Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA80-112 (2)OF R.4A A 0 THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUI LDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 o BARBARA'. Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER- co. FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-25930, 9gT D SEPI° 4O March 23, 1981 Mr.. Charles R. Unger 3717 Lake Washington Boulevard N. Renton, WA 98055 RE: File No. V-112-80; Charles R. Unger Request for Variance. Dear Mr. Unger: This is to notify you that the above referenced request, which was approved as noted in the Examiner's report of March 4, 1981 , has not been appealed within the time period established by ordinance. Therefore, this application is considered final and is being submitted to the City Clerk effective this date for permanent filing. Sincerely, Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner cc: Planning Department City Clerk AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING State of Washington) County of King Marilyn J. Petersen being first duly sworn, upon oath disposes and states: That on the 4th day of March 19 81 , affiant deposited in the mails of the United States a sealed envelope containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition. Subscribed and sworn this 'day of Re.c-C111 19 Gi Nr Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at N J-70A Application, Petition or Case: Charles R. Unger; V-112-80 The minute, contain a tint o6 the pav',LeA of necond. ) MEMORANDUM TO Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner DATE 2/20/81 FROM Planning Department SUBJECT CHARLES UNGER A report will be hand delivered to Mr. Unger today. March 4, 1981 OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION . APPLICANT: Charles R. Unger FILE NO. V-112-80 LOCATION: Vicinity of 3717 Lake Washington Boulevard North. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant seeks approval of a variance from the Shoreline Master Program to permit construction of a deck addition (within the required 20-foot setback) to an existing house. The total variance amounts to 17 feet which places the structures three feet from the water's edge. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Planning Department Recommendation: Approval Hearing Examiner Decision: Approval PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Planning Department preliminary report was received by the REPORT:Examiner on February 20, 1981 . PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Planning Department report, examining available information on file with the application, and field checking the property and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: The hearing was opened on February 24, 1981 at 9:50 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. It was reported that the Hearing Examiner and the applicant had received and reviewed the Planning Department preliminary report. Roger Blaylock, Associate Planner, presented the report, and entered the following exhibits into the record: Exhibit #1 : Application File containing Planning Department report and other pertinent documents Exhibit #2: Enlarged Site Plan Mr. Blaylock corrected the-figure, 19 feet, in Section L.2, line 7, of the staff report, to 22 feet. He also corrected the word "pier" in Section L.3, line 2, to "deck." Responding to the Examiner's inquiries regarding blockage of view and the date the addition was constructed, Mr. Blaylock advised that views would not be blocked and the addition was constructed approximately three years ago with setback requirements being met at that time. The Examiner indicated concern that the requirement for lot coverage limitation of no more than 30% had been violated. Responding to the Examiner's concern was the applicant: Charles Unger 3717 Lake Washington Boulevard N. Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Unger advised that the property extends out 250 feet to the inner harbor line as classified in the Second Class Shorelands regulations, and approximately two-thirds of the property is under water. He advised that approval of a variance to construct the deck would alleviate the current severe limitation of space. The Examiner requested testimony in support of the application. Responding was: Fred Kendrick 3715 Lake Washington Boulevard N. Renton, WA 98055 Mr. Kendrick, immediate neighbor to the south, advised that he had no objection to construction of the proposed deck on the 'southern portion of the lot, that no obstruction of view would occur, and the aesthetically designed and constructed deck would allow the best use of that portion of the lot. The Examiner requested further testimony in support or opposition to the proposal . There V-112-80 Page Two was no response. He then invited final comments from the Planning Department staff. Since no further testimony was offered, the hearing regarding File No. V-112-80 was closed by the Examiner at 10:10 a.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1 . The request is for approval of a variance from the Shoreline Master Program in order to construct a deck within the 20-foot required setback. 2. The application file containing the Planning Department report, the application, SEPA documentation, and other pertinent documents was entered into the record as Exhibit #1 . 3. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 , R.C.W. 43.21 .C. , as amended, the subject proposal has been determined exempt from the threshold determination by the Environmental Review Committee, responsible official . 4. Plans for the proposal have been reviewed by all city departments affected by the impact of this development. 5. There was no opposition to the proposal expressed. 6. All existing utilities are available and in close proximity. 7. The subject property is located at 3717 Lake Washington Boulevard N. along the shoreline of Lake Washington. There is a single family residence located on the site. The deck has already been constructed. 8. The lot slopes downward to the lake at a moderately steep slope. The landward portion of the subject property is 3,750 square feet. The remainder of the lot is under water but is considered part of the lot when calculating the bulk requirements of the site. 9. A 20-foot setback from the lake shore is required by Section 7. 