Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutD_Brennan_Residence_Variance_070906September 6, 2007 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Minutes APPLICANT/OWNER: PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: SUMMARY OF REQUEST: SUMMARY OF ACTION: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: PUBLIC HEARING: Jerry Brennan 3405 Lake Washington Blvd N Renton, WA 98056 Brennan Residence Variance File No.: LUA 0-069, V-H, V-A, SME 3411 Lake Washington Blvd N Applicants have requested approval of two variances: (1) reduce the required 25-foot setback from the water's edge to a minimum of 17 feet; and (2) reduce the front yard setback from 15 feet to 2 feet. Development Services Recommendation: Approve with conditions The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on August 14, 2007. After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available information on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the August 21, 2007 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, August 21, 2007, at 9:05 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Project file containing the original Exhibit No. 2: Site Plan application, reports, staff comments and other documentation =rtinent to this reauest. Exhibit No. 3: Basement Floor Plan Exhibit No. 4: First Floor Plan Exhibit No. 5: Second Floor Plan Exhibit No. 6: South Elevation Exhibit No. 7: East Elevation Exhibit No. 8: North and West Elevations Brennan Residence Variance File No.: LUA-07-069, V-H, V-A., SME September 6, 2007 Page 2 Exhibit No. 9: Zoning Map Exhibit No. 11: Revised Site Plan Drawing Exhibit No. 10: Corrected First Page of Staff Report The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Jill Ding. Senior Planner, Development Services, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. The project site is located along the shore of Lake Washington. It is immediately to the south ofKennydale Beach Park, west of Lake Washington Boulevard N and the Burlington Northern right-of-way. The site is within the R-8 zoning designation. Access would be provided from a private access off of Lake Washington Boulevard N. The proposed new building area is 2,175 square feet. Much of the lot is located underwater. Bisecting the site north to south is the mean high water mark, which leaves approximately half of the land area as buildable area (3,851 square feet). The current regulations do require a 25-foot setback from the ordinary high water mark and a 15-foot setback for the front yard of the residence and a 20-foot setback for the garage. The front yard property line would actually be the property line to the east, facing Lake Washington Boulevard. The existing residences to the south are all oriented to the east so to keep consistency, this property would have the front yard oriented to the east as well. fu reviewing this proposal staff determined that it does comply with the Residential Single-Family Land Use Element and Community Design Element. The applicant requested a variance from the 15-foot front yard setback and proposed a 2-foot front yard setback. The applicant owns the property immediately to the south and they were going to do a boundary line adjustment in order to be in compliance with the front yard setback. However, that would not be needed with the front yard being oriented to the east. Due to the fact that approximately half of the parcel is submerged under Lake Washington, the building area is greatly reduced. The 25-foot shoreline setback, which would be the rear yard setback, would greatly reduce the building area. That would allow a maximum six-foot deep building envelope, which does appear to be an undue hardship. The proposed residence would have a depth of23-feet with a 1,075 square foot building envelope. Staff does recommend the approval of a 0-foot front yard setback so that the residence is actually located on the front property line. This proposed 0-foot front yard setback would not be detrimental or injurious to other properties in the area. The granting of the 0-foot front yard setback would allow the applicants to construct a single-family residence with an adequate amount of living space. The applicant is also requesting a variance from Shoreline Master Program in order to reduce the required 25- foot setback from the water's edge. The applicant has proposed a 19-foot minimum setback of the residence itself. There are a couple of upper level decks that would protrude further into the setback, giving them a minimum of 17-feet from the ordinary high water line. By moving the residence two feet with the front yard setback, that would leave a 19-foot setback for the decks and a 21-foot setback for the residence. Again the same special circumstances apply as for the front yard setback. Staff did not initially concur with the request, but upon further review and the submission of a new proposal to reduce the width of the house staff felt it was reasonable. They are now proposing a 1.2 protrusion into the shoreline setback for the house along the south side, and a 2.5 protrusion into the northern portion was proposed as well. This would allow the applicant to maintain the proposal for a two-car garage. Staff stated that they were willing to accept the protrusion for the two-car garage, but were not supportive for the protrusion to be the full length of the residence. The proposal was for a length of37-feet, staff would like to see Brennan Residence Varianc~ File No.: LUA-07-069, V-H, V-A, SME September 6, 2007 Page 3 the variance permitted for only where the garage is located. The proposed variance would not be detrimental to surrounding properties, would not adversely impact the natural beach area or impede views to, from, or along the water's edge. The proposal would meet all further requirements for a variance. Jerry Brennan, 3405 Lake Washington Blvd N, Renton, WA 98056 stated that he is the applicant and owner of the property. His intent is to retain the property, build a home and eventually retire to that home. He has discussed with his architect