Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutD_UsseryVariance_FINALDEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Project Location Map D_UsseryVariance_FINAL A. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT & DECISION Decision: APPROVED PARTIALLY APPROVED DENIED Report Date: April 3, 2023 Project File Number: PR23-000064 Ussery Detached Dwelling Project Name: Ussery Variance Land Use File Number: LUA23-000028, V-A Project Manager: Andrew Van Gordon, Associate Planner Owner: Phillip and Heather Ussery, 1024 N 36th St, Renton, WA 98056 Applicant/Contact: Kevin Singh, Signature GCI, 1302 N 30th St, Renton, WA 98168 Project Location: 1024 N 36th St (APN 3342103055) Project Summary: The applicant is requesting three (3) administrative variances from the Development Standards for Residential Zoning Designations RMC 4-2-110A to: (1) reduce the minimum setbacks (front yard, rear yard, side yard); (2) increase the maximum building coverage allowance; and (3) increase the maximum impervious surface area allowance for the construction of a two (2)-story 4,844 gross square foot detached dwelling at 1024 N 36th St (APN 3342103055). The proposed residence would have an approximate footprint of 2,136 square feet on the 5,100 square foot lot located in the Residential-6 (R-6) zone. Development standards for the R-6 zone require a minimum front yard setback of 25 feet, a minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet, a minimum side yard of a combined 15 feet with not less than five feet (5’) on either side, a maximum building coverage of 40 percent (40%) and a maximum impervious surface area of 55 percent (55%). The applicant is proposing to reduce the front yard setback requirement to 20 feet, the rear yard setback requirement to 20 feet, the side yard setback requirement to five feet (5’), the maximum building coverage to 47.64 percent (47.64% or 2,430 square feet) and the maximum impervious surface area to 59.52 percent (52.52% or 3,036 square feet). The existing detached dwelling would be demolished. Access to the new residence is proposed from N 36th St. Site Area: 0.11 acre DocuSign Envelope ID: 08879225-AE78-4DA7-B0FD-6893CAFA142C City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Ussery Variance Administrative Report & Decision LUA23-000028, V-A Report of April 3, 2023 Page 2 of 14 D_UsseryVariance_FINAL B. EXHIBITS: Exhibit 1: Administrative Decision Exhibit 2: Site Plan Exhibit 3: Hillman’s Lake Washington Garden of Eden Addition to Seattle No. 1 subdivision map Exhibit 4: Neighborhood Detail Map Exhibit 5: Project Narrative Exhibit 6: Variance Request Justification Exhibit 7: Vicinity Residences Exhibit 8: Residence Plan Set Exhibit 9: Segur Public Comment, February 23, 2023 Exhibit 10: LUA21-000067, My Precious Home Variance Administrative Decision, July 15, 2021 Exhibit 11: LUA18-000689, Pang Residence Variance Administrative Decision, December 11, 2019 Exhibit 12: Yu Public Comment, February 20, 2023 Exhibit 13: Jarzynka Public Comment, February 21, 2023 Exhibit 14: Bye Public Comment, February 21, 2023 C. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner(s) of Record: Phillip and Heather Ussery, 1024 N 36th St, Renton, WA 98056 2. Zoning Classification: Residential-6 (R-6) 3. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: Residential Medium Density (MD) 4. Existing Site Use: Detached Dwelling 5. Critical Areas: None 6. Neighborhood Characteristics: a. North: Detached Dwelling / R-6 b. East: Detached Dwelling / R-6 c. South: N 36th St & Detached Dwelling / Residential – 8 (R-8) d. West: Detached Dwelling / R-6 7. Site Area: 0.11 acre D. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: Action Land Use File No. Ordinance No. Date Comprehensive Plan N/A 5758 06/22/2015 Zoning N/A 5758 06/22/2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: 08879225-AE78-4DA7-B0FD-6893CAFA142C City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Ussery Variance Administrative Report & Decision LUA23-000028, V-A Report of April 3, 2023 Page 3 of 14 D_UsseryVariance_FINAL Annexation N/A 2531 12/31/1969 E. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE: 1. Chapter 2 Land Use Districts a. Section 4-2-020: Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts b. Section 4-2-060: Zoning Use Table – Uses Allowed in Zoning Designations c. Section 4-2-110: Residential Development Standards 2. Chapter 4 City-Wide Property Development Standards 3. Chapter 9 Permits - Specific a. Section 4-9-250: Variances, Waivers, Modifications, and Alternates 4. Chapter 11 Definitions F. FINDINGS OF FACT (FOF): 1. The Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the above master application for review on January 31, 2023 and determined the application complete on February 2, 2022. The project complies with the 120-day review period. 2. Staff received four (4) public comments (Exhibit 9 and Exhibits 12 – 14). Comments were in relation to how the proposal will be better for the neighborhood, how small homes need to be upgraded, how the current zoning is a hinderance to housing goals for families, stormwater concerns related to the increase in impervious surface coverage, character and views in the neighborhood and effectiveness of the zoning code if the variance is approved. Staff analysis addressing these issues is provided in FOF 16-18. 3. The applicant’s submittal materials comply with the requirements necessary to process the administrative variance request (Exhibits 2 - 14). 4. The project site is located 1024 N 36th St (APN 3342103055). 