14 of the Shoreline Master Program. The deck is constructed within three feet of the shoreline. The house was constructed in 1919 prior to the adoption of the plan. The house is about 10 feet from the shore. 10. Pursuant to Section 8 of the Shoreline Program, the applicant has applied for a variance from the provision requiring the 20-foot setback. 11 . The rear yard of the subject site was generally 10 feet deep. The lot is 55 feet deep. Current standards require an 80-foot deep lot. The applicant constructed the deck to provide level , useable outdoor recreational space on the subject property. 12. The deck is 20 feet square and is constructed on the southwest corner of the house and is built above grade. 13. The deck does not interfere with the view of the house to the immediate south nor infringe on the privacy of that house as evidenced by testimony from that neighbor. CONCLUSIONS: 1 . The applicant suffers undue hardship due to the size, shape and topography of the subject lot and due to the location on the lot of the existing residence. The land based area of the lot is only 3,750 square feet. Prior to construction of the deck the rear yard sloped steeply down toward the lake and was at best only about 10 feet deep. Construction of a deck has created useable outdoor living area for recreational purposes. 2. Most single family residences have a rear yard from 25 to 30 feet deep which permits the occupants outdoor space. The nature of the subject site and the location of the house had effectively denied the applicant such amenities enjoyed by other property owners in the zone. The deck now provides this amenity. 3. The deck has created a minimal 400 square feet of outdoor sitting space and has not interfered or harmed adjacent properties. The property owner just south of the subject site has not had the view of the lake obstructed and the deck does not V-11_ —O Page Three interfere with that home's privacy. 4. The public does not generally have access to the private rear yards of single family homes in the area, and therefore the public welfare will not be materially harmed by the approval of the requested variance. 5. The Shoreline Master Plan permits the construction of single family homes along the lake shore and the existing house was constructed in the early part of the century. The lot actually extends out into the lake but provides little open space. The variance is the minimum necessary to afford the applicant relief from the master program, will not harm the public welfare, nor will it impair the value of neighboring property. Other homes have either decks or reasonable outdoor living space, and therefore the variance should be granted. DECISION: The City of Renton recommends that the variance from provision 7. 14 of the Renton Shoreline Master Program be approved. ORDERED THIS 4th day of March, 1981 . Fred J. K man Land Use Hearing Examiner TRANSMITTED THIS 4th day of March, 1981 by Affidavit of Mailing to the parties of record: Charles Unger, 3717 Lake Washington Blvd. N. , Renton, WA 98055 Fred Kendrick, 3715 Lake Washington Blvd. N. , Renton, WA 98055 TRANSMITTED THIS 4th day of March, 1981 to the following: Mayor Barbara Y. Shinpoch Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Richard Houghton, Acting Public Works Director David Clemens, Acting Planning Director Michael Porter, Planning Commission Chairman Barbara Schellert, Planning Commissioner Ron Nelson, Building Official Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before March 18, 1981 . Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is 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 review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific errors relied upon 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, Section 3016, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk accompanying a filing fee of $25.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall , or same may be purchased at cost in said department. PLANNING *lli'PAl T w..N mRELIMAINARY CDR' TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 24 , 1981 APPLICANT: CHARLES R. UNGER FILE NUMBER: V-112-80 A. SUMMARY & PURPOSE OF RE EST: The applicant seeks approval of a variance from the Shoreline Master Program to permit construction of a deck addition (within the required 20 foot setback) - to an existing house. The total variance amounts to 17 feet which places the structures 3 feet from the water ' s edge. B. GENERAL INF2DRMATIO] : 1 . Owner of Record: CHARLES R. UNGER 2. Applicant: CHARLES R. UNGER 3. Location: Vicinity Map Attached) Vicinity of 3717 Lake Washington Boulevard North 4. Legal Description: A detailed legal description is available on file in the Renton Planning Department. 5. Size of Property: 3,750 square feet 6. Access :Via Lake Washington Boulevard North 7. Existing Zoning: G-6000, General Classifi- cation District, Minimum Lot Size 6 ,000 square feet 8. Existing Zoning in the Area: G-6000. G-7200 9. Comprehensive Land Use Plan: Single Family Residential 10. Notification: The applicant was notified in writing of the hearing date. Notice was properly published in the Daily Record Chronicle on February 8 , 1981 , and posted in three places on or near the site as required by City Ordinance on February 6, 1981 . PLANNING DEPARTME l PRELIMINARY REPOR ='O THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: Charles R. Unger, V-112-80 FEBRUARY 24 , 1 981 PAGE TWO C. I:I][STORY/!t:d KGROUND . The subject site was annexed into the City by Ordinance 1791 of September 8, 1959, at which time the present zoning classification was applied. D. PHYSICAL BACKGROUND: 1 . Topography: The subject site slopes downward from east to west •at a moderately steep slope. 2. Soils : Indianola loamy fine sand, 4-15% slopes InC) . Permeability is rapid. Availability water capacity is moderate. Runoff is slow to medium and the erosion hazard is slight to moderate. This soil is used for timber and for urban develop- ment. 3. Vegetation: Some lawn and a few shrubs are located on the subject site. 4. . Wildlife: The existing vegetation may provide some habitat for birds and small mammals. 5. Water : No surface water was observed on the subject site (February 6, 1981 ) . 6. Land Use: An existing single family residence is located on the subject site. Adjacent properties, contain similar structures with Lake Washington to the west and railroad tracks to the east. ' E. D;DiI, :m:t®s;Ic D t';:?A mAk TERISTICS: The surrounding properties are prinicpally single family residential in nature. F. ll'1:LIC SERVICES: 1 . Water and Sewer: Three foot water mains extend east-west immediately to the south of the subject site while 8 foot mains run north-south on the west side of the railroad tracks and along Lake Washington Boulevard. An 8 foot sanitary sewer runs north-south along Lake Washington Boulevard together with the Metro Gravity sewer. 2. Fire Protection: Provided by the City of Renton as per ordinance requirements. 3. Transit: Metro transit route #240 operates along Lake Washington Boulevard to the east of the subject site. 4. Schools : Kennydale Elementary School is approximately 1\li 3/4 of a mile to the southeast of the subject site while McKnight Junior High School is approximately one and 3/4 miles southeast and Renton Senior High School is within two miles to the southwest. 5. Recreation: Kennydale Beach Park is within i mile to the south while Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park is approximately z mile south. G. PLIC:\ 1GE SECTIONS OF THE ZONINGG CODE: 1 . Section 4-729 ; "G" , General Classification District e_ PLANNING DEPAR NT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: Charles R. Unger, V-112-80 FEBRUARY 24 , 1981 PAGE THREE H. APPLICABTA SECTIONS OF THE cO t' 3':mI:'I NSIV PLAN OR OTHER OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENT: 1 . Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Report, 1965, Page 11 , Residential 2. Renton Shoreline Master Program: a. Section 7-14 , Residential Development b. Section 8, Variances and Conditional Uses I. - IMPACT OI ` HE IMMORAL OR HUMAN-ENVIRONMENT: 1 . Natural Systems: Minor 2. Population/Employment : Minor . 3. Schools : Minor 4 . Social: Minor 5. Traffic : Minor J. ENVIROmP1001AL ASSSSS T/ 1 v" S1ffiOL D 1 EI E 41I iN;`,TION: Pursuant to the City of Renton' s Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, as amended, RCW 43-21C, the subject proposal is exempt from the threshold determination of environmental significance. K. AGENCIES/DEPARTMENTS CONTACTED: 1 . City of Renton Building Division. 2. City of Renton Engineering Division. 3. City of Renton Traffic Engineering Division. 4 . City of Renton Utilities Division. 5. City of Renton Fire Department. L. PLANNING ,DARTNENT ANALYSIS: 1 . The applicant is requesting a variance from the Shoreline Master Program which requires a minimum 20 foot setback of a structure from the water' s edge (Section 7. 14. 01 (B) ) to legalize a deck which was constructed only 3 feet from the shoreline in the summer of 1980. 2. The subject lot was created in the early part of the century and the house was constructed in 1919. The ,lot is only 55 feet deep. Under the present subdivision ordinance, the minimum lot depth would be 80 feet. The house presently' is setback only 10 feet from the shoreline. At the location where the deck is built, the house is set back 19 feet. The rear yard angles at approximately 30 degrees toward the water, 3. The Shorelines Management Act governs development on the shoreline. The proposed pier will cost more than the allowed $1 ,000 and a substantial development permit has been applied for. The Revised Codeof Washington and the Washington Administrative Code require that specific criteria established under WAC 173-14-150 be applied. The variance is not granted by the City of Renton, the variance is granted by the State of Washington. The City of Renton makes a recommendation to the state and the state concur in that recommendation for the PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT iv THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: Charles R. Unger, V-112-80 FEBRUARY 24 , 1981 PAGE FOUR variance to become valid. The variance criteria differs whether the development is in the water or on the upland portion from shoreline. The following analysis addresses each of the six criteria to be reviewed by the state: a. "That strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards as set forth in the applicable master program precludes a reasonable permitted use of the property. " The physical limitations of the lot size of approximate 3,750 square feet and the lot depth of 55 feet along with the slope of the rear yard precludes the normal development of a functional rear yard. The property owner has 3 methods of filling, excavating, or con- structing a deck to create a level space for outdoor use. b. "That the hardship described4n ,WAC 173-14-150 3) (A) above is-,specifically related to the property, and is a result of unique condition such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of; the Master Program and not, for example, from deed restrictions or the applicant' s, own action." The physical limitations of size depth and slope uniquely apply t,o this specific lot. Other lake front lots in- the general vicinity are wider and larger in size thus providing more useable area. c. "That the design of the project will be compatible with other permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or to the shoreline environment designation. " The other adjacent uses are allsingle family residences. Decks and docks normally associated with single family residences are common in the general area. The deck is more aesthetically acceptable than either excavating the yard or filling the yard to create level ground. d. "That the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special priviledge not enjoyed by the other property owners in the area and will be the minimum necessary to afford relief. " The applicant has created approximately 400 square feet of useable space, while the typical rear yard along the shoreline in the vicinity is in excess of 1 , 200 square feet. The variance is a necessity as a result of the lot size and depth and the topography; otherwise, the property owner would be deprived of useable outdoor space, which other neighbors enjoy. It appears that the request is minimum1necessary to provide a useable rear yard and is not a granting of special priviledge. PLANNING DEPARTMEN PRELIMINARY REPORT s., THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: Charles R. Unger, V-112-80 FEBRUARY 24 , 1981 PAGE FIVE e. "That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental affect. " At the present time the public does not have the right of access to the shoreline in this general area or does it appear that this situation will 'change. The shoreline is almost completely occupied by single family residences; public use areas are concentrated to the south at Gene Coulon Park. Therefore, the only possible detrimental impact to the public would visual from the lake. 4 . In addition the City of Renton' s Shoreline Master Program, Section 8. 02, establishes similiar criteria for the review of variances. The following analysis addresses each of the five criteria. a. , Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the subject property or to the intended use thereof that do not apply generally to other properties on shore- linessin the same vicinity. The subject lot appears-to be one of the smallest lots (+3,750 'square• feet) in the general area and of severely restricted depth, only 55 feet. " In addition the 30 degree slope of the existing rear yard deprives the property owner of useable outdoor space. These physically limiting conditions apply specifically to the property and not the majority of the other properties in the vicinity. b. The variance permit is necessary for the preserva- tion and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant possessed by the owners of other properties on shorelines in the same vicinity. Other properties in the vicinity typically have 1 ,200 plus square feet of useable rear yard space. The deck constructed by the applicant provides only 1/3 of that typical for the area. Therefore, other properties in the area that do not have steep rear yards enjoy the priviledge of having useable open space which the subject property does not enjoy. c. The variance permit will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare of injurious to propert on the shorelines in the same vicinity. The deck does not intrude or interfer with the use of other property in the vicinity nor is it materially detrimental to the public welfare. This is discussed in detail under analysis point #3-c. d. The variance granted will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Master Program. The request is in general conformance with the goals and policies of the Shoreline Master Program for the City of Renton and specifically in conformance with the goal that "new residential developments should optimize utilization of open space areas. " The actual construction of a deck in association with a single family residence is in greater harmony with the intent of the Master Program than either filling or excavating the site to create useable open space. PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT Ti HE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: Charles R. Unger, V-112-80 FEBRUARY 24 , 1981 PAGE SIX e. - The public welfare and interest will be preserved; if more harm will be done to the area by granting the variance than would be done to the applicant by denying it, the variance will be denied, but each property owner shall be entitled to the reasonable use and development of his lands as long as such use and development is in harmony with the general purpose and intent with the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 and the provisions of this Master Program. The construction of the deck provided the property owner with a minimum of useable open space. The general character of the area is single family residential. The construction of the deck is in general harmony with the Masters Program and the established uses of the area. 5. Even though the deck has been constructed illegally, the evidence presented shows that the physical limitations of lot size, depth and slope, create a unique situation for the actual functioning of the lot as a single family residence would be ample justification to grant the variance request'. , M. DE;'.:' ! r iiiAn'TAL ANALYSIS: Based upon the above analysis, it is recommended that the variance request be granted. . x 1j 2L 75 r CCC IO. z of y r/ INS.'2 VW. i',,ise t d Y trdi" L AL 1/ 1 (0 I 'i $. 4 \ ECr614 art 19 O_I 1 Jr Qa_ -st Oa ter ,. I V. yF, r .+". a"`*. I:, j r `r. P. 02 2 fI - - 1 -__ 1 I - - .. - .__ ____-_—_ III r _ t 17. y . 101 p ! 6 5 __ — •- K 1. _ __ • ,.s Leo I r/ pp'' ' 92 __ --- I ]f r llrr0IL r iI 9 tijis 4 = 4 fed)J a i i i i i.1,t,l•.siitlp,L., .,,L ,La- .,T I., R k f // 4... ' 13111181 m- r^.._ , i_4E3, 82 t o r0 7I 79 uIII' llallail " 1 l --. - -1 1 ---P 1111:r, 1 .' I I ' Sllt. 2+ 420 y m r;1 i11f 1111 . 1r l H ! LMEMAL" Cj4,4, 1 _._ -J I 'J45 b 572 I. etri G.-- 1.!,• o /0-0 'arit.., . ., . i i it 5 , e),/IIttua Iii 5D 5L Ir I I 1, / _ :1- ril ii1i111 1", wy f) L.,+ on.'?.s. 1, a b 47 911 O. I I 4». m..p.Jrl.. .ter^.' i„y> 1{ Y w,+ A II 8y$f pP III I,F:1ft Ju1uii' 1• li 141 '1.,11.k I _tom, j1r 11 ;1,; I Il7I I1 FTI Is.. to it g i00 rs., m 1• i0Sv 3.` i:retti ....,.-.s.•.uemL. 60 a a.:.1 11 1 1 III g: P r1f•1+7+TT RT1'TTfI I IIII I '.M,' .y 4" vP FIC CO. i CHARLES R. UNGER,' V-112-80 APPLICANT CHARLES R. UNGER TOTAL AREA ±3, 750 sq. ft. PRINCIPAL ACCESS Lake Washington Blvd North EXISTING ZONING G-6000 1 EXISTING USE Single Family Dwelling PROPOSED USE Deck Addition 4 COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Single Family Residential COMMENTS F a L Nick i Exi n 170 67° 20 P.rOpoS‘d DeCk/// North ' Line xng structure Property Roadway Easement 1" = 20° Garage Deck Bulkhead ak ashington Southern Elevation 1" = 10' 0 4 a OF R4,4 6THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 oalms BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT 9- 0 Co' 235- 2550 0914.0 SEPreg*' P February 5, 1981 Charles R. Unger 3717 Lake Washington Blvd. North Renton, Washington 98055 Re: APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE FROM THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM 20 FOOT SETBACK REQUIREMENT, file V-112-80; property located at 3717 Lake Washington Blvd. No. Dear Mr. Unger: The Renton Planning Department formally accepted the above mentioned application on December 28, 1981 . A public hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner has been set for February 24 , 1981 at 9: 00 a.m. Representatives of the applicant are asked to be present. All interested persons are invited to attend the hearing. If you have any further questions, please call the Renton Planning Department, 235-2550. Very truly yours, Roger J. Blaylock Associate Planner s RJB:wr 6 n1?a+ C S VJ.pktit t Lu+r c, S F lit . r e u; 7ri p z ls. ,'s• 'si.s '` y+, i, a ''# *r,, h1 M• ,r ,,. A j 1 ire M1I`i`. r 4 i, r z ri { } ate, I -' 1; fit= 1 I I, ` A' 7 S 1 y v.3. s:+`w r, ei}'•1 .:N =: X1Fsa ;f h is j i s ' [ Plol,' }yy, nre6 ' ,>»„uJ 1 +>" 1'p ,1 5 r°,"' s" 4 w}i9 ' r Au GENERAL LOCATIO AND, ''•11 ADDRESS: I 3717 LAKE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD NORTH LEGAL DESCRIPTION: . LEGAL DESCRIPTION ON FILE IN RENTON PLANNINGDEPARTMEII.T I S POSTED TO NOTIFY PROPERTY OW Y E S Alr f r Zs t* { g u+irik: ,sS ;It,s'-ii E1Y ds. sJ IpA: Fa Ar a i J f#, k: t j (Z4xr' aS; tAta„x a.,,,.._ fix It. ! a,:a .;4r ,2 w .,. J r TO ;= E HELls IN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, MUNICIP ' . L BtUILP.I ON FEBRUARY 24, 1981 SEGINNI''.G AT _9:00 A.M. - .RN. Ca','CE0D, ' l' 'ic. IT . ',, 511 J RE, ' i', , -‘,; . Y. 1ietJr spa r r s f. { eti: 1 S ,4 iY:'" iI . to AI . . 'a t • , 14 9 AIVE•I't f ' i1, y i A i rztte 5: fif1 }, a F, u .# r i• n-VARIANCE FROM SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM 20 FOOT REQUIREMENT F y4 FURTHER INFOR,'ATI N CALL 235 25 1 THIS NOTICE NOT TO BE RE 'NED WI }'I OU G i t . , e'E•a "UMW C 'TO 0R • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON FEBRUARY 24 , 1981 , AT 9 : 00 A.M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS: 1 CHARLES R. UNGER- - - Application of variance from the Shoreline Master Program 20 foot setback requirement, file V-112-80; property located at 3717 Lake Washington Blvd No. 2. THOMAS R. DAHLBY Application for variance from the Zoning Ordinance setback requirements (Section 4-716A) and a variance from the Parking and Loading Ordinances (Sections 4-2206 (1) (a) ; 4-2206 (1) (c) (2) ) to allow the reduction in aisle width and stall length; property located at 1402 Maple Avenue S .W. 3. VEHICLE TEST TECHNOLOGY, INC. Application for rezone from G to M-P, file R-004-81 , to allow construction of State Motor Vehicle Inspection Station for automobile emissions ; property located on the south side of S.W. 10th Street between Thomas Avenue S.W. and Lind Ave. S.W. 4. HENRY DAUBERT Application for rezone from G to B-1 , file R-009-81 , to allow potential use as a remodeled office; property located on the northwest corner of Shattuck Ave. So. and S. 7th St. Legal descriptions of files noted above are on file in the Renton Planning Department. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS TO SAID PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRESENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON FEBRUARY 24 , 1981 , AT 9 : 00 A.M. TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS. PUBLISHED: February 8, 1981 DAVID R. CLEMENS ACTING PLANNING DIRECTOR CERTIFICATION I , STEVE MUNSONHEREBY CERTIFY THAT THREE COPIES OF THE ABOVE DOCUMENT WERE POSTED BY ME IN THREE CONSPICUOUS PLACES ON THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED ABOVE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW. ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public , in and for the State of Washington residing in King County, on the 6th day of February, 1981 . SIGNED: 411". sx zr/Aa4Zz \ ao 0 Attachment Variance Application Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit i 4 2 -$° To whom it may concern: Gentlemen: As owner and occupant of the residential property in question, we request that a shoreline variance be granted based on the circumstances of the property. A hardship does exist without the deck construction and the space used to its potential . a) The space in question cannot be utilized effectively except by the construction of a deck. More outdoor living area is needed and a deck is a reasonable use for the property. No other area is available to be utilized. b) The lot is shallow and slopes at a 30° angle toward the water. c) The deck construction would concur with neighborhood development and would be a complimentary addition to our yard and home. It would in no way adversely effect adjacent properties or the shoreline environment. d) The deck construction would not exceed any past or current construction practices on Lake Washington and would be the minimum development to afford relief. e) The public interest will in no way suffer any detri- mental effect from the development-. Your consideration in this request is appreciated. Very truly yours, Charles R. Unger s'al- S7 o MCA-‘2 -80 1 '-p AFFIDAVIT I , CHARLES R. UNGER being duly sworn, declare that I am the owner of the property involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Subscribedbs and sworn before me this / day of L/k 19 4P9, Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at J azizzimi e. atimi,/,07-0 N e of Notary #ublic) Si nature of Owner) 0 3717 Lake Wadlington Blvd. N. Address) Address) Renton, Washington 98055 City) State) 226-3537 Telephone) FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) CERTIFICATION This is to certify that the foregoing application has been inspected by me and has been found to be thorough and complete in every particular and to conform to the rules and regulations of the Renton Planning Department governing the filing of such application . Date Received 19 By: Renton Planning Dept . 2-73 Ddck Exi. ;n• R_ A x T. ,;: ....- 67 201 Propds4d Deck' North 55' Property Existing structure Line V Roadway Easement 1" = 20' L Garage Deck N\ Bulkhead ake Washington Southern Elevation 1" = 10' 1 .. t OF I C.) $ z SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971 09 CITY OF RENTON AOA* to sEPiMO P PLANNING DEPARTMENT r1 1j o n APPLICATION FOR: OFFICE USE ONLY: r . Application No. : S14d 87— BO ECF No: ird C—6 2 1 8o XX SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT Sec-Twnp-R ,/,)1,.32.-231A(- S' •4IA4, PERMIT Date Received NOV. 7,19 80 &, 6 Date Accepted N Y!. 141 lq CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Date Approved Date Denied IXXI VARIANCE A// 2--5oFIs_ .c . . Publication Date - ai .24 e" AFF Comprehensive Plan P?,1,4-- EXEMPTION Zoning 0- C000 Water Body J KK WAghtnV&T®rJJ In addition to the information below, the applicant should in6'lude a site map and any other pertinent information which will assist in the review of this application. The Planning Department reserves the right to require additional information needed to evaluate the application (note permit procedure on the last page) . APPLICANT TO PROVIDE INFORMATION REQUIRED IN ITEMS 1 THROUGH 14 BELOW: 1. Name of Applicant Charles R. Unger 2. Mailing Address 3717 Lake Washington Blvd.. North, Washington 911055 Telephone: 226-3537 3. Applicant is:4',37'-3/70 0 Owner 0 Lessee WI Contract Purchaser Other •• (Specify) 4. Name and address of owner, if other than applicant: George Hauth Conchas Dam, New Mexico Telephone 5. General location of proposed project (give street address if any or nearest street and intersection) 3717 Lake Washington Blvd. North, Renton, Washington 98055 6. Legal Description (if lengthy, attach as separate sheet) : Portions of Lots 37, 38 & 41 and all of Lots 39 fie 40 of Block "A" Hillman's Lake Washington Garden of Eden Addition to Seattle #2, according to plat recorded in Volume II of plats, page 64 in King County, Washington, together with 2nd Class Shorelands adjoining. 7. Name of adjacent water area or wetlands: Lake Washington 8. Intended use of property: Residential - Lot contour and bulkhead require deck to pro- vide useable space and accessibility to maintain rockery type bulkhead, 9. Generally describe the properLy and existing improvements: 67' X 50' waterfront lot with single family dwelling built in 1919 with numerous remodels and additions. 10. A. Total construction cost and fair market .value of proposed project include additional developments contemplated but .not included in this application: 950.00 p B. '' Construction dates (month and year) for which permit is requested: Begin January 1981 End February, 1981 11. ' Does this project require, a shoreline .location? Explain. Yes, as there is no other space' available on lot: 12. List any other permits for this project from state, federal , local' governmental agencies or the City of Renton for which you have applied or will apply, including the name of the issuing agency, whether the permit has been applied for, and if so, the date of the application, whether the application was approved or denied and the date of same, and number of the application or permit: City of Renton - Building Dept. 13. Site and vicinity maps (refer to application instructions): Attached. _ 14. Additional information:Useable yard space measures 15' X 30' . Unuseable portion measures 27' X 20° on 30 degree angle toward water. Deck would conform to existing neighborhood construction. and general Lake Wash. land use and have no damaging impact on surrounding environment. Shallow lot and family living necessitates deck for needed space. 15. VARIANCE CRITERIA If the applicant is seeking a variance, the applicant must include a written justification) narrative addressing the following criteria as specified in Section 173-14-150 of the Washington Administrative Code: A. Development On Land. 1. That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable City of Renton Shoreline Master Program precludes or significantly interferes with .a reasonable permitted use of ' ,a property. a, 2. That the hardship is specifically related to the property, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of the master program, and not, for example, from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions. 3. That the design of the project will be compatible with other permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the shoreline environment designation. 4. That the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum necessary to afford relief. 5. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. B. Development either waterward of the ordinary high water mark or within marshes, bogs, or swamps: 1. That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable City of Renton Shoreline Master Program precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable permitted use of the property. 2. That the hardship.is specifically related to the property, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of the master program, and. not, for example from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions. 3. That the design of the project will be compatible with other permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the shoreline environment designation. 4. That the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum necessary to afford relief. 5. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. 6. That the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected by the granting of the variance. STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ssCITYOFRENTON I Charles R, Unger being duly sworn, certify that I am the above-named applicant for a permit to construct a substantial development pursuant to the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and that the foregoing statements, answers, and information are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Ao / /' OC. .i' r Signature Subscribed-and sworn to me this l6 day of 5643-44/VO Nota Public in an /for' the State of W ington, residing at CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON OUTLINE OF PERMIT PROCEDURE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT 1. The applicant obtains the permit forms ,-completes and returns them to the Planning Department. 2. Applicant puts public notice in newspaper of general circulation in Renton once a week for two weeks . 3. Interested parties may submit comments to Renton Planning Depart- ment for 30 days following last public notice . 4 . After at least 30 days from last public notice , Renton Planning Department grants or denies permit. 5. Within eight ( 8) days from the Renton Planning Department action, copies of the action taken and the application form shall be sub- mitted to the Washington Department of Ecology, and the office of the State Attorney General . 6 . If permit is granted, permittee c&hnot begin construction until 30 days after date permit is granted. If permittee is informed that a review of the permit is to be held by the Hearings Board then he must further delay construction until the review. is com- pleted. 7. .. The minimum time required to process a permit is 68 days . 8. If permit is denied, applicant may appeal to Shoreline Hearings Board, as outlined below. APPEAL PROCEDURE Appeal initiated by Department of Appeal initiated by the applicant Ecology or Attorney General or by a private party 1 . Either the Department of 1 . Any person , including the Ecology or Attorney General applicant, aggrieved by may request review of the the granting or denying of granting or denying of a a permit may request an permit within 30 days of appeal . The request is sent the action of the Renton to the Department of Ecology, Planning Department. Notice the Attorney General , and the is sent to the Planning De- Hearings Board. partment and the Hearings Board. 2 . Either the Department or the Attorney General must certify 2 . The Hearings Board conducts a the request as valid for the review as requested and accepts review to continue. Certi- or overturns the decision of fication must be given within the City of Renton . 30 days . 3 . Any part to the review may 3 . If the request is certified, appeal the Hearings Board the Hearings Board conducts decision to Superior Court.a review and sustains or overturns the decision of the City of Renton. 4 . Any party who fails: to obtain certification or any party to a review before the Hearings Board may appeal to Superior Court. City of Renton Planning Dept. February 9, 1973 REV. : September 12, 1980 AFFIDAVIT 1 , CHARLES R. UNGER being duly sworn, declare that I am the owner of the property involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Subscribed and sworn before me this / day of 19 A, Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at 1 bdijd,042_,) 6-deg i.(9.47.0 N a of Notary t blic) S-' gnature of Owner e02,630 3717 Lake Wa±ington Blvd. N. Address) Address) Menton, Washington 98055 City) State) 226-3537 Telephone) FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) CERTIFICATION This is to certify that the foregoing application has been inspected by me and - has been found to be thorough and complete in every particular and to conform to the rules and regulations of the Renton Planning Department governing the filing of such application . Date Received 19 By: Renton Planning Dept . 2-73 C OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM FOR OFFICE USE ONLY _ A( a„ - -1 Application No. Y— //Ze - Environmental Checklist No. ,,_C/'rr—12Z !: ' PROPOSED, date:FINAL , date: 0 Declaration of Significance Declaration of Significance Declaration of Non-Significance ® Declaration of Non-Significance COMMENTS: Introduction The State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 , Chapter 43.21C, RCW, requires all state and local governmental agencies to consider environmental values both for their own actions and when licensing private proposals . The Act also requires that an EIS be prepared for all major actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment.The purpose of this checklist is to help the agencies involved determine whether or not a proposal is such a major action. Please answer the following questions as completely as you can with the information presently available to you. Where explanations of your answers are required, or where you believe an explanation would be helpful to government decision makers , include your explanation in the space provided, or use additional pages if necessary. You should include references to any reports or studies of which you are aware and which are rele- vant to the answers you provide. Complete answers to these questions now will help all agencies involved with your proposal to undertake the required environmental review with- out unnecessary delay. The following questions apply to your total proposal , not just to the license for which you are currently applying or the proposal for which approval is sought. Your answers should include the impacts which will be caused by your proposal when it is completed, even though completion may not occur until sometime in the future. This will allow all of the agencies which will be involved to complete their environmental review now, with- out duplicating paperwork in the future. NOTE: This is a standard form being used by all state and local agencies in the State of Washington for various types of proposals. Many of the questions may not apply to your proposal . If a question does not apply, just answer it "no" and continue on to the next question. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I . BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent Charles R. Unger 2. Address and phone number of Proponent: 3717 Lake Washington Blvd. North Renton, Washington 98055 3. Date Checklist submitted November 13, 1980 4. Agency requiring Checklist Renton Planning Dept® 5. Name of proposal , if applicable : 6. Nature and brief description of the proposal (including but not limited to its size, general design elements , and other factors that will give an accurate understanding of its scope and nature) : Construction of a 20' X 20' deck to better utilize unuseable portion of lot that slopes on a 30 degree angle toward water, 2- 7. Location of proposal (describe the physical setting of the proposal , as well as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental impacts , including any other information needed to give an accurate understanding of the environ- mental setting of the proposal ) : 3717 Lake Washington Blvd. N., Renton, Washington. 67' X 50' waterfront lot with single family dwelling built in 19]9 with numerous remodels and additions. Unuseable portion measures 27; X 20° on 30 degree angle toward water. 8. Estimated date for completion of the proposal : February, 1981 9. List of all permits , licenses or government approvals required for the proposal federal , state and local --including rezones) : City of Renton — Building Permit 10. Do you have any plans for future additions , expansion , or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes , explain: no 11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by your proposal ? If yes, explain: no 12. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the pro- posal ; if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at some future date, describe the nature of such application form: II . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required) 1) Earth. Will the proposal result in : a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? XXX YES MAYBE NO b) Disruptions , displacements , compaction or over- covering of the soil? XXX YES MAYBE NO c) Change in topography or ground surface relief XXX features? YES MAYBE NO d) The destruction, covering or modification of any XXXuniquegeologicorphysicalfeatures? YES MAYBE NO e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils , either on or off the site? XXX YES MAYBE NO f') Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands , or changes in siltation , deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? YES M YBE NO Explanation: 3- 2) Air. Will the proposal result in: a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? YES MAYBE NO b) The" creation of objectionable odors? YES MAYBE 14 c) Alteration of ..air movement , moisture or temperature , or any change in climate , either locally or regionally? YES MAYBE N Explanation: 3) Water. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in currents , or the course of direction of water movements , in either marine or fresh waters? YES MAYBE NTO b) Changes in absorption rates , drainage patterns , or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? YES MAYBE N c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? YES MAYBE NO d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? YES MAYBE NO e) Discharge into surface waters , or in any alteration surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? YES MAYBE NO f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? YES MAYBE NO g) Change in the quantity of ground waters , either through direct additions or withdrawals , or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? YES MAYBE NO h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either through direct injection, or through the seepage of leachate, phosphates , detergents , waterborne virus or bacteria, or other substances into the ground waters? YES MAYBE N i ) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies?YET- MAYBE Nti Explanation: 4) Flora. Will the proposal result in: a) Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of flora (including trees , shrubs , grass , crops , microflora and aquatic plants)?YES MAYBE N b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of flora? YES MAYBE NO c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? YES MAYBE NO d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? A_ YES M YBE NO Explanation: I 4- 5 ) Fauna. dill the proposal result in : a) Changes in the diversity of species , or numbers of any species of fauna (birds , land animals including reptiles , fish and shellfish, benthic organisms , insects or microfauna)? YES MAYBE NO b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of fauna? YES MAYBE NO c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area , or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of fauna? YES MAYBE NO d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 6) Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 7) Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? YES MAYBE N Explanation: 8) Land Use. Will the proposal result in the alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? A YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 9) Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? Y YES MAYBE NO b) Depletion of any nonrenewable' hatural resource? f YES MAYBE NT- Explanation: 10) Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including , but not limited to, oil , pesticides , chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? YES MAYBE N Explanation: 11) Population. Will the proposal alter the location , distri- bution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area?YES MAYBE NU— Explanation: f r 5- 12) Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing , or create a demand for additional housing? YES MAYBE NO Explanation : 13) Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in : a) Generation of additional vehicular movement? YES MAYBE NO b) Effects on existing parking facilities , or demand for new parking? YES MAYBE NO c) Impact upon existing transportation systems? YES MAYBE NO d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? YES MAYBE NO e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? 1" YES MAYBE NO f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles , bicyclists or pedestrians? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 14) Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon , or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas : a) Fire protection? YES MAYBE NO b) Police protection? YES MAYBE NO c) Schools? YES MAYBE NO d) Parks or other recreational facilities? YES MAYBE N e) Maintenance of public facilities , including roads? YES MAYBE NO f) Other governmental services? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 15) Energy. Will the proposal result in: a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? i YES MAYBE NO b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? P YES MAYBE WU— Explanation: 16) Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities : a) Power or natural gas? YES MAYBE N b) Communications systems? YES MAYBE NO c) Water? YES MAYBE NO 6- d) Sewer or septic tanks? YES MAYBE N e) Storm water drainage? YES MAYBE N f) Solid waste and disposal? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 17) Human Health. Will the proposal result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? YES MIT N Explanation: 18) Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 19) Recreation. Will the proposal result i.n an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? YES MAYBE Ni0 Explanation: 20) Archeological Historical . Will the proposal result in an alteration off a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? YES MAYBE N Explanation: III. SIGNATURE I , the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any decla- ration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: signed) Charles R. Unger name printed Y City of Renton Planning Department 5-76 CITY OF RENTON FINANCE DEPARTMENT No._ 16042 RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055 U-L) • .ICJ 19 Y(1 RECEIVED OF Ckeii7..,.f,J 7/./Li ./ i._./ ky, 0 TOTAL /5---5 00 GWEN E. MARSH L, FINANCE D;RECTOR Receipt CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT NAME 4, 1 DATE / 1/- PROJECT & LOCATION /r 5 7/ 7 Application Type Basic Fee Acreage Fee Total 1 ,' j.;;2/,(!,5)(;) 7 007111-y'- • rd. L.-:--(fi,:- '2_44,gelnvironmental Checklist Environmental Checklist Construction Valuation Fee o 1 ) TOTAL FEES Please take this receipt and your payment to the Finance Department on the first floor. Thank you.