the City's concerns and how they might redesign the house to fit the City's needs and at a reasonable cost to himself. The two-car garage is a very important aspect due to the proximity of the park. Since living there, approximately 12 car windows have been broken and the cars broken into. The security that a two-car garage provides is imperative. Using the existing design and pulling a foot of the width the entire length, pulling it to the extreme property line appears to be a workable solution. His goal in keeping the entire length of the house and garage the same width is to be able to incorporate an elevator for later use. He believes his plans are consistent with other homes in the vicinity. A number of other residents in the vicinity have been granted the same variance. These are exceptional circumstances based on the condition of the property that would not normally be applied to other parcels in this vicinity. No one else has such a narrow lot, there are some narrow spots, but this lot is the narrowest. The variance is necessary to preserve the enjoyment and safety of his family. The design is for a reasonable size house on the dry portion of the property, similar variances have been granted in the past and granting this variance does not create any special privilege or undue problems. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 9:51 am. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: I. The applicant, Jerry Brennan, filed a request for a variance from shoreline setback requirements and a variance from front yard setback requirements. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. 3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS). 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located at 3411 Lake Washington Boulevard North. The subject site is located on the shoreline of Lake Washington and west of the Burlington Northern railroad tracks. 6. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of single-family uses, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 7. The subject site is currently zoned R-8 (Single Family -8 dwelling units/acre). Brennan Residence Variance File No.: LUA-07-069, V-H, V-A, SME September 6, 2007 Page4 8. Tue subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 1791 enacted in September 1959. 9. The subject site is 8,517 square feet but a portion of the lot is submerged under Lake Washington leaving approximately 3,851 square feet of dry, upland for development. 10. Due to slopes east of the site, access to the site will be via an easement across a portion of the adjacent lot to the south and angle into the site from the south. 11. Due to the limited size of the upland portion of the subject site the applicant has requested two variances. One variance was to reduce the front yard setback to 2 feet rather than the 15 feet required. The second variance was to reduce the setback from the shoreline of Lake Washington to 17 feet at a minimum from the required 25 feet. Both the house and shoreline have stepped or irregular boundaries so the setback would vary. The house would be 19 feet from the shoreline while proposed upper level decks would also protrude into the shoreline setback an additional two feet. Tue applicant has noted that he considers a two-car garage as reasonable and that such a garage requires a width that justifies the shoreline variance. 12. Tue upland or buildable area of the lot is approximately 46 feet deep. Reducing the lot by a 15-foot front yard setback and a 25-foot rear or shoreline setback would create a building envelope that is six (6) feet deep. Staff concluded that would be unreasonable. 13. Staff has recommended that the front yard setback be reduced to zero feet (0') as a tradeoff for greater setback along the lake. Staff has recommended that the shoreline variance be granted for a varied amount but less than requested by the applicant. Tuey recommend a two-foot reduction that would match the front yard variance. In addition, staff recommended that the variance would be greater for only that portion of the home where the garage would be location, reducing the depth of the home outside of the garage footprint area. CONCLUSIONS: Front Yard Variance I. Variances may be granted when the property generally satisfies all the conditions described in part below: a. The applicant suffers undue hardship caused by special circumstances such as: the size, shape, topography, or location where code enforcement would deprive the owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by others similarly situated; b. The granting of the variance would not materially harm either the public welfare or other property in the vicinity; c. The approval will not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other property in the vicinity; and d. The variance is the-minimum variance necessary to allow reasonable development of the subject site. Brennan Residence Variance File No.: LUA-07-069, V-H, V-A, SME September 6, 2007 Page 5 The applicant's property appears ripe for the variance requested. 2. The subject site has limited upland area on which to develop a single family home. The dry portion of the lot is only 3,851 square feet. The dry lot is only 46 feet deep. Normal front yard and rear (shoreline) setbacks would leave only 6 feet for a home. As a result of this constraint and to protect the shoreline as much as possible staff recommended reducing the front yard setback to zero thereby creating less pressure to reduce the shoreline setback. This seems like a reasonable tradeoff. Not that long ago the City Council and State modified the shoreline setback regulations to require a greater setback to protect the shoreline environment. So while the limited upland for this property is a constraint, the applicant has to accept that they have a lot with very limited development potential. But the front yard setback should only be reduced to zero feet if the shoreline variance (see below) request is also reduced by that amount and the home's western wall is articulated providing a wider home in the area of the garage and a narrower home where the garage is not a factor. 