5. The project site is currently developed with an existing detached residence. Per the King County Department of Assessment, the residence is 1,110 square feet and was built in 1949. 6. Access to the site would be provided via driveway access from N 36th St. 7. The property is located within the Residential Medium Density (MD) Comprehensive Plan land use designation. The project complies with the goals and policies of this Comprehensive Plan land use designation. Compliance Comprehensive Plan Analysis ✓ Policy L-3: Encourage infill development of single-family units as a means to meet growth targets and provide new housing. ✓ Goal L-H: Plan for high-quality residential growth that supports transit by providing urban densities, promotes efficient land utilization, promotes good health and physical activity, builds social connections, and creates stable neighborhoods by incorporating both built amenities and natural features. DocuSign Envelope ID: 08879225-AE78-4DA7-B0FD-6893CAFA142C City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Ussery Variance Administrative Report & Decision LUA23-000028, V-A Report of April 3, 2023 Page 4 of 14 D_UsseryVariance_FINAL ✓ Goal L-BB: Maintain a high quality of life as Renton grows by ensuring that new development is designed to be functional and attractive. ✓ Goal L-FF: Strengthen the visual identity of Renton and its Community Planning Areas and neighborhoods through quality design and development. ✓ Policy L-48: Address privacy and quality of life for existing residents by considering scale and context in infill project design. ✓ Policy L-54: Protect public scenic views and public view corridors, including Renton’s physical, visual and perceptual linkages to Lake Washington and the Cedar River. 8. The site is located within the Residential-6 (R-6) zoning classification. 9. There are no significant trees on site. 10. Per COR Maps there are no critical areas on the site. 11. The applicant did not provide an estimated timeframe for construction of the residence. 12. The following variances to RMC 4-2-110A have been requested by the applicant: RMC Code Citation Required Standard Requested Variance RMC 4-2-110A Residential Development Standards (Primary Structures. The minimum front yard setback of 25 feet (25’). The applicant is requesting a 20-foot (20’) front yard setback. The minimum side yard setback of a combined 15 feet (15’) with not less than five feet (5’) on either side. The applicant is requesting a five-foot (5’) side yard setback. The minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet (25’). The applicant is requesting a 20-foot (20’) rear yard setback. Maximum building coverage of 40 percent (40%). The applicant is requesting a maximum building coverage of 47.64 percent (47.64%). Maximum impervious surface coverage of 55 percent (55%). The applicant is requesting a maximum impervious surface coverage of 59.52 percent (59.52%). 13. Representatives from various city departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address issues raised by the proposed development. These comments are contained in the official file, and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report and the Departmental Recommendation at the end of this report. 14. Front, Rear, and Side Yards Variance Analysis: The applicant is requesting a variance from RMC 4-2-110A to allow a newly constructed detached dwelling to encroach five feet (5’) into the 25-foot front yard setback, five feet (5’) into the 25-foot rear yard setback and five feet (5’) into the required side yard setback within the R-6 zone. The proposal is partially compliant with the following variance criteria, pursuant to RMC 4-9-250B5. As provided in the analysis below, staff recommends approval of the requested variance to reduce the side yard setback from a combined 15-feet with not less than five (5) feet on either side to five feet (5’) and denies the requested variance to reduce the front yard setback from 25 feet to 20 feet and the rear yard setback from 25-feet to 20 feet. Compliance Variance Criteria and Analysis DocuSign Envelope ID: 08879225-AE78-4DA7-B0FD-6893CAFA142C City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Ussery Variance Administrative Report & Decision LUA23-000028, V-A Report of April 3, 2023 Page 5 of 14 D_UsseryVariance_FINAL Side yard setback compliance is met Front and rear yard compliance is not met a. That the applicant suffers practical difficulties and unnecessary 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. Staff Comment: The subject property is a 5,100-square foot rectangular shaped lot in the R-6 zone. The City of Renton’s residential development standards for the R-6 zone requires a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet, a minimum lot width of 60 feet and a minimum lot depth of 90 feet. The subject property has a lot width of 50 feet and a lot depth of 102 feet. The subject property is nonconforming with regards to minimum lot size and minimum lot width for R-6 zoned properties. Of note, the applicant’s submittal materials show the lot dimensions as 50 feet wide by 102 feet deep (50’ x 102’) but identifies the lot size as 5,400 square feet. (Exhibit 2) The lot was originally created through the Hillman’s Lake Washington Garden of Eden Addition to Seattle No. 1 subdivision as Lot 10, Block 21. Staff pulled the recorded subdivision drawing from the King County Records Search Database (Exhibit 3). In the subdivision drawings, the lot is shown as 50 feet wide by 102 feet deep (50’ x 102’). The King County Department of Assessments identifies the lot size as 5,400 square feet on the Assessors Map. It does not appear that the lot size has been altered since the original creation of the lot. When initially drafting the notice of application, staff pulled the 5,400 square feet lot size from the applicants’ materials. However, staff review is based on the lot being 5,100 square feet shown in the recorded Hillman’s Lake Washington Garden of Eden Addition to Seattle No. 1 subdivision drawings, not 5,400 square feet as shown on the Assessors Map which is incorrect based on the actual dimensions of the lot and the referenced plat. The applicant contends that if the required R-6 setbacks are applied the following practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships arise: • A residence cannot be built as large as would be permitted if the lot was conforming to minimum R-6 area requirements (Exhibit 5). • A residence cannot be built as large as would be permitted on the lot if it was zoned Residential – 8 (R-8) zone (Exhibit 6). • Because the lot is 50 feet in width, building to the required R-6 side yard setback of 15 feet would create a substandard ground floor. Strict application of the zoning code would limit the residence to only 35 feet in width therefore limiting the ground floor to a 20-foot wide two-car garage, five-foot (5’) wide hallway and 10-foot wide rooms. The applicant contends that the special circumstances applicable to the subject property are: • The property is nonconforming to the R-6 minimum standards. • The property was zoned R-8 when they bought it. • The property is located on the north side of N 36th St and is zoned R-6. The south side of N 36th St is zoned R-8. DocuSign Envelope ID: 08879225-AE78-4DA7-B0FD-6893CAFA142C City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Ussery Variance Administrative Report & Decision LUA23-000028, V-A Report of April 3, 2023 Page 6 of 14 D_UsseryVariance_FINAL The applicant provides a list of 12 residences as supporting evidence that they have been deprived of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zone classification (Exhibit 7). A general list of newly-constructed homes is also provided in the Project Narrative (Exhibit 5). That the applicant has a smaller lot, and consequently a smaller footprint for a residence, is not unique nor special to the applicants’ property as not all lots are equal in size or buildable area. Further, regarding the width of the home, the applicant is correct that if it were constructed to the R-6 setbacks it would be 35 feet in width. However, it is the applicant’s design, not special circumstances related to the property itself that is creating their stated issue. The floor plan for the proposed home was not designed within the parameters of the setback standards for the R-6 zone and therefore it does not provide the appropriate space efficiencies that coincide with the dimensional limitations. For example, the applicant’s proposed garage is 20 feet wide by 55 feet deep (20’ x 55’), or approximately enough space for at least four (4) vehicles (Exhibit 8). A reduced in size garage would provide additional living space on the ground floor. While it may not be the applicant’s preferred home design it does not prevent the applicant from constructing a residence comparable to those in the vicinity. Additionally, the fact that the lot is nonconforming is not a special circumstance as the City has anticipated that nonconforming lots will exist. RMC 4-10-010, Nonconforming Lots states: “Nonconforming lots may be developed and used if the proposed use is permitted in the zone, and the proposed development will comply with the remaining development standards for the zone and other land use and environmental requirements, as applicable.” A detached dwelling is permitted within the R-6 zone and therefore, provided it meets all other applicable requirements, is permitted to be built upon a nonconforming lot. The applicant states that a larger residence could be built upon the same property if it was zoned R-8. Staff finds that it is not a practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship for there to be other zoning districts within the vicinity that allow differing development standards. Additionally, it is not a special circumstance that the zoning district of where the lot is located has changed. When the zoning district in this area changed from R-8 to R-6 the applicants’ property was part of a larger grouping of lots that had their zoning changed in the Kennydale area. That the applicants’ property ended up abutting the boundary between the R-6 and the R-8 is not a special circumstance as all the homes on the north side of N 36th St are now in the R-6, and in the wider area along the boundary, abut the R-8 zone. In general, properties abutting a zoning boundary is common and occurs throughout the city. Staff finds that the applicant has special circumstances related to the width of the property. The property is 50 feet in width. Staff was unable to find another standard, rectangular shaped property within the vicinity and zone that had a lesser width than the applicants’ property. Nearby properties 1210 N 36th St and 1216 N 36th St have a 50- foot width identical to the applicants’ property. The applicant did provide a general list in the project narrative (Exhibit 5) of built residences that are consistent with the proposal but did not give specific addresses. Rather they only provided streets which range from N 28th Pl to N 35th St. The applicant also provided a list of 12 specific residences (Exhibit 7) that are noted to contain similar setbacks that are requested with the variance as supporting evidence that they have been deprived of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. Three (3) of the residences (1017, 1019 and 1025 N 36th St) are within the R-8 zone which are not applicable to the criterion as they are not in the same zone as DocuSign Envelope ID: 08879225-AE78-4DA7-B0FD-6893CAFA142C City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Ussery Variance Administrative Report & Decision LUA23-000028, V-A Report of April 3, 2023 Page 7 of 14 D_UsseryVariance_FINAL the applicant. Of the remaining nine (9) residences they range in size from 3,500 total square feet to 5,430 total square feet. If the applicant were to build a residence with the R-6 front and rear yard setbacks of 25 feet, respectively, with the reduced five-foot side yard setback the maximum total square foot for a 2-story residence would be roughly 4,140 square feet and within the range of dwelling sizes provided by the applicant. Staff finds that the request for the front and rear yard setback variance do not comply with this criterion. Due to the narrow width of the subject property, Staff finds that the request for the side yard setback complies with this criterion. Side yard setback compliance is met Front and rear yard compliance is not met 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. Staff Comment: The applicant contends that granting of the variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated because the proposed dwelling is consistent with other dwellings in the area. More specifically, it would be consistent with other newer development along N 36th St specifically three (3) homes across the street (1017, 1019, 1025 N 36th St.) located in the R-8 zone. The three (3) specific residences provided are within the R-8 zone and are not located within the same zone as the applicant and therefore not applicable to the criterion. Staff received public comment with concerns about allowing an increase in bulk size that would deteriorate views of neighboring, uphill properties (Exhibit 9). Views can be blocked both vertically (height) but also horizontally (dwelling depth/width). In this instance a decrease in the front and rear yard setback would increase the total space the residence encompasses by extending a further five feet (5’) into the front and rear yard. Properties on the north side of this block of N 36th St, from the applicant’s property to the intersection of N 36th St and Park Ave N to the west, which are parallel with the applicant’s lot do not have staggered front or rear lot lines. Extending a further five feet (5’) into the front and rear yard would not only inhibit the views of the abutting neighbor but other uphill properties as well. This would mean that the applicant’s proposal would block uphill views that otherwise would have been available if the proposal met front and rear setbacks for the R-6 zone. Staff’s analysis finds that the variance request from side yard setbacks would comply with this criterion. The abutting property to the east has a detached dwelling on it. The abutting property on the west has a joint use driveway. The required R-6 side yard setback is 15 feet with not less than five feet (5’) on either side. A newly proposed residence could be set back five feet (5’) from the eastern property line without a variance. The western property line abuts a joint use driveway for the benefit of 1012 and 1018 N 36th St. Both lots are flagstem lots with the shared driveway encompassing the stem. Constructing a residence five feet (5’) from this driveway would not interfere with the use of the driveway. Additionally, due to the layout of the flagstem lots this area could not be redeveloped to construct a detached dwelling. Further, widening the house, as viewed from N 36th St looking north, would not interfere with views of Lake Washington. Views are from the east looking west towards the lake. Interference with views would occur if the residence were to increase in height or increase in depth (front and rear setbacks). Decreasing the side yard setback to five feet (5’) would only be an increase in width. DocuSign Envelope ID: 08879225-AE78-4DA7-B0FD-6893CAFA142C City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Ussery Variance Administrative Report & Decision LUA23-000028, V-A Report of April 3, 2023 Page 8 of 14 D_UsseryVariance_FINAL Staff finds that the request for the front and rear yard setback variances do not comply with this criterion. Staff finds that the request for the side yard setback variance complies with this criterion. Side yard setback compliance is met Front and rear yard compliance is not met 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. Staff Comment: The applicant contends that this will not be a granting of special privilege as N 36th St is the boundary between the R-6 zone (north side of N 36th St) and the R-8 zone (south side of N 36th St). They also state that their proposal would be in line with currently built residences along with proposed residences. Additionally, the applicant states that the request is in line with two (2) other setback variances approved at 1207 N 37th St and 912 N 37th St. The applicant is requesting the variance for the stated purpose of allowing them to build their home to the R-8 standards which were in place when they bought the property. Owning the property while it was zoned R-8 at a point in the past does not vest development to the R-8 standards. Approving a property owner’s variance request from the applicable standards to take advantage of a more permissive development standards is, in effect, a rezone through the variance process. Allowing the applicant to deviate from the R-6 standards in favor of the R-8 standards is a special privilege as it would allow the applicant to rezone the property without going through the proper rezoning process. Allowing the applicant to deviate from the R-6 standards because the properties across the street are zone R-8 is a special privilege as it would allow the applicant to ignore zoning boundaries. The applicant also states that the setback reduction would be in line with currently built residences. Based on the list of residences the applicant provided as examples most are or appear to be in the R-8 zone (see FOF 15, “a” for additional information). The remaining residences are within the R-6 zone however they were built prior to the current R-6 zoning when the zoning was R-8. This makes the residences nonconforming structures as they do not meet the current R-6 standards. Variance approval based on nonconforming structures would be a special privilege because it undermines the zoning requirements as it would allow a property owner to build to the most permissive existing development without having to show hardship or special circumstances. Additionally, the applicant also states that what they are requesting is in line with previous variance approvals on 1207 N 37th St and 912 N 37th St. On 1207 N 37th St a land use application for a variance (LUA21-000067) was approved July 15, 2021, for a reduction in the front yard setback from 25 feet to 15 feet (Exhibit 10). This was approved as it was determined that the applicant had practical difficulties due to site dimensions because strict application of the zoning requirements left them with a developable depth of approximately 15.5 feet outside of setbacks. In contrast the applicant would have 52 feet of developable depth outside of setbacks. On 912 N 37th St a land use application for a variance (LUA18-000689) was approved on December 11, 2019, which included a reduction to the front yard setback from 25 feet to 20 feet and a rear yard setback from 25 feet to 20 feet (Exhibit 11). 1207 N 37th St is approximately 83 feet (83’) in depth which would only allow for a 33-foot deep building footprint depth if the residence were to meet zoning setbacks; a reduction in the front and rear yard setbacks of five feet (5’) each provides a building footprint depth of 43 feet. In contrast the applicant would have 52 feet feet of developable depth outside of setbacks. DocuSign Envelope ID: 08879225-AE78-4DA7-B0FD-6893CAFA142C City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Ussery Variance Administrative Report & Decision LUA23-000028, V-A Report of April 3, 2023 Page 9 of 14 D_UsseryVariance_FINAL With regards to the side yard setback request, staff’s analysis finds that the deviation would not be a special privilege as there are other lots (1210 and 1216 N 36th) within the vicinity and zone which are the same width and lot area as the applicant’s property. They would have the same conditions and limitations with regards to the width and area as the applicant’s property. Staff finds that the request for the front yard and rear yard setback variances do not comply with this criterion. Staff finds the side yard setback variance complies with this criterion. Side yard setback compliance is met Front and rear yard compliance is not met d. That the approval is a minimum variance that will accomplish the desired purpose. Staff Comment: The applicant contends that the request is the minimum necessary because it would allow them to build their forever home to the R-8 standards that were in place when they bought the property. An applicant is required to show that they have been deprived rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and identical zone classification. The right and privilege enjoyed by others is a detached dwelling. If the applicant were to build a new detached dwelling to R-6 front and rear yard setback standards with the side yard setback reduction to five feet (5’), they could build a two (2) story residence with a roughly maximum 4,140 total square footage. With only the side yard setback variance the applicant could build a residence similar in size to existing development in the area. Staff finds that the request for the front and rear yard setback variance do not comply with this criterion. Staff finds that the request for the side yard setback variance complies with this criterion. 17. Maximum Building Coverage Variance Analysis: The applicant is requesting a variance from RMC 4-2- 110A to increase the maximum building coverage of 40 percent (40%) within the R-6 zone to 47.64 percent (47.64%) for the benefit of a detached dwelling. The proposal is partially compliant with the following variance criteria, pursuant to RMC 4-9-250B5. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the variance up to 41-percent maximum building coverage. Compliance Variance Criteria and Analysis Partially Compliant a. That the applicant suffers practical difficulties and unnecessary 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. Staff Comment: See FOF 16, “a” for the applicant’s assertion about their difficulties and hardships. See FOF 16, “a” for staff’s analysis of the applicant’s justification. Staff’s analysis does find that the applicant has a practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship. Approval of the reduced side yard setback would create an approximate area of 2,070 square feet of buildable area for the residence. This would be a building coverage of approximately 40.5 percent (40.5%). Permitting the applicant to deviate from side yard setbacks but not permitting them to exceed the building area coverage would deprive the property DocuSign Envelope ID: 08879225-AE78-4DA7-B0FD-6893CAFA142C City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Ussery Variance Administrative Report & Decision LUA23-000028, V-A Report of April 3, 2023 Page 10 of 14 D_UsseryVariance_FINAL owner from exercising their variance approval. Therefore, staff recommends as a condition of approval that the building coverage be limited to no more than 41 percent (41%) of the lot square footage. Staff finds that the increase of the maximum building coverage to 41 percent (41%) complies with this variance criterion. Partially Compliant 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. Staff Comment: See FOF 16, “b” for the applicant’s statement about how granting of the variance will meet this requirement. See FOF 16, “b” for staff’s analysis of the applicant’s justification. Staff’s analysis finds that the building coverage increase to 41 percent (41%) would meet this requirement. Staff did receive written comments from the public with concerns about the increase of impervious surface causing an increase in stormwater runoff and compounding existing stormwater issues (Exhibit 9 and Exhibit 12). The applicant will be required to meet applicable stormwater regulations at the time of construction, and make any necessary improvements to the system, to ensure that runoff is properly addressed. This would include preventing runoff to other properties and/or uncontrolled runoff to the street. At this time, it does not appear that the system could not handle runoff from the additional impervious area provided stormwater regulations are met. Further, the additional building coverage comes from an increase in building coverage width due to the side yard setback variance and would not interfere with uphill views of Lake Washington. Views are from the east looking west towards the lake. Interference with views would occur if the building coverage allowance increased in depth. Staff finds that the increase of the maximum building coverage to 41 percent (41%) complies with this variance criterion. Partially Compliant 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. Staff Comment: See FOF 16, “c” for the applicant’s statement about how granting of the variance will meet this criterion. See FOF 16, “c”, for staff’s analysis of the applicant’s justification. Staff’s analysis finds that the building coverage increase to 41 percent (41%) would meet this requirement. LUA18-000689 at 912 N 37th St approved a variance to reduce the front yard and rear yard setback. As a condition of the approval the maximum building area coverage of the detached dwelling was limited to 2,100 square feet. If the applicant constructs the residence such that it encompasses the entire area outside of the setbacks, which would be in line with their desire to design a residence which will maximize the buildable area, the residence will have a maximum footprint of approximately 2,070 square feet. While 912 N 37th St is not as deep as the applicant’s property (approximately 83 feet vs 102 feet, it is wider (approximately 64 feet vs 50 feet) than the applicant’s property. The approved front and rear yard setback with the required limit on the building area coverage through LUA18-000698 is functionally the same as the side yard setback variance and 41 percent (41%) building area coverage variance for the applicant’s property. The 41 percent (41%) building area coverage allowance is nearly the same as the approved maximum building area coverage for the detached dwelling at 912 N 37th DocuSign Envelope ID: 08879225-AE78-4DA7-B0FD-6893CAFA142C City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Ussery Variance Administrative Report & Decision LUA23-000028, V-A Report of April 3, 2023 Page 11 of 14 D_UsseryVariance_FINAL 18. Maximum Impervious Surface Area Variance Analysis: The applicant is requesting a variance from RMC 4-2-110A to increase the maximum impervious surface of 55 percent (55%) within the R-6 zone to 59.52 percent (59.52%) for the benefit of a detached dwelling. The proposal is not compliant with the following variance criteria, pursuant to RMC 4-9-250B5. Therefore, staff recommends denial of the requested variance. Compliance Variance Criteria and Analysis Does not comply with criterion a. That the applicant suffers practical difficulties and unnecessary 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. Staff Comment: See FOF 16, “a” for the applicant’s statement about how granting of the variance will meet this criterion. See FOF 16, “a” for staff’s analysis of the applicant’s justification. The need for the increase of impervious surface is the result of the front yard and rear yard setback variance request. As provided in the setback variance analysis, a comparable-sized detached dwelling can be constructed on the subject property without an increase to the 55-percent impervious surface limitation. Staff finds the request does not comply with this variance criterion. ✓ 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. Staff Comment: See FOF 16, “b” for the applicant’s statement about how granting of the variance will meet this criterion. St. Therefore, the maximum building area coverage is not inconsistent with other approved variances within the vicinity and zone. Staff finds that the increase of the maximum building coverage to 41 percent (41%) complies with this variance criterion. Partially Compliant d. That the approval is a minimum variance that will accomplish the desired purpose. Staff Comment: See FOF 16, “d” for the applicant’s statement about how granting of the variance would meet this criterion. See FOF 16, “d” for staff’s analysis of the applicant’s justification. Staff’s analysis finds that the building coverage increase to 41 percent (41%) would meet this requirement. An increase to 41 percent (41%) would be the minimum necessary to allow the applicant to utilize the side yard variance. See FOF 16, “a” for additional information regarding staff’s review of the hardship and need related to the need for a deviation from R-6 maximum building coverage requirement. Staff finds that the increase of the maximum building coverage to 41 percent (41%) complies with this variance criterion. DocuSign Envelope ID: 08879225-AE78-4DA7-B0FD-6893CAFA142C City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Ussery Variance Administrative Report & Decision LUA23-000028, V-A Report of April 3, 2023 Page 12 of 14 D_UsseryVariance_FINAL See FOF 16, “b” for staff’s analysis of the applicant’s justification. Staff’s analysis finds that the increase would not be materially-detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone. Staff did receive written comments from the public with concerns about the increase of impervious surface causing an increase in stormwater runoff and compounding existing stormwater issues (Exhibit 9 and Exhibit 12). The applicant will be required to meet applicable stormwater regulations at the time of construction, and make any necessary improvements to the system to ensure that runoff is properly addressed. This would include preventing runoff to other properties and/or uncontrolled runoff to the street. At this time, it does not appear that the system could not handle runoff from the additional impervious area provided stormwater regulations are met. Staff finds that the request meets this variance criterion. Does not comply with criterion 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. Staff Comment: See FOF 16, “c” for the applicant’s statement about how granting of the variance will meet this criterion. See FOF 16, “c” for staff’s analysis of the applicant’s justification. While staff agrees that an increase is needed for the building area coverage as it relates to the reduced side yard setback variance (see FOF 17), staff’s analysis did not find that an increase to the maximum impervious surface allowances is needed. Within the R-6 zone the maximum impervious surface area is 55 percent (55%). For the applicant’s property that would equal 2,805 square feet of impervious surface area. The approved increase to building lot coverage of 41 percent (41%) would permit a maximum coverage of 2,091 square feet leaving an additional 714 square feet for additional impervious surface. A 25-foot long by 16-foot wide (25’x16’) driveway (the minimum length covering the front yard setback plus the maximum allowed width for a double loaded driveway) would be 400 square feet of additional impervious surface leaving 314 square feet for a front walk, patio/deck etc. Even with a reduced side yard setback and an increase to the maximum building area coverage the applicant has a reasonable amount of square footage for additional impervious surface above and beyond the residence while still maintain the R-6 maximum impervious surface coverage. Increasing the maximum area permitted would be a grant of special privilege as it would be granting the request that is unnecessary based on the setback and lot coverage variance recommendations. Staff finds that the request does not comply with this variance criterion. Does not comply with criterion d. That the approval is a minimum variance that will accomplish the desired purpose. Staff Comment: See FOF 16, “d” for the applicant’s statement about how granting of the variance will meet this criterion. See FOF 16, “d” for staff’s analysis of the applicant’s justification. Additionally, while a variance to the building lot coverage is partially approved due to the approval of the side yard setback variance, no such variance is needed to increase impervious surface area. An increase to the maximum impervious surface area is not the minimum necessary to construct a detached dwelling. Staff finds that the request does not comply with this variance criterion. DocuSign Envelope ID: 08879225-AE78-4DA7-B0FD-6893CAFA142C City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Ussery Variance Administrative Report & Decision LUA23-000028, V-A Report of April 3, 2023 Page 13 of 14 D_UsseryVariance_FINAL G. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The subject site is located in the Residential Medium Density (MD) Comprehensive Plan designation and complies with the goals and policies established with this designation, see FOF 7. 2. The requested front yard setback reduction from R-6 standards and rear yard setback reduction from R-6 standards variances do not meet all four (4) criteria to be considered in making a decision on a variance request as specified in RMC 4-9-250B5. The analysis of the proposal according to variance criteria is found in the body of the Staff Report, see FOF 16. 3. The requested side yard setback reduction from R-6 standards meets all four (4) criteria to be considered in making a decision on a variance request as specified in RMC 4-9-250B5. The analysis of the proposal according to variance criteria is found in the body of the Staff Report, see FOF 16. 4. The requested increase to the maximum building coverage area for the R-6 zone meets the four (4) criteria on a partial basis to be considered in making a decision on a variance request as specified in RMC 4-9- 250B5. The analysis of the proposal according to variance criteria is found in the body of the Staff Report, see FOF 17. 5. The requested increase to the maximum impervious surface area for the R-6 zone do not meet all four (4) criteria to be considered in making a decision on a variance request as specified in RMC 4-9-250B5. The analysis of the proposal according to variance criteria is found in the body of the Staff Report, see FOF 18. H. DECISION: The Ussery Variance, File No. LUA23-000028, V-A, as depicted in Exhibit 2, is partially approved. (1) The variance to reduce the side yard setback from a combined 15 feet with not less than 5 feet on either side to 5 feet is approved. (2) The variance to increase the maximum building coverage from 40% to 47.64% is partially approved. The applicant may increase the maximum building coverage to 41%. (3) The variance to reduce the front yard setback from 25 feet to 20 feet is denied. (4) The variance to reduce the rear yard setback from 25 feet to 20 feet is denied. (5) The variance to increase the maximum impervious surface area from 55 percent to 59.92 percent is denied. This decision expressly approves the specific request to reduce the side yard setback to five feet (5’) and increase the maximum building lot coverage allowance to 41% for the benefit of a newly-constructed detached dwelling located at 1024 N 36th St. Other design elements or representations, provided within the submitted application materials are excluded from this approval and would be subject to the Renton Municipal Code in effect at the time of building permit application. DATE OF DECISION ON LAND USE ACTION: SIGNATURE: Vanessa Dolbee, Planning Director Date DocuSign Envelope ID: 08879225-AE78-4DA7-B0FD-6893CAFA142C 4/3/2023 | 1:08 PM PDT City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Ussery Variance Administrative Report & Decision LUA23-000028, V-A Report of April 3, 2023 Page 14 of 14 D_UsseryVariance_FINAL TRANSMITTED on April 3, 2023 to the Owner/Applicant/Contact: Owner: Applicant: Contact: Phillip and Heather Ussery 1024 N 36th St, Renton, WA 98056 Kevin Singh, Signature GCI 1302 N 30th St, Renton, WA 98056 Kevin Singh, Signature GCI 1302 N 30th St, Renton, WA 98056 TRANSMITTED on April 3, 2023 to the Parties of Record: Daoguang Yu jwang98052@gmail.com Thomas Jarzynka tomjarzynka@hotmail.com Jonathan Bye jon@jonbye.com Joyce Segur jsegur@msn.com TRANSMITTED on April 3, 2023 to the following: Chip Vincent, CED Administrator Brianne Bannwarth, Development Engineering Director Gina Estep, Economic Development Director Matt Herrera, Current Planning Manager Nathan Janders, Development Engineering Manager Anjela Barton, Fire Marshal I. LAND USE ACTION APPEALS, REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION, & EXPIRATION: The administrative land use decision will become final if the decision is not appealed within 14 days of the decision date. APPEAL: This administrative land use decision will become final if not appealed in writing to the Hearing Examiner on or before 5:00 PM on April 17, 2023. 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 must be submitted electronically to the City Clerk at cityclerk@rentonwa.gov or delivered to City Hall 1st floor Lobby Hub Monday through Friday. The appeal fee, normally due at the time an appeal is submitted, will be collected at a future date if your appeal is submitted electronically. The appeal submitted in person may be paid on the first floo r in our Finance Department. Appeals to the Hearing Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk’s Office, cityclerk@rentonwa.gov. EXPIRATION: The Variance decision will expire two (2) years from the date of decision. A single one (1) year extension may be requested pursuant to RMC 4-9-250. RECONSIDERATION: Within 14 days of the decision date, any party may request that the decision be reopened by the approval body. The approval body 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 approval body 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 time frame. 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. DocuSign Envelope ID: 08879225-AE78-4DA7-B0FD-6893CAFA142C CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT & DECISION EXHIBITS Project Name: Ussery Variance Land Use File Number: LUA23-000028, V-A Date of Report April 3, 2023 Staff Contact Andrew Van Gordon Associate Planner Project Contact/Applicant Kevin Singh Signature GCI 1302 N 30th St, Renton, WA 98168 Project Location 1024 N 36th St (APN 3342103055) The following exhibits are included with the Administrative report: Exhibit 1: Administrative Decision Exhibit 2: Site Plan Exhibit 3: Hillman’s Lake Washington Garden of Eden Addition to Seattle No. 1 subdivision map Exhibit 4: Neighborhood Detail Map Exhibit 5: Project Narrative Exhibit 6: Variance Request Justification Exhibit 7: Vicinity Residences Exhibit 8: Residence Plan Set Exhibit 9: Segur Public Comment, February 23, 2023 Exhibit 10: LUA21-000067, My Precious Home Variance Administrative Decision, July 15, 2021 Exhibit 11: LUA18-000689, Pang Residence Variance Administrative Decision, December 11, 2019 Exhibit 12: Yu Public Comment, February 20, 2023 Exhibit 13: Jarzynka Public Comment, February 21, 2023 Exhibit 14: Bye Public Comment, February 21, 2023 DocuSign Envelope ID: 08879225-AE78-4DA7-B0FD-6893CAFA142C