Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-09-2020 HEX Decision - Admin Appeal -- LLA - Lanz1 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 Appeal - 1 CAO VARIANCE - 1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: Vann Lanz Apex Lot Line Adjustment Appeal LUA20-000064 LLA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION Overview Mr. Lanz’s appeal is granted. The appellant has demonstrated compliance with RMC 4-7-060 the Principles of Acceptability for approval of a Lot Line Adjustment. The request for a Lot Line Adjustment is granted without conditions. Testimony Note: This hearing summary is provided as a courtesy to those who would benefit from a general overview of the public testimony of the hearing referenced above. The summary is not required or necessary to the recommendation issued by the Hearing Examiner. No assurances are made as to completeness or accuracy. Nothing in this summary should be construed as a finding or legal conclusion made by the Examiner or an indication of what the Examiner found significant to his decision. Appellant Testimony Ryan Espergard is the Appellant’s Attorney. Mr. Espergard called the Appellant Vann Lanz. Mr. Lanz stated he is in construction and real estate development. He is involved in the subject project as a former owner of the parcel who sold it to Apex Development. He is helping with the development of the parcel. He has been working on trying to develop these lots for about 10 years. Mr. Espergard brought up City Ex. 2. This is the Apex lot line adjustment. Page two shows the topography and lot design. Mr. Lanz stated the parcel is to the west of Boeing Field. The primary 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 Appeal - 2 CAO VARIANCE - 2 access is off of Stevens Avenue. It’s a residential road with access to just the eastern portion of the parcel. The middle of the site has significant topography – a 70-foot vertical cliff formed from an old rock quarry. Access to the western portion of the lot is very difficult and must come through another neighborhood with steep slopes. There is no road access to any portion of the two western lots. There is an unimproved City owned right of way (NW 4th Street) along the northern property line. The right of way has even larger issues with steep slopes. There is no access to NW 4th Street, and it is vacant and unimproved. There is effectively no access to the western portion of the property. Mr. Lanz stated he had tried to develop the property starting when he acquired Lot 1, the northern lot. Lot 2 was owned by another person. His original intent was to develop six lots on Lot 1 with access from the east and west. He was planning for a hammerhead down the centerline between Lots 1 and 2. The City objected to access on the western portion of the lots because the hillside to the west of the parcels is quite steep. The roadway would have been pushed out of the existing grade by 15 feet with a large retaining wall by some homes. The City didn’t want a retaining wall by these homes. This was his original intention. In dealing with permitting on this property, he had difficultly working with the City. He had enough difficulty in working with the City that he sold the property. After he sold it to Apex Development, Apex has similar intentions for development, but only for the lower portion of this lot. They’d also purchase Lot 2. They planned to develop the eastern portion of both lots with 5-6 homes. The City’s zoning code subsequently changed and disallowed the subdivision of the lot without substantial hardships. It had to do with dead-end roads and fire access. Stevens Avenue was too long without a thoroughfare somewhere else along the way. This drastically altered Apex’s plans. During his time of ownership, he tried to vacate NW 4th Street. The City made approval of the vacation subject to approval of the subdivision. Apex is trying to develop the lots given the site constraints. The current plans include two h omes, one on each lot. The homes will face Stevens Avenue outside of all critical areas buffers. There will be no impact to the critical areas, which was a concern with prior attempts to develop this site. The City had drainage concerns because of the prior plans’ changes to topography and impervious surface. Mr. Espergard introduced Appellant’s Exhibit 2 showing the plans for the two homes. Mr. Lanz stated the exhibit was Apex’s current plans for the lots. The homes are fronted on Stevens Avenue and meet all zoning setbacks and away from all critical areas as far as is practical. This site plan is based on the assumption that the lot line adjustment will be approved. Without the lot line adjustment, the house on Lot 2 would shift down 25 feet into the hillside. To construct without the lot line adjustment, additional trees would need to be removed and the hillside would need to be terraced with retaining walls. Mr. Lanz described the location of the critical area buffer line. Without the lot line adjustment, development would be very expensive, prohibitive with respect to drainage feasibility and would not meet City code. The lot lines in Appellant Ex. 2 are the proposed lot lines. Mr. Espergard brought up City Ex. 2, page 3 which is the surveyor’s drawing of the existing and proposed lot lines. The new lot lines move the north/south lines to the top of the cliff at the top of 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 Appeal - 3 CAO VARIANCE - 3 the slope. This makes the most sense because if they shift it, Lots one and 2 cannot access the top portion of their lots. To shift it to the east, Lot 3 would not have access to the eastern portion of the lot. Lot 1 is too deep, but this makes the most sense with respect to the topography. The new Lot 1 is too deep given the City’s code. The lots are currently not conforming; they are much deeper than they are wide. The new proposed lot lines for Lots 1 and 2 are better conforming with Lot 1 being less unconforming and Lot 2 conforming. Lot 1 is over the maximum allowable depth to width ratio. If NW 4th Street is vacated, the constraints of the lots will be reduced. He asked for the vacation 8- 9 years ago to add 30 feet to the lot width of Lot 1 and reduce the non-conforming nature of the lot. In the new lot layout, Lot 2 becomes conforming. Mr. Espergard brought up City Ex. 3 which has a depiction of Lot 3, though this is not the same as in the Appellant’s Exhibit. Lot 3 (APN 913360-0045) is owned separately. These other folks have encroached into Lot 2 significantly. This was uncovered by a survey. Assuming the lot line adjustment is rejected, the future owners of the lots will have a lot of vegetation on the upper part of the slope. They will not be able to access the upper parts of the lots with equipment. The trees on the upper parts of the lots could fall and hit neighboring houses or people. Also, the owners would not be able to monitor activity on the upper portions of the lot. The cliff has significant risks. Having someone up there to maintenance and monitor it would be very beneficial. In the lot line adjustment, the top portion would be transferred to the owners of Lot 3 of the neighboring subdivision (APN 913360-0040). This property owner wants the upper portion of Lots 1 and 2. Mr. Lanz stated he wanted to note on the western portion of the lot contains a utility easement to the City of Renton. This is a sewer easement. In response to the examiner, Mr. Lanz stated the building footprint for the home on Lot 2 is about 1,550-1,600sf. If the home was pushed further south it would violate the City regulations because he’d need to dig into the slope and place retaining walls. He believes excavation in the critical areas or buffers is not ok because the hill would need to be terraced out. With the existing lot lines, the new house would be far into the hill side which would require terracing of the slope in the buffer. The City didn’t want them getting into even the lesser slopes. He was trying to eliminate push back from the City by placing the lots entirely on the flat. Mr. Lanz stated the hillside to the south of the home is not technically a steep slope. This ground is solid rock. There’s less than a foot of topsoil with solid rock below it. In Appellant Ex. 2, there is about four feet of soil before there is solid rock. The other issue with pulling the house on Lot 2 south, it would require cutting down significantly more trees than the current proposal. Also, the new house if slid south, the house and retaining walls would be built on a slope. City Testimony Angelea Weihs, Associate Planner for the City of Renton, introduced the City PowerPoint. The Appellant requested a lot line adjustment for three existing parcels (APN 1823059005, 1823059078, and 9133600040). All three parcels are located in the R-8 zoning designation. Currently Lots 1 and 2 are vacant, rectangular shaped lots that are accessed via Stevens Avenue NW to the east. Lot 3 is a pentagon shaped lot that is currently occupied by an existing single-family homes that gains access 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 Appeal - 4 CAO VARIANCE - 4 via a dead-end cul-de-sac to the south (Seneca Avenue NW). For illustration, Ms. Weighs showed the boundary line adjustment map from the Appellant. Ms. Weihs showed the existing lot lines and the new lot lines. These include the original Lot 1 and 2 on the project site and the off-site lot (Lot 3). The current lot lines are currently more consistent with the City Code than the proposed lots. The current lots make sense with respect to lot shape. Particularly with respect to Lot 3, the shape makes sense. All three of the current lots are developable. The proposed lot lines provide for a shorter, narrower Lot 1, an irregularly shaped Lot 2 and a very irregularly shaped Lot 3. The City is not sure why Lot 3 should look like it does in the proposal. This is because the property owner that owns Lot 3 wants additional land area. A lot line adjustment is not needed for this purpose. An easement could suffice to allow the additional land to be used for Lot 3 without increasing the non-conformity with City code. On April 9, 2020, staff determined the LLA request did not meet the Principles of Lot Acceptability for a Lot Line Adjustment. Staff issued a decision to deny the request. Specifically, Lot 3 does not create a better lot design with respect to its shape and access. The Appellant asserts the denial of the LLA serves to eliminate the practical use of the upland portions of Lots 1 and 2 due to the steep slopes that divide the upper and lower portions of the lots. While staff understands the proposal does improve the usability of the lots, the intent of the Code is not to ensure that all areas of every lot are buildable and accessible, but rather to ensure that proposed lots have a logical and practical design allowing for the