HomeMy WebLinkAboutLi Short Plat
March 16, 2009
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF RENTON
Minutes
OWNER: Qi Feng Li & Qing Hua Guan
1515 Lake Ave S
Renton, WA 98055
CONTACT: Cramer Northwest, Inc.
945 N Central Ave, Ste. 104
Kent, WA 98032
Li Short Plat
LUA-08-148, SHPL-H, V-H
LOCATION: 1515 Lake Avenue South
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Hearing Examiner Short Plat approval for a 2-lot subdivision
and Hearing Examiner Variance approval for side yard setback
requirements along a street.
SUMMARY OF ACTION: Development Services Recommendation: Approve subject to
conditions.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the
Examiner on February 24, 2009.
PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining
available information on file with the application, field
checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner
conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows:
MINUTES
The following minutes are a summary of the March 3, 2009 hearing.
The legal record is recorded on CD.
The hearing opened on Tuesday, March 3, 2009, at 9:01 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of
the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner.
The following exhibits were entered into the record:
Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the original
application, reports, staff comments, proof of posting,
proof of publication and other documentation pertinent
to this request.
Exhibit No. 2: Vicinity Map
Exhibit No. 3: Site Plan Exhibit No. 4: Planting Plan and Tree Retention Plan
Exhibit No. 5: General Utility/Drainage Control Plan Exhibit No. 6: Zoning Map
Li Short Plat
File No.: LUA-08-148, SHPL-H, V-H
March 16, 2009
Page 2
The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Gerald Wasser, Associate Planner, City of Renton,
1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. The applicant requested a 2-lot short plat with a variance. The
subject property is considered a Hillside Subdivision, due to the fact that the average slopes exceed 20%. That
slope is in the westerly portion of the site. Lot 1 contains an existing house that will remain, Lot 2 contains the
pipestem and the steep slope and buffer. The net density would be 7.4 dwelling units per net acre, which would
be allowed in the R-8 zone. Access for the lots was proposed from Lake Avenue South via a pipestem, which
would also be the access easement to Lot 1.
Because of the location of the existing house, the applicant has requested a reduction in the side yard setback
from 15 feet to 11.4 feet.
The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance – Mitigated with one
measure. No appeals were filed.
Staff believes that the project is consistent with the criteria necessary for variance requests. The applicant would
suffer undue hardship and the variance is necessary due to certain circumstances applicable to the subject
property including size, shape, topography, location and surroundings of the subject property. Because of the
location of the house, the variance would be necessary for access to Lot 2. The 20-foot pipestem that is required
leaves an 11.4 foot side yard setback along a street.
The Examiner asked if the applicant could develop this site if the house were to be moved or removed in order
to abide by the setbacks. Where is the hardship based on the actual lot size or dimensions?
Mr. Wasser stated that the house could be removed, however the hardship would be economics and the
configuration of the way the lot stands currently. There have been other proposals in the area where lots have
been developed on large lots like this; this is just the fact that the house exists. Without the critical areas, there
could be three lots on this parcel. The steep hillside has reduced the density. This would be the minimum
variance necessary to accomplish this purpose.
The plat is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Community Design Element Policies. Except
for the side yard setback along a street, the plat is in compliance with the zoning designation.
The applicant would be required to install a five foot landscape strip along the street frontage of Lake Avenue
South and would also be required to plant two ornamental trees in the front yard of those lots.
Traffic and Fire Mitigation fees would be imposed on this project.
The project is within the Renton School District and they have indicated that they can accommodate any
additional students generated by this proposal.
Per the Hillside Subdivision regulations, the applicant demonstrate that the development will not result in soil
erosion and sedimentation, landslide, slippage, excess surface water runoff, increased costs of building and
maintaining roads and public facilities and increased need for emergency relief and rescue operations.
Compliance with the ERC mitigation measures would satisfy these standards.
Erosion control would be required to comply with the Department of Ecology’s Erosion and Sediment Control
Requirements, Volume II of 2001 edition of Stormwater Management Manual.
A Native Growth Protection Easement would be required to protect slopes in the buffer area.
Li Short Plat
File No.: LUA-08-148, SHPL-H, V-H
March 16, 2009
Page 3
Terry Wilson, Cramer NW Inc, 945 N Central, #104, Kent, WA 98032 stated that he is the owner of Cramer
NW. The offsite triangular piece of property, that is a separate tax parcel, it does not appear to be part of the
right-of-way.
Regarding the variance, a good portion of the setback is actually met, the house was built at an angle and does
not parallel the property line. It just bottlenecks at the front northeast corner of the house by just a little over 3
feet. As the pipestem moves westerly the setback increases to 15 feet.
The Examiner asked for the exact dimensions of the home to the proposed easement. He would like to have the
average setback distance.
Mr. Wilson stated he could get a measurement on that.
Mr. Wasser stated that it appears to be approximately 20-feet from the northwest corner of the house to the
southern line of the pipestem.
Kayren Kittrick, Community and Economic Development stated she believed the triangular parcel was the
Panther Creek Wetlands and owned by public. Not sure if that was State or City. She will get that information
to the Examiner.
For this parcel water, sewer and storm drainage are all available. The applicant has proposed overland trenches,
which are appropriate for this use because it both contributes to water quality as well as slowing the water down
so there is lesser possibility of erosion.
The pipestem is short enough so the pavement is only required to be 15 feet wide. It appears that a choice has
been made to use the joint use driveway, which is advantageous to the street, it is a lesser cut, but she was not
certain if the existing house could be denied a driveway because they have had one previously.
The Examiner held the record open for the remainder of the day to gather information regarding the setback for
the existing house.
The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and
no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 9:35 a.m.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION
Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following:
FINDINGS:
1. The applicants, Qi Feng Li and Qing Hua Guan, filed a request for a Two-lot Short Plat and a Variance.
2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation
and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit #1.
3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official issued a Determination of
Non-Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M).
4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter.
Li Short Plat
File No.: LUA-08-148, SHPL-H, V-H
March 16, 2009
Page 4
5. The subject site is located at 1515 Lake Avenue South. The subject site is located on the west side of
Lake Avenue and just south of S 15th Street. SR-167 and its exit ramp to I-405 are located west of the
subject site.
6. This short plat was subject to Environmental Review because it contains critical areas and is defined as
a Hillside Subdivision due to slope constraints. The short plat was also reviewed by the Hearing
Examiner due to its critical areas constraints and Hillside Subdivision designation.
7. The subject site is zoned R-8 (Detached Single Family - 8 dwelling units per acre).
8. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as
suitable for the development of detached single family homes, but does not mandate such development
without consideration of other policies of the Plan.
9. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 1547 enacted in July 1956.
10. The subject site is approximately 15,003 square feet in area.
11. The subject site has a slope average in excess of 20 percent which is what qualifies it as a Hillside
Subdivision. The western end of the site slopes downward toward SR-167 with slopes in excess of 40
percent. Approximately the rear or westernmost 48 feet are constrained by the very steep slope, a
critical area, and is off limits to construction.
12. The westernmost portion of the site or approximately 32 feet is a buffer area for an offsite Category 2
wetland. The wetland buffer is already encompassed by the steep slope and has no further affect or
limitation on development on the site.
13. An existing home and outbuildings are located on the subject site. The applicant proposes retaining the
home and removing the outbuildings. The home is located on the eastern third of the subject site.
14. The applicant proposes dividing the subject site into two (2) lots. Proposed Lot 1 would be 5,001 square
feet, contain the existing home and would front on Lake Avenue. Proposed Lot 2 would be 10,002
square feet with a pipestem access to Lake Avenue. Proposed Lot 2 would be located west of Proposed
Lot 1. The pipestem would be located along the north property line and is proposed to also provide
easement access to parking on the rear of Proposed Lot 1. A pipestem access is required to be a
minimum of 15 feet wide. An easement driveway is required to be a minimum of 20 feet wide. This
pipestem serving as an easement would have to be 20 feet wide.
15. The existing home on Proposed Lot 1 will provide an 11.4 foot setback from the easement-pipestem
near the front, northeast, corner of the home, whereas, as noted above, 15 feet is required. The home is
built at an angle and provides a larger, 19.67 foot, setback in the rear (northwest corner) of the home and
an average setback of 15.58 feet. The setback distance of 15 feet for an easement is not an average but
the minimum required. The applicant has requested a variance from the setback provisions to allow the
approximately 3.6 foot reduction in the required setback.
16. Other than the location of the home (a self-created condition), the 5,001 square foot lot is relatively
rectangular and has no inherent topographic constraints. Proposed Lot 1 contains no exceptionally steep
slopes and no wetland or creek areas. According to staff, the zoning code would permit parking in the
side yard or front yard. A driveway on Proposed Lot 1 might also provide access to its interior.
Li Short Plat
File No.: LUA-08-148, SHPL-H, V-H
March 16, 2009
Page 5
17. The subject site is located within the Renton School District. The project is expected to generate
approximately 1 school age child.
18. The density for the plat would be approximately 7.4 dwelling units per gross acre after reducing the area
by the critical acreage (1,198 square feet) and easement (1,717 square feet).
19. The development will increase traffic approximately 10 trips for the one additional home.
20. There are stormwater facilities in the roadway. The site would continue draining toward the wetlands
although erosion control will be required to protect the steep slopes.
21. Both domestic water and sanitary sewer would be provided by the City.
22. Staff testified that the shared driveway proposed for this plat is not required and that Proposed Lot 1 can
take direct access from Lake Avenue. Staff noted that if the easement access were eliminated then the
pipestem would only require a 5 foot side yard and no variance would be necessary. In addition, the
pipestem would only have to be 15 feet leaving an additional five feet of separation between the existing
house on Proposed Lot 1 and driveway.
23. Staff recommended that the critical areas be placed into a Native Growth Protection easement and that
they be appropriately signed and delineated.
24. This office recently reviewed an appeal of a Ram Short Plat (File No. LUA-07-140) where staff denied
a setback variance and required the existing home in that situation to either be remodeled, moved or
demolished since it could not meet the setback standards and dedication required when replatting
property. In that case it would have been a front yard along a street but, again, was a required setback.
The existing home in that case could not meet the setback and since staff found there was no undue
hardship, staff recommended the removal of the existing home. This office denied the Ram Appeal and
affirmed staff's denial of the variance.
CONCLUSIONS:
Variance
1. Variances may be granted when the property satisfies all the conditions described in part below:
a. The applicant suffers undue hardship caused by special circumstances such as: the size, shape,
topography, or location where code enforcement would deprive the owner of rights and
privileges enjoyed by others similarly situated;
b. The granting of the variance would not materially harm either the public welfare or other
property in the vicinity;
c. The approval will not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other
property in the vicinity; and
d. The variance is the minimum variance necessary to allow reasonable development of the subject
site.
The applicant's property is not ripe for the variance requested.
Li Short Plat
File No.: LUA-08-148, SHPL-H, V-H
March 16, 2009
Page 6
2. This office needs to emphasize that in order to grant a variance all of the above criteria must be
satisfied. Generally, the first criterion presents the biggest obstacle to the approval of a variance. There
must be undue hardship based on the size, shape, topography or location of the subject site. Economics
does not provide the basis for a hardship. In other words, the cost of the demolition of an existing home
and building a replacement is not a factor in and of itself. The applicant proposes developing two lots
and the only place topography constrains this site is at its western edge which has been accommodated
by the larger 10,000 square foot Proposed Lot 2. Proposed Lot 1 is a generally rectangular, 5,000
square foot lot unencumbered by the topography found in the western portion of the parcel. The
existing house complicates redevelopment of a two-lot plat but that is not a criterion which justifies a
variance. While tearing down the existing house might seem wasteful, that is not one of the
justifications. The lot can be developed with any reasonable house if one looks at the lot by itself. It is
the location of THE LOT and not the location of objects on the lot which justifies granting a variance.
If another result were anticipated than the Ram variance recently denied by staff would be just as
amenable to variance relief. While the proposed home in this case is located on an easement, the same
setback is required as it was in the Ram case. The fact that one is an easement and the other a street is
not the issue - the setbacks demanded are the same in both instances - a setback from a property line
where a street or easement is located.
3. In order to determine whether a variance is appropriate one must generally look at the raw property and
determine if there is reasonable use of the property without granting a variance. Or are there serious
constraints that would deny the property owner reasonable use. In this case the applicant can and is
creating a reasonably rectangular 5,000 square foot lot. Could a reasonable home, garage and driveway
be constructed on that parcel without a variance? Yes. Could a reasonable home, rear garage and
driveway be constructed with an easement over an adjoining pipestem without a variance? Yes. In both
cases the answer is the same - reasonable development potential exists without the need to approve a
variance. The only reason a variance is needed in this case is because an existing home sits too close to
what would be its easement driveway on the adjoining pipestem. The existing home and the location of
its existing preferred parking location do not change the ordinary meaning of undue hardship. It appears
parking for Proposed Lot 1 could occur to the side or front of the lot.
4. Variance criteria are very strictly construed. Approving this variance while denying the Ram variance
would be granting this applicant a special privilege denied in the Ram case. Either existing homes abide
by the existing setback standards or they do not? If they do not meet the setbacks mandated there needs
to be a clear justification based on size, shape or topography. The fact is that in both cases, there is an
existing home and that existing home does not comply with the current setback standards. In both
cases, the homes are on appropriately sized and shaped lots, without any unusual topographical
constraints and the lots are not unusually located. What is similar in both cases is that in order to divide
existing lots into smaller sized lots, the existing homes in both cases would violate the similar setback
standards.
5. Variance criteria require consistency in application. Before relaxing a code standard the applicant must
prove all of the criteria or the code would have no meaning and it can be varied at will. More to the
heart of the matter, staff indicated that this lot does not require an easement for access. It can take
access from Lake Avenue directly. If a new house were to be constructed on this new 5,000 square foot
lot and wanted rear parking, the home would have to create a reasonable space along its side yard to
allow a vehicle to access the rear. There is no undue hardship there. A smaller home or one narrower in
profile but deeper in depth could probably accommodate rear parking. Or a new home might opt for
front parking. Again, there are a myriad of reasonable solutions to the supposed limitations of this
5,000 square foot lot. In other words, there is no undue hardship in this case as the applicant has
reasonable use of the subject site apart from the fact that it wants to save the existing home - just as Ram
Li Short Plat
File No.: LUA-08-148, SHPL-H, V-H
March 16, 2009
Page 7
6. This office will contrast Ram from this application. The existing home in the Ram case would intrude
into the normal setback line and intrude into the streetscape. It would also block sight lines for those in
vehicles that are approaching the corner creating a potentially unsafe condition. The public is not
served by creating unsafe driving conditions more than just granting a variance in contravention of code
provisions.
7. Clearly, if the existing home is to be maintained in its current location and configuration, the requested
variance is the minimum necessary for relief.
8. If the proposed variance is approved then it will be incumbent on the City to grant all such variances no
matter what the condition or disrepair homes are in. This does become more of an issue when older lots
and areas are being replatted. If all parcels with non-conforming setbacks were not treated equally it
would be creating an undue precedent and granting this applicant a special privilege. It would not
matter what condition a home is in if it meets the criteria established by staff in this case - an intrusion
into a required setback by an older existing home is an undue hardship requiring variance relief.
9. The variance is not justified and is denied.
Short Plat
10. While the variance is not justified, the short plat is appropriate if the existing home is remodeled, moved
or demolished so an appropriately sized and located home can be developed on Proposed Lot 1 or if
parking is relocated in some fashion. The subdivision of this parcel serves the public use and interest.
It provides additional housing and choice of housing in an area with urban services.
11. The plat protects both the critical slope and the wetland buffer that fall to the rear of Proposed Lot 2. At
a bit over 10,000 square feet, Proposed Lot 2 can provide both the critical area protection as well as
reasonable space to accommodate a home. Access by pipestem will appropriately allow access to this
interior parcel. The applicant can determine whether it wants a shared driveway with an easement for
Lot 1 or allow Proposed Lot 1 to gain access directly to Lake Avenue as staff noted there are no real
constraints on providing direct access to Proposed Lot 1.
12. The steep slopes will need erosion protection and water quality treatment will be required to protect the
wetlands while they are appropriately recharged.
13. The additional home will increase both traffic as well as demands on the Fire Department and the
applicant should be responsible for paying the mitigation fees that the City has established for new
development.
14. The applicant will have to comply with the City's landscaping provisions.
DECISION:
The Variance is denied.
The Short Plat is approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The existing home on Proposed Lot 1 shall be remodeled, moved or demolished so an
appropriately sized and located home can be developed on Proposed Lot 1or if parking is
Li Short Plat
File No.: LUA-08-148, SHPL-H, V-H
March 16, 2009
Page 8
relocated in some fashion.
2. The applicant can determine whether to provide a shared driveway with an easement for Lot 1
or allow Proposed Lot 1 to gain access directly to Lake Avenue. The pipestem for Proposed Lot
2 shall be 15 feet if it only serves Proposed Lot 2 for access or it shall be 20 feet if an easement
is granted for access across the pipestem.
3. Any home constructed on either lot shall abide by the setback requirements depending on
whether an easement is created or not.
4. That the front yard of the future single family residence on proposed Lot 2 be oriented to the
east and a note to this effect be recorded on the face of the plat.
5. That a demolition permit is obtained and all inspections and approvals completed for the
removal of the existing shed on proposed Lot 2 and/or home on Proposed Lot 1 prior to
recording the final short plat.
6. That a detailed landscape plan be submitted as part of the final short plat application and that
landscaping be installed prior to final inspection of the building permit.
7. That prior to recording of the short plat the applicant shall pay a Transportation Mitigation Fee
of $717.75.
8. That prior to recording of the short plat the applicant shall pay a Fire Mitigation Fee of $488.00.
9. A Native Growth Protection Easement (NGPE) shall be recorded over the protected slopes and
wetland buffer area prior to or concurrent with the recording of the final short plat.
10. The edge of the NGPE shall be delineated with a split rail fence and identified with signage as
approved by the Community & Economic Development Department project manager. A
fencing and signage detail shall be submitted to the Community & Economic Development
Department project manager at the time of utility construction permit application for review and
approval. The fencing and signage shall be installed prior to the recording of the final short
plat.
ORDERED THIS 16th day of March 2009
FRED J. KAUFMAN
HEARING EXAMINER
TRANSMITTED THIS 16th day of March 2009 to the following:
Mayor Denis Law Dave Pargas, Fire
Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Larry Meckling, Building Official
Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Planning Commission
Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Transportation Division
Li Short Plat
File No.: LUA-08-148, SHPL-H, V-H
March 16, 2009
Page 9
Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Utilities Division
Jennifer Henning, Development Services Neil Watts, Development Services
Stacy Tucker, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services
Marty Wine, Assistant CAO Renton Reporter
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100Gof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in
writing on or before 5:00 p.m., March 30, 2009. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the
Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the
discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written
request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This
request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may,
after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper.
An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal
be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements.
Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City
Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., March 30, 2009.
If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the
executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You
may contact this office for information on formatting covenants.
The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur
concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in
private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both
the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council.
All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all
interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the
evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court.
The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as
Appeals to the City Council.