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