3. The approval should not adversely affect the general public, as this section of Lake Washington Boulevard is a deadend street and lightly traveled. The railroad tracks actually form a barrier and a reduced front yard will not create any additional stress on the roadway system in this area. 4. Similar variances have been approved in this area since many of the lots are similarly constrained by limited buildable, upland area. The granting of the variance would not grant the applicant a special privilege. 5. While a zero setback is extreme and actually less than the applicant proposed, it allows for greater separation between the home and the lake. The tradeoff is appropriate in this situation. Shoreline Variance 6. In addition to the criteria noted above, shoreline variances are subject to some additional review criteria taking into consideration the unique and fragile environment along the shoreline. Those particular criteria are: 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 shorelines in the same vicinity. b. The variance permit is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant possessed by the owners of other properties on shorelines in the same vicinity. c. The variance permit will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property on the shorelines in the same vicinity. d. The variance granted will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Master Program. 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 of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and the provisions of this Master Program. Brennan Residence Variance File No.: LUA-07-069, V-H, V-A, SME September 6, 2007 Page 6 7. While a variance from the shoreline setback requirements is reasonable in this case, the applicant has to understand that they own a severely constrained lot. Even a request to accommodate a two-car garage on such a lot could be considered unreasonable. There are homes that have only one-car garages and even newer homes now have tandem parking where cars are parked one in front of the other rather than side-by-side. While this office will agree with staff and allow the garage arrangement, this office will also agree with staff that outside of the garage footprint, the home should provide the greater setback recommended by staff. Again, while the City agrees that the lot has constraints, the applicant has to agree that the applicant owns a lot with severe constraints and that overbuilding on such a lot is not reasonable. 8. The lot is constrained and some relief from the 25-foot shoreline setback is warranted. Staff's recommendation of a modulating rear building line is appropriate. 9. The approval of the variance as suggested by staff will allow development of the parcel and, thereby, preserves the applicant's property right. 10. The reduction of the shoreline setback does not appear detrimental to other properties. It might be argued that crowding the shoreline is detrimental to the public that deserved a protected shoreline environment. 11. The Master Plan acknowledges that development of the shoreline is permissible and granting of this variance is in harmony with that policy. 12. It does not appear that harm will result from permitting this variance. The precedent has been set along this area of the shoreline but, again, the regulations in the past were changed to create a greater shoreline setback. Therefore, any reduction in that greater distance, in itself, distances itself from these newer policies making staff's recommendation to step the rear facade of the home more compelling. 13. In conclusion, developing this lot involves a series oftradeoffs. Both tradeoffs in terms of strict compliance with setback regulations as well as tradeoffs by the applicant in reducing the bulk of the home in some areas to lessen its intrusion into the shoreline setback area. DECISION: The variance from the front yard setback is approved subject to the conditions noted below. The variance from the shoreline setback is approved and it is recommended that the Department of Ecology approve the shoreline variance subject to the following conditions: I. The site plan shall be revised to shift the proposed residence two feet to the east to maintain a zero foot front yard setback. 2. The minimum allowable setback from the water's edge shall be no less than 22 feet for the proposed 10- foot wide by 3-foot deep first and second story decks located on the south portion of the west fa9ade and 23 feet for the north comers of the proposed 10-foot wide by 3-foot deep first and second story decks located on the north portion of the west fa9ade. The remaining portions of the residential structure shall be required to maintain the minimum required building setback from the water's edge (25 feet) for all other portions of the site. 3. The applicant shall be required to obtain all other necessary permits and approvals for the proposal (i.e. Brennan Residence Variance File No.: LUA-07-069, V-H, V-A, SME September 6, 2007 Page 7 3. The applicant shall be required to obtain all other necessary permits and approvals for the proposal (i.e. building permit, certificate of water and sewer availability, etc.). ORDERED THIS 6th day of September 2007. TRANSMITTED THIS 6th day of September 2007 to the parties of record: Jill Ding Jerry Brennan 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 3405 Lake Washington Blvd N Renton, WA 98056 TRANSMITIED THIS 6th day of September 2007 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Renton Reporter Mark Peterson, Fire Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 1 OOGof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., September 20, 2007. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., September 20, 2007. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. Brennan Residence Variance File No.: LUA-07-069, V-H, V-A, SME September 6, 2007 Page 8 The Appearance ofFaimess Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. /l"r!Q/eet Location: 3411 Lake Washington Blvd N