accommodation of reasonable use of the property and does not hinder the application of other code requirements. The Appellant Brief claims the exiting lot configuration prevents reasonable use of Lot 2. No geotechnical report was submitted to substantiate the claim that a LLA is necessary to create a buildable area for Lot 2. Ms. Weihs returned to the site map to clarify her points. The site plan showed the slope and its buffer. The appellant also identified NW 4th Avenue, which is unimproved and impacted by the slope. The code for LLA attempts to prevent the circumvention of the Code with respect to the right of way improvement with a subdivision. They are not allowed to subdivide within five years of an LLA. They are not allowed to subdivide Lot 1 with respect to improvements along the north property line. Ms. Weihs spoke to Appellant Exhibit No. 2. She stated the Appellant argued without the LLA, the properties would be denied reasonable use because of a lack of adequate buildable area. However, a Geotech report supporting those claims was not provided, nor did the Appellant describe how a modification for the retaining walls or home design might or might not work in keeping the lots in their current configuration. By relocating Lot 1 to the north, they take a non-conforming lot and make it more non-conforming. They are allowed to develop the slopes on the site and remove trees. Additionally, regarding the rock quarry, there is a code section that might apply to subdivision of the site – Criteria for Modification of Geologically Hazardous Areas. The administrator may make a determination on the regrading of any slope which has previously been created through mining activity or prior to the adoption of the code or through transportation improvements or utility improvement activities. If the argument is if the City is preventing all reasonable use of Lot 2, there are methods the appellant can use to move through with subdivision, if that is there objective. Mr. Espergard asked about how the non-conformity with Lot 1 will be increased under the proposal. Ms. Weihs stated the depth should stay the same and not re-allocate the land to off-site Lot 3. If the 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 Appeal - 5 CAO VARIANCE - 5 upland area is relocated to Lot 3, Lot 1 will be more non-conforming with respect to the lot dimensions, specifically the shape of the lot regarding lot width to depth. The issue with reallocating land to Lot 3 is that the lot design does not meet the Principles of Acceptability for LLA. Ms. Weihs stated there is a code provision for the re-grading of the quarry through a modification. This will require adequate demonstration of safety through a geotechnical analysis. The City would not be opposed to an easement benefitting Lot 3 for the upland area. This is a civil, rather than public, matter. The City isn’t concerned about use as long as it is permitted, as much as with the shape of the lot. The shape of the lot as proposed doesn’t meet the Principles of Acceptability. Mr. Espergard entered City Ex. 1, the original LLA Decision denying the lot line adjustment. Ms. Weihs prepared the decision with management review. The letter outlines the four Principles of Acceptability. Compliance with Principle 1 is not met. The proposal does not correct lot lines or eliminate encroachments but instead creates an odd shaped lot that does not meet the zoning code. An LLA must demonstrate compliance with all Principles of Acceptability. Mr. Espergard shared RMC 4-7-060(A) Purpose of Lot Line Adjustments. Mr. Espergard discussed City Ex. 3 showing an encroachment into Lot 2 from Lot 3. Mr. Espergard asked if the owners of these two lots desired an LLA to avoid adverse possession due to an encroachment, would the City approve this even though it didn’t meet all of the requirements of RMC 4-7-060(B). Ms. Weihs stated not all of the Principles of Acceptability need to be met when they are not all applicable. However, those that can be applied should be. In this case, no encroachment is being fixed and the changes in Lots 1 and 2 do not meet lot design requirements. The Lot 3 proposal does not meet the requirements. Mr. Espergard asked if the issue was the number of corners. Ms. Weihs stated lot corners are one issue. The proposed Lot 3 is very irregular which makes the application of setback regulations in the future. Lot 3 fails to create better lot design. Renton does not have a specific code provision limiting the number of corners or requiring specific shapes. This lot design does not make sense. It does not meet the City’s needs. The proposal for Lot 3 doesn’t meet the Principle of Acceptability in that it goes from five lot corners to 10-12 corners. The access is also insufficient. Side lot lines should be perpendicular to the front line. The point is that the proposed LLA significantly does not meet the Principles of Acceptability. Mr. Espergard asked if Ms. Weihs would agree to the fact that the upper portion does not have access. Ms. Weihs stated there is a route that can be taken with the provision of a geotechnical analysis and approval of a modification from the code (modifications from geologically hazardous areas). The existing lots do have access to a street prior to the LLA. Not all areas of the lot need to be either accessible or buildable. There is reasonable use of Lots 1 and 2 now. The upland portions of these lots do not currently have access to an improved street, though it’s not necessary that the entire lot be accessible by car. The upland portions of Lot 1 and 2 are currently inaccessible. Though its’ unfortunate that parts of the lots are inaccessible, that’s not the City’s responsibility. Ms. Weihs stressed that Lots 1 and 2 already have access. There is no prevention from accessing these lots. Easy access to all portions of the lot is not the problem of the City. Ms. Weihs stated the proposed LLA does provide easier access to the upland portion from Lot 3 for pedestrians but not for vehicular access. The City is not preventing the property owner from providing an easement to Lot 3 which would allow them to use the upland portions of Lots 1 and 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 Appeal - 6 CAO VARIANCE - 6 Mr. Espergard stated RMC 4-7-060(B) requires better lot design or improved access. Ms. Weihs stated that vehicular and emergency vehicle access are not improved by the LLA. Walking access is not required. There is no emergency access to the upland portions of Lots 1 and 2 and it isn’t required because this area is vacant. With respect to Lots 1 and 2, Ms. Weihs stated they did not look at better lot design because the proposed lots will not be less nonconforming. The City focused most of the review on Lot 3 because it cannot be approved as proposed. The City looked at all aspects of the proposal. If Lots 1 and 2 were not increased in non-conformity, the City would still not permit proposed Lot 3. It doesn’t comply with City code. Mr. Espergard stated RMC 4-7-170(A) requires side lot lines be perpendicular to the street in so far as practical. He notes this code is not mandatory. Ms. Weihs stated the new lots do not comply with RMC 4-7-170(A) and therefore are not an improved design as required. In response to the examiner, Ms. Weihs stated the lot corner issue is related to Principle of Acceptability No. 2. One of the factors is improvement of internal accessibility. The City views that as vehicular access. From the City’s perspective, all three lots currently have access from a public street. Ms. Weihs stated the City is not concerned about whether the property owner has more ease of accessing all portions of the lot. The City looks at bulk and dimension. The City does not want multiple corners because of the difficulty in assessing the application of setbacks. If the code is difficult to apply, then the design is not enhanced. This proposal does not comply with the Principles of Acceptability. The existing lots are rectangular and regular in shape as opposed to the proposal. Appellant Rebuttal Mr. Espergard recalled Mr. Lanz. Mr. Lanz stated he’s been working on this project for a decade. He’s been working with the City many times and this is the first time they’ve ever mentioned they would allow grading in and around the critical areas. The City has always denied him before. Even if they were allowed, it is too steep for fire access. Ms. Weihs stated the code section only applies in a man-made circumstance. If the staff member wasn’t aware it was a former mine, they might not know the code reference. However, the City code is available online. Mr. Espergard asked if the City would allow for regrade to provide access to the upland portions. Ms. Weihs stated the City would review it but could not speak to the outcome. A geotechnical report is required. It is not the City’s responsibility to ensure that all areas of the lot are buildable. Instead it is to ensure there is a reasonable use available on each lot. The examiner asked if the proposed 17- foot width might allow fire access. Ms. Weihs stated this does not meet the emergency access width requirements. Closing 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 Appeal - 7 CAO VARIANCE - 7 Mr. Espergard closed by saying the Appellant’s Brief adequately conveys the argument. The City exclusively looked at Lot 3. There are no comments about Lots 1 and 2 in the City’s decision. The City zeroed in on Lot 3 alone. The primary argument is that there are too many corners and that it would be an administrative burden for future development. By doing so, they ignore the benefits that would accrue today to Lots 1, 2 and 3. With Lots 1 and 2, Lot 1 will be developable. The nonconformity will be reduced. With Lot 2, they can move the home to a flat area outside of critical areas. Even with the re-grade, the developer has to move a cliff side to allow development. The Lot 2 design is improved in terms of developability and in terms of conformity to City code. Lot 3 is an odd shape, but the code doesn’t prohibit an odd shaped lot or limits the number of corners. The lot lines won’t change with the proposal. The proposal gives an owner use of the property. Lots 1 and 2 have improved design. Lot 3 would have improved access. In totality, the proposal is a better design for the three lots. The appellant requests reversal of the City’s administrative decision. Exhibits 1. Appellant Exhibit 1 – Emails November 4, 2019 to December 11, 2019 2. Appellant Exhibit 2 – Site Plans, J Designs 3. Appellant Exhibit 3 – Stevens Ave NW Feasibility Study (January 2016) 4. Appellant Exhibit 4 – Project Narrative 5. Appellant’s Brief 6. Appellant’s Witness and Exhibit List 7. Emails June 11, 2020 to July 16, 2020 8. City’s Response to Appeal a. Notice of Lot Line Adjustment Decision b. Site Plan, Touma Engineers Land Surveyors, PLLC, pages 2 and 3 of 3 c. Site Plan, Touma Engineers Land Surveyors, PLLC page 1 of 3 9. City Witness List, Exhibit List and Production of Emails 10. City Objection to Pre-hearing Order 11. City Response to Pre-hearing Order 12. Examiner Revised Pre-hearing Order 13. Continuance of Hearing notice 14. Email from examiner requesting Continuance and Granting Extension 15. Appeal Request (April 23. 2020) 16. Letter Rescheduling Hearing Date (August 5, 2020) Findings of Fact Procedural: 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 Appeal - 8 CAO VARIANCE - 8 1. Appellant. Vann Lanz c/o Gordon Thomas Honeywell, 520 Pike Street, Suite 2350, Seattle, WA 98101. 2. Hearing. A virtual hearing on the appeal was held via the Zoom application on September 15, 2020, Zoom Meeting ID: 845 7856 0375. 3. Appeal Description. Mr. Lanz has appealed the City’s April 9, 2020 Lot Line Adjustment Decision (Ex. 8a) denying the applicant’s (Apex Engineering) request for a lot line adjustment on the property located at approximately 367 Stevens Avenue in Renton (APN 1823059005 and 1823059078). The property is located in the R-8 zone with a Residential Medium Density Comprehensive Plan designation. The project site has approximately 104,975sf (2.4 acres). If the property were completely accessible and did not contain significant critical areas, the property could be developed with approximately 12 single family dwelling units (Ex. 3). The property has been used as a gravel mine in the past. The eastern portion of the property, which fronts on Stevens Avenue, is separated from the western portion of the property by an approximately 70-foot high, vertical rock wall (Ex. 5). The area adjacent to Stevens Avenue is generally flat for the first 300 feet. The western portion of the property is also generally less sloped and would be developable if there was adequate access to this portion of the site (Ex. 8b). There is an unopened right of way running along the northern property line of the subject property (NW 4th Street), however the terrain remains quite steep. The approach from this direction would require a 30% grade, which is significantly more than the 15% maximum allowed by City code (Ex. 3). Mr. Lanz testified he has attempted to get the NW 4th Street right of way vacated by the City in the past but was denied. The right of way vacation would have added to the overall width of Lot 1 and increased that lot’s potential developable area. There is almost no physical access to the upper portions of the project site from the east, north or west. The steep grade and the cliff prevent access from the east or north. There is a 25 -foot wide access easement to the western portion of the subject property (Ex. 8c), but a house is built over a significant portion of the easement (APN 182305-9241). The only legal access to this portion of the project site would be from the south, either through outright ownership of that portion of the land or via an easement. The appellant is concerned about maintenance and liability for this area as there is no effective way to use and monitor the property from the eastern side (Ex. 5). An adjacent neighbor (APN 913360-0045) has significantly encroached on Lot 2 of the LLA on the upper portion of the lot (Ex. 8c). The subject site has multiple critical areas all stemming from the same feature. The site is an old rock quarry. As such, there are drainage and erosion issues from the steep, rocky slope and the underlying rock below areas of very shallow soil. The cliff face itself is a landslide hazard area. The topography essentially renders the upper portion of the subject inaccessible from the lower portion. Additionally, there are significant trees throughout the site, including several in the developable area of Lot 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 Appeal - 9 CAO VARIANCE - 9 Mr. Lanz and Apex Engineering requested a Lot Line Adjustment to accomplish two things. The first item would be to create a new north/south boundary line along the approximate top of the slope. This property would then be deeded to an adjacent neighbor to the south of Lot 2. Though the encroachment is from APN 913360-0045, Mr. Lanz proposed deeding the upper land area to another adjacent neighbor APN 913360-0040 (Ex. 8b). This neighbor has a 17-foot wide overlap in their northern property line with respect to the southern property line of the subject property’s Lot 2. Though this would create a highly irregular lot, it would solve several issues in that the upper portion of the property could be used by an adjacent land owner with access (via the 17 foot wide strip in the adjacent property’s northern property line) while reducing the maintenance and liability from the owners of the subject parcel’s Lots 1 and 2, given the upper western portion of these lots is currently completely inaccessible. Lot 1 (APN 183059005) would be reduced from 44,397sf to 17,924sf. Lot 2 (APN 1823059078) would be reduced from 60,390sf to 40,779sf). Lot 3 (APN 9133600040) would be increased from 22,544sf to 68,628sf. The second part of the proposal would move the remaining lot line between Lots 1 and 2 to the north. The purpose for this is to create a more developable area on Lot 2. Both Lots 1 and 2 are encumbered by the site’s critical areas – steep slopes, the landslide hazard area and erosion hazard areas (Ex. 3). Lot 2 in its current configuration is more extensively encumbered. This lot is also underlain by solid rock at