Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReport 01L5 N m CL L vl W W cn z r I Z fr � I z a W J a W a a W Z a J ..J r W J z r CL W v) a W J CL 1 Q w � u d t C 3 a l� 0 CL N q a Q U 1 3 z � s V � m CL L s F- W W z I z z oC a W J a W CL C. a W 0 z a J J CD W J F - z a W a W J CL r rL W 0 Fd �o 3 a, ra 0 4 a N V1 a� o tm °ate `u w Z PARTIES OF RECORD SHERPA ADU LUA10-088, CU -A, V-A Pasang Sherpa Gary Newton Paul & Nancy Duke 2105 Dayton Avenue NE 2101 Dayton Avenue NE 2408 NE 22nd Street Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 tel: (425) 269-9155 (party of record) (party of record) (owner/ applicant / contact) Rick & Polly Potter Jean Anderson Margaret J. Buxton 2104 Dayton Avenue NE 2100 Dayton Avenue NE 2005 Dayton Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) (party of record) (party of record) William & Shirley Reynolds Paul & Cassie Babcock Michelle Ralph 2112 Dayton Avenue NE 2404 NE 22nd Street 2400 NE 22nd Street Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) (party of record) (party of record) Bill & Karen Sparrow Matt Wells James Boyd 2108 Dayton Avenue NE 2328 NE 22nd Street 2324 NE 22nd Street Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) (party of record) (party of record) Colleen Addison Andrea Bufort Colin Thorpe 2109 Dayton Avenue NE 2012 Dayton Avenue NE 12226 SE 178th Street Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98058 (party of record) (party of record) (party of record) Dion Coleman Sindho & Samir Pyakurel Anja West 14241 228th Avenue SE 2020 Camas Avenue NE 2102 Camas Avenue NE Issaquah, WA 98027 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) (party of record) (party of record) William Yeckel Paul Rozek Leslie Green 2108 Camas Avenue NE 2107 Camas Avenue NE 2114 Camas Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) (party of record) (party of record) ty 11�O-S Ron Mozzone Craig & Jane Martin Nik Prazak 2013 Dayton Avenue NE 2001 Dayton Avneue NE 2026 Camas Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) (party of record) (party of record) Jeffrey Coleson Patricia Walker Carol Schoenfeldt 2113 Dayton Avenue NE 2008 Dayton Avenue NE 2414 NE 22nd Street Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) (party of record) (party of record) Updated: 05/12/11 (Page 1 of 1) - I I Am"ANDU ='?DKYMW AVE ME SITE PLAN. VIUNITY MAP CODE COMPLIANCE INFORMATION PERMIT SEI All -1 OF Hilo 1; - I I Am"ANDU ='?DKYMW AVE ME SITE PLAN. VIUNITY MAP CODE COMPLIANCE INFORMATION PERMIT SEI i7 fi' IZA Cluj! d� ;- 7 Lit 1qq of 0 .IIE111 =I — DAYTON AVE NE 7� tarot All i7 fi' IZA Cluj! d� ;- 7 Lit 1qq of 0 .IIE111 =I — DAYTON AVE NE 7� tarot 1� 13 I 1 N SHERPA ADV p PREPAREo Ry VD53 oerra9 AVE NE PASANG SMERPA SAN.iEEV SHARUA HEanaN wA 98036 21M oArlpN AVE NE NLRU A►IA $HARLfA REMON, MA 98036 4 s 4 ELEVATIONS. SECTIONS d DETAILS PERMIT SET �1 4 i i t � i r 0 4 CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM Date: June 1, 2011 To: City Clerk's Office From: Stacy M Tucker Subject: Land Use File Closeout Please complete the following information to facilitate project closeout and indexing by the City Clerk's Office. Project Name: Sherpa Accessory Dwelling Unit LUA (file) Number: LUA-10-088, V-A, CU-A Cross-References: AKA's: Sherpa ADU Project Manager: Rocale Timmons Acceptance Date: January 5, 2011 Applicant: Pasang Sherpa & Hannah Chi Owner: Same as applicant Contact: Pasang Sherpa PID Number: 2253200095 ERC Decision Date: ERC Appeal Date: Administrative Approval: February 23, 2011 - Administrative Conditional Use only Appeal Period Ends: March 9, 2011 Public Hearing Date: May 17, 2011 Date Appealed to HEX: April 11, 2011 By Whom: Pasang Sherpa, Applicant HEX Decision: Denied appeal, upheld Administrative decision Date: May 31, 2011 to deny the variance Date Appealed to Council: By Whom: Council Decision: Date: Mylar Recording Number: Project Description: Application for an Administrative Conditional Use and Administrative Variance for the conversion of an existing structure into an accessoryuint (ADU), we ! l Location: 2105 Dayton Avenue NE Comments: 2/23/11 - Administrative Conditional Use approved and Administrative Variance denied. 3/9/11 - Received request for reconsideration of variance denial. Planning Director upheld Administrative Decision and denied the variance. Appeal period end date on reconsideration decision - 4/11/11. Denis Law city of . Mayor C A. •I &tet,}., \'♦ MEMO City Clerk -Bonnie I. Walton May 31, 2011 Pasang Sherpa and Hannah Chi 2105 Dayton Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Re: bearing Examiner Decision on Appeal of Administrative Decision Sherpa ADU (LUA-10-088, CU -A, V-A) Dear Mr. Sherpa and Ms. Chi: Enclosed is the Hearing Examiner Decision dated May 31, 2011, on your appeal as referenced. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or the Development Services Division staff. Sincerely, Bonnie I. Walton City Cleric Enclosure M. Parties of Record (28) Jennifer Henning, Planning Manager Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner 7055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 . (425) 430-6510/ Fax (425) 430-6516 6 rentonwa.gov Pasang Sherpa Gary Newton Paul & Nancy Duke 2105 Dayton Avenue NE 2101 Dayton Avenue NE 2408 NE 22nd Street Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Rick & Polly Potter Jean Anderson Margaret J. Buxton 2104 Dayton Avenue NE 2100 Dayton Avenue NE 2005 Dayton Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 William & Shirley Reynolds Paul & Cassie Babcock Michelle Ralph 2112 Dayton Avenue NE 2404 NE 22nd Street 2400 NE 22nd Street Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Bill & Karen Sparrow Matt Wells James Boyd 2108 Dayton Avenue NE 2328 NE 22nd Street 2324 NE 22nd Street Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Colleen Addison Andrea Bufort Colin Thorpe 2109 Dayton Avenue NE 2012 Dayton Avenue NE 12226 SE 178th Street Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98058 Dion Coleman Sindho & Samir Pyakurel Anja West 14241 228th Avenue SE 2020 Camas Avenue NE 2102 Camas Avenue NE Issaquah, WA 98027 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 William Yeckel Paul Rozek Leslie Green 2108 Camas Avenue NE 2107 Camas Avenue NE 2114 Camas Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Ron Mozzone Craig & Jane Martin Nik Prazak 2013 Dayton Avenue NE 2001 Dayton Avenue NE 2026 Camas Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Jeffrey Coleson Patricia Walker Carol Schoenfeldt 2113 Dayton Avenue NE 2008 Dayton Avenue NE 2414 NE 22nd Street Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 James Ung & Dinh Chi 1135 Lk Washington Blvd N #6208 Renton, WA 98056 I—] May 31, 2011 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) COUNTY OF KING ) BONNIE I. WALTON, City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that she is a citizen 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 31st day of May, 2011, at the hour of 4:30 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 a notification of Hearing Examiner's Hearing for the Sherpa ADU Decision (LUA-10-088, CU -A, V-A) Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk ^� SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 3+ �t,0Ay,-qJ.May, 2011. � Ft :o tai, N; PUf3�-�G Cynthia Moya '�,�'�'• 8-21`,�:,,�+� Notary Public in and for the State of - 'Or 'N Washington, residing in Renton My Commission expires: 8/27/2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1.1 12 13 14 15 lb 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 • • BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: Pasang Sherpa and Hannah Chi APPEAL OF VARIANCE DENIAL Administrative Appeal ) ) LUA10-088, VA -A ) } Summary The Appellants appeal the denial of an administrative variance for the conversion of an existing detached structure into an accessory dwelling unit ("ADU"). The denial is sustained. The Appellants seek the waiver of RMC 4-2-110(B), which limits the area of ADUs to 800 square feet. The Appellants would like to convert an existing detached single-family structure to an ADU with an area of 960 square feet. The Appellants primarily base their appeal on the belief that staff suggested that they apply for the variance and that staff assured approval. The Hearing Examiner does not have the authority to enforce any assurances or direction given by staff. Nor would any such direction or assurances, if true, override the variance criteria adopted by the Renton City Council. The sole and only relevant consideration in this appeal is whether the proposal meets applicable variance criteria. The proposal fails to meet two of the four variance criteria because the Appellants have at least one reasonable option available to them to comply with RMC 4-2-110(B)_ The reasonable options are to reduce the size of the ADU or, if staff so interprets, section off 160 square feet of the ADU. The availability of either option means that the Appellants will not suffer undue hardship as required by one of the variance criterion and that the variance is not the minimum necessary to meet the Appellants' objectives as required by a second variance criterion. VARIANCE APPEAL - 1 . i? 1 Testimony 2 3 Din Chit testified that the Appellants have been working with the City since the beginning. They met with them and were given direction to apply for the variance. The staff told them that a 4 variance and conditional use permit would be necessary to authorize the accessory dwelling unit. She wanted to know why the City would suggest they apply for a variance and then conclude the 5 variance should be denied_ The initial staff memo noted that staff "may be" supportive of the variance. The Examiner inquired as to what makes the property unique to justify the variance. Ms. 6 Chi responded that the structure for the ADU has been in existence for several years. Demolishing 7 the variance would create adverse environmental impacts. All permits for the construction of the structure were acquired prior to the City's adoption of its current ADU regulations. Initially the 8 plan was to convert the structure to a recreation room. They didn't know they would need a building permit when they removed the garage door and they applied for and acquired a permit as 9 soon as the City advised them of this requirement in 2008. Currently there's a recreation room with IO a bathroom and two other rooms. The ADU permit will authorize the addition of a kitchen and the use of the facility for a separate dwelling unit. The Appellants did everything they were told in 11 applying for the variance and the only new item was a comment letter from neighbors opposed to the project. The neighbor's comment letter wasn't based upon fact. 12 13 Rocale Timmons, Renton planner, testified that ADUs are authorized structures in the Appellants' zoning district. The pre -application memo identifies the permits required for the ADU, which I4 included a variance and conditional use permit. The memo only provided that the variance "may" be approved. Staff at no time guaranteed approval of the variance. Staff just provided assistance in 15 the variance process. The projects did not comply with three of the four variance criteria. The City's ADU requirements do not make any allowances for existing buildings. RMC 4-2-110(b) 16 imposes the maximum 800 square foot area for ADUs. 17 Paul Duke, neighbor, testified that the access to the ADU is very marginal and that a fence at the 18 entrance has been struck three or four times already. He also noted that it would not be possible for emergency access to the ADU. He clarified that the access problem is from Dayton Street to the 19 ADU located behind the principal residence. He supported denial of the variance. 20 Gary Newton, neighbor, testified there have been many problems with the subject property. He'd 21 like to see the code followed. 22 Carmen Newton, adjacent neighbor, testified that the fence that is hit at the access point is a foot 23 within their property line and if the fence were actually up to the property line there would not be sufficient room for a vehicle to access the ADU. She said that people have been living in the 24 25 = Ms. Chi did not identify how to spell her name and her name cannot be found on any documents of record. Ms. Chi also spoke in tandem with another party who appears to have been Hannah Chi, but the other speaker did not identify 26 herself. VARIANCE APPEAL - 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 structure and that there is a bathroom and kitchen and she doesn't know why people call it a rec room when people live in it. In rebuttal, Ms. Timmons noted that the City's fire department looked over the access and found it adequate for emergency access. The driveway width is 12 feet, which is adequate for emergency vehicles. She noted that approving the variance would set a precedent for conversion of over -sized existing structures. Gary Newton clarified that it's unlikely the driveway is 12 feet wide since the separation between the two adjoining homes is 15 feet. Exhibits The Appellants' April 10, 2011 "Letter of Appeal" along with seven attached exhibits was admitted at the May 17, 2011 hearing as Exhibit 1. In addition the Appellants' March 9, 2011 reconsideration request is admitted as Exhibit 2 and the City's decision on the request is admitted as Exhibit 3. Findings of Fact Procedural: I . Appellant. The Appellants are Pasang Sherpa and Hannah Chi. 2, Ham. The Examiner held a hearing on the application at 10:00 am on May 17, 2011, in the City of Renton City Council Chambers. Substantive: 3. Description of Proposal. The Appellants seek to reverse a staff decision to deny a request for an administrative variance. The Appellants seek a variance to RMC 4-2-110{B}, which limits the area of ADUs to 800 square feet. The Appellants seek to convert an existing building that is 960 square feet in area to an ADU. The detached structure is currently a recreation room and bathroom. The project site is a 12,180 square foot parcel located in the R-8 zoning district on 2105 Dayton Ave NE, just south of NE 22'd St. The site is currently developed with a 1,380 square foot single family residence and a 960 square foot detached structure. The detached structure was built as a garage in 1994. In 2009 the Appellants converted the garage into a recreation area with an office, storage room and bathroom. The detached structure is located behind the principal residence on the southwest corner of the site. The detached structure is accessed by a twelve foot wide driveway that runs along the southern property line. VARIANCE APPEAL - 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The Appellants did not initially acquire all permits required for the 2009 conversion, but did so when notified by the City. All required permits were acquired prior to the City's adoption of its current ADU standards. The Appellants seek an ADU permit so that they add a kitchen to the detached structure and occupy it as a separate single family residence. Staff issued a denial of the variance dated February 23, 2011. A request for reconsideration was filed by the Appellants on March 9, 2011 and the City's decision on the request was issued on March 28, 2011. The Appellants filed their appeal on April 1 l , 2011. 4. Adverse Impacts. No adverse impacts are associated with the variance request. At the hearing neighbors expressed concern over the vehicular and emergency access to the ADU. In assessing this impact it should be recognized that the variance isn't necessary to authorize the placement of an ADU on the subject property, it is to allow an ADU that exceeds maximum area by 160 square feet. There is nothing to suggest that an increase in 160 square feet would increase the need for vehicular or emergency access to the property. Approval of the variance would not exacerbate access issues, if any. Any access problems associated with the ADU should be addressed in the conditional use permit review. Conclusions of Law Procedural: 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. RMC 4-8-080(G) provides that appeals of administrative variances are heard and ruled upon by the Hearing Examiner in an open record appeal. The Examiner's decision is appealable to the City Council in a closed record appeal. Substantive: 2. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Designation. The subject property is designated Residential Single Family (RSF) in the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan and has a Zoning Designation of Residential -8 du/ac (R8). 3. City Assurances/Promises. The Appellants base the bulk of their appeal on the premise that City staff led them to believe that they would acquire a variance if they applied for it. There could easily have been a misunderstanding on this issue between the Appellants and staff, but there is nothing in the record that suggests that the staff did anything more than provide the Appellants with options and then assisted the Appellants in pursuing them. Absent an express assurance that variance approval is guaranteed, it is inherently unreasonable for the Appellants to believe that approval was assured. The variance process would be an entirely pointless exercise if staff could commit themselves to a decision before conducting a review of a complete application and associated public comment. VALANCE APPEAL - 4 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 0 Even if staff did mislead the Appellants on their chances for variance approval, the Hearing Examiner has no authority to address the issue. The Appellants' assertions that the City lead it to believe that it would acquire variance approval false within the rubric of "equitable estoppel". Equitable estoppel may apply where an admission, statement, or act has been detrimentally relied on by another party. See .In re Martin, 154 Wn. App. 252 (2009). Washington courts have ruled that hearing examiners and county councils (by extension this would also apply to city councils) do not have the authority to adjudicate claims of equitable estoppel. Chaussee v. Snohomish County Council, 38 Wn, App. 630 (1484). A reviewing court could consider the claim, but it would also have to find that invoking equitable estoppel is necessary to prevent a manifest injustice and it must not impair the exercise of a governmental function_ .In re Martin, 154 Wn. App. 252 (2009). Allowing staff to circumvent code requirements adopted by the city council by any promises or assurances would most likely be considered to impair the exercise of government authority. 4. Compliance with ADU 800 Square Foot Requirement. In assessing compliance with the variance criteria, an important issue is how difficult it would be for the Appellants to comply with RMC 4-2-110(B) absent a variance. The Examiner finds and concludes that compliance would not constitute an undue hardship. Compliance could be achieved by reducing the size of the ADU or, if staff so interprets, section off 160 square feet so it is not used as living space for the ADU occupants. In order to comply with RMC 4-2-110(B), the Appellants need only ensure that a maximum of 800 square feet of the existing accessory structure is used for the ADU. The RMC makes it very clear that ADUs can comprise a portion of an existing structure. RMC 4-11-040 defines an accessory dwelling unit as "an independent subordinate dwelling unit that is located on the same lot, but not within a single family dwelling." RMC 4-11-040 defines a dwelling unit as "a structure or portion of a structure designed, occupied or intended for occupancy as separate living quarters with cooking, sleeping and sanitary facilities provided for the exclusive use of a single household."(emphasis added). As is clear from the definitions, an accessory dwelling unit can be "a portion of a structure". So long as the Appellants only use an 800 square foot portion of the detached structure for their ADU, their ADU qualifies as an 800 square foot ADU. The interpretation above should be fully consistent with the intent and purpose of the 800 square foot limitation. The City's comprehensive plan does not address ADU area limitations and no other legislative history was supplied to the Examiner, but it is easy to surmise that the area limitation serves the purpose of limiting intensity and aesthetic impacts. Intensity is not affected by the interpretation because the maximum living area is kept the same. Aesthetics would not be affected because the structure already exists and conversion of a portion of the structure to an ADU would only have marginal aesthetic impacts. Indeed the aesthetic impacts of ADUs are much better addressed by placing them within existing structures as opposed to creating entirely new structures for them. Given that Renton limits new ADUs to 50 per year, see RMC 4-2080(7), encouraging ADUs within existing structures as opposed to new ones could significantly reduce the impacts on the visual landscape. 1 2 At the hearing staff suggested that in order to satisfy RMC 4-2-110(B) the Appellants' only option would be to reduce the size of the existing detached structure. Given the discussion above, it 3 appears that compliance could also be achieved by some physical separation to provide reasonable assurance that the sectioned -off space won't be used by the ADU occupants as soon as the 4 occupancy permits are issued and the doors are closed to City inspectors. A storage space for tools and other garden equipment with its own exterior door for the exclusive use of principal residence 5 occupants would be an ideal example. Ultimately, it is staff's call as whether to allow one or both 6 options to achieve compliance. As discussed in the interpretation of "undue hardship" in Conclusion of Law No. 6, either option provides enough development rights to the Appellants to 7 1 negate a finding of "undue hardship". 8 In their written materials the Appellants assert that moving an exterior wall with its associated 9 modifications would create adverse environmental impacts. The Appellants have provided no compelling evidence that such impacts would be significant or long lasting, nor could one 10 reasonably come to that conclusion for construction at such a minor scale. 11 5. Review Criteria. RMC 4-8-110(7) provides that the Hearing Examiner shall give substantial 12 weight to any discretionary decision rendered by City staff in its zoning code. A variance decision qualifies as a discretionary decision subject to substantial weight. The criteria for variance are quoted 13 below in italics and assessed in corresponding conclusions of law_ 14 RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(a): That the applicant suffers undue hardship and the variance is necessary because of special circumstances applicable to subject property, including size, shape, 15 topography, localion or surroundings of the subject property, and the strict application of the 16 Zoning Code is found to deprive subject property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zone classification,- 17 6. Renton sets a fairly high standard for its variance by requiring that the applicant establish 18 "undue hardship". The term has not been construed by Washington State courts, except for one 19 case that essentially concluded that "undue hardship" is a higher standard than "practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship". See Cooper --George Co. v. City of Spokane, 3 Wn. App. 20 416 (1970). In other jurisdictions, the term has been construed as requiring a showing that the zoning ordinance is confiscatory or would effectively destroy the economic utility of the 21 property. See, e.g,, Clapp v. Zoning Bd of Appeals, 268 A.2d 919, 921 (1970). One Washington 22 treatise notes that the hardship term is viewed by some commentators as a means of avoiding constitutional invalidation. Variances, Washington Practice, Real Estate, Chapter 4(F). It is 23 telling that the "undue hardship" standard is not mandated by state variance requirements, even though those standards are fairly detailed. See RCW 35A.63.110(2). Renton has chosen to adopt 24 a zoning standard that is far stricter than the norm_ 25 The Appellants have not shown that the RMC 4-2-110(B) imposes restrictions and/or burdens 26 that satisfy Renton's strict "undue hardship" standard. In fact, even if the Appellants were VARIANCE APPEAL - 6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 11 • completely barred from placing an ADU on their property it is unlikely that they could meet the undue hardship criterion. The Appellants already have a reasonable use of their property under constitutional substantive due process and takings principles because they have a single family home of reasonable size on the property. Granting the variance would not be necessary to avoid constitutional invalidation. Further, since the Appellants already have a single-family home it is unlikely that a complete prohibition of an ADU would be confiscatory or destroy the economic utility of the home. Even under a more flexible interpretation of undue hardship, which would balance burden on the property owner verses public benefit of imposing the regulation, the proposal fails to meet the criterion because the Appellants have provided no evidence on the potential costs associated with reducing the size of the ADU or of sectioning of a portion of the building as discussed in Conclusion of Law No. 4. Without any evidence to the contrary, the option(s) available to the Appellants to comply with RMC 4-2-110(B) are not so exorbitant in cost or difficulty as to constitute an undue hardship. The Examiner does disagree with staff on the point that there are no special circumstances attributable to the subject property, specifically the existing detached structure. Staff determined in the Griffin application, heard on the same day, that the built environment served as a special circumstance of the property. The built environment has been recognized by the Washington courts as a "location or surrounding" justifying a variance. See Sherwood v_ Grant County, 40 Wn. App. 496 (1985) (proximity of mobile homes and mobile home parks 'served as special circumstances under "location and surroundings" for variance for mobile home in single family zoning district). The same applies here. The existing detached structure is a special circumstance of the property; more precisely its location and surroundings. If the variance were denied, the Appellant does not have the option of building an ADU somewhere else without removing the detached structure since there's nowhere else to build. In the alternative the Appellant would have to modify the existing detached structure as discussed in Conclusion of Law No. 4. Both of these results are compelled by the fact that the lot is fully built with the principal residence and existing detached structure. RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(b): That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which subject property is situated; 7. As discussed in Finding of Fact No. 4, there are no adverse impacts associated with the proposed variance. The variance would also serve to facilitate the provision of a variety of housing as well as affordable housing, both objectives of the Growth Management Act and the City's comprehensive plan. Given these factors, the proposal cannot be found materially detrimental to the public welfare and there is no evidence that it would be injurious to property in the vicinity or zone. Z This public/private balancing act is derived from the constitutional substantive due test for validity of ordinances. Cf e:g., Bayfield Resources Co. v_ Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, 158 Wn2d 866 (2010). VARIANCE APPEAL - 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9, 10 li 12 13 14.1 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(c). That approval shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated; 8. Granting the variance would be a grant of special privilege since it is difficult to conceive of any circumstance where someone would be allowed to exceed 800 square feet for an . ADU outside of a valid nonconfor ning use. There is no evidence to suggest that there are any such ADUs in the vicinity - RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(d): That the approval as determined by the Reviewing Official is a minimum variance that will accomplish the desired purpose_ 9. The desired purpose is to acquire approval for an ADU. As discussed in Conclusion of Law No. 4 no variance is necessary to acquire ADU approval_ The criterion is not met. DECISION The appeal is denied_ The Examiner sustains the staffs denial of the variance application. DATED this 31 st day of May, 2011. \sr Phil A. Olbrechts (Sighed original in official file) Phil A_ Olbrechts City of Renton Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-080(G) provides that the decision of the hearing exami�er is final subject to closed record appeal to the Renton City Council_ RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) requires appeals of the hearing examiner's decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing e examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(9). A new fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Cleric's Office, Renton City Hall -- 7t" floor, (425) 430-6510. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. VARIANCE APPEAL - 8 • 0 Ell to a� or- >, oco o Y N x d E o F - c L c coo Li] W iz V: Ctyt. � FO N O cC �•�--� O Ger y0. `y" C' CJC y cc cam LC' m❑y c � LWF•rsZ c�°�nyy�vQo°m _ko�M�y�•D'` �o CCC � gm. y� d�-5 vy�CCN•O Zs 2's�0. UO a �U . , G Gr x' �•EOw 0 ar CL M c�o a, Wz� b .° ° th � ` ai ay • � ° 1— Oa c 0 v� 3 0 CA r- .Pcl UO2 a Qa a�Ccsu 0h rr1 3 O �� cl L = ; j o y x y -C -b 7,t4- PC _zE° �oII 04. y IleN � -0EliGq u �Tr Q w vUi F 1 dj CN i-, C~ ?{ a C� = ° p".0 7z G � aoR.�0 UO a 0 Hearing Examiner's Decision • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 �F RENTON j i: RECEIVED CLERKS OFFICE BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: Pasang Sherpa and Hannah Chi APPEAL OF VARIANCE DENIAL Administrative Appeal } LUA10-088, VA -A } } Summary The Appellants appeal the denial of an administrative variance for the conversion of an existing detached structure into an accessory dwelling unit ("ADU"). The denial is sustained. The Appellants seek the waiver of RMC 4-2-110(B), which limits the area of ADUs to 800 square feet. The Appellants would like to convert an existing detached single-family structure to an ADU with an area of 960 square feet. The Appellants primarily base their appeal on the belief that staff suggested that they apply for the variance and that staff assured approval. The Hearing Examiner does not have the authority to enforce any assurances or direction given by staff. Nor would any such direction or assurances, if true, override the variance criteria adopted by the Renton City Council. The sole and only relevant consideration in this appeal is whether the proposal meets applicable variance criteria. The proposal fails to meet two of the four variance criteria because the Appellants have at least one reasonable option available to them to comply with RMC 4-2-110(B). The reasonable options are to reduce the size of the ADU or, if staff so interprets, section off 160 square feet of the ADU. The availability of either option means that the Appellants will not suffer undue hardship as required by one of the variance criterion and that the variance is not the minimum necessary to meet the Appellants' objectives as required by a second variance criterion. VARIANCE APPEAL - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Testimony Din Chit testified that the Appellants have been working with the City since the beginning. They met with them and were given direction to apply for the variance. The staff told them that a variance and conditional use permit would be necessary to authorize the accessory dwelling unit. She wanted to know why the City would suggest they apply for a variance and then conclude the variance should be denied. The initial staff memo noted that staff "may be" supportive of the variance. The Examiner inquired as to what makes the property unique to justify the variance. Ms. Chi responded that the structure for the ADU has been in existence for several years. Demolishing the variance would create adverse environmental impacts. All permits for the construction of the structure were acquired prior to the City's adoption of its current ADU regulations. Initially the plan was to convert the structure to a recreation room. They didn't know they would need a building permit when they removed the garage door and they applied for and acquired a permit as soon as the City advised them of this requirement in 2008. Currently there's a recreation room with a bathroom and two other rooms. The ADU permit will authorize the addition of a kitchen and the use of the facility for a separate dwelling unit. The Appellants did everything they were told in applying for the variance and the only new item was a comment letter from neighbors opposed to the project. The neighbor's comment letter wasn't based upon fact. Rocale Timmons, Renton planner, testified that ADUs are authorized structures in the Appellants' zoning district. The pre -application memo identifies the permits required for the ADU, which included a variance and conditional use permit. The memo only provided that the variance "may" be approved. Staff at no time guaranteed approval of the variance. Staff just provided assistance in the variance process. The projects did not comply with three of the four variance criteria. The City's ADU requirements do not make any allowances for existing buildings. RMC 4-2-110(b) imposes the maximum 800 square foot area for ADUs. Paul Duke, neighbor, testified that the access to the ADU is very marginal and that a fence at the entrance has been struck three or four times already. He also noted that it would not be possible for emergency access to the ADU. He clarified that the access problem is from Dayton Street to the ADU located behind the principal residence. He supported denial of the variance. Gary Newton, neighbor, testified there have been many problems with the subject property. He'd like to see the code followed. Carmen Newton, adjacent neighbor, testified that the fence that is hit at the access point is a foot within their property line and if the fence were actually up to the property line there would not be sufficient room for a vehicle to access the ADU. She said that people have been living in the Ms. Chi did not identify how to spell her name and her name cannot be found on any documents of record. Ms. Chi also spoke in tandem with another party who appears to have been Hannah Chi, but the other speaker did not identify herself. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 9 0 structure and that there is a bathroom and kitchen and she doesn't know why people call it a rec room when people live in it. In rebuttal, Ms. Timmons noted that the City's fire department looked over the access and found it adequate for emergency access. The driveway width is 12 feet, which is adequate for emergency vehicles. She noted that approving the variance would set a precedent for conversion of over -sized existing structures. Gary Newton clarified that it's unlikely the driveway is 12 feet wide since the separation between the two adjoining homes is 15 feet. Exhibits The Appellants' April 10, 2011 "Letter of Appeal" along with seven attached exhibits was admitted at the May 17, 2011 hearing as Exhibit 1. In addition the Appellants' March 9, 2011 reconsideration request is admitted as Exhibit 2 and the City's decision on the request is admitted as Exhibit 3. Findings of Fact Procedural: 1. Appellant. The Appellants are Pasang Sherpa and Hannah Chi. 2. Hearing. The Examiner held a hearing on the application at 10:00 am on May 17, 2011, in the City of Renton City Council Chambers. Substantive: 3. Description of Proposal. The Appellants seek to reverse a staff decision to deny a request for an administrative variance. The Appellants seek a variance to RMC 4-2-110(B), which limits the area of ADUs to 800 square feet. The Appellants seek to convert an existing building that is 960 square feet in area to an ADU. The detached structure is currently a recreation room and bathroom. The project site is a 12,180 square foot parcel located in the R-8 zoning district on 2105 Dayton Ave NE, just south of NE 22° St. The site is currently developed with a 1,380 square foot single family residence and a 960 square foot detached structure. The detached structure was built as a garage in 1994. In 2009 the Appellants converted the garage into a recreation area with an office, storage room and bathroom. The detached structure is located behind the principal residence on the southwest corner of the site. The detached structure is accessed by a twelve foot wide driveway that runs along the southern property line. VARIANCE APPEAL - 3 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The Appellants did not initially acquire all permits required for the 2009 conversion, but did so when notified by the City. All required permits were acquired prior to the City's adoption of its current ADU standards. The Appellants seek an ADU permit so that they add a kitchen to the detached structure and occupy it as a separate single family residence. Staff issued a denial of the variance dated February 23, 2011. A request for reconsideration was filed by the Appellants on March 9, 2011 and the City's decision on the request was issued on March 28, 2011. The Appellants filed their appeal on April 11, 2011. 4. Adverse Impacts. No adverse impacts are associated with the variance request. At the hearing neighbors expressed concern over the vehicular and emergency access to the ADU. In assessing this impact it should be recognized that the variance isn't necessary to authorize the placement of an ADU on the subject property, it is to allow an ADU that exceeds maximum area by 160 square feet. There is nothing to suggest that an increase in 160 square feet would increase the need for vehicular or emergency access to the property. Approval of the variance would not exacerbate access issues, if any. Any access problems associated with the ADU should be addressed in the conditional use permit review. Conclusions of Law Procedural: 1. Authority of Heariqg Examiner. RMC 4-8-080(G) provides that appeals of administrative variances are heard and ruled upon by the Hearing Examiner in an open record appeal. The Examiner's decision is appealable to the City Council in a closed record appeal. Substantive: 2. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Designation. The subject property is designated Residential Single Family (RSF) in the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan and has a Zoning Designation of Residential -8 du/ac (R8). 3. City Assurances/Promises. The Appellants base the bulk of their appeal on the premise that City staff led them to believe that they would acquire a variance if they applied for it. There could easily have been a misunderstanding on this issue between the Appellants and staff, but there is nothing in the record that suggests that the staff did anything more than provide the Appellants with options and then assisted the Appellants in pursuing them. Absent an express assurance that variance approval is guaranteed, it is inherently unreasonable for the Appellants to believe that approval was assured. The variance process would be an entirely pointless exercise if staff could commit themselves to a decision before conducting a review of a complete application and associated public comment. VARIANCE APPEAL - 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Even if staff did mislead the Appellants on their chances for variance approval, the Hearing Examiner has no authority to address the issue. The Appellants' assertions that the City lead it to believe that it would acquire variance approval false within the rubric of "equitable estoppel". Equitable estoppel may apply where an admission, statement, or act has been detrimentally relied on by another party. See In re Martin, 154 Wn. App. 252 (2009). Washington courts have ruled that hearing examiners and county councils (by extension this would also apply to city councils) do not have the authority to adjudicate claims of equitable estoppel. Chaussee v. Snohomish County Council, 38 Wn. App. 630 (1984). A reviewing court could consider the claim, but it would also have to find that invoking equitable estoppel is necessary to prevent a manifest injustice and it must not impair the exercise of a governmental function. In re Martin, 154 Wn, App. 252 (2009). Allowing staff to circumvent code requirements adopted by the city council by any promises or assurances would most likely be considered to impair the exercise of government authority. 4. Compliance with ADU 800 Square Foot Requirement. In assessing compliance with the variance criteria, an important issue is how difficult it would be for the Appellants to comply with RMC 4-2-110(B) absent a variance. The Examiner finds and concludes that compliance would not constitute an undue hardship. Compliance could be achieved by reducing the size of the ADU or, if staff so interprets, section off 160 square feet so it is not used as living space for the ADU occupants. In order to comply with RMC 4-2-110(B), the Appellants need only ensure that a maximum of 800 square feet of the existing accessory structure is used for the ADU. The RMC makes it very clear that ADUs can comprise a portion of an existing structure. RMC 4-11-040 defines an accessory dwelling unit as "an independent subordinate dwelling unit that is located on the same lot, but not within a single family dwelling." RMC 4-11-040 defines a dwelling unit as "a structure or portion of a structure designed, occupied or intended for occupancy as separate living quarters with cooking, sleeping and sanitary facilities provided for the exclusive use of a single household. "(emphasis added). As is clear from the definitions, an accessory dwelling unit can be "a portion of a structure". So long as the Appellants only use an 800 square foot portion of the detached structure for their ADU, their ADU qualifies as an 800 square foot ADU. The interpretation above should be fully consistent with the intent and purpose of the 800 square foot limitation. The City's comprehensive plan does not address ADU area limitations and no other legislative history was supplied to the Examiner, but it is easy to surmise that the area limitation serves the purpose of limiting intensity and aesthetic impacts. Intensity is not affected by the interpretation because the maximum living area is kept the same. Aesthetics would not be affected because the structure already exists and conversion of a portion of the structure to an ADU would only have marginal aesthetic impacts. Indeed the aesthetic impacts of ADUs are much better addressed by placing them within existing structures as opposed to creating entirely new structures for them. Given that Renton limits new ADUs to 50 per year, see RMC 4-2-080(7), encouraging ADUs within existing structures as opposed to new ones could significantly reduce the impacts on the visual landscape. VARIANCE APPEAL - 5 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 At the hearing staff suggested that in order to satisfy RMC 4-2-110(B) the Appellants' only option would be to reduce the size of the existing detached structure. Given the discussion above, it appears that compliance could also be achieved by some physical separation to provide reasonable assurance that the sectioned -off space won't be used by the ADU occupants as soon as the occupancy permits are issued and the doors are closed to City inspectors. A storage space for tools and other garden equipment with its own exterior door for the exclusive use of principal residence occupants would be an ideal example. Ultimately, it is staffs call as whether to allow one or both options to achieve compliance. As discussed in the interpretation of "undue hardship" in Conclusion of Law No. 6, either option provides enough development rights to the Appellants to negate a finding of "undue hardship". In their written materials the Appellants assert that moving an exterior wall with its associated modifications would create adverse environmental impacts. The Appellants have provided no compelling evidence that such impacts would be significant or long lasting, nor could one reasonably come to that conclusion for construction at such a minor scale. 5. Review Criteria. RMC 4-8-110(7) provides that the Hearing Examiner shall give substantial weight to any discretionary decision rendered by City staff in its zoning code. A variance decision qualifies as a discretionary decision subject to substantial weight. The criteria for variance are quoted below in italics and assessed in corresponding conclusions of law. RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(a): That the applicant suffers undue hardship and the variance is necessary because of .special circumstances applicable to subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject property, and the strict application of the Zoning Code is found to deprive subject property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zone classification; 6. Renton sets a fairly high standard for its variance by requiring that the applicant establish "undue hardship". The term has not been construed by Washington State courts, except for one case that essentially concluded that "undue hardship" is a higher standard than "practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship". See Cooper -George Co. v. City of Spokane, 3 Wn. App. 416 (1970). In other jurisdictions, the term has been construed as requiring a showing that the zoning ordinance is confiscatory or would effectively destroy the economic utility of the property. See, e.g., Clapp v. Zoning Bd, of Appeals, 268 A.2d 919, 921 (1970). One Washington treatise notes that the hardship term is viewed by some commentators as a means of avoiding constitutional invalidation. Variances, Washington Practice, Real Estate, Chapter 4(F). It is telling that the "undue hardship" standard is not mandated by state variance requirements, even though those standards are fairly detailed. See RCW 35A.63.110(2). Renton has chosen to adopt a zoning standard that is far stricter than the norm. The Appellants have not shown that the RMC 4-2-110(B) imposes restrictions and/or burdens that satisfy Renton's strict "undue hardship" standard. In fact, even if the Appellants were VARIANCE APPEAL - 6 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 10 0 completely barred from placing an ADU on their property it is unlikely that they could meet the undue hardship criterion. The Appellants already have a reasonable use of their property under constitutional substantive due process and takings principles because they have a single family home of reasonable size on the property. Granting the variance would not be necessary to avoid constitutional invalidation. Further, since the Appellants already have a single-family home it is unlikely that a complete prohibition of an ADU would be confiscatory or destroy the economic utility of the home. Even under a more flexible interpretation of undue hardship, which would balance burden on the property owner verses public benefit of imposing the regulationz, the proposal fails to meet the criterion because the Appellants have provided no evidence on the potential costs associated with reducing the size of the ADU or of sectioning of a portion of the building as discussed in Conclusion of Law No. 4. Without any evidence to the contrary, the option(s) available to the Appellants to comply with RMC 4-2-110(B) are not so exorbitant in cost or difficulty as to constitute an undue hardship. The Examiner does disagree with staff on the point that there are no special circumstances attributable to the subject property, specifically the existing detached structure. Staff determined in the Griffin application, heard on the same day, that the built environment served as a special circumstance of the property. The built environment has been recognized by the Washington courts as a "location or surrounding" justifying a variance. See Sherwood v. Grant County, 40 Wn. App. 496 (1985) (proximity of mobile homes and mobile home parks served as special circumstances under "location and surroundings" for variance for mobile home in single family zoning district). The same applies here. The existing detached structure is a special circumstance of the property; more precisely its location and surroundings. If the variance were denied, the Appellant does not have the option of building an ADU somewhere else without removing the detached structure since there's nowhere else to build. In the alternative the Appellant would have to modify the existing detached structure as discussed in Conclusion of Law No. 4. Both of these results are compelled by the fact that the lot is fully built with the principal residence and existing detached structure. RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(b): That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which subject property is situated; 7. As discussed in Finding of Fact No. 4, there are no adverse impacts associated with the proposed variance. The variance would also serve to facilitate the provision of a variety of housing as well as affordable housing, both objectives of the Growth Management Act and the City's comprehensive plan. Given these factors, the proposal cannot be found materially detrimental to the public welfare and there is no evidence that it would be injurious to property in the vicinity or zone. Z This public/private balancing act is derived from the constitutional substantive due test for validity of ordinances. Cf, e.g., Bayfreld Resources Co. v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, 158 Wn.2d 866 (2010), LTAFA F412163M. Ugl1:Im1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(c): That approval shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated; 8. Granting the variance would be a grant of special privilege since it is difficult to conceive of any circumstance where someone would be allowed to exceed 800 square feet for an ADU outside of a valid nonconforming use. There is no evidence to suggest that there are any such ADUs in the vicinity. RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(d): That the approval as determined by the Reviewing Official is a minimum variance that will accomplish the desired purpose. 9. The desired purpose is to acquire approval for an ADU. As discussed in Conclusion. of Law No. 4 no variance is necessary to acquire ADU approval. The criterion is not met. DECISION The appeal is denied. The Examiner sustains the staff's denial of the variance application. DATED this 31 st day of May, 2011. Phil A. Olbrechts City of Renton Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-080(6) provides that the decision of the hearing examiner is final subject to closed record appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) requires appeals of the hearing examiner's decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing a examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(9). A new fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall — 71" floor, (42 5) 430-6510. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. VARIANCE APPEAL - 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 O" • • BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: Pasang Sherpa and Hannah Chi APPEAL OF VARIANCE DENIAL Administrative Appeal } } } LUA 10-088, VA -A } } Summary The Appellants appeal the denial of an administrative variance for the conversion of an existing detached structure into an accessory dwelling unit ("ADU"). The denial is sustained. The Appellants seek the waiver of RMC 4-2-110(B), which limits the area of ADUs to 800 square feet. The Appellants would like to convert an existing detached single-family structure to an ADU with an area of 960 square feet. The Appellants primarily base their appeal on the belief that staff suggested that they apply for the variance and that staff assured approval. The Hearing Examiner does not have the authority to enforce any assurances or direction given by staff. Nor would any such direction or assurances, if true, override the variance criteria adopted by the Renton City Council. The sole and only relevant consideration in this appeal is whether the proposal meets applicable variance criteria. The proposal fails to meet two of the four variance criteria because the Appellants have at least one reasonable option available to them to comply with RMC 4-2-110(B). The reasonable options are to reduce the size of the ADU or, if staff so interprets, section off 160 square feet of the ADU. The availability of either option means that the Appellants will not suffer undue hardship as required by one of the variance criterion and that the variance is not the minimum necessary to meet the Appellants' objectives as required by a second variance criterion. VARIANCE APPEAL - I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Testimony Din Chi' testified that the Appellants have been working with the City since the beginning. They met with them and were given direction to apply for the variance. The staff told them that a variance and conditional use permit would be necessary to authorize the accessory dwelling unit. She wanted to know why the City would suggest they apply for a variance and then conclude the variance should be denied. The initial staff memo noted that staff "may be" supportive of the variance. The Examiner inquired as to what makes the property unique to justify the variance. Ms. Chi responded that the structure for the ADU has been in existence for several years. Demolishing the variance would create adverse environmental impacts. All permits for the construction of the structure were acquired prior to the City's adoption of its current ADU regulations. Initially the plan was to convert the structure to a recreation room. They didn't know they would need a building permit when they removed the garage door and they applied for and acquired a permit as soon as the City advised them of this requirement in 2008. Currently there's a recreation room with a bathroom and two other rooms. The ADU permit will authorize the addition of a kitchen and the use of the facility for a separate dwelling unit. The Appellants did everything they were told in applying for the variance and the only new item was a comment letter from neighbors opposed to the project. `The neighbor's comment letter wasn't based upon fact. Rocale Timmons, Renton planner, testified that ADUs are authorized structures in the Appellants' zoning district. The pre -application memo identifies the permits required for the ADU, which included a variance and conditional use permit. The memo only provided that the variance "may" be approved. Staff at no time guaranteed approval of the variance. Staff just provided assistance in the variance process. The projects did not comply with three of the four variance criteria. The City's ADU requirements do not make any allowances for existing buildings. RMC 4-2-11O(b) imposes the maximum 800 square foot area for ADUs. Paul Duke, neighbor, testified that the access to the ADU is very marginal and that a fence at the entrance has been struck three or four times already. He also noted that it would not be possible for emergency access to the ADU. He clarified that the access problem is from Dayton Street to the ADU located behind the principal residence. He supported denial of the variance. Gary Newton, neighbor, testified there have been many problems with the subject property. He'd like to see the code followed. Carmen Newton, adjacent neighbor, testified that the fence that is hit at the access point is a foot within their property line and if the fence were actually up to the property line there would not be sufficient room for a vehicle to access the ADU. She said that people have been living in the 'Ms. Chi did not identify how to spell her name and her name cannot be found on any documents of record. Ms. Chi also spoke in tandem with another party who appears to have been Hannah Chi, but the other speaker did not identify herself. VARIANCE APPEAL - 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 structure and that there is a bathroom and kitchen and she doesn't know why people call it a ree room when people live in it. In rebuttal, Ms. Timmons noted that the City's fire department looked over the access and found it adequate for emergency access. The driveway width is 12 feet, which is adequate for emergency vehicles. She noted that approving the variance would set a precedent for conversion of over -sized existing structures. Gary Newton clarified that it's unlikely the driveway is 12 feet wide since the separation between the two adjoining homes is 15 feet. Exhibits The Appellants' April 10, 2011 "Letter of Appeal" along with seven attached exhibits was admitted at the May 17, 2011 hearing as Exhibit 1. In addition the Appellants' March 9, 2011 reconsideration request is admitted as Exhibit 2 and the City's decision on the request is admitted as Exhibit 3. Findings of Fact Procedural: 1. Appellant. The Appellants are Pasang Sherpa and Hannah Chi. 2. Hearing. The Examiner held a hearing on the application at 10:00 am on May 17, 2011, in the City of Renton City Council Chambers. Substantive: 3. Description of Proposal. The Appellants seek to reverse a staff decision to deny a request for an administrative variance. The Appellants seek a variance to RMC 4-2-110(B), which limits the area of ADUs to 800 square feet. The Appellants seek to convert an existing building that is 960 square feet in area to an ADU. The detached structure is currently a recreation room and bathroom. The project site is a 12,180 square foot parcel located in the R-8 zoning district on 2105 Dayton Ave NE, just south of NE 22"d St. The site is currently developed with a 1,380 square foot single family residence and a 960 square foot detached structure. The detached structure was built as a garage in 1994. In 2009 the Appellants converted the garage into a recreation area with an office, storage room and bathroom. The detached structure is located behind the principal residence on the southwest corner of the site. The detached structure is accessed by a twelve foot wide driveway that runs along the southern property line. VARIANCE APPEAL - 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 0 The Appellants did not initially acquire all permits required for the 2009 conversion, but did so when notified by the City. All required permits were acquired prior to the City's adoption of its current ADU standards. The Appellants seek an ADU permit so that they add a kitchen to the detached structure and occupy it as a separate single family residence. Staff issued a denial of the variance dated February 23, 2011. A request for reconsideration was filed by the Appellants on March 9, 2011 and the City's decision on the request was issued on March 28, 2011. The Appellants filed their appeal on April 11, 2011. 4. Adverse Impacts. No adverse impacts are associated with the variance request. At the hearing neighbors expressed concern over the vehicular and emergency access to the ADU. In assessing this impact it should be recognized that the variance isn't necessary to authorize the placement of an ADU on the subject property, it is to allow an ADU that exceeds maximum area by 160 square feet. There is nothing to suggest that an increase in 160 square feet would increase the need for vehicular or emergency access to the property. Approval of the variance would not exacerbate access issues, if any. Any access problems associated with the ADU should be addressed in the conditional use permit review. Conclusions of Law Procedural: 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. RMC 4-8-080(G) provides that appeals of administrative variances are heard and ruled upon by the Hearing Examiner in an open record appeal. The Examiner's decision is appealable to the City Council in a closed record appeal. Substantive: 2. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Designation. The subject property is designated Residential Single Family (RSF) in the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan and has a Zoning Designation of Residential -8 du/ac (R8). 3. City Assurances/Promises. The Appellants base the bulk of their appeal on the premise that City staff led them to believe that they would acquire a variance if they applied for it. There could easily have been a misunderstanding on this issue between the Appellants and staff, but there is nothing in the record that suggests that the staff did anything more than provide the Appellants with options and then assisted the Appellants in pursuing them. Absent an express assurance that variance approval is guaranteed, it is inherently unreasonable for the Appellants to believe that approval was assured. The variance process would be an entirely pointless exercise if staff could commit themselves to a decision before conducting a review of a complete application and associated public comment. VARIANCE APPEAL - 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Even if staff did mislead the Appellants on their chances for variance approval, the Hearing Examiner has no authority to address the issue. The Appellants' assertions that the City lead it to believe that it would acquire variance approval false within the rubric of "equitable estoppel". Equitable estoppel may apply where an admission, statement, or act has been detrimentally relied on by another party. See In re Martin, 154 Wn. App. 252 (2009). Washington courts have ruled that hearing examiners and county councils (by extension this would also apply to city councils) do not have the authority to adjudicate claims of equitable estoppel. Chaussee v. Snohomish County Council, 38 Wn. App. 630 (1984). A reviewing court could consider the claim, but it would also have to find that invoking equitable estoppel is necessary to prevent a manifest injustice and it must not impair the exercise of a governmental function. In re Martin, 154 Wn. App. 252 (2009). Allowing staff to circumvent code requirements adopted by the city council by any promises or assurances would most likely be considered to impair the exercise of government authority. 4. Compliance with ADU 800 Square Foot Requirement. In assessing compliance with the variance criteria, an important issue is how difficult it would be for the Appellants to comply with RMC 4-2-110(B) absent a variance. The Examiner finds and concludes that compliance would not constitute an undue hardship. Compliance could be achieved by reducing the size of the ADU or, if staff so interprets, section off 160 square feet so it is not used as living space for the ADU occupants. In order to comply with RMC 4-2-110(B), the Appellants need only ensure that a maximum of 800 square feet of the existing accessory structure is used for the ADU. The RMC makes it very clear that ADUs can comprise a portion of an existing structure. RMC 4-11-040 defines an accessory dwelling unit as "an independent subordinate dwelling unit that is located on the same lot, but not within a single family dwelling." RMC 4-11-040 defines a dwelling unit as "a structure or portion of a structure designed, occupied or intended for occupancy as separate living quarters with cooking, sleeping and sanitary facilities provided for the exclusive use of a single household "(emphasis added). As is clear from the definitions, an accessory dwelling unit can be "a portion of a structure". So long as the Appellants only use an 800 square foot portion of the detached structure for their ADU, their ADU qualifies as an 800 square foot ADU. The interpretation above should be fully consistent with the intent and purpose of the 800 square foot limitation. The City's comprehensive plan does not address ADU area limitations and no other legislative history was supplied to the Examiner, but it is easy to surmise that the area limitation serves the purpose of limiting intensity and aesthetic impacts. Intensity is not affected by the interpretation because the maximum living area is kept the same. Aesthetics would not be affected because the structure already exists and conversion of a portion of the structure to an ADU would only have marginal aesthetic impacts. Indeed the aesthetic impacts of ADUs are much better addressed by placing them within existing structures as opposed to creating entirely new structures for them. Given that Renton limits new ADUs to 50 per year, see RMC 4-2-080(7), encouraging ADUs within existing structures as opposed to new ones could significantly reduce the impacts on the visual landscape. VARIANCE APPEAL - 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 0 At the hearing staff suggested that in order to satisfy RMC 4-2-110(B) the Appellants' only option would be to reduce the size of the existing detached structure. Given the discussion above, it appears that compliance could also be achieved by some physical separation to provide reasonable assurance that the sectioned -off space won't be used by the ADU occupants as soon as the occupancy permits are issued and the doors are closed to City inspectors. A storage space for tools and other garden equipment with its own exterior door for the exclusive use of principal residence occupants would be an ideal example. Ultimately, it is staff's call as whether to allow one or both options to achieve compliance. As discussed in the interpretation of "undue hardship" in Conclusion of Law No. 6, either option provides enough development rights to the Appellants to negate a finding of "undue hardship". In their written materials the Appellants assert that moving an exterior wall with its associated modifications would create adverse environmental impacts. The Appellants have provided no compelling evidence that such impacts would be significant or long lasting, nor could one reasonably come to that conclusion for construction at such a minor scale. 5. Review Criteria. RMC 4-8-110(7) provides that the Hearing Examiner shall give substantial weight to any discretionary decision rendered by City staff in its zoning code. A variance decision qualifies as a discretionary decision subject to substantial weight. The criteria for variance are quoted below in italics and assessed in corresponding conclusions of law. RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(a): That the applicant suffers undue hardship and the variance is necessary because of special circumstances applicable to subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject property, and the strict application of the Zoning Code is found to deprive subject property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zone classification; 6. Renton sets a fairly high standard for its variance by requiring that the applicant establish "undue hardship". The term has not been construed by Washington State courts, except for one case that essentially concluded that "undue hardship" is a higher standard than "practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship". See Cooper -George Co. v. City of Spokane, 3 Wn. App. 416 (1970). In other jurisdictions, the term has been construed as requiring a showing that the zoning ordinance is confiscatory or would effectively destroy the economic utility of the property. See, e- g., Clapp v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 268 A. 2d 919, 921 (1970). One Washington treatise notes that the hardship term is viewed by some commentators as a means of avoiding constitutional invalidation. Variances, Washington Practice, Real Estate, Chapter 4(F). It is telling that the "undue hardship" standard is not mandated by state variance requirements, even though those standards are fairly detailed. See RCW 35A.63.110(2). Renton has chosen to adopt a zoning standard that is far stricter than the norm. The Appellants have not shown that the RMC 4-2-110(B) imposes restrictions and/or burdens that satisfy Renton's strict "undue hardship" standard. In fact, even if the Appellants were VARIANCE APPEAL - 6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 • • completely barred from placing an ADU on their property it is unlikely that they could meet the undue hardship criterion. The Appellants already have a reasonable use of their property under constitutional substantive due process and takings principles because they have a single family home of reasonable size on the property. Granting the variance would not be necessary to avoid constitutional invalidation. Further, since the Appellants already have a single-family home it is unlikely that a complete prohibition of an ADU would be confiscatory or destroy the economic utility of the home. Even under a more flexible interpretation of undue hardship, which would balance burden on the property owner verses public benefit of imposing the regulation2, the proposal fails to meet the criterion because the Appellants have provided no evidence on the potential costs associated with reducing the size of the ADU or of sectioning of a portion of the building as discussed in Conclusion of Law No. 4. Without any evidence to the contrary, the option(s) available to the Appellants to comply with RMC 4-2-110(B) are not so exorbitant in cost or difficulty as to constitute an undue hardship. The Examiner does disagree with staff on the point that there are no special circumstances attributable to the subject property, specifically the existing detached structure. Staff determined in the Griffin application, heard on the same day, that the built environment served as a special circumstance of the property. The built environment has been recognized by the Washington courts as a "location or surrounding" justifying a variance. See Sherwood v. Grant County, 40 Wn. App. 496 (1985) (proximity of mobile homes and mobile home parks served as special circumstances under "location and surroundings" for variance for mobile home in single family zoning district). The same applies here. The existing detached structure is a special circumstance of the property; more precisely its location and surroundings. If the variance were denied, the Appellant does not have the option of building an ADU somewhere else without removing the detached structure since there's nowhere else to build. In the alternative the Appellant would have to modify the existing detached structure as discussed in Conclusion of Law No. 4. Both of these results are compelled by the fact that the lot is fully built with the principal residence and existing detached structure. RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(b): That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which subject property is situated; 7. As discussed in Finding of Fact No. 4, there are no adverse impacts associated with the proposed variance. The variance would also serve to facilitate the provision of a variety of housing as well as affordable housing, both objectives of the Growth Management Act and the City's comprehensive plan. Given these factors, the proposal cannot be found materially detrimental to the public welfare and there is no evidence that it would be injurious to property in the vicinity or zone. 2 This public/private balancing act is derived from the constitutional substantive due test for validity of ordinances. Cf e.g., Bayfield Resources Co. v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, 158 Wn.2d 866 (2010). VARIANCE APPEAL - 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9. 10 11 12 13 14. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(c): That approval shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated; 8. Granting the variance would be a grant of special privilege since it is difficult to conceive of any circumstance where someone would be allowed to exceed 800 square feet for an ADU outside of a valid nonconforming use. There is no evidence to suggest that there are any such ADUs in the vicinity_ RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(d): That the approval as determined by the Reviewing Oficial is a minimum variance that will accomplish the desired purpose. 9. The desired purpose is to acquire approval for an ADU. As discussed in Conclusion of Law No. 4 no variance is necessary to acquire ADU approval. The criterion is not met_ DECISION The appeal is denied. The Examiner sustains the staff's denial of the variance application. DATED this 31 st day of May, 2011. \s\ Phil A. albrechts (Signed original in official file) Phil A. Olbrechts City of Renton Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-080(G) provides that the decision of the hearing examiner is final subject to closed record appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) requires appeals of the hearing examiner's decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing e examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(9). A new fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Cleric's Office, Renton City Hall — 71' floor, (425) 430-6510. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. VARIANCE APPEAL - 8 Eli DepartmentofCommunityand Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator May 3, 2011 Pasang Sherpa and Hannah Chi 2105 Dayton Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 SUBJECT: Appeal of the Administrative Decision on the Sherpa ADU LUA10-088, CU -A, V-A Dear Mr. Sherpa and Ms. Chi, The appeal hearing you have requested in the above matter has been scheduled for Tuesday, May 17, 2011 at 10:00 am. The hearing will take place in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of Renton City Hall. The address is 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. If this office can provide any further assistance, please feel free to contact the Project Manager, Rocale Timmons, at (425) 430-7219. Sincerely, Roca Timmons, Associate Planner Planning Division cc: Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager Parties of Record (See attached) File LUA10-088, CU -A, V-A Renton City Hall w 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 0 rentonwa.gov. I . 0 0 PARTIES OF RECORD SHERPA ADU LUA10-088, CU -A, V-A Pasang Sherpa Gary Newton Paul & Nancy Duke 2105 Dayton Avenue NE 2101 Dayton Avenue NE 2408 NE 22nd Street Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 tel: (425) 269-9155 (party of record) (party of record) (owner / applicant / contact) Rick & Polly Potter Jean Anderson Margaret J. Buxton 2104 Dayton Avenue NE 2100 Dayton Avenue NE 2005 Dayton Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) (party of record) (party of record) William & Shirley Reynolds Paul & Cassie Babcock Michelle Ralph 2112 Dayton Avenue NE 2404 NE 22nd Street 2400 NE 22nd Street Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) (party of record) (party of record) Bill & Karen Sparrow Matt Wells James Boyd 2108 Dayton Avenue NE 2328 NE 22nd Street 2324 NE 22nd Street Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) (party of record) (party of record) Colleen Addison Andrea Bufort Colin Thorpe 2109 Dayton Avenue NE 2012 Dayton Avenue NE 12226 SE 178th Street Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98058 (party of record) (party of record) (party of record) Dion Coleman Sindho & Samir Pyakurel Anja West 14241 228th Avenue SE 2020 Camas Avenue NE 2102 Camas Avenue NE Issaquah, WA 98027 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) (party of record) (party of record) William Yeckel Paul Rozek Leslie Green 2108 Camas Avenue NE 2107 Camas Avenue NE 2119 Camas Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) (party of record) (party of record) Ron Mozzone Craig & Jane Martin Nik Prazak 2013 Dayton Avenue NE 2001 Dayton Avneue NE 2026 Camas Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) (party of record) (party of record) Jeffrey Coleson Patricia Walker Carol Schoenfeldt 2113 Dayton Avenue NE 2008 Dayton Avenue NE 2414 NE 22nd Street Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) (party of record) (party of record) Updated: 05/02/11 (Page 1 of 1) 0 ITY OF R 11 CENTON To: Hearing Examiner APR 1 1 2011 Date: April 10, 2011 RECENED Re: Letter of Appeal for the Sherpa ADU Administrative Variance CRy CLERICS OFFICE (LUA10-088, CU -A, VA -A) /0.100 4•M- 44� The City of Renton planning staff stated that they deny the variance because "the proposal does not meet all the variance criteria outlined in the code." The same staff members who denied the variance have guided and steered us toward applying for the variance and even stated both verbally and in a written memo that they would support the variance. Therefore, the staff have sufficient grounds to determine that the proposal is meeting the variance requirement. Furthermore, we will prove that the same staff who changed from expressing support for the variance to denying it at the end of the application process are doing so for reasons that are not relevant to the proposal. Memorandum from the city planning division supportive of the administrative variance: When we found out in 2010 that Accessory Dwelling Units would now be allowed in Renton, we contacted the city planning division expressing our interest. We wanted to know how and what we needed to do in order to establish an ADU on our property. We had a preliminary meeting with the planning staff explaining the unique situation of our property; we have a pre-existing garage structure at 960 square feet and it was renovated into a recreation area with 2 rooms, one for office and one for storage, and now we wanted to turn that structure into an ADU (see Exhibit 1, the project narrative ). The City Planning Director and the planning staff even came to our property and examined the proposed site. As a result of this site visit and extensive review of our project narrative at the preliminary meeting with the planning division, the planning division sent us a memorandum with the following response (Exhibit 2 for the memo). In this memo, we tiNs; _zta - C. L- P 2 would be required to either " reduce the size of the structure OR request an administrative variance." Although the staff stated that there are two options (either demolition or variance), the staff is clearly steering us toward the option of obtaining a variance by stating the following in the memo: "Staff may be supportive of the proposed accessory dwelling unit as well as an Administrative Variance if the following were accomplished": 1. remove the carport, 2. enhance the front entrance of ADU, 3. place skirt on base of ADU, 4. paint the area that was once the garage door. (Exhibit 2). The staff stated that they "may be supportive of the ADU as well as the administrative variance" if we accomplished items 1-4 above. These were the only requirements stated in the memo that we needed to fulfill in order for the administrative variance to be supported by the staff. Clearly, in this memo, the staff did not mention that demolition to meet the 800 requirement is the only option. Furthermore, after viewing the plans and visiting the site and through the pre -application process from May to December, the staff did not once mention that variance would not be granted because it is not meeting the variance criteria outline in the code. Of course, the staff could say that upon examination of the final application, it is not meeting all of the variance criteria in the code. However, there is no new information in our final proposal and in the variance application that the staff did not already know. The content of the final proposal and the preliminary proposal stay the same with the same dimension information (360 square feet), site information, and structural history information. In other words, with their thorough knowledge of our project throughout the drafting process of the application and proposal, they could of inform us any time before the final submission of the application that the property is not meeting the variance code if they believe that to be the case. We would not spend more than $3,000 application fee only to be tolyl that it is not meeting variance criteria. The staff` stated that even though a staff may be supportive of the application, the ultimate decision is made by the Decision -Maker (Exhibit 3) However, as reflected in the language of the final decision report (Exhibit 4), under each point of the variance criteria sections, there are constant references to "the staff" either concurring or not concurring with the points that the applicant (us) made as justifications for the variance. This clearly indicate that the decision doesn't just derive from the decision- 0 0 a, e 13 maker but also from input from the staff who previously expressed support for the variance. In the memo, the staff s determination that they may "support" the variance are based on their knowledge of the variance criteria outlined in the code as planners, and their knowledge of our proposed project since the very beginning of our application process in May, 2010 when we met with them. We had one pre -application meeting to present information about the proposed ADU site history to the staff to get suggestions for what we needed to do. Afterwards, we had three pre -application meetings with the planning staff to go over the draft of the variance and the Conditional Use application and architectural plans; at two of the meetings, our architect was present. At several of these meetings around December, the staff have even assisted us with the verbiage in writing our justification for the variance request (Exhibit 4A). We have -communicated frequently with the staff via phone calls and emails. The planning staff was thoroughly knowledgeable of our project, including the dimensions, plans, and even the planning director and the planner have visited the proposed site. We presented the very same information in the final variance and conditional use application and followed the steps guided by the very same staff who deny the variance at the end. There was no new information added to our final application other than Exhibit S (neighbor's comments). In the final report, the staff stated that because we could reduce the size of the building, there is no undue hardship or minimum variance required. If this notion of demolishing the building have always been the only choice in the staff's mind, they could have told us to forget about the variance and go for demolishing the structure in the first place instead of wasting the city staff time to review the application. The variance was a choice given to us in the memo and we were told that it would be supported, so we found it only logical to follow the memo's advice to get a variance and expected that the application process would not be a waste of our time and money (for the application and architect's fee). Exhibit 5, Neighbor's Comments on the Sherpa ADU: We will further prove that the same staff who changed from expressing support for the variance to denying it at the end of the application process are doing so for reasons that are not relevant to the application. Pale j4 The city have weighted their decision based on exhibit 5 despite the irrelevancy of the content of exhibit 5. This is because in the final application, the only new item that was added was exhibit 5 (letter from drafted by one neighbor and signed by other neighbors). The staff stated in the reconsideration response that the "denial o, f the variance would have been issued without the comment letter (exhibit 5) as the proposal does not meet all the variance criteria outline in code. " However, given that the content and information shared with staff during the preliminary meetings stay the same even at the end of the application process, we don't understand why even the possibility of being denied of the variance is not mentioned in the memo in the first place (Exhibit 2 ). Instead, the staff stated in the memo that they may "support" the variance after gaining detailed knowledge of our project proposal through our project narrative, meetings, and site visit. This suggested that based on their assessment of the proposal, it would meet the variance criteria. Since our project proposal was supported in the first place, why else would it be denied if it hadn't been for exhibit 5, the only new information added to the application? Furthermore, in the reconsideration response letter (Exhibit 5A), it says "The staff has determined that the comments/concerns (of exhibit 5) are relevant and should remain in record Additionally, the comments of the neighboring property owners should be taken into consideration should the decision be appealed to the Hearing Examiner. " By saying that exhibit 5's "comments/concerns are relevant" and "should be taken into consideration" by the Hearing Examiner in regards to the decision, this shows that the staff believe that exhibit 5 could have an influence on the decision. In other words, they believe that the comments in exhibit 5 play a critical role in the decision. However, because the content are merely hearsay and not backed by facts, by letting exhibit 5 have an influence on the decision, it is showing the decision is weighing on irrelevant information that is unfair and unjust to us, the applicant. Upon examination of the points in exhibit 5 drafted by the neighbor who then got his friends in the other harms to sign, one could easily see that it is a list of comments that are irrelevant and not backed by facts: i 0 P a,, c 155 The neighbor states that we, the property owner of the proposal fail to follow city codes (in reference of the construction and remodeling of the garage structure into a recreation area because that is the only type of projects took place on our property in the past). This statement can be proven not to be true with records of the City of Renton permits and inspections documents for both the construction (done by previous property owner) and the remodeling of the structure that could be found in the city planning records archive. While it is true that we made mistakes along the way by starting to take out the garage door without knowing that we were supposed to get a city permit to do so, we corrected that mistake by applying for a permit right the way. Since then, throughout the remodeling of the garage, and even in the application for the ADU, we asked the city staff for guidance every step of the way about what kinds of permits and inspections were need. We have strived to do everything according to code. Also, for other statements in exhibit 5 about the infringement of the neighbor's property, parking issues, and "down -grading " the neighborhood, these concerns are already addressed and the approval in the final decision report. In other words, the details in the application proposal already address parking issues, easement requirements, etc. that are within the rights of us the property owner and does not infringe on the neighbor. It is unfortunate that the variance is not granted in order to pacify the neighbor who drafted the invalid comments of exhibit 5_ We attached the permits and inspections for the coristruction and remodeling of the garage that can be found in the city planning archive in the reconsideration request to show that we have been following city codes. But nowhere in the reconsideration response to our request that the staff acknowledge that we were indeed following city codes and that exhibit 5's statement about us not following code is not true. Instead, the planning staff continue to hold to the same assumptions made about us that the neighbor in exhibit 5 holds by stating that the "comments/concerns are relevant and should be taken into consideration should the decision be appealed to the Hearing Examiner". 11 �t e 16 Also, in the email the planning manager wrote as a response to the Kennydale neighborhood coordinator's request to have the Sherpa ADU issue looked at, Jennifer Henning said that "It is unfortunate that the work (the conversation of the garage into a recreation space) was done without the necessary permits and approvals." (Exhibit 3) This clearly demonstrates that the staff holds the same false assumption about us not following city code and not getting permits as the neighbor in exhibit 5 when the City of Renton planning division archive have records of the permits and the final inspections of the work done to the garage structure. And by stating in the reconsideration response letter that the "comments" in exhibit 5 (although we have proven otherwise with facts)"should be taken into consideration should the decision be appealed to the Hearing Examiner", this shows that they have made the final variance decision based on hearsay rather than the proposal not meeting the variance criteria as they have stated. All this clearly reflects that the public comments are not properly assessed by the staff in their decision-making process and have only resulted in a decision that is biased against us and cost us time and money going through this long application process with them. The outcome of the decision as a result of erroneous information presented in exhibit 5 have jeopardized our rights and privilege to establish an ADU without having to damage a remodeled space through demolition. We hope you can help rectify this situation. When we found out about exhibit 5 in the final report after the decision has been rendered without us, the property owner, being given a chance to rebut the content of exhibit 5, we made the effort to respond to exhibit 5 in submitting a request of reconsideration. We talked to our neighbors in order to address any concerns and misunderstanding that they may have about the proposed project. We prepared pictures, explained jargons in the pre - application information form and even offered to show them the site and any details of our project that they wanted to know. After understanding more clearly in every day layman terms about what we are trying to do, at least 15 of our immediate neighbors are supportive of the proposal. A petition was drafted and officially signed by 15 neighbors in support of the variance. The petition was submitted by the neighbors as part of the reconsideration request (Exhibit 6 for the petition). However, in the reconsideration P 1a>e �7 response letter from the city, the staff only considered exhibit 5 (expressing disapproval of the ADU) as "relevant and should be taken into consideration" with the Examiner. There is no mention, response, or any acknowledgement of the petition in support of the variance for the ADU. This clearly reflect that our side of the story is not being heard. We (the property owner, and 15 other neighboring property owners) who are also part of the City of Renton are not being heard. The staff could say that this new petition and the letter in responding to exhibit 5 (exhibit) are being submitted after the public continent period is over when the application is being moved to the reconsideration phase. However, we strongly believe we still deserve to be heard and the newly added comments should be taken into consideration because exhibit 5 was also being submitted after the public comment period was over. Exhibit 5 being accepted as part of the record passing the official deadline: As stated in the Notice of Application on January 5', 2011 (Exhibit 7) "Continents on the... application must be submitted in writing .... by 5:OOpm on January 19, 2011". However, the City of Renton's receipt stamp on exhibit 5 is dated January 21, 2011, two days past the deadline set by the city. Therefore, in the reconsideration request, we asked that exhibit 5 be discarded from the record because it was improperly submitted and with comments that are not backed by facts and are not pertinent to the proposal. We felt because it had an effect on the outcome of the decision in the first place, it is unfair to us, the applicant. However, in the reconsideration response letter, the staff still keep exhibit 5 as part of the record and believe it is "relevant and should be taken into consideration should the decision be appealed to the examiner." In other words, exhibit 5 still hold considerable weight in the staff s decision while other neighbors' response to exhibit 5 and their reasons of support for the variance go unheard. This is clearly a case of only one side being heard. We ask that since both sides passed the deadline set by the city, the staff could have either discard both sets of comments or take both sets of comments into consideration. However, the staff is only looking at the issue from one party's paud 18 perspective (Exhibit 5) by refusing to take exhibit 5 off the record. By seeing only one side (Exhibit 5) and disregarding other neighbors' opposing comments, this reflect that the staff is making a decision that is not taking every point of view and all facts into consideration. Thus, the decision-making process has not been fair to us. As citizens of the City of Renton, we value the opportunity that the city provides its concerned citizens to comment on and to "get involved" in the land use process. We expect that any comments submitted will be evaluated based on whether or not they are backed by facts and evidence, and on whether they have any relevance to the application. When the comments are not being evaluated critically and decisions are made capriciously as a result (as it is the case with us here), then the city's process is hurtful to our reputation, and is causing financial stress for us who hasn't been proven guilty of anything. And this may also mean that other future property owners who strive to follow the rules and codes will be punished at the end. This will cause the people to lose confidence in what is supposed to be a rational and evidence based decision-making process. The City's approval of our Conditional Use Permit demonstrated that we met and exceeded all the requirements for having an ADU. The Administrative Variance of 160 square feet was denied. However, by denying the variance, we are still not getting the Conditional Use approval without meeting the variance requirement. This brings us back to square one after the long application process and a substantial fee. Background; The ADU will be housed within a pre-existing 960 square foot garage structure that underwent extensive renovation in 2009 to become a recreation room with one bathroom and two additional rooms (one for office and one for storage). The original garage structure existed at 960 square feet 17 years ago, long before we purchased it 6 years ago_ The special conditions and circumstances of the structure being at 960 square feet do not result from our actions but from the previous owner's actions. In 2009, when the garage was renovated into a recreation room, each phase of the construction and 0 0 PaZ2e 19 remodeling was done with City of Renton permits, and the renovation passed final inspection {See copies of the permits and inspections attached to the reconsideration request, Exhibit A). The remodeled 960 square foot building existed before the City's ADU codification. In 2010, we wanted to turn the garage/remodeled recreation room into an ADU. In the Sherpa ADU final report, the staff concluded that because we could reduce the size of the building, there are no undue hardship and that minimum variance is not required. However, the hardship is that we have a pre-existing structure that was built at 960 square foot but not by us and was later remodeled into a recreation room. Also, the staffs solution to demolish the building to meet the 800 square foot requirement in order to grant us the Conditional Use permit will not fulfill the city's intents and purposes of having an ADU, and it will unnecessarily inflect environmental damage. 1. Under criteria A, in PART THREE of the Sherpa ADU report the planning staff concluded that the variance is not "necessitated because of the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject property". The alternative is to demolish portion of the building to meet the 800 square foot requirement. We disagree, the variance is necessary because of the size of the property. It is a pre-existing structure at 960 square feet. The property was a nonconforming lot of record when we purchased it. A property that has been recently improved and remodeled is now being required to be demolished and rebuilt. This would result in a situation in which we are being deprived of the right and privilege that other property owners under the same classification could enjoy, due to the fixed size of a building that we inherited from the previous owner. 2. Under criteria C in PART THREE of the report, the staff concluded that allowing the variance would be considered a special privilege. Pain 110 We disagree, the Sherpa structure is unique because it was a garage and then remodeled into a recreation room prior to the ADU codification. Therefore, by granting us this variance, it would not constitute that other houses are being deprived of the privilege of being granted a variance that exceeds 800 square feet. For other applications for variance, we trust the city will examine case by case and will make careful decisions and judgments according to the code set in place. 3. Under criteria D in PART THREE of the report, the staff concluded that the variance is not the minimum variance requested because the staff insisted that a portion of the structure could be demolished. We disagree_ The demolition of part of the building to meet the 800 square foot requirement is not in accords with our strong beliefs in not creating unnecessary waste and not harming the already vulnerable environment with construction debris and fumes when that could be avoided. One of the City of Renton goals for 2011 to 2016, is to "develop a package of 'green' buildingincentives," which closely correlates to King County's bulletin number 55. This bulletin states that "King County encourages sustainable development and green building practices to help balance growth with protection of our region's valuable natural resources" through green building and low impact development practices for projects of all types, including ours. Partially demolishing and rebuilding the 17 year old pre- existing Sherpa structure in order to meet the 800 square foot requirement will contradict this sustainable development goal. Newly constructed walls, windows, water and electrical lines, hardscaping, and the landscaping that were put in place when it became a remodeled recreation room will be damaged and disrupted if new construction takes place. This will increase material waste and alter the locality's essential character. Demolition and reconstruction will generate unnecessary waste that is not environmentally friendly. The nearby neighbors will suffer unnecessary disturbance because of construction noise that could be avoided. Page X11 4. The purpose of the 800 square foot limitation in building an ADU is to avoid overcrowding on a piece of property. As noted in the staff report, our existing single family dwelling is only 11.3% of lot size, which is "well below the maximum 35 percent building coverage permitted". By allowing the 160 square foot variance, we are able to maintain a balance to the current parcel size and keep the characteristics of both buildings. The total of both buildings including the variance of 160sq. ft. is only 19.2% of the lot size. It is not an unreasonable request for variance as it is the maximum footage that we require to avoid unnecessary demolition and reconstruction. 5. In an effort to fight our current economic recession, everyone is looking for a way to sustain recovery. Our city adopted the addition of ADUs in order to diversify neighborhoods and provide opportunities for low cost housing. If granted, this variance will encourage the marketability of the ADU because its current recreational floor plan allows multiple types of tenants. If we have to demolish part of the recreational room which contains two rooms (storage and office), it will restrict the types of tenants who could occupy the space to couples only, because it will only have 1 small room left. This situation would not comply with the city's vision of creating affordable housing. Demolishing part of the building in order to reduce the size of the structure to meet the 800 square foot requirement will keep us from best utilizing a sound structure that is already in existence. We feel strongly that demolition could be avoided to prevent unnecessary disturbance to both the neighborhood and the environment. Given the fact that we have a pre-existing structure, granting us the minimum variance that we need to keep the structure as it is will be a beneficial option for the neighborhood, the environment, and for our family. Pane 112 Conclusion: We believe that throughout the earlier stages of the application process and at the meetings, the staff agreed that our situation calls for a minimum variance of 160 square feet. However, at the end of the application process, as a result of the signatures in exhibit 5's impact, the staff opted for a decision that was contrary to their earlier inclination. While public comment is part of the process, it should not have govern the decision because of the untrue and irrelevant/trivial nature of the comments/concerns in exhibit 5 in this case_ As property owner in Renton, we have shown every interest to work with the planning staff since May, 2010 in order to ensure that we can navigate through all the various complicated application procedures and language that are not everyday terms to us. We have completely relied on the staff's expertise to guide us to achieve the objective of getting a better understanding for what we can and cannot do in order achieve our goal and our rights to improve our property. We still trust and have confidence in the advice that the staff have offered us throughout the application process_ It would only seem logical to rely on the staffs assistance because they are experts with the city codes. However, the staffs reasons for the denial of the variance namely that we can demolish the structure is so obvious that it should of been the only choice for us and that we don't need to bother applying for the variance. Instead the staff steered us to go through the process of applying for the variance, thus demonstrating that staff have had reasons to believe that our proposal are meeting the variance criteria. The denial of the variance is a great blow to us and effects our whole family physically, emotionally and financially. If the denial of the variance still stands, we would have wasted a lot of our energy and resources meeting with the staff, writing drafts, hiring an architect, paying a substantial amount of application fees, not to mention incurring future demolition and rebuilding costs of structure that have been remodeled into a recreation area in 2008 by us. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Paso herpa�, / Hannah Chi Pro erty Q er %`�� (425) 502-1974, (425) 269-9155 xr t- Coe" To: Planning Division Re: Project Narrative Dear City Planning Division Committee: I am writing to request a permit for turning a detached renovated recreation rooms into a detached accessory dwelling unit for my home at 2105 Dayton Ave NE Renton WA 98056. Project Name: Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit Property: 2105 Dayton Ave NE Renton WA 98056 Location of site: Lot 3 Project size: 960sq ft_ Land use permits required for proposed project: Variance and the Conditional Use permit Zoning designation of the site and adjacent properties: R-8 Current Use of the site and any existing improvements: In December 2008, I got a building permit to convert our detached garage into a recreation room (with a bathroom, two rooms; one for office space and one for storage). I got the proper permits from the City of Renton to finish that project, and the completed project had been approved by the City of Renton Inspectors_ The building permit number is 9 B080666. Also, I got the Electrical Permit (E090130), the Plumbing Permit (P090051), and the Mechanical Permit (M090321). The sewage line and the water line are connected to the main house as you can see in the attached plan. Now, I would like to turn this recreation room into a Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit by adding kitchen cabinets and a range. Currently, I am using the space as a recreation room, and for office use and for our storage. Proposed use of the property: The proposed use after it has been turned into a Detached Accessory Dwelling with the kitchen cabinets, would be for living in it. Estimated construction cost and estimated fair market value: Since a majority of the renovation has been done when I turned it into a recreation room, the scope of the proposed project will only include putting in cabinets, a sink, and a range. The estimated 0 ! construction cost of putting in the kitchen materials $2500. The total market value of the project that included the cost of the renovation of the detached garage into the recreation, and the cost of putting in the kitchen is $30,000. Access: Access to the proposed project property will have a separate, private entrance with 1910 sq ft. provided. Number, type and size of any trees to be removed: There will not be any excavation or tree removals. On May 13, 2010, I requested a preliminary review of the proposed accessory dwelling unit for my property which is in the R -S zone in the City of Renton. Based on the preliminary review meeting as well as the site visit by the Planning Director and Project Manager, they made a list of recommendations .for me to fulfill in order for the city to support the ADU permit (please see the attached Memorandum dated May 13, revised May 2l, 2010). I had accomplished those requirements as you can see on the attached picture. If you have any questions or comments, please call me at (425) 269-9155, Thank you for your attention. sincerely, Pasang Sherpa Property Owner EX b I OY-11 PREAPPLICATION MEETING FOR PASANG SHERPA - ADU 2105 DA YTON A VE NE CITY OF RENTON Department of Community and Economic Development Current Planning Division PRET 0-016 May 13, 2010 Contact Information: Planner: Rocale Timmons Phone: 425.430.7219 Public Works Reviewer: Kayren Kittrick Phone: 425.430.7299 Fire Prevention Reviewer: Dave Pargas Phone: 425.430.7023 Building Department Reviewer: Craig Burnell Phone: 425.430.7290 Please retain this packet throughout the course of your project as a reference. Consider giving copies of it to any engineers, architects, and contractors who work on the project. You will need to submit a copy of this packet when you apply for land use and/or environmental permits. Pre-screening: When you have the project application ready for submittal, call and schedule an appointment with the project manager (planner) to have it pre- screened before making all of the required copies. The pre -application meeting is informal and non-binding. The comments provided on the proposal are based on the codes and policies in effect at the time of review. The applicant is cautioned that the development regulations are regularly amended and the proposal will be formally reviewed under the regulations in effect at the time of project submittal. The information contained in this summary is subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision -makers (e.g., Nearing Examiner, Planning Director, Development Services Director, Department of Community and Economic Development Administrator, Public Works Administrator and City Council). 0 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: May 7, 2010 TO: Rocale Timmons, Planning Division ©�(RCirl. If tnn 4o�- FROM: Kayren K_ Kittrick, Development Engineering Supervisor SUBJECT: Utility and Transportation Cpmments Pasang Sherpa ADU PRE 10-015, 2105 Dayton Avenue NE (Parcel #t22S3200095) NOTE: The applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary is preliminary and non-binding and may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official city decision -makers. Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by City staff or made by the applicant. The following comments are based on the pre -application submittal made to the City of Renton by the applicant. WATER: • This site is in the City of Renton water service boundary_ The property has an existing water meter. No record of connection to the water meter for the tenant improvement to the proposed ADU structure is on file. • The project site is located in the Highlands 435 Water Pressure Zone. There are existing 8 -inch ductile iron mains in Dayton Avenue NE and NE 22"d Street. • The available fire flow at this location is in excess of 1000 gpm from the existing hydra nts. • Any existing fire hydrants counted to serve this site may need to be fitted with 5 - inch Storz quick connect fittings to bring them up to current City code prior to occupancy of the building. • If a fire sprinkler system is required, a separate water meter permit for the fire service line will be issued with the approved pians_ • A Reduced Pressure Backflow Prevention Assembly (RPBA) may be required behind each domestic water meter. • The Water System development Fee is based on the size of the (each and all) water meter(s). This tee is collected at the time a new meter is paid for if required, prior or concurrent to the issuance of the building permit. Please seethe Development Fee Sheet for further information_ (Likely does not apply.) Pasang sherpa ADU PRE 10-L. Page 2of2 May 7, 2010 SANITARY SEWER: • This site is within the City of Renton sanitary sewer utility service boundary. • There is an existing 8" sanitary sewer main in Dayton Avenue NE across the entire property frontage. • The proposed project is required to show how they propose to serve the new ADU with sanitary sewer service meeting City of Renton standards. There is no drawing on record showing the sewer connection to the previous tenant improvement for this building- • The Sanitary Sewer System Development Fee is based on the size of the Beach and all) water meter(s). This fee is collected at the time a construction or utility permit is issued, prior or concurrent to the issuance of the building permit. Please see the Development Fee Sheet for further information. (Likely does not apply) STORM DRAINAGE: • As no additional exterior work is proposed, a drainage plan and preliminary report are NOT required. STREET IMPR VEMENTS: • There is existing pavement and improvements along Dayton Avenue NE. • Accessory Dwelling Units are exempt from the Traffic Mitigation Fee. GENERAL: The City of Renton has only a sidesewer card from 1995 showing the sidesewer installation for the existing house. No additional information on the connection for the recreation room/bathroom conversion is shown in our records_ • The property is served by a water meter, but no additional information on the water connection serving the accessory unit is known. • A drawing for our records showing the existing and proposed water and sewer connections to the side sewer and the water meter for the bathroom and proposed kitchen is required with the tenant improvement to complete the conversion to a full ADI. 0 0 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY � o c«-oe AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: May 13, 2010 (Revised May 21, 2010) TO: Pre -Application File No. 10-016 FROM: Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Pasang Sherpa _ ADU General: We have completed a preliminary review of the pre -application for the above - referenced development proposal. The following comments on development and permitting issues are based on the pre -application submittals made to the City of Renton by the applicant and the codes in effect on the date of review. The applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision -makers (e.g., Hearing Examiner, Community & Economic Development Administrator, Public Works Administrator, Planning Director, Development Services Director, and City Council). Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by City staff or made by the applicant. The applicant is encouraged to review all applicable sections of the Renton Municipal Code. The Development Regulations are available for purchase for $50.00 plus tax, from the Finance Division on the first floor of City Hall or online at www.rentDnwa.gov Project Proposal: The subject property is located at 2105 Dayton Ave NE The project site totals 0.795 acres in area and is zoned Residential -8 dwelling units per net acre (R-8). The subject site contains an existing 1,380 square foot single family residence (to remain) and a 960 square foot detached garage that has been converted to medical hardship through a Temporary Use Permit. The applicant is proposing to convert the former detached garage into an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). Current Use: A 1,380 square foot single family residence and a 960 square foot detached garage currently exist on the property. Zoning/Density Requirements: — The subject property is located within the R-8 zoning designation. ADU's are allowed as an accessory use to a detached single-family dwelling with an Administrative Conditional Use Permit. ADU's are subject to the development standards applicable to primary structures and consistent with the architectural character of the primary structure. The property owner is also responsible for filing an affidavit affirming that the owner will occupy the principal dwelling or the ADU. As a note ADU's are not Included in density calculations. Development Standards: The project would be subject to RMC 4-2-110A, "Development Standards for Residential Zoning Designations (Primary and Attached Accessory Structures) and RMC 4-2-1105, Development Standards for Residential Development (Detached Accessory Buildings) effective at the time of complete application. A copy of these standards is included. Pasang Sherpa -AD UARE10� Page 2 of 3 ` May 13, 2010 (Revised May 21, 2010) Bui_ldine Standards — The R -S zone allows a maximum building coverage of 35% of the lot area or 2,500 square feet, whichever is greater for lots over 5,000 square feet in size. Lots under 5,0oo square feet in size are permitted a rnaxirnum building coverage of 50% of the lot area. Building heights are restricted to 30 feet for the primary structure and accessory dwelling units. Elevations and lot coverage calculations were not provided with the pre -application materials. The applicant will be required at the time of formal land use application crud lot coverage calculations for the subject site. to provide elevations The R-8 zone permits one accessory structure per residential structure with a maximum of 1,000 square feet provided it is architecturally consistent with the principal structure. The maximum size of an accessory dwelling unit is Soo square feet. The maximum floor area of all accessory buildings shall not be greater than the floor area of the primary residential use. The submitted site plan indicates that the existing residence is 1,380 square feet, the detached garage/proposed ADU is 960 square feet in size. The square footage of the ng garage/Proposed ADC! exceeds the 800 square font rethequirement. Theapplicant would lbe required to reduce the sire of structure or request an Administrative !Variance. Setbacks — Setbacks are the minimum required distance between the building footprint and the Property line and any private access easement. The required minimum setbacks for accessory dwelling units in the R -S zone are: ADU Setbacks Front Yard Accessory structures are not permitted within required front yards or side yards along streets. Rear Yard Determined through administrative review, to be no less than 5- feet and no greater than 20 -feet Side Yard 5 -feet Between Structures 6 -feet Based on the Site Pian provided it is unclear where the modular home is/would be sited, The applicant would be required to comply with the setback requirements of the zone. Access/Parking: Each unit is required to accomrrsodate off street parking for a minimum of two vehicles. Garages and carports must provide a minimum of 24 ft. of back -out room, either on site or counting improved alley surface or other improved right-of-way surface. The applicant will be required at the time of formal land use application to provide detailed parking information. Significant Tree Retention: ff significant trees {greater than 6 -inch caliper) are proposed to be removed a tree inventory and a tree retention plan along with a tree retention worksheet shall be provided with the formal land use application. The tree retention plan must show Preservation of at least 10 percent of significant trees, and indicate how proposed building footprints would be sited to accommodate preservation of significant trees that would be retained. If the trees cannot be retained, they may be replaced with minimum 2 inch caliper trees at a ratio of six to one. is\rtim�rtim\preaPPSN10--016 (r8 adu modular home)_doc Pasang Sherpa - ADLI, PREIO-D__ Page 3 of 3 May 13, 2010 (Revised May 21, 2010) Critical Areas: There appears to be no critical areas Onsite. ff there is any indication of critical areas on the site, this must be disclosed to the City prior to development and appropriate studies must be undertaken. Environmental Review: The project is Categorically Exempt from SEPA requirements and, therefore, Environmental Review would not be required. Permit Requirements: Accessory dwelling units in the R-8 zone require the approval of an Administrative Conditional Use Permit. The Conditional Use Permit review would be accomplished within an estimated time frame of 6 to 8 weeks. The fee for the Administrative Conditional Use Permit is $2,D00,00. If an Administrative Variance is needed it can be reviewed concurrently with the Administrative Conditional Use Permit in the estimate time frame above. The fee for the Variance is $1,200.00. fn addition, construction and building permits may be required. Staff maV be supportive of the proposed accessary dwelling unit as well as an Administrative Variance if the following were accomplished. • Removaf of the carport on the south side of the proposed ADU structure. • Enhance the front entrance of the proposed ADU. • Place a skirt at the base of the proposed ADU r 0 Paint the area, once occupied by the garage door, to match the remainder of the facade. Thea licant is enpourat7ed to roKtide a rnnce tua! desi n or the ADU formal to the Ci rior to submittal. Fees: Building and construction permit fees may be required. Transportation and fire mitigation fees are not required for accessory dwelling units. Renton School District Impact Fees became effective on January 18, 2010. The fees are $1,258.00 for each neve multi -family unit_ Accessory dwelling units are considered multi -family units for the purposes of applying school impact fees. School impart fees are payable at the time of building permit issuance. A handout listing all of the City's Development related fees is attached for your review. Expiration: Upon approval, the conditional use permit is valid for two years with a possible one year extension. i:\rtim\rt1m\preapps\10-016 (rg adu modular home).doc Print r Page 1 of 3 ;From: Jennifer T, Henning (Jhenning cRenton wa.gov) To: akbufort@yahoo.com; Date: Mon, March 7, 2011 5:51:24 PM Cc: dari.usvicki@a msn.com, Nmcquiller@Rentonwa gov; CVincentt@Rentonwa.gov; pgsherpa@yahoo.com; RTimmons a@Rentonwa.gov; Subject: RE: Seeking advice for Kennydale neighbor Hello Andrea, The Sherpa Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) and Variance decision was issued on February 23rd. Currently, a 14 -day appeal period is in process. This appeal period ends on March 9, 2411 at 5:00 p.m. The decision was issued to approve the ADU with conditions. However, the variance to exceed the maximum size of 800 square feet (s.f.) was denied. We appreciate that the applicant consulted with the City on several occasions. While staff indicated support for the project early in the process, that does not guarantee that the project will be approved by the Decision -maker- In this case, the ADU was approved with conditions that limit it to no larger than 800 square feet. It is unfortunate that conversion of the garage stated before the ADU code was adopted, and the decision(s) on the proposal rendered. The work accomplished was done so at the applicant's risk and was not in keeping with the approved crude. it is unfortunate that the work was done without the necessary permits and approvals. The City's administrative process included a public comment period, during which comments were received from surrounding neighbors and City departments. The Decision -maker considered ail of the comments, and evaluated the project based on four variance criteria. The criteria to approve a variance is very specific, and all of the criteria must be met in order to grant the variance. The Report and Decision indicates that only one of the four variance criteria were met. If you or the applicant, or anyone else is not happy with the decision, or the conditions imposed, then a Request for Reconsideration may be requested in writing. There is no fee to file the Request for Reconsideration, This must be filed by 5:00 p.m. on March 9t'"'. if the Decision -macer determines that there is no reason to amend the original decision, then the appeal period will not be extended. Anyone who is not happy with the decision may also file an Appeal of the decision by 5:00 p.m. on March 9'h. The appeal must be accompanied by the required appeal fee ($250) and filed with the City Clerk (7u' floor of City Hall). If you file a Request for Reconsideration, we recommend that you also file a CG; f°Appeal to preserve your appeal rights. The appeal should point out the errors in fact or law that you believe have occurred in rendering the decision, or, provide any new information that was not available at the time that the decision was rendered which may have a bearing on the decision or conditions or approval, Here is a link that may help you in determining how to structure a letter requesting reconsideration or writing an appeal. htt:llrentonwa. ov!u loadedFilesIBusinessYPBPW/DEVSERV/FORMS PLANNING/A eal%20and% 20Comment%20]nfo.pdf Please feel free to contact me or Rocale Timmons, Project Manager (425,410.7219) if you have any questions. http:Inus.mg6,mail.vahoo,corn/dc/launch?.t-c=1&_rand=dale-v399n2aO3i I/X/M.1 t City of DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE CONDITIONAL USE REPORT & DECISION FRC MEMNG DSVTE, Fenruary 23, 2011 Project Name: Sherpa Accessory Dwelling unit Owner/Apolicantl ontact: Pasang Sherpa; 2105 Dayton Ave NE; Renton, WA 98056 File Number.- LUA10-088, CU -A, VA -A Project Manager: Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner Project Summary: The applicant submitted an application for an Administrative Conditional Use Permit and Variance for the coversion of an existing structure into an accessory dwelling unit (ADU). The subject property is located at 2105 Dayton Ave NE. The project site totals 0.28 acres in area and is zoned Residential -8 dwelling units per net acre (11-8). The subject site contains an existing 1,380 square foot single family residence (to remain) and a 960 square foot detached garage/recreation room. A Conditional Use Permit is required .for the conversion of the detached garage/recreation room into an ADU. A variance is requested in order to exceed the 800 foot threshold for accessory dwelling units. Access would be provided via a seperate curb cut from Dayton Ave NE. There are no critical areas on site. Project Location_ 2105 Dayton Ave NE Site Area: 12,180 SF (0.28 at) Project Location Map REPOR7.doc City of Renton Department of C"munity onomic Development Variance &A dmi"Jac"ditional We Permit Report and Decision SHERPA ADU LUA10-088, CU -A, VA -A Report of February 23, 2011 Page 2 of 10 PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION / GENERAL INFORMATION A. Exhibits Exhibit 1. Zoning and Neighborhood Detail Map Exhibit 2: Ste/Landscape/Floor Plan Exhibit 3: Elevations Exhibit 4: Aerial Photo of Project Site Exhibit 5: Letter Expressing Concern — Neighboring Property Owners Exhibit 6: Two Letters in Support — Neighboring Property Owners B. General Information 1. Owner(s) of Record: Pasang Sherpa 2105 Dayton Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 2. Zoning Designation: Residential -8 du/ac (R8) 3. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: Residential Single Family (RSF) 4. Existing Site Use: Single Family Residence 5. Neighborhood Characteristics: North: Single Family Residential (R-9 Zone) East: Single Family Residential (R-8 Zone) South: Single Family Residential (R-8 Zone) West: Single Family Residential (R-8 Zone) 6. Access: Via two existing curb cuts along Dayton Ave S. 7. Site Area: 12,180 SF (0.28 ac) C. Historical/Background Action Description Land Use File No. Ordinance No. Date Comprehensive Plan N/A N/A 4924 12/5/2001 Zoning N/A N/A 5099 17./1/2004 Annexation N/A N/A 1822 3/31/1960 D. Project Narrative The project site is a 12480 square foot parcel located in the R-8 zoning designation located on Dayton Ave NE just south of NE 22nd St. The site is currently developed with a 1,380 square foot single family residence and a 950 square foot detached structure formerly used as a garage/recreation room. The applicant is requesting an Administrative Conditional Use Permit and Variance for the coversion of the existing detached structure into an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). The proposed building would be approximately 960 gross square feet in area and is located in the southwest corr:er of the site. The height of the existing structure is 141 Feet and 6 inches at the tallest point and is comprised mostly of siding, glass and stone materials similar to materials used on the associated single family residence. Administrative Conditional Use/Variance Report chy of Renton.Vepm-tment of Community & R ,.k Development Varionce & Adminivrfl onditionnl Use Permit Report and Decision SFIfRPA ADU LUA10-088, CU -.4, VA -A Report of February 23, 2011 Page 3 of 10 Access to the site would continue to be gained from two existing curb cuts along Hayton Ave NE. A total of 4 parking spaces would be provided on site; two for each residence. The applicant would retain existing landscaping along the perimeter and interior of the site. There are no trees proposed for removal as part of the project. There are no known critical areas on or near the. site. Staff received several comments from surrounding property owners. While two letters were provided in support of the project a petition letter was received (Exhibit 7), signed by eight households, raising concerns related to property values, traffic, and the setting of precedent (Exhibit 6). E. Public Services 1. utilities a. ]plater: This site is located in the Soos Creek water service boundary. b. Sewer: This site is located in the Soos Creek Water & Sewer District__ c. Surface/storm Water. There are existing drainage and conveyance systems adjacent to the site. 2. Streets: Improvements are installed along the frontage of the site 3. ' Fire Protection: City of Renton Fire Department PART TWO: CONSISTENCE WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CRITERIA A Conditional Use Permit is required in order to permit the conversion of an existing structure into an ADU. Section 4-9-030.G lists criteria that the Administrator or their designee is asked to consider, along with all other relevant information, in making a decision on a Conditional Use Permit application_ These include the following: 1. Consistence with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code & Other Ordinances The proposed use shat] be compatible with the general purpose, goals, objectives and standards of the Comprehensive Plan, the zoning regulations and any other plan, program, map or ordinance of the City of Renton. a. Comprehensive Plow b. Zoning Code c. Development Standards The subject site is located within the R-8 zone which implements the Residential Single Family (RSF) Land Use Designation of the Comprehensive Plan. Land designated as RSF is intended to be used for quality detached residential development organized into neighborhoods at' urban densities. It is intended that larger subdivision, infill development, and rehabilitation of existing housing be carefully designed to enhance and improve the quality of single-family environments. The proposal is consistent with the following Housing Element policy if all conditions of approval are met: Policy H-44. Support accessory dwelling units as strategies for providing a variety of housing types and as a strategy for providing affordable housing, with the following criteria: 1. Ensure owner occupancy of either the primary or secondary unit. 2. Allow both attached and detached accessory dwelling units and detached carriage units, at a maximum of one per single-family Mouse, exempt from the maximum density requirement of the applicable zone. 3. Require an additional parking space for each accessory dwelling unit, with the ability; to waive this requirement for extenuating circumstances. 4. Allow a variety of entry locations and treatments while ensuring compatibility with existing neighborhoods. Administrative Conditional Use/Variance Report City of Renton Department of Community & PconornicEkeveiOpment Variarsce & Adminis=,ratry :ondidonal Use Permit Report and Decision SHERPA ADU LUA1"88, CU -A, VA -A Report of February 23, 2011 Page 4 of 10 ADU's are an allowed use in the R-8 zone with an approved Administrative Conditional Use Permit (see remainder of the analysis below). RMC 4-2-080A.7 requires that the property owner file an affidavit affirming that the owner will occupy the principal dwelling or the ADU. Prior to the issuance of building permits; the owner shall rec❑rd a notice on the property title., The notice shall bear the notarized signature of all property owners listed on the property title and include the legal description of the property, a copy of the approved site/floor plan, and the applicability of the restrictions regarding ADU's in RMC Title IV. The applicant has met all development standards of the R-8 zone, with the exception of building size. The square footage of ADU's are limited to 800 square feet within the R -S zone. The applicant is requesting a variance in order to exceed the square footage requirement by 150 square feet. The applicant was unable to demonstrate compliance with all four variance criterion, as a result the variance to exceed the maximum building square footage is being denied (see variance analysis below). As a condition of Conditional Use Permit approval the applicant would be required to reduce the size of the accessory structure below the 804 square foot threshold prior to building permit approval (see the variance analysis below). if all conditions of approval are met, the project would be in conformance of zoning regulations. 2. Community Need There shall be a community need for the proposed use at the proposed location. In the determination of community need, the Nearing Examiner shall consider the following factors, among all other relevant information: a. The proposed location shall not result in either the detrimental overconcentration of a particular use within the City or within the immediate area of the proposed Use. The proposed ADU is the first project of its type to be processed in 2011 and third of its kind in the City of Renton. The Code allows for 50 accessory dwelling units to be permitted per year. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an over -concentration of a particular use within the City or within the immediate area of the proposed use. b. That the proposed location is suited for the proposed use. The project site is a 12,184 square foot lot in the R-8 zone. A detached single-family house (to remain) currently is located on the subject property. in the R-8 zone one detached dwelling with one ADU are allowed on each legal lot. The proposed ADU would be located along the south side property line and behind (west of) the existing dwelling. The location of the accessory structure is appropriate. 3. Effect on Adjacent Properties The proposed use at the proposed location shall not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property. The following site requirements shall be requlred: a. Lot Coverage: Wt coverage in residential districts (SF and MR) shall not exceed fifty percent (5096) of the lot coverage of the zone in which the proposed use is to be located, except for detached accessory dwelling units, which shall not be counted toward /at coverage calculations. Lot coverage in all other zones shall conform to the requirements of the zone in which the proposed use is to be located. As noted above, AQU's will not be counted towards lot coverage calculations. The R-8 zone allows building coverage, for lots over 5,000 SF, of 35 percent. The building footprint of the existing structure is 1,380 square feet. This generates a total building coverage of 11.3 percent on the 12,150 square foot parol which its well below the maximum 35 percent building lot coverage permitted. Administrative conditional Usel'Vdriance Report City of Renton OLpartment of Community 8 0MG is Deveiopment Variance & AdministraL' .E ifionai Use Permit Repan and Decision SHERPA ADU LUAI0-088, CUA, VA -A Report of February 23, 2011 Page 5 of 10 b. Yards: Yards shall conform to the requirements of the zone in which the proposed use is to be located. Additions to the structure shall not be allowed in any required yard. The side yard setback for ADU's in the R-8 zone is 5 -feet and the rear yard setback is determined through administrative review but shall not be less than 5 feet and no greater than 20 feet. The existing structure is located approximately 18 feet from the rear property line and approximately 8 feet from the south property line. However, an attached carport is located on the south side of the proposed ADU which encroaches into the side yard setback. As a condition of approval the applicant would be required to obtain a demolition permit and all required inspections be completed for the removal of the existing carport prior to the building permit approval. The existing 18 -foot rear yard setback is adequate for the proposed use. c. Height: Building and structure heights shall conform to the requirements of the zone in which the proposed use is to be located. Spires, belltowers, public utility antennas or similar structures may exceed the height requirement upon approval of a variance. Building heights should be related to surrounding uses in order to allow optimal sunlight and ventilation, and minimal obstruction of views from adjacent structures. The maximum height far ADU's in the R -S zone is 30 -'Feet. The proposed existing structure would be approximately 14 -feet and 6 -inches at the tallest point which relates to the existing single family residence and surrounding structures. Therefore the existing structure is compatible with the existing residence and the residential character of the surrounding neighborhood - d. Compatibility: The proposed use shall be compatiblewith the residential scale and character of the neighborhood. The primary dwelling on the project site is faced with grey siding for which the existing accessory structure is currently matched with the exception of the area immediately framing the door along the front (eastern) facade. The applicant is proposing new siding, roofing, window trimming and fascia boards in order to match the existing residence. The applicant is also proposing new stone facing along the concrete wail, of the eastern facade, in order to ground the structure with a new window and door along the front facade. The proposed facade modifications cause the existing structure to be more compatible with the residential character of the surrounding neighborhood. e. Traffic: Traffic and circulation patterns of vehicles and pedestrians relating to the proposed use and surrounding area shall be reviewed for potential effects on, and to ensure safe movement in, the surrounding area. Access to the site would continue to be gained from two existing curb cuts along Dayton Ave NE. A total of 4 parking spaces would be provided_ on site; two for each residence. Pedestrian and vehicular access to the proposed project site will not change as a result of the proposed project. While concerns were raised by neighboring property owners no significant changes to traffic and circulation patterns of vehicles and pedestrians relating to the proposed use and surrounding area are anticipated. f. Noise, Glare: Potential noise, light and glare impacts shail be evaluated based on the location of the proposed use on the lot and the location of on-site parking areas, outdoor recreational areas and refuse storage areas. The proposed accessory dwelling unit would be oriented toward the east and facing toward the interior of the project site. Windows on the %festern and southern facades are limited in number therefore, potential glare would be limited. Noise which is typical of residential uses would be associated with the proposed project; the ADU is not anticipated to produce noise volumes which would impact the surrounding neighborhood beyond reason. Administrative Conditional UselVarionce Report City of Renton Deportment bf Community & Economic Devefopment Varionce & Admin&rativ8 CondWow1 Use Permit Report and Derision SHERPA ADU LUA1Q-a$9, CU-A, VA-A Report of February Z3, 2011 Page 6 of 10 g. Accessory Uses: Accessory uses to conditional uses such as day schools, auditoriums used for social and sport activities, health centers, convents, preschool facilities, convalescent homes and others of a similar nature shall be considered to be separate uses and shrill be subject to the provisions of the use district in which they are located. The proposed use as an ADU which is allowed in the R-8 zone with an approved Administrative Conditional Use Permit. The proposed accessory dwelling unit would be in compliance with the Renton Municipal Code if all conditions of approval are complied with. h. Public Improvements: The proposed use and location shall be adequately served by and not impose an undue burden on any public improvements, facilities, utilities and services. Approval of a conditional use permit may be conditioned upon the provision and/or guarantee by the applicant of necessary public improvements, facilities, utilities and/or services. Police and Fire Department staff indicates that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed project, subject to the applicant providing Code required improvements. Any students generated by the proposed accessory dwelling unit would be accommodated at Renton School District. The Renton School District Impact Fee for each new accessory dwelling unit is estimated at $1,258.00'and is payable prior to the issuance of building permits_ The Soos Creek Water and Sewer District would provide water and sanitary sewer service. Certificates of water and sewer are required to be provided to the city prior to building permit approval. PART THREE: CONSISTENCY WITH VARIANCE CRITERIA Section 4-9-25085 fists four criteria that the Reviewing Ojj`icial is asked to consider the following four criteria, along with oil other relevant information, in making a -decision on an Administrative Variance application. The variance criteria are as follows: A. That the opplicant suffers undue hardship and the variance is necessary because of special circumstances applicable to subject' property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject property, and the strict application of the Zoning Code is found to deprive subject property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. The applicant contends that undue hardship is suffered due to need to demolish walls in order to meet the 800 square footage requirement. Additionally, the demolition would have impacts on the footings and roof of the structure. The applicant contends it is not cost effective to remove a portion of or demolish the existing structure_ Staff cannot speak to the impact of cost on. the applicant; however staff does not concur that the financial burden creates an undue hardship for this specific site. The proposed variance is not necessitated because of size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject property. Therefore the strict application of the Zoning Code is not found to deprive the subject owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity under identical zone classifications. Alternatively, the applicant could demolish portions of the accessory structure and meet the maximum square footage requirements in the R-•8 zoning designation. B. That the granting of the variance will nat be materially d€t,„mental to the public v:elfarb or lotions to the . property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which subiect property is situated; The applicant contends that the granting of the variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity. The additional 160 square feet beyond the Administrative Conditional Use/Varionce Report City of Renton Depariment of Community &Economic aeveiopmeot Vurirrme & Administmriveianditiaaal Use Permit Report and Decision SNCRPA ADU LUA10-088, CU A, VA -A Report of February 23, 2011 Page 7 of 10 800 square foot requirement would not create any additional burden on services by the city or neighborhood utilities. Staff concurs that the granting of the variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property or improvements_ The granting of the variance would allow for the retention of an existing structure, without alteration, which the size has not been detrimental to the public .welfare or injurious to the subject property thus far_ C. That approvral shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated; The approval of the maximum square footage request, for the accessory square footage, would be a grant of special privilege, as other property owners in the vicinity and within oilier R-8 zoned areas would not be permitted to construct an accessory dwelling unit which exceeds the maximum square footage. Specifically, when the hardship is not created due to specific site constraints. That the approval as determined by the Reviewing Official is a minimum variance that will accomplish the desired purpose. The applicant states that the requested variance is the minimum variance necessary to allow the existing structure to remain on the site without alteration. Staff does not concur; the applicant could reduce the square footage of the existing structure through the demolition of portions of the structure and come into conformance with the maximum square footage requirements of the R-8 zoning designation. Therefore the requested variance is not the minimum variance that would accomplish the desire to retain the existing structure. PART FOUR: FINDINGS Having reviewed the written record in the matter, the City now enters the following: 1.. Request: The Applicant has requested Administrative Conditional Use permit and Variance, from RMC4-2- 110B, for the Sherpa ADU, LUA 10-088, CU -A, VA -A. 2. Administradve Conditional Use Perrntt: The applicant's Conditional Use Permit application complies with the requirements for information necessaryfor review. The applicant's plans are attached to this report. 3. Administrative Variance: The applicant's variance application complies with the requirements for information necessary for review. The applicant's plans are attached to this report. 4. Comprehensive Flan. The subject site is designated Residential Single Family (RSF). S. Zoning. The site is zoned Residential -8 du/ac (R-8) which permits accessory dwelling units. with an Administrative Conditional Use permit. Maximum square footages are limited to 800 square feet for ADU's. The applicant has proposed a 960 square foot structure. PART FIVE: CONCLUSIONS 1. The Administrative Conditional Use Permit would allow the utilization of an existing structure as an ADU. The ADU' is within a former garage structure. The location of the ADU on the project site is indicated in Exhibit 2 (Site Plan). Administrative ConditionolUse/Variance Report City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Variance $ Administrative Conditionof Use Permit Report and Decision SHERPA ADU LUA10-08$, CU A, VA -A Report of February 23, 2011 Page S of 10 2. The proposed Administrative Conditional Use Permit for an accessory dwelling unit meets the eleven criteria to be considered in making a decision on a conditional use permit request as specified in RMC 4-9- 030G if all conditions of approval are met. 3. Staff recommends approval with conditions based on the analysis contained in the staff report. 4. The recommendation of staff is to deny the variance request as it does not meet three of the four criteria found in RMC 4-9-25085. Specifically, the applicant has not demonstrated that they suffer undue hardship and the request would constitute granting a special privilege. It is feasible for the existing structure to be converted to an accessory dwelling unit and meet the maximum square footage requirements of RMC 4-2- 110B. I PART SIX: DECISION I The proposed Administrative Variance, from RN1C 4-2-17013, for the Sherpa Accessory Dwelling Unit (File No. LUA10-088, CU -A, VA -A) is hereby denied. The Administrative Conditional Use Permit is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall reduce the size of the proposed accessory dwelling unit, below the 800 square foot threshold, prior to building permit approval. 2. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and all required inspections be completed for the removal of the existing carport prior to the building permit approval L� C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Planning Dfrector TRANSMlTTFD this 2310 day of February, 2011 to the ContacVAppficanVowner: Can tactlA pplicant%Owner: Pasong Sherpa 2105 Dayton Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 TRANSMITTED this 23rd day of Februory, 2011 to the Parties of Record: Gary Newton Pahl & Nancy Duke 2101 Dayton Avenue NE 2408 NF 22nd Street Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Jean Anderson 2100 Dayton Avenue NE Renton, LVA 98056 Paul & Cassie Babcock 2404 NE 22nd Street Renton, WA 98056 Klatt Wells 2328 NE 22nd Street Margaret!. Buxton 2005 Dayton Avenue NE Renton, WA O8056 Michele Ralph 2400 N>_ 22nd street Renton, WA 98056 James Boyd . 2324 NE 22nd Street Administrative Conditional ilse%Variance Report l Date Rick & Folly Potter 2104 Dayton Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 William & Shirley Reynolds 2112 Dayton Avenue NE Renton, WA 98055 Bill & !Caren Sparrow 2108 Dayton Avenue N11.7 Renton, WA 98056 Colleen Addison 2109 Dayton Avenue NE ------------- City -----._...City D,1 Renton Department of Community& Economic Development Variance & Administrative Conditional Use Permit Report and Decision SHERPA ADU LUA10-088, CU A, VA -A Report of February 23, 2011 Page 9 of 10 Renton, WA 98056 Andrea Bufort 2012 Dayton Avenue NE .Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Colin Thorpe 12226 SE 278th Street Renton, WA 98058 TRANSMITTED this 23rd day of February, 1011 to the following: Neil Watts, Development Services Director Larry Meckiing, Building Official Kayren Kittrick, Development Services Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Code Compliance fire Marshal Renton Reporter Renton, WA 99056 Dinn Coleman 14241228th Avenue SE Issaquah, WA 98027 Land Use Action Appeals, Request far Reconsideration, & Expiration The Variance and the Administrative Conditional Use Permit decisions will become final if the decisions are not appealed within 14 days of the decision date. Conditional Use Permit Appeal: Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed In writing to the Hearing Examiner on or before 5:00 p.m., March 9, 2011. Administrative Variance Appeal: Appeals of the administrative site development plan review decision must be filed in writing to the Hearing Examiner on or before 5:00 p.m. on March 9, 2011. APPEALS: An appeal of the decisions) must be filed within the 14 -day appeal period (RCW 43.21.C.075(3); WAC 197-11-680). Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.6 governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner_ Appeals must be filed in writing together with the $250.00 application fee to Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Additional Information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall - 7th Floor, (425) 430-6510. RECONSIDERATION: Within 14 days of the decision date, any party may request that a decision on a short plat be reopened by the Administrator (Recision -maker). The Administrator (Decision -maker) may modify his decision if material evidence not readily discoverable prior to the original decision is found or if he finds there was misrepresentation of fact. After review of the reconsideration request, if the Administrator (Decision - maker) finds sufficient evidence to amend the original decision, there will be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action must file a formal appeal within the 14 -day appeal timeframe. THE APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS DOCTRINE: provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning the land use decision. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial decision, but to Appeals to the Hearing Examiner as well. All communications after the decision approval date must be made in writing through the Hearing Examiner. All communications are public record and this permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence iii writing. Any violation of this doctrine could result in the invalidation of the appeal by the Court. ADVISORY NOTES TOAPPLIC4NT The followin¢ notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. Planning: 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8.30 am to 330 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division_ The Development Services Division reserves the right to rescind the approved extended haul hours at any time if complaints are received. �2 RMC 4-2-080A.7 requires that the property owner shall file an affidavit affirming that the owner will occupy the J _principal d�vei!ing or the ADU. This affidavit shall be submitted to the Planning Divislon Project Manager prior to the Administrarrve Conditional UsejVariance Report City of Renton Department of Community & Eeanomic Development Variance & Admfnistrative Conditional Use Permit Repon'aPd Decision SNFRPA AD LUA10-088, Cif A, VA -A Report of February 23, 2011 Page 10 of 10 issuance of building permits. 3. RMC 4-2-080A.7 also requires that prior to the issuance of building permits, the owner shall record a notice on the property title. The notice shall bear the notarized signature of all property owners listed on the property title and include the legal description of the property, a copy of the approved site/floor plan, and the applicability of the restrictions regarding ADUs in RMC Title IV. Prior to recording of the notice the owner shall submit a copy to the Planning Division Project Manager for review and approval. Watcr: 1. This site is located in the Soos Creek water service boundary. A water avallablilty certificate is required. This site is not located in the Aquifer Protection Zone. Sewer. 1. This site is served by the Soas Creek Water & Sewer District. A sewer availability is required.. Surface Water: 1. A drainage checklist is required to be submitted with the formal application for the building. All improvements or exemptions must comply with the City of Renton Amendments to the King County Surface Water Manual 2009. Transportation: 1. All new electrical, phone, and cable services and lines must be installed underground unless a variance €s issued - Fire: 1. No comments. Administrative Conditional UseJVorrance Report C4 — 32 T24N R5E E 1/2 ZONING MAP BOOK E4 — 08 T23N RSR R 1/2 PW TKHNICAL MWES PRINTED ON U/131119 D4 0 2W 4W F.1 05 T23N 15E E 1/2 aCF4 } _ k taa RI'" �:• �� - s r 9L i �aS aa Fl P:SAt SWF3tPA ' Wri;r 5 3s ImE PUW. Vm" mw Zile attm MW WE IflRt1PNN SIiIITOH CdriE Ob1J�9JANcE v�'o�e.7lDzd to PgWR SEr aCF4 } _ k taa RI'" �:• �� - s 9FmP0.hON �aS aa Tim6Frmu eF MF P:SAt SWF3tPA ' Wri;r 5 3s ImE PUW. Vm" mw Zile attm MW WE IflRt1PNN SIiIITOH CdriE Ob1J�9JANcE v�'o�e.7lDzd PgWR SEr $ r " 9FmP0.hON Tim6Frmu eF MF P:SAt SWF3tPA ' Wri;r 5 3s ImE PUW. Vm" mw Zile attm MW WE IflRt1PNN SIiIITOH CdriE Ob1J�9JANcE v�'o�e.7lDzd PgWR SEr n P x cc all K .e -� � r € ! s -13 t �` l� e a OW$WA APU PRSPARED By riMi Cldl9ii 7orc °-4t0.YB 9HERFA wwim iMNUA G ! llFirON IYL l�DJi 2f Rs umw 06C NE NRUPNM SMMA O Y It9lltldy 1fA femme 4 PERMIT SET 7. 4 PERMIT SET p ' 3 3r •� a ... � XF - �- = r O CO 00 rn CA CD 1 lit $ 3 ;= a tip..€`Yw�h�"'.�%, f` 'T` _ 1'' y..., �` r`�a�- ■ ■ r4+�'}.3-- 07 y m __ ~ � � PF! �;A:-� J•'�^`� �� Ny tri. l.�'�' � � d -_ r-'�1'-yS" �'O�J. '-=:-y..,i k�- .�l ir'R. 2 i • 17;0/ 0 5L3 v 2 mon MID a N .qgyp� oom�F Lp 1S9 3 N tYf m C� Q - 4a m Cl 7m0 a�� rym cn A 2 3 ' 3� : CL m m }r R �9 orr "0'4 , "' L".�,.` _ O i y 0 January 10, 2011 Rocaie Timmons Associate Planner Dept. of Community and Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Dear Rocale, 0 I am writing To express my strong support or -the project Sherpa AIDU CUA10-088, CU -A, V-A.' I have lived very close to this lot and family for the past four years. They have been consistently excellent neighbors. Their request reflects a trend in our neighborhood to higher density housing on these large lots. At one end of the block, a lot was subdivided, and a second home built, right before I moved in to 2012 Dayton Ave. Not much later, a rundown home just up the street was replaced by two nice new dwellings. At the other end of the block, another overgrown single lot was subdivided and now holds three beautiful homes. And just across Edmonds, three tiny broken-down houses on very large lots gave way to a subdivision that is now full of families. Our block still has several homes that have seen Netter days. We benefit from having a family like the Sherpas living here, because unlike some other owners, they are always working to beautify and improve their space. There are no envir-onmental/ecological roadblocks to the Sherpas converting their current space to an ADU. I am sure that if any of my neighbors have any concern with the Sherpa's ADU request, they can work out a mutually satisfactory resolution. I have had opportunity to interact with the Sherpa family not only as a neighbor, but as a fellow parent a few years ago when our children attended the same co- operative preschool in Kennydale. Based on all my interactions with them, l can avow that they are reasonable, responsible, intelligent people. Sincerely, . Andrea Bufort 2012 Dayton Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 City of RLnton January 11, 2011 Planning Divisior Colleen Addison JAN 13 1Uil 2109 Dayton Avenue N£ Renton INA 98056 Project name/number; Sherpa ADUJLUA10-088, CU -A, V-A Rear Rocale Timmons: I am writing to express my approval of Pasang Sherpa's application for the Administrative Conditional Use Permit and Administrative Variatjqe. The 960 square feet detached garage has been inexistence .—lung..beforethe Sherpa famlly move Ove -r-15 years ago- ..&y. allowing the detached garage. size to be as it is at 960 would not make the existing structure any bigger than it already is. As the structure stand_ s right now, it is not obstructive and it blends in nicely with their house, their beautiful yard, and the neighbors adjacent to them. Since I don't foresee structural changes (like more buildings or the expansion of the garage to be any bigger than it is), I believe the variance should be granted_ 1 have na doubt that the conversion of the existing structure into an ADU would only enhance the property and the surrounding neighborhood and would not create congestion and inconvenience for the neighborhood. Since the Sherpa family has moved into the house six years ago, being their adjacent neighbor next door, I have seen them consistently improving their property making our neighborhood having much better curb -appeal. For example, they have built retaining walls around the backyard, took out a worn- out wooden deck and replaced It with a concrete patio, improved the soil in their garden, leveled dirt piles and put in a large grass lawn, added a sprinkler system, changed their windows around the house making it more energy efficient windows. They have consistently maintained the landscaping around the property. Therefore, please accept my approval of my neighbor's motivation to continue enhance his property, thus contributing to our neighborhood to being a better place to live. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, Colleen Addison EXHIBIT 6 Print� � Page l of 1, . 4blT A From: Pasang G. Shepra (pgsheMa@yahoo.com) To: RTimmons@Rentonwa.gov; Date: Wed, December 8, 2010 9:29:30 PM Cc; niru@mannby.corn; Subject: Justification for Variance Dear Rocale, Attached is another revised write up of the justification for variance, I know we have a meeting to go over the materials on the 12 / 13. It would be great if you can do a quick review of this write up to see if I am on the right track in answering those questions. I want to be as prepared as possible in preparing for the document for our meeting on Monday, I would really appreciate if you can let me know whether I am on the right track or not prier our meeting. Thank you for your help. Pasang G_ Sherpa From: Rocale Timmons <RTimmons@Rentonwa.gov> To: Pasang G. Shepra <pgsherpa@yahoo.com> Sent Wed, June 2, 2010 10,30:05 AM Subject: Variance Application The following items are not required for the variance application: • #8 Density Worksheet • #13 Wetland Assessment • #14 Standard Stream or Lake Study #15 Habitat Data Report • #16 Flood Hazard Data • #18 Geotechnical Report a #19 Grading Plan • #22 Colored Maps Once you have ONE copy of the remainder of the items ... give me a tali and we can set up a time to do what is called a pre-screen. l will be providing items #2 (Waiver Form) at that time. Please feel free to let me know if you have any questions. Rocale Timmons City of Renton - Current Planning Associate Planner 1055 South Grady Way Renton, VITA 98057 Tel: (425) 430-7219 Fax: (425) 430-7300 rtimmons@rentonwa,gov http://usxngfs.mail- yahoo- cornldc/launch?.ex=1 &.rwid=Oakv399p2t103l 2/28/2011 �j bi d To: Chip Vincent— City of Renton Planning Director Roca le Timmons — Planning Department E JAN 21 2011 BUILDING DIVISION We the undersigned strongly oppose the variance being considered by the city at 2105 Dayton Ave. N.E. This building was originally built to be a storage garage and shop. The current resident has gone ahead and made this into a residence that doesn't meet the city code for a second residence on this property and has also been occupied sirice October 1t, 2010. He has tried to circumvent the remodeling permit by not stating the true purpose of this project. Here are some of the reasons for our objection to this variance. 1. Increased traffic and parking on Dayton Ave. N.E. 2. We believe that this will cause a drop in our property values. 3. This occupant infringes on the property line driving between the houses. 4. This occupant doesn't follow the rules and codes set forth by the City of Renton. 5. We're concerned about our Sewer LID, whether he will be assessed. 6. Several of us have .lived here for 50 years and don't want to see our neighborhood degraded. i. We feel the city has failed us allowing this project to go on knowing it doesn't meet city codes for the size and for the building to be occupied since October 1t, 2010. The city was notified (code compliance) several times during this project. 8. We believe this might set a precedent for our area. 9. These signatures are all from home owners, not renters. 10. Any questions regarding this matter please contact Gary Newton at 425- 255-6965. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. 1D 1 - D,4 din IJ k . EXHIBIT 5 Name Address Name '1 "lax , f 0 Address J/d S 41Z o f . k � '-N 6 () is [department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator March 28, 2011 Pasang Sherpa and Hannah Chi 2105 Dayton Avenue NE Renton, INA 98056 SUBJECT: Sherpa ADU Reconsideration Response LUA10-088, CU -A, V-A Dear Mr. Sherpa and Ms. Chi, This office is in receipt of your reconsideration request, dated March 9, 2011; in which you requested reconsideration for the denial of the variance decision on the Sherpa Accessory Dwelling unit. Summary of Request: The reconsideration letter requests that the City staff overturn the denial of the maximum square footage variance, for the Sherpa ADU, issued on February 23, 2011. The variance requested would allow you to retain the existing 960 square foot structure, formerly used as a recreation room/garage, without alteration and convert into an accessory dwelling unit. A variance is necessary in order to exceed the 800 foot threshold allowed for accessory dwelling units. The letter re- states five justifications for the proposal's compliance with variance criteria included in the original application. You contend the variance is necessary because of the size of the property and the property was a nonconforming lot when it is was purchased. The requirement to demolish the accessory structure would deprive you of the right and privelege that other property owners under the same classification enjoy and would create unnecessary waste and harm the environment with construction debris and fumes. Finally, you contend staff supported the variance prior to application and a denial was issued based on public comment. You are requesting staff "expunge" Exhibit 5 from the record stating that the letter was irrelevant and was not submitted within the comment period allowed for the public. Analysis: I have reviewed and considered your request. The variance decision is solely based on the proposal's compliance with variance criteria outlined in RMC 4-9-258.5. As stated in the report: the proposed variance would be a grant of special privilege; is not the minimum variance necessary to accommodate the accessory dwelling unit; and is not necessitated because of size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject property. The accessory structure was originally constructed as a garage and was considered a conforming structure at the time of application and is not a specific site constraint. Restricting the size of the structure is not found to deprive you of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity under identical zone classifications in that their accessory structures would also be limited to 800 square feet. Renton City Hail 6 1055 South Grady Way r Renton, Washington 98057 0 rentonwa.gov i March 28, 2011 Page 2 0 Your request did not include any additional information that would warrant overturning the original decision, the denial of the variance is upheld. The comment letter (Exhibit 5) was taken into consideration when making a decision on the Conditional Use Permit and Variance. However, a denial of the variance would have been issued without the comment letter as the proposal does not meet all variance criteria outlined in Code. While the submittal of the comment letter (Exhibit 5) does not meet the statutory requirements of the Renton Municipal Code in that the letter was submitted after the end of the public comment period, staff has determined that the comments/concerns are relevant and should remain in the record. Additionally, the comments of the neighboring property owners should be taken into consideration should the decision be appealed to the Hearing Examiner. Anyone who is aggrieved by this decision may file an appeal in writing to the Hearing Examiner on or before 5:00 PM on April 11, 2011. An appeal of the decision must be filed within the 14 -day appeal period (RCW 43.21.C.O75(3); WAC 197-11-68O). Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-843.0. Appeals must be filed in wrliting, together with the required fee to: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. If this office can provide any further assistance, please feel free to contact the Project Manager, Rocale Timmons, at (425) 430-7219. Sincerely, C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Director Planning Division cc: Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner Parties of Record File LUA10-088, CU -A, V-A MAR 092011 4 r t Date: March 02, 2011 RECEIVED �� c ; � � - �`'������`���L-� To: Administrator (Decision -Maker) Chip Vincent—amity of Renton Planning Director Rocale Timmons ----Associate Planner We, the neighbors in the vicinity of the house at 2105 Dayton Ave NE are pleased to be given an opportunity by the city to provide our input on the Sherpa Accessory Dwelling Unit project. As neighbors, we all strive to make our neighborhood sustainable and livable. According to goal seven of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Goals, it calls for new development and neighborhoods in the City that: * Contribute to a strong sense of community and neighborhood identity, • Offer a variety of housing.types for a population diverse in age, income, and lifestyle; • Are varied or unique in character. We see that the Sherpa's proposed ADU project is align with the city, the neighborhood, and Sherpa family values and cultural diversity_ By having an ADU, the Sherpas plan to maintain their strong connection to their community and extended family. Taking care of their aging elders and other members is a value that they live by and the ADU would allow their family members to have independence and lower their housing cost. Other alternatives for taking care of their families such as nursing homes are unthinkable. Therefore we, the undersigned strongly support the Sherpa family's request for the reconsideration of the decision on the variance made on February 23, 2011 at 2105 Dayton Ave NE. By granting the variance for this project, we believe it will not set precedents for the city to grant similar request for other houses in our area in the future as the current situation is unique to the Sherpa residence. Their detached. 960sq ft. garage was built in 1994. In 2009, it was converted into a recreation room (with a bathroom, two rooms, one for office space and one for storage_) This structure as it stands is compatible with the neighborhood_ Because this structure has existed for 17 years, none of us possess a similar situation and would request for a variance that exceed the 800 sq feet. It seems perfectly fair to us that Mr_ Sherpa's building should be allowed a variance, but that any ADUs we as his neighbors may build in the future should be limited to the variance. We in no way feel that this would be discrinuinartory or unfair to us. We feel reassured that the city has been working with the family to make sure that they can exercise their Dome ownership rights to establish a mother in law cottage and at the same time following city codes. Also, the consensus of the neighbors' concerns of exhibit 5 were all addressed in the approval of the ADU. We believe the Sherpa family have every interest to improve the neighborhood and to be a part of the neighborhood that they plan to raise their children in. Thank you for taking this matter into consideration. Please see the enclosed petition for the Sherpa ADU. If you have any ue tins, please contact Colleen Addi on at (425) 228-620 _ m . Ln Lim se V C E� a L LL a MON WOMEN A-0 WRIMS 41 m U- m o. r V) w L A C Q3 -0 4 O u aJ "C} sn Q} 27 0 a� �l O ru5 1 G C c V R7 L- 20 -8 0 0 SZ k I �I Etill l � IA t�1 VCUj V V " v) :Cot L? Amp ca cQZ1 E 0 0 0 0 We completely disagree with the City's interpretation and application of the ADU variance criteria regarding Mr. Sherpa's application. CbUsisteney with Variance Ctiteria Section 4-9-25OB5 A. We dispute the city's findings. Mr_ Sherpa suffers undue hardship in this matter precisely because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property. To wit, the building he converted has been the current size and shape on the property for the past 17 years_ It was in existence before Mr. Sherpa's purchase of the property. "Therefore it counts as a pre-existing property characteristic. In addition, an architect has stated that partial demolition could impact the footings and roof of the structure, which in itself is an undue hardship. Partial demolition also places an onerous financial and practical burden on Mr. Sherpa. The city simply decided that the financial burden would not be too heavy without stating any kind of objective criteria on which they base that opinion. And finally this denial deprives Mr. Sherpa of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity, None of the rest of us have pre- existing structures we could be asked to partially demolish to meet new code. Why should he sutler unduly because of his unique circumstances? B. We agree with the city's finding that granting of the variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity. C. We disagree with the city that approval of this variance would constitute a grant -of special. privilege. Both the size and remodel of the proposed ADU pre -date the City of Renton's ADU codification, It seems perfectly fair to us that Mr. Sherpa's building, which pre -dates the code, should be allowed a variance, but that any ADUs we as his neighbors build from scratch should be limited to the code. We in no way feel that this would be discriminatory or unfair to us. D. We disagree with the City that this approval is not the minimum variance, and that Mr_ Sherpa should demolish a portion of his building. Partial demolition is unnecessary, illogical, inefficient, potentially toxic, and a waste of Mr. Sherpa's time and resources_ In addition, it would lower the benefit of the ADU to his, and by extension our property values. It could also cause the building to look unsightly, and according to an architect could affect the building's footings and roof. We see no benefit at all to demolition, except that the City could claim adherence to the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law. The variance requested is precisely the minimum needed for reasonable application of the la%v to unique circumstances. 0 0 Assertion S. We're concerned about our Sewer LID, whether he will be assessed. The out -building in question was already in existence when the entire property was assessed. An ADU cannot be sold separately from the property. It remains part of the same tax parcel. Assertion 6. Several of us have lived dere for 50 years and don't want to see our neighborhood degraded. We do not know what degradation they fear_ The Sberpas are constantly improving their property, and therefore improving the entire neighborhood by extension. Assertion 7. We feel the city has failed us allowing this project to go on: * knowing it doesn't meet the city codes for the size and for the building to be occupied since October 1st, 2010 Two points here.- First, ere:First, although the city was very careful in writing to state that the work they were doing with Mr. Sherpa did not constitute ADU approval with variance, he was given several verbal assurances that it would go through at its original size_ So unless they change, their ruling, the city has actually ,seriously failed Mr.Sherpa. Second, the building is not currently occupied_ Assertion S. We believe this might set a precedent for our area. We disagree_ Mr. Sherpa's building and most of his remodel pre -date the City's ADU codification_ Approval would not set a precedent for new buildings. It might help set precedent for other pre-existing outbuildings. And so it should. It does not make sense to partially demolish extant buuldings to meet the rigors of new code_ Demolition is inefficient, it could allow harmful tonins into the air, soil, and water from old building materials, and it is a waste of the City's financial and human rcwurces. Our pit-zens' efforts are better spent in hu.1ding up out city, not in arbitrarily tearing chunks of it down. Assertion 9. These signatures are all from home owners, not renters. The same is true of all of our signatures too. Most of us did not bother to write anything when we received the ADU notice, simply because we had no problem with it, and we didn't imagine it would be denied. We are the majority who did not ]know that our voice was needed, or we would have stood up to be counted in the beginning. Well we are standing up now. Neighborhood Rebuttal of City's Variance Refusal Neighborhood Rebuttal of Exhibit 5 These rebuttals reflect multiple neighborhood conversations among the signers of the petition. These conversations generated a common consensus which was put into writing by Andrea Bufort. We dispute the weight of the signatures on Exhibit 5 for three reasons. First, it was received by the city after the deadline. Second, most of the signatories have not seen Mr. Sherpa's property or data_ (For example, we spoke to one signer who thought Mr. Sherpa had built a two-story home in his back yard because she could see the top of a tree house.) Third, most of Exhibit 5's conclusions are based on fears instead of facts. We address each assertion below: Assertion 1. Increased traffic and parking on Dayton Ave N.E. At most there would be one or .two additional cars. This -is .insignificant, especially since our neighborhood recently last the equivalent amount of daily traffic due to local teens going off to college. Assertion 2. We believe this will cause a drop in our property values. In fact, TrueBuiltHome.com states that "The addition of an ADU can increase the current and resale value of the property.... A secondary rental unit or "guest house" can be very attractive to potential buyers_" And rising property value on one home is helpful to all the properties in the neighborhood. Assertion 3. This occupant infringes on the property line driving between the houses. There is only one place without a fence between the two homes. This opening was left by Mr. Sherpa as a courtesy access point, for the person who is making the complaint. The person making the complaint regularly drives on Mr. Sherpa's property to get to his own back yard. And yet he is upset about Mr. Sherpa's tire occasionally accidentally straying over the line the other direction. Assertion 4. This occupant doesn't follow the rules and codes set forth by the City of Renton. Mr. Sherpa admits that there were occasional problems due to misunderstanding or tack of knowledge. Mr. Sherpa was fairly new to remodeling, .there was a language barrier; and building codes can be difficult for first -timers to understand. But as soon as the City notified him about each problem, he fixed it. We have seen substantial evidence that Mr. Sherpa worked closely with the City of Renton to make sure he was following the rules. This effort included four face- to-face meetings with city workers throughout the course of the remodel, as well as numerous phone calls and e-mails. NOTICE OF APPLICATION A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Department of Community & Economic Development (CED) — Planning Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: PROJECT NAME/NUMBER' January 5, 2011 Sherpa ADU / LUA10-088, Cly -A, V-A PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit and Variance for the coversion of an existing structure into an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). The subject property is iocated at 2105 Dayton Ave NE. The project site totals 0.795 acres in area and is zoned Residential -8 dwelling units per net acre (R-8)_ The subject site contains an existing 1,380 square foot single family residence (t6 remain) and a 960 square foot detached garagef recreation room. A Conditional Use Permit is required for the conversion of the detached garage/recreation room into an ADU. A variance is requested in order to exceed the 800 foot threshold for accessory dwelling units. Access would be provided via a seperate curb cut from Dayton Ave NE. Frere are no critical areas on site. PROJECT LOCATION: 2105 Dayton Avenue PSE PUBLIC APPROVALS, Administrative Conditional Use Permit and Administrative variance approval APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Pasan Sherpa; 2105 Dayton Avenue NE; Renton, WA 98056 PUBLIC HEARING: N/A Comments on the above apptkation must be submitted in writing to Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner, Department of Community & Economic Development, 1055 Soutlf Grady Way, Renton, VITA 98057, by 5:00 p.m. on January 19, 2010. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish tobemade a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact the Project Manager at (425) 430-7219. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. if you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, CED, Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 58057. File Name / No.: Sherpa ADU / LUA10-088, CU -A, V-A NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NO.: Adlh Denis Law City Of Mayor Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator March 28, 2011 Pasang Sherpa and Hannah Chi 2105 Dayton Avenue NE - X Renton, WA 98056 SUBJECT: Sherpa ADU Reconsideration Response LUA10-088, CU -A, V-A Dear Mr. Sherpa and Ms. Chi, This office is in receipt of your reconsideration request, dated March 9, 2011; in which you requested reconsideration for the denial of the variance decision on the Sherpa Accessory Dwelling Unit. Summary of Request: The reconsideration letter requests that the City staff overturn the denial of the maximum square footage variance, for the Sherpa ADU, issued on February 23, 2011. The variance requested would allow you to retain the existing 960 square foot structure, formerly used as a recreation room/garage, without alteration and convert into an accessory dwelling unit. A variance is necessary in order to exceed the 800 foot threshold allowed for accessory dwelling units. The letter re- states five justifications for the proposal's compliance with variance criteria included in the original application. You contend the variance is necessary because of the size of the property and the property was a nonconforming lot when it is was purchased. The requirement to demolish the accessory structure would deprive you of the right and privelege that other property owners under the same classification enjoy and would create unnecessary waste and harm the environment with construction debris and fumes. Finally, you contend staff supported the variance prior to application and a denial was issued based on public comment. You are requesting staff "expunge" Exhibit 5 from the record stating that the letter was irrelevant and was not submitted within the comment period allowed for the public. Analysis: I have reviewed and considered your request. The variance decision is solely based on the proposal's compliance with variance criteria outlined in RMC 4-9-256.5. As stated in the report: the proposed, variance would be a grant of special privilege; is not the minimum variance necessary to accommodate the accessory dwelling unit; and is not necessitated because of size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject property. The accessory structure was originally constructed as a garage and was considered a conforming structure at the time of application and is not a specific site constraint. Restricting the size of the structure is not found to deprive you of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity under identical zone classifications in that their accessory structures would also be limited to 800 square feet. Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way * Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov ! " March 28, 2011 Page 2 Your request did not include any additional information that would warrant overturning the original decision, the denial of the variance is upheld. The comment letter (Exhibit 5) was taken into consideration when making a decision on the Conditional Use Permit and Variance. However, a denial of the variance would have been issued without the comment letter as the proposal does not meet all variance criteria outlined in. Code. While the submittal of the comment letter (Exhibit 5) does not meet the statutory requirements of the Renton Municipal Code in that the letter was submitted after the end of the public comment period, staff has determined that the comments/concerns are relevant and should remain in the record. Additionally, the comments of the neighboring property owners should be taken into consideration should the decision be appealed to the Hearing Examiner. Anyone who is aggrieved by this decision may file an appeal in writing to the Hearing Examiner on or before 5:00 PM on April 11, 2011. An appeal of the decision must be filed within the 14 -day appeal period (RCW 43.21.C.075(3); WAC 197-11-680). Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Appeals must be filed in writing, together with the required fee to: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. If this office can provide any further assistance, please feel free to contact the Project Manager, Rocale Timmons, at (425) 430-7219. Sincerely, C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Director Planning Division cc: Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner Parties of Record File LUA10-088, CU -A, V-A Y RECEIVED Date: March 02, 2011 To: Administrator (Decision -Maker) Chip Vincent—City of Renton Planning Director - 14e9 Rocale Timmons—Associate Planner We, the neighbors in the vicinity of the house at 2105 Dayton Ave NE are pleased to be given an opportunity by the city to provide our input on the Sherpa Accessory Dwelling Unit project_ As neighbors, we all strive to make our neighborhood sustainable and livable. According to goal seven of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Goals, it calls for new development and neighborhoods in the City that: • Contribute to a strong sense of community and neighborhood identity; • Offer a variety of housing types for a population diverse in age, income, and lifestyle; • Are varied or unique in character. We see that the Sherpa's proposed ADU project is align with the city, the neighborhood, and Sherpa family values and cultural diversity. By having an ADU, the Sherpas plan to maintain their strong connection to their community and extended family. Taking care of their aging elders and other members is a value that they live by and the ADU would allow their family members to have independence and lower their housing cost. Other alternatives for taking care of their families such as nursing homes are unthinkable. Therefore we, the undersigned strongly support the Sherpa family's request for the reconsideration of the decision on the variance made on February 23, 2011 at 2105 Dayton Ave NE, By granting the variance for this project, we believe it will not set precedents for the city to grant similar request for other houses in our area in the future as the current situation is unique to the Sherpa residence. Their detached 960sq ft. garage was built in 1994. In 2009, it was converted into a recreation room (with a bathroom, two rooms, one for office space and one for storage.) This structure as it stands is compatible with the neighborhood_ Because this structure has existed for 17 years, none of us possess a similar situation and would request for a variance that exceed the 800 sq feet. It seems perfectly fair to us that Mr. Sherpa's building should be allowed a variance, but that any ADUs we as his neighbors may build in the future should be limited to the variance. We in no way feel that this would be discriminartory or unfair to us. We feel reassured that the city has been working with the family to make sure that they can exercise their home ownership rights to establish a mother in law cottage and at the same time following city codes. Also, the consensus of the neighbors' concerns of exhibit 5 were all addressed in the approval of the ADU. We believe the Sherpa family have every interest to improve the neighborhood and to be a part of the neighborhood that they plan to raise their children in. Thank you for taking this matter into consideration. Please see the enclosed petition for the Sherpa ADU. If you have any ue ti ns, please contact Colleen Addi on at (425) 228-620,$. ru ii L .0 ow Lm a u m ML 0 L U E LL.co F. L Ln cu 4Z a 49 9 t Ln C: 0 0 0 0 0 La N L :.� Q E u o a a a a L C: 0 On C 7 N y 0 a L IN4 `F' Q LA 6 fl% co � � a � rn O � a E 0 Ic w � A Z Ltl� tD N OC 01 O N . I N [V 4N M N V; N 'i N N pz N 00 N To: Chip Vincent, City of Renton Planning Director Rocale Timmons—Associate Planner Date: March 06, 2011 Re: Letter of Reconsideration (LUA10-088, CU -A, VA -A) Introduction: 1 CRY OF REWON MAR 0 9 2011 J}`. RECErVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE When we found out in 2010 that Accessory Dwelling Units would now be allowed in Renton, we were excited, as we felt this would promote affordable and varied housing options for a "population diverse in age, income, and lifestyle". This is one of the innovative ideas that our community needs in order to overcome harsh economic times. The City's approval of our Conditional Use Permit demonstrated that we met and exceeded all the requirements for having an ADU. However, the Administrative Variance of 160 square feet was denied. Our ADU will be within a pre-existing structure (a recreation room remodeled from a garage), and we are modifying only the interior of the building to turn it into an ADU. Because of this, we request a reconsideration of the decision to approve the variance, rather than require a reduction in size of the proposed ADU to meet the 800 square foot threshold. - Background: The ADU will be housed within a pre-existing 960 square foot garage structure that underwent extensive renovation in 2009 to become a recreation room with one bathroom and two additional rooms (one for office and one for storage). The original garage structure existed at 960 square feet 17 years ago, long before we purchased it 6 years ago. The special conditions and circumstances of the structure being at 960 square feet do not result from our actions but from the previous owner's actions. In 2009, when the garage was renovated into a recreation room, each phase of the construction and remodeling was done with City of Renton permits, and the renovation passed final inspection (see exhibit A & B, consecutively). The remodeled 960 square foot building existed before the City's ADU codification. In 2010, we wanted to turn the garage/remodeled recreation room into an ADU. After extensive review of our project narrative at the pre -application meeting with the planning division, the planning division J� L 0 12 sent us a memo stating that "Staff may be supportive of the proposed accessory dwelling unit as well as an Administrative Variance if the following were accomplished": remove the carport, enhance the front entrance of ADU, place skirt on base of ADU, paint the area that was once the garage door. (Exhibit Q. However, even though we successfully completed all the items on the City's list, after the formal application review, the variance was denied. Since May of 2010, we have been working consistently with the planning staff to ensure that we take the proper steps to follow necessary city codes. We had one pre - application meeting to present the situation of the property to the staff to get suggestions for what we needed to do. Afterwards, we had three meetings with the planning staff to go over the draft of the variance and the Conditional Use application and plans, at two of the meetings an architect was present. We have - communicated frequently with the staff via phone calls and emails. We were also given verbal reassurance that the city would support our application_ After all the guidance and suggestions from the staff who were being made thoroughly aware of the situation and our intentions for our property since the very beginning of our application process, we were shocked that the variance was not granted, We were shocked by the decision because the reasons of denial the staff gave us in points A, C, and D in PART THREE of the Sherpa ADU report are not new findings to us. The final report's recommendation that we could demolish the building to meet the 800 square feet was already proposed in the memorandum after the pre -application review with the planning staff (Exhibit i). In the memo, there are two options for us: " the applicant would be required to reduce the size of the structure OR request an administrative variance" If reducing the size of the structure had been the only option that we could adopt all along, why would the city recommend that we also apply for an administrative variance and then tell us in the end that we are required to demolish the building to meet the size requirement? In fact, the staff have assisted us with the verbiage in writing our justification for the variance request. In the final report, the staff's argument is that because we could reduce the size of the building, there is no undue hardship or minimum variance required. This notion of demolishing the building is not a point that they have discovered that was not known before or that unexpectedly r] 9 �3 arises in the final review of our application. Therefore, we feel that the city weighted their decision based on exhibit 5 despite the irrelevancy of the content of exhibit 5. This is because in the final Sherpa ADU application, the only new item that was added to the application was exhibit 5. We request that exhibit 5 be expunged from the record. As stated in the Notice of D Application on January 5`h, 2011 (exhibit 11) "Comments on the... application must be submitted in writing....by 5:00prn on January 19,2011". However, the City of Renton's receipt stamp on exhibit 5 is dated January 21, 2011, two days past the deadline set by the city. Therefore, it should not have been part of the application review process, and should be discarded from the record. Because it had an effect on the outcome of the decision in the first place, it is unfair to us, the applicant. It should not be admissible in the first place because of its lack of adherence to the official deadline. As citizens of the City of Renton, we value the opportunity that the city provides its concerned citizens to comment on and to "get involved" in the land use process. We expect that any comments will be evaluated based on whether or not they are backed by facts and evidence, and on whether they have any relevance to the application. The content of exhibit 5 is irrelevant and does not reflect the reality of the situation. The inaccurate statements made about us by the property owner are tarnishing to our reputation in the neighborhood community. The fact that it was submitted improperly and is now a permanent part of our record is of great concern to us. The outcome of the decision as a result of this erroneous information jeopardize our rights and privilege to establish an ADU. We hope you can rectify this situation. Justification for the Variance: In the Sherpa ADU report, the staff concluded that because we could reduce the size of the building, there are no undue hardship and that minimum variance is not required. However, the hardship is that we have a pre-existing structure that was built at 960 square foot but not by us and was later remodeled into a recreation room. Also, the staff's solution to demolish the building to meet the 800 square foot requirement in order to 0 0 14 grant us the Conditional Use permit will not fulfill the city's intents and purposes of having an ADU, and it will unnecessarily inflect environmental damage. 1. Under criteria A, in PART THREE of the Sherpa ADU report the planning staff concluded that the variance is not "necessitated because of the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject property". The alternative is to demolish portion of the building to meet the 800 square foot requirement. We disagree, the variance is necessary because of the size of the property. It is a pre-existing structure at 960 square feet. The property was a nonconforming lot of record when we purchased it. A property that has been recently improved and remodeled is now being required to be demolished and rebuilt. This would result in a situation in which we are being deprived of the right and privilege that other property owners under the same classification could enjoy, due to the fixed size of a building that we inherited from the previous owner. 2. Under criteria C in PART THREE of the report, the staff concluded that allowing the variance would be considered a special privilege. We disagree, the Sherpa structure is unique because it was a garage and then remodeled into a recreation room prior to the ADU codification. Therefore, by granting us this variance, it would not constitute that other houses are being deprived of the privilege of being granted a variance that exceeds 800 square feet. For other applications for variance, we trust the city will examine case by case and will make careful decisions and judgments according to the code set in place. I Under criteria D in PART THREE of the report, the staff concluded that the variance is not the minimum variance requested because the staff insisted that a portion of the structure could be demolished. I5 We disagree. The demolition of part of the building to meet the 800 square foot requirement is not in accords with our strong beliefs in not creating unnecessary waste and not harming the already vulnerable environment with construction debris and fumes when that could be avoided. One of the City of Renton goals for 2011 to 2016, is to "develop a package of 'green' building incentives," which closely correlates to King County's bulletin number 55. This bulletin states that "King County encourages sustainable development and green building practices to help balance growth with protection of our region's valuable natural resources" through green building and low impact development practices for projects of all types, including ours. Partially demolishing and rebuilding the 17 year old pre- existing Sherpa structure in order to meet the 800 square foot requirement will contradict this sustainable development goal. Newly constructed walls, windows, water and electrical lines, hardscaping, and the landscaping that were put in place when it became a remodeled recreation room will be damaged and disrupted if new construction takes place. This will increase material waste and alter the locality's essential character. Demolition and reconstruction will generate unnecessary waste that is not environmentally friendly. The nearby neighbors will suffer unnecessary disturbance because of construction noise that could be avoided. 4. The purpose of the 800 square foot limitation in building an ADU is to avoid overcrowding on a piece of property. As noted in the staff report, our existing single family dwelling is only 11.3% of lot size, which is "well below the maximum 35 percent building coverage permitted". By allowing the 160 square foot variance, we are able to maintain a balance to the current parcel size and keep the characteristics of both buildings. The total of both buildings including the variance of 160sq. fl. is only 19.2% of the lot size. It is not an unreasonable request for variance as it is the maximum footage that we require to avoid unnecessary demolition and reconstruction. 5. In an effort to fight our current economic recession, everyone is looking for a way to sustain recovery. Our city adopted the addition ofADUs in order to diversify neighborhoods and provide opportunities for low cost housing. If granted, this variance will encourage the marketability of the ADU because its current recreational floor plan allows multiple types of tenants. If we have to demolish part of the recreational room which contains two rooms (storage and office), it will restrict the types of tenants who could occupy the space to couples 6 only, because it will only have I small room left. This situation would not comply with the city's vision of creating affordable housing. Conclusion Demolishing part of the building in order to reduce the size of the structure to meet the 800 square foot requirement will keep us from best utilizing a sound structure that is already in existence. We feel strongly that demolition could be avoided to prevent unnecessary disturbance to both the neighborhood and the environment. Given the fact that we have a pre-existing structure, granting us the minimum variance that we need to keep the structure as it is will be a beneficial option for the neighborhood, the environment, and for our family. Thank you for your consideration. S' cerely, Pasang Sherpa Hannah Chi Property Owner -- Citv of DEPARTMENT DE COMMUNITY (l ��� AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE CONDITIONAL USE REPORT & DECISION iERCi1ti"'rtMW DA TF: Fenruary 23, 2011 Project Name: Sherpa Accessory Dwelling Unit QwnerfApplicant/Contact: Pasang Sherpa; 2105 Dayton Ave NE; Renton, WA 98056 File Number. LUA10-088, CU -A, VA -A Project Wooger: Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner Project Summary: The applicant submitted an application for an Administrative Conditional Use Permit and Variance for the coversion of an existing structure into an accessory dwelling unit (ADU). The subject property is located at 2105 Dayton Ave NE. The project site totals 0.28 acres in area and is zoned Residential -8 dwelling units per net acre (R-8). The subject site contains an existing 1.,380 square foot single family residence (to remain) and a 960 square foot detached garage/recreation room. A Conditional Use Permit is required for the conversion of the detached garage/recreation room into an ADU. A variance is requested in order to exceed the 800 foot threshold for accessory dwelling units. Access would be provided via a seperate curb cut from Dayton Ave NE. There are no critical areas on site. Project Location: 2105 Dayton Ave NE Site Area: 12,180 SF (0.28 ac) Protect Location Map REPORT.doc } City of Fenian oe;,Iartment Of Communi"Y is Deveiopmen` 'ar an:e & Admim a Conditiona? Use Permit Fepor' and Decision SHERPA AAU LUA10-088, CU -A, VA -A Report of February 23, 2011Page 2 of 10 PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION / GENERAL INFORMATION��� A. Exhibits exhibit 1: Zoning and Neighborhood Detail Map Exhibit 2: Site/Landscape/Floor Plan Exhibit 3: Elevations Exhibit 4: Aerial Photo of Project Site Exhibit 5: Letter Expressing Concern — Neighboring Property Owners Exhibit 6: Two Letters in Support — Neighboring Property Owners S. General information 1. Owner(s) of Record: 2. Zoning Designation: 3. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: 4. Existing Site Use: 5. Neighborhood Characteristics: Pasang Sherpa 2105 Dayton Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 Residential -8 du/ac (R8) Residential Single Family (RSF) Single Family Residence North: Single Family Residential (R-8 Zone) Fast: Single Family Residential (R-8 Zone) South: Single Family Residential (R-8 Zone) West: Single Family Residential (R-8 Zone) 6. Access: Via two existing curb cuts along Dayton Ave S. 7. Site Area: 12,180 SF (0.28 ac) C. Historical/Background Action Description Land Use File No. Ordinance No. Date Comprehensive Plan N/A N/A 4924 12/5/2001 Zoning N/A N/A 5099 11/1/2004 Annexation N/A N/A 1822 3/31/1960 D. Project Narrative The project site is a 12,180 square foot parcel located in the R-8 zoning designation located on Dayton Ave NE just south of NE 22nd St. The site is currently developed with a 1,380 square foot single family residence and a 960 square foot detached structure formerly used as a garage/recreation room. The applicant is requesting an Administrative Conditional Use Permit and Variance for the coversion of the existing detached structure into an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). The proposed building would be approximately 960 gross square feet in area and is located in the southwest corner of the site. The height of the existing structure is 14 feet and 6 inches at the tallest point and is comprised mostly of siding, glass and stone materials similar to materials used on the associated single family residence. Administrative Conditional Use%Vorionce Report c Devefoomenr l`aripnce & Administra onditionai use Fermi[ Report and Decision City of Renton t3epat mens of Community & E� LUA1 '-088, CU -A, VA -A SHERPAADIJ � ���,�: ��� Page 3 of 10 Report of February 23, 2011 -access to the site would continue to be gained from two existing curb cuts along Dayton Ave NE. A total of 4 parking spaces would be provided on site; two for each residence. The applicant would retain existing landscaping along the perimeter and interior of the site. There are no trees proposed for removal as part of the project. There are no known critical areas on or near the site- Staff received several comments from surrounding property owners- While two letters were provided in support of the project a petition letter was received (Exhibit 7), signed by eight households, raising concerns related to property values, traffic, and the setting of precedent (Exhibit 6). E. Public Services 1. Utilities a. Water: This site is located in the Soos Creek water service boundary. b. Sewer: This site is located in the Soos Creek Water & Sewer District.. c. Surface lStorm Water: There are existing drainage and conveyance systems adjacent to the site. 2. Streets: Improvements are installed along the frontage of the site. 3, fire Protection: City of Renton Fire Department PART TWO: CONSISTENCE WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CRITERIA A Conditional Use Permit is required in order to permit the conversion of an existing structure into an ADU. Section 4-9-030,G lists criteria that the Administrator Conditionalr their s4Useeis pe emit application consider,sked to Thesewith all other include the relevant information, in making a decision following: 1. Consistence with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code & Other Ordinances The proposed use shall be compatible with the general purpose, goals, objectives and standards of the Comprehensive Plan, the zoning regulations and any other plan, program, map or ordinance of the City of Renton. a. Comprehensive Plan b. Zoning Code c. Development Standards The subject site is located within the R -S zone which implements the Residential Single Family (RSF) Land Use Designation of the Comprehensive Plan. Land designated as RSF is intended to be used for quality detached residential development organized into neighborhoods at urban densities. It is intended that larger subdivision, infill development, and rehabilitation of existing housing be carefully designed to enhance and improve the quality of single-family environments. The proposal is consistent with the following Housing Element policy if all conditions of approval are met: policy H-44. Support accessory dwelling units as strategies for providing a variety of housing types and as a strategy for providing affordable housing, with the following criteria: 1. Ensure owner occupancy of either the primary or secondary unit. 2. Allow both attached and detached accessory dwelling units and detached carriage units, at a maximum of one per single-family house, exempt from the maximum density requirement of the applicable zone. 3. Require an additional parking space for each accessory dwelling unit, with the ability to waive this requirement for extenuating circumstances. 4. Allow a variety of entry locations and treatments while ensuring compatibility with existing neighborhoods. Administrative Conditional Use/Variance Report City of Renton Ge,aprtmenr of Community amir Deuelnpm?nt YGriunrF 8 Adrrinis a Conditional Llse Permit 98, U- , V A LLlAIO-088, CU-A, UA-A rurnnA Ar%" -- Report of February 23, 2011 Page 4 0; 1U ADU's are an allowed use in the R-8 zone with an approved Administrative Conditional Use Permit (see remainder of the analysis below). RMC 4-2-080A.2 requires that the property owner file an affidavit affirming that the owner will occupy the principal dwelling or the ADU. Prior to the issuance of building permits; the owner shall record a notice on the property title. The notice shall bear the notarized signature of all property owners listed on the property title and include the legal description of the property, a copy of the approved site/floor plan, and the applicability of the restrictions regarding ADU's in RMC Title IV. The applicant has met all development standards of the R-8 zone, with the exception of building size. The square footage of ADU's are limited to 800 square feet within the R-8 zone_ The applicant is requesting a variance in order to exceed the square footage requirement by 150 square feet. The applicant was unable to demonstrate compliance with all four variance criterion, as a result the variance to exceed the maximum building square footage is being denied (see variance analysis below). As a condition of Conditional Use Permit approval the applicant would be required to reduce the size of the accessory structure below the 800 square foot threshold prior to building permit approval (see the variance analysis below). if all conditions of approval are met, the project would be in conformance of zoning regulations_ Z. Community Need There shall be a community need for the proposed use at the proposed location. in the determination of community need, the Bearing Examiner shall consider. the following factors, among ail other relevant information: a. The proposed location shall not result in either the detrimental overconcentration of a particular use within the City or within the immediate area of the proposed use. The proposed ADU is the first project of its type to be processed in 2011 and third of its kind in the City of Renton. The Code allows for 50 accessory dwelling units to be permitted per year. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an over -concentration of a particular use within the City or within the immediate area of the proposed use. b. That the proposed location is suited for the proposed use. The project site is a 12,180 square foot lot in the R-8 zone. A detached single-family house (to remain) currently is located on the subject property. in the R-8 zone one detached dwelling with one ADU are allowed on each legal lot. The proposed ADU would be located along the south side property line and behind (west of) the existing dwelling. The location of the accessory structure is appropriate. 3. Effect on Adjacent Properties The proposed use at the proposed location shall not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property. The following site requirements shall be required: a. Lot Coverage: Lot coverage in residential districts (5F and MR) shall not exceed fifty percent (5091-63) Of the lot coverage of the zone in which the proposed use is to be located, except for detached accessory dwelling units, which shall not be counted toward lot coverage calculations. Lot coverage in all other zones shall conform to the requirements of the zone in which the proposed use is to be located. As noted above, ADU's will not be counted towards lot coverage calculations. The R-8 zone allows building coverage, for lots over 5,000 SF, of 35 percent. The building footprint of the existing structure is 1,380 square feet. This generates a total building coverage of 3.1.3 percent on the 12,180 square foot parcel which is well below the maximum 35 percent building lot coverage permitted. Administrative Conditional UseJVariance Report C, y of Renton Department of Community nmk Develwment Variance & Adminis* Conditional Use Permit Reaort and DeCi510n SHERPA AOU ti LUA10-t)88, CU -A, VA -A Report of February 23, 2011 Page 5 of 10 b. Yards: Yards shall conform to the requirements of the zone in which the proposed use is to be located_ Additions to the structure shall not be allowed in any required yard. The side yard setback for ADU's in the R-8 zone is 5 -feet and the fear yard setback is determined through administrative review but shall not be less than 5 feet and no greater than 20 feet. The existing structure is located approximately 18 feet from the rear property line and approximately 8 feet from the south property line. However, an attached carport is located on the south side of the proposed ADU which encroaches into the side yard setback. As a condition of approval the applicant would be required to obtain a demolition permit and all required inspections be completed for the removal of the existing carport prior to the building permit approval. The existing 18 -foot rear yard setback is adequate for the proposed use. c. Height: Building and structure heights shall conform to the requirements of the zone in which the proposed use is to be located. Spires, belltowers, public utility antennas or similar structures may exceed the height requirement upon approval of a variance. Building heights should be related to surrounding uses in order to allow optimal sunlight and ventilation, and minimal obstruction of views from adjacent structures. The maximum height for ADU's in the R-8 zone is 30 -feet. The proposed existing structure would be approximately 14 -feet and 6 -inches at the tallest point which relates to the existing single family residence and surrounding structures. Therefore the existing structure is compatible with the existing residence and the residential character of the surrounding neighborhood. d. Compatibility: The proposed use shall be compatible with the residential scale and character of the neighborhood. The primary dwelling on the project site is faced with grey siding for which the existing accessory structure is currently matched with the exception of the area immediately framing the door along the front (eastern) facade. The applicant is proposing new siding, roofing, window trimming and fascia boards in order to match the existing residence. The applicant is also proposing new stone facing along the concrete wail, of the eastern fagade, in order to ground the structure with a new window and door along the front fagade. The proposed fa4ade modifications cause the existing structure to be more compatible with the residential character of the surrounding neighborhood. e. Traffic: Traffic and circulation patterns of vehicles and pedestrians relating to the proposed use and surrounding area shall be reviewed for potential effects on, and to ensure safe movement in, the surrounding area. Access to the site would continue to be gained from two existing curb cuts along Dayton Ave NE. A total of 4 parking spaces would be provided on site; two for each residence. Pedestrian and vehicular access to the proposed project site will not change as a result of the proposed project. While concerns were raised by neighboring property owners no significant changes to traffic and circulation patterns of vehicles and pedestrians relating to the proposed use and surrounding area are anticipated. f. Noise, Glare: Potential noise, light and glare impacts shall be evaluated based on the location of the proposed use on the lot and the location of on-site parking areas, outdoor recreational areas and refuse storage areas. The proposed accessory dwelling unit would be oriented toward the east and facing toward the interior of the project site. Windows on the western and southern facades are limited in number therefore, potential glare would be limited. Noise which is typical of residential uses would be associated with the proposed project; the ADU is not anticipated to produce noise volumes which would impact the surrounding neighborhood beyond reason. Administrotive Conditional Use/Voriance Report City of Renton deffortment of Community &� Q lFRPA AUU Report of February 23, 2011 Development Vorionee & Adminisa Conditional Lyse Permit Report pn�' decision L UA10-088, CU -A, VA -A Page b OT lU g. Accessary Uses: Accessory uses to conditional uses such as day schools, auditoriums used for social and sport activities, health centers, convents, preschool facilities, convalescent homes and others of a similar nature shall be considered to be separate uses and shall be subject to the provisions of the use district in which they are located. The proposed use as an ADU which is allowed in the R-8 zone with an approved Administrative Conditional Use Permit. The proposed accessory dwelling unit would be in compliance with the Renton Municipal Code if all conditions of approval are complied with. h. Public improvements. The proposed use and location shall be adequately served by and not impose an undue burden on any public improvements, facilities, utilities ❑nd services. Approval of a conditional use permit may be conditioned upon the provision and/or guarantee by the applicant of necessary public improvements, facilities, utilities and/or services. Police and Fire Department staff indicates that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed project, subject to the applicant providing Code required improvements. Any students generated by the proposed accessory dwelling unit would be accommodated at Renton School District. The Renton School District impact Fee for each new accessory dwelling unit is estimated at $1,25$_00 and is payable prior to the issuance of building permits. The Soos Creek Water and Sewer District would provide water and sanitary sewer service. Certificates of water and sewer are required to be provided to the city prior to building permit approval. PART THREE: CONSISTENCY WITH VARIANCE CRITERIA Section 4-9-25Q85 lists four criteria that the Reviewing official is asked to consider the following four criteria, along with all other relevant information, in making a decision on an Administrative Variance application. The variance criteria are as follows: A. That the applicant suffers undue hardship and the variance is necessary because of special circumstances ►.'. ; applicable to subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject �. property, and the strict application of the Zoning Code is found to deprive subject property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. The applicant contends that undue hardship is suffered due to need to demolish walls in order to meet the 800 square footage requirement. Additionally, the demolition would have impacts on the footings and roof of the structure. The applicant contends it is not cost effective to remove a portion of or demolish the existing structure. Staff cannot speak to the impact of cost on the applicant; however staff does not concur that the financial burden creates an undue hardship for this specific site. The proposed variance is not necessitated because of size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject property. Therefore the strict application of the Zoning Code is not found to deprive the subject owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity under identical zone classifications. Alternatively, the applicant could demolish portions of the accessory structure and meet the maximum square footage requirements in the R-8 zoning designation. B. That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which subject property is situated; The applicant contends that the granting of the variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity. The additional 160 square feet beyond the Adm=inistrative Conditional Use/vnriance Report Gry of Rer,[on ]epaMmeni o; Co: nmuniry & E mit D� ve'apmer t variance & Admtnis:rpondrtioncf L°se Permit Repan! on Decision S►fERPA ADULUAif1-088, Cil -A, VA -A Page 7 of 10 Report of February 23, 7011 800 square foot requirement would not create any additional burden on services by the city or neighborhood utilities. Staff concurs that the granting of the variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property or improvements_ The granting of the variance would allow for the retention of an existing structure, without alteration, which the size has not been detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the subject property thus far. C. That approval shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated, The approval of the maximum square footage request, for the accessory square footage, would be a grant of special privilege, as other property owners in the vicinity and within other R-8 zoned areas would not be permitted to construct an accessory dwelling unit which exceeds the maximum square footage. Specifically, when the hardship is not created due to specific site constraints. D. That the approval as determined by the Reviewing Official is a minimum variance that will accomplish the desired purpose. The applicant states that the requested variance is the minimum variance necessary to allow the existing structure to remain on the site without alteration. Staff does not concur; the applicant could reduce the square footage of the existing structure through the demolition of portions of the structure and come into conformance with the maximum square footage requirements of the R-8 zoning designation. Therefore the requested variance is not the minimum variance that would accomplish the desire to retain the existing structure. PART FOUR: FINDINGS Having reviewed the written record in the matter, the City now enters the following: 1. Request: The Applicant has requested Administrative Conditional Use Permit and Variance, from RMC4-2- 110B, for the Sherpa ADU, I -UA 10-088, CU -A, VA -A. 2. Administrative Conditional Use Permit: The applicant's Conditional Use Permit application complies with the requirements for information necessary for review. The applicant's plans are attached to this report_ 3. Administrative Variance: The applicant's variance application complies with the requirements for information necessary for review. The applicant's plans are attached to this report. 4. Comprehensive Plan: The subject site is designated Residential Single Family (RSI=). 5. Zoning: The site is zoned Residential -8 du/ac (R-8) which permits accessory dwelling units with an Administrative Conditional Use Permit. Maximum square footages are limited to 800 square feet for ADU's. The applicant has proposed a 960 square foot structure. PART FIVE: CONCLUSIONS 1. The Administrative Conditional Use Permit would allow the utilization of an existing structure as an ADU. The ADU is within a former garage structure. The location of the ADU on the project site is indicated in Exhibit 2 (Site Plan). Administrative Conditional Use/Variance Report City of Renton department of Community & SHERPA ADU Report of February 23, 2011 Developmert Variance & Adminfs�e Conditiono! Use Permit Report and Decision or CLI-A, VA -A Page 8 of 10 2. The proposed Administrative Conditional Use Permit for an accessory dwelling unit meets the eleven criteria to be considered in making a decision on a conditional use permit request as specified in RMC 4-9- 030G if all conditions of approval are met. 3. Staff recommends approval with conditions based on the analysis contained in the staff report. 4. The recommendation of staff is to deny the variance request as it does not meet three of the four criteria found in RMC 4-9-25085. Specifically, the applicant has not demonstrated that they suffer undue hardship and the request would constitute granting a special privilege. It is feasible for the existing structure to be converted to an accessory dwelling unit and meet the maximum square footage requirements of RMC 4-2- 110B. PART SIX: DECISION The proposed Administrative Variance, from RMC 4-2-114B, for the Sherpa Accessory Dwelling Unit (File No. LUA10-088, CU -A, VA -A) is hereby denied. The Administrative Conditional Use Permit is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall reduce the size of the proposed accessory dwelling unit, below the 800 square foot threshold, prior to building permit approval. 2. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and all required inspections be completed for the removal of the existing carport prior to the building permit approval. C.F. "Chip" Vincent, Planning Director TRANSMITTED this 23rd day of February, 2011 to the Contact/ApplicontfOwner: Con tact/Appl icantlOwner: Posang Sherpa 2105 Dayton Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 TRANSMITTED this 23rd day of February, 2011 to the Parties of Record: Gary Newton Paul & Nancy Duke 2101 Dayton Avenue NE 2408 NE 22nd Street Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Jean Anderson 2100 Dayton Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Paul & Cassie Babcock 2404 NE 22nd Street Renton, WA 98056 Matt Wells 2328 NE 22nd Street Margaret J. Buxton 2005 Dayton Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Michele Ralph 2400 NE 22nd Street Renton, WA 98056 James Boyd 2324 NE 22nd Street Administrative Conditional Use/Variance Report Date Rick & Polly Potter 2104 Dayton Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 William & Shirley Reynolds 2112 Dayton Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Bill & Karen Sparrow 2108 Dayton Avenue NE Renton, WA 98055 Colleen Addison 2109 Dayton Avenue NE Ci y of Renton Llepartment of Community & omic Oeue)oprnent Variance & Adrr,inrst Conditional Use Permit Report and Oecision LUAID 088, CU -A, VA -A SHERPA ADU Report of February 23, 2011 Page 9 of 10 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Andrea Bufort Colin Thorpe Dion Coleman 2012 Dayton Avenue NE 12226 SE 178th Street 14241128th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98058 Issaquah, WA 98027 TRANSMITTED this 23r0 day of February, 2011 to the following: Neil Watts, Development Services Director Lorry Meckling, Building Official Koyren Kittrick, Development Services Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Code Compliance Fire Marshal Renton Reporter Land Use Action Appeals, Request for Reconsideration, & Expiration The Variance and the Administrative Conditional Use Permit decisions will become final if the decisions are not appealed within 14 days of the decision date. Conditional Use Permit Appeal: Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing to the Hearing Examiner on or before 5:00 p.m., March 9, 2011. Administrative Variance Appeal: Appeals of the administrative site development plan review decision must be filed in writing to the Hearing Examiner on or before 5:00 p.m. on March 9, 2011. APPEALS: An appeal of the decision(s) must be filed within the 14 -day appeal period (RCW 43.21.C.075(3); WAC 197-11-680). Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.8 governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the $25(1.00 application fee to Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall - 7th Floor, (425) 430-6510. RECONSIDERATION: Within 14 days of the decision date, any party may request that a decision on a short plat be reopened by the Administrator (Decision -maker). The Administrator (Decision -maker) may modify his decision if material evidence not readily discoverable prior to the original decision is found or if he finds there was misrepresentation of fact. After review of the reconsideration request, if the Administrator (Decision - maker) finds sufficient evidence to amend the original decision, there will be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action must file a formal appeal within the 14 -day appeal. timeframe. THE APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS DOCTRINE: provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning the land use decision. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial decision, but to Appeals to the Hearing Examiner as well. All communications after the decision/approval date must be made in writing through the Hearing Examiner. All communications are public record and this permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence in writing. Any violation of this doctrine could result in the invalidation of the appeal by the Court. ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process far the land use actions, Planning: 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. The Development Services Division reserves the right to rescind the approved extended haul hours at any time if complaints are received. 2. RMC 4-2-080A.7 requires that the property owner shall file an affidavit affirming that the owner will occupy the Drinciaal dwelling or the ADU. This affidavit shall be submitted to the Planning Division Project Manager prior to the Administrative Conditional Use/Variance Report City of Renton Deportment of Community nomic Development Variance & Admin ve Conditional Use Permit Report and Decision SHERPA AOU LUA10-08$, CU-A, VA-A Report of February 23, 2011 Page 10 of 10 issuance of building permits. 3. RMC 4-2-080A.7 also requires that prior to the issuance of building permits; the owner shall record a notice on the property title. The notice shall bear the notarized signature of all property owners listed on the property title and include the legal description of the property, a copy of the approved site/floor plan, and the applicability of the restrictions regarding ADUs in RMC Title IV. Prior to recording of the notice the owner shall submit a copy to the Planning Division Project Manager for review and approval. Water; 1. This site is located in the Soos Creek water service boundary. A water availability certificate is required. This site is not located in the Aquifer Protection Zone_ Sewer. 1. This site is served by the Soos Creek Water & Sewer District. A sewer availability is required.. Surface Water: 1. A drainage checklist is required to be submitted with the formal application for the building. All improvements or exemptions must comply with the City of Benton Amendments to the King County Surface Water Manual 2009. Transportation: 1. All new electrical, phone, and cable services and lines must be installed underground unless a variance is issued. Fire: 1. No comments. Administrative Conditional Use/Variance Report R� I 4 C4 - 32 T24N R5E E 112 RC (00 R$ EXHIBIT 1 ZONING MAP SOOx E4 - 08 T23N R5E E lit PW TECHNICAL SERVICE5 PRINTED ON 1].f WDS 4 200 4D0 Feet R-8 w D4 OS T23N R5E E 1/2 3m R-8€ RC R 8 R-8 ,„ . _ R-1 zm� P4 y R-8 - . ... _.R.g -_— R-4 j2Wk- .... _, R8 R-8 NE S$ �., R-8 R ,cern _ R8 _... SIT R-8 , R-4 xon: �mFg R -R R -g J4 _ - R-8 R-8 - Mims R-8 - R-8 Ilk w em; J J9r - ....._ EXHIBIT 1 ZONING MAP SOOx E4 - 08 T23N R5E E lit PW TECHNICAL SERVICE5 PRINTED ON 1].f WDS 4 200 4D0 Feet R-8 w D4 OS T23N R5E E 1/2 3m as PERMIT SET PASANG SHERPA ZTM ommm X& .L R£M8K M 90=4 dF,Y7{7R[ AYE NE F it —� -- I i ,Fr, arc f � • .*1g rx=! `r 1�: sea -=sr Ss' 1 's a€,et� I 1g 155 I gg i i s e � Mt � rSg m t ��s • I € I � 1 'agi �t I EPARED 8Y �....... -. SAN JEEY SK -AMA A j SW--RPAAPJ r 21872 WON xx K SRE PLW VWAN Y IAAF COM COMPUA MIWO PERMIT SET PASANG SHERPA ZTM ommm X& .L R£M8K M 90=4 dF,Y7{7R[ AYE NE F it —� -- I i ,Fr, arc f � • .*1g rx=! `r 1�: sea -=sr Ss' 1 's a€,et� I 1g 155 I gg i i s e � Mt � rSg m t ��s • I € I � 1 'agi �t I EPARED 8Y �....... -. SAN JEEY SK -AMA A 5 Vii c r� n { i lid 6a SHERMADU PREAAPIM 8Y VM nxwu WE W L 3RN�aME HEWI Q N ELEVATKWS. SECTIONS 6 DETAILS PERMIT SET i i i I _T I f � { i lid 6a SHERMADU PREAAPIM 8Y VM nxwu WE W L 3RN�aME HEWI Q N ELEVATKWS. SECTIONS 6 DETAILS PERMIT SET lid 6a SHERMADU PREAAPIM 8Y VM nxwu WE W L 3RN�aME HEWI Q N ELEVATKWS. SECTIONS 6 DETAILS PERMIT SET i m Q L. Qi U) co co 0 i r Q J z 0 z 9 `° W c� K G� m❑ Y �2 ,� Z R N N 5 V m fJ m 0 2 2 r2 Ch to _I Z ILLI m Q L. Qi U) co co 0 i r Q J z 0 z 9 I To; Chip Vincent — City of Renton Planning Director Rocale Timmons — Planning Department Cf"Y ^ = Rcw'TOAJ RECEIVED .JAN 2 1 2011 BUILDING DIVISION We the undersigned strongly oppose the variance being considered by the city at 2105 Dayton Ave. N.E. This building was originally built to be a storage garage and shop. The current resident has gone ahead and made this into a residence that doesn't meet the city code for a second residence on this property and has also been occupied since October 1S`, 2010. He has tried to circumvent the remodeling permit by not stating the true purpose of this project. Here are some of the reasons for our objection to this variance. 1. Increased traffic and parking on Dayton Ave. N.E. 2. We believe that this will cause a drop in our property values. 3. This occupant infringes on the property line driving between the houses. 4. This occupant doesn't follow the rules and codes set forth by the City of Renton. 5. We're concerned about our Sewer LID, whether he will be assessed. 6. Several of us have lived here for 50 years and don't want to see our neighborhood degraded. 7. We feel the city has failed us allowing this project to go on knowing it doesn't meet city codes for the size and for the building to be occupied since October 1t, 2010. The city was notified (code compliance) several times during this project. S. We believe this might set a precedent for our area. 9. These signatures are all from home owners, not renters. 10. Any questions regarding this matter please contact Gary Newton at 425- 255-6965. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. EXHIBIT 5 Name Address JDA I i click �tzow -,Ajjc A-2111 -'ogrrr)W_ _2- i Q U L UALx;,- LJV Name Address �j k,,' -2 ST City of Renton January 11, 2011 Ran"' -,19 Division Colleen Addison 13 lbii 2109 Dayton Avenue NE Renton WA 98056 Project name/number: Sherpa ADU/l.UA10-088, CU -A, V-A Dear Rocale Timmons: I am writing to express my approval of Pasang Sherpa's application for the Administrative Conditional Use Permit and Administrative Variance. The 960 square feet detached garage has been in existence long before the Sherpa family move A' over 15 years ago_ By allowing the detached garage size -to be as it is at 960 would not make the existing structure any bigger than it already is. As the structure stands right now, it is not obstructive and it blends in nicely with their house, their beautiful yard, and the neighbors adjacent to them. Since I don't foresee structural changes (like more buildings or the expansion of the garage to be any bigger than it is), I believe the variance should be granted. I have no doubt that the conversion of the existing structure into an ADU would only enhance the property and the surrounding neighborhood and would not create congestion and inconvenience for the neighborhood. Since the Sherpa family has moved into the house six years ago, being their adjacent neighbor next door, I have seen them consistently improving their property making our neighborhood having much better curb -appeal. For example, they have built retaining walls around the backyard, took out a worn- out wooden deck and replaced it with a concrete patio, improved the soil in their garden, leveled dirt piles and put in a large grass lawn, added a sprinkler system, Changed their windows around the house making it more energy efficient windows. They have consistently maintained the landscaping around the property. Therefore, please accept my approval of my neighbor's motivation to continue enhance his property, thus contributing to our neighborhood to being a better place to live. 'hank you for your attention. Sincerely, Colleen Addison EXHIBIT 6 January 10, 2011 Rocale Timmons Associate Planner Dept. of Community and Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Dear Rocale, City o f 0 P,a ,,, , entor7 VISic n I am writing to express my strong suppdrt for the project Sherpa ADU / WA10-088, CU -A, V-A. have lived very close to this lot and family for the past four years. They have been consistently excel'cmt neighbors. - --:- --Quest reflects a trend in our neighborhood to higher density housing on these large lots. At one - rn u` me block, a lot was subdivided, and a second home built, right before I moved in to 2012 Dayton Ave. Not much later, a rundown home just up the street was replaced by two nice new dwellings. At the other end of the block, another overgrown single lot was subdivided and now holds three beautiful homes. And just across Edmonds, three tiny broken-down houses on very large lots gave way to a subdivision that is now full of families. Our block still has several homes that have seen better days. We benefit from having a family like the Sherpas living here, because unlike some other owners, they are always working to beautify and improve their space. There are no environmental/ecological roadblocks to the Sherpas converting their current space to an ADU, I am sure that if any of my neighbors have any concern with the Sherpa's ADU request, they can work out a mutually satisfactory resolution. I have had opportunity to interact with the Sherpa family not on)y as a neighbor, but as a fellow parent a few years ago when our children attended the same co- operative preschool in Kennydale. eased on all my interactions with them, I can avow that they are reasonable, responsible, intelligent people. Sincerely, Andrea Bufort 2012 Dayton Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 of Work: Job Address: Owner: Tenant: Contractor: Lender: CITY OF RENTON Building Permit Permit Number: B940298 Permission is hereby givers to do the following described work, according to the conditions hereon and according to the approved plans and specifications pertaining thereto, subject to compliance with the Ordinances of the City of Renton. CONSTRUCT NEW GARAGE 2105 DAYTON AVE NE SPENCER SCOTT L 2105 DAYTON AVE NE RENTON WA Information: Date of issue 06/13/1994 Date of Expiration 01/28/1995 Construction Value 515,360.011 Parcel Number 2253200095 I hereby certify that no work is to be done except as described above and in approved plans, and that work is to conform to Renton codes and ordinances, Contractor License EMBRYO*066JK Contractor Phone 206 352 4370 City License UBC Type of Construction V -N Building Height 0 Story Count 0 Building Sq. Ft. 960 Dwelling Count 1 Occupancy Group Subject to compliance with the Ordinances of the City of Renton and infonnation filed herewith permit is granted. Applicant X „[ ��-- 1AD3214a 12M bh Building Official Nature Const Other City of Renton Inspections List for Permit #B944298 Permit # B940298 Address: 2105 DAYTON AVE NE Applied: 0511311994 Issued: 0611311994 Finaled: 0 810 211 9 94 Work Description CONSTRUCr NEW GARAGE People List: EMBRY CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR 206 352 4370 SPENCER SCOTT L OWNER SPENCER, SCOTT APPLICANT 206 628-5114 Item Inspection 10 Footing Sub -Type SALT Status: 100 Final 08/0111994 APPR NM APPROVED 11 Foundation 06/2211994 APPR NM OK TO POUR 12 Framing 07/1211994 APPR NM APPROVED 13 ShearwalllNailing 0710511994 APPR NM APPROVED 14 Insulation is Roof 07119/1994 APPR NM APPROVED 16 Ceiling 17 Other 18 Landscape Type BUILD Sub -Type SALT Status: FINALED Apvd Req N 0 Y R Y O Y 0 Y 0 N 0 Y O N 0 N 0 N 0 Monday, February 28, 2011 11:24:55 A Page 1 of 1 1;7R CITY OF Building Permit Permit Number: B080666 Permission is hereby given to do the following described work, according to the conditions hereon and according to the approved plans and specifications pertaining thereto, subject to compliance with the Ordinances of the City of Renton. of Work: INTERIOR REMODEL OF DETACHED SFR GARAGE APPROVAL DOES NOT ALLOW THIS GARAGE TO BECOME AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT Job Address: 2105 DAYTON AVE NF. ature Owner: CHI HANNAH+SHERPA PASANG 2105 DAYTON AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 Tenant: Contractor: Contractor License Contractor Phone City License const Lender: Other Information: Date of Issue 02/02/2009 UBC Type of Construction Date of Expiration 08/01/2009 Building Height 0 Construction Value 815,000.00 Story Count 0 Parcel Number 2253200095 Building Sq_ Ft. 0 D%veliinQ Count 0 Occupancy Group I hereby certify that no work is to be done except Subject to compliance with the Ordinances of the as described above and in approved pians. and that City of Renton and information filed herewith wort: is to conform to Renton codes and permit is granted. ordinances. Applicant X --- Building Official r CITY OF R.ENTON 0 .Inspection Record Permit Number: B080666 Call by 4:00 pm for inspections the following day - phone 425-430-7202 Call before work is concealed or concrete poured]Do not pour concrete until approved Do not cover until approved/Do not occupy until final inspection is complete Nature of Work: INTERIOR REMODEL OF DETACHED SFR GARAGE APPROVAL DOES NOT ALLOW THIS GARAGE TO BECOME AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT Job Address: 2105 DAYTON AVE NE I_ot#/LJ r60/B 1dgn!Tenant: Owner: UBC Type: Sq. Ft.- 0 C111 HANNAH+SHERPA PASANG Height: 0 Occupancy: Contractor: Phone: Inspection Type ;Date 1.Inspector jComrnents UFER Ground - 55 i _— � I � € Footing - 10 Foundation - 1 1 �--_—�.----- �--- Framing - 12 Shearwall - 13 Insulation- 14 Roof - 15 Ceiling - 16 I I Other - 17 Landscape - 18 hEr Final - 100 ---1WH 14/ l'-'' FINAL INSPECTION REQUIRED Post this record at job site at all times hl 6'Ti CITY OF RENTON Permit Conditions Permit Number: B080666 1: ALL CONSTRUCTION. DEMOLITION AND LAND CLEARING WASTE MUST BE RECYCLED AT A KING COUNTY LICENSED OR APPROVED FACILITY, OR TAKEN "1-0 REGIONAL DISPOSAL FACILITIES, 2: APPROVAL FOR BUILDING PERMIT ONI-Y-SEPAR,MTE APPROVAL AND PERMITS REQUIRED FOR ANY MECHANICAL. PLUMBING, ELECTRICAL.., FIRE SUPPRESSION OR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SYSTEM. 3: GROUND ELECTRODE SYSTEM (EITHER I OR 2 ARE APPROVED METHODS): 1, AN ELECTRODE. OF AT LEAST 20 Fr LONG BARE COPPER, SIZED 1N ACCORDANCE WITH TABLE. 250-66.2005 NEC 2. AN ELECTRODE OF 20 FT LONG 44 REBAR (NOT LESS THAN 1l2 1NCH IN DIAMETER) AND SLED PER NEC 250.52 EITHER ONE SHALL BE ENCASED BY AT LEAST 2 INCHES OF CONCRETE. LOCATED WITHIN AND NEAR THE BOTTOM OF A CONCRETE FOOTING THAT IS IN DIRECT CONTACT WITH THE EARTH, AND SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ALL NEW RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION. 4: AUTHORIZED HOURS OF CONSTRUCTION/ACTIVITY: 7AM-8PM MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY 9AM-811M SATURDAY NO WORK ALLOWED ON SUNDAY. PER ORDINANCE 4703. 2-2-1998 5: APPROVAL.. DOES NOT AI LOW THIS GARAGE TO BECOME AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT 4 CITY OF RENTON Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way, Renton WA 98057 (425) 430-7200 www.rentonwa.gov 2006 WSEC RESIDENTIAL COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST THIS CHECKLIST MUST BE COMPLETED FOR ALL RESIDENTIAL NEW CONSTRUCTION AND ADDITIONS. THIS CHECKLIST ALONG WITH THE APPROVED PLANS MUST BE KEPT ON THE J013 AT ALL TIMES. INSPECTORS CANNOT PERFORM INSPECTIONS WITHOUT IT. 1. About this checklist: This checklist is not as involved as it looks, because you only use portions of it for a particular dwelling project. This should be thought of as a toot for learning the residential WSEC requirements. Requirements are grouped by foundation, framing, insulation, and final inspection phases. This not only lets you know what you need to do but also when the inspector will be checking for particular requirements. Use the checklist to choose compliance options that best suit the economics and design of your project. If you have questions, you may contact Jan Conklin at (425) 430-7276. J �N 2. Responsibility for information: Although staff members will help you with general questions about completing this checklist, it is ultimately your responsibility to provide detailed information about heating systems, glazing, insulation, and other building specifications. 3. Page 1, Compliance Options: Select one compliance option, your building must match the selected option requirements without exceptions or substitutions. 4. Pages 2 through 6: Provide information as required but do not fill in the columns labeled "COMPLIANCE REQUIRED" or "INSPECTION APPROVED". Since this checklist will be evaluated for completeness and accuracy, you can avoid unnecessary permit delays by carefully providing all required information. You may disregard items that don't address your particular building or equipment. EFFECTIVE 7!712007 ALL RESIDENTIAL OCCUPANCIES ALL FUEL TYPES ()'weblpw%d,-serv\forTml6uildinglWSF,CRes do( Z CITY OF RENTON RECEIVED DEC 3 a 2008 iVISION Rev 111% 9 9 CHAPTER 6, PRESCRIPTIVE OPTIONS FOR ALL R OCCUPANCIES INSTRUCTIONS: 1) Carefully review the requirements of each of the Options below. Choose an Option that best suits your dwelling design. Glazing percentage typically determines which Option to choose. Your building must match the selected Option requirements without exceptions or substitutions. 2) Disregard components or equipment that don't apply to your project. Your permit will be processed more efficientfy if you provide all of the requested information. R -values are for wood frame assemblies only 'Single rafter or joist vaulted ceilings where both (a) the distance between the top of the ceiling and the underside of the roof sheathing is less than 12 inches and (b) there is a minimum of 1 -inch vented airspace above the insulation. This option is limited to 500 square feet of ceiling area for any one dwelling unit. All other single rafter su joist vaulted ceilings shall comply with the "ceiling with attics' requirements. Q weblpwldevsmr fo Mss ilding�WSFCRes doc Page 2 of & Leal Revised 61t3t07 SINGLE FAMILY MULTI -FAMILY rd Check appropriate box ]OPT4 alOPT OPT 3 OPT 5 GLAZING MAX: % OF FLOOR 10% Unlimited 25% Unlimited U -FACTOR- .32 _35 VERTICAL .40 .35 U -FACTOR -Overhead .58 .58 (Skylights) .58 .58 DOOR U -VALUE .20 .20 CEILINGS: .20 .20 WITH ATTICS R-38 R-38 R-38 R-38 VAULTED"see R-30 R-30 R-30 R-30 below WALLS: ABOVE GRADE - R-15 R-21 R-21 R-21 BELOW GRADE INTERIOR �, R-15 R-21 R-15 R-15 EXTERIOR R-10 R-10 R-10 R-10 FLOOR: R-30 R-30 R-30 R-30 SLAB ON GRADE: R-10 R-10 R-10 R-10 R -values are for wood frame assemblies only 'Single rafter or joist vaulted ceilings where both (a) the distance between the top of the ceiling and the underside of the roof sheathing is less than 12 inches and (b) there is a minimum of 1 -inch vented airspace above the insulation. This option is limited to 500 square feet of ceiling area for any one dwelling unit. All other single rafter su joist vaulted ceilings shall comply with the "ceiling with attics' requirements. Q weblpwldevsmr fo Mss ilding�WSFCRes doc Page 2 of & Leal Revised 61t3t07 0 FOUNDATION PHASE COMPLIANCE REQUIRED INSPECTION APPROVED ❑ 1) Slab insulation R10 required. ❑ a. Exterior - See #21 & #34 b. Interior - from top of slab to bottom and then horizontal for a total of 24". ❑ 2) Radiant Slab insulation R-10 required under whole slab. ❑ 3) Thermal break(s) shall be placed in the stab between conditioned and unconditioned space checked below: a, dweiiingfgarage b. dwellinglconnected space - c. slab edge and foundation wall ..V - MECHANICAL AND, PLUMBING PHASE 4) Exhaust ventilation shall be provided for each dwelling unit as follows - Location Minimum CFM Manufacturer and ModeW CFM .1 W.G. Kitchen fan 100 CFM Bathroom fan 65 CFM 94EC WNAV>*_ Pp AC Bathroom fan 65 CFM L-&e-a-reb No, tbA' S e,t ••t Bathroom fan 65 CFM Laundry fan 65 CFM Whole house fan 80 CFM min 1-3 bedrooms 100 CFM min 4 bedrooms V Circ -210 r h0 e -r- 120 CFM min 5 bedrooms 1,5 5ttL Whole house fan required in all new houses/dwelling units and all additions X500 square feet ❑; 5) Whole house fan: ❑ Location t.. 'Q_0CM Sone rating (A W.G.) a. Whole house fan: to be controlled by a readily accessible 24-hour clock timer with capability of continuous operation, manual and automatic controls set to exhaust 8 hours per day. b. Whole house fun shall be listing/labeled 1br continuous use" c. Whole house fan wiring for control routed to central location d. Whole douse fan shall be labeled "Whole House Ventilation (see operating instructions)" 6) Mechanical exhaust fan ducts shall be > 4" and property sized. ❑ 7) Mechanical exhaust fan ducts shall be insulated to R-4 in unconditioned spaces. ❑ 8) Mechanical fresh air supply ducts shall be insulated to R-4 in conditioned spaces. ❑ Q—hlpw*vservlformslbuildin$1W3ECRes.dot Pare 3 of 8 Last Revised 6113107 IN `l9) Provide heat loss calculations for heatirtg system siring. Heating system requirements wHl be met with the following: , Mfr. Model # Output Fuel Type Efficiency rating (AFUE) ,❑- 10) Supply and return air duets shall have sealed joints and seams in unconditioned spaces, ❑ Tapes and mastics listed in accordance with UL181A or B - MQ DUCT TAP P RMTT D 11) HVAC plenums, supply, and return air ducts insulated to R-8. 12) Water heaters shall have'. ❑ a. Separate power, or gas shut-off b. 1987 NAECA label on tank c. Non-compressible R-10 pad (electric in unheated spacer or on concrete floors) d. Temperature setting of 120F go FRAMING PHASE 13) All structural panels such as plywood, partide board, wafer hoard, and oriented strand ❑ hoard shall be labeled "EXPOSURE I" "EXTERIOR" or "HUD APPROVED". 14) Glazing efficiency required shall be: ❑ —U<,32 Options 1 —U< .35 Options 2, 4 & 5 —U< .40 Options 3 15) INndow specifications: Manufacturer 9EA•f7f ❑ 16) Skylight specifications - maximum U -factor = .58 # of S I hts Manufacturer Area U -Factor ❑ 17) Allowed glazing area is derived by dividing the total glazing area of S© FT by the total floor area of SQ FT This value cannot exceed the glazing percentage of your option_ 10% Option 1 < 25% Option 3 < Unlimited Option 4 & 5 Glazing air leakage measures shall be met as follows: Fixed site built: stops with sealant or caulking all around. Operating site built: weather-stripped with closer/latch. 19) Insulation shall be placed in concealed places such as: 1) Behind shower/tub 2) Behind partition studs/corners 0 M INK Q'webiF Wcvservl mm\baiidinglWSECRrs doc Page 4 of 6 Last Revised 6113107 I 0 20) Standard air leakage is complete and installed in the following: �+ 1) between solesubfloors late/ ❑ to 2) wiringlplumbing/duct register penetrations 3) rim joists/mud sills (heated lower floors) 4) partition stud penetrations 5) around window/door frames INSULATION PHASE ❑ 21) Exterior stab insulation shall be R-10 and approved for below grade use. F-122) Walls, including rim joists, shall be insulated to., ❑ ❑ R-15 Option 1 ,ETIT 21 options 3 - 5 ❑ 23) Interior below grade walls shall be insulated to: ❑ ❑ R-15 Options 1, 3& 5 ❑ R-21 Option 4 ❑ 24) Single Rafter or Joist vaulted ceilings shall be insulated to R-30. ❑ ❑ ) Skylight wall insulation equivalent to the wall 13 -values. ❑ 26) Insulation baffles shall be placed in nd extend s" vertically above batts or 122" ve�rally above ataintain least insulation I" ventilation space a ❑ 27) Vapor retarders shall be installed toward the warm surface ❑ Select one option for floors, walls, and ceilings: Floors.- El loors:❑ Plywood w/exterior glue ❑ Poly x 4 Mill ❑ Backed batts Walls: ❑ Poly?: 4 Mill 54 Face -stapled backed butts ❑ PVA paint Ceilings: ❑ Not required where ventilation space > 12" above insulation ❑ Face stapled backed baits ❑ Poly ? 4 Mill *r�f PVA paint FINAL PHASE FOR FINAL_ INSPECTION; COVERS TO BE REMOVED FROM EXHAUST FANS AND CAN LIGHTS ❑SO INSPECTOR CAN VERIFY COMPLIANCE WITH CODE 28 Envelope floors shall be insulated to R-30 all Options 29) Attic ceilings shall be insulated to R-38 all Options 1 ems ❑ U -value =.20 (Metal insulated or fiberglass insulated only 11 do not meet this u -value) One exempt door allowed: #3) 31) Recessed lighting fixtures shall be lC rated and labeled under ASTM E283 with tested air leakage < 2.0 CFM, no slots or holes in cans, caulked or sealed between can and ceiling 32} Fresh air shall be provided for each dwelling unit as follows: El Tested, screened, controllable, thro h wall boort Vented window frames fes❑ integrated with a Central forced ai hwhich delivers outside makeup air through ducting system and requires furnace fa be controlled by a timer set at 8 hoursiday 33) Fresh air shall be provided for each dwelling unit as follows: 1) Each bedroom 3) Overall living area 2) Each Recreation Room 4) Other "habitable" rooms Q:weblp "Idevser+Vo m \buiiding%WSECRes doe Page 5 Of 6 Last Reviser! 8113167 7 • • ❑ 34) Exposed foam insulation shall comply as follows: Protected wlmetal or plastic flashing that extends below grade Be approved for subgrade, exterior use & properly installed. 35) Airifow between fresh air ports and whole house fan ensured by Yz' undercut doors/grills. El ❑ 3B1 Loosefill insulation OK if maximum ceiling slope not > 3 in 12 and there is > 30" of clear distance from top of bottom chord to underside of roof sheathing at the roof ridge. ❑ 37) 6 mil black poly ground cover, lapped 12" at joints 11 38) Clearances shall meet listed, minimums between insulation and chimney "P 39) Attic hatch insulated to ceiling R -value and weather-stripped. -�❑ 40) Attic access shall have wood dam to retain loose -fill insulation. --❑� 41) All exterior doors to be weather-stripped. ❑ 42) Haat pump thermostat shall have programmable capability. ,-F�43) Caulking is installed around light fixtures and flue penetrations. 44) Service hot & cold water piping to be insulated to R-4 in unconditioned spaces. ❑ 45) Service recirculation hot water piping shall be insulated per code. ❑ 46) Supply ducts shall have volume dampers to balance the system. —e-47) Thermostat for each HVAC system with range of 55-75 F_ ,--.❑�48) Readily accessible, automatic or manual means provided to restrict or shut-off heating input to each zone or floor �—49) Bader heat prohibits simultaneous operation of primary system. '4C-�1 5p) Spot exhaust fans to have timer, dehumidistat, or switch. 51) Showers and lavatories shall limit flow to < 3.0 gals per minute. ❑ 52) Swimming pools shall have: a) Readily accessible ON/OFF switch to allow shutting off the heater or pump b) Pool Cover c) Piping insulation per code d) Controls to allow temperature range dawn to 65 degrees F ❑ 53) Ail fireplaces shall have: a) 6 sq in comb. air supply duct with damper connected to fire box b) Tight fitting ceramic glass or metal doors c) Tight fitting flue damper ❑ 54) Solid fuel burning appliances shall have: a) Tight fitting ceramic glass or metal doors b) Outside combustion air source directly connected to fire box c) Exceptions - see code iff 'JT 55) Outdoor lighting perm mounted to a residential building shall be high efficacy. r' PLAN REVIEWER APPROVAL: DATEI FINAL INSPECTION APPROVED: CI a INS INSPECTED BY: DATE: I Q —bh Pwldevservlfmms\tuildinglWSECRes doc per, ii of LaBt Reviaect firt 3fp7 <.UUKN�"i,r -C v9m2�'i n z y0�=K+ 0 -TT/Z c 'T1 m MR 0 all cn cap rn 0 7 z -, C) m m © Dx r�i b D D m r' l z © a UY D { N CJI ru CD CD m z 2 � a L -n C7 D < r�I ru CD (.A D { z m 24' Shetving AS Shawn ,! ru 24' Shetvkng As Shawn F, r� A N W r z D � � X W � REMOVE EXISTING 16' GARAGE DOOR AND FRAM IN WITH 2x6 STUDS ON NEW CONCRETE BLOCK WALL WITH WINDOW AND DOOR AS SHOWN a m 11`mED N tl pC f1\HI'1\�w� f LA 130 m 0 -- n -rrr ft m \�. a QVIN� N o d( 9 r m 5Y1 E N2- o 2 - N Fi It� _L to 3 r LA WCP V. Nrn i x_ -x x 'y n} fy C Ntzl � 73Ap �Gl Uy Q T. ri LJ r O G1 is AADrI A fn O p a o l A r L W F, r� A N W r z D � � X W � REMOVE EXISTING 16' GARAGE DOOR AND FRAM IN WITH 2x6 STUDS ON NEW CONCRETE BLOCK WALL WITH WINDOW AND DOOR AS SHOWN a m 11`mED N tl pC f1\HI'1\�w� f LA 130 m 0 -- n -rrr ft m \�. a QVIN� N o d( 9 r 4------------ !I� 4 - t tea.: a OTY OF RENTfNJ RECEIVF:D._,- r. ti BUILDER'S COPY THIS SET OF APPROVED PLANS MUST BE ON THE JOB AT ALL TIMES DURING CONSTRUCTION_ THIS BUILDING IS NOT TO BE OCCUPIED • UNTIL AFTER FINAL INSPECTION BY TIME RENTON BUILDING DIVISION b RECEIPT OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. APPROVAL SHALL NOT RE CONSTRUED ` AS THE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR : CANCEL ANY PROVISIONS OF CODES, ORDINANCES, OR OTHER REGU TIONS ENFORjCED BY THIS CITY DAT APPROVED 8 rr • r I ip &6-(k-� ��* CITY OF RENTON Electrical Permit Permit Number: E090130 Permission is hereby given to do the following described work, according to the conditions hereon and according to the approved plans and specifications pertaining thereto, subject to compliance with the Ordinances of the City of Renton. Nature of Work: INSTALL WIRING IN GARAGE RENOVATION Job Address: 2105 DAYTON AVE NE Owner: CHI HANNAH+SHERPA PASANG 2105 DAYTON AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 Tenant Contractor: Other Inforniatiot), Date of Issue 0210912009 Date of Expiration 08108/2009 Construction Value $500.00 Parcel Number 2253200095 I hereby certify that no work is to be done except as described above and in approved plans, and that work is to conforin to Renton codes and ordinances. t�ICCOI 1/01 W1 Contractor License Contractor Phone City License Subject to compliance with the Ordinances of the City of Renton and inforniation filed herewith permit is granted. Y Building Official $20.00 WILL BE CHARGED FOR COPIES OF LOST OR DAMAGED PERMITS 0 Z�2 CITY OF RENTON Inspection Record Permit Number: E090130 24 HOUR NOTICE REQUIRED FOR ALL INSPECTIONS Call by 4:00 pm for inspections the following day - Phone 425-430-7202 Call before work is concealed or concrete poured/Do not pour concrete until approved Do not cover until approved/Do not occupy until final inspection is complete Nature of Work: INSTALL WIRING IN GARAGE RENOVATION Job Address: 2105 DAYTON AVE NE LOM 'Unit#181dg#iTenant: Owner: CHI HANNAH+SHER.PA PASANG Contractor: Phone: Inspection Type !Date -Inspector ;Comments Temporary lower - 19 Under-round - 20 _- - [leder Slab - 22 - -- ,.Under Rough -I11 Conduit - e Walls - 23 Rough -in -Wiring - 21 C Fire Alarm Wirinr? - 24 Fire Alarm Panel - 26 Electric Sen ice - 27 ROUgh-ill Conduit -- Ceulung -28 _ Electrical - 29 Lott/ Voltage - Walls - 661 I.oVolta�,,e-Ceilrnc, -67 Final - 100 FINAL INSPECTION REQUIRED Past this record at job site at all times {} 4: R CITY OF RENTON Mechanical Permit Permit Number: M090321 Permission is hereby given to do the f011M4ing described work. according to the conditions hereon and according to the approved plans and specifications pertaining thereto. sithject to compliance `lith the Ordinances of the City of Renton. Nature of Work: INSTALL EXHAUST FAN IN BATHROOM AT SFR Job Address: 2105 DAYTON AVE NE Owner: CHI HANNAH+SHERPA PASANG 2105 DAYTON AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 Tenant: Contractor: Contractor License Contractor Phone Cite License Other Information: Date of Issue 09/141.2009 Date of Expiration 03/13/2010 Construction Value $140.00 Parcel Number 22.53200095 Renton Job No I hereby certify that no work: is to be done except Subject to compliance with the Ordinances of the as described above and in approved plans, and that City of Renton and information filed herewith wort: is to conform to Renton codes and permit is granted. ordinances. A lieant X Building Official $20:'0 WILL BE CHARGED FOR COPIES OF LOST OR DAMAGED PERMITS mech@l 1101 bh r gR40CITYOF RENTON Inspection Record Permit Number: M090321 24 HOUR NOTICE REQUIRED FOR ALL INSPECTIONS Cali by 4:00 pm for inspections the following day - Phone 425-430-7202 Call before work is concealed or concrete poured/Do not pour concrete until approved Do not cover until approved/Do not occupy until final inspection is complete Nature of Work: INSTALL EXHAUST FAN IN BATHROOM AT SFR Job Address: 2105 DAYTON AVE NE Lot=.'t: nit - Bld,»!-1-enant: Owner: CHI HANNAH+SHERPA PASANG Contractor: Phone: Total Fees Paid: $53.00 Inspection Type Date Inspector ICornments i Gas Piping - 37 f f Furnace - 30 { Heat Puna - 31 ! Boiler - 34T_..___.— ---- i I Fireplace - 35 Unit Heater - 36 Grease Hood - 32 Mechanical - 38 Ducts - 39 i AIC System - 50 ! I Exhaust Farts - 51 i I Process Piping,- 52 Final - 10001-1 1 i FINAL INSPECTION REQUIRED Post this record at job site at all times r CITY OF RENTON 6 X h (- b- T B • Plumbing Permit Permit Number: P090051 Permission is hereby given to do the following described work, according to the conditions hereon and according to the approved plans and specifications pertaining thereto, subject to compliance with the Ordinances of the City of Renton. Nature of Work: INSTALL. PLUMBING IN DETACHED GARAGE RENOVATION - 5 FIXTURES Job Address: 2105 DAYTON AVE NE Owner: CHI HANNAH+SHERPA PASANG 2105 DAYTON AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 Tenant Contractor: Other information: Date of Issue 02/09/2009 Date of Expiration 08/08/2009 Construction Value 53,000.00 Parcel Number 2253200095 I hereby certify that no work is to be done except as described above and in approved plans, and that work is to conform to Renton codes and ordinances_ plurnbl l/Ol bh Contractor License Contractor Phone City License Subject to compliance with the Ordinances of the City of Renton and information tiled herewith permit is granted. Building Official 520.00 WILL BE CHARGED FOR COPIES OF LOST OR STOLEN PERMITS N CITY OF R.ENTON ,, 0 q �° inspection Record "> Permit Number: P090051 �L, ; 24 HOUR NOTICE REQUIRED FOR ALL INSPECTIONS Cali by 4:00 pm for inspections the following day - Phone 425-430-7202 Call before work is concealed or concrete poured/Do not pour concrete until approved v Do not cover until approved/Do not occupy until final inspection is complete Nature of Work: INSTALL PLUMBING IN DETACHED GARAGE RENOVATION - 5 FIXTURES Job Address: 2105 DAYTON .AVE NF, Lot4l,'Unit/Bld,-,#;Tenant: Ou"n e r: CHI HANNAH+SHERPA PASAN G Contractor: Phone_ Total Fees Paid: $85.00 Inspection Iype ! Date linsnector 1coninients l Jnder,,mtrnd W & V -40 ', i Building - 41 r i hough -in W & V - 42 _c�, I Rough -in Water - 43��= [Gas Piping - 37 Irrigation Systern - 44 i Add Greastrap - 45 G 1 E Plumbing - 49 Backflow Prevention -46 . Water Heater - 47 141 �+ a ,( Medical Gas Piping - 48 A3 - -tllj i Final - 100 % FINAL INSPECTION REQUIRED Post this record at job site at all times 7- C 0 • DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE May 13, 2010 (Revised May 21, 2010) TO: Pre -Application File No. 10-01.6 FROM: #locale Timmons, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Pasang Sherpa - ADU General: We have completed a preliminary review of the pre -application for the above - referenced development proposal. The following comments on development and permitting issues are based on the pre -application submittals made to the City of Renton by the applicant and the codes in effect on the date of review. The applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision -makers (e.g., Hearing Examiner, Community & Economic Development Administrator, Public Works Administrator, Planning Director, Development Services Director, and City Council). Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by City staff or made by the applicant. The applicant is encouraged to review all applicable sections of the Renton Municipal Code. The Development Regulations are available for purchase for $50.00 plus tax, from the Finance Division on the first floor of City Hall or online at www.rentonwa.gov Project Proposal: The subject property is located at 2105 Dayton Ave NE. The project site totals 0.795 acres in area and is zoned Residential -8 dwelling units per net acre (11-8). The subject site contains an existing 1,380 square foot single family residence (to remain) and a 960 square foot detached garage that has been converted to medical hardship through a Temporary Use Permit. The applicant is proposing to convert the former detached garage into an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). Current Use: A 1,380 square foot single family residence and a 960 square foot detached garage currently exist on the property. Zoning/Density Requirements: — The subject property is located within the R-8 zoning designation. ADU's are allowed as an accessory use to a detached single-family dwelling with an Administrative Conditional Use Permit. ADU's are subject to the development standards applicable to primary structures and consistent with the architectural character of the primary structure. The property owner is also responsible for filing an affidavit affirming that the owner will occupy the principal dwelling or the ADU. As a note ADU's are not included in density calculations. Development Standards: The project would be subject to RMC 4-2-110A, "Development Standards for Residential Zoning Designations (Primary and Attached Accessory Structures) and RMC 4-2-11013, Development Standards for Residential Development (Detached Accessory Buildings) effective at the time of complete application. A copy of these standards is included. is\rtim\rtim\preap ps\10LO16 (r$ adu modular home).doc Pasang Sherpa - ADU, PRE2 Page 2 of 3 May 13, 2010 (Revised May 21, 2010) Building Standards — The R-8 zone allows a maximum building coverage of 35% of the lot area or 2,500 square feet, whichever is greater for lots over 5,000 square feet in size. Lots under 5,000 square feet in size are permitted a maximum building coverage of 50% of the lot area. Building heights are restricted to 30 feet for the primary structure and accessory dwelling units. Elevations and lot coverage calculations were not provided with the pre --application materials. The applicant will be required at the time of formal land use application to provide elevations and lot coverage calculations for the subject site. The R-8 zone permits one accessory structure per residential structure with a maximum of 1,000 square feet provided it is architecturally consistent with the principal structure. The maximum size of an accessory dwelling unit is 800 square feet. The maximum floor area of all accessory buildings shall not be greater than the floor area of the primary residential use. The submitted site plan indicates that the existing residence is 1,380 square feet, the detached garage/proposed ADU is 960 square feet in size. Tire square footage of the existing garage/proposed ADU exceeds the 800 square foot requirement The applicant would be required to reduce the size of the structure or request an Administrative Variance. Setbacks -- Setbacks are the minimum required distance between the building footprint and the property line and any private access easement. The required minimum setbacks for accessory dwelling units in the R-8 zone are. ADU Setbacks Front Yard Accessory structures are not permitted within required front yards or side yards along streets. Rear Yard Determined through administrative review, to be no fess than 5 - feet and no greater than 204eet Side Yard 5 -feet Between Structures 6 -feet Based on the Site Plan provided it is unclear where the modular home is/would be sited. The applicant would be required to comply with the setback requirements of the zone. Access/Parking: Each unit is required to accommodate off street parking for a minimum of two vehicles. Garages and carports must provide a minimum of 24 ft. of back -out room, either on site or counting improved alley surface or other improved right-of-way surface. The applicant will be required at the time of formal land use application to provide detailed parking information. Significant tree Retention: If significant trees (greater than 6 -inch caliper) are proposed to be removed a tree inventory and a tree retention plan along with a tree retention worksheet shall be provided with the formal land use application. The tree retention plan must show preservation of at least 10 percent of significant trees, and indicate how proposed building footprints would be sited to accommodate preservation of significant trees that would he retained. If the trees cannot be retained, they may be replaced with minimum 2 inch caliper trees at a ratio of six to one. 1:\rtim\rdmlpreapps110-016 (rS adu modular home).doc Pasang Sherpa - AQ U, PRE10 Page 3 of 3 May 13, 2010 (Revised May 21, 20 10) Critical Areas: There appears to be no critical areas on site. If there is any indication of critical areas on the site, this roust be disclosed to the City prior to development and appropriate studies must be undertaken. Environmental Review: The project is Categorically Exempt from SEPA requirements and, therefore, Environmental Review would not be required. Permit Requirements: Accessory dwelling units in the R-8 zone require the approval of an Administrative Conditional Use Permit. The Conditional Use Permit review would be accomplished within an estimated time frame of 6 to 8 weeks. The fee for the Administrative Conditional Use Permit is $2,000.00, if an Administrative Variance is needed it can be reviewed concurrently with the Administrative Conditional Use Permit in the estimate time frame above. The fee for the Variance is $1,200.00. In addition, construction and building permits may be required. Staff MR be supportive of the proposed accessary dwelling unit as well as an Administm hve Variance Jf the fiaAowing were accomplished: Removal of the carport on the south side of the proposed ADU structure. • Enhance the front entrance of the proposed ADU. • Place a skirt at the base of the proposed ADU • Paint the area, once occupied by the garage door, to match the remainder of the fargade. The applicant is encouraged to provide_ 9F conceptual desion for the ABU to the City prior to formal submittal. Fees: Building and construction permit fees may be required- Transportation and fire mitigation fees are not required for accessory dwelling units. Renton School District Impact Fees became effective on January 18, 2010. The fees are $1,258.00 for each new multi -family unit. Accessory dwelling units are considered multi -family units for the purposes of applying school impact fees. School impact fees are payable at the time of building permit issuance. A handout listing all of the City's Development related fees is attached for your review. Expiration: Upon approval, the conditional use permit is valid for two years with a possible one year extension. 1:lrtim\rtim\preapps\1_0-016 (rg adu modular horne).doc • 9x/Y/$ T p .. �'''ik`d'.,'i?%t5!:'9Y4F'saF4cwa`W'+w.•rm�..a.....,.__,�.._ E 111�y City of ]e 4• NOTICE OF APPLICATION A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Department of Community & Economic Development (CED) — Planning Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: PROJECT NAME/NUMBER: January 5, 2011 Sherpa ADU / LUA10-088, CU -A, V-A PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit and Variance for the coversion of an existing structure into an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). The subject property is located at 2105 Dayton Ave NE. The project site totals 0.795 acres in area and is zoned Residential -8 dwelling units per net acre (R-8). The subject site contains an existing 1,380 square foot single family residence (to remain) and a 960 square foot detached garage/recreation room_ A Conditional Use Permit is required for the conversion of the detached garage/recreation room into an ADU. A variance is requested in order to exceed the 800 foot threshold for accessory dwelling units. Access would be provided via a seperate curb cut from Dayton Ave NE. There are no critical areas on site. PROJECT LOCATION: 2105 Dayton Avenue NE PUBLIC APPROVALS: Administrative Conditional Use Permit and Administrative Variance approval APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Pasan Sherpa; 2105 Dayton Avenue NE; Renton, WA 98056 PUBLIC HEARING: N/A Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner, Department of Community & Economic Development, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, by 5:00 p.m. on January 19, 2010. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact the Project Manager at (425) 430-7219. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, CED, Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. File Name / No.: Sherpa ADU / LUA10-088, CU -A, V-A NAME' MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NO.: c7y Of PENTON To; Chip Vincent — City of Renton Planning Director RED E I V E D Rocale Timmons — Planning Department JAN 2 f 2011 13UILDING DIVISION We the undersigned strongly oppose the variance being considered by the city at 2105 Dayton Ave. N.E. This building was originally built to be a storage garage and shop. The current resident has gone ahead and made this into a residence that doesn't meet the city code for a second residence on this property and has also been occupied since October 1", 2010. He has tried to circumvent the remodeling permit by not stating the true purpose of this project. Here are some of the reasons for our objection to this variance. 1. Increased traffic and parking on Dayton Ave. N.E. 2. We believe that this will cause a drop in our property values. 3. This occupant infringes on the property line driving between the houses. 4. This occupant doesn't follow the rules and codes set forth by the City of Renton. 5. We're concerned about our Sewer LID, whether he will be assessed. 5. Several of us have lived here for 50 years and don't want to see our neighborhood degraded. 7. We feel the city has failed us allowing this project to go on knowing it doesn't meet city codes for the size and for the building to be occupied since October 1St, 2010. The city was notified (code compliance) several times during this project. S. We believe this might set a precedent for our area. 9. These signatures are all from home owners, not renters. 10. Any questions regarding this matter please contact Gary Newton at 425- 255-5955. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. 's EXHIBIT 5 .Date: March 02, 2011 I,a: Administrator (Decision -Maher) Chip Vincent - City of Renton Planning Director Rocale Timmons ---Associate Planner We, the neighbors in the vicinity of the house at 2105 Dayton Ave NE are pleased to be given an opportunity by the cite to provide our input on the Sherpa Accessory Dwelling Unit project. As neighbors, we all strive to make our neighborhood sustainable and livable. According to goal seven of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Goals, it cal Is for new development and neighborhoods in the City that: • Contribute to a strong sense of community and neighborhood identity_ • Offer a variety of housing types for a population diverse in age, income, and lifestyle; • Are varied or unique in character. We see that the Sherpa's proposed ADU project is alig=n with the city, the neighborhood, and Sherpa family values and cultural diversM. By having an ADU, the Sherpas plan to maintain their strong connection to their community and extended family. Taking care of their aging elders and other members is a value that they live by and the ADU would allow their family members to have independence and lower their housing cost. Other alternatives for taking care of their families such as nursing homes are unthinkable. Therefore we; the undersigned strongly support the Sherpa family's request for the reconsideration of the decision on the variance made on February 23, 2011 at 2105 Dayton Ave NE By granting the variance for this project, we believe it will not set precedents for the city to grant similar request for other houses in our area in the future as the current situation is unique to the Sherpa residence. Their detached 960sq ft. garage was built in 1994. In 2009, it was converted into a recreation room (with a bathroom, two rooms, one for office space and one for storage.) This structure as it stands is compatible with the neighborhood. Because this structure has existed for 17 vears, none of us possess a similar situation and would request for a variance that exceed the 800 sq feet. It seems perfectly fair to us that Mr. Sherpa's building should be allowed a variance, but that any ADUs we as his neighbors may build in the future should be limited to the variance. We in no way feel that this would be discriminartory or unfair to us. We feel reassured that the city has been working with the family to make sure that they can exercise their home ownership rights to establish a mother in law cottage and at the same time following city codes. Also, the consensus of the neighbors' concerns of exhibit 5 were all addressed in the approval of the ADU. We believe the Sherpa family have every interest to improve the neighborhood and to be a part of the neighborhood that they plan to raise their children in. "Thank you for taking this matter into consideration. Please see the enclosed petition for the Sherpa ADU. If you have any questions, please contact Colleen Addi on at (425) 228-620 . y. ai LW -ow LM to on C 0 zi o I � �'i LL. 11 UR '311 1-4 o6 I t Neighborhood Rebuttal of Exhibit 5 These rebuttals reflect multiple neighborhood conversations among the signers of the petition. These conversations generated a common consensus which was put into writing by Andrea Bu€ort. We dispute the weight of the signatures on Exhibit 5 for three reasons. First, it was received by the city after the deadline. Second, most of the signatories have not seen Mr. Sherpa's property or data. (For example, we spoke to one signer who thought Mr. Sherpa had built a two-story home in his back yard because she could see the top of a tree house.) Third, most of Exhibit 5's conclusions are based on fears instead of facts. We address each assertion below: Assertion 1. Increased traffic and parking on Dayton Ave N.E. At most there would be one or two additional cars. This is insignificant, especially since our neighborhood recently lost the equivalent amount of daily traffic due to local teens going off to college. Assertion 2. We believe this will cause a drop in our property values. In fact, TrueBuiltHome_com states that "The addition of an ADU can increase the current and resale value of the property.... A secondary rental unit or "guest house" can be very attractive to potential buyers." And rising property value on one home is helpful to all the properties in the neighborhood. Assertion 3. This occupant infringes on the property line driving between the houses. There is only one place without a fence between the two homes. This opening was left by Mr. Sherpa as a courtesy access point for the person who is making the complaint_ The person making the complaint regularly drives on Mr. Sherpa's property to get to his own back yard. And yet he is upset about Mr. Sherpa's tire occasionally accidentally straying over the line the other direction_ Assertion 4. This occupant doesn't follow the rules and codes set forth by the City of Renton. Mr. Sherpa admits that there were occasional problems due to misunderstanding or lack of knowledge. Mr. Sherpa was fairly new to remodeling, there was a language barrier, and building codes can be difficult for first -timers to understand. But as soon as the City notified him about each problem, he fixed it. We have seen substantial evidence that Mr. Sherpa worked closely with the City of Renton to make sure he was following the rules. This effort included four face- to-face meetings with city workers throughout the course of the remodel, as well as numerous phone calls and e-mails. Assertion 5. We're concerned about our Sewer LTD, whether he will be assessed. The out -building in question was already in existence when the entire property was assessed. An ADU cannot be sold separately from the property. It remains part of the same tax parcel. Assertion 6. Several of us have lived here for 54 years and don't want to see our neighborhood degraded. We do not know what degradation they fear. The Sherpas are constantly improving their property, and therefore improving the entire neighborhood by extension. Assertion 7. We feel the city has failed us allowing this project to go on: * knowing it doesn't meet the city codes for the size * and for the building to be occupied since October 1st, 2010 Two points here: First, although the city was very careful in writing to state that the work they were doing with Mr. Sherpa did not constitute ADU approval with variance, he was given several verbal assurances that it would go through at its original size. So unless they change their ruling, the city has actually seriously failed Mr. Sherpa. Second, the building is not currently occupied. Assertion 8. We believe this might set a precedent for our area. We disagree. Mr. Sherpa's building and most of his remodel pre -date the City's ADU codification. Approval would not set a precedent for new buildings. It might help set precedent for other pre-existing outbuildings. And so it should. It does not make sense to partially demolish extant buildings to meet the rigors of new code. Demolition is inefficient, it could allow harmful toxins into the air, soil, and water from old building materials, and it is a waste of the City's financial and human resources. Our citizens' efforts are better spent in building up our city, not in arbitrarily tearing chunks of it down. Assertion 9. These signatures are all from home owners, not renters. The same is true of all of our signatures too. Most of us did not bother to write anything when we received the ADU notice, simply because we had no problem with it, and we didn't imagine it would be denied_ We are the majority who did not know that our voice was needed, or we would have stood up to be counted in the beginning. Well we are standing up now. Neighborhood Rebuttal of City's Variance Refusal Neighborhood Rebuttal of City's Variance Refusal We completely disagree with the City's interpretation and application of the ADU variance criteria regarding Mr. Sherpa's application. Consistency with Variance Criteria Section 4-9-25OB5 A. We dispute the city's findings. Mr. Sherpa suffers undue hardship in this matter precisely because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property. To wit, the building he converted has been the current size and shape on the property for the past 17 years. It was in existence before Mr. Sherpa's purchase of the property. Therefore it counts as a pre-existing property characteristic. In addition, an architect has stated that partial demolition could impact the footings and roof of the structure, which in itself is an undue hardship. Partial demolition also places an onerous financial and practical burden on Mr. Sherpa_ The city simply decided that the financial burden would not be too heavy without stating any kind of objective criteria on which they base that opinion. And finally this denial deprives Mr. Sherpa of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity. None of the rest of us have pre- existing structures we could be asked to partially demolish to meet new code. Why should he suffer unduly because of his unique circumstances? B. We agree with the city's finding that granting of the variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity. C. We disagree with the city that approval of this variance would constitute a grant of special privilege. Both the size and remodel of the proposed ADU pre -date the City of Renton's ADU codification. It seems perfectly fair to us that Mr_ Sherpa's building, which pre -dates the code, should be allowed a variance, but that any ADUs we as his neighbors build from scratch should be limited to the code. We in no way feel that this would be discriminatory or unfair to us. D. We disagree with the City that this approval is not the minimum variance, and that Mr. Sherpa should demolish a portion of his building. Partial demolition is unnecessary, illogical, inefficient, potentially toxic, and a waste of Mr. Sherpa's time and resources. In addition, it would lower the benefit of the ADU to his, and by extension our property values. It could also cause the building to look unsightly, and according to an architect could affect the building's footings and roof We see no benefit at all to demolition, except that the City could claim adherence to the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law. The variance requested is precisely the minimum needed for reasonable application of the law to unique circumstances. To: Chip Vincent, City of Renton Planning Director Rocale Timmons --Associate Planner Date: March 06, 201.1. Re: Letter of Reconsideration (LUA10-088, CU -A, VA -A) Introduction: CITY OF RENTON C ,t,-^ MAR 092011 JY_15c M RECENED CITY CLERKS OFFICE When we found out in 2010 that Accessory Dwelling Units would now be allowed in Renton, we were excited, as we felt this would promote affordable and varied housing options for a "population diverse in age, income, and lifestyle". This is one of the innovative ideas that our community needs in order to overcome harsh economic times. The City's approval of our Conditional Use Permit demonstrated that we met and exceeded all the requirements for having an ADU. However, the Administrative Variance of 160 square feet was denied. Our ADU will be within a pre-existing structure (a recreation room remodeled from a garage), and we are modifying only the interior of the building to turn it into an ADU. Because of this, we request a reconsideration of the decision to approve the variance, rather than require a reduction in size of the proposed ADU to meet the 800 square foot threshold. Background: The ADU will be housed within a pre-existing 960 square foot garage structure that underwent extensive renovation in 2009 to become a recreation room with one bathroom and two additional rooms (one for office and one for storage). The original garage structure existed at 960 square feet 17 years ago, Iong before we purchased it 6 years ago. The special conditions and circumstances of the structure being at 960 square feet do not result from our actions but from the previous owner's actions. In 2009, when the garage was renovated into a recreation room, each phase of the construction and remodeling was done with City of Renton permits,and the renovation passed final inspection (see exhibit A & B, consecutively). The remodeled 960 square foot building existed before the City's ADU codification. In 2010, we wanted to turn the --4 y garage/remodeled recreation room into an ADU_ After extensive review of our project narrative at the pre -application meeting with the planning division, the planning division 0 P a a c �Z sent us a memo stating that "Staff may be supportive of the proposed accessory dwelling unit as well as an Administrative Variance if the following were accomplished": remove the carport, enhance the front entrance of ADU, place skirt on base of ADU, paint the area that was once the garage door. (Exhibit C)_ However, even though we successfully completed all the items on the City's list, after the formal application review, the variance was denied. Since May of 2010, we have been working consistently with the planning staff to ensure that we take the proper steps to follow necessary city codes_ We had one pre - application meeting to present the situation of the property to the staff to get suggestions for what we needed to do. Afterwards, we had three meetings with the planning staff to go over the draft of the variance and the Conditional Use application and plans; at two of the meetings an architect was present. We have - communicated frequently with the staff via phone calls and emails. We were also given verbal reassurance that the city would support our application. After all the guidance and suggestions from the staff who were being made thoroughly aware of the situation and our intentions for our property since the very beginning of our application process, we were shocked that the variance was not granted. We were shocked by the decision because the reasons of denial the staff gave us in points A, C, and D in PART THREE of the Sherpa ADU report are not new findings to us. The final report's recommendation that we could demolish the building to meet the 800 square feet was already proposed in the memorandum after the pre -application review with the planning staff (Exhibiti). In the memo, there are two options for us: " the applicant would be required to reduce the size of the structure OR request an administrative variance" If reducing the size of the structure had been the only option that we could adopt all along, why would the city recommend that we also apply for an administrative variance and then tell us in the end that we are required to demolish the building to meet the size requirement? In fact, the staff have assisted us with the verbiage in writing our justification for the variance request. In the final report, the staff's argument is that because we could reduce the size of the building, there is no undue hardship or minimum variance required. This notion of demolishing the building is not a point that they have discovered that was not known before or that unexpectedly 0 0 Pa<4e 13 arises in the final review of our application.. Therefore, we feel that the city weighted their decision based on exhibit 5 despite the irrelevancy of the content of exhibit 5. This is because in the final Sherpa ADU application, the only new item that was added to the application was exhibit 5. We request that exhibit 5 be expunged from the record As stated in the Notice of D Application on January 5t', 2011 (exhibit 11) "Comments on the... application must be submitted in writing.... by 5:00pm on January 19, 2011.". However, the City of Renton's receipt stamp on exhibit 5 is dated January 21, 2011, two days past the deadline set by the city. Therefore, it should not have been part of the application review process, and should be discarded from the record. Because it had an effect on the outcome of the decision in the first place, it is unfair to us, the applicant. It should not be admissible in the first place because of its lack of adherence to the official deadline. As citizens of the City of Renton, we value the opportunity that the city provides its concerned citizens to comment on and to "get involved" in the land use process. We expect that any comments will be evaluated based on whether or not they are backed by facts and evidence, and on whether they have any relevance to the application. The content of exhibit 5 is irrelevant and does not reflect the reality of the situation. The inaccurate statements made about us by the property owner are tarnishing to our reputation in the neighborhood community. The fact that it was submitted improperly and is naw a permanent part of our record is of great concern to as. The outcome of the decision as a result of this erroneous information jeopardize our rights and privilege to establish an ADU. We hope you can rectify this situation. Justification for the Variance: In the Sherpa ADU report, the staff concluded that because we could reduce the size of the building, there are no undue hardship and that minimum variance is not required However, the hardship is that we have a pre-existing structure that was built at 960 square foot but not by us and was later remodeled into a recreation room. Also, the staff's solution to demolish the building to meet the 800 square foot requirement in order to i • P a Ce 14 grant us the Conditional Use permit will not fulfill the city's intents and purposes of having an ADU, and it will unnecessarily inflect environmental damage. 1. Under criteria A, in PART THREE of the Sherpa ADU report the planning staff concluded that the variance is not "necessitated because of the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject property". The alternative is to demolish portion of the building to meet the 800 square foot requirement. We disagree, the variance is necessary because of the size of the property. It is a pre-existing structure at 960 square feet. The property was a nonconforming lot of record when we purchased it. A property that has been recently improved and remodeled is now being required to be demolished and rebuilt. This would result in a situation in which we are being deprived of the right and privilege that other property owners under the same classification could enjoy, due to the fixed size of a building that we inherited from the previous owner. 2. Under criteria C in PART THREE of the report, the staff concluded that allowing the variance would be considered a special privilege. We disagree, the Sherpa structure is unique because it was a garage and then remodeled into a recreation room prior to the ADU codification. Tberefore, by granting us this variance, it would not constitute that other houses are being deprived of the privilege of being granted a variance that exceeds 800 square feet. For other applications for variance, vre trust the city will exanune case by case and will make careful decisions and judgments according to the code set in place. 3. Under criteria D in PART THREE of the report, the staff concluded that the variance is not the n inim= variance requested because the staff' insisted that a portion of the structure could be demolished. Page 15 We disagree_ The demolition of part of the building to meet the 800 square foot requirement is not in accords with our strong beliefs in not creating unnecessary waste and not harming the already vulnerable environment with construction debris and flames when that could'be avoided One of the City of Renton goals for 2011 to 2016, is to "develop a package of 'green'building incentives," which closely correlates to King County's bulletin number 55. This bulletin states that "King County encourages sustainable development and green building practices to help balance growth with protection of our region's valuable natural resources" through green building and low impact development practices for projects of all types, including ours_ Partially demolishing and rebuilding the 17 year old pre- existing Sherpa structure in order to meet the 800 square foot requirement will contradict this sustainable development goal. Newly constructed walls, windows, water and electrical Iines, hardscaping, and the Iandscaping that were put in place when it became a remodeled recreation room will be damaged and disrupted if new construction takes place_ This will increase material waste and alter the locality's essential character. Demolition and reconstruction will generate unnecessary waste that is not environmentally friendly_ The nearby neighbors will suffer unnecessary disturbance because of construction noise that could be avoided. 4. The purpose of the 800 square foot limitation in building an ADU is to avoid overcrowding on a piece of property. As noted in the staff report, our existing single fancily dwelling is only 11.3% of lot size, which is "well below the maximum. 35 percent building coverage permitted". By allowing the 160 square foot variance, we are able to maintain a balance to the current parcel size and keep the characteristics of both buildings. The total of both buildings including the variance of 160sq_ ft. is only 19.2% of the lot size. It is not an unreasonable request for variance as it is the maximum footage that we require to avoid unnecessary demolition and reconstruction_ 0 n a 2 C 16 5.. In an effort to fight our current economic recession, everyone is looking for a way to sustain recovery. Our city adopted the addition of ADUs in order to diversify neighborhoods and provide opportunities for low cost housing_ If granted, this variance will encourage the marketability of the ADU because its current recreational floor plan allows multiple types of tenants. If we have to demolish part of the recreational room which contains two room (storage and office), it will restrict the types of tenants who could occupy the space to couples only, because it will only have 1 small room left. This situation would not comply with the city's vision of creating affordable housing. Conclusion Demolishing part of the building in order to reduce the size of the structure to meet the 800 square foot requirement w1U keep us from best utilizing a sound structure that is already in existence. We feel strongly that demolition could be avoided to prevent unnecessary disturbance to both the neighborhood and the environment. Given the fact that we have a pre-existing structure, granting us the minimum variance that we need to keep the structure as it is will be a beneficial option for the neighborhood, the environment, and for our family. Thank you for your consideration. cereiy, Pasang Sherpa MUMa . 11MIR 'I Property Owner • i Cit of DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE CONDITIONAL USE REPORT & DECISION ERC MWrWN /)ATE. Fenruary 23, 2011 Project blame: Sherpa Accessory Dwelling Unit Owner/Applicant/Contact: Pasang Sherpa; 2105 Dayton Ave NE, Renton, WA 98055 File Number_ LUA1D-088, CU -A, VA -A Project Manager: Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner Project Summary: The applicant submitted an application for an Administrative Conditional Use Permit and Variance for the, coversion of an existing structure into. an accessory dwelling unit (ADU). The subject property is located at 2105 Dayton Ave NE. The project site totals 0.28 acres in area and is zoned Residential -8 dwelling units per net acre (R-8). The subject site contains an existing 2,380 square foot single family residence (to remain) and a 960 square foot detached garage/recreation room. A Conditional Use Permit is required for the conversion of the detached garage/recreation room into an AM]. A variance is requested in order to exceed the 800 foot threshold for accessory dwelling units, Access would be prpvided via a seperate curb cut from Dayton Ave NE. There are no critical areas on site. Project Location. 2105 Dayton Ave NE Site Area: 12,180 SF (O -2B ac) Prc?ieci Location Map REPORT.doc L�j efRenta,'Dzperimentflj'C0'—"MUn'nomicDeveJopment vorirarsce&,Simile eCofniaiDralU+e?umitReport and Dedsion SHERPA ADD _ � � LUA10-088, ELVR, € A -A Report of Februa=ry 23, 2011 — -- Page 2 of 10 PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION / GENERAL INFORMATION A. Exhibits S. General Information 1. owner(s) of Record: 2. Zoning Designation: 3. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: 4. Existing Site Use: 5. Neighborhood Characteristics: Pasang Sherpa 2105 Dayton Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 Residential -8 du/ac (R8) Resideritial Single Family (RSF) Single Family Residence North: Zoning and Neighborhood Detail Map ;Exhibit 1: Single Family Residential (R-8 Zone) Exhibit 2: Ste/Landscape/Floor Pian Exhibit 3: Elevations Exhibit 4: Aerial Photo of Project Site Exhibit 5: Letter Expressing Concern – Neighboring Property Owners Exhibit 6: Two Letters in Support-- Neighboring Property Owners S. General Information 1. owner(s) of Record: 2. Zoning Designation: 3. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: 4. Existing Site Use: 5. Neighborhood Characteristics: Pasang Sherpa 2105 Dayton Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 Residential -8 du/ac (R8) Resideritial Single Family (RSF) Single Family Residence North: Single Family Residential (R-8 Zone) East: Single Family Residential (R-8 Zone) South: Slagle Firmly ResideiWal (R-8 Zbnej West, Single Family Resideirt ul (R-8 Zone) S. Access: Via two existing curb cuts along Dayton Ave S. 7. Site Area: 12,180 SF (0.28 ac) C. Historical/Background Action Dg2gf ption Land Use File No. Ordinance No- Date Comprehensive Pian N/A N/A 4924 12/5/2001 Zoning N/A N/A 5099 1111/2004 Annexation N/A N/A 1822 3/31/1960 D. Project Narrative The project site is a 12,180 square foot parcel located in the R-8 zoning designation located on Dayton Ave NE fust south of NE 22i" St. The site is currently developed with a 1,380 square foot single family residence and a 960 square foot detached structure formerly used as a garage/recreation room- The applicant is requesting an Administrative Conditional Use Permit and Variance for the coversion of the existing detached structure into an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). The proposed building would be approximately 960 gross square feet in area and is located in the southwest corner of the site. The freight of the existing structure is 14 feet and 6 inches at the tallest point and is comprised mostly of siding, glass and .stone materials similar to materials used on the associated single family residence. Administrative Conditional Use/Variance Report vnrf ice & Adr;3ini0-4ndr:ia')G; 3 aj�enTan Deka Trnent Of Corr�munity CIamxv loom=nT VaripnCe E Admini [onciYiartai Use ?erzniS ReorC ❑na ✓edsio7 LUA10-698, CU -4; VA -A SHERPA ADU Page 4 of 10 Report of FebFuary 23, 201' ADU's are an allowed use in the R -s zone with an approved Administrative Conditional Use Permit (see remainder of the analysis below) - RMC 4-2-080A.7 requires that the property owner file an affidavit affirming that the owner will occupy the principa[ dwelling or the ADU. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the owner shall record a notice on the property title. The notice shall bear the notarized signature of all property owners listed on the property title and include the legal description of the property, a copy of the approved site/floor plan, and the applicability of the restrictions regarding ADU's in RMC Title IV. The applicant has met all development standards of the R-8 zone, with the exception of building size. The square footage of ADU's are limited to 8Do square feet within the R-8 zone. The applicant is requesting a variance in order to exceed the square footage requirement by 160 square feet. The applicant was unable to demonstrate compliance with all four variance criterion, as a result the variance to exceed the maximum building square footage is being denied (see variance analysis below) - As a condition of Conditional Use Permit approval the applicant would be required to reduce the size of the accessory structure below the 8Do square foot threshold prior to building permit approval (see the variance analysis below). if all conditions of approval are met, the -project would be in conformance of zoning regulations. Z. Community Need There shall be a community need far the proposed use at the proposed -location. In the determination of community need, the Hearing Examiner shall consider,thefollowing factors, among off other relevant information: a. The proposed location shall not result in either the detrimental overconcentration of a particular use within the City or within the irnmediate area of the proposed use. The proposed ADU is the first project Of its tyPe tO be pressed ir€ 2011 and third of its kind in the City of Renton. The Code allows for So accessory dwelling units to be permitted per year. .Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an over -concentration of a particular use within the City or within the immediate area of the proposed use. b. That the proposed location is suited for the proposed use. The project site is a 12,180 square foot lot in the It -8 zone. A detached single-family house (to remain) currently is located on the subject property. In the R-8 zone one detached dwelling with one ADU are allowed on each legal lot, The proposed ADU would be located along the south side property fine and behind (west of) the existing dwelling. The location of the accessory structure is appropriate. 3_ Effect on Adjacent Properties The proposed use at. the proposed location shrill not result in substantial or Undue adverse effects on adjacent property. The following site requirements shall be required: a. Loi Coverage. Lot coverage in residential districts (SF and MR) shall not exceedfifty iy percent (50%) Of rhe lot coverage of the zone in which the proposed use is to be located, except far detached accessory dwelling units, which shall not be counted toward lot coverage calculations. Lot coverage in all other zones shall conform to the requirerrienrs of the zone in which the proposed Use is to be located. As noted above, ADU's will not be counted towards lot coverage calculations. The R-8 zone allows building coverage, for lots over 5,0D0 S1=, of 35 percent. The building footprint of the existing structure is 1,380 square feet This generates a tots[ building coverage of 11.3 percent on the 12,180 square Toot parcel which is well below the maximum 35 percent building lot coverage permitted. Administrative Conditional LFse%Variance Ropart Gey of Rentnn DEpu.,77nernt of C70rnm—jty beveIOPMerrt Varian --c & Adrnini"*bnd6bna7 Use Permit Re?ort and Decision SHERPA ADU Li1A10--088, CU -A, VA -A Report of February 23, 2011 Page 5 of 10 b_ Yards. Yards shall conform to the requirements of the zone in which the proposed use is to be located. Additions to the structure shall not be allowed in any required yard. The side yard setback for ADU's in the R-8 zone is 5 -feet and the rear yard setback is determined through administrative review but shall not be less than 5 feet and no greater than 20 feet. The existing structure is located approximately 18 feet from the rear property fine and approximately S feet from the south property fine. However, an attached carport is located on the south side of the proposed ADU which encroaches into the side yard setback. As a condition of approval the applicant would be required to obtain a demolition permit and all required inspections be completed for the removal of the existing carport prior to the building permit approval. The existing 18 -foot rear yard setback is adequate for the proposed use. C, Height. Building and structure heights shall conform to the requirements of the zone in which the proposed use is to be located. Spires, belftowers, public utility antennas or similar structures may exceed the height requirement upon approval of a variance. Building heights should be related to surrounding uses in order to allow optimal sunlight and ventilation, and minimal obstruction of vievvs from adjacent structures: The r>naxirnum height for ADU's in the R-8 zone is 30 -feet. The proposed existing structure would be approximately 14 -feet and 5 -inches at the tallest point which relates to the exerting single family residence and surrounding structures. Therefore the existing structure is cGimpatible with the existing residence and the residential character of the surrounding neighborhood. d Campatibdity The proposed use sh aff be compatible with the residential scale cmd character of the neighborhood. Ti -ie primary dwelling on the project site is faced with grey siding for which the existing accessory structure is currently matched with the exception of the area immediately framing the door along the front (eastern) facade. The applicant is proposing new siding, roofing, window trimming and fascia boards in order to match the existing residence. The applicant is also proposing new stone facing along the concrete wall, of the eastern fapde, in order to ground the structure with a new window and door along the front facade. The proposed facade modibcations cause the existing structure to be more compatible with the residential character of the surrounding neighborhood. e. Traffic: Traffic and circulation patterns of vehicles and pedestrians relating to the proposed use and surrounding area shall be reviewed for potential effects on, and to ensure safe movement in, the surrounding area. Access to the site would continue to be gained from two existing curb cuts along Dayton Ave NE_ A total of 4 parking spaces would be provided an site; two for each residence. Pedestrian and vehicular access to the proposed project site will not change as a result of the proposed project. While concerns were raised by neighboring property owners no significant changes to traffic and circulation patterns of vehicles and pedestrians relating to the proposed use and surrounding area are anticipated_ f. IVOIse, Glare: Potential noise, light and glare impacts shall be evaluated. based on the location of the proposed use on the lot and the location of on-site parking areas, outdoor recreational areas and refuse storage areas. Ihe proposed accessory dwelling unit would be oriented toward the east and facing toward the interior of the project site. Windows on the western and southern facades are limited in number therefore, potential glare would be limited_ Noise which is typical of residential uses would be associated with the proposed project.; the ADLJ is not anticipated to produce noise volumes which would impact the surrounding neighborhood beyond reason. Administrative Conditional Use/Variance Report Tk CiaellPJJQfiZP11i rc i Per rhe arme�t of Comrnurr hr�ry Report 4f February 23, 2011 Accessory Uses: Accessory uses to conditional us -6s such as day schools, auditoriums used for social and sport activities, health centers, convents, preschool futilities, convalescent homes and others of a similar nature shall be considered to be separate uses and shall be subject to the provisions of the use district in which they are located. The proposed use as an ADU which is allowed in the R-8 zone with an approved Administrative Conditional Use Permit. The proposed accessory dwelling unit would be in compliance with the Benton Municipal Code if all conditions of approva[ are complied with. Public Improvements: The proposed use and lactation shall be adequately served by and not impose an undue burden on any public improvements, facilities, utilities and services. Approval of a conditional use permit may be conditioned upon the provision and/or guarantee by the applicant of necessary public improvements, facilities, utilities and/car services. police and Fire Department staff indicates that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed project, subject to the applicant providing Code required improvements. Any students generated by the proposed accessory dwelling unit would be accommodated at Renton School District. The Renton School District impact Fee for each new accessory dwelling unit is estimated at $1,2S8.00 and is payable prior to the issuance of building permits. The SDOS Creek Water and . Sewer District would provide water and sanitary sewer service. Certificates of water and sewer are required to be provided to the city prier to building permit approval. -Vgrtarr; e & Admin tstr cnn6ijon174' 050 Permit REPOrt and r1eC:yiG'7 VA -A page 5 of 10 M 1.l PART THREE: CONSISTENCY WITH VARIANCE CRITERIA Section 4-9-250BS lists four criteria that the Reviewing Dfficial is asked to consider the following four criteria, along with all other relevant information, in making a decision on on Administrative Variance application. The variance criteria are asfollows_ ,r That the applicant suffers undue hardship and the, variance is necessary because of specia circumstances applicable to subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject f r` : ' and the strict application of the Zoning Cade is found to deprive subject property owner of rights an property, privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zone ciassiflcation. The applicant contends that undue hardship is suffered due to need to demolish walls in order to meet the 800 the demolition would have impacts on the footings and roof of the square footage requirement. Additionally, structure. The applicant contends it is not cost effective to remove a portion of or demolish the existing structure. Staff cannot speak to the impact of cost on the applicant, however staff does notconcur that the ftnancial burden creates an undue hardship for this specific site. The proposed variance is not necessitated because of size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject property. Therefore the strict application of the Zoning Code is not found to deprive the subject owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity under identical zone classifications. Altematively, the applicant could demolish portions of the accessory structure and meet the maximum square footage requirements in the R -S zoning designation. B. That the granting Of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or irnprovements in the vicinity and zone in which subject property is situated, The applicant contends that the granting of the variance Would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity. The additional 160 square feet beyond the Administrutive Conditional Use/ vdrlar ice Report .ry Dj Renton Deporme,7t o,*" Community �or it i e. etopmen: VQ, M -'?re & ADmirill a Co7di;i=,7f VSC °grit Repa, � and i7ecisi0n SHERPA A&Y Report of February 23, 2011 LUAI"88, et{ -A, vA A Page 7 of 1p 800 square foot requirement would not create any additional burden on services by the city or neighborhood utilities. Staff concurs that the granting of the variance would not be materiaffy detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property or improvements. The granting of the variance would allow for the retention of an existing structure, without alteration, which the size has not been detrimental to the public ,welfare or injurious -to the subject property thus far. C. That approval shall not constitute a grant of s cial privilege inconsistent with the lintitertian upon uses of ocher properties in the vicinity and, -one in which the subject property is situated; The approval of the maximum square footage request, for the accessory square €outage, would be a grant of special privilege, as other property owner in the vicinity and within other R-8 zoned areas would not be permitted to construct_ an accessory dwelling unit rich eXceeds the maximum square footage. Specifically, when the hardship is not created due to sPecific site constraints. M That the auProval as determined by the Reviewing Official is a minirnum variance th desired purpase. at will rxecnmpiish the The applicant staters that the requested variance is the minimum variance necessary to alloy the existing structure to remain on the site without alteration. Staff does not concur-, the applicant could reduce the square footage of the existing structure through the demafi'tion of portions of the structure and come into conformance with the maximum square footage requirements of the R-8 zoning designation. Therefore the requested variance is not the minimum variance that would accomplish the desire to retain the existing structure_ PART FOUR: RNDfNGS Having reviewed the written record in the matter, the City now enters the following: �. Request: The Appficant has requested Administrative Conditional Use permit and Variance, from RMC4-2- I10B, for the Sherpa ADU, LUA 10-088, CU -A, VA -A- 2. Administrative Conditional Use Perrnit: The applicant's Conditional Use Permit application complies with the requirements for information, necessary for review. The applicant's plans are attached to this report_ 3. Administrative Variance: The applicant's variance application complies with the requirements for information necessary for review. The applicant's plans are attached to this report. 4. ComprehEnsitte Pian: The subject site is designated Residential Single Famify {RSF). S. Zi3ning. The site is zoned Residential -8 du/ac (R-8) which permits accessory dwelling units with an Administrative Conditional Use Permit. Maximum square fcaotages are limited to 800 square feet for ADU's. The applicant has proposed a 960 square foot structure. PART WE CONCLUSIONS 1- The Administrative Conditional Use Permit would allow the utilization Of an existing structure as an ADtf, The ADU is within a former garage structure. The location of the ADU on the project site is indicated in Exhibit 2 (Site Plan). Adrrirustrutive CDnditloni7l USe1,V0rjGPCe Report City of Renton Deparimerr sfCommunity Orme DevefaPmert Varian--e & Administri SHERPA AD U Report of i-ebruary 23, 2011 CARditiartc. Use rsrrnit .��pa; ; rnd i�ecisior, (f LU,410-0,33, CEJ -A, I(4 -A Page S 01 10 2. The proposed Administrative Conditional Use Permit for an accessory dwelling unit meets the eleven criteria to be considered in making a decision on a conditional use permit request as specified in RMC 4-9- 030G if all conditions of approval are met. 3. Staff recommends approval with conditions based on the analysis contained in the staff report. 4. The recommendation of staff is to deny the variance request as it does not meet three of the four criteria found in RMC 4-9-25DB5. Specifically, the applicant has not demonstrated that they suffer undue hardship and the request would constitute granting a special privilege. It is feasible for the existing structure to be converted to an accessory dwelling unit and meet the maximum square footage requirements of RMC 4-2- 110B. PART SIX: DECISION The proposed Administrative Variance, from RMC 4-2-1108, for the Sherpa Accessory Dwelling Emit (t=ile No. LUA10-088, CU A, VA -A) is hereby denied. The Administrative Conditional Use Permit is hereby approved subject to the following conditions.- 1. onditions:1. The applicant shall reduce the size of the proposed accessory dwelling unit, below the 840 square foot threshold, prior to building permit approval. Z. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and all required inspections be completed for the removal of the existing carport prior to the building permit approval. ;�. C.E. "chip" Vj-ncen� Planning Director TRANSMITTED this 23rd day of February, 2011 to the Con toctfApplicantlowner: Contact/Appiicant/Oumer: Posang Sherpa 2105 Dayton Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 TRANSMITTED this 23`d day of February, 20111 to the Parties of Record: Gary Newton Paul & Noncy Duke 2101 Dayton Avenue NE 2408 NE 22nd Street Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98036 Jean Anderson 2100 Dayton Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Paul & Cassie Ba ycock 24G4 NE22ndStreet Renton, WA 98056 Matt Wells 2328 NE 22nd Street Margaret 1. Buxton 2005 Dayton Avenue NE Renton, WA 980.56 Michele Ralph 2400 NE 22nd Street Renton, WA 980.56 James Boyd 2324 NE 22nd Street Administrative Conditional Use/Variance Report Date Rick & Polly Patter 2144 Dayton Avenue NE Renton, VITA 98056 William & Shirley Reynolds 2112 Dayton Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Bili& Karen Sparrow 2108 Dayton Avenue NE Renton, WA 98055 Colleen Addison 2109 Dayton Avenue NE C,rt}.• of Renton Department of Community Aomie Devetoanent Varranre & Adn ninisirwnditrorvi Use fermit Report and Decision SHERPA ADZ] LUA10088, CU -A, Vii -A Report of February 23, 2011 Page 5 of 10 Renton, VIA 98056 Renton, VVVA 98D56 Renton, WA 98056 Andrea gufort Cohn Thorpe Dion Coleman 2oi2 Dayton Avenue NE 12226 SR 278Th Street 14241218th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98058 Issaquah, WA 98027 TRANSMITTED this 2P day of February, 20111 to the following., Nei! Watts, Development Services Director Larry Meckling, Building Official Koyren ICttrick, Development Services Jennifer Henning. Current Planning Code Compliance Fire Marshal Renton Reporter Land Use fiction Appeals, Request for Recons7deration, & Expiration The Variance and the Administrative Conditional Use Permit decisions will become final if the decisions are not appealed within 14 days of the decision date. Conditional Use Permit Appear: Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing to the Hearing Examiner on or before 5:006 p.m., March 9, 2011. Administrative Variance Appeal: Appeals of the administrative site development plate review decision must be filed in writing to the bearing Examiner on or before 5.00 p.m. on March 9, 2011. APPEALS: An appeal of the decision(s) must be filed within the 14 -day appeal period (RCW 43.21.C.07S(3); WAC 197-11-690). Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.8 governs appeals to the Nearing Examiner. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the $250.30 application fee to }searing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Fall - 7th Floor, (425) 430-6510. RECONSIDERA7nON: Within 14 days of the decision date, any party may request that a decision on a short plat be reopened by the Administrator (Decision -maker). The Administrator (Decision -make r) may modify his decision if material evidence not readily discoverable prior to the original decision is found or if he finds there was misrepresentation of fact. After review of the reconsideration request, if the Adrninistrator (Decision - maker) finds sufficient evidence to amend the original decision, there will be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action must file a formal appeal within the 14 -day appeal timeframe. THE APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS DOCTRINE: provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning the land iise decision. Tie Doctrine applies not only to the initial derision, but to Appeals to the Hearing Examiner as well. All communications after the decision/approval date must be made in writing through the Hearing Examiner. All comrnun€cations are public record and this permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence in writing. Any violation of this doctrine could result in the invalidation of the appeal by the Court. ADWSORY NOTES TO APPLICANT The following notes are supplemental information provided in coajuncdon With the adminMra#ive land use action. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the load use actions. Planning: 1. RrAC section 4-4-03D.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pia, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approvers by the Development Services Division. me Development Services Division reserves the right to rescind the approved extended haul hours at any time if comp' laints are received. 2. RMC 4-2-090A.7 requires that the property owner shall file an affidavit affirming that the owner will occupy the principal dwelling or the ADU. This affidavit shall be submitted to the Panning Division Project manager prior to the Administrative Conditional Use/Variance Report City of Rentor, Departmer'r of Communi a noetic Developmerf varionm & Admin a Corditionuf Use Permit Raport and p_clSJ'X7 LUA10-0¢8, CUA, V,4 -A SHERPA ADU Page 10 of 10 Report of February 23, 2011 issuance of building perrnits- 3. RMC 4-2-080A.7 also requires that prior to the issuance of building perm 'sts; the ovrner shall record a notice on the property title. The notice shall bear the notarized signature of a[€ property owners listed on the property title and include the legal description of the property, a copy of the approved-iteffloor plan, and the applicability Of the restrictions regarding ADUs in RMC Title 1V. Prior to recording of the notice the owner shall submit a copy to the Planning Division Project Manager for review and approval. Water: 1. This site is located in the Soos Creek water service boundary. A water availability certificate is required. This site is not located in the Aquifer Protection Zone. Sewer. 1, This site is served by the Soos Creek Water & Sewer District. A sewer availability is required-. Surface Water 1. A drainage checklist is required to be submitted with the formal application for the building. All improvements or exemptions must comply with the City of Renton Amendments to the !Ging County Surface Water Manua! 2009_ Transportation: 1. All new electrical, phone, and cable services and lines must be installed underground unless a variance is issued_ Fire: 1. No comments. Administrative Conditional Use/Variance Repan C4 - 32 T24N RSE E 112 ZONING MAR BOOK E4 - 0$ T23N RaE E+ 112 PW -rFCHNJCAL SERWES PRINTED ON 33113/09 10 2�0M 400 R--8 N N 4 05 T23N R5E E 112 -305 c�aArorr AVE r q nL ailN a js 5 yR;E�Q I= t R i. r - spa � v Y c�aArorr AVE r q nL a js 5 yR;E�Q I= t R i. r - spa � v Y 2{ I �-1 a S Q i \� St-ERPAADU 21032 mx',atr AVE M� � S3FE PCAK VKV%ff Y MAP CC m COMPLI-10-M RFD PERMIT "Ti SET c�aArorr AVE r q nL I � eRVgt�m BY PASANI6 SHERPA SVt;EEY S? d k rift cAyru* a E W Ntf RPA Aa SF AMM p�7ltia� 7tA 9�6 rwaw "w r� �s a js 5 yR;E�Q may= RJR ��i o£ r A,L s �Sf�a jI aR P S -DRi Oct I � eRVgt�m BY PASANI6 SHERPA SVt;EEY S? d k rift cAyru* a E W Ntf RPA Aa SF AMM p�7ltia� 7tA 9�6 rwaw "w r� �s m Tx m n { o 0 —®—ild — E 3 A DIE LM p w �y [3 frt �_ . vA _ — a t � _ AE x x StERPAADU _ PAEPARWRY s y zrMZ nmxw ,C ,C PASANG SrirRPA Shc �- SWUL" t cs ,� ams MCMW 16.-- NE MUWAIA SHARMa, SEC nNs h DETAILS PERM T SET i 0 crrYCf ��;cr� To: Chip Vincent— City of Renton Planning Director R E C E f V E D Rocale Timmons— Planning Department ,JAN 2 1 2011 BUILDING DIVISION We the undersigned strongly oppose the variance being considered by the city at 2105 Dayton Ave. N.E. This building was originally built to be a storage garage and shop. The current resident has gone ahead and made this into a residence that doesn't meet the city code for a second residence on this property and has also been occupied since October 1,tt 2010. He has tried to circumvent the remodeling permit by not stating the true purpose of this project. Here are some of the reasons for our objection to this variance. 1. Increased traffic and parking on Dayton Ave. N.E. 2. We believe that this will cause a drop in our property values. 3. This occupant infringes an the property line driving between the houses. 4. This occupant doesn't follow the rules and codes set forth by the City of Renton. 5. We're concerned about -our Sewer LID, whether he will be assessed. 0. Several of us have lived here. for 50 years and don't want to see our neighborhood degraded. 7. We feel the city has failed us allowing this project to go on knowing it doesn't meet city codes for the size and for the building to be occupied since October 15t, 2010. The city was notified (code eompfianee) several times during this project. 8. We believe this might set a precedent for our area. 9. These signatures are all from home owners, not renters. 10. Any questions regarding this matter please contact Gary Newton at 425- 255-6965. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. EXHIBIT 5 0 0 Name Address 9 A/L 2 J JJ, t b 'V _ (�7' Jr f n=f fig .f�E�+�i J40 v1 2 -in e DAvtA44tj 0 Name 0 Address 1'2 X_,;� Ol / 1- '� -�7— 2-7�- City Of Renton flivisio� January 11, 2011 Piannif�g Colleen Addison JAN 13 0i'k 2109 Dayton Avenue NE Renton WA 98056 Project name/number: Sherpa ADU/LUAIO-088, CU -A, V-A Dear RocaleTimmons: € am writing to express my approval of Pasang Sherpa's application for the Administrative Conditional Use Permit and Administrative Variagce. The 960 square feet detached garage has been inexistence Lang -before the Sherpa family rnovei4over 15 years ago_. By allowing the detached garage size to be as it is at 960 would not make the existing structure any digger than it already is. As the structure stands right now, it is not obstructive and it blends in nicely with their house, their beautiful yard, and the neighbors adjacent to them. Since l don't foresee structura[ changes (like more buildingsor the expansion of the garage to be any bigger than it is), 1 believe the variance should be granted. € have no doubt that the conversions of the existing structure into an ADU would only enhance the property and the surrounding neighborhood and would not create congestion and inconvenience for the neighborhood. Since the Sherpa family has moved into the house six years ago, being their adjacent ne€ghbor next door, € have seen them consistently improving their property taking our neighborhood having much getter curl} -appeal. For example, they have built retaining walls around the backyard, took out ;� worn- out wooden deck and replaced it with .a concrete patio, improved the soil in their garden, leveled dirt piles and put in a large grass lawn, added a sprin€i ler system, changed their windows around the house making it more energy efficient windows. They have consistently maintained the landscaping around the property. Therefore, please accept my approval of my neighbor's motivation to continue enhance his property, thus contributing to our neighborhood to being a better place to live. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, Colleen Addison EXHIBIT 6 • W January 10, 2011] ty Of pf�Tzlw17%17t orl RDcale Timmons ,Sib'0 Associate Planner. J4j3 2'�1J Dept. of Community and Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Gear Roca le, I am wilting ro express nay strong support for -the project Sherpa ADU / WAIU-M, CU -A, V-A. 3 have lived very close to this tot and fancily for the past four years. They have been consistently excellent neighbors_ [, eir request reflects a trend in our neighborhood to higher density housing on these Targe lots. At one end of the block, a lot was subdivided, and a second horne built, right before 1 moved in to 2012 Dayton Au , Not much later, a ruadDwn home just up the street was replaced by two nice new dwellings. At the Other end of the block, another overgrown single lot was subdivided and now holds three beautiful horses_ And just across Edmonds, three tiny broken-down houses on very large lots gave way to a subdivision that its now fUtI of familaps. Ciur block stili has several homes that have seen better days. We benefit from having a family like the Sherpas living fere, because unlike some other owners, they are always working to beautify and improve their space. mere are no environmeatalfecological roadblocks to the Sherpas converting their Current space to an ADD. I am sure that if any of my neighbors have any concern with the Sherpa's Al}U request, they can work outi a mutually satisfactory resolution. l have had opportunity to interact with the Sherpa farnity not only as a neighbor, but as a fellow parent a few gears ago when our chUdren attended the same co- operative preschool in Kennydale. Based on all my interactiorns with there, 1 can avow that they are reasonable, responsible, latelligent people. of Work: Job Address: Owner: Tenant: Contractor: •exyr*BiT .4 CITY OF RENTON Buf.ding Permit Permit Number: B940298 Permission is hereby given to do the following described work, according to the conditions hereon and according to the approved plans and specifications pertaining thereto, subject to compliance with the Ordinances of the Gity of Renton. CONSTRUCT NEW GARAGE 2105 DAYTON AVE NE SPENCER SCOTT L 2105 DAYTON AVE NE RENTON WA Contractor License ENMRYC*066TK Contractor Phone 206 352 4370 City License Const Lender: Other Information: Date of Issue 06/1311994 Date of Expiration OU2S/1995 Construction Value $15,360.00 Parcel. Number 2253200095 I hereby certify that no work is to be done except as described above and in approved plans, and that work is to conform to Renton codes and ordinances. UBC Type of Construction V -N Building Haight 0 Story Count 0 Buiiding Sq. Ft. 960 Dwellino Count 1 Occupancy Group Subject to compliance with the Ordinances of the City of Renton and information filed herewith permit is granted_ AAubcant X zi p Building Official SD3214a W00 b -h 0 City of Renton Inspections List for Permit #13940298 0 Permit # B940298 Address: 2105 DAYTON AVE NE Type BUILD Applied: 0511311994 Issued: 06/1311994 Finaied: 08!4211994 Sub -Type SALT Work i0escription CONSTRUCT ANEW GARAGE Status: FMALED People List: _ T EMBRY CONSTRUCTION APPROVED SPENCER SCOTT L OK TO POUR SPENCER,SCOTT APPROVED NM Itern Inspection 10 Footing 140 Final 08101/1994 APPR 11 Foundation 0612211994 APPR 12 Framing 0711211994 APPR 13 Shearwail/Nailing 0710511994 APPR 14 Insulation 15 Roof 0711911994 APPR 16 Ceiling 17 Other 18 Landscape CONTRACTOR 206 352 4370 OWNER APPLJCANT 206 628-5114 NM APPROVED NM OK TO POUR NM APPROVED NM APPROVED NM APPROVED Apud Req N O y R y O y O y o N O y Q N O N O N O Monday, February 28, 2011 11:24:5 A Page 1 of 1 05�� All B/MT B P'14(7w TS tv ie.. G, 9 CITY OF 1ge170111l-7iM Building Permit RCclo-C27 -71- dIUVG ACINI l Permit Number: B080666 Permission is hereby given to do the following described work, according to the conditions hereon and according to the approved pians and specifications pertaining thereto, subject to compliance with the Ordinances of the City of Renton. of Work: INTERIOR REMODEL OF DETACHED SFR GARAGE APPROVAL DOES NOT ALLOW THIS GARAGE TO BECOME AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT Job Address: 2105 DAYTON AVE NE Owner: CM HAN'NAH+SHERPA PASANG 2105 DAYTON AVE NE RENTON WA 98055 Tenant: Contractor. Lender. Information: Date of Issue 02/02/2009 Date of Expiration OSIOU2009 Construction Value $15,M.00 Parcel Number 2253200095 I hereby certify that no work is to be done except as described above and in approved plans, and that work is to conform► to Renton codes and ordinances. r Contractor License Contractor Prone City License UBC Type of Construction Building Height 0 story Count 0 Building Sq. Ft_ €1 Dwelling Count 0 Occupancy Group Subject to compliance with the Ordinances of the City of Renton and information filed herewith perrr. t is granted_ Building Official ature Const Other CITY OF RENTON Inspection record Permit Number: B080666 Call by 4:00 pm for inspections the following day - Phone 425-430-7202 Call before work is concealed or concrete poured Da not pour concrete Cantil approved Do not cover until approved/Do not occupy unt"rl final inspection is complete Nature of Work: LNiTERIOR REMODEL OF DETACBED SFR GARAGE APPROVAL DOES NOT ALLOW THIS GARAGE TO BECOME AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNff Job Address: 2105 DAYTON AVE NE Lot#(Unit#/Bldg�/Tenant: Owner: UBC Type: Sq_ Ft: CHI ILA,NNAH+SHERPA PASANG Height: 0 Occupancy: Contractor: Phone: 0 Inspection Type Date ;lnspector Comments LIFER Ground - 55 3 Footing -.10. i Foundation - I I Frarning - 12/ Shearwall - 13 f Insulation - 14 � Roof - 15 Ceiling - 16 Other - 17 Landscape - IS Da tv tr mAQ 4A SW ` r hE Final - 104 -- Oct 4zm��Oz Z;6er i 1 17 FINALINSPECTION REQUIRED Past this record at job site at all times 11 log •Lxh' 6'T 1CITY OF PENTON MLL Permit Conditions Permit Number: B080666 i: ALL CONSTRUCTION; DEMOLITION AND LAND CLEARING WASTE MUST BE RECYCLED AT A KING COUNTY LICENSED OR APPROVED FACILITY, OR TAKEN TO REGIONAL DISPOSAL FACILITIES_ 2: APPROVAL FOR BUILDING PERMIT ONLY -SEPARATE APPROVAL AND PERMITS REQUIRED FOR ANY MECHANICAL, PLUMBING, ELECTRICAL, FIRE SUPPRESSION OR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SYSTEM, 3: GROUND ELECTRODE SYSTEM (EITHER l OR 2 ARE APPROVED METHODS): I . AN ELECTRODE OF AT LEAST 20 FI' LONGBARE COPPER, SIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH TABLE 250-66,2005 NEC 2. AN ELECTRODE OF 20 FT LONG #4 REBAR (NOT LESS THAN 1/2 INCH IN DIAMETER) AND SIZED PER NEC 250.52 EITHER ONE SHALL BE ENCASED BY AT LEAST 2 INTCHES OF CONCRETE, LOCATED WITHIN AND NEAR THE BOTTOM OF A CONCRETE FOOTING THAT IS IN DIRECT CONTACT WITH THE EARTH, AND SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ALL NEW RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION. 4: AUTHORIZED HOURS OF CONSTRUCTION/ACTIVITY: 7AM-8PM MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY 9AM-8PM SATURDAY NO WORK ALLOWED ON SUNDAY. PER ORDINANCE 4703, 2-2-1998 5: APPROVAL DOES NOT ALLOW THIS GARAGE TO BECOME AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT w CfTY QE RENTON Development Services Division 1056 South Grady Way, Renton WA 380557 (425) 430-7200 www.rentonwa.gov 2006 WSEC RESIDENTIAL COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST THIS CHECKLIST II♦IIUST BE COMPLETED FOR ALL RESIDENTIAL NEW CONSTRUCTION AND ADDITIONS. THIS CHECKLIST ALONG WITH THE APPROVED PLANS MUST BE KEPT ON THE JOB AT ALL TIMES. INSPECTORS CANNOT PERFORM INSPECTIONS WITHOUT IT. 1. About this checklist This checklist is not as involved as it looks, because you only use portions of it for a particular dwelling project. This should be thought of as a tool for learning the residential WSEC requirements. Requirements are grouped by foundation, framing, insulation, and final inspection phases. This not only lets you know what you geed to do but also when the inspector wvill be checidng for particular requirements. Use the checkkst to choose compliance options that best suit the economies and design of your project. If you have questions, you may contact Jan Conklin at (425) 430-7278. 2. Responsibility for information: Although staff members will help you with general questions about completing this checklist, it is ultimately your responsibility to provide detailed information about heating systerns, glazing, insulation, and other building specifications. 3. Page f, Compliance Options: Select one conVliarwe option, your building must match the selected Option requirements without exceptions or substitutions. 4. Pages 2 through S: Provide infbrmatiop as required but do not fill in the columns labeled "COMPLIANCE REQUIRED" or "INSPECTION APPROVED". Since this checklist will be evaluated for completeness and accuracy, you can avoid unnecessary permit delays by carefully providing all.required information. Your may disregard itetm that don't address your particular building or equipment. EFFECTIVE 71112007 C1rY or FUNTON RECEIVE1) ALL RESIDENTIAL OCCUPANCIES DEC 3 0 2903 ALL FUEL TYPES Q:weblpwrd�'servl��[sss'tbuikdingtiYSECR�s.doc Rey fl/[l6 ISDN r a�: CHAPTER 6, PRESCRIPTIVE OPTIONS FOR ALL R OCCUPANCIES INSTRUCTIONS.- 1) NSTRUCTIONS. 1) Carefully review the requirements of each of the Options below. Choose an Option that nest suits your dwelling design. Gia7ing percentage typically determines which Option to choose. Your building roust match the selected Option requirernenfs without exceptions yr substitutions. 2) Disregard components or equipment that don't apply to your prDjed. Your permit will be processed mre efficiently if you provide all of the requested information_ 611 R -Valles are for wood frame asserriiies only *Single rafter or joist vaulted ceilings where beth (a) the distance bets the top of the ceiling and the underside of roof sheathing is less than 12 inches and (b) there is a n tnimurn of 14ncb vented airspace a#lte bove the insulation, option is limited to 5M square feet of ceiling area for any arae dvvelCrag urriL A other sirVe vaulted ceilings shall complyww�lth the "ceiling with attics" requir Getter or joist Q +';b1y�•1€onzs buildiE�OW5 s., ox Pigs 2 of 6 Last Rev6ed 6113107 SINGLE FAMILY MULTI -FAMILY Standard Check appropriate box OPT 1 .n DPT 4 OPT 3 OPT 5 GLAZING MAX: ❑ ❑ % OF FLOOR U -FACTOR— 10% Unlimited 25% Unlimited 4 VERTICAL .32 _35 A0 .35 U -FACTOR -Overhead .58 .58 (Sights) .58 .58 DOOR U -VALUE .20 .20 CEILINGS: .20 .20 WITH ATTICS R-38 R-38 R-38 R-38 VAULTEDtsee R-30 R-30 R-30 R-30 below WALLS: ABOVE GRADE R-15 R-21 R-21 R-21 BELOW GRADE INTERIOR ;,z EXTERIOR R-15 R-10 R-21 R-15 R-15 R-10 R-10 R-10 FLOOR. R-30 R-30 R-30 R-30 SLAB ON GRADE: R-10 R-10 R-10 R-10 R -Valles are for wood frame asserriiies only *Single rafter or joist vaulted ceilings where beth (a) the distance bets the top of the ceiling and the underside of roof sheathing is less than 12 inches and (b) there is a n tnimurn of 14ncb vented airspace a#lte bove the insulation, option is limited to 5M square feet of ceiling area for any arae dvvelCrag urriL A other sirVe vaulted ceilings shall complyww�lth the "ceiling with attics" requir Getter or joist Q +';b1y�•1€onzs buildiE�OW5 s., ox Pigs 2 of 6 Last Rev6ed 6113107 FOUNDATION PHASE 0 COMPLIANCE REQUIRED INSPECTION APPROVED x ❑ 1) Stab insulation RIO requimad_ ❑ a. Exterior - See #21 & #34 b. Interior - from trap of stats to bottom and then horizorvW for a total of 24'. ❑ 2) Radiant Saab insulation R-10 required under whole slab. ❑ ❑ 3) TheFrsal break(s) shall be placed in ttw slab between vanditioned and ❑ unwed space checked below, a. dweliimygarage b. dwelling/connected spa c. stab edge and foundation wall " P -.-MECHANICAL AND,PLUMBING PHASE 4) Exhaust verdlation shall be provided for each dweffng unit as faFltows: 70 Location Minimum CFM Manufacturer andMDdeW CFM A W.G. Kitchen fart 100 CFM Bathroom fan 65 OFM WI+tyL*-: � Bathroom fan 65 CFM Bathroom fan 65 CFM Laundry fare 65 CFM Whole house fan 84 CFM min 1-3 bedrooms 100 CFM min 4 bedroorns) -Zs- 15` (%-Nct 120 CFM thin 5 bedrooms • Ili bole house fan rewired in all new housesldwellinEg units and all additions >500 square feet 5) Whole house fan: ❑ Location 27A- Some rating (A W.G.) a. Whole house fan: to be controlled by a readily accessible 24-hour clock timer with capability of continuous operation, manual and automatic controls set to exhaust 8 hours }ger day. b_ Vllhole house -fun shall be fistingltabeled "fir cordinuous use c. Whole house fan wiring for control routed to cen ral location d. Whole house fans shall be labeled 'Odd ie Home Venflation (see operating instructionsr 6) Mechanical exhaust fan ducts shall be > 4" and prop" sued. 7) MechankaJ exhaust fan ducts shad be bsulated to R-4 in unctsnditkned spaces. 8) Mechanical fresh air supply ducts shatl be 'insulated its R-4 in conditioned spaces.. Q wei�tp�s vsen lfor s isu ctirfgl�'SECAes.dcic Page 3 of 6 last Re ed 61131417 Provide lit loss calculations fcx- heating system sizing. Heating system requirements Will be met with the following: MT Model # Oust Fijel Type Efficiency rating (AFUEp��--y- 10) SuP'pty and return air ducts shall have sealed joints and seams in unconditioned spaces. Tapes and mastics listed its accordance with UL181A or 8 — No DUCT TAPE PERMITTED 11) HVAC plenums, supply, and retum air duds insulated to R-8. 12) Water waters stroll have; F]a. SeParate POWer, or gas shut -o# b. 1987 NAECA label on tank' c. Non-sx Pr ssible R-10 pad (eleetr;ic in ur&.ated spades or ars concrete rete floors) d- TeMPerattrre setting of 12OF FRAMING PHASE 13) All structural panels such as plywc+od, Particle board, wafer board, and oriented strand ❑ board shall be labeled "EXPOSURE r T-XTERIQR" or "HUD APPROVED". 14) Glazing efficiency required shah be- U<.32 e: �1 TUB .32 Options 1 —tl< -35 Option%2, .4 & 5 `U< .4Q Options 3 L � 1 15) Window speatic.ations: ❑ 15) Skylight specifications -- Maximum U -factor = .58 # Of 5 I Manufacturer U -Factor x C 17) Allowed glazing area is derived try drv'idng the total glazing area of L,EJby the total floor area of S4 I T 0 Fr This value cannot exceed the glazing pem tage of your opfion: 10% Option 1 < 25% Option 3 1< Un iced Option 4 & 5 Glazing air leakage measures stmt be met as follows; Fixed site bur, stops with sealant or caulking all amts dl OPem ing site build weather-stripped with doserllatch. 7 9) #rrsulafion shall be placed in concealed Places such as: t) @eWid shwerAub 2) Behind parfitton sWsloomals M F page 4 of & Last ReWwd 6M 3107 l`laors: ❑ Plywood urlexterior glue D Poly n 4 Mill ❑ Backed batts Walls: ❑ Poty : 4 Mill Face -stapled backed batts ❑ PVA paint ❑ Not required where ventilation space > 12" above insulation ❑ Fane: staMed backed bads ❑ Poly ? 4 Mill "fg- IIVA paint FINAL PHASE FOR FINAL INSPECTION: COVERS TO GE REMOVED FROM EXHAUST FANS ANIS CAN LIGHTS SO INSPECTOR CAN VERIFY COMPLIANCE WITH CODE �L298Enlwe;ope floors shelf be insulatedto I,-30 all options 2) Attic ceilings shall be insulated to R-38 all Options 30 erns stsall meet ❑ U-valr� = 20 (Metal insulated or fiberglass instt#aied mly #2) U do raat meet this u -value) One exempt door allowed-- #3) 31) Recessed fighting fixtures shall be IG rated and labeled urxier ASTM E283 with tested air leakage < 2.0 GF&4 no sloes or hales in cans, caulked or seated betvueen can and ceiling 32) Fresh air sh*j be provided for each dwelling unit as fall s; ❑ Tented, screened, controllable, thro wall port El Yer�# window karnes Integrated vvi#f] a t;antral fon t which delivers outside makeup air through dung system and requires furnacifk beconIT011ed by a timer set at 8 hoursfday 33) Fresh air shall be provided for each d+vell'r t -cit as €ollom, 1) Each bedroom 3) C]veraf# living area 2) Each Recreation Rom 4) ter " frabitable' rooms Q�+'+���1f�rr6rb�ilcl3r�gl�vsF�Itrs,dor age 5 of 6 Lag Revised &IW7 61 2G) Standard air leakage is complete acrd installed ;n the fallowing_El 1) between sraie platelsu€floors 2) wiriraglp3urerbinxg/duct register penetration 3) rim joistslmW sills (heated lower floors) 4) partition sixes penetrations 5) around window/door frames INSULATION PHASE 21 } Exterior slab insu#aiion $half be R-10 and approved for below grade use. 22)1tlJ ifis, hicluding rim joists, shall be h1sulated to, ElR-15Option 1 .x-21 Qptions 3 - 5 23) Interior below grade walls shall be insulated to: ❑ ❑ R-15 Options 1, 3& 5 ❑ R-21 Option 4 Ej24) Singh Rafter or Joist vaulted ceilings shall be insulated to R-30. ❑ SkYlight ❑ ) waft insul'atiart egUivalent to the wall R -values. 26) Insulation baffles shall be placed in ceilin to mai ,� g5 maintain at least 1 verttila#ion space and extents 6" vertically above batts or 12" vertically above loosefr#1 insulation, 27) Vapor retarders shall be installed toward the warm surface Select one option for fk)ors, walls, and ceilings: l`laors: ❑ Plywood urlexterior glue D Poly n 4 Mill ❑ Backed batts Walls: ❑ Poty : 4 Mill Face -stapled backed batts ❑ PVA paint ❑ Not required where ventilation space > 12" above insulation ❑ Fane: staMed backed bads ❑ Poly ? 4 Mill "fg- IIVA paint FINAL PHASE FOR FINAL INSPECTION: COVERS TO GE REMOVED FROM EXHAUST FANS ANIS CAN LIGHTS SO INSPECTOR CAN VERIFY COMPLIANCE WITH CODE �L298Enlwe;ope floors shelf be insulatedto I,-30 all options 2) Attic ceilings shall be insulated to R-38 all Options 30 erns stsall meet ❑ U-valr� = 20 (Metal insulated or fiberglass instt#aied mly #2) U do raat meet this u -value) One exempt door allowed-- #3) 31) Recessed fighting fixtures shall be IG rated and labeled urxier ASTM E283 with tested air leakage < 2.0 GF&4 no sloes or hales in cans, caulked or seated betvueen can and ceiling 32) Fresh air sh*j be provided for each dwelling unit as fall s; ❑ Tented, screened, controllable, thro wall port El Yer�# window karnes Integrated vvi#f] a t;antral fon t which delivers outside makeup air through dung system and requires furnacifk beconIT011ed by a timer set at 8 hoursfday 33) Fresh air shall be provided for each d+vell'r t -cit as €ollom, 1) Each bedroom 3) C]veraf# living area 2) Each Recreation Rom 4) ter " frabitable' rooms Q�+'+���1f�rr6rb�ilcl3r�gl�vsF�Itrs,dor age 5 of 6 Lag Revised &IW7 61 ❑ 34) Exposed foam insulation shall comply as follows. Protected w1metal or plastic flashing that extends be grade ❑ �1 Be approved for su6grade, exterior use & properly installed. w) Airflow between fresh air ports and whole house fan ensured by "/V undercut dooWgrilis. ❑ Eq ----36) Woseftll insulation OK if maximum ceiling slope not > 3 in 12 and there is —>30" of near ❑ distance front top of bottom chord to underside of roof sheathing at the roof ridge_ ❑ 37) 6 mil black poly ground cover, lapped 12" at joints ❑ 38) Clearances shall meet listed, rninicrnms between irtsulat9on and chimney ❑ 39) Aft-- hatch insulated to ceiiting R -value and weather-stripped. ❑ 40) Attic access shall have wood dam to retain loose -fill insuL-bon_ ❑] 41) All exterior doors to be weatiier-stripped. ❑ 42) Heat pump thermostat stall have programmable capability. F] —a-43) - a 43) Caulking is installed around !right fixtures and flue penetrafions. ❑ ,-�44) Service hot & cold water piping to be insulated to R-4 in unconditioned spaces. ❑ Q45) Service recirculation hot water piping shall be insutated per code. ❑ ❑ 46) Supply ducts shall have volume dampers to Wance the system. ❑ --4�1-47) Thermostat for each HVAC systern wM range of 5.5-75 F_ ❑ 48) Readily accessible, automatic or manual means provided to restrict or shat -cuff heating input to each zone or flm ❑ �49) Ba&up heat prohlbits simu#taneous operatinn of primary system_ ❑ 0) Spot exhaust fans to have timer, dehumidfstat, or switch. ❑ 51) Showers and lavatories shalt limit flow to c 3.0 gals per minute. - ❑ ❑ 52) Swiitnming pools shall have: a) Readily accessible ON/OFF SmIch to allow sung off the beater or pump b) Pool Cover c) PiPirtg insulation per code d) Controls to allow temperature range down to 65 degrees F ❑ 53) All 0reptaces shall have: 6 in Ela) sq comb. aur supply duct w damper wed to fire box b) Tight Ming ceramic glass or metal doors c) Tight fitting flue clamper ❑ 54) Sohd fuel burning appliances shat! have: a) Tight fitting ❑ ceramic glass rar metal doors b) Outside carnbustion air source directly connected to fire box c) Exceptions - see code 54 Outdoor lighting pemounted to a reslderrtiai buiilitlg shall be high e ffkaW_ EJ PLAN REVIEWER APPROVAL: DATE: FINAL INSPECTION APPROVED: INSPECTED BY: DATE: �=��P'ssnlfrntttslbni{dinglW3E�es_doe F've 6 of C Lao Revised 6113!(17 z z @ fl �0 1 S o P z 0 z D ME -, p P Ul Sp � C (0 r Q 3 6 TO O 10 3 S i P 0< 3 B O < 7 3 T Q ro p Q ro n ;0c n �0- h A D O n iS p S < Q D A P 4, lR Q Cy{6C�� � m yinr CAuEy-s- �AnnO=�ryi�'i �{migP mg�wo �H- mr1 a O % oy m� z y 2 MC) mm �m coca mz } 24` Sheivirtg As Shawn i•iG1 m j7L�ll—iiWJjJ Ch l tib k 6 LJ 47 = to P (N to 7"i b .- C o 0 cnx t1 < s HCl � � [JF td b r�r Af( N N rt?CD ED 70 m z p D D fA CT' Q D f�*i N o LFI < -i M 'A c z z A iT H b m � r ri x } 24` Sheivirtg As Shawn i•iG1 m j7L�ll—iiWJjJ Ch l tib k 6 LJ 47 = to P (N to 7"i b .- C o < s HCl IL �n 9GLpyi 1 p o 24' Sheluing As Shown z 2 � r � < s HCl Z? m [Cl Rin y� td b r�r Af( A Z M rn t7 �r 3 < m< i a N N 0 a IL R o y� z p A iT H b m � r ri x 4 z z rn z m n REMDVE EXISTNG 16' GARAGE DMR o # +r� AmD -RAw IN VITH 2X6 STUDS ❑N NEW CJINCRETE HLDCK WALL VITH � WiRD[rw AMO MaR AS SHDWN Ca ? m Sdsp Slider _.. y 7 T P �^'ta m--rsw�ao-tn fZ?y�yx x ti^�s *(-rz (uiumymr Ezsaxxx�x^xs �mi}p�E�az b• .c yay- ir-�i i pzCE�czi� vc+F a rx z c�m �E 9to�� � s- nrr+oa E � m�rc(Pn YR- d�w•-z mea z�y x(a dA mr r �m AH �Q Nx f wz m y n o xn u r7 �- m�E �yy.�a_ � X� l.Fif"'} �R �}} (f'j' � — y y ., � jII �� � � 1:. • yi �((4 +i�y7 ..; Sj j}r v f i # I S � f� a } 3 � a ,. yyfy X r 6 Z f � n 64 q r 4 BUILDEWS COPY • THIS SET OF APPROVED PLANS MUST BE ON THE .AOR AT ALL TIMES . 13URING CONSTRUCTION. THIS BUILDING IS NOT TO BE OCCUPIED UNTIL AFTER FINAL MSPECTION BY €?ECEIPT OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. a a APPROVAL SHALL NOT RE C€)NSTRUED AS T14E AUTHORMY TO ViOLAT'E OR CANCEL /ANY PROVISIONS OF CODES, ORDINANCES, OR OTKER REGU5ATEO S ENFO EO BY THIS CITY �r� A€�Pi�ut<t S PERMITS � � f? .• Xy i 4 M f� r H .rF � r 4 BUILDEWS COPY • THIS SET OF APPROVED PLANS MUST BE ON THE .AOR AT ALL TIMES . 13URING CONSTRUCTION. THIS BUILDING IS NOT TO BE OCCUPIED UNTIL AFTER FINAL MSPECTION BY €?ECEIPT OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. a a APPROVAL SHALL NOT RE C€)NSTRUED AS T14E AUTHORMY TO ViOLAT'E OR CANCEL /ANY PROVISIONS OF CODES, ORDINANCES, OR OTKER REGU5ATEO S ENFO EO BY THIS CITY �r� A€�Pi�ut<t S PERMITS � � f? .• Xy i f 1 L RCITY OF RENTON � f► Electrical Permit Permit Number: E090130 Permission is hereby given to do the following described work, according to the conditions hereon and according to the approved plans and specifications pertaining thereto, subject to compliance vAth the Ordinances of the City of Renton. Nature of Work: INSTALL WIRING IN GARAGE RENOVATION Job Address: 2105 DAYTON AVE NE Ower: Cris HANNAH+SHERPA P A SANG 2ID5 DAYTON AVE iV'E RENTON WA 98055 Tenant: Contractor: Other Information: Date of Issue 02/09/2009 Date of Expiration 08/08/2009 Construction Value .5500.00 Parcel Number 2253200095 I hereby certify that no work is to be done except as described above and in approved plans, and that work is to conform. to Renton codes and ordinances. e1tca1 Poi bh r Contractor License Contractor Phone City License Subject to compliance with the Ordinances of the City of Renton and information filed herewith permit is granted. Building Official 520.0 UL BE CHARGED FOR COPIES OF LOST OR DAMAGED PERMITS CITY OF REI' TON lY" %OIL Ilnspection Record PerraitNttmber: E090130 24 HOUR NOTICE REQUIRED FOR ALL INSPECTIONS Cali by 4:00 pm for inspections the following day - Phone 425-430-7202 Cala before work is concealed or concrete poured/Do not pour concrete until approved Cao not cover until approvedlDo not occupy until Final inspection is complete Nature of Work: INSTALL WHUNG IN GARAGE RENOVATION Job Address: 2105 DAYTON AVE NE LoWUnit#B l dgt-f/Tenant_ Owner: CHI HA.NNAH+SHERPA PASANG Contractor: Phone: Ins ection Type Date luspeetor Comments ' Temporary Power - 19 Underground - 20 I I Under Slab - 22 I Rouab-In Conduit - I Walls - 23 Rough -in Wiring - 21 - Fire Alarm Wiring -24 Fire Alarm Panel - 26 i I Electric Service - 27 Rough -in Conduit - �Ceiling -28 Electrical - 29 4 Low Voltage - Walls - 66 i Low Voltage -Ceiling -67 1 Imo'' Final - 100-Y FFgAL PiSPECTION R.H,[?131RED Post this record at job site at all: times Nature of Work: Job Address: Owner: Tenant: Contractor: ! C Aibt r . & CITY OF RENTON i Mechanical Permit Permit Number: MQ9a321 Permission is hereby given to do the folloAtring described work, according to the conditions hereon and according to the approved plans and specifications pertaining thereto, subject to compliance with the Ordinances of the City of Renton. INSTALL EXHAUST FAN IN BATHROOM AT SFR 2105 DAYTON AVE NF CHI HANNAH+SHERPA PASANG 2105 DAYTON AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 Other Information: Date of Issue 09/14/2009 Date of Expiration 03/1.312010 Construction Value $140.00 Parcel Number 2253200095 Renton Job No I hereby certify that no work is to be done except as described above and in approved plans, and that work is to conform. to Renton codes and ordinances. Contractor License Contractor Phone City License Subject to compliance with the Ordinances of the City of Renton and information filed herewith permit is granted. % Building Official $20.O NVML DE CHARGED FOR COPIES OF LOST OR DAMAGED PERMTS mechDl 1101 a1i s • CITY OF RENTON "` Inspection Record Permit Number: M09032'1 24 HOUR NOTICE REQUIRED FOR ALL INSPECTIONS Call by 4:00 pm for inspections the following day - Phone 425-430-7202 Calf before work is concealed or concrete pouredfDo not poor concrete until approved Do not cover until approvedfDo not occupy until final inspection is complete 2�cC16 '7113-3 Nature of Work: INSTALL EXHAUST FAN IN BATHROOM AT SFR Job Address: 2105 DAYTON AVE NE Lot#,'Unit fBldg1&Tenant: Owner: CHI HANNAH+SHERPA PASANG Contractor: Phone: Total Pees Paid: $53.00 Inspection Type Date Inspector lComments - -- Gas Piping -- 37 Furnace - 30 j Heat Pum - 31 Bailer - 34 .Fireplace - 35 Unit Heater - 36 Grease Hood - 32 ; ,Mechanical - 38 j Ducts - 39 AIC System - 50 ' s Exhaust Fans - 51 i Process Piping - 52 Final - 100 FINAL INSPECTION REQUIRED Post this record at job site at all times � �,� pit �� � • CITY OF R.ENTON Plumbing Permit Permit Number: P090051 Permission is hereby given to do the following described work, according to the conditions hereon and according to the approved plans and specifications pertaining thereto, subject to compliance with the Ordinances of the City of Renton. Nature of Word:: Job Address: Owner: Tenant Contractor: Other Information: Date of Issue Date of Expiration Construction Value Parcel Number INSTALL PLUMBING LST DETACHED GARAGE RENOVATION - 5 FM --RES 2105 DAYTON AVE NE CHI HANNAH+SHERPA PASANG 2105 DAYTON AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 02/09/2009 08/08/2009 $3,000.00 2253200095 I hereby certify that no work is to be done except as described above and in approved plans, and that work is to conform to Renton codes and ordinances_ p1=01 1/01 bh Contractor License Contractor Phone City License Subject to compliance with the Ordinances of the City of Renton and information filed herewith pe mit is granted. Building Oficial v $20.00 WILL BE CHARGED FOR COPIES OF LOST OR STOLEN PERMITS n - CITY OF PENTON � ' �� 0 ` Z/1 c t Z eciian Record Permit Number-- P090051 24 HOUR NOTICE REQUIRED FOP, ALL INSPECTIONS Call by 4.00 pm for inspections the following day - Phone 425-430-7202 { Carl before work is concealed or concrete poured/Do not pour concrete until approved Do not cover until approvedfDo not occupy until final inspection is cornpiete Nature of Work: INSTALL PLUNFBING IN DETACHED GARAGE RENOVATION - 5 FIXTURES .rob Address: 2105 DAY MN AVB NE Lot#,1Tnit4/B1dg#/Tenant: Owner: CM HAIVNAH+SHERPA PASANG Contractor: Phone. Total Fees Paid- ; S85.00 Inspection Type JDate Inspector Comments t Underground W & V -40 E - C -o rl I , Water Service-'vlQter to } 'Building - 41 { , 1 Rough -in W & V - 42 Rough -in Water - 43 '0 Gas Piping - 37 Irrigation System - 44 Add Greastrap - 45 Plumbing - 49 Back low Prevention -46 Water Heater - 47 Medical Gas Pi Ing - 48 I mss, S /rte Awl Final - 100 Z r "'. 3 b E !! FINAL INSPECTION REQUIRED /fes Post this record at job site at all tikrnes DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY °� AND ECONOW DEVELOPMENT WE M D R A N D U M DATE: May 13, 2010 (Revised May 21, 2010) TO: Pre -Application File No. 10-016 FROM: Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner SUBJECT; pasang Sherpa - ADU General. We have completed a preliminary review of the pre -application for the above - referenced development proposal- The following comments on development and permitting issues are based on the pre-appfication submittals masse to the City of Renton by the applicant and the codes in effect on the date of review. The applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision -makers (e -g., Hearing Examiner, Community & Economic Development Administrator, Public Works Administrator, Planning Director, Development Services Director, and City Council). Review comments may also need to be revised based an site planning and other design changes required by City staff or made by the applicant. The applicant is encouraged to review all applicable sections of the Renton Municipal Code. The Development Regulations are available for purchase for $50.00 plus tax, from the Finance Division on the first floor of City Nall or online at www.rentonwa.gov Project Proposal: The subject property is located at 2105 Dayton Ave NE. The project site totals 0.795 acres in area and is zoned Residential -S dwelling units per net acre (11-8), The subject site contains an existing 1,380 square foot single family residence (to remain) and a 960 square foot detached garage that has been converted to medical hardship through a Temporary Use Permit. The applicant is proposing to convert the former detached garage into an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). Current Use: A 1,380 square foot single family residence and a 460 square foot detached garage currently exist on the property. Zoning/Density Requirements: — The subject property is located within the R-8 zoning designation. ADU's are allowed as an accessory use to a detached single-family dwelling with an Administrative Conditional Use Permit. ADU's are subject to the development standards applicable to primary structures and consistent with the architectural character of the primary structure. The property owner is also responsible for filing an affidavit affirming that the owner will occupy the principal dwelling or the ADU. As a note ADU's are not included in density calculations. Development Standards: The project would be subject to RMC 4-2-110A, "Development Standards for Residential Zoning Designations (Primary and Attached Accessory Structures) and RMC 4-2-110B, Development Standards for Residential Development (Detached Accessory Buildings) effective at the time of complete application. A copy of these standards is included. is\rtim\rtim\preapps�10-016 (r$ adu modular home)-doc Pasang Sherpa - ADU, PRE*6 Page 2 of 3 May 13, 2010 (Revised May 21, 20 10) Buildin Standards — The R-8 zone allows a maximum building coverage of 353 of the lot area or 2,500 square feet, whichever is greater for lots over 5,DOD square feet in size. I_ats under 5,000 square feet in size are permitted a maximum building coverage of 50% of the lot area_ Building heights are restricted to 30 feet for the primary structure and accessory dwelling units. Elevations and lot coverage calculations were not provided with the pre -application materials. The applicant will be required at the time of formai land use application to provide elevations and lot coverage calculations for the subject site. The R-8 zone permits one accessory structure per residential structure with a maximum of 1,QDD square feet provided it is architecturally consistent with the principal structure. The maximum size of an accessory dwelling unit is 800 square feet. The maximum floor area of all accessory buildings shall not be greater than the floor area of the primary residential use. The submitted site plan indicates that the existing residence is 1,380 square feet, the detached garage/proposed ADU is 960 square feet in size. The square footage of the existing garagefproposed ADU exceeds the SOU square foot requirement. The opplicont would be required to reduce the she of the structure or request an Administrative Variance. Setbacks -- Setbacks are the minimum required distance between the building footprint and the property line and any private access easement. The required minimum setbacks for accessory dwelling units in the R-8 zone are: ARU Setbacks Front Yard Accessory structures are not permitters within required front yards or side yards along streets. Rear Yard Determined through administrative review, to be no less than 5 - feet and no greater than 20 -feet Side Yard 5 -feet Between Structures 6 -feet Based on the Site Plan provided it is unclear where the modular home is/would be sited. The applicant would be required to comply with the setback requirements of the zone_ Access/Parking: Each unit is required to accommodate off street parking for a minimum of two vehicles. Garages and carports must provide a minimum of 24 ft, of back -out room, either on site or counting improved alley surface or other improved right-of-way surface- The applicant Will be required at the time of formal land use application to provide detailed parking information. Significant. Tree Retention: If significant trees (greater than 6 -inch caliper) are proposed to be removed a tree inventory and a tree retention pian along with a tree retention worksheet shall be provided with the formal land use application. The tree retention plan must show preservation of at least 10 percent of significant trees, and indicate how proposed building footprints would be sited to accommodate preservation of significant trees that would be retained. if the trees cannot be retained, they may be replaced with minimum 2 inch caliper trees at a ratio of sic to one. i:�rtim�rtim reapps�l4 SIS (r8 adu modular home).doc 0 9 Pasang Sherpa -ADU, PRE ID -015 Page 3 of 3 May 13, 2010 (Revised May 21, 2010) Critical Areas: There appears to be no critical areas on site. If there is any indication of critical areas on the site, this must be disclosed to the City prior to development and appropriate studies must be undertaken. Environmental Review: The project is Categorically Exempt from SEPA requirements and, therefore, Environmental Review would not be required. Permit Requirements, accessory dwelling amts in the R-8 zone require the approval of all Administrative Conditional Use Permit. The Conditional Use Permit review would be accomplished within an estimated time frame of 6 to 8 weeks. The fee for the Administrative Conditional Use Permit is $2,000.013. If an Admirrist=lve Variance is needed it can be reviewed concurrently with the Administrative Conditional Use permit in the estimate time frame above. The fee for the Variance is $1,200.00. In addition, construction and building permits may be required_ Staff may be supportive of the proposed accessary dwelling unit as well as an Administrative Variance if the following were accomplished: • Removal of the carport on the south side of the proposed ADU structure. • Enhance the front entrance of the proposed ADU. • Place a skirt at the base of the proposed ADU • Paint the area, once occupied by the garage door, to match the remainder of the fagade. The applicant is encouraged to provide a conceptual design for the ADU to the city onion to formal submittal Fees: Building and construction permit fees may be required_ Transportation and fire mitigation fees are not required for accessory dwelling units. Renton School District Impact Fees became effective on January 18, 2010. The fees are $1,2S8.00 for each new multi -family unit. Accessory dwelling units are considered multi -family units for the purposes of applying school impact fees. School impact fees are payable at the time of building permit issuance. A handout listing all of the City's Development related fees is attached for your review. Expiration. Upon approval, the conditional use permit is valid for two years with a possible one year extension. i.%rU %rtim\preapps�10-016 (r8 adu modular hame).doc pity NOTICE OF APPLICATION A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Depaftment of Community & Economic Development (CED) — Planning Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: PROJECT NAME/NUMBER: January 5, 2011 Sherpa ADU / LUAID-088, CU -A, V-A PROJECT DESCRIPTION- The appficartt subrrtitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit and Variance for the coversion of an existing strut ilre into an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). The subject property is located at 2105 Dayton Ave NE. The project site totals 0.795 acres in area and is zoned Residential -8 dwelling units per net acre (R-8). The subject site contains an existing 1,380 square foot single family residence (to remain) and a 960 square foot detached garage/recreation room. A Conditional Use Permit is required for the conversion of the detached garage%recreation room into an ADU. A variance is requested in order to exceed the 800 foot threshold for accessory dwelling units. Access would be provided via a seperate curb cert from Dayton Ave NE. There are no critical areas on site. PROJECT LOCATION: 2105 Dayton Avenue NE PUBLIC APPROVALS: Administrative Conditional Use Permit and Administrative Variance approval APPLICANT/PRD}ECT CONTACT PERSON: Pasan Sherpa; 2105 Dayton Avenue NE; Renton, WA 98056 PUBLIC HERRING: N/A Comments on the above application must be sufamitted in writing to 11.9.cale Ttriirrrrons, Assdciate Planner, Department of Community & Economic Development, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 38007, by 5:00 p.m. on January 19, 2010. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to -be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact the Project Manager at (425) 430-7219. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a parry of retard and will be notified of any decision on this project. if you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, CED, Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. File game / No_: Sherpa ADU / LUA10-088, CU -A, V-A NAME_ MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE 110_: To: Chip Vincent— City of Renton Planning Director Rocale Tirnmons — Planning Department G. rofRINTorq RECENED JAN 21 2011 BUILDING DIVIS101rl We the undersigned strongly oppose the variance being considered by the city at 2105 Dayton Ave. N.E. This building was originally built to be a storage garage and shop. The current resident has gone ahead and made this into a residence that doesn't meet the city code for a second residence on this property and has also been occupied since October 1�, 2010. He has tried to circumvent the remodeling permit by not stating the true purpose of this project. Here are some of the reasons for our objection to this'variance. 1. Increased traffic and parking on Dayton Ave. N.E. 2_ We believe that this will cause a drop in our property values_ 3. This occupant infringes on the property line driving between the houses. 4. This occupant doesn't follow the runes and codes set forth by the City of Renton_ 5. We're concerned aboutour Sewer LID, whether he will be assessed. G. Several of us have lived here. for 50 years and don't wart to see our neighborhood degraded. 7. We feel the city has failed us allowing this project to go on knowing it doesn't meet city codes for the size and for the building to be occupied since October 15t, 2010. The city was notified (code compliance) several times during this project. 8. We believe this might set a precedent for our area.. 9. These signatures are all from home owners, not renters. 10. Any questions regarding this matter please contact Gary Newton at 425- 255-6965. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. EXHIBIT 5 0 . Date. March 02, 2011 To: Administrator (Decision -Mager) Chip Vincent-- amity of Renton Plying Director Rocale Tina om —Associate Planner We, the neighbors in the vicinity of the house at 2105 Dayton Ave lE are pleased to be given an opportunity by the city to provide our input on the Sherpa Accessory Dwelling Unit project. As neighbors, we all strive to make our neighborhood sustainable and livable. According to goal seven of the City of Renton Comprehensive F'lan Land Use Element Gods, it calls for new development and neighborhoods in the City that; • Contribute to a strong sense of community and neighborhood identity; • Offer a variety of housing types for a population diverse in age, income, and lifestyle, ■ Are varied or unique in character. We see that the Sherpa's proposed ADU project is align with the city, ttie neighborhood, and Sherpa family values and cultural diversity. By having an ADU, the Sherpas plan to maintain their strong connection to their community and extended wily. Taking care of their aging elders and other members is a value that they live by and the ADU would allow their family members to have independence and lower their housing cost. Other alternatives for talcing care of their fauailies such as nursing homes are unthinkable, Therefore we, the undersigned strongly support the Sherpa- family's request for the reconsideration of the decision on the variance made on February 23, 2011 at 2105 Dayton Ave NE. By granting the variance for this project we believe it will not set precedents for the city to grant similar request for other houses in our area M- the future as the current situation is unique to the Shen residence. Their detached 960sq ft_ garage was lilt in 199,4. In 2009, it was converted into a recreation room (with a bathroom, two rooms, one for office space and one for storage.) This structure as it stands is compatible with the neighborhood.. Because this structure has existed for 17 years, none of us possess a similar situation and would request for a variance that exceed the 800 sq feet_ It seems perfectly fair to us that Mr_ Sherpa's building should be allowed a variance, but that any ADUs we as his neighbors may build in the future should be limited'to the variance. We in no way feel that this would be dismrimiaartory or unfair to us. We feel reassured that the city has been working with the family to make sure that they can exercise their home ownership rights to establish a mother in law cottage and at the same time following city codes. Also, the consensus of the neighbors' concerns of exhibit 5 were all addressed in the approval of the ADI]. We believe the Sherpa family have every interest to improve the neighborhood and to be a part of the neighborhood that they plan to raise their children in. Thank you for taking this matter into consideration. Please see the enclosed petition for the Sherpa ADU. If you have any questions, please contact Colleen Addi. n at (425) 228-620 . 41 Lo 0 4- 0 LL c sma c 0 0 0 Neighborhood Rebuttal of Exhibit 5 These rebuttals reflect multiple neighborhood conversations among the signers of the petition. These conversations generated a common consensus which was put into writing by Andrea Bufort. We dispute the weight of the signatures on Exhibit 5 for three reasons. First, it was received by the city after the deadline. Second, most of the signatories have not seen N1r. Sherpa's property or data. (For example, we spoke to one signer who thought Mr. Sherpa had built a two-story home in his back yard because she could see the top of a tree house.) Third, most of Exhibit 5's conclusions are based on fears instead 'of facts_ We address each assertion below. Assertion X. Increased traffic and parking on Dayton Ave N.E. At most there would be one or two additional cars. This is insignificant, especially since our neighborhood recently lost the equivalent amount of daily traffic due to local teens going off to college. Assertion 2. We believe this will cause a drop in our property values. In fact, TrueBuiltHome.com states that "The addition of an ADU can increase the current and resale value of the property-.... A secondary rental unit or "guest house" can be very attractive to potential buyers." And rising property value on one home is Helpful to all the properties in the neighborhood- Assertion eighborhood Assertion 3. This occupant infringes on the property The driving between the houses. There is only one place without a fence between the two homes. This opening vias left by Mr. Sherpa as a courtesy access point for the person who is rnaking the complaint. The person snaking the complaint regularly drives on Mr. Sherpa's property to get to his own back yard. And yet he is upset about Mr. Sherpa's tire occasionally accidentally straying over the line the other direction_ Assertion 4. This occupant doesn't follow the rules and codes set forth by the City of Renton. Mr. Sherpa admits that there were occasional problems due to misunderstanding or lack of knowledge. Mr. Sherpa was fairly new to remodeling, there was a language barrier, and building codes can be difficult for first -timers to understand_ But as soon as the City notified him about each problem., he fixed it. We have seen substantial evidence that Mr. Sherpa worked closely with the City of Renton to make sure he was following the rules. This effort included four face- to-face meetings with city workers throughout the course of the remodel, as well as numerous phone calls and e-mails. 0 0 Assertion 5. We're concerned about our Sewer LID, whether he will be assessed. The out -building in question was already in existence when the entire property was assessed. An ADU cannot be sold separately from the property. It remains part of the same tax parcel. Assertion 6. Several of us have lived here for 50 years and don't want to see our neighborhood degraded. We do not know what degradation they fear. The Sherpas are constantly improving. their property, and therefore improving the entire neighborhood by extension Assertion 7. We feel the city has failed us allowing this project to go on. * knowing it doesn't meet the city codes for the size • and for the building to be occupied since October 1s4 2010 Two points here: First, although the city was very careful in writing to state that the work they were doing with Mr_ Sherpa did not constitute ADU approval with variance, he was given several verbal assurances that it would go through at its original. size. So unless they change their ruling, the city has actually seriously failed 1Mr. Sherpa_ Second, the building is not currently occupied. Assertion S. We believe this might set a precedent for our area. We disagree. Mr_ Sherpa's building and most of his remodel pre -date the City's ADU codification- Approval would not set a precedent for new buildings_ It might help set precedent for other pre-existing outbuildings. And so it should It does not make sense to partially demolish extant buildings to meet the rigors of new code. Demolition is inefficient, it could allow harmfid toxics into the air, soil, and water from old building materials, and it is a waste of the City's financial and human resources. Our citizens' efforts are better spent in building up our city, not in arbitrarily tearing chunks of it down. Assertion 9. These signatures are all from home owners, not renters. The same is true of all of our signatures too. Most of us did not bother to write anything when we received the ADU notice, simply because we had no problem with it, and we didn't imagine it would be denied. We are the majority who did not know that our voice was needed, or we would have stood up to be counted in the beginning. Well we are standing up now. Neighborhood Rebuttal of City's Variance Refusal 0 0 Neighborhood Rebuttal of City's Variance Refusal We completely disagree with the City's interpretation and application of the ADU variance criteria regarding Mr. Sherpa's application. Consistency with Variance Criteria Section 4-9-25OE5 A_ We dispute the city's findings. Mr_ Sherpa suffers undue hardship in this matter precisely becausc of special circumstances applicable to the subject property_ To wit, the building he converted has been the current size and shape on the property for the past 17 years. It was in existence before Mr. Sherpa's purchase of the property. Therefore it counts as a preexisting property characteristic. In addition, an architect has stated that partial demolition could impact the footings and roof of the structure, which in itself is an undue hardship. Partial demolition also places an onerous financial and practical burden on Mr_ Sherpa. The city simply decided that the financial burden would not be too heavy without stating any kind of objective criteria on which they base that opinion. And finally this denial deprives Mr. Sherpa of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity. None of the rest of us have pre- existing structures we could be asked to partially demolish to meet new code_ Why should he suffer unduly because of his unique circumstances? B_ We agree with the city's finding that granting of the variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity. C. We disagree with the city that approval of this variance would constitute a grant of special privilege. Both the size and remodel of the proposed ADU pre -date the City of Renton's ADU codification. It seems perfectly fair to us that Mr. Sherpa's building, which pre -dates the code, should be allowed a variance, but that any ADUs we as his neighbors build from scratch should be limited to the code. We in no way feel that this would be discriminatory or unfair to us. D. We disagree with the City that this approval is not the minimum variance, and that Mr_ Sherpa should demolish a portion of his building. Partial demolition is unnecessary, illogical, inefficient, potentially toxic, and a waste of Mr. Sherpa's time and resources. In addition, it would lower the benefit of the ADU to his, and by extension our property values. It could also cause the building to look unsightly, and according to an architect could affect the building's footings -and roof: We see no benefit at all to demolition, except that the City could claim adherence to the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law. The variance requested is precisely the minimum needed for reasonable application of the law to Unique circumstances. VYI- MAR 0 9 2011 RECEVVED Date: March 02, 2011 { � � -- �'���Qr��� To: Administrator (Decision-Maker)�'l Chip Vincent—City of Renton Planning Director – fD . z Ll- Rocale Timmons ---Associate Planner We, the neighbors in the vicinity of the house at 2105 Dayton Ave NE are pleased to be given an opportunity by the city to provide our input on the Sherpa Accessory Dwelling Unit project. As neighbors, we all strive to make our neighborhood sustainable and livable. According to goal seven of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Goals, it calls for new development and neighborhoods in the City that: • Contribute to a strong sense of community and neighborhood identity; • Offer a variety of housing types for a population diverse in age, income, and lifestyle; • Are varied or unique in character. We see that the Sherpa's proposed ADU project is align with the city, the neighborhood, and Sherpa family values and cultural diversity. By having an ADU, the Sherpas plan to maintain their strong connection to their community and extended family. Taking care of their aging elders and other members is a value that they live by and the ADU would allow their family members to have independence and lower their housing cost. Other alternatives for taking care of their families such as nursing homes are unthinkable. Therefore we, the undersigned strongly support the Sherpa family's request for the reconsideration of the decision on the variance made on February 23, 2011 at 2105 Dayton Ave NE. By granting the variance for this project, we believe it will not set precedents for the city to grant similar request for other houses in our area in the future as the current situation is unique to the Sherpa residence. Their detached 960sq ft. garage was built in 1994. In 2009, it was converted into a recreation room (with a bathroom, two rooms, one for office space and one for storage.) This structure as it stands is compatible with the neighborhood. Because this structure has existed for 17 years, none of us possess a similar situation and would request for a variance that exceed the 800 sq feet. It seems perfectly fair to us that Mr_ Sherpa's building should be allowed a variance, but that any ADUs we as his neighbors may build in the future should be limited to the variance. We in no way feel that this would be discriminartory or unfair to us. We feel reassured that the city has been working with the family to make sure that they can exercise their home ownership rights to establish a mother in law cottage and at the same time following city codes. Also, the consensus of the neighbors' concerns of exhibit 5 were all addressed in the approval of the ADU. We believe the Sherpa family have every interest to improve the neighborhood and to be a part of the neighborhood that they plan to raise their children in. Thank you for taking this matter into consideration. Please see the enclosed petition for the Sherpa ADU. If you have any ue ti ns, please contact Colleen Addi on at (425) 228-620 . -r r11 1 [ � 1!r L Y m InQ C. L 41Z L L Q L O LL CL 0 V o LP r 4c, r • � C isk to 6 o C. CL r --I N ml� Lr) Cd 6 0 0 as y ' p � 1 O V -.L. a � 43 .o till 1-4 - rn E ZM c T 2. ri tD rl r� ti Cb ri di ri O N 14 rV N N M N V N L6 N �6 04 r. N CO rV City of Renton Department of Community & Economic De,•,lopment ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ,�.. �- COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 19, 2011 APPLICATION NO: LUA10-088, CU -A, V-A DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 5, 2011 APPLICANT: Pasang Sherpa PROJECT MANAGER: Rocale Timmons PROJECT TITLE: Sherpa ADU PROJECT REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick SITE AREA: 12,180 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): 960 square feet LOCATION: 2105 Dayton Avenue NE PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit and Variance for the coversion of an existing structure into an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). The subject property is located at 2105 Dayton Ave NE. The project site totals 0.795 acres in area and is zoned Residential -8 dwelling units per net acre (R-8). The subject site contains an existing 1,380 square foot single family residence (to remain) and a 960 square foot detached garage/recreation room. A Conditional Use Permit is required for the conversion of the detached garage/recreation room into an ADU. A variance is requested in order to exceed the 800 foot threshold for accessory dwelling units. Access would be provided via a seperate curb cut from Dayton Ave NE. There are no critical areas on site. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Environment Minor Impacts Probable More Major Information Impacts Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major information Impacts Impacts Necessary Housing Aesthetics Li ht/Glore Recreation Utilities Transportation Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10, 000 Feet 14, 000 Feet We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Dirdctor or Authorized Representative Date 0 • City of mss. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE CONDITIONAL USE REPORT & DECISION FRC MEETING DATE: Fenruary 23, 2011 Project Name: Sherpa Accessory Dwelling Unit Owner/Applicant/Contact: Pasang Sherpa; 2105 Dayton Ave NE; Renton, WA 98056 File Number: LUA10-088, CU -A, VA -A Project Manager: Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner Project Summary: The applicant submitted an application for an Administrative Conditional Use Permit and Variance for the coversion of an existing structure into an accessory dwelling unit (ADU). The subject property is located at 2105 Dayton Ave NE. The project site totals 0.28 acres in area and is zoned Residential -8 dwelling units per net acre (R-8). The subject site contains an existing 1,380 square foot single family residence (to remain) and a 950 square foot detached garage/ recreation room. A Conditional Use Permit is required for the conversion of the detached garage/recreation room into an ADU. A variance is requested in order to exceed the 800 foot threshold for accessory dwelling units. Access would be provided via a seperate curb cut from Dayton Ave NE. There are no critical areas on site. Project Location: 2105 Dayton Ave NE Site Area: 12,180 SF (0.28 ac) Project Location Map RFPORTdoc Gty of Renton peporlment of Community nomic Development variance & Admin is e Conditional use Permit Report and Decision SHERPA ADU LUA10-088, CU -A, VA -A Report of February 23, 2011 - �-��------- Page 2 of 10 [PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION / GENERAL INFORMATION A. Exhibits B. General Information 1. Owner(s) of Record: 2. Zoning Designation: 3. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: 4. Existing Site Use: 5. Neighborhood Characteristics: Pasang Sherpa 2105 Dayton Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 Residential -8 du/ac (138) Residential Single Family (RSF) Single Family Residence North: Zoning and Neighborhood Detail Map Exhibit 1: Single Family Residential (R-8 Zone) Exhibit 2: Site/Landscape/Floor Plan Exhibit 3: Elevations Exhibit 4: Aerial Photo of Project Site Exhibit 5: Letter Expressing Concern — Neighboring Property Owners Exhibit 6: Two Letters in Support — Neighboring Property Owners B. General Information 1. Owner(s) of Record: 2. Zoning Designation: 3. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: 4. Existing Site Use: 5. Neighborhood Characteristics: Pasang Sherpa 2105 Dayton Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 Residential -8 du/ac (138) Residential Single Family (RSF) Single Family Residence North: Single Family Residential (R-8 Zone) East: Single Family Residential (R-8 Zone) South: Single Family Residential (R-8 Zone) West: Single Family Residential (R-8 Zone) 6. Access: Via two existing curb cuts along Dayton Ave S. 7. Site Area: 12,180 SF (0.28 ac) C. Historical/Background Action Description Land Use File No. Ordinance No. Date Comprehensive Plan N/A N/A 4924 12/5/2001 Zoning N/A N/A 5099 11/1/2004 Annexation N/A N/A 1822 3/31/1960 D. Project Narrative The project site is a 12,180 square foot parcel located in the R-8 zoning designation located on Dayton Ave NE just south of NE 22nd 5t_ The site is currently developed with a 1,380 square foot single family residence and a 960 square foot detached structure formerly used as a garage/recreation room. The applicant is requesting an Administrative Conditional Use Permit and Variance for the coversion of the existing detached structure into an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)_ The proposed building would be approximately 960 gross square feet in area and is located in the southwest corner of the site. The height of the existing structure is 14 feet and 6 inches at the tallest point and is comprised mostly of siding, glass and stone materials similar to materials used on the associated single family residence. Administrative Conditional Use/Variance Report Co of Ren ton Department of Community omie Development Variance & Administ Conditional Use Permit Report and Decision SHERPA ADU LUA10-088, CU -A, VA -A Report of February 23, 2011 mm Page 3 of 10 Access to the site would continue to be gained from two existing curb cuts along Dayton Ave NE. A total of 4 parking spaces would be provided on site; two for each residence. The applicant would retain existing landscaping along the perimeter and interior of the site. There are no trees proposed for removal as part of the project. There are no known critical areas on or near the site. Staff received several comments from surrounding property owners. While two letters were provided in support of the project a petition letter was received (Exhibit 7), signed by eight households, raising concerns related to property values, traffic, and the setting of precedent (Exhibit 6). E. Public Services 1. Utilities a. Water: This site is located in the Soos Creek water service boundary. b. Sewer: This site is located in the Soos Creek Water & Sewer District.. c. Surface/Storm Water: There are existing drainage and conveyance systems adjacent to the site. 2. Streets: Improvements are installed along the frontage of the site. 3. Fire Protection: City of Renton Fire Department PART TWO: CONSISTENCE WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CRITERIA A Conditional Use Permit is required in order to permit the conversion of an existing structure into an ADU. Section 4-9-030.G lists criteria that the Administrator or their designee is asked to consider, along with all other relevant information, in making a decision on a Conditional Use Permit application. These include the following: 1. Consistence with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code & Other Ordinances The proposed use shall be compatible with the general purpose, goals, objectives and standards of the Comprehensive Plan, the zoning regulations and any other plan, program, map or ordinance of the City of Renton. a. Comprehensive Plan b. Zoning Code c. Development Standards The subject site is located within the R-8 zone which implements the Residential Single Family (RSF) Land Use Designation of the Comprehensive Plan. Land designated as RSF is intended to be used for quality detached residential development organized into neighborhoods at urban densities. It is intended that larger subdivision, infill development, and rehabilitation of existing housing be carefully designed to enhance and improve the quality of single-family environments. The proposal is consistent with the following Housing Element policy if all conditions of approval are met: Policy H-44. Support accessory dwelling units as strategies for providing a variety of housing types and as a strategy for providing affordable housing, with the following criteria: 1. Ensure owner occupancy of either the primary or secondary unit. 2. Allow both attached and detached accessory dwelling units and detached carriage units, at a maximum of one per single-family house, exempt from the maximum density requirement of the applicable zone. 3. Require an additional parking space for each accessory dwelling unit, with the ability to waive this requirement for extenuating circumstances. 4. Allow a variety of entry locations and treatments while ensuring compatibility with existing neighborhoods. Administrative Conditional Use/Varionce Report City of Renton Department of Community & mic Development Variance & Administ Conditional Use permit Report and Decision SHERPA ADU LUA10-088, CU -A, UA -A Report of February 23, 2011 Page 4 of 10 ADU's are an allowed use in the R-8 zone with an approved Administrative Conditional Use Permit (see remainder of the analysis below)_ RMC 4-2-080A.7 requires that the property owner file an affidavit affirming that the owner will occupy the principal dwelling or the ADU. Prior to the issuance of building permits; the owner shall record a notice on the property title. The notice shall bear the notarized signature of all property owners listed on the property title and include the legal description of the property, a copy of the approved site/floor plan, and the applicability of the restrictions regarding ADU's in RMC Title IV. The applicant has met all development standards of the R-8 zone, with the exception of building size. The square footage of ADU's are limited to 800 square feet within the R-8 zone. The applicant is requesting a variance in order to exceed the square footage requirement by 160 square feet. The applicant was unable to demonstrate compliance with all four variance criterion, as a result the variance to exceed the maximum building square footage is being denied (see variance analysis below). As a condition of Conditional Use Permit approval the applicant would be required to reduce the size of the accessory structure below the 800 square foot threshold prior to building permit approval (see the variance analysis below). If all conditions of approval are met, the project would be in conformance of zoning regulations. 2. Community Need There shall be a community need for the proposed use at the proposed location. In the determination of community need, the Hearing Examiner shall consider. the following factors, among all other relevant information: a. The proposed location shall not result in either the detrimental overconcentrotion of a particular use within the City or within the immediate area of the proposed use. The proposed ADU is the first project of its type to be processed in 2011 and third of its kind in the City of Renton. The Code allows for 50 accessory dwelling units to be permitted per year. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an over -concentration of a particular use within the City or within the immediate area of the proposed use. b. That the proposed location is suited for the proposed use. The project site is a 12,180 square foot lot in the R-8 zone. A detached single-family house (to remain) currently is located on the subject property. In the R-8 zone one detached dwelling with one ADU are allowed on each legal lot. The proposed ADU would be located along the south side property line and behind (west of) the existing dwelling. The location of the accessory structure is appropriate. 3. Effect on Adjacent Properties The proposed use at the proposed location shall not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property. The following site requirements shall be required: a. Lot Coverage: Lot coverage in residential districts (SF and MR) shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the lot coverage of the zone in which the proposed use is to be located, except for detoched accessory dwelling units, which shall not be counted toward lot coverage calculations. Lot coverage in all other zones shall conform to the requirements of the zone in which the proposed use is to be located. As noted above, ADU's will not be counted towards lot coverage calculations. The R-8 zone allows building coverage, for lots over 5,000 SF, of 35 percent. The building footprint of the existing structure is 1,380 square feet. This generates a total building coverage of 11.3 percent on the 12,180 square foot parcel which is well below the maximum 35 percent building lot coverage permitted. Administrative Conditional UselVariance Report City of Renton Department of Community omit Development Variance & Administ Conditional Use Permit Report and Decision SHERPA ADU LUA10-088, CU -A, VA -A Report of February 23, 2011 Page 5 of 10 b. Yards: Yards shall conform to the requirements of the zone in which the proposed use is to be located. Additions to the structure shall not be allowed in any required yard. The side yard setback for ADU's in the R-8 zone is 5 -feet and the rear yard setback is determined through administrative review but shall not be less than 5 feet and no greater than 20 feet_ The existing structure is located approximately 18 feet from the rear property line and approximately 8 feet from the south property line. However, an attached carport is located on the south side of the proposed ADU which encroaches into the side yard setback. As a condition of approval the applicant would be required to obtain a demolition permit and all required inspections be completed for the removal of the existing carport prior to the building permit approval. The existing 18 -foot rear yard setback is adequate for the proposed use. c. Height: Building and structure heights shall conform to the requirements of the zone in which the proposed use is to be located. Spires, belltowers, public utility antennas or similar structures may exceed the height requirement upon approval of a variance. Building heights should be related to surrounding uses in order to allow optimal sunlight and ventilation, and minimal obstruction of views from adjacent structures. The maximum height for ADU's in the R-8 zone is 30 -feet- The proposed existing structure would be approximately 14 -feet and 6 -inches at the tallest point which relates to the existing single family residence and surrounding structures. Therefore the existing structure is compatible with the existing residence and the residential character of the surrounding neighborhood. d. Compatibility. The proposed use shall be compatible with the residential scale and character of the neighborhood. The primary dwelling on the project site is faced with grey siding for which the existing accessary structure is currently matched with the exception of the area immediately framing the door along the front (eastern) facade. The applicant is proposing new siding, roofing, window trimming and fascia boards in order to match the existing residence. The applicant is also proposing new stone facing along the concrete wall, of the eastern fagade, in order to ground the structure with a new window and door along the front fagade. The proposed facade modifications cause the existing structure to be more compatible with the residential character of the surrounding neighborhood. e. Traffic: Traffic and circulation patterns of vehicles and pedestrians relating to the proposed use and surrounding area shall be reviewed far potential effects on, and to ensure safe movement in, the surrounding area. Access to the site would continue to be gained from two existing curb cuts along Dayton Ave NE. A total of 4 parking spaces would be provided on site; two for each residence. Pedestrian and vehicular access to the proposed project site will not change as a result of the proposed project. While concerns were raised by neighboring property owners no significant changes to traffic and circulation patterns of vehicles and pedestrians relating to the proposed use and surrounding area are anticipated. f. Noise, Glare: Potential noise, light and glare impacts shall be evaluated based on the location of the proposed use on the lot and the location of on-site parking areas, outdoor recreational Areas and refuse storage areas. The proposed accessory dwelling unit would be oriented toward the east and facing toward the interior of the project site. Windows on the western and southern facades are limited in number therefore, potential glare would be limited. Noise which is typical of residential uses would be associated with the proposed project; the ADU is not anticipated to produce noise volumes which would impact the surrounding neighborhood beyond reason. Administrative Conditional Use/Variance Report City of Renton Deportment of COmmunity & mic Development Variance & AdminisConditional Use Permit Report and Decision SHFRFA ADU LUA10-088, CU -A, VA -A Report of February 23, 2011 Page 6 of 10 g. Accessory Uses: Accessory uses to conditional uses such as day schools, auditoriums used for social and sport activities, health centers, convents, preschool facilities, convalescent homes and others of a similar nature shall be considered to be separate uses and shall be subject to the provisions of the use district in which they are located. The proposed use as an ADU which is allowed in the R-8 zone with an approved Administrative Conditional Use Permit. The proposed accessory dwelling unit would be in compliance with the Renton Municipal Code if all conditions of approval are complied with. h. Public improvements: The proposed use and location shall be adequately served by and not impose an undue burden on any public improvements, facilities, utilities and services. Approval of a conditional use permit may be conditioned upon the provision and/or guarantee by the applicant of necessary public improvements, facilities, utilities and/or services. Police and Fire Department staff indicates that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed project, subject to the applicant providing Code required improvements. Any students generated by the proposed accessory dwelling unit would be accommodated at Renton School District. The Renton School District Impact Fee for each new accessory dwelling unit is estimated at $1,258.00 and is payable prior to the issuance of building permits_ The Soos Creek Water and Sewer District would provide water and sanitary sewer service. Certificates of water and sewer are required to be provided to the city prior to building permit approval. PART THREE: CONSISTENCY WITH VARIANCE CRITERIA Section 4-9-25OB5 lists four criteria that the Reviewing Official is asked to consider the following four criteria, along with all other relevant information, in making a decision on an Administrative Variance application. The variance criteria are as follows: A. That the applicant suffers undue hardship and the variance is necessary because of special circumstances applicable to subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject property, and the strict application of the Zoning Code is found to deprive subject property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. The applicant contends that undue hardship is suffered due to need to demolish walls in order to meet the 800 square footage requirement. Additionally, the demolition would have impacts on the footings and roof of the structure. The applicant contends it is not cost effective to remove a portion of or demolish the existing structure. Staff cannot speak to the impact of cost on the applicant; however staff does not concur that the financial burden creates an undue hardship for this specific site. The proposed variance is not necessitated because of size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject property. Therefore the strict application of the Zoning Code is not found to deprive the subject owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity under identical zone classifications. Alternatively, the applicant could demolish portions of the accessory structure and meet the maximum square footage requirements in the R-8 zoning designation. B. That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which subject property is situated,- The ituated,The applicant contends that the granting of the variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity. The additional 160 square feet beyond the Administrative Conditional Use/Variance Report City of Renton Department of Community &mic Development Variance & Administr�Conditional Use Permit Report and Decision SHERPA ADU LUA10-0.88, CU -A, VA -A Report of February 23, 2011 T Page 7 of 10 800 square foot requirement would not create any additional burden on services by the city or neighborhood utilities. Staff concurs that the granting of the variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property or improvements. The granting of the variance would allow for the retention of an existing structure, without alteration, which the size has not been detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the subject property thus far. C. That approval shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated, The approval of the maximum square footage request, for the accessory square footage, would be a grant of special privilege, as other property owners in the vicinity and within other R-8 zoned areas would not be permitted to construct an accessory dwelling unit which exceeds the maximum square footage. Specifically, when the hardship is not created due to specific site constraints. a That the approval as determined by the Reviewing Official is a minimum variance that will accomplish the desired purpose. The applicant states that the requested variance is the minimum variance necessary to allow the existing structure to remain on the site without alteration. Staff does not concur; the applicant could reduce the square footage of the existing structure through the demolition of portions of the structure and come into conformance with the maximum square footage requirements of the R-8 zoning designation. Therefore the requested variance is not the minimum variance that would accomplish the desire to retain the existing structure. PART FOUR: FINDINGS Having reviewed the written record in the matter, the City now enters the following: 1. Request. The Applicant has requested Administrative Conditional Use Permit and Variance, from RMC4-2- 110B, for the Sherpa ADU, LUA 10-088, CU -A, VA -A. 2. Administrative Conditional Use Permit: The applicant's Conditional Use Permit application complies with the requirements for information necessary for review. The applicant's plans are attached to this report. 3. Administrative Variance: The applicant's variance application complies with the requirements for information necessary for review. The applicant's plans are attached to this report. 4. Comprehensive Plan: The subject site is designated Residential Single Family (RSF). 5. Zoning: The site is zoned Residential -8 du/ac (R-8) which permits accessory dwelling units with an Administrative Conditional Use Permit. Maximum square footages are limited to 800 square feet for ADU's_ The applicant has proposed a 960 square foot structure. PART FIVE: CONCLUSIONS 1. The Administrative Conditional Use Permit would allow the utilization of an existing structure as an ADU_ The ADU is within a former garage structure. The location of the ADU on the project site is indicated in Exhibit 2 (Site Plan). Administrative Conditional Use/Vorionce Report City of Renton Department of Community &Oomic Development Variance & Administ* Conditional Use Permit Report and Decision SHERPA ADU LUA10-088, CU -A, VA -A Report of February 23, 2011 Page 8 of 10 2. The proposed Administrative Conditional Use Permit for an accessory dwelling unit meets the eleven criteria to be considered in making a decision on a conditional use permit request as specified in RMC 4-9- 030G if all conditions of approval are met. 3. Staff recommends approval with conditions based on the analysis contained in the staff report. 4. The recommendation of staff is to deny the variance request as it does not meet three of the four criteria found in RMC 4-9-250135. Specifically, the applicant has not demonstrated that they suffer undue hardship and the request would constitute granting a special privilege. It is feasible for the existing structure to be converted to an accessory dwelling unit and meet the maximum square footage requirements of RMC 4-2- 110B. PART SIX: DECISION The proposed Administrative Variance, from RMC 4-2-11013, for the Sherpa Accessory Dwelling Unit (File No. LUA10-088, CU -A, VA -A) is hereby denied. The Administrative Conditional Use Permit is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall reduce the size of the proposed accessory dwelling unit, below the 800 square foot threshold, prior to building permit approval. 2. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and all required inspections be completed for the removal of the existing carport prior to the building permit approval. CE. "Chip" Vincent, !Manning Director TRANSMITTED this 23rd day of February, 2011 to the ContacVApplicant/Dwner: Con tact/Applicant/Owner: Pasang Sherpa 2105 Dayton Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 TRANSMITTED this 23rd day of February, 2011 to the Parties of Record: Gary Newton Paul & Nancy Duke 2101 Dayton Avenue NE 2408 NE 22nd Street Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Jean Anderson 2100 Dayton Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Paul & Cassie Babcock 2404 NE 22nd Street Renton, WA 98056 Matt Wells 2328 NE 22nd Street Margaret J. Buxton 2005 Dayton Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Michele Ralph 2400 NE 22nd Street Renton, WA 98056 James Boyd 2324 NE 22nd Street Administrative Conditional Use/Voriance Report Date Rick & Polly Potter 2104 Dayton Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 William & Shirley Reynolds 2112 Dayton Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Bill & Karen Sparrow 2108 Dayton Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Colleen Addison 2109 Dayton Avenue NE City of Renton Department of Community *omit Development Variance & Adminiso Conditional Use Permit Report and Decision SHERPA ADU L UA10-088, CU -A, VA -A Report of February 23, 2011 Page 9 of 10 Renton, WA 9S056 Andrea Bufort 2012 Dayton Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Colin Thorpe 12226 SE 178th Street Renton, WA 98058 TRANSMITTED this 23rd day of February, 2011 to the following: Neil Watts, Development Services Director Larry Meckling, Building Official Kayren Kittrick, Development Services Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Code Compliance Fire Marshal Renton Reporter Land Use Action Appeals, Request for Reconsideration, & Expiration Renton, WA 98056 Dion Coleman .14241228th Avenue SE Issaquah, WA 98027 The Variance and the Administrative Conditional Use Permit decisions will become final if the decisions are not appealed within 14 days of the decision date. Conditional Use Permit Appeal: Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing to the Hearing Examiner on or before 5:00 p.m., March 9, 2011. Administrative Variance Appeal: Appeals of the administrative site development plan review decision must be filed in writing to the Hearing Examiner on or before 5:00 p.m. on March 9, 2011. APPEALS: An appeal of the decision(s) must be filed within the 14 -day appeal period (RCW 43.21.C.075(3); WAC 197-11-680). Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.6 governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the $250.00 application fee to Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall - 7th Floor, (425) 430-6510. RECONSIDERATION: Within 14 days of the decision date, any party may request that a decision on a short plat be reopened by the Administrator (Decision -maker). The Administrator (Decision -maker) may modify his decision if material evidence not readily discoverable prior to the original decision is found or if he finds there was misrepresentation of fact. After review of the reconsideration request, if the Administrator (Decision - maker) finds sufficient evidence to amend the original decision, there will be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action must file a formal appeal within the 14 -day appeal timeframe. THE APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS DOCTRINE: provides that no ex parte (private one -on -ane) communications may occur concerning the land use decision. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial decision, but to Appeals to the Hearing Examiner as well. All communications after the decision/approval date must be made in writing through the Hearing Examiner. All communications are public record and this permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence in writing. Any violation of this doctrine could result in the invalidation of the appeal by the Court. ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. Planning: -1. RMC section 4-4-030.0.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division, The Development Services Division reserves the right to rescind the approved extended haul hours at any time if complaints are received. 2. RMC 4-2-080A.7 requires that the property owner shall file an affidavit affirming that the owner will occupy the principal dwelling or the ADU. This affidavit shall be submitted to the Planning Division Project Manager prior to the Administrative Conditional Use/Variance Report City of Renton Department of Community & Omic Development Variance & Administib Conditional Use Permit Report and Decision SHERPA ADU LUA10-088, CU -A, VA -A Report of February 23, 2011 Page 10 of 10 Issuance of building permits. 3. RMC 4-2-0$0A.7 also requires that prior to the issuance of building permits; the owner shall record a notice on the property title. The notice shall bear the notarized signature of all property owners listed on the property title and include the legal description of the property, a copy of the approved site/floor plan, and the applicability of the restrictions regarding ADUs in RMC Title IV. Prior to recording of the notice the owner shall submit a copy to the Planning Division Project Manager for review and approval. Water: 1. This site is located in the Soos Creek water service boundary. A water availability certificate is required. This site is not located in the Aquifer Protection Zone. Sewer. 1. This site is served by the Soos Creek Water & Sewer District. A sewer availability is required.. Surface Water: 1. A drainage checklist is required to be submitted with the formal application for the building. All improvements or exemptions must comply with the City of Renton Amendments to the King County Surface Water Manual 2009. Transportation: 1. All new electrical, phone, and cable services and lines must be installed underground unless a variance is issued. Fire: 1. No comments. Administrative Conditional Use/Variance Report City of Renton Department of Community & Economic DPlopment ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: 0 COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 19, 2011 APPLICATION NO: LUA10-088, CU -A, V-A DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARYS, 2011 APPLICANT: Pasang Sherpa PROJECT MANAGER: Rocale Timmons PROJECT TITLE: Sherpa ADU ml PROJECT REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick SITE AREA: 12,180 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): 960 square feet LOCATION: 2105 Dayton Avenue NE PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit and Variance for the coversion of an existing structure into an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). The subject property is located at 2105 Dayton Ave NE. The project site totals 0.795 acres in area and is zoned Residential -8 dwelling units per net acre (R-8). The subject site contains an existing 1,380 square foot single family residence (to remain) and a 960 square foot detached garage/recreation room. A Conditional Use Permit is required for the conversion of the detached garage/recreation room into an ADU. A variance is requested in order to exceed the 800 foot threshold for accessory dwelling units. Access would be provided via a seperate curb cut from Dayton Ave NE. There are no critical areas on site. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts impacts Necessary Housing Aesthetics Light/Glare Recreation Utilities Trans ortation Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Of Dir;tor or Authorized Representative Date City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Pelopment ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: �- ,�� "� C'ir i("� � COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 19, 2011 APPLICATION NO: LUA10-088, CU -A, V-A DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 5, 2011 APPLICANT: Pasang Sherpa PROJECT MANAGER: Rocale Timmons PROJECT TITLE: Sherpa ADU PROJECT REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick SITE AREA: 12,180 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): 960 square fee .Ur LOCATION: 2105 Dayton Avenue NE PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit and Variance for the coversion of an existing structure into an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). The subject property is located at 2105 Dayton Ave NE. The project site totals 0.795 acres in area and is zoned Residential -8 dwelling units per net acre (R-8). The subject site contains an existing 1,380 square foot single family residence (to remain) and a 960 square foot detached garage/recreation room. A Conditional Use Permit is required for the conversion of the detached garage/recreation room into an ADU. A variance is requested in order to exceed the 800 foot threshold for accessory dwelling units. Access would be provided via a seperate curb cut from Dayton Ave NE- There are no critical areas on site. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Environment Minor Impacts Probable More Major Information Impacts Necessary Earth Air W❑ter Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources Naves 8, POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS jJ o C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS J ��— Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information impacts Impacts Necessary Housing Aesthetics Li ht/Glare Recreation Utilities Trons ortation Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. (� Sign ll of Dire toror XuAAorized Representative Date City of Ren#on Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: nP' 1 ,F I COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 19, 2011._ , APPLICATION NO: LUA10-088, CU -A, V-A DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 5, 2011 APPLICANT: Pasang Sherpa PROJECT MANAGER: Rocale Timmons T. 1\1 0 PROJECT TITLE: Sherpa ADU PROJECT REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick SITE AREA: 12,180 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): 960 square feet LOCATION: 2105 Dayton Avenue NE PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit and Variance for the coversion of an existing structure into an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). The subject property is located at 2105 Dayton Ave NE. The project site totals 0.795 acres in area and is zoned Residential -8 dwelling units per net acre (R-8). The subject site contains an existing 1,380 square foot single family residence (to remain) and a 960 square foot detached garage/recreation room. A Conditional Use Permit is required for the conversion of the detached garage/recreation room into an ADU. A variance is requested in order to exceed the 800 foot threshold for accessory dwelling units. Access would be provided via a seperate curb cut from Dayton Ave NE. There are no critical areas on site. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Probable More Minor Major information Impacts impacts Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Lond/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Nevem Element of the Environment Probable Probable More Minor Major Information impacts Impacts Necessary Housing Aesthetics Light/Glare Recreation Utilities Transportation Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. �jlj, o r Sign, u e of Director or Authorized Representative Date January 11, 2011 Colleen Addison :"ttY of Renton 2109 Dayton Avenue NE Renton WA 98056 �nf Project name/number: Sherpa ADU/LUA10-088, CU -A, V-A Dear Rocale Timmons: I am writing to express my approval of Pasang Sherpa's application for the Administrative Conditional Use Permit and Administrative Variance. The 960 square feet detached garage has been inexistence long before the Sherpa family movedi over 15 years ago. By allowing the detached garage size to be as it is at 960 would not make the existing structure any bigger than it already is. As the structure stands right now, it is not obstructive and it blends in nicely with their house, their beautiful yard, and the neighbors adjacent to them. Since I don't foresee structural changes (like more buildings or the expansion of the garage to be any bigger than it is), I believe the variance should be granted. I have no doubt that the conversion of the existing structure into an ADU would only enhance the property and the surrounding neighborhood and would not create congestion and inconvenience for the neighborhood. Since the Sherpa family has moved into the house six years ago, being their adjacent neighbor next door, I have seen them consistently improving their property making our neighborhood having much better curb -appeal. For example, they have built retaining walls around the backyard, took out a worn- out wooden deck and replaced it with a concrete patio, improved the soil in their garden, leveled dirt piles and put in a large grass lawn, added a sprinkler system, changed their windows around the house making it more energy efficient windows. They have consistently maintained the landscaping around the property. Therefore, please accept my approval of my neighbor's motivation to continue enhance his property, thus contributing to our neighborhood to being a better place to live. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, Colleen Addison January 10, 2011 Rocale Timmons Associate Planner Dept. of Community and Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Dear Rocale, city O f'��' '141V 1,7 1Oil ftve_� VIeD I am writing to express my strong support for the project Sherpa ADU / LUA10-088, CU -A, V-A. I have lived very close to this lot and family for the past four years. They have been consistently excellent neighbors. Their request reflects a trend in our neighborhood to higher density housing on these large lots. At one end of the block, a lot was subdivided, and a second home built, right before I moved in to 2012 Dayton Ave. Not much later, a rundown home just up the street was replaced by two nice new dwellings. At the other end of the block, another overgrown single lot was subdivided and now holds three beautiful homes. And just across Edmonds, three tiny broken-down houses on very large lots gave way to a subdivision that is now full of families. Our block still has several homes that have seen better days. We benefit from having a family like the Sherpas living here, because unlike some other owners, they are always working to beautify and improve their space. There are no environmental/ecological roadblocks to the Sherpas converting their current space to an ADU. I am sure that if any of my neighbors have any concern with the Sherpa's ADU request, they can work out a mutually satisfactory resolution. I have had opportunity to interact with the Sherpa family not only as a neighbor, but as a fellow parent a few years ago when our children attended the same co- operative preschool in Kennydale. Based on all my interactions with them, I can avow that they are reasonable, responsible, intelligent people. Sincerely, Andrea Bufort 2012 Dayton Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 • To: Chip Vincent — City of Renton Planning Director Rocale Timmons— Planning Department cizr OF RFNTo d RECEI»ED ,"Aau 2 1 21.1 BUILDING DIVISION t .. We the undersigned strongly oppose the variance being considered by the city at 2105 Dayton Ave. N.E. This building was originally built to be a storage garage and shop. The current resident has gone ahead and made this into a residence that doesn't meet the city code for a second residence on this property and has also been occupied since October 15% 2010. He has tried to circumvent the remodeling permit by not stating the true purpose of this project. Here are some of the reasons for our objection to this variance. 1. Increased traffic and parking on Dayton Ave. N.E. 2. We believe that this will cause a drop in our property values. 3. This occupant infringes on the property line driving between the houses. 4. This occupant doesn't follow the rules and codes set forth by the City of Renton. 5. We're concerned about our Sewer LID, whether he will be assessed. 6. Several of us have lived here for 50 years and don't want to see our neighborhood degraded. 7. We feel the city has failed us allowing this project to go on knowing it doesn't meet city codes for the size and for the building to be occupied since October 1", 2010. The city was notified (code compliance) several times during this project. 8. We believe this might set a precedent for our area. 9. These signatures are all from home owners, not renters. 10. Any questions regarding this matter please contact Gary Newton at 425- 255-6965. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. DA t/ -TO k1 i e . i 0 Name Address 7 9,YdS, Al / � t �� �i'ivfil `� J d �: I.J 1�+�� � ! I � �Y'7/ i 1 !' d]_. -. / /! / f✓ /. �' f { 'yam .�,a-YL1 r I )2gLc 0 ck -2�low 1,,jc ` 0 • Address City of R nton Department of Community & Economic 0 elopment ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: --( COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 19, 2011 APPLICATION NO: LUA10-088, CU --A, V-A DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 5, 2011 APPLICANT: Pasang Sherpa PROJECT MANAGER: Rocale Timmons PROJECTTITLE: Sherpa ADU PROJECT REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick SITE AREA: 12,180 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): 960 square feet LOCATION: 2105 Dayton Avenue NE PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit and Variance for the coversion of an existing structure into an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). The subject property is located at 2105 Dayton Ave NE. The project site totals 0.795 acres in area and is zoned Residential -8 dwelling units per net acre (R-8). The subject site contains an existing 1,380 square foot single family residence (to remain) and a 950 square foot detached garage/recreation room. A Conditional Use Permit is required for the conversion of the detached garage/ recreation room into an ADU. A variance is requested in order to exceed the 800 foot threshold for accessory dwelling units. Access would be provided via a seperate curb cut from Dayton Ave NE. There are no critical areas on site. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Housing Aesthetics ti htiGlare Recreation Utilities Transportation Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10, 000 Feet 14, 000 Feet We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:L COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 19 2011�'. APPLICATION NO: LUA10-088, CU -A, V-A DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 5, 2011 APPLICANT: Pasang Sherpa PROJECT MANAGER: Rocale Timmons PROJECT TITLE: Sherpa ADU PROJECT REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick SITE AREA: 12,180 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): 960 square feet LOCATION: 2105 Dayton Avenue NE PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit and Variance for the coversion of an existing structure into an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). The subject property is located at 2105 Dayton Ave NE. The project site totals 0.795 acres in area and is zoned Residential -8 dwelling units per net acre (R-8). The subject site contains an existing 1,380 square foot single family residence (to remain) and a 960 square foot detached garage/recreation room. A Conditional Use Permit is required for the conversion of the detached garage/recreation room into an ADU. A variance is requested in order to exceed the 800 foot threshold for accessory dwelling units. Access would be provided via a seperate curb cut from Dayton Ave NE. There are no critical areas on site. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources B. PDLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major ittformation impacts Impacts Necessary HOaSin Aesthetics Light/Glare Recreation Utilities Transportation Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. "R Signature ofAectpr or Authorized Representative /' f Date City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: r�bV_k::_S COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 19, 2011 APPLICATION NO: LUA10-088, CU -A, V-A DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARYS, 2011 APPLICANT: Pasang Sherpa PROJECT MANAGER: Rocale Timmons PROJECT TITLE: Sherpa ADU PROJECT REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick SITE AREA: 12,180 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): 960 square feet LOCATION: 2105 Dayton Avenue NE PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit and Variance for the coversion of an existing structure into an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). The subject property is located at 2105 Dayton Ave NE. The project site totals 0.795 acres in area and is zoned Residential -8 dwelling units per net acre (R-8). The subject site contains an existing 1,380 square foot single family residence (to remain) and a 960 square foot detached garage/recreation room. A Conditional Use Permit is required for the conversion of the detached garage/ recreation room into an ADU. A variance is requested in order to exceed the 800 foot threshold for accessory dwelling units. Access would be provided via a seperate curb cut from Dayton Ave NE. There are no critical areas on site. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Environment Minor impacts Probable Major Impacts More information Necessary Earth Air Water Plants tand/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information impacts Impacts Necessary HOUSin Aesthetics 1_i ht/Glore Recreation Utilities Trons ortation Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment Io, 000 Feet 14 000 Feet ��� Gam. /� .�r� � /�1� B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS r7S C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS y� rzq,t F.-���73 /d /a/Jx,,- we have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we hove expertise and hove identified areas of probable impoct or areWwhere additional irkmotion is needed to properly assess this proposal. -2-,10 Signature of Director orAuthorized Representative Date City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Aw COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 19, 2011 APPLICATION NO: LUA10-088, CU -A, V-A DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARYS, 2011 APPLICANT: Pasang Sherpa PROJECT MANAGER: Rocale Timmons s PROJECT TITLE: Sherpa ADU PROJECT REVIE ren i C> s I EXISTING BLDG REA (gross): 960 eet SITE AREA: 12,180 square feet LOCATION: 2105 Dayton Avenue NE PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit and Variance for the coversion of an existing structure into an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). The subject property is located at 2105 Dayton Ave NE. The project site totals 0.795 acres in area and is zoned Residential -8 dwelling units per net acre (R-8). The subject site contains an existing 1,380 square foot single family residence (to remain) and a 960 square foot detached garage/recreation room. A Conditional Use Permit is required for the conversion of the detached garage/ recreation room into an ADU. A variance is requested in order to exceed the 800 foot threshold for accessory dwelling units. Access would be provided via a seperate curb cut from Dayton Ave NE. There are no critical areas on site. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major information impacts impacts Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Probable probable More Environment Minor Major information Impacts impacts Necessary Housing Aesthetics Light/Glare Recreation Utilities Trans ortation Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet n 1 0%,, We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional inforrjoigon is needed to properly assess this proposal, Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNTY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the Sth day of January, 2011, 1 deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Acceptance Letter & NOA documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Pasang Sherpa Owner 300' Surrounding Property Owners See attached (Signature of Sender):[ �• r-� STATE OF WASHINGTON ] - • ] SSS = COUNTY OF KING I certify that 1 know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy M. Tucker signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: ,, . S a r„ t Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Notary (Print): VA, A. G -1" ; - My appointment expires: p„,"5k D p I,j '4' Sherpa ADU LUA10-088, CU -A, V-A 9172800130 2253200065 3343900135 AIELLO FRANCIS A JR+KATHLEE ANDERSON JEAN C BABCOCK CASSANDRA M 2019 CAMAS AVE NE 2100 DAYTON AVE NE 2404 NE 22ND ST RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 2253200075 3343900583 2253200060 BECKSTROM JUANITA BOYD JAMES J+TINA M BUFORT ANDREA KB 2108 DAYTON AVE NE 2324 NE 22ND ST 2012 DAYTON AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 3343901247 2253200115 2253200030 BUSBY WILLIAM D BUXTON MARGARET J CANNON ROBERT C 2024 BLAINE AVE NE 2005 DAYTON AVE NE 2017 EDMONDS AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 2253200095 9172800010 2253200085 CHI HANNAH+SHERPA PASANG CHIU ALEX WAI MAN COLESON JEFFREY L 2105 DAYTON AVE NE 2002 CAMAS AVE NE 2113 DAYTON AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 2253200050 3343900123 2253200090 DEAN GLEA EILEEN DUKE PAUL R GILROY KENNETH E 2004 DAYTON AVE NE 2408 NE 22ND ST 2109 DAYTON AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 345700180 2253200025 9172800080 GOULD CARL B+LINDA R GRAHAM VIOLA B GREEN LESLIE A 2223 NE 23RD ST 2025 EDMONDS AVE NE 2114 CAMAS AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 3343901246 9172800110 2253200015 GULEZIAN AMY E HANCOCK ROBERT M+REBECCA L HATCH ELMER C+ELIZABETH M 2124 BLAINE AVE NE 2101 CAMAS AVE NE 2117 EDMONDS AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 3343901244 9172800140 2253200035 HUMPHRIES DEAN KOHLER KEVIN THOMAS LANDWEHR ROBERT F 2018 BLAINE AVE NE 2013 CAMAS AVE NE 2009 EDMONDS AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 2253200010 2253200020 2253200120 LIU SUNG SHENG+YI-CHUN CHEN MA CAREY E+JENNY MARTIN CRAIG & JANE 2125 EDMONDS AVE NE 2101 EDMONDS AVE NE 2001 DAYTON AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 2253200125 2253200110 2253200005 MARTIN CRAIG & JANE MARTINEZ LUIS L+LISA MEDZEGIAN MARK ALAN 2320 NE 20TH ST 2009 DAYTON AVE NE 2133 EDMONDS AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 9172800100 9172800070 YAN TOMMY P YECKEL WILLIAM T+ELLEN M 2107 CAMAS AVE NE 2108 CAMAS AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 345700150 2253200105 2253200100 MORINA BROOKE MOZZONE RONALD C NEWTON GL 2211 NE 23RD ST 2013 DAYTON AVE NE 2101 DAYTON AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 2253200070 9172800050 9172800040 POTTER DAVID E PRAZAK NIKOLI E & EGUCHI PYAKUREL SAMIR+SINDHU 2104 DAYTON AVE NE COURTNEY 2020 CAMAS AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 2026 CAMAS AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 3343900585 2253200080 9172800150 RALPH MICHELLE A REYNOLDS WILLIAM E RICHARDSON CHAD S 2400 NE 22ND ST 2112 DAYTON AVE NE 2007 CAMAS AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 9172800020 345700160 3343901251 RICHMOND DOUGLAS W ROTHWELL DAVID R+SANDY L RUTHERFORD JASON PAUL+OLIVE 2008 CAMAS AVE NE 2215 NE 23RD ST 2112 BLAINE AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 3343900125 9172800120 345700170 SCHOENFELDT RANDALL L SCHROEDER RYAN+CRYSTAL SHAMON MARILYN B 2414 NE 22ND ST 2027 CAMAS AVE NE 2219 NE 23RD ST RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 9172800030 345700190 2253200055 SHEUK LEE LAM TUNIS JOHN D WALKER PATRICIA A 2014 CAMAS AVE NE 2302 CAMAS AVE NE 2008 DAYTON AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 3343900584 9172800060 9172800090 WELLS MATTHEW+JANELL M WEST ANJA N WILLIAMS JEFFREY A+KARAKOZ S 2328 NE 22ND ST 2102 CAMAS AVE NE 2113 CAMAS AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 9172800100 9172800070 YAN TOMMY P YECKEL WILLIAM T+ELLEN M 2107 CAMAS AVE NE 2108 CAMAS AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 NOTICE OF APPLICATION A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Department of Community & Economic Development (CED) — Planning Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: January 5, 2011 PROJECT NAME/NUMBER: Sherpa ADU / LUA10-088, CU -A, V-A PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit and Variance for the coversion of an existing structure into an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). The subject property is located at 2105 Dayton Ave NE. The project site totals 0.795 acres in area and is zoned Residential -8 dwelling units per net acre (R-8). The subject site contains an existing 1,380 square foot single family residence (to remain) and a 960 square foot detached garage/recreation room. A Conditional Use Permit is required for the conversion of the detached garage/recreation room into an ADU. A variance is requested in order to exceed the 800 foot threshold for accessory dwelling units. Access would be provided via a seperate curb cut from Dayton Ave NE. There are no critical areas on site. PROJECT LOCATION: 2105 Dayton Avenue NE PUBLIC APPROVALS: Administrative Conditional Use Permit and Administrative Variance approval APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Pasan Sherpa; 2105 Dayton Avenue NE; Renton, WA 98056 PUBLIC HEARING: N/A Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner, Department of Community & Economic Development, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, by 5:00 p.m. on January 19, 2010. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact the Project Manager at (425) 430-7219. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, CED, Planning Division, 1455 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. File Name / No.: Sherpa ADU / LUA10-088, CU -A, V-A NAME MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NO.: 0 0 PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION DATE OF APPLICATION: December 17, 2010 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: January 5, 2011 Dena or City Q� ` Y Department of Community and Economic Development January 5, 2011 Alex Pietsch, Administrator Pasan Sherpa 2105 Dayton Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Subject: Notice of Complete Application Sherpa ADU, LUA10-088, CU -A, V-A Dear Mr. Sherpa: The Planning Division of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is accepted for review. You will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your application. Please contact me at (425) 430-7219 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Ro ale Timmons A sociate Planner cc; Paul Duke / Party of Record Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Denis Law CIty O Mayor January 5, 2011 .....► .., .`"�"`' -:..�� ��'- � �. Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator Nancy Rawls Department of Transportation Renton School District 420 Park Avenue N Renton, WA 98055 Subject: Sherpa ADU LUA10-088, CU -A, V-A The City of Renton's Department of Community and Economic Development (CED) has received an application for a single-family accessory dwelling unit located at 2105 Dayton Avenue NE. Please see the enclosed Notice of Application for further details. In order to process this application, CED needs to know which Renton schools would be attended by children living in residences at the location indicated above. Please fill in the appropriate schools on the list below and return this letter to my attention, City of Renton, CED, Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98057 by January 19, 2011. Elementary School: Middle School: High School: Will the schools you have indicated be able to.handle the impact of the additional students estimated to come from the proposed development? Yes No Any Comments: Thank you for providing this important information. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact me at (425) 430-7219. Sincerely, Ca - Roc le Timmons As ociate Planner Enclosure Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 e rentonwa.gov City of Renton Uits of . - ��j�l;r?i�?rt LAND USE PERMITJ�`, MASTER APPLICATION , PROPERTY OWNER(S) NAME: Pasang Sherpa and Hannah Chi ADDRESS: 2105Dayton Ave Ne CITY: ZIP: Renton 98056 TELEPHONE NUMBER: 425-269-9155 APPLICANT (if other than owner) NAME: COMPANY (if applicable): ADDRESS: CITY: ZIP: TELEPHONE NUMBER: CONTACT PERSON Pasang Sherpa NAME: COMPANY (if applicable): NA 2105 Dayton Ave NE ADDRESS: CITY: Renton ZIP:98056 TELEPHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL ADDRESS: 425-269-9155 PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: Sherpa ADU PROJECTIADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: 2105 Dayton Ave NE Renton 98056 ICING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): 2253200095 EXISTING LAND USE(S): Single Family Home and Large Recreation Room and storage rooms PROPOSED LAND USE(S): For ADU EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: RSF PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable) NA EXISTING ZONING: R-8 PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): SITE AREA (in square feet): 12180 sq ft SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED: NA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: NA PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable) NA NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable) NA NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): One CA1J9 -169U3esktopWew-MouseProjeetlmasterapp. doe - I - 061)9 PIRJECT INFORMATION (conti NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable):1 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): 960sq ft SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): 1380sq ft SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): NA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): NA NET FLOOR AREA ON NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): NA NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): NA Will be done by the home owner. PROJECT VALUE: $ 20,000 IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): ❑ AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA ONE ❑ AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA TWO ❑ FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. ft. ❑ GEOLOGIC HAZARD sq. ft. ❑ HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft. ❑ SHORELINE STREAMS & LAKES sq. ft, ❑ WETLANDS sq. ft. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY ttach legal description on separate sheet with the following information inclu SITUATE IN THE _lot _3 QUARTER OF SECTION –5—, TOWNSHIP _23N_, RANGE _05_, IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES List all land use applications being applied for: 1. Conditional use 3. 2. Variance 4 - Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $ _3200. AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Namels) 6&14 t H"444l i _ & , declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that I am (please check one) the current owner of the property involved in this application or _ the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Pasan . herpa (Signat of "er/Representative) Hannah Chi (Signature of OwnerlRepresentative) C:IUscrs1691T)esktopWew House ProjectVmsterapp.doc certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that 2t J signed this instrument and acknowledge it to be hislherltheir free and voluntary 601 act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. rrrrrrr��Hi1 // I� Notary Public in and for the State of Washington _�-�t*'�`�4Arrhr ,-�i ;o p Notary (Print) T i Ilk My appointment expires: VI— +of,iOF;WNS0',,S.. - 2 - 06A)9 0 0 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY O AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M,� - DATE: May 13, 2010 (Revised May 21, 2010) TO: Pre -Application Fife No. 10-016 FROM: Rocale Timmons, Associate planner SUBJECT: Pasang Sherpa - ADU 17, r:Y , `L4tli La�� General. We have completed a preliminary review of the pre -application for the above - referenced development proposal. The following comments on development and permitting issues are based on the pre -application submittals made to the City of Renton by the applicant and the codes in effect on the date of review. The applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary may he subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision -makers (e.g., Hearing Examiner, Community & Economic Development Administrator, Public Works Administrator, Planning Director, Development Services Director, and City Council). Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by City staff or made by the applicant. The applicant is encouraged to review all applicable sections of the Renton Municipal Code. The Development Regulations are available for purchase for $50.00 plus tax, from the Finance Division on the first floor of City Hall or online at www.rentonwa.gov Project Proposal. The subject property is located at 2105 Dayton Ave NE. The project site totals 0-795 acres in area and is zoned Residential -8 dwelling units per net acre (R-8). The subject site contains an existing 1,380 square foot single family residence (to remain) and a 960 square foot detached garage that has been converted to medical hardship through a Temporary Use Permit. The applicant is proposing to convert the former detached garage into an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). Current Use: A 1,380 square foot single family residence and a 960 square foot detached garage currently exist on the property. Zoning/Density Requirements: — The subject property is located within the R-8 zoning designation. ADU's are allowed as an accessory use to a detached single-family dwelling with an Administrative Conditional Use Permit. ADU's are subject to the development standards applicable to primary structures and consistent with the architectural character of the primary structure. The property owner is also responsible for fling an affidavit affirming that the owner will occupy the principal dwelling or the ADU. As a note ADU's are not included in density calculations. Development Standards: The project would be subject to RMC 4-2-110A, `Development Standards for Residential Zoning Designations (Primary and Attached Accessory Structures) and RMC 4-2-110B, Development Standards for Residential Development (Detached Accessory Buildings) effective at the time of complete application. A copy of these standards is included. is\rVm\rt rn\preapps\10-Q1G (r$ adu modular home).doc Pass ng Sherpa - ADU, Phi€10I Page 2 of 3 May 13, 2010 (Revised May 21, 2010) Building- 5tandards --The R-8 zone allows a maximum building coverage of 35% of the lot area or 2,500 square feet, whichever is greater for lots over 5,004 square feet in size. Lots under 5,000 square feet in size are permitted a maximum building coverage of 50% of the lot area. Building heights are restricted to 30 feet for the primary structure and accessory dwelling units. Elevations and lot coverage calculations were not provided with the pre -application materials. The applicant will be required at the time of formal land use application to provide elevations and lot coverage calculations for the subject site. The R-8 zone permits one accessory structure per residential structure with a maximum of 1,0130 square feet provided it is architecturally consistent with the principal structure. The maximum size of an accessory dwelling unit is 800 square feet. The maximum floor area of all accessory buildings shall not be greater than the floor area of the primary residential use. The submitted site plan indicates that the existing residence is 1,380 square feet, the detached garage/proposed ADU is 960 square feet in size. The square footage of the existing garage/proposed ADU exceeds the 800 square foot requirement The applicant would he required to reduce the size of the structure or request an Administrative Variance. Setbacks — Setbacks are the minimum required distance between the building footprint and the property line and any private access easement. The required minimum setbacks for accessory dwelling units in the R-8 zone are: ADU Setbacks Front Yard Accessory structures are not permitted within required front yards or side yards along streets. Rear Yard Determined through administrative review, to be no less than 5 - feet and no greater than 20 -feet Side Yard 5 -feet Between Structures 6 -feet Based on the Site Plan provided it is unclear where the modular home is/would be sited. The applicant would be required to comply with the setback requirements of the zone- Access/Parking: Each unit is required to accommodate off street parking for a minimum of two vehicles. Garages and carports must provide a minimum of 24 ft. of back -out room, either on site or counting improved alley surface or other improved right-of-way surface. The applicant will be required at the time of formal land use application to provide detailed parking information. Significant Tree Retention: If significant trees (greater than 6 -inch caliper) are proposed to be removed a tree inventory and a tree retention plan along with a tree retention worksheet shall be provided with the formal land use application. The tree retention pian must show preservation of at least 10 percent of significant trees, and indicate how proposed building footprints would be sited to accommodate preservation of significant trees that would be retained. If the trees cannot be retained, they may be replaced with minimum 2 inch caliper trees at a ratio of six to one. i;\rtim`rtismNpreapps\10-016 (r$ adu modular home),doc Pasang Sherpa -ADU, PRE10 0 Page 3 of a May 13, 2010 (Revised May 21, 2010) Critical Areas: There appears to be no critical areas on site. If there is any indication of critical areas on the site, this must be disclosed to the City prior to development and appropriate studies must be undertaken. Environmental Review: The project is Categorically Exempt from SEPA requirements and, therefore, Environmental Review would not be required. Permit Requirements: /accessory dwelling units in the R-8 zone require the approval of an Administrative Conditional Use Permit. The Conditional Use Permit review would be accomplished within an estimated time frame of 6 to 8 weeks. The fee for the Administrative Conditional Use Permit is $2,000.00. If an Administrative Variance is needed it carr be reviewed concurrently with the Administrative Conditional Use Permit In the estimate time frame above. The fee for the Variance is $1,200.00. in addition, construction and building permits may be required. Staff may be supportive of the proposed accessory dwelling unit as well as an Administrative Variance Pf the following were accomplished: Removal of the carport on the south side of the proposed ADU structure. • Enhance the front entrance of the proposed ADU. Place a skirt at the base of the proposed ADU Paint the area, once occupied by the garage door, to match the remainder of the fagade. The applicant is encoumed to provide a conceptual design for the ADU to the City Agor to formal submittal. Fees. Building and construction permit fees may be required- Transportation and fire mitigation fees are not required for accessory dwelling units. Renton School District Impact Fees became effective on January 18, 2010. The fees are $1,258.00 for each new multi -family unit. Accessory dwelling units are considered multi -family units for the purposes of applying school impact fees. School impact fees are payable at the time of building permit issuance. A handout listing all of the City's Development related fees is attached for your review. Expiration: Upon approval, the conditional use permit is valid for two years with a possible one year extension. i:lrtim\rtim\pre3pps\10-016 (rg adu modular home)-doc PLANNING DIVISION WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS . . . . . . . . . . Nll� RM.PMEMENTS;" ..... . .... .... (Drainage Report 2 1-MOr'-, �D. ; Q.Y Merl j'­0fo .. .. .... .... . . ........ Irrigation Plano . ... . . . . . . nq'n' : Master Application Farm 4 .. .......... . ........ Mb:n": 'd Pi -1:6.: R T . ..... . . . . . ...... . . ertt. Neighborhood Detail Map 4 This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services Section 2. Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building Section 4. Planning Section PROJECT NAME: DATE: gal � L) 0:IWEB%PMDEVSER\/\Forms\Planning\walverofsubmiftalreqs.xls 02108 PLANNING DIVISION WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIRRIENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS Rehabilitation Plan 4 ... ......... '. 04 ft .. .. .. 16, R, 0�0r I�'- i fl 6" , � . .. ....... .. ............ Wireless: Applicant Agreement Statement 2 AND 3 Inventory of Existing Sites 2 AND .3 Lease Agreement, Draft 2 AND 3 Map of Existing Site Conditions 2 AND 3 Map of View Area 2 AND 3 Photosim ulationS 2 AND 3 This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services Section PROJECT NAME: AV L/1 2. Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building Section DATE: 4. Planning Section QAWE B\PW\D EVSER\AForrns\Planning\waiverofs ubm itta Ireqs.xls 02/08 To: Planning Division Re; Project Narrative Dear City Planning Division Committee: I am writing to request a permit for turning a detached renovated recreation rooms into a detached accessory dwelling unit for my home at 2105 Dayton Ave NE Renton WA 98056. Project Name- Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit Property: 2105 Dayton Ave NE Renton WA 98056 Location of site: Lot 3 Project size: 960sq ft. Land use permits required for proposed project: Variance and the Conditional Use permit Zoning designation of the site and adjacent properties: R-8 Current Use of the site and any existing improvements: In December 2008, I got a building permit to convert our detached garage into a recreation room (with a bathroom, two rooms; one for office space and one for storage). I got the proper pen -nits from the City of Renton to finish that project, and the completed project had been approved by the City of Renton Inspectors. The building permit number is # B080666. Also, I got the Electrical Permit (E090130), the Plumbing Permit (P090051), and the Mechanical. Permit (M090321). The sewage line and the waterline are connected to the main house as you can see in the attached plan. Now, I would like to turn this recreation room into a Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit by adding kitchen cabinets and a range. Currently, l am using the space as a recreation room, and for office use and for our storage. Proposed use of the property: The proposed use after it has been turned into a Detached Accessory Dwelling with the kitchen cabinets, would be for living in it. Estimated construction cost and estimated fair market value: Since a majority of the renovation has been done when I turned it into a recreation room, the scope of the proposed project will only include putting in cabinets, a sink, and a range. The estimated 9 construction cost of putting in the kitchen materials $2500. The total market value of the project that included the cost of the renovation of the detached garage into the recreation, and the cost of putting in the kitchen is $30,000. Access: Access to the proposed project property will have a separate, private entrance with 1910 sq ft. provided. Number, type and size of any trees to be removed: There will not be any excavation or tree removals. On May 13, 2010, I requested a preliminary review of the proposed accessory dwelling unit for my property which is in the R -S zone in the City of Renton. Based on the preliminary review meeting as well as the site visit by the Planning Director and Project Manager, they made a list of recommendations for me to fulfill in order for the city to support the ADU permit (please see the attached Memorandum dated May 13, revised May 21, 2010). 1 had accomplished those requirements as you can see on the attached picture_ If you have any questions or comments, please call me at (425) 269-9155. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, Pasang Sherpa Property Owner 7. Conditional Use Permit Justification: A. The proposed use of the property will be compatible with the general purpose of the compreW6 V,Ar�, plan, the zoning ordinance of the City of Renton. Our property is situated within the R-8 zone, thus allowing the building of an ADU. Because of the size of the property (12180 sq feet), the proposed project will not impact the density of the residential area. The structure for the proposed project already exist in the form of a 960 sq feet detached garage when we bought the property. Now we are only renovating the existing structure without adding any building modules. Therefore, we believe that the renovating of the detached garage into an ADU will not impact the general purpose of the comprehensive pian. FO 1. The proposed location will not cause the increase of density to this residential area because the proposed use for the location will be in the form of a cottage type unit. It has its own private access and the site is small thus, it doesn't create an over -concentration of residential use in the lot. The site is not directly adjacent to the neighbors and it is also more than 100 feet away from the main residential structure, thus it is not congested. 2. The proposed location is suited for a the use of a cottage. It is situated in a large backyard with good lightning and surrounding environment for living. At the same time, the structure is not too outstanding and is architecturally similar to the main house. C. There will not be an adverse effect on the adjacent property because we are not adding on new structures, we are merely renovating the existing detached garage structure into a small living space. Compatibility: The accessory dwelling unit will be compatible with the existing house and characters of the neighborhood in the following ways. 1. The existing house is 1380sq. ft. and the size of the proposed project is 960 sq. ft. 2. Also, the design, color, and shape of the proposed structure is compatible with the main house, thus retaining the character of the neighborhood. The sidings, vinyl windows, elevation, and doors of the proposed project are similar to those of the main house. Parking: Parking is available next to the structure and in front of the structure. Traffic: The traffic pattern in and out of the structure is similar to the pattern of traffic flowing in and out of the main house. There is a separate driveway aside from the driveway for the main house, for access to the proposed project location. Noise, glare: Because the proposed project location is far from the neighbors on two sides, and way back from the main house, there will be not noise expected. The area around the project location will allow space for parking, for recreation, and proper refuse storage, so it will be clean and neat . Landscaping: Currently, landscaping is being provided in all areas not occupied by building or paving. Shrubs and rockeries are being placed around the locations. Shrubs and trees have been planned all the along fence to buffer adjacent properties P Accessory Uses: There are no plans to use the proposed location for preschool, day schools, or for social and sport activities. Conversion: When we converted the existing garage (site of proposed ADU) into a recreation area in 2008, we comply with all the city requirements to meet the development standards by having all proper permits and final inspections by the building, plumbing, and electrical inspectors. Public improvements: There will not be any undue burden on the public improvements. The proposed project will be adequately served by any public improvements. Lot coverage: The site area is 12,180 sq feet. The existing residential building is 1380 sq feet and the proposed ADU is 960 sq feet. So, the residential and the proposed ADU's combine square footage is 20% of the lot coverage. Yards: Since we are renovating an existing structure, there will not any new structure being constructed in the yard. In fact we have been enhancing the both back and front yard over the years which has made a significant transformation of the yard compare to six years ago. Height: The height of the proposed building structure is 13ft and 6 inches, from the ground to the tip of the roof. There will not be any spires, bellowers or antennas placed above the structure. Justifications for the 0iance Request: + The applicant suffers undue hardship and the variance is necessary because of special circumstances applicable to subject property, including size, shape, i:3';topography, and location or surroundings of the subject property; and the P�ia itOn strict application of the Building and Zone is found to deprive subject ,,Vq D vJsior? property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical classification. The property at 2105 Dayton Ave NE Renton WA 98056 is within the R-8 zone + �: that permits one accessory structure. As it stands now, the detached �c'�11�!� garage/}propose ADU is architecturally consistent with the principle structure. The existing residence is 1380 square feet, the detached garage/proposed ADU is 960 square feet in size. The square footage of the existing garage/propose ADU exceeds the 800 square foot requirement and it is not feasible structurally to be reduced in size. The ADU was built out of the existing garage footprint. The roof was retained and retrofitted- it was reduced to meet the setback requirements. The exterior walls were retrofitted from the existing to meet code and energy requirements. The foot print of the garage was not increased at the time it was converted. In order to meet the 800SF maximum requirement the walls of the garage would have had to be demolished and modified. This would have impacted not just the walls it would impact the footings and the roof structure. Making these changes to bring the retrofitted structure into compliance would result in a huge cost increase and cause undue hardship to the owner. Therefore, an Administrative Variance with the minimum variance of 160 square feet is being requested. • The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity or zone in which subject property is situated. The 960 square feet detached garage/proposed ADU as it stands will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity. The ADU is meant for one family. The increase in size, not intentional had been because it retrofitted an existing garage. The overall square footage along with the residence meets the needed requirement of pervious vs impervious ratios as established by the City of Renton. The increased size does not place any additional burden on the services by the city. The occupancy nature does not change due to the increased area nor does the usage pattern. Although greater in size by 160 square feet the ADU complies with all applicable codes. The ADU with area greater than allowed does not change either the density of the neighborhood nor does it increase traffic in any way form or manner. It does not place any burden on the neighborhood utilities other than that allowed by code for an ADU. Its size character and landscaping all comply with the city codes. They are proportionate to the lot size and do not change the perception of the built up area since the structure is a rehab of an existing garage structure, hence already existing in the perception of the neighborhood. By granting the variance of 160 square that would equal to the existing 960 square feet of the existing garage, the size structure will not change ultimately, therefore, it will not negatively impact the property or improvements in the vicinity. Approval shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated. Approval of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege because the size of the structure will not be expanded as a result of the variance approval. The granting of the variance will allow for the existing size of the structure to exist as it is. The variance allows the structure to be used as an ADU and nothing other than an ADU as permitted by the city Code. The use of the structure as an ADU does not increase any density above the city permitted limit. The usage is not inconsistent with the neighboring properties. Also it is believed that the City would grant a similar variance to existing structure in the future and as such this would not constitute a special privilege. + The approval, as determined by the Reviewing Official, is the minimum variance that will accomplish the desired purpose. The existing detached garage/proposed ADU is 960 square feet in size and the required square feet of the ADU is 800. By requesting for 160 square feet variance for meeting the existing size of the detached garage, the property owner is requesting for the minimum variance to achieve the desired purpose. Order No.: TS - 40062854 j 14450 N.E. 29"' PI., #200 C Vrrll l l_�Y _ m' e C t Bellevue, WA 98007 Phone: 425-646-3515 LAND TITLE COMPANY OF PUGET SOUND, LLC - 888-272-5773 Fax: 425-646-3517 COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE A 1. Effective Date; August 27, 2010 at 8:00 a.m. Commitment No.: TS - 40062854 2. Policy or Policies to be issued: ALTA 2006 Loan Policy Refinance Rate with Electronic Discount Rate Proposed Insured: LO INC., DBA Reliance Mortgage, Inc. Amount: $250,000.00 Premium: $ 473.00 Agent Portion of $425.70 Premium: Tax: $ 44.94 Underwriter $47.30 Portion of Premium: Total: $ 517.94 3. Title to the fee simple estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment is at the effective date hereof vested in: Hannah Chi and Pasang Sherpa, wife and husband 4. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows; See Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Preliminary Commitment Page 1 Order No. TS - 40062854 EXHIBIT "A" LOT 3 IN BLOCK 7 OF EDENDALE ADDITION, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 50 OF PLATS, PAGE $i, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY AUDITOR; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. Order No. TS - 40062854 SCHEDULE B REQUIREMENTS: Instruments necessary to create the estate or interest to be properly executed, delivered and duly filed for record. EXCEPTIONS: Schedule B of the Policy or Policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following matters unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company. A. Standard exceptions set forth on the Commitment Cover. B. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed Insured acquires for value of record the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: 1. 3. 4. 5. 6. GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES AND SERVICE CHARGES, AS FOLLOWS, TOGETHER WITH INTEREST, PENALTY AND STATUTORY FORECLOSURE COSTS, IF ANY, AFTER DELINQUENCY: (1ST HALF DELINQUENT ON MAY 1; 2ND HALF DELINQUENT ON NOVEMBER 1) TAX ACCOUNT NO.: 2253200095 YEAR BILLED PAID BALANCE 2010 $2,836.73 $1,418.37 $1,418.36 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE, NOT INCLUDING INTEREST AND PENALTY: $1,418.36. LEVY CODE: 2100 ASSESSED VALUE LAND: $136,000.00 ASSESSED VALUE IMPROVEMENTS: $118,000.00 THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF RENTON. WE ARE CURRENTLY CHECKING L.I.D. ASSESSMENTS AND WILL FURTHER SUPPLEMENT THIS REPORT. AGREEMENTS, COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS, IF ANY, APPEARING IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS. ANY EASEMENTS OR SERVITUDES APPEARING IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS. ANY LEASE, GRANT, EXCEPTION OR RESERVATION OF MINERALS OR MINERAL RIGHTS APPEARING IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS. DEED OF TRUST AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTOR: PASANG G. SHERPA AND HANNAH CHI, HUSBAND AND WIFE TRUSTEE: TALON GROUP, A DIVISION OF FIRST AMERICAN BENEFICIARY: MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEM, INC., AS NOMINEE FOR LO, INC. DBA RELIANCE MORTGAGE, INC. ORIGINAL AMOUNT: $250,000.00 DATED: FEBRUARY 11, 2009 RECORDED: FEBRUARY 27, 2009 RECORDING NO.: 20090227001100 Page 3 • SCHEDULE B - continued Order No. TS - 40062854 NOTE 1: IN THE PAST 24 MONTHS, THERE HAVE BEEN NO CONVEYANCES OF RECORD FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN SCHEDULE A HEREIN. TITLE WAS ACQUIRED BY HANNAH CHI AND PASANG SHERPA, WIFE AND HUSBAND BY DEED RECORDED ON AUGUST 30, 2005, UNDER RECORDING NO. 20050830002182. NOTE 2: WE FIND NO PERTINENT MATTERS OF RECORD AGAINST THE NAME(S) OF SAID BORROWER(S). NOTE 3: THE MATTERS RELATING TO THE QUESTIONS OF SURVEY, RIGHTS OF PARTIES IN POSSESSION, AND UNRECORDED LIENS FOR LABOR AND MATERIAL HAVE BEEN CLEARED FOR THE LOAN POLICY WHICH, WHEN ISSUED, WILL CONTAIN THE ALTA 9-06 OR WLTA 100 ENDORSEMENT, AS APPROPRIATE FOR THE POLICY FORM. NOTE 4: BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED TO THE COMPANY, ON THE DATE OF THIS COMMITMENT IT APPEARS THAT THERE IS LOCATED ON THE LAND: A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE KNOWN AS: 2105 DAYTON AVENUE NE RENTON, WA 98055 MAP NOTE S: IF YOU WOULD LIKE THE COMPANY TO ACT AS TRUSTEE IN THE PROPOSED DEED OF TRUST, PLEASE NOTE THAT "COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE COMPANY OF PUGET SOUND, LLC" MAY ACT AS TRUSTEE OF A DEED OF TRUST UNDER RCW 61.24.010(1). NOTE 6: THE COMPANY REQUIRES THE PROPOSED INSURED TO VERIFY THAT THE LAND COVERED BY THIS COMMITMENT IS THE LAND INTENDED TO BE CONVEYED IN THIS TRANSACTION. THE DESCRIPTION OF THE LAND MAY BE INCORRECT, IF THE APPLICATION FOR TITLE INSURANCE CONTAINED INCOMPLETE OR INACCURATE INFORMATION. NOTIFY THE COMPANY WELL BEFORE CLOSING IF CHANGES ARE NECESSARY. CLOSING INSTRUCTIONS MUST INDICATE THAT THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY ALL PARTIES. NOTE 7: THE FOLLOWING MAY BE USED AS AN ABBREVIATED LEGAL DESCRIPTION ON THE DOCUMENTS TO BE RECORDED, PER AMENDED RCW 65.04. SAID ABBREVIATED LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR A COMPLETE LEGAL DESCRIPTION WITHIN THE BODY OF THE DOCUMENT. LOT 3 IN BLOCK 2 OF EDENDALE ADDITION NOTE 8: WHEN SENDING DOCUMENTS FOR RECORDING, VIA U.S. MAIL OR SPECIAL COURIER SERVICE, PLEASE SEND TO THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS, UNLESS SPECIFIC ARRANGEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE WITH YOUR TITLE UNIT: COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE COMPANY OF PUGET SOUND 1501 - 4TH AVENUE, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 ATTN: RECORDING DEPT. COMMONWEALTH PRE -ADDRESSED ENVELOPES MAY STILL BE USED WHEN SENDING DOCUMENTS VIA TDS (TITLE DELIVERY SERVICE) TO THE ADDRESS ON THE FACE OF THE COMMITMENT COVER PAGE OR TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. NOTE 9: IN THE EVENT THAT THE COMMITMENT JACKET IS NOT ATTACHED HERETO, ALL OF THE TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SAID JACKET ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN. THE COMMITMENT JACKET IS AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT ANY COMPANY OFFICE. Page 4 0 SCHEDULE B - continued 0 Order No. TS - 40062854 NOTE 10: THE POLICY(S) OF INSURANCE MAY CONTAIN A CLAUSE PERMITTING ARBITRATION OF CLAIMS AT THE REQUEST OF EITHER THE INSURED OR THE COMPANY. UPON REQUEST, THE COMPANY WILL PROVIDE A COPY OF THIS CLAUSE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ARBITRATION RULES PRIOR TO THE CLOSING OF THE TRANSACTION. (END OF EXCEPTIONS) Investigation should be made to determine if there are any sewer treatment capacity charges or if there are any service, installation, maintenance, or construction charges for sewer, water or electricity. In the event this transaction fails to close, a cancellation fee will be charged for services rendered in accordance with our rate schedule. Unless otherwise requested or specified herein, the forms of policy to be issued in connection with this Commitment will be the ALTA 2003 Homeowner's Policy, the ALTA 2006 Loan Policy, or, in the case of standard lender's coverage, the ALTA 2006 Standard Loan Policy. The Policy committed for or requested may be examined by inquiry at the office that issued the Commitment, A specimen copy of the Policy form(s) referred to in this Commitment will be furnished promptly upon request. AV2 Enclosures: Sketch Vesting Deed Paragraphs All Recorded Documents Page 5 Issued by ro Commonwealth" i„AND TITLE INSURANCE -'OMPA'JY Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company, a Nebraska corporation, herein called the Company, for a valuable consideration, hereby commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A, in favor of the proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate or interest covered hereby in the land described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges therefor; all subject to the exceptions and conditions and stipulations shown herein, the Exclusions from Coverage, the Schedule B exceptions, and the conditions and stipulations of the policy or policies requested. (See the following pages for printed Exclusions from Coverage and Schedule B exceptions contained in various policy forms.) This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A hereof by the Company, either at the time of the issuance of this Commitment or by subsequent endorsement and is subject to the Conditions and Stipulations. This Commitment is preliminary to the issuance of such policy or policies of title insurance and all liability and obligations hereunder shat# cease and terminate 180 days after the effective date hereof or when the policy or policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs, provided that the failure to issue such policy or policies is not the fault of the Company. NOTE: THE POLICY COMMITTED FOR MAY BE EXAMINED BY INQUIRY AT THE OFFICE WHICH ISSUED THE COMMITMENT, AND A SPECIMEN COPY OF THE POLICY FORM (OR FORMS) REFERRED TO IN THIS COMMITMENT WILL BE FURNISHED PROMPTLY UPON REQUEST, COMMONWEALTHLANDTITLE INSURANCE COMPANY �OTSTlE(g84g,� 13y: �`� J�� ti': W7�'i3fY COMMITMENT CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS 1. The term mortgage, when used herein, shall include deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument. 2. If the proposed Insured has or acquires actual knowledge of any defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter affecting the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment other than those shown in Schedule B hereof, and shall fail to disclose such krowledge to the Company in writing, the Company shall be relieved from liability for any loss or damage resulting from any act of reliance hereon to the extent the Company is prejudiced by failure to so disclose such knowledge. It the proposed Insured shall disclose such knowledge to the Company, or if the Company otherwise acquires actual knowledge of any Such defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter, the Company at its option may amend Schedule B of this Commitment accordingly, but such amendment shall not relieve the Company from liability previously incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions and Stipulations. 3. Liability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named proposed Insured and such parties included under the definition of Insured in the form of policy or policies committed for and only for actual loss incurred in reliance hereon in undertaking in good faith (a) to comply with the requirements hereof, or (b) to eliminate exceptions shown in Schedule B, or (c) to acquire or Create the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. In no event shall such liability exceed the amount stated in Schedule A for the policy or policies committed for and such liability is subject to the insuring provisions and Conditions and Stipulations and the Exclusions from Coverage of the form of policy or policies committed for in favor of the proposed insured which are hereby incorporated by reference and are made a part of this Commitment except as expressly modified herein. 4. Any action or actions or rights of action that the proposed Insured may have or may bring against the Company arising out of the status of the title to the estate or interest or the status of the mortgage thereon covered by this Commdtment must be based on and are subject to the provisions of this Commitment. 5. The policy to be issued contains an arbitration clause. All arbitrable matters when the Amount of insurance is $2,000,000 or less shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Insured as the exclusive remedy of the parties. You may review a copy of the arbitration rules at< http.Ilwww.alta.orgh. Commitment Cover - WA (Revised 8-07) �J 0 SCHEDULE OF EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION LOAN POLICY (06-17-06) EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy, and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees, or expenses that arise by reason of: 1. (a) Any law, ordinance, permit, or governmental regulation (including those relating to building and zoning) restricting, regulating, prohibiting, or relating to (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the Land; (ii) the character, dimensions, or location of any improvement erected on the Land; (iii) the subdivision of land; or (iv) environmental protection; or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances, or governmental regulations. This Exclusion 1(a) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 5. (b) Any governmental police power. This Exclusion 1(b) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk G. 2. Rights of eminent domain. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 7 or 8. 3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters (a) created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to by the Insured Claimant; (b) not Known to the Company, not recorded in the Public Records at Date of Policy, but Known to the Insured Claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the Insured Claimant prior to the date the Insured Claimant became an Insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured Claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy (however, this does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 11, 13, or 14); or (e) resulting in loss or damage that would not have been sustained if the Insured Claimant had paid value for the Insured Mortgage. 4. Unenforceability of the lien of the Insured Mortgage because of the inability or failure of an Insured to comply with applicable doing -business laws of the state where the Land is situated. 5. Invalidity or unenforceability in whole or in part of the lien of the Insured Mortgage that arises out of the transaction evidenced by the Insured Mortgage and is based upon usury or any consumer credit protection or truth -in -lending law. 5. Any claim, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors' rights laws, that the transaction creating the lien of the Insured Mortgage, is (a) a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer, or (b) a preferential transfer for any reason not stated in Covered Risk 13(b) of this policy. 7. Any lien on the Title for real estate taxes or assessments imposed by governmental authority and created or attaching between Date of Policy and the date of recording of the Insured Mortgage in the Public Records. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 11(b). COMmitlnent Cover - WA (Revised 8-47) 0 0 SCHEDULE, OF EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE (continued) AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION OWNER'S POLICY (06-17-06) EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy, and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees, or expenses that arise by reason of: 1. (a) Any law, ordinance, permit, or governmental regulation (including those relating to building and zoning) restricting, regulating, prohibiting, or relating to (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the Land; (ii) the character, dimensions, or location of any Improvement erected on the Land; (iii) the subdivision of land; or (iv) environmental protection; or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances, or governmental regulations. This Exclusion 1(a) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 5. (b) Any governmental police power. This Fxclusion 1(b) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 6. 2. Rights of eminent domain. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 7 or 8. 3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters (a) created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to by the Insured Claimant,- (b) laimant;(b) not Known to the Company, not recorded in the Public Records at Date of Policy, but Known to the Insured Claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the Insured Claimant prior to the date the Insured Claimant became an Insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured Claimant,- (d) laimant;(d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy (however, this does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 9 and 10); or (e) resulting in loss or damage that would not have been sustained if the Insured Claimant had paid value for the Title. 4. Any claim, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors' rights laws, that the transaction vesting the Title as shown in Schedule A, is (a) a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer; or. (b) a preferential transfer for any reason not stated in Covered Risk 9 of this policy. 5. Any lien on the Title for real estate taxes or assessments imposed by governmental authority and created or attaching between Date of Policy and the date of recording of the deed or other instrument of transfer in the Public Records that vests Title as shown in Schedule A. Commitment Cover - WA (Revised 8-07) 9 10 SCHFDLJLE OF EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE (continued) AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION HOMEOWNER'S POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE FOR A ONE -TO -FOUR FAMILY RESIDENCE (10-22-03) In addition to the Exceptions in Schedule B, You are not insured against loss, casts, attorneys' fees, and expenses resulting from: 1. Governmental police power, and the existence or violation of any law or government regulation. This includes ordinances, laws and regulations concerning: (a) building (b) zoning (c) Land use (d) improvements on the Land (e) Land division (f) environmental protection This Exclusion does not apply to violations or the enforcement of these matters if notice of the violation or enforcement appears in the Public Records at the Policy Date. This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 14, 15 16, 17 or 24. 2. The failure of Your existing structures, or any part of them, to be constructed in accordance with applicable building codes. This Exclusion does not apply to violations of building codes if notice of the violation appears in the Public Records at the Policy Date. 3. The right to take the Land by condemning it, unless: (a) a notice of exercising the right appears in the Public Records at the Policy Date; or (b) the taking happened before the Policy Date and is binding on You if You bought the Land without Knowing of the taking. 4. Risks: (a) that are created, allowed, or agreed to by You, whether or not they appear in the Public records; (b) that are Known to You at the Policy Date, but not to Us, unless they appeared in the Public Records at the Policy Date; (c) that result in no loss to You; or (d) that first occur after the Policy Date — this does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 7, 8.d, 22, 23, 24 or 25. 5. Failure to pay value for Your Title. 6. Lack of a right: (a) to any Land outside the area specifically described and referred to in paragraph 3 of Schedule A; and (b) in streets, alleys, or waterways that touch the Land. This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 11 or 18. Commitment Cover - WA (Revised 8-07) 9 0 The matters listed below each policy form are expressly excepted from the coverage of that policy and that policy does not insure against loss or damage (and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees or expenses) which arise by reason thereof. SCHEDULE B EXCEPTIONS APPEARING IN ALTA OWNER'S POLICY — STANDARD COVERAGE AND STANDARD COVERAGE LOAN POLICY I. Taxes or assessments which are not now payable or which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records; proceedings by a public agency which may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the public records. 2, Any facts, rights, interests or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of the land or which may be asserted by persons in possession, or claiming to be in possession, thereof, 3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, which are not shown by the public records. 4. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the land, and that is not shown by the Public Records. 5. Any lien, or right to a lien, for labor, material, services or equipment, or for contributions to employee benefit plans, or liens under Workmans' Compensation Acts, not disclosed by the public records. 6. ,a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) Indian treaty or aboriginal rights, including, but not limited to, easements or equitable servitudes; or, (d) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b), (c) or (d) are shown by the public records. 7. Right of use, control or regulation by the United States of America in the exercise of powers over navigation; any prohibition or limitation on the use, occupancy or improvement of the land resulting from the rights of the public or riparian owners to use any waters which may cover the land or to use any portion of the land which is now or may formerly have been covered by water. B. Any service, installation, connection, maintenance or construction charges for sewer, water, electricity, or garbage collection or disposal, or other utilities unless disclosed as an existing her; by the public records. SCHEDULE B EXCEPTIONS APPEARING IN ALTA OWNER'S POLICY — EXTENDED COVERAGE 1. Taxes or assessments which are riot now payable or which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records; proceedings by a public agency which may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the public records. 2. Underground easements, servitudes or installations which are riot disclosed by the public records. 3. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) Indian treaty or aboriginal rights, including, but not limited to, easements or equitable servitudes; or, (d) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b), (c) or (d) are shown by the public records. 4. Right of use, control or regulation by the United States of America in the exercise of powers over navigation; any prohibition or limitation on the use, occupancy or improvement of the land resulting from the rights of the public or riparian owners to use any waters which may cover the land or to use any portion of the land which is now or may formerly have been covered by water. S. Any service, installation, connection, maintenance or construction charges for sewer, water, electricity, or garbage collection or disposal, or other utilities unless disclosed as an existing lien by the public records. SCHEDULE B EXCEPTIONS APPEARING IN EXTENDED COVERAGE ALTA LOAN POLICY (06-17-06) and ALTA HOMEOWNER'S POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE (10-22-03) No general exceptions appear in these policy forms. Commitment Cover - WA (Revised 8-07) THIS SKETCH IS PROVIDED, WITHOUT CHARGE, FOR YOUR INFORMATION. IT l3 NOT flTENDED TO SHOW ALL MATTERS RELATED TO THE PROPERTY INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, AREA, DIMENSIONS, EASEMENTS, ENCROACHMENTS OR LOCATIONS OF BOUNDARIES. IT IS NOT A PART OF, NOR DOES IT MODIFY, THE COMMITMENT OR POLICY TO WHICH IT IS ATTACHED THE COMPANY ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR ANY MATTER RELATED TO THIS SKETCH,UNLESS SUCH COVERAGE iS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED BY THE COVERED RISKS OF THE POLICY. REFERENCE SHOULD BE MADE TO AN ACCURATE SURVEY FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. SECTION- 05 TOWNSHIP: 23N RANGE: 05E N N 174 72io 3 LL; .26 101.2- N 1244 "Z AFTER RECORDING MAIL TO: Name: Hannah Chi and Pasang Sherpa Address: 2105 Dayton Avenue NE City, State, Zip. Renton, SNA 98056 i� PF stop, of /30/29 ,Nr. Anis 0 20050830002182.001 Filed for Record at Request of: E215079A 08/30/2005 14 37 `'F Old Republic Title, Ltd. KING COUNTY, ,dA SALE $2 P,®00.00 PACE001 OF 001 STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED THE GRANTORS) Scott L. Spencer, an unmarried individual, as his sole and separate property for and in consideration of $10.00 and good and other valuable considerations in hand paid, conveys, and warrants to Hannah Chi and Pasang Sherpa, wife and husband the following described real estate, situated in the County of King, state of Washington: Let(s) 3, Block 2, EDENDALE ADDITION, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 60 of Plats, page(s) 61, records of King County, Washington_ See "Exhibit A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. Assessor's Property Tax Parcel/Account Number: 225320-0095-02 Dated: - 0 S— Scott L. Spencer STATE OF (A) COUNTY OF I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that J r— o ee v1 , e- -e— (Ware) (Ware) the person(s) who appeared before me, and said perspn(s) acknovAedged thatth a/she / ey)-signed this Instrument • and acknowledgedf It to be (hIs/hedtheir) free and voluntary act fo the uses and purposes mention ed in this Instrument. Dated: Notary Public In and for the state of.r. w L. Q "'I% My appointment expires e %"''.• "mer c OLDRFPUBLiGTiTLELTD- � Ef ASt t� C., LPB-10 7/97 a 0 Lo Inc., dba Reliance Mortgage Inc 1008 1401" Ave NE V101 Bellevue, WA 98005 After Recording Return Tor LO INC— DBA RELIANCE MORTGAGR INC 1008 140TH AVE NE,STE 101 BELLEVUE, WA 98005 200902 53.60 T14F TALON GA6tl OT PAgGEeet OF 10121-,24 KING COUNTY , QA Assessor's Parcel or Account Number: 2253200095 Abbreviated Legal Description: LOT 3, BLOCK 2, EDENDALE ADD. , VOL. 60, P. 81, KING COUNTY [Include lot. block , and plat or section, township and range) Full legal description located on page 3 Title Order Na.. 1336928 LOAN #r 196727177 [Space Above This line For Recording Data] DEED OF TRUST MIM 1003529-8000002719-8 DEFINITIONS Words used in muitipls sections of this document are defined below and other words are defined in Sections 3, 11, 13, 18, 20 and 21. Certain rules regarding the usage of words used in this document are also provided in Section 16. (A) "Security Instrumenl" means this document, which is dated FEBROARY 11, 2009, together with all Riders to this document. (B) "Borrower" is 1>ASAN13 G. SHERPA, WHO ACQUIRED TITLE AS PASANG SHERPA AND HANNAH CHI, HUSBAND AN13 WIFE Talon Group A division of First Borrower is the trustor under this Security Instrument. American Title insurance (C) "(_ender" is LO INC., DBA RELIANCE: MORTGAGE INC. Company Lender is a CORPORATION, organized and existing under the laws of WASHINGTON. Lender's address is 1008 140TH AVE NE,STE 101, BELLEVUE, WA 98005. InlLialss WASHINGTON --Single!, Family --Fannie Mae/Freddie Mao UNIFORM INSTRUMENT Form 3048 1101 0 1999.2007 Online Documents, Inc- Page 1 of 11 WAEDFED 0705 0 LOAN #; 196727177 (D) "Trustee" is TILE TALON GROUP. (E) "MERS" is Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. MERS is a separate corporation that is acting soiely as a nominee for Lender and Lender's successors and assigns. MERS is the beneficiary under this Security Instrument. MERS is organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, and has an address and telephone number of P.O- Box2026, Flint, M148501-2026, tel. (888) 679-MERS. (F) "Note" means the promissory note signed by Borrower and dated FEBRUARY 11, 2009. The Note states that Borrower owes Lender *TWO Htm DRED FIFTY THOUSAND AND N01140 w,ryrwwww*wwwww*wwwwwwwww:,rw*ww*w**ww*w***ww*wwWrw*wwww*•w *w*w,rww*wwwww*,tw*ww Dollars (U.S. $250, GOO .00 ) plus interest. Borrower has promised to pay this debt in regular Periodic Payments and to pay the debt in full not later than mARcH 1, 2039. (G) "Property" means the property that is described below Under the heading "Transfer of Rights in the Property." (H) "Loan" means the debt evidenced by the Note, plus interest, any prepayment charges and late charges due under the Note, and all sums due under this Security Instrument, plus interest. (1) "Riders" means all Riders to this Security Instrument that are executed by Borrower. The following Riders are to be executed by Borrower [check box as applicable]: =Adjustable Rate Rider Condominium Rider =Second Home Rider =Balloon Rider .-1 Planned Unit Development Rider = Other(s) [specify] = 1-4 Family Rider =Biweekly Payment Rider = V.A. Rider (J) "Applicable Law" means all controlling applicable federal, state and local statutes, regulations, ordinances and administrative rules and orders (that have the effect of law) as well as all applicable final, non -appealable judicial opinions. (K) "Community Association Dues, Fees, and Assessments" means all dues, fees, assessments and other charges that are imposed on Borrower or the Property by a condominium association, homeowners association or similar organization. (L) "Electronic Funds Transfer" means any transfer of funds, other than a transaction originated by check, draft, or similar paper instrument, which is initiated through an electronic terminal, telephonic instrument, computer, or magnetic tape so as to order, instruct, or authorize a financial institution to debit or credit an account. Such term includes, but is not limited to, point -of sale transfers, automated teller machine transactions, transfers initiated by telephone, wire transfers, and automated clearinghouse transfers. (M) "Escrow Items" means those items that are described In Section 3. (N) "Miscellaneous Proceeds" means any compensation, settlement, award of damages, or proceeds paid by any third party (other than insurance proceeds paid under the coverages described in Section 5) for: (i) damage to, or destruction of, the Property; (ii) condemnation or other taking of all or any part of the Property; (iii) conveyance in lieu of condemnation; or (iv) misrepresentations of, or omissions as to, the vatue and/or condition of the Property. (0) "Mortgage Insurance" means insurance protecting Lender against the nonpayment of, ordefault on, the Loan. (P) "Periodic Payment" means the regularly scheduled amount due for (i) principal and interest under the Note, plus (ii) any amounts under Section 3 of this Security Instrument, (Q) "RESPA" means the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (12 U.S.C. §2601 et seq-) and its implementing regulation, Regulation X (24 C.F.R. Part 3500), as they might be amended from time to time, or any additional or successor legislation or regulation that governs the same subject matter. As used in this Security Instrument, "RESPA" refers to all requirements and restrictions that are imposed in regard to a "federally related mortgage loan" even if the Loan does not qualify as a "federally related mortgage loan" under RESPA. (R) "Successor in interest of Borrower" means any party that has taken title to the Property, whether or not that party has assumed Borrower's obligations under the Note and/or this Security Instrument. TRANSFER OF RIGHTS IN THE PROPERTY The beneficiary of this Security Instrument is MERS (solely as nominee for Lender and Lender's successors and assigns) and the successors and assigns of MERS. This Security Instrument secures to Lender: (i) the repayment of the Loan, and all renewals, extensions and modifications of the Note; and (ii) the performance of Borrower's covenants and agreements under this Security I merit and Tnitials WASHINGTON --Single Family -Fannie Mae/Fraddis Mae UNIFORM INSTRUMENT Form 3048 1101 0 1999-2007 Online Documents, Inc. Page 2 of 23. wAEDEED 0705 0 10 LOAN #: 196727177 the Nate_ For this purpose, Borrower irrevocably grants and conveys to Trustee, in trust, with power of sale, the following described property located in the COUNTY ['type of Recarding Jurisdiction] Of KING (Name of Retarding Jurisdiction]: LOT 3, BLOCK 2, EDENDAt.F ADD., VOL- 60, P. 81, KING CouNTY APN #r 2253200095 Lot 3, Block 2, Edendale Addition, according to the plat thereof recorded in volume 60 of Plats, page 81, records of King County, Washington, Tax Parcel Number. 2253200095 which currently has the address of 2105 DAYTON AVENUE NORTHEAST, RENTON', Washington 98056 ("Property Address"); [St -of] [city] IZip Codej TOGETHER WITH all the improvements now or hereafter erected on the property, and all easements, appurtenances, and fixtures now or hereafter a part of the property. All replacements and additions shall also be covered by this Security instrument. All of the foregoing is referred to in this Security Instrument as the "Property." Borrower understands and agrees that MERS holds only legal title to the interests granted by Borrower in this Security Instrument, but, if necessary to comply with law or custom, MEAS (as norrlinee for Lender and Lender's successors and assigns) has the right: to exercise any or all of those interests, including, but not limited to, the right to foreclose and sell the Property; and to take any action required of Lender including, but not €invited to, releasing and canceling this Security instrument. BORROWER COVENANTS that Borrower is lawfully seised of the estate hereby conveyed and has the right to grant and convoy the Property and that the Property is unencumbered, except for encumbrances of record. Borrower warrants and will defend generally the title to the Property against all claims and demands, subject to any encumbrances of record. Thi€S SECURITY INSTRUMENT combines uniform covenants for national use and non-uniform covenantswith limited variations byjurisdiction to constitute a uniform security instrument covering real property. UNIFORM COVENANTS. Borrower and Lender covenant and agree as follows; 1. Payment of Principal, Interest, Escrow Items, prepayment Charges, and Late Charges. Borrower shall pay when due the principal of, and interest on, the debt evidenced by the Note and any prepayment charges and late charges due under the Note. Borrower shall also pay funds for Escrow Items pursuant to Section 3. Payments due under the Note and this Security Instrument shall be made in U -S, currency. However, if any check or other instrument received by Lender as payment under the Note or this Security Instrument is returned to Lender unpaid, Lender may require that any or all subsequent payments due under the Note and this Security Instrument be made in one or more of the following forms, as selected by Lender: (a) cash; (b) money order; (c) certified check, bank check, treasurer's check or cashier's check, provided any such check is drawn upon an institution whose deposits are insured by a federal agency, instrumentality, or entity; or'(d) Electronic Funds Transfer. Payments are deemed received by Lender when received at the location designated in the Note or at such other location as may be designated by Lender in accordance with the notice provisions in Section 15. Lender may return any payment or partial payment if the payment or partial payments are insufficient to bring the Loan current. Lender may accept any payment or partial payment insufficient to bring the Loan current, without waiver of any rights hereunder or prejudice to its rights to refuse such payment or partial payments in the future, but Lender is not obligated to apply such payments at the time suoh payments are accepted. If each Periodic Payment is applied as of its scheduled due date, then Lender need not pay interest on unapplied funds. Lender may hold such unapplied funds until Borrower makes payment to bring the Loan current. If Borrower does not do so within a reasonable period of time, Lender shall either apply such funds or return them to Borrower, if not applied earlier, such funds will be applied to the outstanding principal balance under the Note immediately prior to foreclosure_ No offset or claim which Borrower might have now or in the future against Lender shall relieve Borrowerfrom making payments due under the Note and this Security Instrument or performing the covenants and agreements secured by this Security Instrument. 2. Application of Payments or Proceeds. Except as otherwise described in this Section 2, all payments accepted and applied by Lender shall be applied in the following order of priority: (a) Interest due under the Note; (b) principal dueunderthe Note; (c) amounts due under Section 3. Such payments shall be applied to each Periodic Payment in the order in which it became due. Any remaining amounts shall be applied first to late charges, second to any other amounts due under this Security IrLument, and then to reduce the principal balance of the Note. initial WASHINGTON --Single Family --Fannie Mae/Freddle Mac UNIFORM INSTRUMENT Form 3045 1/01 cd 1999-2007 Online Documents, Ino, Page 3 of 11 wAFDEED 0795 0 0 LOAN #a 195727177 If Lender receives a payment from Borrower for a delinquent Periodic Payment which includes a sufficient amount to pay any late charge due, the payment may be applied to the delinquent payment and the late charge. If more than one Periodic Payment is outstanding, Lender may apply any payment received from Borrower to the repayment of the Periodic Payments if, and to the extent that, each payment can be paid in full. To the extent that any excess exists after the payment is applied to the full paymentoforne or more Periodic Payments, such excess maybe applied toany late charges due- Voluntary prepayments shall be applied first to any prepayment charges and then as described in the Note. Any application of payments, insurance proceeds, or Miscellaneous Proceeds to principal due under the Note shall not extend or postpone the due date, or change the amount, of the Periodic Payments. 3. Funds for Escrow Items. Borrower shall pay to Lender on the day Periodic Payments are due under the (Vote, until the Note is paid in full, a sum (the "Funds") to provide for payment of amounts due for: (a) taxes and assessments and other items which can attain priority over this Security Instrument as a lien or encumbrance on the Property; (b) leasehold payments or ground rents on the property, if any; (c) premiums for any and all Insurance required by Lender under Section 5; and (d) Mortgage Insurance premiums, if any, or any sums payable by Borrower to Lender in lieu of the payment of Mortgage insurance premiums in accordance with the provisions of Section 10. These items are called "Escrow Items." At origination or at any time during the term of the Loan, Lender may require that Community Association Dues, Fees, and Assessments, if any, be escrowed by Borrower, and such dues, fees and assessments shalt be an Escrow Item, Borrower shall promptly furnish to Lender all notices of amounts to be paid under this Section. Borrower shall pay Lender the Fundsfor Escrow Items unless Lender waives Borrower's obligation to pay the Funds for any or all Escrow Items. Lender may waive Borrower's obligation to pay to Lender Funds for any or all Escrow Items at any time. Any such waiver may only be in writing. In the event of such waiver, Borrower shall pay directly, when and where payable, the amounts dueforany Escrow Itemsforwhich payment of Funds has been waived by Lender and, if Lender requires, shall furnish to Lender receipts evidencing such payment within such time period as Lender may require. Borrower's obligation to make such payments and to provide receipts shall for all purposes be deemed to be acovenantand agreement contained in this Security Instrument, as the phrase "covenant and agreement" is used in Section 9. It Borrower is obligated to pay Escrow Items directly, pursuant to awaiver, and Borrower tails to pay the amount due far an Escrow Item, Lender may exercise its rights under Section 9 and pay such amount and Borrower shall then be obligated under Section 9 to repay to Lender any such amount. Lender may revoke the waiver as to any or all Escrow Items at any time by a notice given in accordance with Section 15 and, upon such revocation, Borrowershall payto Lender all Funds, and in such amounts, that are then required under this Section 3. Lender may, atanytime, collectand hold Funds in an amount (a) sufficientto permit Lender toapply the Funds at the time specified under RESPA, and (b) notto exceed the maximum amount a lender can require under RESPA, Lender shall estimate the amount of Funds due on the basis of current data and reasonable estimates of expenditures of future Escrow Items or otherwise in accordance with Applicable Law. The Funds shall be held in an institution whose deposits are insured by a federal agency, instrumentality, or entity (including Lender, if Lender is an Institution whose deposits are so insured) or in any Federal Home Loan Bank. Lender shalt apply the Funds to pay the Escrow Items no later than thetime specified under RESPA. Lender shall notcharge Borrowerfor holding and applying the Funds, annually analyzing the escrow account, or verifying the Escrow Items, unless Lender pays Borrower interest on the Funds and Applicable Law permits Lender to make such a charge- Unless an agreement is made in writing or Applicable Law requires interest to be paid on the Funds, Lender shall not be required to pay Borrower any interest or earnings on the Funds. Borrower and Lender can agree in writing, however, that interestshall be paid on the Funds. Lendershall give to Borrower, withoutcharge, an annual accounting of the f=unds as required by RESPA. If there is a surplus of Funds held in escrow, as defined under RESPA. Lender shall account to Borrowerfor the excess funds in accordancewith RESPA. Ifthere is a shortage of Funds held in escrow, as defined under RESPA, Lender shall notify Borrower as required by RESPA, and Borrower shall pay to Lender the amount necessary to makeup the shortage in accordance with RESPA, but in no more than 12 monthly payments. If there is a deficiency of Funds held in escrow, as defined under RESPA, under shall notify Borrower as required by RESPA, and Borrower shall pay to Lender the amount necessary to make up the deficiency in accordance with RESPA, but in no more than 12 monthly payments. Upon payment in full of all sums secured by this Security Instrument, Lender shall promptly refund to Borrower any Funds helot by Lender. 4. Charges; Liens. Borrower shall pay all taxes, assessments, charges, fines, and impositions attributable to the Property which can attain priority over this Security Instrument, leasehold payments or ground rents on the Property, if any, and Community Association Dues, Fees, and Assessments, if any. To the extent that these items are Escrow Items, Borrower shall pay them in the manner provided in Section 3. Borrower shall promptly discharge any lien which has priority over this Security Instrument unless Borrower: (a) agrees in writing to the payment of the obligation secured by the lien i annex Initiala a WASHINGTON --Single Family--Fennie Mae)Freddle Mac UNIFORM INSTRUMENT Form 3048 1/01 01999-20074nlineDocuments, Inc. PAge 4 of 11 WAEDE1=0 0705 10 0 LOAN it:196727177 acceptable to Lender, but only so long as Borrower is performing such agreement; (b) contests the lien in good faith by, or defends against enforcement of the lien in, legal proceedings which in Lender's opinion operate to prevent the enforcement of the lien while those proceedings are pending, but only until such proceedings are concluded; or (c) secures from the holder of the lien an agreement satisfactory to Lender subordinating the lien to this Security Instrument. If Lender determines that any partofthe Property is subjecttoa lien which can attain priority overthis Security Instrument, Lender may give Borrower a notice identifying the lien. Within 10 days of the date on which that notice is given, Borrower shall satisfy the lien or take one or more of the actions set forth above in this Section 4. Lender may require Borrower to pay a one-time charge for a real estate tax verification and/or reporting service used by Lender in connection with this Loan. 5. Property Insurance. Borrower shail keep the improvements now existing or hereafter erected on the Property insured against loss by fire, hazards included within the term "extended coverage," and any other hazards including, but not limited to, earthquakes and floods, for which Lender requires insurance- This insurance shall be maintained in the amounts (including deductible levels) and for the periods that Lender requires. What Lender requires pursuant to the preceding sentences can change during the term of the Loan, The insurance carrier providing the insurance shall be chosen by Borrower subject to Lender's right to disapprove Borrower's choice, which right shall not be exercised unreasonably- Lender may require Borrower to pay, in connection with this Loan, either: (a) a one-time charge for flood zone determination, certification and tracking services; or (b) a one-time charge for flood zone determination and certification services and subsequent charges each time remappings or similar changes occur which reasonably might affect such determination or certification. Borrower shalt also be responsible for the payment of any fees imposed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in connection with the review of any flood zone determination resulting from an objection by Borrower - If Borrower fails to maintain any of the coverages described above, Lender may obtain Insurance coverage, at Lender's option and Borrower's expense- Lender is under no obligation to purchase any particular type or amount of coverage. Therefore, such coverage shall cover Lender, but might or might not protect Borrower, Borrower's equity In the Property, or the contents of the Property, against any risk, hazard or liability and might provide greater or lesser coverage than was previously in effect. Borrower acknowledges that the cost of the insurance coverage so obtained might significantly exceed the cost of insurance that Borrower could have obtained. Any amounts disbursed by Lender under this section 5 shall become additional debt of Borrower secured by this Security Instrument. These amounts shall bear interest at the (Vote rate from the date of disbursement and shall be payable, with such interest, upon notice from Lender to Borrower requesting payment. All insurance policies required by Lender and renewals of such policies shall be subject to Lender's right to disapprove such policies, shall include a standard mortgage clause, and shall name Lender as mortgagee and/or as an additional loss payee. Lender shall have the right to hold the policies and renewal certificates. If Lender requires, Borrower shall promptly give to Lender all receipts of paid premiums and renewal notices. If Borrower obtains any form of insurance coverage, not otherwise required by Lender, for damage to, or destruction of, the Property, such policy shall include a standard mortgage clause and shall name Lender as mortgagee andfor as an additional loss payee_ In the event of loss, Borrower shall give prompt notice to the insurance carrier and Lender- Lender may makeproofofioss ifnoi made promptly by Borrower. Unless Lender and Borrower otherwise agree in writing, any insurance proceeds, whether or not the underlying insurance was required by Lender, shali be applied to restoration or repair of the Property, if the restoration or repair is economically feasible and Lender's security is not lessened. During such repair and restoration period, Lender shall have the right to hold such insurance proceeds until Lender has had an opportunity to inspect such Property to ensure the work has been completed to Lender's satisfaction, provided that such inspection shall be undertaken promptly. Lender may disburse proceeds for the repairs and restoration in a single payment or in a series of progress payments as the work is completed. Unless an agreement is made in writing or Applicable Law requires interest to be paid on such insurance proceeds, Lender shall not be required to pay Borrower any interest or earnings on such proceeds. Fees for public adjusters, orotherthird parties, retained by Borrower shall not be paid outofthe insu ranee proceeds and shall be the sole obligation of Borrower. if the restoration or repair is not economically feasible or Lender's security would be lessened, the insurance proceeds shall be applied to the sums secured by this Security Instrument, whether or not then due, with the excess, if any, paid to Borrower. Such insurance proceeds shall be applied in the order provided for in Section 2. If Borrower abandons the Property, Lender may file, negotiate and settle any available insurance claim and related matters. If Borrower does not respond within 30 days to a notice from Lender that the insurance carrier has offered to settle a claim, then Lender may negotiate and settle the claim. The 30 - day period will begin when the notice is given. In either event, or if Lender acquires the Property under Section 22 or otherwise, Borrower hereby assigns to Lender (a) Borrower's rights to any insurance proceeds in an amount not to exceed the amounts unpaid under the Note or this Security instrument, and (b) any other of Borrower's rights (other than the right to any refund of unearned premiums paid by Borrower) under all insurance policies covering the Property, insofar as such rights are applicable to the coverage of the Property. Lender may use the insurance proceeds either to repair or r More the Property or to pay amounts unpaid under the Note or this Security Instrument, whether or hen due. xnitlals: WASHINGTON -Single Family--Fannle MaefFraddis Mao UNIFORM INSTRUMENT Form 3048 1)01 �D 1999-2007 Online Documente, inc;. Page 5 of 11 WAEOEED 0705 LOAN fi % 196727177 6- Occupancy. Borrower shall occupy, establish, and use the Property as Borrower's principal residence within 60 days after the execution of this Security Instrument and shall continue to occupy the Property as Borrower's principal residencefor at least one year after the date of occupancy, unless Lender otherwise agrees In writing, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, or unless extenuating circumstances exist which are beyond Borrower's control. 7. Preservation, Maintenance and Protection of the Property; Inspections. Borrower shall not destroy, damage or impairthe Property, allow the Property to deteriorate or commit waste on the Property. Whether or not Borrower is residing in the Property, Borrower shall maintain the Property in order to prevent the Property from deteriorating or decreasing in value due to its condition. Unless it is determined pursuant to Section 5 that repair or restoration is n oteconomicallyfeasible, Borrower shall prom ptly repair the Property if damaged to avoid further deterioration or damage. If insurance or condemnation proceeds are paid in connection with damage to, or the taking of, the Property, Borrower shall be responsible for repairing or restoring the Property only if Lender has released proceeds for such purposes. Lender may disburse proceeds for the repairs and restoration in a single payment or in a series of progress payments as the work is completed. If the insurance or condemnation proceeds are not sufficient to repair or restore the Property, Borrower is not relieved of Borrower's obligation for the completion of such repair or restoration. Lender or its agent may make reasonable entries upon and inspections of the Property. If it has reasonable cause, Lender may inspect the interior of the improvements on the Property. Lender shall give Borrower notice at the time of or prior to such an interior inspection specifying such reasonable cause. 8- Borrower's Loan Application. Borrower shall be in default if, during the Loan application process, Borrower or any persons or entities acting at the direction of Borrower or with Borrower's knowledge or consent gave materially false, misleading, or inaccurate information or statements to Lender (or failed to provide Lender with material Information) in connection with the Loan- Material representations include, but are notlimited to, representations concerning Borrower's occupancy of the Property as Borrower's principal residence. 9. Protection of Lender's Intorest in the Property and Rights Under this Security instrument. If (a) Borrowerfails to perform the covenants and agreements contained in this Security Instrument, (b) there is a legal proceeding that might significantly affect Lender's interest in the Property and/or rights under this Security instrument (such as a proceeding in bankruptcy, probate, for condemnation or forfeiture, for enforcement of a lien which may attain priority over this Security Instrument or to enforce laws or regulations), or (c) Borrower has abandoned the Property, then Lender may do and pay for whatever is reasonable or appropriate to protect Lender's interest in the Property and rights under this Security Instrument, including protecting and/or assessing the value of the Property, and securing and/ or repairing the Property. Lender's actions can include, but are not limited to: (a) paying any sums secured by a lienwhich has priorityover this Security instrument; (b) appearing In court; and (c) paying reasonable attorneys' fees to protect its interest in the Property and/or rights under this Security Instrument, including its secured position in a bankruptcy proceeding. Securing the Property includes, but is hot limited to, entering the Property to make repairs, change locks, replace or board up doors and windows, drain water from pipes, eliminate building or other code violations or dangerous conditions, and have utilities turned on or off. Although Lender may take action under this Section 9, Lender does not have to do so and is not under any duty or obligation to do so. It is agreed that Lender incurs no liability for not taking any or all actions authorized under this Section 9 - Any amounts disbursed by Lender under this Section 9 shall become additional debt of Borrower secured by this Security Instrument. These amounts shall bear interest at the Note rate from the date of disbursement and shall be payable, with such Interest, upon notice from Lender to Borrower requesting payment. If this Security Instrument is on a leasehold. Sorrower shall comply with all the provisions of the lease. Borrower shall not surrender the leasehold estate and interests herein conveyed or terminate or cancel the ground lease. Borrower shall not, without the express written consent of Lender, alter or amend the ground tease. If Borrower acquires fee title to the Property, the leasehold and the fee title shall not merge unless Lender agrees to the merger in writing. 10. Mortgage Insurance. If Lender required Mortgage Insurance as a condition of making the Loan, Borrower shall pay the premiums required tomaintain the Mortgage Insurance in effect. If, for any reason, the Mortgage Insurance coverage required by lender ceases to be availablefrom the mortgage insurer that previously provided such insurance and Borrower was required to make separately designated payments toward the premiums for Mortgage Insurance, Borrowershall pay the premiums required to obtain coverage substantially equivalent to the Mortgage Insurance previously in effect, at a cost substantially equivalent to the cost to Borrower of the Mortgage Insurance previously in effect, from an alternate mortgage insurer selected by Lender. If substantially equivalent Mortgage Insurance coverage is not available, Borrower shall continue to pay to Lender the amount of the separately designated payments that were due when the insurance coverage ceased to be in effect. Lehderwill aocept, use and retain these payments as a non-refundable loss reserve In lieu of Mortgage Insurance. Such loss reserve shall be non-refundable, notwithstanding the fact that the Loan is ultimately paid 1n full, and Lender shall not be required to pay Borrower any interest or earnings on such loss reserve. Lender c o longer require loss reserve payments if Mortgage Insurance coverage (in She amount and forth(jettLender initial WASHINGTON--Single Family --Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac UNIFORM INSTRUMENT Form 3048 1/01 0 1999-2007 online Documents. Inc. Page 6 of 11 WAEDEED 0703 0 9 LOAN #z 196727177 a time period which must elapse before certain action can be taken, that time petiod will be deemed to be reasonable for purposes of this paragraph. The notice of acceleration and opportunity to cure given to Borrower pursuant to Section 22 and the notice of acceleration given to Borrower pursuant to Section 18 shall be deemed to satisfy the notice and opportunity to take corrective action provisions of this Section 20. 21. Hazardous Substances. As used in this Section 21; (a) "Hazardous Substances" are those substances defined as toxic or hazardous substances, pollutants, or wastes by Environmental Law and the following substances: gasoline, kerosene, other flammable or toxic petroleum products, toxic pesticides and herbicides, volatile solvents, materials containing asbestos or formald ehyde, and rad ioactivematerials; (b) "Environmental Law" means federal laws and laws of the jurisdiction where the Property is located that relate to health, safety or environmental protection; (c) "Environmental Cleanup" includes any response action, remedial action, or removal action, as defined in Environmental Law; and (d) an "Environmental Condition" means a condition that can cause, contribute to, or otherwise trigger an Environmental Cleanup. Borrower shall notcauso or permit the presence, use, disposal, storage, or release of any Hazardous Substances, or threaten to release any Hazardous Substances, on or in the Property. Borrower shall not do, nor allow anyone else to do, anything affecting the Property (a) that is in violation of any Environmental Law, (b) which creates an Environmental Condition, or (c) which, due to the presence, use, or release of a Hazardous Substance, creates acondition that adversely affects the value ofthe Property. The preceding two sentences shall not apply to the presence, use, or storage on the Property of small quantities of Hazardous Substances that are generally recognized to be appropriate to normal residential uses and to maintenance of the Property (including, but not limited to, hazardous substances in consumer products). Borrower shall promptly give Lender written notice of (a) any investigation, claim, demand, lawsuit or other action by any governmental or regulatory agency or private party involving the Property and any Hazardous Substance or Environmental Law of which Borrower has actual knowledge, (b) any Environmental Condition, including but not limited to, any spilling, leaking, discharge, release or threat of release of any Hazardous Substance, and (e) any condition caused by the presence, use or release of a Hazardous Substance which adversely affects the value of the Property. If Borrower learns, or is notified by any governmental or regulatory authority, or any private party, that any removal or other remediation of any Hazardous Substance affecting the Property is necessary, Borrower shall promptly take all necessary remedial actions In accordance With Environmental Law. Nothing herein shall create any obligation on Lender for an Environmental Cleanup, NON-UNIFORM COVENANTS_ Borrower and Lender further covenant and agree as follows: 22. Acceleration; Remedies. Lender shall give notice to Borrower prior to acceleration following Borrower's breach of any covenant or agreement in this Security Instrument (but not prior to acceleration under Section YS unless Applicable Law provides otherwise). The notice shall specify: (a) the default; (b) the action required to cure the default; (c) a date, not less than 30 days from the date the notice Is given to Borrower, by which the default must be cured; and (d) that failure to cure the default on or before the date specified In the notice may result in acceleration of the sums secured by this Security Instrument and sale of the Property at public auction at a date not less than 120 days In the future. The notice shall further inform Borrower of the right to reinstate after acceleration, the right to bring a court action to assert the non-existence of a default or any other defense of Borrower to acceleration and sale, and any other matters required to be included In tate notice by Applicable Law. If the default Is not cured on or before the date specified In the notice, Lender at Its option, may require immediate payment in full of all sums secured by this Security Instrument without further demand and may invoke the power of sale and/or any other remedies permitted by Applicable Law. Lender shall be entitled to collect all expenses incurred in pursuing the remedies provided In this Section 22, including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of title evidence. If gender invokes the power of sale, Lender shall give written notice to Trustee of the occurrence of an event of default and of Lender's election to cause the property to be said. Trustee and Lender shall take such action regarding notice of sale and shall give such notices to Borrower and to other persons as Applicable Law may require. After the time required by Applicable Law and after publication of the notice of sale, Trustee, without demand on Borrower, shall sell the Property at public auction tothe highest bidder at the time end place and under the terms designated In the notice of sale in one or more parcels and In any order Trustee determines. Trustee may postpone sale of the Property for a period or perlods permitted by Applicable Law by publ is announce mentat the time and place fixed In the notice of sale. Lender or Its designee may purchase the Property at any sale. Trustee shall deliver to the purchaser Trustee's deed conveying the Property without any covenant or warranty, expressed or Implied. The recitals In the Trustee's deed shall be prima facie evidence of the truth of the statements made therein. Trustee shall apply the proceeds of the sale in the following order. (a) to all expenses of the sale, Including, but not limited to, reasonable Trustee's and attorneys' fees; (b) to all sums secured by this Security Instrument; and (c) any excess to the person or persons legally entitled to it or to the clerk of the superior court of the county In which the sate took place. 23. Reconveyance. Upon payment of all sums secured by this Security Instrument, Le r shall request Trustee to reconvey the Property and shall surrender this Security Instrument all, notes Tnitials- � WASHINGTON --Single Family -Fannie Mae/Freddie Mao UNIFORM INSTRUMENT Form 9174 8 1/01 Q 1999-2007 Online Documents, inc, Page 10 of 11 WAEDEED 0705 9 0 LOAN #: 196727177 evidencing debt secured by this Security Instrument to Trustee- Trustee shall reconvey the Property without warranty to the person or persons legally entitled to it. Such person or persons shall pay any recordation costs and the Trustee's fee for preparing the reconveyance. 24. Substitute Trustee. In accordancawith Applicable Law, Lender may from time to time appoint a successor trustee to any Trustee appointed hereunder who has ceased to act- Without conveyance of the Property, the successor trustee shall succeed to all the title, power and duties conferred upon Trustee herein and by Applicable Law. 25, Use of Property. The Property is not used principally for agricultural purposes. 26. Attorneys' Fees. Lender shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in any action or proceeding to construe or enforce any term of this Security Instrument. The term 11attomeys' fees," whenever used in this Security Instrument, shall include without limitation attorneys' fees incurred by Lender in any bankruptcy proceeding or on appeal. ORAL AGREEMENTS OR ORAL.COMMITM ENTS TO LOAN MONEY, EXTEND CREDIT, OR TO FORBEAR FROM ENFORCING REPAYMENT OF A DEBT ARE NOT ENFORCEABLE UNDER WASHINGTON LAW. BY SIGNING BELOW, Borrower accepts and agrees to the terms and covenants contained in this Security Instrument and in any Rider executed by Bor ower and recorded with it. i (Seal) PAS SHERPA r7 ^ (Seal) HANNAH CHI State of WASHINGTON county of On this day persQnally appearep,before Mae to me known to be the individual`_ 1�a described in and who executed ,the within and foregoing instru en_t, and acknowledged that signed the same as free and voluntary act and des forhe uses and purposes therein mention d. t GIVEN and my hand and official seal this day of le f ^No y -Public in^ and fox th S to of Washington, residing at V-1� SS: My Appointment 9xpires ons {( } 31 . o 10 WASHINGTON --Single Family --Fannia Mae/Freddla Mae UNIFORM INSTRUMENT Farm 3o4s 1101 C 1999-24367 Online Documents, Inc. Page 11 of 11 WAEDEED 0706 Printed: 12-17-2010 Payment Made: Total Payment: 4P CITY OF PENTON 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 • Land Use Actions _ RECEIPT Permit#: LUA10-088 12/17/2010 12:19 PM Receipt Number: 81005532 3,296.00 Payee: PASANG SHERPA Current Payment Made to the Following Items: Trans Account Code Description Amount ---------------- ------ 3080 ------------------ 503.000000.004.322 -------------------------------- Technology Fee 96.00 5022 000.000000.007.345 Variance Fees 1,200.00 5024 000.000000.007.345 Conditional Approval Fee 2,000.00 Payments made for this receipt Trans Method Description Amount Payment Credit C VISA 3,296-00 Account Balances Trans Account Code Description Balance Due ------ 3021 ------------------ 303.000000.020.345 ------------------------------- Park Mitigation Fee --------------- .00 3080 503.000000.004.322 Technology Fee .00 5006 000.000000.007.345 Annexation Fees .00 5007 000.000000.011.345 Appeals/Waivers .00 5008 000.000000.007.345 Binding Site/Short Plat .00 5009 000.000000.007.345 Conditional Use Fees .00 5010 000.000000.007.345 Environmental Review .00 5011 000.000000.007.345 Prelim/Tentative Plat .00 5012 000.000000.007.345 Final Plat .00 5013 000.000000.007.345 PUD 00 5014 000.000000.007.345 Grading & Filling Fees .00 5015 000.000000.007.345 Lot Line Adjustment .00 5016 000.000000.007.345 Mobile Home Parks .00 5017 000.000000.007.345 Rezone .00 5018 000.000000.007.345 Routine Vegetation Mgmt .00 5019 000.000000.007.345 Shoreline Subst Dev .00 5020 000.000000.007.345 Site Plan Approval .00 5021 000.000000.007.345 Temp Use, Hobbyk, Fence .00 5022 000.000000.007.345 Variance Fees .00 5024 000.000000.007.345 Conditional Approval Fee .00 5036 000.000000.007.345 Comprehensive Plan Amend -00 5909 000.000000.002.341 Booklets/EIS/Copies .00 5941 000.000000.007.341 Maps (Taxable) .00 5954 650.237.00.00.0000 DO NOT USE - USE 3954 .00 5998 000.000000.000.231 Tax .00 Remaining Balance Due: $0.00 NOTE::. Krell Maps acre com aril Flatd Surveys. They art r � • Cr 10 !03 7674 $ 273 �,, i�l l rot t 1 I 6 - �. Lr �rl.3 . 60 CEN.I•�r _j 60 9 154.94 8 :1 8 F1 i �_�aV-►r �, ___•w � irV W N.E. 267H ."I P.L. 01[nlial Rords o'r refe�relnce use inri rrT1M_7f:l,iz0:j1 No L:. - w �= .ar �► j Q .50 252 •a. 24TH Ll _ PT 8 r 2 67.2a..� 6720 135 1133 9 154.94 8 :1 8 F1 i �_�aV-►r �, ___•w � irV 01 24 � 1 2Zit 1 24 1824 252,3_ n �B 17 �`- 816 # ~ .q 44 8 ' 1808 2r 8 .0 170 l4 ' - slni =.zlai3 245 •3g '•""' 232.42 (N,E. I7TH PL.) 94,33 _ 36 60 (4) 5 a W12 t 1 - (b) S.P. 7392 �01 7a.68 s �6- R4 135.3 2S2<d T -W I n UJ6! I I I ! ti0 i c►, ' 135.3 .�� 70 7s. � 60 Uj z -j RENT ON r_• ...r.... 2 .t�3.D7��30..9E- 4P702@NV? •2 � -- 1I1 LAO I I 4 j 210 �� y g3 r M14 44 `pyl' � r 1 r! cl 1 1 IL1 ` t t tL 1 r. 1 ? ,; 7dGlQ3 . � '10264 I 1 �� .. ! I . ``•�I ll . � ~ � . ] 222 Q Z 222 1 �j t L4J Ij 219 I&- _j W E N- D LE11I P__L .2_L_„ ,6a Tr a I I • 0A K-: DD126 of 4 3 - 2' 1 I a 13"3 058 2 .63 1a s33 s3.ox J2b.1S" H, 12 3 126.32 to 139.dZ 11 9 is 10 N �, �° a� ���oj 2 10 ,i"r m 63.02 `o W 1 r�... 11333 _ 3 r1 1 ti IZ. II N m 80 f` oi�� CoA Z 17 a [ n! a 8 *� j41gg "� Q7 �I 110 • �,� 101,32 �- 50 2D;! J22sO 1 Z ao ��771. M U) r0.3 76� T jun na `n 10 00 1 I 4.-.- - :• , - z N.La -�- L l0 w �2 1S 7.;0 2 un 1 3 > 101.322 �tN fo W f•lob 3 17 14t i o b1► N t d IP 55.94 126.1 I I0 !_33 6A 4133 60 I 76 J o • 60• LLJ - N.E.�23RD ST, ° o do 180 I Ui JZd 60 � 3161 4 2 �17 2 Ilk i T ---- ' ' 7. 1I - -. 2J .'i I [ =12 �109 1 R,G;1 [ ..I I I " I r ND ST Cn 135 1133 :1 8 F1 i 135.9 3 r3s 01 24 � 1 2Zit 1 24 1. 1r4t - N.E.�23RD ST, ° o do 180 I Ui JZd 60 � 3161 4 2 �17 2 Ilk i T ---- ' ' 7. 1I - -. 2J .'i I [ =12 �109 1 R,G;1 [ ..I I I " I r ND ST Cn Of 39 M 135 1133 :1 8 F1 i 135.9 3 r3s 01 24 � 1 2Zit 1 24 1r4t .q 8 ' 41P !/ 2r 8 .0 l4 ' tl =.zlai3 Of 39 M 135 1133 :1 8 _. 135.9 3 r3s 01 24 � 1 2Zit 1 24 1r4t / 8 ' 135.'38 2r 8 .0 l4 ' tl =.zlai3 421 •3g 135.3 W12 t 5 5 s 135.3 6.37 z 6 2 11 , 135.3 g54 10 7 0 _ m 9 $ 2 a 37 r3s i ! • I *3 / • 4 r 301 3"W m .. ,�1 . .a 59. ► P � t - r3 . 42 �yr 1 E .! 90.49 •�* i w 94.41" 1 j [ 17 _ 100.26- w 716 w 105.34 -ti • Z I 120.98 5M7Y 13136 EIr 10547 26() F-� 130.03 r Q 105.48 Q- 13 130.03 101.3 (4) N (5) ti �. 130.02 '�' 122.48 100 120 1! . Ico 380i%68= 4 116.13 7. 6.5 61.7 1 1 S -PUJ -94-0 $ [7 $4111" , (3) P (2) 1 } r - 673' rzo-94 Yf 71;� 7+6,5!„ 104.4-3 $ 17 z`!'3' loo.6e (3) I (2) os R1? a 3.08 S• A9�`s 1 � � I t 1 IQJ�W n 1 X01.13 g 1 Q -1a> r SR LUA - 93- 83 _ � y` • (2) ED 12 0CL 1 '_ l Ibbs ^•�, !QG/ 100 1 77 50 `1 l� �(j 6D y ., i sd �o �a 22 87 ' 7q /01 J9 rar re 1ld I x42.0 r~ N. E. � � 16TH �T a 17. J I ti 0 I I 17,96/ 1 [ 33 31[ � r I � v4 !Z5LU -t, 1 n A 15 i "` I R32 It, n 1 is 1 � O I 2 1 os.[ 14 i5z M) Ia :1 8 _. 4 1 c 01 24 � t� 9 1 24 50 L fOx3t! 90 B 10 .3 5' 75 96 So t 9!€ 10�¢3b 185 I a�3 r Dai 9i7b J of o I I I I 6s;� OtfO 1532 50 1� I -1 l .. I __ _ �] •' 152 1I =a -. 92.01 I y 0.29 1 �"Li �' 1 +�. R., 1 1 2 Z ba;,, J _ � w. _, I I 13 2 2 2 {g I9 -1 177._, H____ Ir Q i 0 90 - lrr 3«1Ar. o 2- �_8 I I I$ /x6.17 ,-_.lzslr 3 10 15 t d !zo j I � l t t too, � 79rs 3 4 s . -- 10130-- 23Z. _ _. _.._ ._. _ �..- __.._ -- -- a 1 0 ' �, 8 In /m n}�-.14 1 3 $ �► �j h&�. _o 1 17 ;-_._� �. 5 5 z 0 W 13 LLJ _ I 1441 :a3 Q' • 10117 IOI.17 ,a /7 r f ;,"fir.+. 'V:..-:...:: :":;�y . lQ.ri';� - �7 n -? FJd 3e"- }. ,Ex•./'.. -- +... v s r _ Q s 10 _ 1 X1.1 24 - 3 ,} ? �,� I I o 246 °� Jul.1 2 3 -.- .�3r r i� lea �� I----�... r6 " •*�.`'2 8 10 1 4 0 • T• f [ 1 r: { s ST. • _ '�.Af ZfzZ6 1 5 � � /0%I8 � �'1 1 9 "..,,.%�.��t...�.... ...:..,.... 70 9428 70 . .42 OML29 .~1�I? $D -8i 1101 12sazNa t0 b �, 92.03 N.E. o ti I I as i) {x) [ 4,t 9 t' t3 4' i I z 2 ti 13 °° 421 U �tl - I I 13 5 �; ao m r I � i 9 e -- � ti I I • z(A) (C) t I - 7 3A'---�---._._.»..-..._ W 16 -------Z4 .._. - ^�,, 5. b 818 ` 76.11 ra ♦ ° t3t a � �, . t I I , 8 a Y.I 3 �. i'�1'j� 4 ^ .. �t X01.29 � ,� � - 4 SP. 84Ca-78 _`" � lr � .��� 13[ i ti -•�---------� e A W � � 67.os N.E. «��"� �L.• . " �, g13 �I �, � IN tat? , '� 6019 6611.4 6b 85. 8r �+ o 1 -J �o w 4 I 10 [ 1� i I r w 1.. 129 '` ,i t�' I r� 1°� ------ 1 60 9x3 ' I I c�' ao 5 --- ..___.-__.� -;�,.� $ 8 «...3, 1 _ 2 6 G� �. � .: 113 � � (B) '� I. i sass a �: 1633 1301 81 �1 S.P3QS 1 I t$ 13 1 1 I�a I »__252:3 _•�__.. �«... 4 1301 IOD 1 2 _ _ 1 �1�. S.P. 077-89 �$ 17 2 I - ' /y .� 43. 329 I �, I x.4 3fl !x1.15 2 8 9. 92.97 7 W, 30 30 3o ua '•-� �t p - I 1 I _ .. _ .. �. - .. '' �+ E M 2 _ rat. 10 II 12 13 14 lb 16 17 ' O lZI r o , $t 5 '` \1 t � 2 4 (a) I �I �a 6 9322-44 ,., - I �Ij _ � _ , o 19 =t 21 12 4 30 3a 0 t .,.� 6911 �N I r- - .. 1 ( rr>� 2r� �► i � 7� ' X34 I I j c [ } 9 oa.z��` °"NE" l 'H ST pp ( d I l�� I f �. 6x97 1�1 �* C1 `� 1 I I 11 0. F I �.. SP.I.,;lA9S-o86 1 (i W. � n 1 �' 12 �•" I 1 l ; ► o I f� . I `r 1 1 29� -,� 2' " 13 8 I �'"'so.s � m O I i 1 i 10r.lZ :. > fl/ 7424 + _j 30 30 41.73. 2 I l j I t l `�' Gi M `.`tJ 1 i 11�.�"r ... 1 , , C� .rA. = '°'4 4s 137 3 I 113 i 252 2b 6'S I . i i '� I [ x $ o `° `3 0 741 ti Zi N.4 T C.7 P ,E li/ y 'l reo 6d 15 ' 62681 63.0$ 8 I 1 N �I M'. 4- 14,, 1 W . ..... .....,..98. 858 450.3 w �, TRA t1.. a o NQ 4VO a... , .�wr.. �rrM�. � �. S . � Z7.x 1 84.97 � s • •' - • ---+.i • ..+�rw •��7...ar.� • 12 H- s1 - 6123 4.. Jd $733 nos S u, ........ . ,,...,........,,, ..,_. , ,_...., . ' t ' . ..wu..n• • ..�.. way a a,ww.p., • ..war . .•.. w arch n 3' Qhge jr • Planning Division 3. nct, LEGEND County Tax Lot No a House Number � Building C.] Private Road Approx Stories [� Short Plat S.P 178144 PLEASE NOTE; Kroll Aims pages are revised at least once a year with regard to plats, short plats, condomiritdhie, and corporate limps. Addressing and rihWural Information Is updated fess f squb*. ThIlo. map Is copyrighted In both form arid contont, Reproduction In whole or In part, transhling Into digital form, Is prohlbited by law. Copyright 1997, Kroll ki p Cbmpany, Inc. • Seattle, Washington. All rights reserved. fT JL4 1 / LUlif ATLAS -OF SEATTLE COPYRIGHTED &, PUBLISHED BY KROLL MAP COMPANY, INC., SEATTLE SCALE: 1 INCH w 200 FEET N 14 r. 1 24 1r4t , '14a 30 It2,�_. 8 .0 fOx3t! 90 B 10 .3 5' 75 96 So t 9!€ 10�¢3b 185 I a�3 r Dai 9i7b J of o I I I I 6s;� OtfO 1532 50 1� I -1 l .. I __ _ �] •' 152 1I =a -. 92.01 I y 0.29 1 �"Li �' 1 +�. R., 1 1 2 Z ba;,, J _ � w. _, I I 13 2 2 2 {g I9 -1 177._, H____ Ir Q i 0 90 - lrr 3«1Ar. o 2- �_8 I I I$ /x6.17 ,-_.lzslr 3 10 15 t d !zo j I � l t t too, � 79rs 3 4 s . -- 10130-- 23Z. _ _. _.._ ._. _ �..- __.._ -- -- a 1 0 ' �, 8 In /m n}�-.14 1 3 $ �► �j h&�. _o 1 17 ;-_._� �. 5 5 z 0 W 13 LLJ _ I 1441 :a3 Q' • 10117 IOI.17 ,a /7 r f ;,"fir.+. 'V:..-:...:: :":;�y . lQ.ri';� - �7 n -? FJd 3e"- }. ,Ex•./'.. -- +... v s r _ Q s 10 _ 1 X1.1 24 - 3 ,} ? �,� I I o 246 °� Jul.1 2 3 -.- .�3r r i� lea �� I----�... r6 " •*�.`'2 8 10 1 4 0 • T• f [ 1 r: { s ST. • _ '�.Af ZfzZ6 1 5 � � /0%I8 � �'1 1 9 "..,,.%�.��t...�.... ...:..,.... 70 9428 70 . .42 OML29 .~1�I? $D -8i 1101 12sazNa t0 b �, 92.03 N.E. o ti I I as i) {x) [ 4,t 9 t' t3 4' i I z 2 ti 13 °° 421 U �tl - I I 13 5 �; ao m r I � i 9 e -- � ti I I • z(A) (C) t I - 7 3A'---�---._._.»..-..._ W 16 -------Z4 .._. - ^�,, 5. b 818 ` 76.11 ra ♦ ° t3t a � �, . t I I , 8 a Y.I 3 �. i'�1'j� 4 ^ .. �t X01.29 � ,� � - 4 SP. 84Ca-78 _`" � lr � .��� 13[ i ti -•�---------� e A W � � 67.os N.E. «��"� �L.• . " �, g13 �I �, � IN tat? , '� 6019 6611.4 6b 85. 8r �+ o 1 -J �o w 4 I 10 [ 1� i I r w 1.. 129 '` ,i t�' I r� 1°� ------ 1 60 9x3 ' I I c�' ao 5 --- ..___.-__.� -;�,.� $ 8 «...3, 1 _ 2 6 G� �. � .: 113 � � (B) '� I. i sass a �: 1633 1301 81 �1 S.P3QS 1 I t$ 13 1 1 I�a I »__252:3 _•�__.. �«... 4 1301 IOD 1 2 _ _ 1 �1�. S.P. 077-89 �$ 17 2 I - ' /y .� 43. 329 I �, I x.4 3fl !x1.15 2 8 9. 92.97 7 W, 30 30 3o ua '•-� �t p - I 1 I _ .. _ .. �. - .. '' �+ E M 2 _ rat. 10 II 12 13 14 lb 16 17 ' O lZI r o , $t 5 '` \1 t � 2 4 (a) I �I �a 6 9322-44 ,., - I �Ij _ � _ , o 19 =t 21 12 4 30 3a 0 t .,.� 6911 �N I r- - .. 1 ( rr>� 2r� �► i � 7� ' X34 I I j c [ } 9 oa.z��` °"NE" l 'H ST pp ( d I l�� I f �. 6x97 1�1 �* C1 `� 1 I I 11 0. F I �.. SP.I.,;lA9S-o86 1 (i W. � n 1 �' 12 �•" I 1 l ; ► o I f� . I `r 1 1 29� -,� 2' " 13 8 I �'"'so.s � m O I i 1 i 10r.lZ :. > fl/ 7424 + _j 30 30 41.73. 2 I l j I t l `�' Gi M `.`tJ 1 i 11�.�"r ... 1 , , C� .rA. = '°'4 4s 137 3 I 113 i 252 2b 6'S I . i i '� I [ x $ o `° `3 0 741 ti Zi N.4 T C.7 P ,E li/ y 'l reo 6d 15 ' 62681 63.0$ 8 I 1 N �I M'. 4- 14,, 1 W . ..... .....,..98. 858 450.3 w �, TRA t1.. a o NQ 4VO a... , .�wr.. �rrM�. � �. S . � Z7.x 1 84.97 � s • •' - • ---+.i • ..+�rw •��7...ar.� • 12 H- s1 - 6123 4.. Jd $733 nos S u, ........ . ,,...,........,,, ..,_. , ,_...., . ' t ' . ..wu..n• • ..�.. way a a,ww.p., • ..war . .•.. w arch n 3' Qhge jr • Planning Division 3. nct, LEGEND County Tax Lot No a House Number � Building C.] Private Road Approx Stories [� Short Plat S.P 178144 PLEASE NOTE; Kroll Aims pages are revised at least once a year with regard to plats, short plats, condomiritdhie, and corporate limps. Addressing and rihWural Information Is updated fess f squb*. ThIlo. map Is copyrighted In both form arid contont, Reproduction In whole or In part, transhling Into digital form, Is prohlbited by law. Copyright 1997, Kroll ki p Cbmpany, Inc. • Seattle, Washington. All rights reserved. fT JL4 1 / LUlif ATLAS -OF SEATTLE COPYRIGHTED &, PUBLISHED BY KROLL MAP COMPANY, INC., SEATTLE SCALE: 1 INCH w 200 FEET :r lk v IA 1 2 3 1 4 1 5 6 7 I 8 EXISTING HAZELNUT EXISTING EXISTING ZEBRA EXISTING EXISTING / _ EXISTING EXISTING TREE MUMS � GRASS � LAVA TERA LILACS HOSTAS HOSTAS __�I EXISTING BLOCK WALL... -� - 74.46 EXISTING CYPR TREES EXISTING C1 TREES NEW BLOCK WALL " TO MATCH EXIST. --� ■ w EXISTING CYPRESS TREES """ t"V�'t... L -AREA OF WURK PAVERS ON NEW I. PATIO lyol �SI1 SCALE: 1:10 CAIJ I IINU n/-NlQCU PLANTER WITH 174.45 BAMBOO REMOVE EXISTING GUTTER AND EAVE BOARDS TO ALLOW - - FOR ROOF EXTENSION 71 �r --_", .. .....:.:... - .. - - ------ ......... .. ..::. ......:- - v i. v...w. -s. - - .. ti. ..__.W �..+.r-- ...-. .----..�.- .... ..s_ _ .,-.--. ... . DEMOLISH AS REQUIRED TO CREATE OPENING FOR NEW WINDOWS, TYP. I. !1 /I II ,_ I V I w !1 . ����/n,� SLLJII I�r/��I /L _ ¢ II `� °` II ocr II EXISTING 4" CONCRETE SLAB c� <- I! ON 4 MIL. VAPOR BARRIER TO rz z II BE RETAINED _ x©II : w Z.. ., . . . ... . . ............... ......................................................................................... ,w ©II �, o II CC0!! . CREATE OPENINGS IN EXISTING ""' II I I ROOF FOR NEW SKYLIGHTS, TYP. I � / I II - Il !no II - 11 I I I/ \1 !I II Ii.. I I r ; tl u DEMOLISH AS REQUIRED TO �'"""' CREATE OPENING FOR NEW WINDOWS, TYP. ................................ ...... ..... ........:..r. _ --'."..................,......... , ,.,....... - D 1. 11 I I I I I REMOVE EXISTING ROOF I OVERHANG TO CREATE EQUAL. I IOVERHANG ON BOTH SIDES. I E-----------W-----_....-____---__-------_-----�•--_---------_--- ---j DEMOLITION PLAN " . . 'A��0 2 SCALE: 1 �8"=1 ' --- f�" z -... LEGEND: NOTES: 1. ALL INTERIOR DOORS TO BE UNDERCUT BY MIN. OF 112" -::.",",�,, ,"-,.....:..,-::.__: EXISTING WALL 2. DOORS NOT LOCATED ON PLAN WITH DIMENSIONS ARE TYPICALLY LOCATED 4" FROM HINGE SIDE OF WALL TO BE DEMOLISHED DOOR FRAME TO NEAREST WALL. 3. INSTALL NEW SMOKE DETECTOR AS REQUIRED FOR NEW DWELLINGS (PER NEW 2x STUD WALL SECTION R314.2 OF THE 2009 IRC), THE SMOKE ALARMS SHALL BE INTERCONNECTED AND HARD WIRED. 0 SMOKE ALARMS.SEE NOTE 3. SMOKE ALARMS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS: a) IN EACH SLEEPING ROOM. E UST FAN. SEE NOTE 4. b) OUTSIDE EACH SEPARATE SLEEPING AREA IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF THE (s) EXHAUST BEDROOMS. c) THE ALARM DEVICES SHALL BE INTERCONNECTED IN SUCH A MANNER THAT THE ACTUATION OF ONE ALARM WILL ACTIVATE ALL OF THE ALARMS IN THE INDIVIDUAL UNIT AND SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH BATTERY BACK-UP. 4. MINIMUM SOURCE -SPECIFIC VENTILATION IS REQUIRED IN THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS AND AS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED. a) BATHROOMS: 50 CFM b) KITCHENS, 100 CFM c) LAUNDRY ROOMS: 50 CFM . d) WATER CLOSETS: 50 CFM. EXISTING a GRASS, TYP. U w W u_ z z o W o Q . (Dz z O m U) Q W n EXISTING ROSE BUSHES EXISTING MAPLE TREE . ' EXISTING PINE .. : .,,* - , "- .:: , ; I ... . : TREE - i _ . 1. . ,.. ''. "..:'.'..._.'.'.'*. ''­::'I'a '',-D' . "....' . lm. . .. . . ' . ' - ..... ,....."�''"I.I.:�'''"'::�,:.".�'..".�.:�."'I I.. �__� .. 1, ­:!. I ....... -',_ -, ."', I., -, -'-� �� I- I __­ �. .! . ..'. .' .1 1. 11 . ".. .'...'�' . I : " I -, - � 11 _. . - .... ..­­' .''m , I , - ... m_ , , .. . � , - I . . FF � � - , . _­ � n - I \_ .. . - - rrrirrri� rr ��� w wwwr^� 44, \..-- NEW GRAVEL ON EXISTING DIRT DRIVEWAY a GENERAL NOTES: 1. THESE ARE LIMITED SERVICE DRAWINGS (PERMIT ONLY). CONSTRUCTION PROJECT NAME: SHERT PAADDESSORY DWELLING WAS NOT SUPERVISED BY THE ARCHITECT. THE ARCHITECT IS NOT PROJECT ADDRESS: 2105 DAYTON AVE NE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DETAILS OF CONSTRUCTION NOR FOR ANY RENTON WA 98056 AS -BUILT CONDITION NOT SHOWN IN THESE DRAWINGS. TAX ID# 2253 2000 95 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: EDENDALE ADD ATTIC VENTING CALCULATIONS' PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PROJECT CONSISTS OF PROJECT ADDRESS: `` B d - TOTAL ROOF AREA: I 6 DWELLING UNIT. ROOF AREA/ 300: 3.92 SFT. I 50% @ 36" (MIN.) ABOVE EAVE: z EXISTING CYPRESS TREES """ t"V�'t... L -AREA OF WURK PAVERS ON NEW I. PATIO lyol �SI1 SCALE: 1:10 CAIJ I IINU n/-NlQCU PLANTER WITH 174.45 BAMBOO REMOVE EXISTING GUTTER AND EAVE BOARDS TO ALLOW - - FOR ROOF EXTENSION 71 �r --_", .. .....:.:... - .. - - ------ ......... .. ..::. ......:- - v i. v...w. -s. - - .. ti. ..__.W �..+.r-- ...-. .----..�.- .... ..s_ _ .,-.--. ... . DEMOLISH AS REQUIRED TO CREATE OPENING FOR NEW WINDOWS, TYP. I. !1 /I II ,_ I V I w !1 . ����/n,� SLLJII I�r/��I /L _ ¢ II `� °` II ocr II EXISTING 4" CONCRETE SLAB c� <- I! ON 4 MIL. VAPOR BARRIER TO rz z II BE RETAINED _ x©II : w Z.. ., . . . ... . . ............... ......................................................................................... ,w ©II �, o II CC0!! . CREATE OPENINGS IN EXISTING ""' II I I ROOF FOR NEW SKYLIGHTS, TYP. I � / I II - Il !no II - 11 I I I/ \1 !I II Ii.. I I r ; tl u DEMOLISH AS REQUIRED TO �'"""' CREATE OPENING FOR NEW WINDOWS, TYP. ................................ ...... ..... ........:..r. _ --'."..................,......... , ,.,....... - D 1. 11 I I I I I REMOVE EXISTING ROOF I OVERHANG TO CREATE EQUAL. I IOVERHANG ON BOTH SIDES. I E-----------W-----_....-____---__-------_-----�•--_---------_--- ---j DEMOLITION PLAN " . . 'A��0 2 SCALE: 1 �8"=1 ' --- f�" z -... LEGEND: NOTES: 1. ALL INTERIOR DOORS TO BE UNDERCUT BY MIN. OF 112" -::.",",�,, ,"-,.....:..,-::.__: EXISTING WALL 2. DOORS NOT LOCATED ON PLAN WITH DIMENSIONS ARE TYPICALLY LOCATED 4" FROM HINGE SIDE OF WALL TO BE DEMOLISHED DOOR FRAME TO NEAREST WALL. 3. INSTALL NEW SMOKE DETECTOR AS REQUIRED FOR NEW DWELLINGS (PER NEW 2x STUD WALL SECTION R314.2 OF THE 2009 IRC), THE SMOKE ALARMS SHALL BE INTERCONNECTED AND HARD WIRED. 0 SMOKE ALARMS.SEE NOTE 3. SMOKE ALARMS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS: a) IN EACH SLEEPING ROOM. E UST FAN. SEE NOTE 4. b) OUTSIDE EACH SEPARATE SLEEPING AREA IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF THE (s) EXHAUST BEDROOMS. c) THE ALARM DEVICES SHALL BE INTERCONNECTED IN SUCH A MANNER THAT THE ACTUATION OF ONE ALARM WILL ACTIVATE ALL OF THE ALARMS IN THE INDIVIDUAL UNIT AND SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH BATTERY BACK-UP. 4. MINIMUM SOURCE -SPECIFIC VENTILATION IS REQUIRED IN THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS AND AS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED. a) BATHROOMS: 50 CFM b) KITCHENS, 100 CFM c) LAUNDRY ROOMS: 50 CFM . d) WATER CLOSETS: 50 CFM. EXISTING a GRASS, TYP. U w W u_ z z o W o Q . (Dz z O m U) Q W n EXISTING ROSE BUSHES EXISTING MAPLE TREE . ' EXISTING PINE .. : .,,* - , "- .:: , ; I ... . : TREE - i _ . 1. . ,.. ''. "..:'.'..._.'.'.'*. ''­::'I'a '',-D' . "....' . lm. . .. . . ' . ' - ..... ,....."�''"I.I.:�'''"'::�,:.".�'..".�.:�."'I I.. �__� .. 1, ­:!. I ....... -',_ -, ."', I., -, -'-� �� I- I __­ �. .! . ..'. .' .1 1. 11 . ".. .'...'�' . I : " I -, - � 11 _. . - .... ..­­' .''m , I , - ... m_ , , .. . � , - I . . FF � � - , . _­ � n - I \_ .. . - - rrrirrri� rr ��� w wwwr^� 44, \..-- NEW GRAVEL ON EXISTING DIRT DRIVEWAY a GENERAL NOTES: 1. THESE ARE LIMITED SERVICE DRAWINGS (PERMIT ONLY). CONSTRUCTION PROJECT NAME: SHERT PAADDESSORY DWELLING WAS NOT SUPERVISED BY THE ARCHITECT. THE ARCHITECT IS NOT PROJECT ADDRESS: 2105 DAYTON AVE NE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DETAILS OF CONSTRUCTION NOR FOR ANY RENTON WA 98056 AS -BUILT CONDITION NOT SHOWN IN THESE DRAWINGS. TAX ID# 2253 2000 95 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: EDENDALE ADD ATTIC VENTING CALCULATIONS' PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PROJECT CONSISTS OF PROJECT ADDRESS: 0 1 N z 0 cn w Q COVER51ON OF EXISTING 2 CAR GARAGE INTO AN ACCESSORY Q TOTAL ROOF AREA: 1176 SFT. DWELLING UNIT. ROOF AREA/ 300: 3.92 SFT. Q 50% @ 36" (MIN.) ABOVE EAVE: 1.96 SFT. ALL WORK SHALL COMPLY WITH IRC 2009, 2010 WSEC, CITY OF RENTON VENTING PROVIDED: �o CODES & REGULATIONS. 80 LFT. OF EAVE VENTS @ 7 SQ.IN/ LFT 560 SQ. IN = 3.88 SFT -C 3 ROOF VENTS @ 10 SQ. IN NFVA 30 SQ. IN = 0.20 SFT wo z 2 GABLE VENTS @ 74 SQ, IN NFVA 148 SQ. IN = 1.02 SFT. J TOTAL SFT OF VENTS PROVIDED: 5.10 SFT. 1 N Ir- U) Q a,. IL Q z W PROJECT TEAM: z 0 LLJ 2 ENERGY CALCULATIONS: .. .. _ ARCHITECTS: OWNER: 0 0 DESIGNLYRIC, LLC PASANG SHERPA 3741 77TH PL SE 2105 DAYTON AVE NE :- CHAPTER 6 PRESCRIPTIVE: u7 MERCER ISLAND, WA 98040 RENTON, WA 98056 OPTION NUMBER: 11 O MAXIMUM VERTICAL GLAZING U -VALUE: 0.35 � CONTACT: NIRU SHARMA PH: 206-349-3735 MAXIMUM OVERHEAD GLAZING U -VALUE: 0.58 PH:425-392-6502 EMAIL: harbir_goraya@yahoo.com MAXIMUM DOOR GLAZING U -VALUE: 0.20 EMAIL: niru@mannby.com PKOP05ED INSULATION: Chi W CEI LI NGS: R-38 0I -4 VAULTED CEI LI NGS : K-30 UJ ABOVE GRADE WALLS, R-21 SHEET INDEX BELOW GRADE WALLS (INTERIOR): R-21 wQ BELOW GRADE WALL5 (EXTERIOR): R- I O SHEET NO.SHEET NAME:. FLOORS OVER UNHEATED @PACES: R-30 A1.01 COVER SHEET, SITE PLAN, VICINITY MAP, CODE 5LAB PERIMETER: R- I 0 COMPLIANCE INFO DUCTS IN UNHEATED 5PACE5: R-8 A1.02 DEMOLITION PLAN, FLOOR PLAN. E .IL Lo (ryo a SECTIONS, ELEVATIONS, DETAILS VICINITY MAP: ZONING INFORMATION: ::::::::.....::::..:: ..:..::: .. ..:..:..:: �µ.;::... ::................: 1. ,r ,7 ZONING. R-8 RESIDENTIAL . ...' u' : . . ............ •.. ..... •: - •::--It: :ii:-:'::::::. :...........-:.....:. .. . W ft y r "�f�a ::. .....::: ... ..... . - .. {- !rry t CONSTRUCTION: TYPE V -B i . SETBAK REQUIREMENT . � `..�.;:�.....,; �� >..... :: .1 FRONTO 101.01111 RIGHT SIDE 5-0 ,gg LEFT SIDE - % x1. `. .: TOTAL AREA OF LOT: 12,275 SFT (0.28 SORES) w x 9 TOTAL ALLOWABLE IMPERVIOUS AREA: 75% (9206.25 SFT) k :' 4 US AREA 2 } TOTAL EXISTING PERVIO 3950 SFT 3 ..:... _ _. , I '" _ - NEW CONCRETE P ATI 329 SFT ( N r..{i� 1�_}. eey �i-NT } i ii .y�"t w� bPD -,_ } F t ^ y�_� >� .! EXISTING MAIN BUILDWG AREA: 1380 S FT i�ij �K <>t';� a , ' i EXISTING GARAGE AREA: 960 FT .; - -11-. ':.. ' ,,'.....:: .::.z............ - �l _ .....1. .. ::......: 1 �. CSF WALLS. L�TAIRS O. TSIDE FACE _ . S UARE FOOTAGE IS -MEASURED TO THE U .. .. ............ .................... ............. ` :..}�Y ..........., ... • ri ., ... ...... ...................... .......: .,,. .. .r.h ... ..,,,,,,,,,�. x Y 4 F .... ..G - -.-..� W SPACES ARE NOT ARE COUNTED ONCE IN CALCULATIONS O PEN TO BELO S C ..:::_-11 .::::..M..-... INCLUDED IN CALCULATIONS 0 1 N z 0 cn w J V) MAI Q Q 0 a W z Q V_ w I W �o Ell-, -C cn a Ix z wo z Ili r o z J 0� 1 N Ir- U) Q a,. IL Q z W z CE z 0 LLJ 2 w Q w w 0 ■ 0 0 U 0 U) J V) MAI ROOF PLAN Ir `� SCALE: 1/8"=1'--4" 5. WATER RESISTANT GWB SHALL BE USED ON WALLS AROUND SHOWER AND BATHTUB. FINISH ALL WALLS ADJACENT TO SHOWER AND BATHTUB WITH SMOOTH, NON-ABSORBENT MATERIAL UPTO 7'-0" HEIGHT ABOVE DRAIN. 6. 1000W BASEBOARD HEATER PROVIDED IN MAIN ROOM, 50OW BASEBOARD HEATER PROVIDED IN OFFICE AND BEDROOM AND 25OW BASEBOARD HEATER PROVIDED IN BATHROOM. 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 ©W � Z w �"'" LJ _ T_W� -O U) N cl-, 1 v) U City RA -Wo " m SHEET NO. Planning DiviSion ,A�=FLOOR PLAN A1.01 I[XD SCALE: 1 4"--1'--(}" DEC 17 zw / PROJECT NO. R L�'3 uu t 0 v fi:_:� a 1007 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 tz H w H q _ _ - - - _ I ...-___. _..-___.- -__ �u.. - __-� . .,. ..,i .. ,ens., a _.... .:�; ,.. w':.. .. ., -,,.�- r.. .{-t-.'b 511i- .4 ^F3 v- 1. �,._. Q Q 0. W z Q :�i I W �o Ell-, -C a0 Cn z ()!� < 0� Q= w o !� < - = (!') z a () u7 O I - cf) O G) Q0 C-4 0. cow > > 3to Chi W < a- 0I -4 0) C W UJ LJ CL� --. Jn Ln wQ zrz�C)� Q- n W Cl ¢n- Lu (n z r, nes E .IL Lo (ryo a ■ LL ROOF PLAN Ir `� SCALE: 1/8"=1'--4" 5. WATER RESISTANT GWB SHALL BE USED ON WALLS AROUND SHOWER AND BATHTUB. FINISH ALL WALLS ADJACENT TO SHOWER AND BATHTUB WITH SMOOTH, NON-ABSORBENT MATERIAL UPTO 7'-0" HEIGHT ABOVE DRAIN. 6. 1000W BASEBOARD HEATER PROVIDED IN MAIN ROOM, 50OW BASEBOARD HEATER PROVIDED IN OFFICE AND BEDROOM AND 25OW BASEBOARD HEATER PROVIDED IN BATHROOM. 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 ©W � Z w �"'" LJ _ T_W� -O U) N cl-, 1 v) U City RA -Wo " m SHEET NO. Planning DiviSion ,A�=FLOOR PLAN A1.01 I[XD SCALE: 1 4"--1'--(}" DEC 17 zw / PROJECT NO. R L�'3 uu t 0 v fi:_:� a 1007 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 tz H w H q _ _ - - - _ I ...-___. _..-___.- -__ �u.. - __-� . .,. ..,i .. ,ens., a _.... .:�; ,.. w':.. .. ., -,,.�- r.. .{-t-.'b 511i- .4 ^F3 v- 1. �,._. Q 0. W z I W �o _ -C a0 Cn z a' 0� �__ w o < - 0 z 0Ld w () u7 O I - a. O z w w D am- 0. 'r- N W uz ROOF PLAN Ir `� SCALE: 1/8"=1'--4" 5. WATER RESISTANT GWB SHALL BE USED ON WALLS AROUND SHOWER AND BATHTUB. FINISH ALL WALLS ADJACENT TO SHOWER AND BATHTUB WITH SMOOTH, NON-ABSORBENT MATERIAL UPTO 7'-0" HEIGHT ABOVE DRAIN. 6. 1000W BASEBOARD HEATER PROVIDED IN MAIN ROOM, 50OW BASEBOARD HEATER PROVIDED IN OFFICE AND BEDROOM AND 25OW BASEBOARD HEATER PROVIDED IN BATHROOM. 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 ©W � Z w �"'" LJ _ T_W� -O U) N cl-, 1 v) U City RA -Wo " m SHEET NO. Planning DiviSion ,A�=FLOOR PLAN A1.01 I[XD SCALE: 1 4"--1'--(}" DEC 17 zw / PROJECT NO. R L�'3 uu t 0 v fi:_:� a 1007 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 tz H w H q _ _ - - - _ I ...-___. _..-___.- -__ �u.. - __-� . .,. ..,i .. ,ens., a _.... .:�; ,.. w':.. .. ., -,,.�- r.. .{-t-.'b 511i- .4 ^F3 v- 1. �,._. A E 1 2 3 FRONT ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4"= l'—O" 1 $ REAR ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" TYPICAL ROOF CONSTRUCTION -EXISTING ASHPHAL-r ROOFING -EXISTING PLYWOOD -EXISTING TRUSSES 24" O.C. -R-38 INSULATION -5/8" GWB TYPICAL WALL CONS TRUCTION -EXISTING HORIZ. SIDING -EXISTING VAPOR BARRIER -EXISTING PLYWOOD -EXISTING 2x STUDS -R-21 INSULATION -5/8" GWB TYPICAL FLOOR CONSTRUCTION —..� NEW FLOOR FINISH PER PLAN EXISTING 4" CONC. SLAB EXISTING 4 MIL VAPOR BARRIER � BUILDING SECTION SCALE: 1/4"=1 '—O" � I 2 2 SIDE ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4"= l'—O" SIDE ELEVATION 3 WALL SECTION SCALE: 1 /2"--1'--0" 0 u NEW SKYLIGHT, TYP. 5/8" GWB:: 2x STUDS 0 16" O.C. TO MATCH EXISTING R-21 BATT INSUL 1�2" CDX PLYWOOD O0 BUILDING PAPER FINISH EDGE RIF SIDING TO MATCH EXISTING TYP. EXT. WALL DETAIL I SCALE: 1 1/2 N =1'-0" EXISTING CONCRETE RETAINING 21-01{ 22 112" x 30" 2X12 ROUGH OPENING tt INSULATION 7 TRUSSES --� OVER HANG 3/8" TO 112" MAX. 5/8" G.W.B U BEAD & WEATHER STRIP ATTIC ACCESS DETAIL SCALE: 3/4"=1'-0" .. ..... ...... WALL/ CONCRETE BLOCK Q TW EX . ; WALL/ NEW CONCRETE BLOCK . 0 00 KUL F:3 0 1 JAM WALL 0 =. Nkr ..� " 1 AIR SPACE cn N ¢ 0 ELASTOMERIC FINISH COATING r �o W 0 1 INTE WODD STUDS (MIN 2x4) i} ❑ _ CAS R-21 ACCOUSTICAL INSULATION 5/8" GWB JA EXT. WALL DETAIL WATER HEATERRAP DETAIL L SCALE: 1 1/2 "= 1'-0" 5 \ 8 SALE: N.T.S. 6 I 7 0 5/8" GWB 2x4 STUDS ® 16" OC 5/8" GWB TYP. INTERIOR WALL SCALE: .1 1/2 =11 -0 1) LAYER 5/8" GWB A. SIDE OF FALL TYP. U.N.O. x4 WD. HEADER HIM fD. TRIM (D. DR. U.N.O. D ■ cn Z 0 cn ir J 6 cn Q �JOTE: JAMB SIMILAR Q Q TYP. INT. DOOR HEAD I a = s L f SCALE: 1 1/2"=l'-0" Q I V) 0 00 0 w z 0 cn N ¢ 0 r �o W 0 1 = ❑ W < a 5 — -. ,-W L�0 cn _L�. �W14- R' U) 1+y 0 z IL z Q z L'L L� `. r Z J W Q WALL ■ D.. D N T_ cel cn w a.a� Q 0 z W Z OC C3 y U Ld = Ld Q w J U 0 0 U D (n J 6 cn Q �JOTE: JAMB SIMILAR Q Q TYP. INT. DOOR HEAD I a = s L f SCALE: 1 1/2"=l'-0" 1/4" SEALANT JOINT VINYL CLAD WINDOW TEMPERED GLASS WINDOW HEAD DETAIL i TEMPERED GLASS 1/4" SEALANT JOINT BUILDING PAPER TO LAP OVER OUTSIDE OF VINYL WINDOW NAILING FLANGE AT HEAD TYP. EXTERIOR WALL TYP. WINDOW SILL DETAIL SCALE: 1 1/2 10= i $—on ,. Q I V) 0 00 � w z ` T m cn N ¢ 0 W �o 0 1 = ❑ W < a 5 — -. ,-W L�0 _L�. �W14- Lo C3 Ld z a 0 z ¢ wW �z Q n Ig20- L'L L� `. TYP. EXISTING EXTERIOR a LO O W Q WALL ■ D.. D d,. T_ cel fy 1/4" SEALANT JOINT VINYL CLAD WINDOW TEMPERED GLASS WINDOW HEAD DETAIL i TEMPERED GLASS 1/4" SEALANT JOINT BUILDING PAPER TO LAP OVER OUTSIDE OF VINYL WINDOW NAILING FLANGE AT HEAD TYP. EXTERIOR WALL TYP. WINDOW SILL DETAIL SCALE: 1 1/2 10= i $—on ,. Q � w z W �o = Q 00 U) z O a 0 z O Q z 0 uj LO O W Q O W D d,. T_ cel fy Li z W CD Q L Q O 0 U) Q — z U) Q <3: I -0_j E oz Q—� NO' ->~Q ow`nzWUJ O J LjJ w cn �� � wcn❑ SHEET N0. PIarin'rig Division A1.02 DEC 17 810 PROJECT NO.