Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJ_Variance_RequestFile No. 17-000435 Jones ADU – 1403 N 37th St Project Proposal: The subject property is located at 1403 N 37th St (APN #3342700482). The proposed project site contains an existing 2,470 sq.ft. single family residence with a built-in two car garage and driveway with parking for two cars which shall remain, and an existing 720 sq.ft. detached garage which shall remain. The proposal is to obtain a Side Setback Variance to allow for the conversion of the existing detached garage to a one bedroom, one bathroom 552 sq.ft. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) with a 168 sq.ft. storage space. The site is 9,669 sq.ft. in area and is zoned R-6 (Residential 6). Variance Justification: The proposed accessory dwelling unit will be consistent with the architectural character of the primary home. As shown by the photographs of the primary residence and current detached garage, the garage is consistent with the architecture of the primary residence in terms of roof line, brick façade, etc. The brick facade will be retained as shown in the proposed front elevation and the only architectural change proposed to the exterior of the garage in the conversion process will be the removal of one of the garage doors to be replaced with three windows. At 552 sq.ft. meets the requirement that an ADU be maximum “800 sq.ft. or 75% of the primary residence, whichever is smaller” (RMC 4-2-110B). Additionally, as shown in by the elevation drawings, the building height is under the 24 ft from grade maximum allowed and has a 5:12 roof pitch. As shown by the included survey map (survey conducted by Terrane, January 8, 2018), the current detached garage (proposed ADU) is located over 6’ from the primary residence, and is located 6’ from the rear (south) property line and 4.8’ from the side (east) property line. According to RMC 4-2-110B of the city development code, the required minimum setbacks for ADU’s are 5’ from the rear and side. While the exterior wall of the existing detached garage is located 4.8’ from the side property line per the survey, the interior wall of the proposed ADU would be located approximately 5.2’ from the side property line due to exterior wall thickness. As previously stated, RMC 4-2-110B requires 5’ rear and side setbacks for Accessory Dwelling Units. We are requesting a variance to allow for the exterior wall of our ADU to be located 4.8’ from the side property line due to the location of the existing structure. Our proposal involves retaining the exterior shell of the existing garage (proposed ADU) and converting the structure into a 552 sq.ft. ADU with a 168 sq.ft. storage space. The proposal does not expand the footprint of the structure. Completing the conversion strictly according to the requirements of RMC 4-2- 110B would entail moving the eastern exterior wall by approximately 2.4” to meet the 5’ setback requirement. This structural change would significantly and unnecessarily increase the complexity of the project due to the engineering and structural changes involved in moving a load-bearing exterior wall. Since the existing structure has been in place for more than 30 years, the neighbors to the east are accustomed to the location of the structure and would see no perceptible benefit from the wall being moved 2.4”. Granting the variance would not have any negative impact on the neighboring property directly to our east. The existing detached garage (proposed ADU) was built in 1985 according to King County Assessor data and has not negatively impacted the neighboring property since that time. Because our construction would be on the interior with no expansion toward the property line, there would be no exterior change noticeable to the neighboring property. Moving the exterior wall of the structure by 2.4” would meet the strict standard for ADU setbacks but would provide no additional benefit to the neighboring property. If we were required to move the exterior wall by 2.4” the project would be more disruptive to the neighbors to the east due to the added noise and extensive work involved in exterior construction compared to that of our proposed interior remodel work. If our proposal involved building a new structure, we would take all necessary actions to ensure that the ADU would meet setback guidelines and we could apply for and receive conditional use permit approval without a variance. However, our proposal involves converting space in a detached garage which has been in place for more than 30 years. If the existing garage (proposed ADU) were located 2.4” to the west, the proposal could be permitted without a variance. The requested side setback variance is the only variance necessary for our proposed ADU to meet requirements necessary for further review and consideration for a conditional use permit. Other property owners in the neighborhood could apply for and receive conditional use permit approval for new accessory dwelling units without the burden of demolishing and moving an existing exterior wall 2.4” to comply with setback regulations. Considering that ADUs are permitted conditional uses in the zone and that our proposal is to convert an existing structure into an ADU without the impractical requirement of moving the exterior wall 2.4”, variance approval would not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity.