Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5-6 Variance justification letter 4-26-2024 amy dedominicis . architect 1916 Jefferson Ave Tacoma , WA. 98402 253.215.4717 April 26, 2024 To: Andrew Van Gordon Associate Planner City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way,6th Floor Renton, WA 98057 Secondary Front Yard Setback Variance Request: Gilroy Investment Rentals LLC. RE: PSUB24-000127 Gilroy Addition Variance Parcel Number: 7221400287 Project Location: The site is in the R8 Zone Legal description Co Op Coal COS AC TRS #1E 90 feet LS The variance proposes the following request: Proposal: Applicant seeks approval of a Secondary Front Yard setback variance to 1318 S 7th St. Renton. - Reduction of the 15-foot secondary front yard setback for an 8 foot building addition to the north of the property. The setback off Grant Ave. S would be reduced to approximately 11’- 6” feet (reduction of 3 1/2 feet) based on the distance of the existing foundation to the property line. Applicant seeks to align the wall of the addition with the existing foundation wall in place since the original 1940 residence was built. - Applicant also requests that the roofline also be allowed to project 2 feet into the reduced setback area thus resulting in a setback of 9’-6” from the property line allowing the eave to tie into existing eave roofline. There is one eave for the existing porch along Grant Ave S currently closer to the street. Page 2 of 13 Photograph taken looking Northwest Site Characteristics • The subject parcel is a single family residence circa 1940 on the corner of Grant Ave S and S 7th St. • The 8,875 sf parcel for the most part is rectangular in shape with the long axis of the parcel running in a north south direction. • The portion of the lot, located along Grant Ave. S., has an elevation of approximately 3 feet above the entry and drops to grade exposing approximately 2 feet of the existing foundation wall. • Trees and vegetation currently line the full length of Grant Ave. S. except for a small stair leading to the side entrance considered to be the secondary front yard. • Currently the front porch of the existing home bult in 1940 is approximately 6 feet off the property line along Grant Ave. • An existing sanitary sewer line to the west limits the expansion of the footprint to the eastern portion of the property. • Extending to the north limits the width of the bedroom addition to just 6’-6” wide and impacts the already small powder room footprint in the basement. Page 3 of 13 2021 County Aerial The current single family home will remain a single family home. We are looking to expand the footprint of one bedroom and rebuild the existing bath on unbraced “stilts” on the main floor. This will result in a more substantial seismic solution for the dwelling. The resulting basement foundation expansion allows for a dedicated laundry area and a new half bath (powder room). The current home only has one bathroom. The applicant wishes to align the new addition with the foundation of the existing north and east existing foundation lines. The variance proposal would maintain the required 20 foot front yard setback to the south, the 5 foot setback to the north and the 25 ft setback to the west. However the main living area of the existing home is located approximately 11.5 feet from the eastern property line. There is also a small entry porch that is only approximately 6 feet from the property line (Grant Ave. side). As the proposed new addition would be partially located within the required 15-foot secondary setback, an administrative setback variance is necessary. We feel this is a similar situation to LUA02-116 granted back in 2002. Page 4 of 13 Notes: • There is an existing side sewer line to the west of the property that limits the expansion to the west. • By narrowing the end of the bedroom addition to fall within the 15 foot setback area the width of the bedroom is reduced to approximately 6’-6”. A reduction of 3.6” from the current ten foot wide width. • Corner lot requirements lead to additional restraints that do not affect lots within normal side to side adjacencies. The existing square footage of the 1940 residence will not be out of character in the neighborhood and in fact is currently one of the smaller residences in the area. • Grant Ave. S is not currently seen as a highly traveled arterial and the small 140 sf expansion of the residence will have no impact on existing traffic. Currently parking is allowed on Grant Ave. on both sides. • Redesign and permit resubmittal cost for the encroachment of approximately 8 sf will have to be required. The roofline, a simple hip will be compromised by cutting the corner. The current design is better from a structural standpoint and fits the character of the existing residence. Owner is ready to break ground once permits are approved. • Grant Ave. S may have been widened since 1940. The block south of S 7th street pavement appears narrower. Variance Request Justification Please provide a written statement separately addressing and justifying each of the issues to be considered by the City. The burden of proof as to the appropriateness of the application lies with the applicant. In order to approve a variance request, the Reviewing Official must find ALL the following conditions exist: A. 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, and 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; B. 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; C. The 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; and D. The approval is the minimum variance that will accomplish the desired purpose. Page 5 of 13 Justification is as follows: With respect to Condition A, We (the Applicants) submit that strict adherence to the secondary front yard setback, (i.e., not granting a variance) would deprive us of privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity. Corner lots bear a stricter burden having 2 wider setbacks to the primary structure. There is an existing side sewer line on the property to the west and an existing concrete patio to the north. The best option for the bedroom and bath expansion is to the north and east following the alignment of the existing foundation. This will minimize the footprint of the design and is a better, more compact solution than a dog leg structure which would add to the net square footage of impervious area if enlarged to meet the goal of creating an enlarged bedroom to accommodate a king size bed. The current design also maintains the existing ten-foot width of the bedroom in the existing residence which by no means is overly spacious. If the variance is not granted the end width of the bedroom would be reduced to 6’-6” wide. In addition, based on information seen on aerial GIS photographs, Applicants submit that other residential property owners in the vicinity have homes that are closer to Grant Ave than the Applicant. Setbacks may have been adjusted over time, but the existing footprint of the residence contributes to the existing structure alignment argument. For at least the above reasons, we maintain that strict adherence to current development standards would cause hardship to the owner by not allowing the minimal 8 sf expansion of the existing home within the setback area. The applicant believes that by proceeding with the design as presented will proceed to only add value to the neighborhood and minimize additional impervious area on the site. With respect to Condition B, The Applicant believes that granting 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 the property is situated, due to the nature of the surrounding development and or traffic patterns. There is a long, well-established hedge and tree line along Grant Ave. S. Accordingly, we believe that granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the streetscape or existing street parking and traffic patterns. The street is also approximately 3 feet above the yard grade. As mentioned above, several of the homes in the vicinity along Grant Ave. S encroach into the side and or front yard setback, including the existing home on the property. Therefore, adding a small addition that is in alignment with the side of the existing home would be expected. Requiring a small carve out of the corner of the addition would most likely result in a room that is less useable for the occupants, will not allow for and a simple hip roofline that will be interrupted by carving out the corner . If the owner adds to the square footage to the west we will impact the existing sanitary sewer line. Furthermore, granting a variance would not have a negative visual impact on the surrounding property owners, as granting the variance would allow our property to correspond to the existing house characteristics and appear as it was always part of the original home design. The Applicant also believes the upgrade to the existing north elevation of the home would be a far greater aesthetic improvement over the existing condition. Page 6 of 13 It should be noted that we did not request statements from any of our neighbors The proposed addition easily meets the rear yard setback and side yard requirement, so we did not obtain a statement from the neighbors immediately to the west and north of the home. With respect to Condition C, The Applicant believes that approval of the variance would not be considered a special privilege due to the fact that several of the existing structures in the vicinity are closer to Grant Ave than the proposed addition. We contend that the proposed variance would allow us to maximize the value of said property while remaining within the range of sizes and current neighboring properties in the R-8 zone. Granting of the variance would allow the applicant to expand the home footprint in a manner similar to other homes in the vicinity. Accordingly, no special privilege would be granted. With respect to Condition D, the variance request is only to allow for an approximately 3 ½” foot encroachment into the15 foot secondary front yard setback giving approximately a distance of 11’-6” to the property line. This is more than the minimum distance of 3 feet and consistent with existing development patterns in the neighborhood. Only 8 sf would be within the current setback area. Again, the side of the addition would align with the side of the existing home, and not impact the side sewer onsite. We have not asked to encroach into the setback beyond the distance associated with the existing home. Hence, only the minimum variance is requested. The expansion of the structure to the west once again would require additional hardship to the owners with the impact and costs to the existing sanitary side sewer. Furthermore, the proposed addition does not encroach into the side yard setback to the north or the rear yard setback to the west. In fact, the rearmost portion of the addition would be more than 30 feet away from the side and rear yard setbacks. This is important when considering the small size of the proposed addition. Specifically, we believe the size of the proposed addition is the minimum required to meet the project goals. Our desired purpose is to provide additional livable space creating a larger bedroom and a second restroom since there is only one currently in the residence. This will add value to the surrounding area. For at least the above reasons, Applicants believe that the variance request is justified. Note: While we recognize that every situation is different, we believe that there are similarities between our situation and LUA02-116, which is asking removal of a portion of an existing garage and add additional living space. The intent was to align with the existing home original garage footprint and structure allowing for a longer vehicles. We are requesting the bedroom be enlarged so as to increase the living area to allow for a larger closet and king size bed. The similar encroachment into the required setback for LUA02- 116 and was approved. In that application the applicant was seeking to line the rear of the garage and second story addition with the existing single-family residence. To the extent applicable, we rely on the decisions associated with same for its precedential value using the alignment with the existing structure. Page 7 of 13 Additional Observations: In addition to the approval above several of the other properties appear from the aerial map to also be within the current 15 foot setback along Grant Ave S which applies to the corner condition beard by our location and or front yard setback with alley access. The proposed addition is not any closer to Grant Ave S. than these existing structures. Although the setbacks may have been different this also sets a precedent that the said property does not exceed similar street frontage setback requirements. 525 Grant Ave S -10.5’ from property line 527 Grant Ave S -9.0’ from property line 533 Grant Ave S -7.0’ from property line 603 Grant Ave S -10.6’ from property line Per 4-10-050- We do not entirely meet this requirement which is why we are requesting the variance into the 15 foot corner yard setback. 4. Limits on Enlargement: a. The structure shall not be enlarged unless the enlargement is conforming, except as identified in subsection A4b of this Section. b. Nonconforming enlargements may only be allowed at the discretion of the Administrator if: i. The enlargement is sited carefully to achieve compatible transition between surrounding buildings, parking areas and other land uses; or (The proposed enlargement is far more appealing than the existing elevation and does not impact any of items listed in i.) ii. The enlargement does not significantly cause any adverse or undesirable effects on the site or neighboring properties, or (This will improve the aesthetic of the property and has no undesirable effects to neighbors on any of the abutting lots.) iii. The enlargement is confined to the projected footprint of a single-family dwelling. If the proposed enlargement is nonconforming with respect to zoning setbacks, and the enlargement will comply with this Section and all other development regulations, the enlargement may be allowed if it is located within the projected footprint of the building. The projected footprint is determined with the criteria below by extending a line from and parallel to the furthest encroaching portion(s) of the building. The enlargement is limited to the height of the qualifying encroachment, and any other applicable height limitation. For the purpose of determining the projected footprint, a qualifying encroachment shall: (a) Represent at least fifty percent (50%) of the building’s facade; and It complies with this on the north side. (b) Be set back at least three feet (3') from any property line; and It complies with this with a setback of approximately 11’-6 for the alignment with the existing foundation and 9’-6” if roof eave projection of 24” is allowed to tie into the existing eave line”. (c) Not include any allowed setback projections, steps and/or decks, and encroachments permitted by a land use decision. No setbacks of steps or decks are in this area. Only the bathroom extension, currently on short columns, falls within the main foundation projected footprint. The new footprint does not fully meet this requirement which is why we are requesting the variance. The front porch projects beyond the wall extension and is even closer to Grant Ave S. Page 8 of 13 Proposed Site Plan – Not to Scale Page 9 of 13 Projected encroachment Entry level plan-Proposed Page 10 of 13 Basement level plan- Proposed Page 11 of 13 Surrounding Land Use and Zoning Designation LAND USE ZONING North Single-Family Residence R8 South Single-Family Residence R8 West Single Family Residence R8 East Single-Family Residence R8 Site Photos 1318 S 7th St. – October 5, 2023 Existing North Elevation Page 12 of 13 Photograph taken looking south towards existing residence. Page 13 of 13 Proposed Building Elevations