevant - fire and life safety codes. :A copy the committee report is enclosed for your records. - If I can provide additional information or-assistance,Tplease feel free to contact this office. Sincerely, Marilyn . P t rsen - City Clerk/Cable-Manager:; cc Mayor Jesse Tanner • Council President Randy Corman Larry Meckling, Building Official • x . - 1055 South.Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 (425)430-6510 I FAX(425)430-6516 PF]This oaoer contains 50%recycled material,20%ooSt consumer • APPROVED DV CITY COUNCIL Date 9— !/—4'-° • PLANNING &DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT September 11,2000 3 lams pea ..: :.:.. .. .:(Referred June19 2000) .. . This appeal,grows out of an administrative determination that a single family residence located at 230 Williams Avenue North,which was destroyed by fire, could not be rebuilt on the same site. The administrative decision was appealed to the Hearing Examiner and upheld. The owner appealed to the City Council. : - The Planning and Development Committee met on this matter on August 10,2000. Because this appeal might have been moot if the appellant's property could be reconfigured through a legal lot line adjustment,or.other similar process, staff was requested to explore making such adjustments to the property to allow this burned home to be redeveloped without considering this appeal.,Staff has informed the Committee that it has been unsuccessful. This appeal turns on the meaning of City Code Section 4-9-,120B.1.b. That Section permits a single-family dwelling damaged by,fire or an actof,God.to b6 rebuilt on the same site • subject to all relevant code and life safety codes:..The language is clear and unequivocal. The members of the Planning'and Development Committee further recall adopting this Code Section with the intent of permitting all non-conforming sirigle:family dwellings destroyed by fire or an act of God to be rebuilt on the same site,without consideration of the date when the dwelling became nonconforming. .`• R Therefore,is the recommendation of the Planning and Development Committee that the appeal be granted and that City Code Section 4-9-120B.1.b.be interpreted by the full Council to allow this nonconforming single:farimily dwelling,damaged by fire,`to be rebuilt on the same site, subject to all relevant fire and life safety codes:;.' /�J��Wk/1 — W ks Kathy Keo er-Wheeler,Chair • • :Timothy J.Schli r ice Chair • :Dan Clawson, ember - C: Lany Warreq i, Ka, August 14,2000 Renton City Council Minute Page 288 to purchase the property for the appraised amount and to pay the cost of performing a lot line adjustment. Mr.Boyns concluded by saying that staff and the Board of Public Works recommends the City declare the property surplus and accept Orkney Homes and Development's offer to purchase the property. Responding to Mayor Tanner,Mr.Boyns affirmed that the City will maintain ownership of the utility right-of way, east of the property to be declared surplus. Public comment was invited. Rex Orkney, 6035 111th Ave.NE,Kirkland,representing Orkney Homes and Development, LLC, said Orkney Development's purchase of the 30-foot strip will not affect the original footprint of the short plat. Curtis Schuster, 6425 125th Ave.NE,Kirkland,representing Orkney Homes and Development,LLC, explained that there will be a buffer between the proposed lot line and the sanitary and storm sewer. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, COUNCIL APPROVE THE PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION TO DECLARE THE PROPERTY SURPLUS, SET COMPENSATION AS APPRAISED AT$13,100,WAIVE THE USUAL BID PROCEDURE AND ACCEPT THE OFFER FROM ORKNEY HOMES AND DEVELOPMENT, LLC, AT THE APPRAISED VALUE WITH THE CONDITION THAT ORKNEY HOMES AND DEVELOPMENT,LLC, COMPLETE AND PAY THE ENTIRE COST OF A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PRIOR TO CLOSING THE TRANSACTION. CARRIED. Appeal: 230 Williams Ave N Councilmember Keolker-Wheeler announced that the Planning and Residence Restoration,AAD- Development Committee report regarding the 230 Williams Ave. N.residence 00-036 restoration appeal will not be read. She reported that the affected parties are attempting to resolve the issue. ADMINISTRATIVE Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington reviewed a written administrative REPORT report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2000 and beyond. Items noted included: As part of the Human Services Housing Repair Assistance Program, on Saturday,August 5th, a volunteer team from Home Fellowship Ministries of Covington painted a home in Renton occupied by an elderly couple. * On August 10th, approximately 300 youths enjoyed contests, crafts and competitions at the annual Kennydale Beach Splash Day,which is organized by Kennydale Beach lifeguards. AUDIENCE COMMENT Dave C. Hardy, 19235 108th Ave. SE,Apt. #206,Milton, 98354, stated that in Citizen Comment: Hardy— 1997, an environmental awareness group known as Caring About Our Rich Caring About Our Rich Environment(CARE)was established. Explaining that the purpose of the Environment,Environmental organization is to raise environmental awareness,he described the efforts being Awareness Organization made to do so through landscaping and horticulture projects. Mr.Hardy said that CARE has received support both locally and nationally and asked for the City's support of the organization. June 19,2000 Renton City Council Minutes Page 219 Citizen Comment: Arnold— Mark Arnold,311 Factory Ave.N.,Renton, 98055,requested that the City Skate Park increase its funding for the skateboard park. As a Renton resident for 35 years, a skateboarder for 30 years and the parent of two children that skateboard,Mr. Arnold emphasized that putting more money towards an activity that supports a healthy lifestyle is always beneficial to a community. He pointed out that locating the park at the Henry Moses Pool site will draw the attention of people traveling on I-405, showing them that Renton had the foresight to construct a park for the"kids." Mr.Arnold asked that any funds left over from the Piazza project be earmarked for the skateboard park. He also encouraged local businesses to donate funds to this worthwhile project. Councilman Dan Clawson reported that the skateboard park project is progressing and encouraged Mr.Arnold to continue his fundraising efforts. Citizen Comment: Fawcett—I- Bob Fawcett, 305 2nd Ave.NE, Issaquah, 98027, said he attended the public 405/NE 44th St Interchange, meeting regarding the I-405/NE 44th St.Interchange project and commended Southeast Quadrant Economic Development Administrator Sue Carlson and her staff for recognizing the importance of improving the interchange. Pointing out that developers are reluctant to develop the southeast quadrant of the interchange due to lack of access,Mr.Fawcett asked that it be considered for improvement as well. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Appeal: 230 Williams Ave N City Clerk submitted appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision denying the Residence Restoration, AAD- appeal of an administrative determination concerning restoration of a residence 00-036 at 230 Williams Ave. N.; appeal filed on 6/08/00 by William N. Snell, representing Wilbur and Bernadine Repp, accompanied by the required fee. Refer to Planning&Development Committee. EDNSP: I-405/NE 441 St Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Interchange,Memo of recommended approval of a Memorandum of Understanding describing the Understanding for Funding three-way partnership established between Renton,the State and developers to Preliminary Design fund a contract with Entranco Engineers for the preliminary design of the I- 405/NE 44th St. Interchange project. Refer to Transportation Committee. Transportation:I-405/NE 44th Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of an agreement with St Interchange Preliminary Entranco Engineers for preliminary engineering and design documentation of Design,Entranco Engineers the I-405/NE 44th St.Interchange project. The City's one-third cost share is $651,183.67. Refer to Transportation Committee. Fire: 2000 Emergency Medical Fire Department recommended acceptance of$432,973 from King County for Services Funding,King basic life support services in 2000. Council concur. County (Basic Life Support) Human Resources: Human Resources&Risk Management Department recommended Reclassification of Two reclassifying two positions in the City Clerk's Office, as follows: Records Positions in City Clerk's Management Specialist, grade 7 to grade 9; and Multimedia/Records Specialist, Office grade 9 to grade 12, effective 1/01/00. Refer to Finance Committee. Boards/Commissions:Board Planning,/Building/Public Works Department recommended amending City of Adjustment,Waive Code to allow the professional qualifications to be waived for otherwise- Professional Qualification qualified candidates appointed to serve on the Board of Adjustment. Refer to Requirement for Candidates Community Services Committee. Public Works: Hardie Ave SW Planning/Building/Public Works Departments recommended reallocation of Sidewalk Repair,Reallocation funding for sidewalks on NE 7th St.between Edmonds and Harrington Avenues of Funds to remove and replace street trees and repair the sidewalk on Hardie Ave. SW CIT i- JF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI#: (. . SUBMITTING DATA: FOR AGENDA OF: 6/19/2000 Dept/DivBoard....City Clerk Staff Contact Marilyn Petersen AGENDA STATUS: Consent XX SUBJECT: Public Hearing Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision denying Appeal of Ordinance Administrative Determination concerning restoration of Resolution . residence at 230 Williams Ave.N. (AAD-00-036) Old Business EXHIBITS: New Business A. City Clerk's letter Study Session B. Appeal(6/08/2000) Other C. Hearing Examiner's Report&Decision(5/25/2000) RECOMMENDED ACTION: I APPROVALS: Refer to Planning and Development Committee. I Legal Dept Finance Dept Other • FISCAL IMPACT: N/A Expenditure Required Transfer/Amendment.... Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated SUMMARY OF ACTION: Appeal filed by William N. Snell,representing Wilbur&Bernadine Repp, accompanied by required$75 fee received 6/8/2000. 4, 17.'px—Th CIT' OF :RENTON ..LL City Clerk Jesse Tanner,Mayor Marilyn J.Petersen June 12, 2000 • • APPEAL FILED BY: Wilbur&Bernadine Repp Representative: William N. Snell RE: 'Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 5/25/2000 denying the Appeal of Administrative Determination whereby a single family residence at 230 Williams Ave. N., destroyed by fire, cannot be restored. (File No. LUA-00-036,'AAD) To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the hearing examiner's decision on the Wilber&Bernadine Repp appeal of administrative determination has been filed with the City Clerk. In accordance with Renton Municipal Code:Section 4-8-110F',within five days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten - (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the appeal. The deadline for submission of additional letters is June 22, 2000. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeals and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the'Council's Planning and Development Committee. The Council secretarywill notify all parties of record of the date and time of the Planning and Development Committee meeting. If you-are not listed in local telephone directories and wish to attend the meeting, please call the Council secretary at 425 430-6501 for " information. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for consideration by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting. = Attached is a copy of the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeals of Hearing Examiner decisions or recommendations. Please note that the City Council will be considering the merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established: Unless a showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner,no further evidence or testimony on this matter will be accepted by the City Council. For additional information or assistance,please feel free to call me at 425 430-6502. Sincerely, • CityCler Cable Manager . Attachments. : :-_. 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)430-6510/FAX(425)430-6516 L.� This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer City of Renton Municipal Code,-1 ale IV, Chapter 8, Section 110 -Appeal 4-8-110C3 Any appeal shall be filed in writing. The written notice of appeal shall fully, clearly and thoroughly specify the substantial error(s) in fact or law which exist in the record of the proceedings from which the appellant seeks relief. (Ord. 4353, 6-1-92) 4-8-110C4 The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170,the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-110E8 Unless an ordinance providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Clerk upon a form furnished by the City Clerk,within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-110F: Appeals to City Council -Procedures: 1. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal,the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 2. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 3. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report, the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required,the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the appellant. In the absence of any entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4389, 1-25- 93) 5. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report,the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. 6. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to Section RMC 4-1-050F1 and after examination of the record,the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the preceding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. 7. Council Action: If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to Section RMC 4-1-050F2 and F3, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified,the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application. 8. Decision Documentation: In any event,the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 9. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving,modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive,unless appealed within the time frames under subsection G5 of this Section. (Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997) HEARING EXAMINER WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARIN( CAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMML kirl T TON CITY COUNCIL FILE NO. LIIA00-036,AAD J U N 0 8 2000 • APPLICATION NAME: Wilbur & Bernadine Repp nGrElliFrl The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decisiottrbtCc3iiiinerrdatibn of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated May 25 2000 . 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY): Name: wilb,1r & RPrnarlinr� Epp Name: William N. Snell • Address: PO Box 5532 Address: 1111 Third Ave. #2220 Kent, WA 98064 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone No. (253) 852-6?13 Telephone No:_ (206)386-7855 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: FINDING OF FACT: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's report) • No. Error: SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A. • Correction: • • CONCLUSIONS: No. Error: SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A. • Correction: OTHER: • No. Error: Correction: 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A. • X Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Remand to the Examiner r further consideration as follows: /// • Appe a r resen e Signature Date NOTE: Please refer to Title IV, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code,and Section 4-8..I10F, for specific procedures. heappeaidac • City of Renton Municipal Code;` itle IV, Chapter 8, Section 110 - Appea 4-8-110C3 Any appeal shall be filed in writing. The written notice of appeal shall fully, clearly and thoroughly specify the substantial error(s) in fact or law which exist in the record of the proceedings from which the appellant seeks relief. (Ord. 4353, 6-1-92) 4-8-110C4 The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170,the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-110E8 Unless an ordinance providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Clerk upon a form furnished by the City Clerk, within fourteen(14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-110F: Appeals to City Council-Procedures: 1. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal,the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 2. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten(10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 3. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report,the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required,the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the appellant. In the absence of any entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4389, 1-25- 93) 5. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record,the Hearing Examiner's report,the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. 6. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to Section RMC 4-1-050F1 and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the preceding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. 7. Council Action: If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to Section RMC 4-1-050F2 and F3, and after examination of the record,the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified,the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application. 8. Decision Documentation: In any event,the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 9. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving,modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames under subsection G5 of this Section. (Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997) EXHIBIT A TO APPEAL OF REPP FILE NO. LUA00-036,AAD The specific errors of law or fact upon which this appeal is based: 1. Finding of Fact No. 14. This finding is in error when it states that there is no indication of when the structure was constructed and what codes apply. Correction: The record that constructed prior to 1993. It was an existing residence when the Repps purchased it in 1988. 2. Conclusion No. 1. This conclusion is in error in stating that appellant has failed to demonstrate that the action of the director should be modified or reversed and that the decision of the director should be affirmed. Correction: As shown in following paragraphs the appellant has shown that the decision of the Director should be reversed. Conclusion No. 4. This entire paragraph is in error. Correction: As shown in following paragraphs a mistake was made by the director. Conclusion No. 5. The conclusion is in error when it states that it excepts uses that cannot establish their status prior to the 1993 amendments. Correction: The 1993 amendments impacted the subject property as to density and having more than one structure on a lot. Conclusion No. 6. This conclusion is in error relating to the subject property is not be subject to the exemption for single family homes. Correction: The appellant's property is a single family home and should qualify for the exemption under RMC 4-9-120B lb. Conclusion No. 7. This conclusion is in error in stating that the appellant was not able to show that the appellant's property was affected by the 1993 code or that the cost of repair was less than 50% of the appraised value. Correction: The appellant contends that he was impacted by the 1993 code amendments and the issue of the appraised value was not resolved. Conclusion No. 9 This conclusion is in error because the director made an incorrect determination and the decision should be reversed. Correction: As shown in the following paragraphs the director made an incorrect determination. This is a case where a nonconforming single family residence that provides low income housing has been substantially damaged by fire. Under the director's determination, as upheld by the hearing examiner, the house will not be able to be repaired and the City will lose a vitally needed low income housing resource. This interpretation and result is clearly contrary to the City' s policies. Policy H-53 provides that : "The City should • encourage development of permanent low income housing." Policy H-58 provides that: "Encourage preservation,maintenance and improvements to existing affordable housing."This decision of hearing examiner totally ignores City policies and has the result of eliminating a low income housing unit. The City's own Housing Authority supports the work done by the Repps in providing safe and sanitary units for low income housing. See letter in the record from Housing Authority of the City of Renton dated April 27, 2000. Codes need to be interpreted to make sense. RMC 4-9-120B1b provides that any legally established single family dwelling damaged by fire may be rebuilt on the same site without conditional use approval. The appellant maintains that their house qualifies for this exemption and that the nonconformity arises under the 1993 code amendments relating to density and more than one dwelling unit on a lot. If the City Council determines that the zoning code does not allow the repair of this structure, then an amendment'would be in order to allow repair on a basis limited to nonconforming single family homes that provide for low income housing. It makes no sense for the City one hand to encourage and promote low income housing and on the other hand to propose its • elimination due to an overly technical interpretation of the zoning code. If the decision of the Examiner is upheld then the outcome will be the elimination of a low income single family residence and a strong message to the Repps,who provide many units.of low income housing,that the City is not supportive of their efforts. The relief that is requested is the reversal of the decision of the hearing examiner. The relief that should be granted is allowing the Repps to repair their single family residence. • May 25,2000 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPELLANTS: Wilber and Bernadine Repp Appeal of Administrative Determination re Property at 230 Williams Avenue N File No.: LUA00-036,AAD LOCATION: 230 Williams Avenue N SUMMARY OF APPEAL: Appeals determination that single family residence destroyed by fire cannot be restored PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Appellants'written request for a hearing and examining the available information on file,the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the May 9, 2000 hearing. The official record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday,May 9,2000, at 1:30 p.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 appeal, Exhibit No.2: Appellants'Hearing Memorandum proof of posting and publication, and other documentation pertinent to the appeal. Exhibit No.3: Photographs(3) Exhibit No.4: Statutory Warranty Deed Exhibit No. 5: Map Exhibit No.6: 2000 Real Estate Tax Statement Exhibit No.7: Letter from Renton Housing Exhibit No. 8: Letter from Plymouth Housing Group Authority Exhibit No.9: City of Renton Housing Element Policies Parties present: Representing Appellants: William N. Snell 1111 Third Avenue,#2220 Seattle, WA 98101-3207 Wilber and Bernadine Repp,Appellants Wilber Repp - Appeal of Administrative Determination re Property at 230 Williams Avenue N File No.: LUA00-036,AAD May 25,2000 Page 2 Representing City of Renton Larry Warren,City Attorney Jana Hanson,Development Services Director 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 The Examiner explained that the appeal was an administrative appeal held pursuant to Ordinance 3071 and was the only administrative review to occur on the matter. The matter may be submitted back to the Examiner for reconsideration if the parties are not satisfied with the decision. He stated that the appellant had the burden of demonstrating that the City's action was erroneous, and would have to show clear and convincing evidence that the City's determination was incorrect. At that point the City could respond, if they chose to do so. Mr. Snell in his opening statement, stated that the single family residence in question had not been totally destroyed by fire, and could be rebuilt. Under the City's code definitions it was a legally established single family dwelling and may be rebuilt. He stated that although the code is inconsistent and not totally clear,under Section 4-9-120 B 1 b any legally established single family dwelling may be rebuilt subject to all relevant fire and safety codes. It was clearly the intent of the Council that they were trying to restrict future nonconforming structures and uses that are damaged,but they did not want to impact single family homes. Even though the ability to repair the structure would exceed 50% of its assessed value,this property would still be exempt as a single family home. The denial of this appeal would also displace needed Section 8 housing for the City. Mr.Repp testified that the property in question was a 700 square foot one-bedroom house, and was occupied at the time of the fire by a single man. It was damaged on December 10, 1999. The fire destroyed the ship-lap construction of the interior,but not the structural members. It was estimated that about a third of the structure was damaged and the cost of restoring the building would exceed 50%of the tax assessment. The majority of the cost would be labor. If the appellant performed the labor,the cost could be under 50%. Mr. Repp explained that there are two separate tax lots on which the subject house and a duplex are located. The duplex is completely separate from the house. The house is located on both Lots 12 and 13 and is surrounded by yards. The house has been rented under a Section 8 program for many years. Mr.Repp described how the Section 8 program works and its benefits to the community. He concluded that if the house was not able to be repaired it would be the loss of a housing unit to the low income members of the community. Ms.Hanson testified that the two structures are primarily located on Lot 13. Ms.Hanson stated that prior to the 1993 change in City code,this property was zoned R-2 which allowed no more than two units per lot. Therefore, it was nonconforming prior to the 1993 change in code as well as after 1993, and the 50% restoration of a nonconforming structure applied. Ms.Hanson explained how the City designated this property as a triplex. In his closing statement,Mr. Snell again referred to the lack of clarity in the code. He further challenged the designation of this house as a multi-family dwelling and not a single family residence. The issue of losing a Section 8 housing unit was also reiterated. Wilber Repp - Appeal of Administrative Determination re Property at 230 Williams Avenue N File No.: LUA00-036,AAD May 25,2000 Page 3 In closing argument,Mr.Warren stated that there is a policy for phasing out existing nonconforming uses. Most cities have a section in their codes that allows restoration of a nonconforming structure when less than 50% of the value is destroyed. The exception to this is a new item under Renton's City Code and is only for structures that are now nonconforming because of code changes in June 1993 or thereafter. Because of this exception which does not apply,the 50% destruction or less factor applies. Therefore,the Director's decision is the only decision which could have been made under the circumstances. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this appeal. There was no one else wishing to speak. The hearing closed at 2:30 p.m. FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS &DECISION Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. Wilber and Bernadine Repp, hereinafter appellants, filed an appeal of an administrative determination denying the right to restore a residential structure that was severely damaged by fire. 2. The appellants own property at Williams Avenue N and N 3rd Street. The appellant owns two legal, side by side lots, located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Williams Avenue North and N 3rd Street. (Exhibit#5 has the terms "street" and "avenue" reversed and the directional designations in the wrong place.) The two lots are defined as Lots 13 and 12 of the Renton Farm Plat, #5. The two lots are side by side with one lot, Lot 13,being located on the corner of Williams Avenue N and N 3rd Street. The second lot,Lot 12, is located east of the first lot,with frontage along N 3rd Street. The lots are in the block bounded by Williams Avenue N on the west,N 3rd on the north, Wells Avenue N on the east and N 2nd Street on the south. The lots are located just north of the downtown business district. 3. The subject site is trapezoidal shaped and is approximately 90 feet wide(east to west)and varies from 129 feet deep along Williams to 100 feet deep along its easternmost property line. 4. Two residential structures and a small shed were located on the subject site. The northernmost residential structure contains two separate, attached living units. Each unit provides one housing unit. The structure in the vernacular is a duplex unit. Duplex units are no longer officially defined by Code (DUPLEX: (Deleted by Ord.4773, 3-22-1999). Rather the structure would be covered by the following definition: 4-11-040 Definitions: DWELLING,MULTI-FAMILY: A. Dwelling Unit,Attached: A one-family dwelling attached to one or more one- family dwellings by common roofs,walls, or floors.(Ord. 4773,3-22-1999) 5. The southernmost residential structure contains or contained one living unit. This is the structure which was damaged by fire and is currently uninhabitable. Its street address is 230 Williams Avenue Wilber Repp Appeal of Administrative Determination re Property at 230 Williams Avenue N File No.: LUA00-036,AAD May 25, 2000 Page 4 North. The unit's front door and entrance is oriented to Williams. It is a separate building structure and is not attached by any common element or building part to any other structure. Its only common element appears that it is located on the same lot or lots as the two-unit structure discussed above. 6. Code Section 4-11-040 has the following definition: DWELLING, SINGLE FAMILY: A. Dwelling,Detached: A building containing one dwelling unit which is not attached to any other dwelling by any means except fences,has a permanent foundation, and is surrounded by open space or yards. (Ord.4773, 3-22-1999) 7. An accurate survey or map was not available. The one submitted shows the two-unit structure located on the northern portion of Lot 13 more or less centered east to west. 'It shows the one-unit,burned structure, on the southern portion of the lot and again centered east to west. Staff believes that both the two-unit and one-unit structures sit somewhat astride the line that divides Lot's 13 and 12. That is,Lot 12,the eastern lot, is not totally vacant. 8. The Assessor Tax Bill identified the property as: "Property Address 234 Williams Ave N"rather than 230 Williams Avenue N,but it identifies the lots as the same: "Lot 12-13 Block 22,Renton Farm Plat #5." 9. The burned residence was legally used by a disabled, low income person under "Shelter Plus Care Housing Subsidy Program"which is like Section 8 housing. The two unit structure that shares part of the lot is also similarly rented out to two separate elderly residents with limited income. 10. The City has two code provisions that apply to or affect non-conforming structures and uses: 4-9-120NONCONFORMING USES/STRUCTURES REVIEW u CONDITIONAL APPROVAL PERMITS: A PURPOSE OF PERMIT: The purpose of this conditional approval permit is to allow nonconforming uses and/or structures that became nonconforming as a consequence of Code amendments in June 1993 and thereafter,to be re-established and/or rebuilt in certain zoning districts where they would normally be prohibited because the costs associated with re-establishing the use and/or structure exceed fifty percent(50%)of their most recently assessed or appraised value prior to the loss or damage. B APPLICABILITY: Any existing building or structure that was legally established and has been continuously occupied, or a use that has been continuously in existence on the site but is now nonconforming because of a change in City Codes in June 1993 or thereafter, may apply for a conditional approval permit.Uses or structures that cannot substantiate that they were legal at the time they were established shall not be eligible for this permit. Wilber Repp Appeal of Administrative Determination re Property at 230 Williams Avenue N File No.: LUA00-036,AAD May 25,2000 Page 5 1. Exceptions: a. Damage Under Fifty Percent(50%)of Value: Damaged existing legal nonconforming uses and/or structures where the costs associated with re-establishing the use and/or structure do not exceed fifty percent(50%)of their most recently assessed value,prior to the loss or damage, are allowed to be re-established or rebuilt as a matter of right. b. Single Family Dwellings:Any legally established single family dwelling damaged by fire or an act of God may be rebuilt on the same site, subject to all relevant fire and life safety codes,without a conditional approval permit. C AUTHORITY: The Hearing Examiner shall hear all requests for conditional approval permits for nonconforming uses. Conditional permit applications for nonconforming structures shall typically be heard by the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his or her designee, unless such applications are coupled with conditional permit applications for nonconforming uses that are being heard by the Hearing Examiner or City Council. D SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS AND FEES: Submittal requirements and fees shall be as specified in RMC 4-1-170,Land Use Review Fees, and 4-8-120C,Land Use Applications. In addition to the information requested above,a complete application shall include a plan of the site drawn to scale showing the actual dimensions and shape of the existing site, and the exact sizes and locations of existing structures and uses,whether damaged or not.It shall also include the dates these structures/uses were established.The plan should also show existing landscaping, off-street parking, signs, ingress and egress, and adjacent land uses. The application should also include drawings, photographs, or other visual aids that show the relationship of the existing structure or building to its surroundings and may include studies or reports that support the applicant's contention that the existing nonconforming use or structure is compatible with the surrounding area and its uses. Any other relevant information requested by the Planning/Building/Public Works Department shall be included in the application. E GENERAL DECISION CRITERIA: Such permits would be issued when the continuance of the use or structure is determined to be in the public interest and such uses/structures are: (1)found to be compatible with other existing and potential uses/structures in the general area; or(2) can be made to be compatible with the application of appropriate conditions. F REVIEW CRITERIA FOR NONCONFORMING USES: The Hearing Examiner and/or City Council shall consider the following factors, among all other relevant information,when considering a request for a conditional approval permit for a nonconforming use. In order to grant the permit, at least three(3) of these factors shall be complied with. 1. Community Need:.There shall be a community need for the proposed use at its present location.In the determination of community need,consideration shall be given to the following factors, among all other relevant information: a.The continuance of the nonconforming use should not result in either the detrimental over-concentration of a particular use within the City or within the area surrounding the site. Wilber Repp Appeal of Administrative Determination re Property at 230 Williams Avenue N File No.: LUA00-036,AAD May 25, 2000 Page 6 b. That the existing location is or can be made suitable for the existing use. 2.Effect on Adjacent Property: The existing nonconforming use has not resulted in undue adverse effects on adjacent properties from noise,traffic, glare,vibration, etc., (i.e., does not exceed normal levels in these areas emanating from surrounding permitted uses). 3. Historical Significance: The existing use was associated with a historical event or activity in the community and as a result has historical significance. 4. Economic Significance: The existing use provides substantial benefit to the community because of either the employment of a large number of people in the community,the generation of considerable retail and/or business/occupation tax revenues to the City, or it provides needed affordable housing. 5. Timeliness with Existing Plans and Programs: Because of the anticipated market timing for permitted uses in the zone,retention of the existing nonconforming use would not impede or delay the implementation of the city's Comprehensive Plan. G REVIEW CRITERIA FOR NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES: The Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his or her designee shall consider the following factors, among all other relevant information,when considering a request for a conditional approval permit for a nonconforming structure. In order to grant the permit, he/she shall find that at least three(3)of the following criteria have been satisfied: 1. Architectural and/or Historic Significance: The damaged structure represents a unique regional or national architectural style or an innovation in architecture because of its style,use of materials, or functional arrangement, and is one of the few remaining examples of this. 2.Architectural Compatibility with Surrounding Uses: The nonconforming building or structure was part of a unified streetscape of similar structures that is unlikely to be replicated unless the subject structure is rebuilt per, or similar to, its original plan. 3.Potential of Site for Redevelopment: Redevelopment of the site with a conforming structure is unlikely either because the size of the existing lot may be too small to be economical, or because the characteristics of adjacent permitted uses (that might normally be expected to expand to such a site)currently might preclude their expansion. Typically, economic hardship would not be considered for a variance,but is a consideration here. 4. Condition of Building/Structure: If nonconforming as to the provisions of the city's Building Code,the building or structure and surrounding premises have generally been well maintained and is not considered to be a threat to the public health,welfare, or safety, or it could be retrofitted so as not to pose such a threat. 5.Departure from Zoning Code: If nonconforming with the provisions of the city's development regulations,the building or structure does not pose a threat to the public health,welfare or safety, or could be modified so as not to pose such a threat. H DECISION OPTIONS: The approving body may grant,with or without conditions, or deny a requested conditional permit. Such a permit, if granted,typically would carry conditions with it pertaining to how the damaged structure would be allowed to redevelop. The approving Wilber Repp Appeal of Administrative Determination re Property at 230 Williams Avenue N File No.: LUA00-036,AAD May 25,2000 Page 7 body may,for example, limit the term and duration of the conditional approval permit as well as impose conditions. I CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Conditions imposed by the approving body shall reasonably assure that nuisance or hazard to life or property will not develop.A conditional approval permit for a nonconforming use and/or structure may, for example,be conditioned upon the provision and/or guarantee by the applicant that necessary public improvements, facilities,utilities and/or services needed to support the use/structure will be provided, or the provision of other features that would make the use/structure more compatible with its surroundings. J EXPIRATION: Conditions imposed relating to the duration of a permit for a use or structure should also reflect reasonable amortization periods for any substantial upgrades to the premises that are required by City Code. K EXTENSIONS: (Reserved) L APPEALS: The final decision of the Hearing Examiner on a conditional approval permit application will be appealable to the City Council within fourteen(14)days pursuant to RMC 4-8-110. (Ord. 4584, 2-12-1996) 4-10-010 COMPLETION AND RESTORATION OF EXISTING NONCONFORMING USES/ STRUCTURES AND LOTS: A NONCONFORMING LOTS: (Reserved) B PENDING PERMITS VALID: Nothing herein contained-shall require any change in the plans, construction, or designation or intended use of a building for which a building permit has heretofore been issued, or which has been submitted to the Building Official before the effective date of amendments to the development regulations. C NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES: Any building or structure legally existing at the time of enactment of this Code may remain, although such structure does not conform with the provisions of this Code, provided the following conditions are met: 1.Vacant,Abandoned,or Amortized Structures: The structure is not abandoned, vacant, or extensively damaged.Nonconforming buildings or structures which do not have historic significance and have been vacant for two(2)or more years, or abandoned, or are sufficiently old at the time that they are severely damaged so as to have had sufficient time to amortize most or all of their initial economic value, shall not be allowed to be redeveloped or re-established. 2. Unsafe Structures: The structure is kept in a safe condition.Nothing in this Chapter shall prevent the strengthening or restoring to a safe condition of any portion of a building or structure declared unsafe by a proper authority. 3. Alterations: Any alterations must comply with the following requirements: a. Structures with Conditional Approval Permits: The cost of the alteration Wilber Repp Appeal of Administrative Determination re Property at 230 Williams Avenue N File No.: LUA00-036,AAD May 25,2000 Page 8 shall generally not exceed an aggregate cost of one hundred percent(100%) of the value of the building or structure,unless: (1)the building or structure is made conforming by the alterations; or(2)the alteration were imposed as a condition of granting a conditional approval permit.Alterations shall not result in or increase any nonconforming conditions unless they were specifically imposed as a condition of granting a conditional approval permit,pursuant to RMC 4-9-120. b. Other Legal Nonconforming Structures: The cost of the alterations of all other legal nonconforming structures shall not exceed an aggregate cost of fifty percent (50%)of the value of the building or structure,based upon its most recent assessment of appraisal,unless the amount over fifty percent(50%) is used to make the building or structure more conforming.Alterations shall not result in or increase any nonconforming condition. 4.Extension: The structure shall not be extended unless the extension is conforming or it is consistent with the provisions of a conditional approval permit issued for it. The extension of a lawful use to any portion of a nonconforming building or structure which existed prior to the enactment of this Code shall not be deemed the extension of such nonconforming structure. Towers that are constructed, and antennas that are installed, in accordance with the provisions of this Title shall not be deemed to constitute the expansion of a nonconforming use or structure. 5. Restoration:Nothing in this Chapter shall prevent the reconstruction,repairing, rebuilding and continued use of any nonconforming building or structure damaged by fire, explosion,or act of God, subsequent to the date of these building regulations and subject to the following conditions: a. Legal Nonconforming Structures with Conditional Approval Permits: The work shall generally not exceed one hundred percent(100%) of the latest appraised value of the building or structure closest to the time such damage occurred; restoration or reconstruction work exceeding one hundred percent(100%)of this value shall either be a condition of granting the conditional approval permit or necessary to conform to the regulations and uses specified in this Title. b. Other Legal Nonconforming Structures: The work shall not exceed fifty percent(50%)of the latest assessed or appraised value of the building or structure at the time such damage occurred, otherwise any restoration or reconstruction shall conform to the regulations and uses specified in this Title. c.Illegal Structures: These shall be discontinued. D NONCONFORMING USES: Any lawful use existing at the time of enactment of this Code may be continued, although such use does not conform with the provisions of the building regulations, provided the following conditions are met: 1.Abandonment: The use is not abandoned.A legal nonconforming use(of a building or premises)which has been abandoned shall not thereafter be resumed.Abandoned uses shall not be eligible for a conditional approval permit. A nonconforming use shall be considered abandoned when: a.The intent of the owner to discontinue the use is apparent, and discontinuance for a period of one year or more shall be prima facie evidence that the nonconforming use has been abandoned, or Wilber Repp Appeal of Administrative Determination re Property at 230 Williams Avenue N File No.:LUA00-036,AAD May 25,2000 Page 9 b. It has been replaced by a conforming use, or c.It has been changed to another use under permit from the City or its authorized representative. 2.Relocation: The use is not relocated.A legal nonconforming use of a building or premises which has been vacated and moved to another location, or discontinued, shall not be allowed to reestablish itself except in compliance with the building regulations. 3. Changes: The use is not changed to a different nonconforming use.The nonconforming use of a building or structure shall not be changed to another nonconforming use. 4.Restoration:Nothing in this Chapter shall prevent the,restoration or continuance of a nonconforming use damaged by fire, explosion, or act of God, subsequent to the date of these building regulations,or amendments thereto, subject to the following conditions: a.Legal Nonconforming Uses with Conditional Approval Permits: The work shall generally not exceed one hundred percent(100%)of the latest appraised value of the building or structure housing the use closest to the time such damage occurred; restoration or reconstruction work exceeding one hundred percent(100%)of this value shall either be a condition of granting the conditional approval permit pursuant to RMC 4-9-120 or necessary to conform to the regulations and uses specified in this Title. b. Other Legal Nonconforming Uses: The work shall not exceed fifty percent (50%)of the latest appraised value of the building or structure at the time such damage occurred.Uses which were in conformance with the Code at the time it was enacted or at the time they were built or developed,but which became nonconforming on adoption of the development regulations or amendments to it. (Ord.4584, 2-12-1996) c.Illegal Uses:Uses which are not in conformance with the Code or the development regulations in effect on the date they were established(illegal uses). These uses shall be discontinued. (Ord. 4584,2-12-1996) 5.Amortization of Adult Uses: For amortization of legal nonconforming adult entertainment, activity,use, or retail use, see RMC 4-3-010E.(Ord. 4828, 1-24-2000) 11. The Director of Development Services apparently received an inquiry not reduced to writing regarding reestablishing the burned home. The director responded on February 29, 2000. The response noted that the structure was located in the R-8 Zone. That zone was established for single family homes and is limited to one dwelling unit per lot.. The zone limits the density to 9.7 dwelling units per acre for lots one-half acre or less in size as of March 1, 1995., Staff calculated that the replacement structure plus the existing two-unit structure on the existing two lots would be "over-dense." 12. The Director also noted that nonconforming buildings or structures damaged by fire may be rebuilt if work would not exceed 50%of the assessed value of the building and the Director determined such work would exceed the limits. Finally,while the City allows certain nonconforming uses to seek a conditional approval permit,only uses made non-conforming by the 1993 Code amendments may seek such a permit. The director found this section did not apply to this old, established use. 13. The appellant had primarily relied on the following subsection of the Conditional Approval Permit for nonconforming structures: Wilber Repp Appeal of Administrative Determination re Property at 230 Williams Avenue N File No.: LUA00-036,AAD May 25, 2000 Page 10 b. Single Family Dwellings:Any legally established single family dwelling damaged by fire or an act of God may be rebuilt on the same site, subject to all relevant fire and life safety codes,without a conditional approval permit. The Director found this section does not apply to structures that were not rendered nonconforming by the 1993 code changes. 14. The record does not provide any indication of when the burned structure or the two-unit structure were constructed and what codes, if any,were applicable at that time. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the decision of the director was either in error, or was otherwise contrary to law or constitutional provisions, or was arbitrary and capricious(Section 4-8- 110(E)(7)(b). The appellant has failed to demonstrate that the action of the director should be modified or reversed. The decision is affirmed. 2. Arbitrary and capricious action has been defined as willful and unreasoning action in disregard of the facts and circumstances. A decision,when exercised honestly and upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances, is not arbitrary or capricious (Northern Pacific Transport Co. v Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, 69 Wn. 2d 472,478 (1966). 3. An action is likewise clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it,the reviewing body, on the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. (Ancheta v Daly, 77 Wn. 2d 255, 259(1969). 4. The appellant has failed to demonstrate that the decision was founded upon anything but a fair review of the code sections as they apply to nonconforming uses. The appellant has failed to demonstrate with cogent evidence that a mistake was made. 5. The major issue with nonconforming uses is their eventual elimination. The Renton Code is fairly liberal, allowing them to be continued in a number of circumstances but aiming for amortization. The code has provisions to allow those uses affected by board zoning amendments adopted in 1993 to be continued and even has a conditional approval permit to allow them to seek some surety that even if damaged they may be reestablished. Uses that can take advantage of this provision must be able to show that the code amendments made them nonconforming and that they were legal conforming uses prior to that. It specifically excepts uses that cannot establish their status prior to 1993's amendments. The intent appears to be directed at the fact that very old uses have probably had a reasonable useful life and have amortized their costs. 6. Those uses that meet the 1993 limits may then show that they are deserving of a conditional approval permit. They can demonstrate a public benefit to continuing their nonconforming status. The appellant's might have been able to meet those criteria by providing affordable, low-cost housing. But it appears that the Director was correct and that those provisions do not apply to the appellant's Wilber Repp Appeal of Administrative Determination re Property at 230 Williams Avenue N File No.: LUA00-036,AAD May 25,2000 Page 11 property. 7. This office does agree with the appellant that the structure in question was a single family use as defined by code. It may have been part of"multiple family complex" but it was in fact a detached dwelling unit. But for the 1993 date requirements this office does not believe either density limitations or number of dwelling units on a single lot would affect its ability to continue as a"single family dwelling." But the appellant was not able to show the property's status was affected by the 1993 code changes or that its repair to livable housing would cost less than the threshold 50% of its assessed or appraised value. 8. Under the circumstances it appears that reestablishing a single family home,even one that provides low-cost housing,would not meet the various code provisions and that the Director made the proper decision. 9. Since the burden of demonstrating error is on the appellant,this office can only reach the conclusion that the director made the correct determination. The decision below must be affirmed. DECISION: The appeal is denied. ORDERED THIS 25th day of May,2000. FRED J.KAUF HEARING EXA ER TRANSMI 1TED THIS 25th day of May,2000to the parties of record: Wilber and Bernadine Repp William N. Snell Larry Warren P.O. Box 5532 1111 Third Avenue,#2220 1055 S Grady Way Kent, WA 98064 Seattle,WA 98101-3207 Renton, WA 98055 Jana Hanson 1055 S Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 w Wilber Repp Appeal of Administrative Determination re Property at 230 Williams Avenue N File No.:LUA00-036,AAD May 25, 2000 Page 12 TRANSMITTED THIS 25th day of May,2000 to the following: Mayor Jesse Tanner Gregg Zimmerman,PlanBldg/PW Admin. Members,Renton Planning Commission Jana Hanson,Development Services Director Chuck Duffy,Fire Marshal Lawrence J.Warren, City Attorney Transportation Systems Division Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Utilities System Division Councilperson Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Sue Carlson,Econ.Dev. Administrator Betty Nokes,Economic Development Director South County Journal Larry Meckling,Building Official Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 15 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m.,June 8,2000. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14)days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record,take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV,Chapter 8, Section 16,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. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants,the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte(private one-on-one)communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. is CIT OF RENTON - City Clerk • Jesse Tanner,Mayor Marilyn J.Petersen June 12, 2000 APPEAL FILED BY: Wilbur &Bernadine Repp Representative: William N. Snell RE: 'Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 5/25/2000 denying the Appeal of Administrative Determination whereby a single family residence at 230 Williams Ave.N., destroyed by fire, cannot be restored. (File No. LUA-00-036,'AAD) To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the hearing examiner's'decision on the Wilber &Bernadine Repp appeal of administrative determination has been filed with the City Clerk. In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section4-8-110F,within five days of receipt ' of the notice of appeal,the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the , appeal. Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10)days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the appeal. The deadline for submission:of-additional letters_is June 22, 2000. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written_appeals and other pertinent documents _ will be reviewed by the;'Council's Planning and Development Committee. The Council. secretarywill notify all parties of record of the date and time of the Planning and Development Committee meeting. If you are not listed in local telephone directories and wish to attend the meeting, please call the Council secretary at 425 430-6501 for information. The recommendation'of the Committee will be presented for consideration by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting. - Attached is a copy of the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeals of Hearing Examiner decisions or recommendations. Please note that the City Council will be considering the merits.of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unless a showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available • at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner,no further evidence or testimony on this matter will be accepted by the City Council. • For additional information or assistance,please feel free to call me at 425 430-6502. Sincerely, • Marilyn .` terse n ` :CityClerl Cable Manager 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)430-6510 /FAX(425)430-6516 •..� This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer f City of Renton Municipal Code;'itle IV, Chapter 8, Section 110 -Appei 4-8-110C3 Any appeal shall be filed in writing. The written notice of appeal shall fully, clearly and thoroughly specify the substantial error(s) in fact or law which exist in the record of the proceedings from which the appellant seeks relief. (Ord. 4353, 6-1-92) 4-8-110C4 The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170,the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-110E8 Unless an ordinance providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Clerk upon a form furnished by the City Clerk,within fourteen(14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-110F: Appeals to City Council-Procedures: 1. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal,the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 2. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 3. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report,the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) • 4. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required,the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the appellant. In the absence of any entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before.the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4389, 1-25- 93) 5. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. 6. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to Section RMC 4-1-050F1 and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the preceding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. 7. Council Action: If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to Section RMC 4-1-050F2 and F3, and after examination of the record,the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified,the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application. 8. Decision Documentation: In any event,the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 9. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving,modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames under subsection G5 of this Section. (Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997) •► r �,A CITY 9F eRENTON , City Clerk • Jesse Tanner,Mayor Marilyn J.Petersen • June 12, 2000 APPEAL FILED BY: Wilbur&Bernadine Repp Representative: William N. Snell RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 5/25/2000 denying the Appeal of •Administrative Determination whereby a single family residence at 230 Williams . Ave.N., destroyed by fire, cannot be restored. (File No. LUA-00-036,'AAD) To Parties of Record: • Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8,Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the hearing examiner's decision on the Wilber&Bernadine Repp appeal of administrative determination has been filed with the City Clerk. In accordance with Renton Municipal Code-Section 4-8-110F, within five days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the appeal. The deadline for submission of additional letters is June 22, 2000. - NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written:appeals and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the':Couricil's Planning and Development Committee. The Council secretary will notify all parties of record of the date and time of the Planning and Development Committee meeting. If you are not listed in,local telephone•directories and wish to attend the meeting,please call the Council secretary at 425 430-6501 for '• information. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for consideration by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting. Attached is a copy of the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeals of Hearing Examiner decisions or recommendations. Please note that the City Council will be considering the merits.of the appeal based upon the written record previously established; Unless a showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available • at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner;no further evidence or testimony on this matter will be accepted by the City Council. • For additional information or assistance, please feel free to call me at 425 430-6502. • . Sincerely, • Marilyn terser `.` : . City:Cler Cable Manager _ - - Attachments • 1055 South Grady Way - Renton,Washington•98055 -.(425)430-6510 /.FAX(425)430-6516 C," This paper contains 50%recycled material;20%post consumer, City of Renton Municipal Code;Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110 -Appeal 4-8-110C3 Any appeal shall be filed in writing. The written notice of appeal shall fully, clearly and thoroughly specify the substantial error(s) in fact or law which exist in the record of the proceedings from which the appellant seeks relief. (Ord. 4353, 6-1-92) 4-8-110C4 The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170, the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-110E8 Unless an ordinance providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Clerk upon a form furnished by the City Clerk,within fourteen(14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-110F: Appeals to City Council-Procedures: 1. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal,the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 2. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 3. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report, the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required,the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the appellant. In the absence of any entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4389, 1-25- 93) 5. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. 6. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to Section RMC 4-1-050F1 and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the preceding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. 7. Council Action: If,upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to Section RMC 4-1-050F2 and F3, and after examination of the record,the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified,the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application. 8. Decision Documentation: In any event, the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 9. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving,modifying or rejecting a•decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames under subsection G5 of this Section. (Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997) June 12, 2000 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF KING MARILYN J. PETERSEN, City Clerk/Cable Manager for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter. That on the 12th day of June, 2000, at the hour of 5:00 p.m. your affiant duly mailed and placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail to all parties of record, notice of appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision filed by William N. Snell, representative for Wilbur and Bernadine Repp, appellants (File No. LUA-00-036, AAD). Marilyn . tersen, City Clerk/Cable Manager SUBSCR.IBE .=AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 12th day of June, 2000. . 17?1Yr(4. IWV 17) B-fenda Frits void Notary Public'in and for t St t f Washington, residing in Herr nt. • HEARING EXAMINER WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARIN., DECISION/RECOMM__ )k4ITI)5Wft51.gikiTON CITY COUNCIL FILE NO. LUA00-036,AAD JUN 0 0 2000 APPLICATION NAME: Wilbur & Bernadine Repp RFC^ LED The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decisiOif ItheietakilinaidfiAbn of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated May 25 2000 . 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: REPRESENTATIVE(IF ANY): William N. Snell Name: WWThur S RP7,1nalnP Nprp Name: PO Box 5532 1111 Third Ave. #2220 res Adds: Address: Kent, WA 98064 Seattle, WA 98101 • Telephone No. (253) 852-6213 Telephone No. (206)386-7855 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: FINDING OF FACT: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's report) No. Error: SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A. Correction: • CONCLUSIONS: No. Error: SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A. • Correction: OTHER: • No. Error: • Correction: 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A. X Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Remand to the Examiner r further consideration as follows:' Appe ant resen • e Signature Date NOTE: Please refer to Title IV. Chapter 8. of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-110F, for specific procedures. heappeal.doc EXHIBIT A TO APPEAL OF REPP FILE NO. LUA00-036,AAD The specific errors of law or fact upon which this appeal is based: • 1. Finding of Fact No. 14. This finding is in error when it states that there is no indication of when the structure was constructed and what codes apply. Correction: The record that constructed prior to 1993. It was an existing residence when the Repps.purchased it in 1988. 2. Conclusion No. 1. This conclusion is in error in stating that appellant has failed to demonstrate that the action of the director should be modified or reversed and that the decision of the director should be affirmed. Correction: As shown in following paragraphs the appellant has shown that the decision of the Director should be reversed. Conclusion No. 4. This entire paragraph is in error. Correction: As shown in following paragraphs a mistake was made by the director. Conclusion No. 5. The conclusion is in error when it states that it excepts uses that cannot establish their status prior to the 1993 amendments. Correction: The 1993 amendments impacted the subject property as to density and having more than one structure on a lot. Conclusion No. 6. This conclusion is in error relating to the subject property is not be subject to the exemption for single family homes. Correction: The appellant's property is a single family home and should qualify for the exemption under RMC 4-9-120B 1 b. Conclusion No. 7. This conclusion is in error in stating that the appellant was not able to show that the appellant's property was affected by the 1993 code or that the cost of repair was less than 50% of the appraised value. Correction: The appellant contends that he was impacted by the 1993 code amendments and the issue of the appraised value was not resolved. Conclusion No. 9 This conclusion is in error because the director made an incorrect determination and the decision should be reversed. Correction: As shown in the following paragraphs the director made an incorrect determination. This is a case where a nonconforming single family residence that provides low income housing has been substantially damaged by fire. Under the director's determination, as upheld by the hearing examiner,the house will not be able to be repaired and the City will lose a vitally needed low income housing resource. This interpretation and result is clearly contrary to the City' s policies. Policy H-53 provides that : "The City should encourage development of permanent low income housing." Policy H-58 provides that: "Encourage preservation, maintenance and improvements to existing affordable housing." This decision of hearing examiner totally ignores City policies and has the result of eliminating a low income housing unit. The City's own Housing Authority supports the work done by the Repps in providing safe and sanitary units for low income housing. See letter in the record from Housing Authority of the City of Renton dated April 27, 2000. Codes need to be interpreted to make sense. RMC 4-9-120B1b provides that any legally established single family dwelling damaged by fire may be rebuilt on the same site without conditional use approval. The appellant maintains that their house qualifies for this exemption and that the nonconformity arises under the 1993 code amendments relating to density and more than one dwelling unit on a lot. If the City Council determines that the zoning code does not allow the repair of this structure,then an amendment would be in order to allow repair on a basis limited to nonconforming single family homes that provide for low income housing. It makes no sense for the City one hand to encourage and promote low income housing and on the other hand to propose its elimination due to an overly technical interpretation of the zoning code. If the decision of the Examiner is upheld then the outcome will be the elimination of a low income single family residence and a strong message to the Repps, who provide many units of low income housing,that the City is not supportive of their efforts. The relief that is requested is the reversal of the decision of the hearing examiner. The relief that should be granted is allowing the Repps to repair their single family residence. CITY OF R''NTON - YSs, Office of the City Clerk 1055 South Grady Way = Renton Washington 98055 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED Wilbur& Bernadine Repp P.O. Box 5532 Kent, WA 98064 •• L: This paper contains 50%recycled paper,20%post-consumer ..,.. CITY OF RENTON Office of the City Clerk 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED • William N. Snell 1111 Third Avenue, #2220 ' - Seattle, WA 98101 - • L: .This paper contains 50%recycled paper,20%post-consumer �z—_-_c--rs-s :-z------r- ----- --c - ---�-_ �a---.-__t✓-'�— r—__mac —+_"'�—__'�_ LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM N. SNELL, P.S. 210 5 + 1111 THIRD AVE, SUITE 2220 206-386-7855If 19-803/1250 SEATTLE,WA 98101 • P SAY T DATE Ci%e S S S TO THE $ : 7 -4(526 + roORDER OF -- , o ear,,,,rt ab,., DOLLARS oaizus`on bacF. w Pacific acificlNoal ter Bank ,�' berFDIC 1111 Third Avenue Seattle,WA 98101 2441our Banking 1-800-783-8385 ' FOR_______gpP `/ -- 4 11'00 2 LO 511' ': L 2 50080 3 91: 2004 LO 9u' --s i . --•- „ . • „ „ 1.0T.Es RECEIPT DATE .;)%441-(i-- .6 I (:)''' 63L-61 No. 1285 1 1 . , . , RECEIVED FROM -14":2te"lit, 74 • ,-1 L---1 I I i 37/1.24-2 it(.,(-°, *:,,,-.7 2..... 0 ADDRESS Al-ekrZet... 71)1119. W/6/ $ ( FOR /2-,21,,-/- ACCOUNT HOW PAID ' ' AMT.OF I 1 ACCOUNT CASH . -----, /A- et) CHECK PAID • BALANCE MONEY r A -6:7- , 41261:61: DUE ORDER , 4-8L802 ''©199,./LRFrpIPORM. e CITY CLERK DIVISION Send Copies To: 41400 5�®0 Date: CITY ATTORNEY /7 CITY COUNCIL .& dd. /It a`o€9 /i, Mar.,r.62 COMMUNITY SERVICES/PARKS GGe�tt--CC EDNSP/ECONOMIC DEVELOP. Jeted "I �,g4�� FINANCE/INFO SERVICES / FIRE DEPT/FIRE PREVENTION eitutlk b to V /. HEARING EXAMINER HUMAN RESOURCES/RISK MGMT HUMAN SERVICES LIBRARIES 73. MAYOR/EXECUTIVE MUNICIPAL COURT q PLANNING COMMISSION POLICE CODIFIER c NEWSPAPER A PARTIES OF RECORD 444-6/4 N � PlanningBuilding/Public Work / ADMINISTRATION o. AIRPORT 4-�"1- , 3 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES / TRANSPORTATION SERVICES J / UTILITIES&TECH SERVICES X R %" I 3 a 4/0 0 APPEAL Ai-Rinn _ .AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. County of King ) MARILYN MOSES ,being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states: That on the 25th day of May ,2000, affiant deposited in the mail of the United States 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: CIO <414 (Mita SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this L day of OM/ , 2000. Notary Public in and f r he State of Washington, residing at ,therein. Application,Petition, or Case No.: Admin. Appeal re 230 Williams Ave N LUA00-036,AAD The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record. HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT May 25, 2000 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPELLANTS: Wilber and Bernadine Repp Appeal of Administrative Determination re Property at 230 Williams Avenue N File No.: LUA00-036,AAD LOCATION: 230 Williams Avenue N SUMMARY OF APPEAL: Appeals determination that single family residence destroyed by fire cannot be restored PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Appellants'written request for a hearing and examining the available information on file,the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the May 9,2000 hearing. The official record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday,May 9,2000, at 1:30 p.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 appeal, Exhibit No.2: Appellants'Hearing Memorandum proof of posting and publication, and other documentation pertinent to the appeal. Exhibit No.3: Photographs(3) Exhibit No.4: Statutory Warranty Deed Exhibit No. 5: Map Exhibit No.6: 2000 Real Estate Tax Statement Exhibit No.7: Letter from Renton Housing Exhibit No.8: Letter from Plymouth Housing Group Authority Exhibit No. 9: City of Renton Housing Element Policies Parties present: Representing Appellants: William N. Snell 1111 Third Avenue,#2220 Seattle, WA 98101-3207 Wilber and Bernadine Repp,Appellants Wilber Repp Appeal of Administrative Determination re Property at 230 Williams Avenue N File No.: LUA00-036,AAD May 25,2000 Page 2 Representing City of Renton Larry Warren,City Attorney Jana Hanson,Development Services Director 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 The Examiner explained that the appeal was an administrative appeal held pursuant to Ordinance 3071 and was the only administrative review to occur on the matter. The matter may be submitted back to the Examiner for reconsideration if the parties are not satisfied with the decision. He stated that the appellant had the burden of demonstrating that the City's action was erroneous,and would have to show clear and convincing evidence that the City's determination was incorrect. At that point the City could respond, if they chose to do so. Mr. Snell, in his opening statement, stated that the single family residence in question had not been totally destroyed by fire, and could be rebuilt. Under the City's code definitions it was a legally established single family dwelling and may be rebuilt. He stated that although the code is inconsistent and not totally clear,under Section 4-9-120 B 1 b any legally established single family dwelling may be rebuilt subject to all relevant fire and safety codes. It was clearly the intent of the Council that they were trying to restrict future nonconforming structures and uses that are damaged,but they did not want to impact single family homes. Even though the ability to repair the structure would exceed 50% of its assessed value,this property would still be exempt as a single family home. The denial of this appeal would also displace needed Section 8 housing for the City. Mr.Repp testified that the property in question was a 700 square foot one-bedroom house, and was occupied at the time of the fire by a single man. It was damaged on December 10, 1999. The fire destroyed the ship-lap construction of the interior,but not the structural members. It was estimated that about a third of the structure was damaged and the cost of restoring the building would exceed 50%of the tax assessment. The majority of the cost would be labor. If the appellant performed the labor,the cost could be under 50%. Mr.Repp explained that there are two separate tax lots on which the subject house and a duplex are located. The duplex is completely separate from the house. The house is located on both Lots 12 and 13 and is surrounded by yards. The house has been rented under a Section 8 program for many years. Mr. Repp described how the Section 8 program works and its benefits to the community. He concluded that if the house was not able to be repaired it would be the loss of a housing unit to the low income members of the community. Ms.Hanson testified that the two structures are primarily located on Lot 13. Ms.Hanson stated that prior to the 1993 change in City code,this property was zoned R-2 which allowed no more than two units per lot. Therefore, it was nonconforming prior to the 1993 change in code as well as after 1993,and the 50% restoration of a nonconforming structure applied. Ms.Hanson explained how the City designated this property as a triplex. In his closing statement,Mr. Snell again referred to the lack of clarity in the code. He further challenged the designation of this house as a multi-family dwelling and not a single family residence. The issue of losing a Section 8 housing unit was also reiterated. Wilber Repp Appeal of Administrative Determination re Property at 230 Williams Avenue N File No.: LUA00-036,AAD May 25,2000 Page 3 In closing argument,Mr. Warren stated that there is a policy for phasing out existing nonconforming uses. Most cities have a section in their codes that allows restoration of a nonconforming structure when less than 50%of the value is destroyed. The exception to this is a new item under Renton's City Code and is only for structures that are now nonconforming because of code changes in June 1993 or thereafter. Because of this exception which does not apply,the 50%destruction or less factor applies. Therefore,the Director's decision is the only decision which could have been made under the circumstances. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this appeal. There was no one else wishing to speak. The hearing closed at 2:30 p.m. FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS&DECISION Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. Wilber and Bernadine Repp,hereinafter appellants, filed an appeal of an administrative determination denying the right to restore a residential structure that was severely damaged by fire. 2. The appellants own property at Williams Avenue N and N 3rd Street. The appellant owns two legal, side by side lots, located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Williams Avenue North and N 3rd Street. (Exhibit#5 has the terms "street" and "avenue"reversed and the directional designations in the wrong place.) The two lots are defined as Lots 13 and 12 of the Renton Farm Plat,#5. The two lots are side by side with one lot,Lot 13,being located on the corner of Williams Avenue N and N 3rd Street. The second lot,Lot 12, is located east of the first lot, with frontage along N 3rd Street. The lots are in the block bounded by Williams Avenue N on the west,N 3rd on the north, Wells Avenue N on the east and N 2nd Street on the south. The lots are located just north of the downtown business district. 3. The subject site is trapezoidal shaped and is approximately 90 feet wide(east to west)and varies from 129 feet deep along Williams to 100 feet deep along its easternmost property line. 4. Two residential structures and a small shed were located on the subject site. The northernmost residential structure contains two separate,attached living units. Each unit provides one housing unit. The structure in the vernacular is a duplex unit. Duplex units are no longer officially defined by Code (DUPLEX: (Deleted by Ord. 4773, 3-22-1999). Rather the structure would be covered by the following definition: 4-11-040 Definitions: DWELLING,MULTI-FAMILY: A. Dwelling Unit,Attached: A one-family dwelling attached to one or more one- family dwellings by common roofs,walls,or floors. (Ord.4773,3-22-1999) 5. The southernmost residential structure contains or contained one living unit. This is the structure which was damaged by fire and is currently uninhabitable. Its street address is 230 Williams Avenue Wilber Repp Appeal of Administrative Determination re Property at 230 Williams Avenue N File No.: LUA00-036,AAD May 25,2000 Page 4 North. The unit's.front door and entrance is oriented to Williams. It is a separate building structure and is not attached by any common element or building part to any other structure. Its only common element appears that it is located on the same lot or lots as the two-unit structure discussed above. 6. Code Section 4-11-040 has the following definition: DWELLING, SINGLE FAMILY: A. Dwelling,Detached: A building containing one dwelling unit which is not attached to any other dwelling by any means except fences,has a permanent foundation, and is surrounded by open space or yards. (Ord.4773, 3-22-1999) 7. An accurate survey or map was not available. The one submitted shows the two-unit structure located on the northern portion of Lot 13 more or less centered east to west. It shows the one-unit,burned structure, on the southern portion of the lot and again centered east to west. Staff believes that both the two-unit and one-unit structures sit somewhat astride the line that divides Lot's 13 and 12. That is,Lot 12,the eastern lot, is not totally vacant. 8. The Assessor Tax Bill identified the property as: "Property Address 234 Williams Ave N" rather than 230 Williams Avenue N,but it identifies the lots as the same: "Lot 12-13 Block 22,Renton Farm Plat #5." 9. The burned residence was legally used by a disabled, low income person under"Shelter Plus Care Housing Subsidy Program"which is like Section 8 housing. The two unit structure that shares part of the lot is also similarly rented out to two separate elderly residents with limited income. 10. The City has two code provisions that apply to or affect non-conforming structures and uses: 4-9-120NONCONFORMING USES/STRUCTURES REVIEW u CONDITIONAL APPROVAL PERMITS: A PURPOSE OF PERMIT: The purpose of this conditional approval permit is to allow nonconforming uses and/or structures that became nonconforming as a consequence of Code amendments in June 1993 and thereafter,to be re-established and/or rebuilt in certain zoning districts where they would normally be prohibited because the costs associated with re-establishing the use and/or structure exceed fifty percent(50%)of their most recently assessed or appraised value prior to the loss or damage. B APPLICABILITY: Any existing building or structure that was legally established and has been continuously occupied, or a use that has been continuously in existence on the site but is now nonconforming because of a change in City Codes in June 1993 or thereafter, may apply for a conditional approval permit.Uses or structures that cannot substantiate that they were legal at the time they were established shall not be eligible for this permit. Wilber Repp Appeal of Administrative Determination re Property at 230 Williams Avenue N File No.: LUA00-036,AAD May 25, 2000 Page 5 1. Exceptions: a. Damage Under Fifty Percent(50%)of Value: Damaged existing legal nonconforming uses and/or structures where the costs associated with re-establishing the use and/or structure do not exceed fifty percent(50%)of their most recently assessed value,prior to the loss or damage, are allowed to be re-established or rebuilt as a matter of right. b. Single Family Dwellings: Any legally established single family dwelling damaged by fire or an act of God may be rebuilt on the same site, subject to all relevant fire and life safety codes,without a conditional approval permit. C AUTHORITY: The Hearing Examiner shall hear all requests for conditional approval permits for nonconforming uses. Conditional permit applications for nonconforming structures shall typically be heard by the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his or her designee, unless such applications are coupled with conditional permit applications for nonconforming uses that are being heard by the Hearing Examiner or City Council. D SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS AND FEES: Submittal requirements and fees shall be as specified in RMC 4-1-170,Land Use Review Fees, and 4-8-120C,Land Use Applications. In addition to the information requested above, a complete application shall include a plan of the site drawn to scale showing the actual dimensions and shape of the existing site, and the exact sizes and locations of existing structures and uses,whether damaged or not.It shall also include the dates these structures/uses were established. The plan should also show existing landscaping, off-street parking, signs, ingress and egress, and adjacent land uses. The application should also include drawings,photographs, or other visual aids that show the relationship of the existing structure or building to its surroundings and may include studies or reports that support the applicant's contention that the existing nonconforming use or structure is compatible with the surrounding area and its uses. Any other relevant information requested by the Planning/Building/Public Works Department shall be included in the application. E GENERAL DECISION CRITERIA: Such permits would be issued when the continuance of the use or structure is determined to be in the public interest and such uses/structures are: (1)found to be compatible with other existing and potential uses/structures in the general area; or(2) can be made to be compatible with the application of appropriate conditions. F REVIEW CRITERIA FOR NONCONFORMING USES: The Hearing Examiner and/or City Council shall consider the following factors, among all other relevant information,when considering a request for a conditional approval permit for a nonconforming use. In order to grant the permit, at least three(3) of these factors shall be complied with. 1. Community Need: There shall be a community need for the proposed use at its present location. In the determination of community need, consideration shall be given to the following factors, among all other relevant information: a. The continuance of the nonconforming use should not result in either the detrimental over-concentration of a particular use within the City or within the area surrounding the site. Wilber Repp Appeal of Administrative Determination re Property at 230 Williams Avenue N File No.: LUA00-036,AAD May 25,2000 Page 6 b. That the existing location is or can be made suitable for the existing use. 2. Effect on Adjacent Property: The existing nonconforming use has not resulted in undue adverse effects on adjacent properties from noise,traffic, glare,vibration, etc., (i.e., does not exceed normal levels in these areas emanating from surrounding permitted uses). 3.Historical Significance: The existing use was associated with a historical event or activity in the community and as a result has historical significance. 4.Economic Significance: The existing use provides substantial benefit to the community because of either the employment of a large number of people in the community,the generation of considerable retail and/or business/occupation tax revenues to the City, or it provides needed affordable housing. 5. Timeliness with Existing Plans and Programs: Because of the anticipated market timing for permitted uses in the zone,retention of the existing nonconforming use would not impede or delay the implementation of the city's Comprehensive Plan. G REVIEW CRITERIA FOR NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES: The Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his or her designee shall consider the following factors, among all other relevant information,when considering a request for a conditional approval permit for a nonconforming structure. In order to grant the permit,he/she shall find that at least three(3)of the following criteria have been satisfied: 1. Architectural and/or Historic Significance: The damaged structure represents a unique regional or national architectural style or an innovation in architecture because of its style,use of materials, or functional arrangement,and is one of the few remaining examples of this. 2.Architectural Compatibility with Surrounding Uses: The nonconforming building or structure was part of a unified streetscape of similar structures that is unlikely to be replicated unless the subject structure is rebuilt per, or similar to, its original plan. 3.Potential of Site for Redevelopment: Redevelopment of the site with a conforming structure is unlikely either because the size of the existing lot may be too small to be economical,or because the characteristics of adjacent permitted uses(that might normally be expected to expand to such a site)currently might preclude their expansion. Typically, economic hardship would not be considered for a variance,but is a consideration here. 4. Condition of Building/Structure: If nonconforming as to the provisions of the city's Building Code,the building or structure and surrounding premises have generally been well maintained and is not considered to be a threat to the public health,welfare, or safety, or it could be retrofitted so as not to pose such a threat. 5.Departure from Zoning Code: If nonconforming with the provisions of the city's development regulations,the building or structure does not pose a threat to the public health,welfare or safety,or could be modified so as not to pose such a threat. H DECISION OPTIONS: The approving body may grant,with or without conditions, or deny a requested conditional permit. Such a permit, if granted,typically would carry conditions with it pertaining to how the damaged structure would be allowed to redevelop. The approving Wilber Repp Appeal of Administrative Determination re Property at 230 Williams Avenue N File No.: LUA00-036,AAD May 25,2000 Page 7 body may, for example, limit the term and duration of the conditional approval permit as well as impose conditions. I CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Conditions imposed by the approving body shall reasonably assure that nuisance or hazard to life or property will not develop.A conditional approval permit for a nonconforming use and/or structure may,for example,be conditioned upon the provision and/or guarantee by the applicant that necessary public improvements, facilities,utilities and/or services needed to support the use/structure will be provided, or the provision of other features that would make the use/structure more compatible with its surroundings. J EXPIRATION: Conditions imposed relating to the duration of a permit for a use or structure should also reflect reasonable amortization periods for any substantial upgrades to the premises that are required by City Code. K EXTENSIONS: (Reserved) L APPEALS: The final decision of the Hearing Examiner on a conditional approval permit application will be appealable to the City Council within fourteen(14)days pursuant to RMC 4-8-110. (Ord. 4584,2-12-1996) 4-10-010 COMPLETION AND RESTORATION OF EXISTING NONCONFORMING USES/ STRUCTURES AND LOTS: A NONCONFORMING LOTS: (Reserved) B PENDING PERMITS VALID: Nothing herein contained shall require any change in the plans,construction, or designation or intended use of a building for which a building permit has heretofore been issued, or which has been submitted to the Building Official before the effective date of amendments to the development regulations. C NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES: Any building or structure legally existing at the time of enactment of this Code may remain, although such structure does not conform with the provisions of this Code, provided the following conditions are met: 1.Vacant,Abandoned,or Amortized Structures: The structure is not abandoned, vacant, or extensively damaged.Nonconforming buildings or structures which do not have historic significance and have been vacant for two(2)or more years, or abandoned,or are sufficiently old at the time that they are severely damaged so as to have had sufficient time to amortize most or all of their initial economic value, shall not be allowed to be redeveloped or re-established. 2.Unsafe Structures: The structure is kept in a safe condition.Nothing in this Chapter shall prevent the strengthening or restoring to a safe condition of any portion of a building or structure declared unsafe by a proper authority. 3.Alterations: Any alterations must comply with the following requirements: a. Structures with Conditional Approval Permits: The cost of the alteration Wilber Repp Appeal of Administrative Determination.re Property at 230 Williams Avenue N File No.: LUA00-036,AAD May 25,2000 Page 8 shall generally not exceed an aggregate cost of one hundred percent(100%)of the value of the building or structure,unless: (1)the building or structure is made conforming by the alterations; or(2)the alteration were imposed as a condition of granting a conditional approval permit.Alterations shall not result in or increase any nonconforming conditions unless they were specifically imposed as a condition of granting a conditional approval permit,pursuant to RMC 4-9-120. b. Other Legal Nonconforming Structures: The cost of the alterations of all other legal nonconforming structures shall not exceed an aggregate cost of fifty percent (50%)of the value of the building or structure,based upon its most recent assessment of appraisal,unless the amount over fifty percent(50%)is used to make the building or structure more conforming.Alterations shall not result in or increase any nonconforming condition. 4. Extension: The structure shall not be extended unless the extension is conforming or it is consistent with the provisions of a conditional approval permit issued for it. The extension of a lawful use to any portion of a nonconforming building or structure which existed prior to the enactment of this Code shall not be deemed the extension of such nonconforming structure. Towers that are constructed, and antennas that are installed, in accordance with the provisions of this Title shall not be deemed to constitute the expansion of a nonconforming use or structure. 5. Restoration:Nothing in this Chapter shall prevent the reconstruction,repairing, rebuilding and continued use of any nonconforming building or structure damaged by fire,explosion, or act of God, subsequent to the date of these building regulations and subject to the following conditions: a. Legal Nonconforming Structures with Conditional Approval Permits: The work shall generally not exceed one hundred percent(100%)of the latest appraised value of the building or structure closest to the time such damage occurred;restoration or reconstruction work exceeding one hundred percent(100%)of this value shall either be a condition of granting the conditional approval permit or necessary to conform to the regulations and uses specified in this Title. b. Other Legal Nonconforming Structures: The work shall not exceed fifty percent(50%)of the latest assessed or appraised value of the building orr structure at the time such damage occurred, otherwise any restoration or reconstruction shall conform to the regulations and uses specified in this Title. c.Illegal Structures: These shall be discontinued. D NONCONFORMING USES: Any lawful use existing at the time of enactment of this Code may be continued, although such use does not conform with the provisions of the building regulations, provided the following conditions are met: 1.Abandonment: The use is not abandoned.A legal nonconforming use(of a building or premises)which has been abandoned shall not thereafter be resumed.Abandoned uses shall not be eligible for a conditional approval permit.A nonconforming use shall be considered abandoned when: a.The intent of the owner to discontinue the use is apparent,and discontinuance for a period of one year or more shall be prima facie evidence that the nonconforming use has been abandoned, or Wilber Repp Appeal of Administrative Determination re Property at 230 Williams Avenue N File No.: LUA00-036,AAD May 25,2000 Page 9 b.It has been replaced by a conforming use,or c.It has been changed to another use under permit from the City or its authorized representative. 2.Relocation: The use is not relocated.A legal nonconforming use of a building or premises which has been vacated and moved to another location, or discontinued, shall not be allowed to reestablish itself except in compliance with the building regulations. 3. Changes: The use is not changed to a different nonconforming use. The nonconforming use of a building or structure shall not be changed to another nonconforming use. 4.Restoration:Nothing in this Chapter shall prevent the restoration or continuance of a nonconforming use damaged by fire, explosion,or act of God, subsequent to the date of these building regulations, or amendments thereto, subject to the following conditions: a.Legal Nonconforming Uses with Conditional Approval Permits: The work shall generally not exceed one hundred percent(100%)of the latest appraised value of the building or structure housing the use closest to the time such damage occurred; restoration or reconstruction work exceeding one hundred percent(100%)of this value shall either be a condition of granting the conditional approval permit pursuant to RMC 4-9-120 or necessary to conform to the regulations and uses specified in this Title. b. Other'Legal Nonconforming Uses: The work shall not exceed fifty percent (50%)of the latest appraised value of the building or structure at the time such damage occurred.Uses which were in conformance with the Code at the time it was enacted or at the time they were built or developed,but which became nonconforming on adoption of the development regulations or amendments to it. (Ord.4584,2-12-1996) c.Illegal Uses:Uses which are not in conformance with the Code or the development regulations in effect on the date they were established(illegal uses). These uses shall be discontinued. (Ord. 4584,2-12-1996) 5.Amortization of Adult Uses:For amortization of legal nonconforming adult entertainment,activity,use, or retail use, see RMC 4-3-010E. (Ord. 4828, 1-24-2000) 11. The Director of Development Services apparently received an inquiry not reduced to writing regarding reestablishing the burned home. The director responded on February 29,2000. The response noted that the structure was located in the R-8 Zone. That zone was established for single family homes and is limited to one dwelling unit per lot. The zone limits the density to 9.7 dwelling units per acre for lots one-half acre or less in size as of March 1, 1995. Staff calculated that the replacement structure plus the existing two-unit structure on the existing two lots would be "over-dense." 12. The Director also noted that nonconforming buildings or structures damaged by fire may be rebuilt if work would not exceed 50%of the assessed value of the building and the Director determined such work would exceed the limits. Finally,while the City allows certain nonconforming uses to seek a conditional approval permit, only uses made non-conforming by the 1993 Code amendments may seek such a permit. The director found this section did not apply to this old, established use. 13. The appellant had primarily relied on the following subsection of the Conditional Approval Permit for nonconforming structures: Wilber Repp Appeal of Administrative Determination re Property at 230 Williams Avenue N File No.: LUA00-036,AAD May 25,2000 Page 10 b. Single Family Dwellings:Any legally established single family dwelling damaged by fire or an act of God may be rebuilt on the same site, subject to all relevant fire and life safety codes,without a conditional approval permit. The Director found this section does not apply to structures that were not rendered nonconforming by the 1993 code changes. 14. The record does not provide any indication of when the burned structure or the two-unit structure were constructed and what codes, if any,were applicable at that time. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the decision of the director was either in error, or was otherwise contrary to law or constitutional provisions, or was arbitrary and capricious(Section 4-8- 110(E)(7)(b). The appellant has failed to demonstrate that the action of the director should be modified or reversed. The decision is affirmed. 2. Arbitrary and capricious action has been defined as willful and unreasoning action in disregard of the facts and circumstances. A decision,when exercised honestly and upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances, is not arbitrary or capricious(Northern Pacific Transport Co.v Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, 69 Wn. 2d 472,478 (1966). 3. An action is likewise clearly erroneous when,although there is evidence to support it,the reviewing body, on the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. (Ancheta v Daly, 77 Wn.2d 255,259(1969). 4. The appellant has failed to demonstrate that the decision was founded upon anything but a fair review of the code sections as they apply to nonconforming uses. The appellant has failed to demonstrate with cogent evidence that a mistake was made. 5. The major issue with nonconforming uses is their eventual elimination. The Renton Code is fairly liberal, allowing them to be continued in a number of circumstances but aiming for amortization. The code has provisions to allow those uses affected by board zoning amendments adopted in 1993 to be continued and even has a conditional approval permit to allow them to seek some surety that even if damaged they may be reestablished. Uses that can take advantage of this provision must be able to show that the code amendments made them nonconforming and that they were legal conforming uses prior to that. It specifically excepts uses that cannot establish their status prior to 1993's amendments. The intent appears to be directed at the fact that very old uses have probably had a reasonable useful life and have amortized their costs. 6. Those uses that meet the 1993 limits may then show that they are deserving of a conditional approval permit. They can demonstrate a public benefit to continuing their nonconforming status. The appellant's might have been able to meet those criteria by providing affordable, low-cost housing. But it appears that the Director was correct and that those provisions do not apply to the appellant's Wilber Repp Appeal of Administrative Determination re Property at 230 Williams Avenue N File No.: LUA00-036,AAD May 25,2000 Page 11 property. 7. This office does agree with the appellant that the structure in question was a single family use as defined by code. It may have been part of"multiple family complex"but it was in fact a detached dwelling unit. But for the 1993 date requirements this office does not believe either density limitations or number of dwelling units on a single lot would affect its ability to continue as a"single family dwelling." But the appellant was not able to show the property's status was affected by the 1993 code changes or that its repair to livable housing would cost less than the threshold 50%of its assessed or appraised value. 8. Under the circumstances it appears that reestablishing a single family home,even one that provides low-cost housing,would not meet the various code provisions and that the Director made the proper decision. 9. Since the burden of demonstrating error is on the appellant,this office can only reach the conclusion that the director made the correct determination. The decision below must be affirmed. DECISION: The appeal is denied. ORDERED THIS 25th day of May,2000. FRED J. KAUF HEARING EXA R TRANSMITTED THIS 25th day of May,2000to the parties of record: Wilber and Bernadine Repp William N. Snell Larry Warren P.O.Box 5532 1111 Third Avenue,#2220 1055 S Grady Way Kent,WA 98064 Seattle, WA 98101-3207 Renton,WA 98055 Jana Hanson 1055 S Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Wilber Repp Appeal of Administrative Determination re Property at 230 Williams Avenue N File No.: LUA00-036,AAD May 25,2000 Page 12 TRANSMITTED THIS 25th day of May,2000 to the following: Mayor Jesse Tanner Gregg Zimmerman,Plan/Bldg/PW Admin. Members,Renton Planning Commission Jana Hanson,Development Services Director Chuck Duffy,Fire Marshal Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Transportation Systems Division Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Utilities System Division Councilperson Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Sue Carlson,Econ.Dev.Administrator Betty Nokes,Economic Development Director South County Journal Larry Meckling,Building Official Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 15 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m.,June 8,2000. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment,or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen(14)days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record,take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 16,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. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants,the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte(private one-on-one)communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING RENTON HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on May 9, 2000, at 1:30 PM to consider the following petition: APPEAL AA 00-036#<-"f ppeal of administra ive determination regarding property at 230 Williams Ave. N. Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the Development Services Division, sixth floor, Municipal Building, Renton. All interested persons to said petitions are invited to be present at the Public • Hearing. Publication Date: April 28, 2000 Account No. 51067 aadpub AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Charlotte Ann Kassens first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING 600 S. Washington Avenue, Kent, Washington 98032 RENTON HEARING EXAMINER RENTON,WASHINGTON A Public Hearing will be held by the a daily newspaper published seven (7) times a week. Said newspaper is a legal Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council Chambers on the newspaper of general publication and is now and has been for more than six months seventh floor of City Hall, 1055 South prior to the date of publication, referred to, printed and published in the English language Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on May continually as a daily newspaper in Kent, King County, Washington. The South County 9,2000, at 1:30 PM to consider the follow- ing petition: Journal has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the APPEAL AAD-00-036 State of Washington for King County. Appeal of administrative determination N. The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the South Countyregarding eprscripti at 230 Williams sAve.noted Legal descriptions of the files noted Journal (and not in supplemental form)which was regularly distributed to the subscribers above are on file in the Development during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a Services Division, sixth floor, Municipal f3ui!ding, Renton. All interested persons to said petitions are invited to be present at Appeal AAD-00-036 the Public Hearing. Published in the South County Journal April 28.2000.7518 as published on: 4/28/00 The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of$28.75, charged to Acct. No. 8051 . Legal Number 7518/ Legal Clerk, Sout County-Journal Subscribed and sworn before me on this, > " day of 77"L , 2000 fit► O,f, i 0'1� t � \��� N.• 0SsioNeA• oy'% ���o� 41.. o% Notary Public of the State of Washington NOTAq . - residing in Renton —�— = King County, Washington %yr•. ,2 I 2 p•. ,`$ ' Iy CITY „F RENTON Hearing Examiner Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred J.Kaufman March 23, 2000 Mr. William N. Snell Attorney at Law 1111 Third Avenue, #2220 Seattle, WA 98101-3207 Re: Appeal of Administrative Determination for Property at 230 Williams Avenue N Appeal File No. LUA-00-036,AAD Dear Mr. Snell: The appeal hearing for the above-reference matter has now been rescheduled for Tuesday, May 9,2000, at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall, at 1055 S Grady Way in Renton. Should you be unable to attend, would you please appoint a representative to act on your behalf. We appreciate your cooperation, and if you have any questions,please contact my secretary. Sincerely, \T—H. ,c2sut_L Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner FJK:mm cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Larry Warren, City Attorney Jana Hanson, Development Services Director 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)430-6515 110 CITY F RENTON ••LL Hearing Examiner Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred J.Kaufman March 20, 2000 Mr. William N. Snell Attorney at Law 1111 Third Avenue, #2220 Seattle, WA 98101-3207 Re: Appeal of Administrative Determination for Property at 230 Williams Avenue N Appeal File No. LUA-00-036,AAD Dear Mr. Snell: Your letter of appeal in the above matter has been received and a date and time for said hearing have now been established. The appeal hearing has been set for Tuesday,April 11,2000, at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall, at 1055 S Grady Way in Renton. Should you be unable to attend, would you please appoint a representative to act on your behalf. We appreciate your cooperation, and if you have any questions, please contact my secretary. Sincerely, Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner FJK:mm cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Larry Warren, City Attorney Jana Hanson, Development Services Director Wilber Repp, Appellant 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)430-6515 :.. This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer /- LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM N. SNELL A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE William N. Snell CORPORATION (206)386-7855 1111 THIRD AVENUE FAX. (206)682-3746 SUITE 2220 _snellaw@rpsn.com SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101-3207 D 6 II March 14, 2000 1 4 2Ut,IU • HEARING EXAMINER Fred Kaufman Renton Hearing Examiner 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Via fax to City Clerk (425) 430-65.16 Re: Appeal of Administrative Determination for property at 230 Williams Ave.N. Dear Mr. Examiner: - ' On behalf of property owners, Wilber and Bernadine Repp, the decision of Jana Hanson, Director,of.'Developinent Services; dated :February 29, 2000,..relating-to the property at 230 Williams Ave. N. in hereby appealed.-A copy Of Ms. Harison's'letter is enclosed:,'The filing fee was hand-delivered to'•the City Clerk: A single family residence owned by the Repps at 230 Williams Ave: N. was damaged by fire on December 10,, 1999. The housing qualifies for Section 8 and provides an important resource of low income housing in the City of Renton. The Department has determined that this single family residence cannot be restored. The Repps,are directly and adversely impacted by the decision of the Department. The Department has erroneously interpreted RMC 4-10-01005 to the effect that any repairs cannot exceed 50% of the appraised value and that the conditional use approval provided for in RMC 4-8-120 is not available. First, the grounds cited by the Department as the basis for the nonconformity are disputed. Second, the interpretation that RMC 4-9-120 applies only to structures that became nonconforming due to the June, 1993 amendments to the development regulations is disputed. Third, the residence that was damaged was a single family dwelling and under the provisions of RCM 4-9-120B1b any legally established single family dwelling may be rebuilt. The Department has •taken an unreasonably restrictive view of the code provisions on nonconforming structure's and uses that has resulted in prohibiting the Repps from-restoring a vitally needed•low..income: residence:' This runs'contrary to the 'City's policies encouraging housing-availability for low income residents: The decision of the Department 'should 'be reversed. C:\MY_DOCUMENTS\REPP\HE LET.031300.DOC March 14, 2000 Page 2 This appeal was filed by facsimile transmission and an original of the appeal was mailed on March 14, 2000 and addressed to the Hearing Examiner. Very truly yours, William N. Snell WNS:wns Enclosure: Letter from Ms. Hanson • C:\MY DOCUMENTS\REPP\HE LET.031300.DOC `''� '-x - - •. ' - N 1 O� CIT.'. 3F RE ..LL Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator • • • February 29, 2000 Wilber Repp • PO Box 5532 • Kent, WA 98064 Subject: Triplex Fire and Subsequent Request to Rebuild: Dear Mr. Repp: As you requested,the City of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works Department has reviewed your request to rebuild a third unit of your existing multi family complex located at 230 Williams Avenue North, Renton, Washington. Specifically, you indicated that a third structure,established before 1993, had recently been destroyed by fire; therefore, you were inquiring if it could be rebuilt in its current location. The Residential-8 Dwelling Units Per Acre Zone (R-8) is established for,single family residential dwellings with the goal of obtaining a density of eight (8) dwelling units per acre. It is intended to prohibit the development of uses that are incompatible with the residential environment(Renton Municipal.Code [RMC] 4-2-020E)..'No new multi- family units may be constructed in this zone: : This zoning district allows a maximum of 9.7 dwelling units per acre for lots Y2 acre in size or less as of March 1, 1995. Based on the information provided, the City has determined that three units on the two lots in question would be over-dense and in violation of the maximum dwelling units allowed in this zone. In addition, a third detached unit does not comply with the requirement of only one structure per lot(RMC 4-2-110A); therefore, it has been determined that the structure in question is nonconforming. - Renton Municipal Code section 4-10-01005 (Nonconforming Structures) states, nothing in this Chapter shall prevent the reconstruction, repairing, rebuilding and continued use of any nonconforming building or structure damaged by fire, explosion, or act of God, subsequent to the date of these building regulations and subject to the following conditions: • The work shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the latest assessed or appraised . value of the building or structure at the time such damage occurred, otherwise any restoration or reconstruction shall conform to the regulations and uses specified in• • ' this Title (RMC4-10-010C5b). • 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 ®This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer ' Lastly, the City offers a Conditional Approval Permit process for nonconforming structures that would allow nonconforming structures to be rebuilt to their existing . condition, which may exceed the 50 percent (RMC4-9-120A). However, because this structure was established before June of 1993 this process cannot be applied to this situation. It has been determined that your request would violate the maximum density allowed per : <; '.- the zone you are currently within, thus making it nonconforming; rebuilding the structure would exceed 50 percent of its pre-destroyed assessed value; and, the request is not eligible for a conditional approval permit. Therefore,it is the Division's determination that you can not rebuild the third unit of the existing multifamily complex located at the above,referenced site. This Administrative Determination will be final unless a written appeal is filed with the City's Hearing Examiner within fourteen days (14) of the date of this determination. Please refer to Section 4-8-110 of the RMC (attached) for further information on the appeal process. Si rely, Jana Hanson, Director • Development Services cc: Gregg Zimmerman Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator Larry Warren, City Attorney Enclosure: RMC 4-8-110 • ----' . 1,-, -- ---- -- --------------- - ' ''" ' . NOTES RECEIPT DATE , NO.1 4 4 4 6 - i ,7 (• . CC ' • • U.1 i .• -.I RECEIVED FROM iifil/17./ittit- 7'• Ali ille 0 • . >— ci)?is- ADDRESS I= k -M biti 9 g o.3/ 7S ir,j,,) $ >st .; . /, ,, L.I.I -cil"0 0 = .0.ES DO FOR . • • 1— .E5 0 co 7 , u_. E .= < 0 .5 AT AocF CASH coumT HOW PAID LU 0 - 0 cs g ACCOUNT AMT. PAID BALANCE " cn "CHECK MONEY .. .._ . . 7T5',60 BY 6-FL/PrAda-a-;, DUE ORDER 01998 ItEDIFORMO 8L802 • ' . '�Q� p' F3 . 18T23NR5EE1/2 z"Ala n; i g ! I ' ` � ' + I I I I I ! I -d vV ,� - 11 111RM 7U I �; `l I d I I - ;1j--.I. I I I ° • N. ;\ r , . • C 1 I :u-rne ve -� bN :.. `- 1_x• HiHII1 RM;yldll ! IdI-- nI .. ;— �� \H • ' I C' Williams Ave.; 5 I; ani d D. I \�- h `.`,'. I . I �. I d I � in II r I RM U RM-U c� IIR=81I '','.'.i`.', q'P - _ -- Ire 1 c� r� i ha IIcdty �lj l �- IId1f1I- `E : 441 r, ..`.(� LeHI c�•..iglt , I I 1 1D. I - rN I '= ` n l I d I iG 'CI `mod1i` I IR8 II R8I �•! II R=B' h-loI I I DII , s I � rl „ 4 III I _� > .: -== I I I I I I I R-8 I I I I I R-B I tt-le R-10 I rz 1-405 ' 1111% DCP)I�CD d ey \� � R-8 I I IYelly QVe.11181 Flo, R I _ N rz_io I R-8, I IIIIIR 8 ; I I1 I R-10 � g :wino. p 1 I i R-10 f i �' n �� 1►oc y e-S- 8 I I I I R-:8 I I ;R-8; I - �► Q' eV. t, I I I CA III z IR 10 Pa �ECRU CAI y N Nzv R,10 1 I ICC CC IRiel Ipl �I z 'S� I 1 H Cedar l AVe.I .I�! I , 4r 4.- n 1 xi , X ' I I a Renton Ave.l S I l/ i n . ; oo F tt . ' . . , I�1! 1 I I . I �` �'.I I ;; Ga'r'den Ave. N Ctt 3111- illll I � II , I I � . ant =I1—R1!8_/_ 1 i j I-I,li R;_8; I f ' 1 i 0! i i 1 Hill 1 R,8) fI I ► IR-8 I lR1-ioi I I C N iil � �� II . Ijli I 11 , I I 1 . 1 �• 31R- eadoWl ( AvE :6111Filq N I y-- -1 R=8' I I 7i // •j R-8 I I / I I �' I I I I I I I I R8 l l l l l l R;8 I I RF10) 5 -R=s/ 77 ; i I -11 z'cfR-'Factory l Avg,ell I RF1ol - _ /4. 41 • ' wmp 71 _ R.8 �7 : � � V O C ' 7:J : 7/1//i_ DI i N -p /ice,. / ( 1I 73 / n .,--.. - / ) El �n \ • �D. -. c =�-- z/1 a aI NUJ. LI -- - -Z Y (/ 1 ..,... ,7404si- 4.1 „ ,0 , . _ LE16.1.5 • 417-1 id . 7524e ;ir..,..:-.: ,......w.„,•_ .9 • is .•.:% . , efi ..r;•4„...,!. .z..1.1.- .d,. ,.. 1, eripeirs.,,n, .'.).:. ......;. .1.,. .).-L-72.1)4i •.• • . "17,:j e.'4 • liggi "'i'i%-•,1' 11:••;:;25",.74i'IP'.t•T:}V .1.4 M• .4 . si OP- .1,L.:•vor....-.1T:;-!,,,mt,, , a„., .7.A119.4 - i ..-. tt JP• ::, !., , ,,,ke;•:• 4..,,,,,;.. i : I et if: .4-!!;,.,7•;.,41.-!..:,'•-''....4 ; i r 4).•er--..sp• • . _477TRITEI ft .: f i a-I,' t FETA. • Lonla-a•c. . , ..., /T. ;tir•••-.-J el • '.. 10/2.) Elj ••--- ".I;V: I IL:•••i'''' ..., . -.:,J.1.2 j 0 MI: .7,0" '11.'! •C•'''' l'AR, • 21r .......4 • . • 4,. .„ _„............ P.' t iic.i•!: 1 4'4'1.: ',:.t:4.1 ,.- II !t, • .y...,. kit',/,',.,!t•r•:':. •••0 .1 .114 $; 4 r Fl.../ 1%1E1 -Arg ,' •:,,,,?'i...; ,!,,,z.....i.,•-•.. .... :'..,7.1 SW 0 U. • 144'-'"".1 '. •Itialt174'. 571.17':;kiltJ113iii, ..:11 .."---161 IS: • 1 .'• '' ' 111181i. •r'.-PM. '..N.-- ' *-7-4,-,.... •• 1 '".•• ''•••1"',i'. . .'#;-!. ••:',,4: g.l!.•' .;.-91 .-- ' 1 i 'Ili.= 't,''.':' .. •'''. ..).., 11.6d. iv 5/i 4 triiilliliiI•L'° r1:•.g0 I • Zfri7V.. '' .12,.. .... , 0 '•A . -• -.7,-,1:11 .0 ..saloirve, 6M.011°4..: 4arV.MIL 4:11.1g •att ,,:....., ',1::.1.pi,A,2,,':•!;::.; • :. 1 ... • Or" .. 4g4. . u• 41 il7"...1141. Mi • ;:1;'DV c,,C•;7.';'.•:'•„' : .L.IMA.:17.n., 4,.rpill)i• ,,,SM,.R.P.t::;!„ •:-r, 0 r • a ..,,, . 4... ti ,?,,!;•,-.J., . • . iyi i=:,,i,,t. - ii4,6 .7..-71 ..--. ...-.4...... : •.-7/ .., ..2.-- . tijm 2a ' 7- Eli) - rt 'ff.q.U3 •'zzial: ...--,- ! • A ;-;..1. tf,..,-,::-..-. .:.: - ..• • :. -. 1.____. v.,:-...., ;.:,.;. , . .-.,• , 41 r .______12=511 ;:.84 )r•ki '- gr:"1 -1 41! PrA al ' - €•5 5.:'-grl":' f.Zk•irtlarli •• 4 ;VAIM . • • R. i ii......-..av • •'VII ',..,,) :.-1."1,•17 .kr. '.•••,:,. -: , ..„.........._„„ r imnien. ..fa,- . ,-,..3;v:- , s:. :t.:,'1 .11.•--• • ,:,“ --. • i --A•;1• $•• .,5!:,-• • ' • . . • pog 1,„411E113 V ;tig i,i• .4;EII1 • : •.,laam= •Itt . -•., d 4- • ' :4''''::,o• -1`tre:i. : ... • ..% -• . , ' cz ii . ,..,, p,...4 r.f.... .{. .----r •.7,7.-- ..,..., ,.,...,... ,..lo 1 .,!'i•'..4" f'1;'F• I . " kJ: .,3,... , ... ......... j/ 324:1' ". ;311°E. 1_ , L2121 Pan '•!..'".J:!;i '''l'i:I;;', '•%,.. 1 • 'C7.1. -,. i' ... -. I il o i!:41- Li ; ' • ' • - :4; •:,V ;td11;;' • 4 -•• . lgr9 ,i‘ ' ... -`j WI' ER. L'LJ Mk fig 5,L3 3NIN •il I ,..4',.,...,:ifs.. . 7.:.•:•if „••ot'. ' '1 ; .,...-c:•,.1.... .....-;,- • , ir. voi,: t•'. . ., .01 b:, [6 4--Ct:91,?-4 Cti i, •••• .----r-, ciit , •. ;,.;.,;'; • X:_!':'..•`,• • 5.-1* ' :„? ....-!;,,.r t... 243 ' '4.44:‘ ' CrZ. VA - = ,/. ,I, i,,. _,_. cro. .: ..,- - • .:1.,..1i,, .r7 .. . .. r.... 4r1• -1';.. t N. ..3 i .... f• ' ..9.• • '4E'• -ii7 sir, , ::.. . a rk`j4i1g10:1r.•,t 1);t'S!;.1,k4:'.'':'-....• '.::';..•"'•2.t11&,,.I. •ffls..13h...,',4,,1,.. Or._.7_-.,1..1....2'-3- MMalIl:1 LWt M1k 1 5 i I i azi :;j• ,..1 .-.: , „ . • ,4s:1. ..t"," ---1 • 1 *,.., • ` .,. .• • - .t. - • r. •• -' ill ..44 -, • - - WInc..' Tr:• 0 . i • • • d -• c 15 a : an T re: ,- - ,1:316,' EIM [E] 16'.. :11;-g,t.,•;,. -fa 11 . M f •\'' . • RH ° .7';.- ii:.faS:-..... . " - 1 . ,-Z s• FV.,..•! EM • ,..g 17. i, 0 ...,...-% . •kliill r,.;,:•'ri• f;:•1 ,;1;•t41nit.4:•;,::.,-::,:: ..•.,,•••:. .W1..:'.:,.•,'.-et--.•.....f.•.4L•,.E.•.7..1.F.401--•.,.64.-1,'1• . !Vi,f..z:44a_1....2).7.44_.1 n• ionzznairtruj i • • •:.‘, 111.:, • I-9'.':f,1.'t,t;.fkh444..'%' c 5IBZ 10 • / ; l i4a (f) • AA , __0 _•. 6•14 4•1‘ -,•,. • •• ..,. !-, ...`...iii. •:- !I.r..;,•?",:, ;:,-.:i..,ti1k14;,'t,.•f1.1('.'4.••',•,'-••.;,•::.:•..', ..•.'••i:/•-i.1.\.'4.-.a...•.,i....•3N.'•.g.R.• . ,2. 1 ill • 4;1111. ,1,6* 2, .ck .... ,DmoV ZL7 IV U o -.§; . al 2,0-•-... ;,:t iF,tzi. ff3 6 .. . 8 t....1. v.t.,' . ,;:t••=,• .,, „, -. ,.,,, • . - 6.0 , <74!p 6,74 ..MI 22 :l5E23•7•• •E?J•221. MI- •7171 5 , :: ..1 ' `•:- ....:,, •••- %In. 1 _t_ .., •)•b- 4.• •FA ,111 .1,T.-,,,,...,- • • , :,,,, • 1.4 1 •9 .,, . ip-i..- • . q . ' CI' 1.01-4 c, cr.. 4.'•..'4. '4 -:2•N 7;1174tili:,. -Eli 23:: .;4.45C; BEI 23.! ' : :i .1.• 't'' . r..,;:' , • . tot ,,, .. cmA •- - 1,, .f.,- . • •--' ti-• IL ....., • C. .t I.. :+•ii f•••91:1, ..•.. :•. • . 6?• •' \ !i4,..t,•-.P..:..M ,.5,vb...:.0 ' .-'/-°'A' •••• 3. j - 24' ::4.1-EL• • k Mk 1° 'Il Flid %%1 - . 25 : Addrm j„,, . . ..,..,_ ct: ilitv•- .E.. .• --. : . • \ /Otte -').4e • •••• 4 A't1 Irri A ,Ip• k•-;Ea 2: 11;• •,.!,..7..,•'•-.'" .•'" ':...:.. . ''... . . . lo .o.-.:,1. ••••4.J4P"911 .)• 1..,i I..x...- - i..:.,--• ... - . -,,...,: \4? , -r.5. , , ..,=•7 la.1..,k,-4-w mi.; Mg jai Q. • 100 26 1311,,,LM ,t lot.rjj ti ;.i7i1J.-r:i•I''.'. --•'''' '6.0\ , ,,.. ,,& . . . 4 Itil),itliat ‘"..PiFi,!--1`•.iI rf.,t,,,.,..iz.f.c..l...:I..i:.i..ri-:.,..,......::.4,-;.y:,,..,.........,...1.:..,-•...,•.4...,..s. .e.•-...• • ,\• \I,...i.?..qtre...Y s'.,•.i•.<>e ., lt4"•-',-,-'-tl"-•-.u- --, ,',,1e',vde.er- :.-....:v',•s.t4..'.0p- ,. N .., i'‘'• E'.09Ss1.•.•12 N rE--:-••A ElN! < 4, v 1 l,.l... . •-• . - -!1:..-'1.....,if''s lt1'1i.•.„•'.•.'..k-w?..s..:oi-!).-)•s5.-•.:r:,:.'.....?..''''.,.;.•..'..;'r.;•..,....-1.-..r-,•..'•.:._,'',•....•.'...:•.. ...-,.•:..\ C,\1. !\-•N*‘•••,••.•.. \\ '* M, Z;..15 10 - . • \N •••;0 e i ItrO• • .•A . 1:111 16 i.9 Fa31 7, . .. .E.10'. '4- 9 5 it rt i ..-:..J.t•It!,3377{iff436•"ss' \ /.70 \\... .../ \ • NN 4:. g% , I ••8VA.; : 136 L ;9;‘'.....; 3A _Wel POST \ ‘ .eivp, 'N\ • "":N . •'.. ' 'IN t..5.1 'f.:•.r:....':'.•f;4ii...'_'-..--3,'.4•,:.?.,'..i1,%.17'•1.„t:••!,..•r.4.•/11i1,.iy'l•...4i•1-i•:t`.2i?•t.i,:4t!4.L`'.:•---,."1l..^4.i-l.qM1:';,•4e.'*.‘.i!:,i0..6tM.-•.;-!if."A.,•r::f;.'.;!V.r.•;•'.•:r'......:•,.1;:,:.T..A-..-":...,.-.-....,!'.••...,e!..,.':,,....-.........:.•.,•..•,.i•..:..".,,...•..:..•..,•rV,4'r'i.•,•''--l.-••..:.a_'T.5-- .t4.•,p.•...,••:.•......•-.'..,••••.:T 1:Z.‘'.1•11...•',:.7-'....'..,.. •;. .e M•p•‘•r'.,..i c'--' ft•'•!•P'..•"n4r.••4rnU.: r•4/zl.0•'i.1.]0i1• "a,"I;,l-,,';• -..••. .• - d.6•-',\'.1,. r--0-,.\.-•N •7'•\.\.p-,'....,-..H. %Nn0r,J:r\,A.\.'.••,:•.,A.,1,,N•. .,.I'."-.',":•,.'•P'li---i,-4-t.•\• % ''''• .%.'‘.,,.•••.-c•\\"%,':..h.N.i.y.:`.'4e.....-:..."4.,..t viI..i*l.‘.e\...‘•/4-NV.*.5 i'4.v.Z,.•',• )•-t.k'.I,V.:.5 •-%l.N•.....•l1 .'4.• ›7,I:C6R11 7t3.:iSl le.-,2...1.,"*0-i1'-•,0.11•'• ,--•.• hg65 60 P \ \\ 3 0 . \ ,'''•'':f1•7.:4••-;4 7iuT1,l:l 5•/47.ST, 1/4 ' 1.._; ,:1.l.'.•:• ::;)• .dO•o.1•.:m:0AOE1.-E,•.:',M•:--1..15•6 o1....n•'.o.•.• VC..-.6.•-..•tNi .;0 11 " ! . ' T1irl ..ir rf7095 t :1 ' , . ' l r ,,i_ * rl 5 [E 3s • 7 11. 3 Izf0, 2, tv-- ' - '. i'•-, '4p .,...--- .. :s 0 . . ...„. rEj ruhf 99 • . tTN+,. s , SI s NI AO o':• -,1 i,i.F.;?:.:.!.,, •i 1, ..,._. -v• I rts.5 . ...,,,, .2,),,,,,• ',.:.),..,1,, ,cc., •.°P,e... •IT'-% 14#'..X0‘1•410...,t\- '10:13\ IX.. NN444 0'... 4. ' •.. IMF 41 1 t,:y.,,;_,• ,..-. -2,2i,m; • BE 5 , Evi. ,s, a n. 5 \\ J.,.&.:ii•:At•'''•. . :l•,*.1 I;)i'f,•,',. i•.:!•• •'1 • . • '''''4011 ..te-r M. .'1.:;i114 Tr:-?.-7..-•- hirie.14-ii .1.• . .'-' 0..4' . . ' ,ie..., Ap•.I.,tI.y‘.r4o%f,„,c1i1."t Ci A.."'k.P......1.,r1c..•.I.;-.4'...eFP--r..•.••';..:-I.., .-.4laL',.,,7.',..-':4.•!;4:“1s':.r3",--4..;.",..:,':...„'...U.....e•F.::•cI...i."•...,..-.n,;.;3;.1'•-i.d 11 ,.1•. .o7•.-.--.1.). •,•• •.V.••• ,'•, ••*•• M-7ror/4, I . N. . • .....0 •N\NNe.I st,-., .''',../ „1:/-0.>>4 '- I1I 1 2 3 4 BEFORE THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER 5 6 APPEAL OF WILBUR REPP FROM 7 DENIAL OF RESTORATION OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE HEARING MEMORANDUM 8 DESTROYED BY FIRE 9 10 INTRODUCTION 11 This case involves an appeal by Wilber and Bernadine Repp from a decision of the 12 Director of Development Services, dated February 29, 2000, denying the Repps the right to restore 13 a single family residence located at 230 Williams Ave. N. that had been damaged by fire. The 14 Director's denial of the right to restore the single family residence constitutes an erroneous 15 interpretation of law and is contrary to the City's policies of encouraging the preservation-of 16 l7 moderate to low income housing. 18 STATEMENT OF FACTS 19 On December 10, 1999 the Repp's single family residence at 230 William Ave. N. was 20 substantially damaged by fire. The residence was rented by a disabled low income person under the 21 Shelter Plus Care Housing Subsidy Program,which is similar to Section 8 housing. The housing 22 provides an important resource of low income housing in the City of Renton. The Department has 23 interpreted the City's ordinances to the effect that the subject residence cannot be restored. If the 24 25 26 HEARING MEMORANDUM- 1 LAW OFFICES OF C:\My Documents\Repp\HEARING MEMORANDUM.doc WILLIAM N. SNELL 1111 THIRD AVENUE SUITE 2220 SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101-32078 TEL(206)386-7855 1 Director's ruling is allowed to stand then an important low income housing unit will be lost to the 2 City. 3 ARGUMENT 4 The City's ordinance sections on nonconforming structures (RMC 4-10-010C), 5 6 nonconforming uses (RMC 4-10-010D) and permits for nonconforming structures and uses (RMC 7 4-9-120) are not a model of clarity. However,the facts in this case provide for a simple resolution. 8 RMC 4-9-120 B 1 b provides that: 9 Any legally established single family dwelling 10 damaged by fire or an act of God may be rebuilt on the same site, subject to all relevant fire and 11 life safety codes, without a conditional approval permit. 12 13 The testimony in the record shows that the single family dwelling was legally established and 14 damaged by fire. Therefore, it meets all of the relevant requirements of the applicable code section 15 and as a matter of law is entitled to be restored. 16 The City appears to claim that the subject property is not a single family residence but 17 rather a third unit in an existing multifamily complex. The fact that a duplex is located on the same 18 lot as the subject property does not change the fact that the subject property is a,single family 19 dwelling unit. The definitions in the RMC support a finding that the subject property meets the 20 21 definition of a single family dwelling. A"Dwelling Unit"is defined as a structure occupied as 22 separate living quarters with cooking, sleeping and sanitary facilities provided for the use of a 23 single household." See RMC 4-11-040. A"Detached Dwelling"is defined as a building containing 24 one dwelling unit which is not attached to any other dwelling by any means except fences and is 25 surrounded by open space or yards. See RMC 4-11-040. By contrast a"Multi-Family Dwelling" is 26 HEARING MEMORANDUM- 2 LAW OFFICES OF C:\My Documents\Repp ARING MEMORANDUM.doc WILLIAM N. SNELL 1111 THIRD AVENUE SUITE 2220 SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101-32078 TEL(206)386-7855 1 defined as a one family dwelling attached to one or more one family dwelling by common roofs, 2 walls or floor. See RMC 4-11-040. The facts here show that the subject property is surrounded by 3 yards and not attached to a duplex or other buildings. 4 An additional argument raised by the City is that because the subject property was built 5 6 before June, 1993 it does not qualify. The code that was adopted in 1993 created nonconformity as 7 to density and the provision that no more than one structure can be located on a single lot. 8 However, the City Council established a clear exception for a single family dwelling. A single 9 family dwelling can be restored provided that it meets all relevant fire and life safety codes; no 10 conditional approval permit is required; and the value of the restoration can exceed 50% of the 11 assessed or appraised value. If there is any question as to the overall intent of the City Council,the 12 13 housing element policies of the Comprehensive Plan(policies H-40 thru H-60) demonstrate the 14 clear intent to preserve and promote the establishment of moderate and low income housing. 15 Specifically Policy H-58 provides that the City will "Encourage preservation, maintenance, and 16 improvements to existing affordable housing." The interpretation of the Director runs counter to 17 the Comprehensive Plan policies on housing. The Director's decision is erroneous as a matter of 18 law in light of the entire record and arbitrary and capricious. Furthermore,the interpretation given 19 by the Director would render the City's ordinances on nonconformity unconstitutional since there 20 21 is no grant of a period of time for amortization. Rhod-A-Salea& 35`h, Inc. v. Snohomish County, 22 136 Wn.2d 1 (1988). 23 We request that the Examiner overrule the Director and hold that the single family dwelling 24 located at 230 William Ave. N. can be restored without requiring a conditional approval and that 25 the cost of the restoration can exceed 50% of the assessed or appraised value of the dwelling unit. 26 HEARING MEMORANDUM- 3 LAW OFFICES OF C:\My Documents\Repp\HEARING MEMORANDUM.doc WILLIAM N. SNELL 1111 THIRD AVENUE SUITE 2220 SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101-32078 TEL(206)386-7855 1 DATED this 9th day May,2000 2 Respectfully submitted, 3 LAW OF O LLI N. SN , P.S. 4 5 i lia N. Sne 6 Attorney for Repps 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 • 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 HEARING MEMORANDUM-4 C:\My Documents\Repp\HEARING MEMORANDUM.doc LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM N. SNELL 1111 THIRD AVENUE SUITE 2220 SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101-32078 TEL(206)386-7855 - - . ;...Tie'N%-•-: .• ._ 1,. • , , •••• ,..... . , ....... ,. - 1' I , 1 _ it•i _... • 1......, r I 'I ' ',1. . s ..„ , , ' k . I 1 1 ' \ .\4,/. , • , , 6 _., . . A \ 1 ,. :• •• , „ 1 . . , . F1 , 1 , ' • - - - - - 1 . . . Ir. ..: IIIIIIIJ ••14 .) .au i •••--\ 1 1---- iiiir ... . 'll'' ' . :: giwiiiiiiiii)Willik ri- -I,. 41 lio I Ii' i: or f., .7,... ...r. •r .'..'' f ' i. ,,. ..— ; ' . • ' a. ' •••<•••••.. ‘.. , ---,* . • ....• I • 1 , . , / , ) , .11 , • „ c, t / 1 ,, , • ,. 4 t . A .• ... An. 1— 7 , . ' —osillalP. • = i - ..raseimme r , 1 , ,.. 1 c 0 .. . - . 1 I( Co' •• P • / a ..C) \ E- , \ , • r _ ..1) i• ., .. et . . - • , . ..., t... (i) , ,t , . i , . , i • r; K A) 4,,,•u UAL►►41L\1 111 AJL VVa♦11(-al I "iA'.,... 10 of Washington, Inc. THIS SPACE PROVIDED FOR RECORDER'S USE "A Tradition • of Excellence" • FILED FOR RECORD AT REQUEST OF u°LF Cry •liiJyy KING • 0 EXCISE TAX pA D r c7. OCT 3 - �88 �,;:. :NG C:!•.t,; o • E1 5 • WHEN RECORDED RETURN TOri ''�`�� 0. Pacific West Escrow Co., Inc. 99fi0l03, fk0$F_.? E Go Name RECG F 5.00 AddressP.O. Box 58036 CASH�L »' M5.00 55 City State,2Ipp Rencon Washington 98055 Statutory Warranty Deed • THE GRANTOR DERALD C. BASKIN AND MARLIN J. BASKIN, Husband & wife for and in consideration of TEN DOLLARS AND OTHER GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION in hand paid,conveys and warrants to WILBUR L. REPP AND BERNADINE A. REPP, Husband & wife • the following described real estate,situated in the County of KING ,State of Washington: to Lots 12 and 13, replat of Block 22, Renton Farm Plat No 5, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 18 of Plats, page 75, in King County jWashington. _, i 1 Subject to that Certain Deed of Trust of Record with Washington Administrative t. Services, Inc Home Savings 0 f America, F.A., A. Corporation, dated November (b — 15, 1985, recorded December 2nd 1985 under King County Auditors file #8512020357 • which Grantee herein agrees to assume andpay according to its terms and • v conditions. Qs Subject to easements, restrictions, covenants and reservations of record as . Id I disclosed to Grantee herein by Chicago Title Insurance Companys Preliminary r j7.303 o epted. • �/'%^ Wilbur L. Repp ernadine A. Repp DaAe. SFtembeL 246t `. , )gam_ . y.cd MARLIN J. KIN STATE OF WASHINGTON, STATE OF WASHINGTON, ss. • County of KING County of ss. 1 hereby certify that 1 know or have satisfactory 1 certify that 1 know or have satisfactory evidence that evidence that Der ald C_ b Marlin J_ Baskin, is the person who appeared-6efo ,me,and said person is the person who appeared before me,and said person acknowledged that • acknowledged that(_mho,-3c_)signed this instru- (_.he_)signed this instrument,on oath stated that ment and acknowledged it to be thA,ir free authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned of • in thilinstrument. \1 to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes • �• mentioned in this instrument. r • Dare', • Sep tembe ' 1988 �� C7 Dated: e No or - •is in,, tgri of Washington. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, midi•, at �� .4.—.t t-t.� residing at 0•1 Mr appointment expires i`rf"s My appointment expires • LPB No.10 t t described is sketch is not ��T upon a survey of the per. Y in Order No. ..� Chicago Title InsurancC )mpany. .It is VOL furnished without charge solely for the purpose of assisting in locatingthe said premises. It does not purport to show all roads 1W or easements. The Company assumes no liability for inaccuracies therein.. x Rep/at 8/k. 22 -,Eenton Farr", P/at No.S • i J ` _ • l9 ( s , • • ----------\ ao L Ra AVF• !jf Go Zs + 1Z� V 0 I N /0S•DIN • .( o � � �v1Io4 • 9 ". ipt45 1 N 100 M \ I4 . 42.5 8 o cn i. MY7 I- V 1s J 18 !9 20 21 4 - n z too 46.6 46 44 0' • VI 2 4 . 1 Z rt 1 ", . M /02.3 F1 aryl:, AVE. N. 0 Go v lvo Q (00 . '9L - 2 • 'ROPERTY TAX RP10 1ivi ouu-ouu rvurNI I-I Mt,SLAI I Lt VVH yd1U4-23ti/ . CCOUNT NUMBER "EEP ' •`CURRENTBILLING DISTRIBLL 0 ' CURRENT BILLING INFORMATION 1. • State Land Value 7 2 2 6 5 0—0 0 6 0—0 9 + Local School Support... •88 Improvements 41,0 0c HISCounty 4 2 9 Less:Exempt Value 9410.0c 02/24/2000 City 228 . 08 TAXABLE VALUE Unincorporated/Road... 497 . 29 Levy General Tax PORTION Port • Tax 5,'0 0 1213. 9370 Fire 29 .14 *Other Charges 1,746. 5 .rJ rf� Sewer 8/or Water TOTAL CURRENT BILLING ,• .1 1 7 5 2' '3 • Library Omitted Taxes BRING ALL PARTS WHEN PAYING IN PERSON • Other 15. 97 TOTAL CURRENT BILLING Emergency Med Svc INCLUDING OMITS .. *Other Charges 3 5.85 VOTER APPROVED 601 •ry5 TOTAL CURRENT BILLING . ' REPP WILBUR L BERNADINE A 013413 *OTHER CHARGES PO BOX 5532 NOX WEED • . 85 SOIL CON 5 .00 KENT WA 98064 First half must be paid or postmarked • DELINQUENCY INFORMATION ;'£._,-. LOT BLOCK .CODE SEC TWP,'- , RG{, by April 30, of FULL AMOUNT BE- COMES DELINQUENT and accrues YEAR INTEREST PRINCIPAL interest and penalty as prescribed by PENALTY 12 13 2 2 2100 law. If first half paid by April 30 R E N T O N FARM PLAT tt •5 REP L AT second half must be paid by October ' 31 or it becomes delinquent and accrues interest and penalty. FULL AMOUNT MAY BE _ PAID APRIL 30th DELINQUENT TOTAL . • PROPERTY ADDRESS 234 WILLIAMS AV N TOTAL CURRENT' 1,752. 1 t] AND DELINQUENTS" MAIL WITH 2 N D PAYMENT .. •., 2000 REAL:ESTATE TAX DELINQUENT PAYMENTS RECEIVED WITHOUT INTEREST KING COUNTY STATE OF WASHINGTON AND PENALTY WILL BE RETURNED.CANCELLATION . PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT NUMBER . RM 600-500 FOURTH AVENUE,SEATTLE 98104-2387 AND DELINQUENCY CHARGES WILL BE IMPOSED FOR",- . DISHONORED CHECKS.PAYMENTS SUBJECT TO IMMEDIATE Property Tax Information (206) 296-0923 COLLECTION.NO POST DATED CHECKS ACCEPTED.. C_ 7�650-0060-09 I Make check payable to:KING COUNTY TREASURY.Your cancelled check is your receipt. . *Second half must be paid or postmarked by October 31 1YPE FAR YEAR TO:EREST PENALTY (SEE REVERSE) PRINCIPAL AMOUNT * HALF AMOUI` or IT BECOMES.DELINQUENT AND ACCRUES.ANNUAL Current INTEREST.AND.,PENALTY. .' omitteC0 876 . 1 .. Delin- quent• •All payments must • the PRINCI- 1 PAL + INTEREST • + PENALTY wher. REPP WILBUR - L BERNADINE A 013413 due. PO BOX 5532 .>( •-.4o,,,,;... _ . KENT WA 98064 �r THI.%k ' ViH1xl �'/L/N•. I4 t • • J DUE OCTOBER 31 876-17 ' 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000072265000600900008761707 MAIL WITH 1ST PAYMENT 2000 REAL ESTATE TAX DELINQUENT PAYMENTS RECEIVED WITHOUT INTEREST KING COUNTY STATE OF WASHINGTON AND PENALTY WILL BE RETURNED.CANCELLATION : :• PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT NUMBER RM 600-500 FOURTH AVENUE,SEATTLE 981 04-2387 AND DELINQUENCY CHARGES WILL BE IMPOSED FOR DISHONORED CHECKS.PAYMENTS SUBJECT TO IMMEDIATE Property TaxT Information (206) 296_092.3 COLLECTION.NO POST DATED CHECKS ACCEPTED. C 7 P P 6 S fl-❑0 6 0-D 9 1) Make check payable to:KING COUNTY TREASURY.Your cancelled check is your receipt. • * First half payment must be paid or postmarked by April 30th TYPE YEAR�FJiR TO:EREST PENAL(SEE REVERSE)SE) PRINCIPAL AMOUNT * HALF AMOUI` or ENTIRE BILLING BECOMES DELINQUENTAND WILL Current" • ' • ACCRUE ANNUAL INTEREST AND PENALTY.- Omitted- 0 1,7 5 2 . 3 5 876 • 1 • • FULL AMOUNT MAY BE PAID APRIL 30th. . ` • Delin- • • ' • quent . All paymtsm enust • include the PRINCI- c— PAL+"INTEAEST Th +PENALTY wher REPP WILBUR L BERNADINE A 013413 due: ; ; . ,: PO BOX 5532 .., KENT WA . 98064. PAY THIS, • • J• . ' •AMOUNT'. DUE APRIL 30 876 . 18 0000000000000000000000.000000000000000000000000000000000072265000600900008761805� Hoz rig Authority of the City of enton (425)226-1850 P.O.Box 2316 • Renton,Washington 98056-0316 FAX 271-8319 • EQUAL HOUSING TDD 255-8373 OPPORTUNITY April 27, 2000 • City of Renton Attn: Department of Building 1055 South Grady Way • Renton WA 98055 Dear Sir or Madam: - Mr. Wilbur Repp, has been providing safe and sanitary units to many of our low income families in the Renton area for many years,he has work with the Renton Housing Authority Section-8 program for over 25 years without any incident. . I am writing this letter to you, letting you know that without landlord, like Mr. Repp, providing affordable housing, for working families and elderly, who cannot afford the high market rents, that this area has seen within the past few years. We would see a higher homeless rate in the City •of Renton. Mr. Repp, has been the type of landlord we here at Renton Housing are.proud to have on board. If there is a problem with any tenant issues he is eager to solve it, no matter how long it takes. Many landlord does not care about the human side of this business only the financial side, but Mr. Repp is in a class by himself. Yours truly, • Janice Fernandez Housing Coordinator-Section 8 • • • Gkh, • TT Plymouth Housing GroupHusin Shelter Plus Care 2209 First Avenue Seattle,WA 98121 (206)374-9409 x113 FAX(206)374-0626 March 30, 2000 Wilbur Repp P.O. Box 5532 Kent, WA 98064 RE: 230 Williams Ave North Renton, Washington Dear Wilbur, The purpose of this letter is to extend to you a heart-felt thank you for your ongoing support of low income housing for our disabled clients under our Shelter Plus Care Subsidy Program at your above-described rental location despite the unfortunate fire. You had indicated to us that you would like to continue housing our low income, disabled residents there, and we support your efforts to rebuild your rental home. For the information of the governmental agencies with which you must deal to rebuild your rental home I am enclosing material which describes our Shelter Plus Care Housing Subsidy Program as well as detailing Plymouth Housing Group's role within the program. In brief, the tenant pays 30% of his or her adjusted monthly income toward his or her rent and a federal government grant, which we administer, pays the remainder. These arrangements are not unlike those made under the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Section 8 program which is administered in our area by the Seattle and King County Housing Authorities. The Shelter Plus Care program, however, requires that the social service agency recommending - the tenant for the Shelter Plus Care housing program provide case management services on a continuing basis. We started this program from scratch in King County in January 1993 and now have approximately 650 participating housing units for low income and disabled tenants. Linda Dunbar is the contact person at Recovery Centers of King County which sponsors a number of SPC tenants, including the resident in your rental home at the time of the fire. Linda Dunbar's phone number is (206) 568-8214. If you or the City of Renton have further questions about the Shelter Plus Care Subsidy Program • or about our.continuing commitment to house low income and disabled individuals,please contact me directly at (206) 374-9409 ext. 115. Very truly yours, Ric and L. Lira Shelter Plus Care & Commercial Properties Coordinator !..L i. e i Sri i cv �vvv L v•-r-+ �.1 i i ur nci v i uiti '4 �{JYJ (JI:u r.VJ /VJ_`, CITY OF RENTON HOUSING ELF VT Policy H-40. Encourage innovative site planning Center Neighborhood designations as set forth in to achieve density goals and reduce housing the Land Use Element. costs. Policy H-47. Encourage public/private Policy H-41. Encourage construction of smaller cooperation for housing development. houses on smaller lots to create single family homeownership opportunities. Strategy H-47.1. Provide technical assistance for redevelopment of land Policy H-42. Increase housing opportunities by particularly in downtown Renton. encouraging innovative developments which combine residential and commercial uses. Strategy H-47.2. Develop a marketing program to attract housing developers to Policy H-43. Re-evaluate these targets at five Renton. (5) year intervals. Strategy H-47.3. Maintain an updated Policy H-44. Affordable moderate income inventory of land available for housing housing created through regulatory measures development. should give priority to housing for households earning between 50 and 80% of regional median Policy H-48. The City should pursue income. public/private partnerships to provide and manage moderate income housing. Policy H-45. The City should encourage development of permanent moderate income Policy H-49. Create housing opportunities housing. focusing on studio and other small rental units, Amib, which would be affordable to moderate income Policy H-46. Encourage housing construction in households. the Center Downtown, Center Suburban and Low Income Housing Objective H-G: Improve housing opportunities for low and very low income Renton residents and provide a regional fair share of low income housing in the future. Policy H-S0. Achieve the targets of 20% of new Policy H-52. Affordable housing created with construction for low income housing as defined public funds or by regulations should provide a in the Countywide policies. range of unit types including family housing. Strategy H-50.1 Re-evaluate these targets at Strategy H-52.1. A specific target for five (5) year intervals at the time capacity studio, one and two bedroom and family estimates are updated. units should be developed annually as part of the local monitoring report required by the Policy H-51. Affordable housing created with King County housing policies. public funds should give priority to housing for Policy H-53. The City should encourage households below 50% of regional median development of permanent low income housing. income. A percentage of funds should be set aside for households earning less than 30% of median income. Policy H-54. The City should pursue public/private partnerships to provide and manage affordable housing. III-19 C1 vy (JUL, r. 'UJ/u-) CITY OF KLN I UN UUUSLXN!Y k�.n.M n ry y Strategy H-54.1. Work with for profit and Policy H-57. Disperse affordable housing in all non-profit developers to acquire low interest areas of the City and avoid concentrations of loans for housing development. housing projects. Strategy H-54.2. Provide technical Strategy H-57.1. Ensure that a sufficient assistance to housing developers interested in amount of land is zoned in various providing low and moderate income housing. neighborhoods of the City. Strategy H-54.3. Actively encourage non- Strategy H-57.2. Require projects to meet profit agencies to construct and manage current standards for design and amenities so projects within the City. they can be easily accepted in a variety of neighborhoods. Strategy H-54.4. Work with the Renton Housing Authority to help define and Strategy H-57.3. Develop a low/moderate possibly expand its role in providing income housing target for each of the City's additional housing. sub areas based on that areas percentage of existing affordable units. Policy H-55. Increase City funding and in-lieu of cash financial support for housing. Policy H-58. Encourage preservation, maintenance, and improvements to existing Strategy H-55.1. Waive mitigation fees for affordable housing. low income housing projects. Policy H-59. Reduce existing housing need Strategy H-55.2. Use a greater percentage defined as the number of existing residents who of federal funds including Community are paying more than 30% of income for Development block Grants and Home funds housing. to support low income affordable housing. Strategy H-59.1. Set a target for reducing Strategy H-55.3. Establish a Renton existing need annually in the Monitoring Housing Trust Fund to use for local Report. This target should be based on 2% matching funds or to co-sponsor housing of the number of households in greatest projects with private and/or non-profit existing need, those households below 30% sponsors. of median income which are overpaying for housing. Strategy H-55.4. Actively pursue all available funding sources for affordable Strategy H-59.2. Prioritize applications for housing. housing assistance and rehabilitation based on the greatest degree of existing need. Strategy H-55.5. Inventory City owned surplus land and evaluate its sale or use by Strategy H-59.3. Encourage economic the City for development of affordable development and job creation to increase the housing. household income of the region's population. Policy H-56. Work with other King County Policy H-60. Housing units which become cities to address regional housing issues. subsidized, or managed in a manner which reduces housing costs for their occupants, should Strategy 56.1. Evaluate establishing a South be counted toward the target for reducing County organization such as ARCH (A existing housing need. New units created should Regional Coalition for Housing) to address be counted toward the goal of meeting housing and/or social service issues related countywide affordable housing targets. to housing. ID-20 TOTAL P.03