a depth of less than a foot below the ground surface (Lanz testimony). By moving the lot line to the north, the new homes would both be built on relatively flat ground, away from the critical areas and their buffers and in an area with more soil cover. The soil to the north is about four feet deep before the rock layer is encountered. Moving the homes to this area would decrease construction costs, increase feasibility and decrease erosion concerns given the larger area for stormwater dispersal into thicker soil (Lanz testimony). Existing Lots 1 and 2 are each over an acre in size (44,397sf for Lot 1 and 60,390sf for Lot 2). Existing Lot 3 is 22,544sf. The proposed lot sizes are 17, 924sf, 40,779sf and 68,628sf for Lots 1-3, respectively. All three lots comply with the minimum lot sizes in the before and after (Ex. 8b). Existing Lot 1 is 85.42 feet wide by approximately 521 feet long and has a depth to width ratio of 6:1. Existing Lot 2 is 115.05 feet wide by approximately 525 feet long and has a depth to width ratio of 4.6:1. Existing Lot 3 is irregularly shaped with a width at the street of 38 feet and a depth of approximately 210 feet from the cul-de-sac to the far corner1. Proposed Lot 1 is 60 feet wide by approximately 292 feet long with a depth to width ratio of 4.87:1. Proposed Lot 2 is 140.47 feet wide by approximately 278 feet long with a depth to width ratio of 1.98:1. 1 The depth to width ratio for Lot 3 is difficult to calculate given the lack of a readily available mid -lot with depicted on Ex. 8b). The lot was created prior to the adoption of RMC 4 -7-170(E) via Ord. 5728 in 2014. This lot is either conforming in its existing condition or legally non-conforming pursuant to RMC 4-10-010. 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 Appeal - 10 CAO VARIANCE - 10 Lot 3’s proposed dimensions are difficult to ascertain. The lot would be highly irregular. The width of the new portion would be approximately 259 feet as measured along the southern boundary line of Lot 2. The depth of the new portion of Lot 3 would be about 200 feet. This part of the property is not in relation to any developed public right of way and is only tangentially connected to the existing Lot 3 via a narrow 17-foot wide opening at the northeast corner of what is currently Lot 3’s backyard. The new portion of Lot 3, when assessed by itself has a depth to width ratio of 0.77:1 if viewed in relation to the unopened right of way along NW 4th Street. No additional lot, parcel or tracts were proposed. 4. City Denial of Administrative Lot Line Adjustment. On April 9, 2020 the City of Renton issued a Notice of Lot Line Adjustment Decision (LUA20 -000064, LLA) (Ex. 8a). This administrative decision denied the lot line adjustment request based on non -compliance with RMC 4-7-060(B) which are the Principles of Acceptability for the approval of Lot Line Adjustments. Specifically, the City cited non-compliance with RMC 4-7-060(B)(1)-(3) and a lack of demonstrated compliance with RMC 4-7-060(B)(4). The City noted the application did not further the purpose of the Lot Line Adjustment process, namely that the proposed LLA did not rectify a disputed property line, improve design or access, or result in compliance with Renton Municipal Code Title IV (RMC 4-7-060(A). Conclusions of Law 1. Authority. RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies lot line adjustments as Type I administrative decisions subject to appeal to the hearing examiner, which in turn is subject to closed record appeal to the City Council. 2. Principles of Acceptability. Approval of Lot Line Adjustments is subject to the review criteria of RMC 4-7-060(B) Principles of Acceptability. A. RMC 4-7-060(B)(1) Correcting is applicable when a lot line must be adjusted or eliminated to correct a property line or setback encroachments. Staff notes the proposal does not correct a lot line or eliminate encroachments (Ex. 8a). Though there is an encroachment as noted in Finding of Fact No. 3, the appellant does not seek to remedy it. It’s unclear if RMC 7-7- 060(B) requires that a proposed lot line comply with both RMC 4-7-060(B)(1) and B(2). RMC 4-7-060(B) states that an LLA “shall be consistent” with (B)(1)-B(4). There is no logical reason to deny an LLA simply because it fails to both correct and improve as required by B(1) and B(2). An LLA that accomplished B(1) or (B)(2) while also conforming to B(3) and B(4) would appear to achieve all of the objectives sought by the City’s LLA regulations and appears to be consistent with past City practice. For these reasons, it is concluded that RMC 4-7-060B requirement for consistency is met if an LLA meets the requirements of either B1 or B2 in addition to the requirements of B3 and B4. B. RMC 4-7-060(B)(2) Improving requires the LLA to either create better lot design or to improve access. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 3, the proposed LLA will improve access by allowing the upper portion of the property to be used by an adjacent neighbor at the same grade when otherwise this portion of the property would be inaccessible. The proposed LLA 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 Appeal - 11 CAO VARIANCE - 11 will also provide better lot design by improving the function and utility of the lots. The appellant cites concerns about their inability to monitor for trespassers and for correcting potentially hazardous conditions such as dangerous trees in the currently inaccessible upper portions of the property. The appellant’s solution is to transfer the western portion of the parcels to a neighboring property owner who does have the ability to access and maintain the property. In this instance, the neighbor they have selected is the owner of Lot 32. The City argues not all portions of all lots are required to be accessible, as is often the case with critical areas. Though it is true that not all portions of all lots need be equally accessible, the proposed solution allows for accessibility when none existed before. The City’s suggested access use easement does not provide for a permanent solution in the way transfer of ownership does and does not create a remedy that would indemnify the owners of Lots 1 and 2 from future liability. The more elegant solution is to provide the adjacent property owner with property they can access and maintain in perpetuity. The proposal also improves the design of Lots 1 and 2 by creating more developable area for Lot 2. The eastern portion of Lot 2 is challenging in that it is more encumbered by critical areas and their associated buffers than Lot 1. It also has more significant trees and is less feasible for development because much of the area has very shallow soil underlain by solid rock. This shallow soil is an erosion hazard and could contribute to future drainage issues. Moving the lot line to the north solves these issues by avoiding the critical areas, avoiding several significant trees and placing the building pad on a more suitable soil profile. In its testimony, the City noted the critical areas buffer could be altered based on City acceptance of a geotechnical report (RMC 4-3-050(D)(5)(c)(i)(c) and RMC 4-3-050(I)(1)) and pursuant to RMC 4-3-050(G)(5)(h)(ii). As the appellant notes, altering the critical area or buffer to allow construction on Lot 2 in its existing configuration would be prohibitively expensive because it would involve drilling through solid rock at and below the surface and would further increase erosion hazards and create potential drainage issues. If Lot 2 were not in common ownership with Lot 1, despite its size, the presence of critical areas and accessibility issues mean development of Lot 2 would likely require a modification of the critical areas buffer or other accommodations under the City’s Reasonable Use Variance Criteria (RMC 4-9-250(B)(6)). The City’s argument is a modification to the critical areas buffer would allow reasonable use3 of Lot 2 now without the creation of new or expansion of existing non- conforming lots. As noted below in Conclusion of Law No. 2C, the proposal does not create or expand nonconformity with the zoning code. City code standards do not specify a maximum limit on the number of corners a lot may have. In its existing configuration, Lot 3 is an irregular diamond shape with five corners. Though many codes consider five corners to be near the upper limit for a functional, conforming lot, Renton’s code is silent on this issue. The Code simply provides no 2 Mr. Lanz’s testimony suggests the owners of Lot 3 were the only adjacent owners with a desire to purchase and/or own the land. 3 In this sense the City is not referring to a formal application of the provisions of RMC 4-6-250(B)(6) as no application for a critical areas variance has been submitted or reviewed. The City is referring to a way to use the property without altering the existing lot lines. 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 Appeal - 12 CAO VARIANCE - 12 quantitative standard in this regard. In the new configuration, Lot 3 would have 14 corners with over an acre (46,084sf) of new area appended to a typical residential cul-de-sac lot of 22,544sf and joined only tangentially by a 17 foot opening between the two (Ex. 8b). This may not be ideal aesthetically or for purposes of future regulations, but nothing in the code sets a quantitative standard prohibiting this lot shape. Lot 3 may not have an improved design, but it does solve the access issue. RMC 4-7-060(B)(2) requires only one of the two and does not suggest both or either aspect must be true for all lots in the LLA. By moving the lot line to the north, the new homes would both be built on relatively flat ground, away from the critical areas and their buffers and in an area with more soil cover. Moving the homes to this area would decrease construction costs, increase feasibility, and decrease erosion concerns given the larger area for stormwater dispersal into thicker soil (Lanz testimony). It would also serve to protect several significant trees that are located on the eastern portion of Lot 2, all resulting in improved lot design. For these reasons, this criterion is satisfied. C. The proposal is consistent with RMC 4-7-060(B)(3). This provision requires that no additional lots be created, that the subjects lots be in the same zoning district, that the proposed adjustments shall not cause lots to increase in nonconformity and that the adjusted lots lines are shared by the subject lots. No new lots are being created. All of the subject lots are in the same zoning district. All adjusted lot lines will be shared by the subject lots. The R-8 zone, which applies to the subject lots, has several bulk and dimensional requirements. The minimum lot size for properties over an acre is 4,500sf and for properties less than an acre is 5,000sf. The minimum lot width is 50 feet for interior lots and 60 feet for corner lots. The minimum depth is 65 feet. Where practical, the side lines shall be at right angles to streets or to the curved radius of the street (RMC 4-2-110(A)). At the street, the lot width must be at least 80% of the required lot width except on the turning circle of a cul-de- sac, which requires a minimum of 35 feet (RMC 4-7-170(D)). No residentially zoned lot may have a depth-to-width ratio greater than four-to-one (4:1) (RMC 4-7-170(E)). In order to approve a lot line adjustment, the new lots must conform to these codes, or alternatively, the new lots may not increase existing non-conformities (RMC 4-7-060(B)(3)(c)). As described in Finding of Fact No. 3, both Lots 1 and 2 in their existing configuration comply with the City’s bulk and dimensional standards for the R-8 zone, except that both exceed the 4:1 depth-to-width ratio requirements of RMC 4-7-170(E), which was adopted after these lots were created. Lot 3 in its existing configuration is either conforming or legally nonconforming. The proposal would make both Lots 1 and 2 less nonconforming with respect to the depth to width ratio (Lot 1 from 6:1 to 4.87:1 and Lot 2 from 4.6:1 to 1.98:1) to RMC 4-7-170(E) and therefore would not increase the existing nonconformity. Whether or not the proposal creates a nonconformity for Lot 3 depends on compliance with RMC 4-7-170(A) and RMC 4-7-170(E). RMC 4-7-170(A) requires side lot lines to be at right angles to street lines or radial to curved street lines, insofar as that is practical. If the two portions of proposed Lot 3 are taken separately, the existing lot is legally conforming in 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 Appeal - 13 CAO VARIANCE - 13 that the existing side lines are radial to Seneca Avenue NW, a public street. The upper portion of the subject property (proposed Lot 3 expansion) currently conforms to this code in that the front of the lots are oriented towards Stevens Avenue NW and the side lot lines are at right angles to this street line. In the proposed configuration, the lot lines could be oriented towards three potential streets – the unopened and likely infeasible NW 4th Street, west towards the access easement that leads to NW 3rd Court or south to Seneca Avenue NW. It is true the new configuration is not ideal, and this currently inaccessible portion of the property does not neatly fit the criteria for lots directly facing streets. However, the code is clear in that it applies only insofar as practical. Given there is no direct access to this area of the subject property from any public street and no feasible access from Stevens Avenue NW, it is impractical to apply the strict letter of the code. As noted, the side lot lines are at right angles to both NW 3rd Court and the unopened portion of NW 4th Street. These lines are also at radial to the cul-de-sac on Seneca Avenue NW, though the property itself is separated from this roadway by an intervening lot. Therefore, the new configuration is deemed compatible with RMC 4-7-170(A) in as practical a fashion as is currently feasible. The issue of compliance with RMC 4-7-170(E) for Lot 3 is also complicated by the irregular shape of the lot. As noted above, Lot 3 in its existing configuration is either conforming or legally nonconforming to the depth to width ratio. If taken separately, the new portion of Lot 3 is compatible with RMC 4-7-170(E). The width, as measured along the NW 4th Street right of way alignment is approximately 259 feet while the depth is 200 feet. The resulting depth to width ratio for this portion is 0.77:1. In terms of maximum depth (323 feet) to maximum width (352 feet), the depth to width ratio is 0.92:1. Therefore, both individual portions of proposed Lot 3 conform to RMC 4-7-170(E) as does the gross total based on maximum depth and with. The proposed LLA will not create or increase a nonconformity. For these reasons, the proposed LLA complies with RMC 4-7-060(B)(3). D. RMC 4-7-060(B)(4) Non-Evasive requires that the LLA will not serve to eliminate or circumvent any state or local requirements, including but not limited to frontage improvements, payment of fee-in-lieu, payment of latecomer fees or the installation of infrastructure. There is nothing in the record to suggest the LLA would in any way evade these requirements. All future development will be subject to applicable permits. For the reasons cited in Conclusion of Law No. 2A-D, the proposed LLA conforms to RMC 4-7- 060 the Principles of Acceptability for approval of a Lot Line Adjustment. DECISION Mr. Lanz’s appeal of the City’s administrative denial of the Apex Lot Line Adjustment (LUA20- 000064 LLA) is sustained for the reasons cited above in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. The application for a lot line adjustment is granted. DATED this 9th day of October 2020. 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 Appeal - 14 CAO VARIANCE - 14 City of Renton Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-080(G) subject this open-record appeal decision to closed record appeal to the City of Renton City Council. Appeals of the hearing examiner’s decision must be filed with the Renton City Clerk within fourteen (14) calendar days from the issuance of the decision as outlined in RMC 4-8- 110C2. All appeals must be received by the City Clerk’s Office by this deadline and be accompanied by the applicable appeal fee. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation.