Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutD_HEX_Linn_Office_Conversion_From_SF_061023October 23, 2006 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Minutes APPLICANT/OWNER: PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: SUMMARY OF REQUEST: SUMMARY OF ACTION: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: Alden & Tisha Linn 2907 Park Ave. N Renton, WA 98056 Linn Office Conversion Landscape Variance File No.: LUA 06-108, V-H 337 Park Avenue N; southwest of Park Ave N and N 4"' Street Applicants have requested approval of a variance from the landscape requirement in the CA zone. Development Services Recommendation: Approve with conditions The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on October 3, 2006. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available information on file with the application, held 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 May 16, 2006 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, October 3, 2006, at 9:02 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hail. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the original application, proof of posting, proof of publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No. 2: Site Plan Exhibit No. 3: Staff Recommended Site Plan Exhibit No. 4: Zoning/Neighborhood Detail Ma The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Valerie Kinast, Senior Planner, Development Services, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. The project is located on the west side of Park Avenue N just south of N 4'1' Street. There is a lot on the comer, a restaurant with a beer garden. The site is zoned CA and was last used as a single-family residence. Linn Office Conversion Lan ,)e Variance File No.: LUA-06-108, V-H October 23, 2006 Page 2 Along Park some of the lots are zoned R-10 and some of the corners are zoned CA or CN. There are a number of single-family homes that are zoned commercial along Park. The lot to the south of the site is zoned R-10, residential zone, the applicants are required to meet a 15-foot landscaped setback as a buffer to the residential use. The applicants are requesting a variance to eliminate the requirement to provide the 15-foot site obscuring landscape strip along the south property line. The lot is 47-feet wide by 103-feet in length. The existing building is 1,600 square feet and the house sits approximately 13.5 feet from the south property line with a 10- foot driveway located four feet from the house. The house to the south is seven feet from the property line. The site has aIIey access, its main access from Park Avenue N. Given the commercial zoning of the property the site is unusually small. To convert the house to a commercial use the applicants must provide four parking stalls as well as the 15-foot landscape buffer to the south. Due to the narrowness of the lot it is impossible to meet both parking and the landscape buffer requirements. Even if the house were torn down and rebuilt, it would be impossible to fit both the 4 parking stalls and the landscape buffer on this site. Accessing a commercial Iot from the alley is very unusual. Hearing Examiner stated that hardship really needs to be shown, the residence to the south needs protecting otherwise the use of this lot imposes on the lot to the south. Ms. Kinast stated that they considered reducing the size of the parking, but given the size of the lot it would be a problem. The driveway is an existing driveway and it goes right to the property line, there is a gravel strip between the house and the driveway, so it could be shifted. This request could be detrimental to the property to the south, but if decorative fencing with climbing plants would be placed along the property line, the effects could be minimized. A visual barrier affects the perception of noise and the fence can also reduce noise. A three-foot landscape strip would also reduce the noise of cars maneuvering in that area. The subject site is intended to become a real estate office. Staff feels that this request does not constitute a special privilege. Precedence would be set with the granting of this variance. Alden Linn, 2907 Park Ave. N., Renton, WA 98056 stated that he and his wife bought the property last year with the intention to turn the residence into an interior Design business. They had a baby and plans changed, they decided to lease the site, they looked at several options and finally Renton Realty made an offer to rent the site and signed a contract conditional upon approval of this variance. He has worked with the neighbor to the south, he showed her the staff report, a drawing of the style of fence proposed to be installed and pictures of what that would look like once the shrubs grew and pictures of planter boxes that would be used for the 3-foot landscape strip. She agreed to all the plans. Neil Watts, Development Services Director, stated that this is a small structure, it appears to be approximately a 1500 square structure. Trip generation for an office runs about 8 daily trips to 16 daily trips per thousand, on a smaller level business it would be considerably less. This site makes perfect sense for an office, it becomes more of a problem if it is retail or restaurant. As a condition to this variance, a restrictive covenant might be considered in order to limit the uses of this site to office or residential. 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 9:32 am. Linn Office Conversion Lan pe Variance File No.: LUA-06-108, V-H October 23, 2006 Page 3 FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: The applicants, Alden and Tisha Linn, filed a request for approval of a Variance to allow less than the required setback between a commercially zoned property and a residentially zoned property. 2. The yeIIow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit ##1. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official, determined that the proposal is exempt from review. 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located at 337 Park Avenue N. The subject site is located on the west side of Park Avenue just south of North 4th Street. 6. The subject site was annexed to the City in May 1909 with the adoption of Ordinance 156. 7. The subject site is zoned CA (Commercial Arterial). The parcel immediately to the south is zoned R-10 (Low density multiple family) and according to staff is a single family home. The parcels to the west or rear, across the alley are zoned R-8 (Single Family Residential). 8. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of commercial uses, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. The Comprehensive PIan designates the property south of the subject site for low -density residential uses and the property west of the subject site for single family uses. 9. The subject site is approximately 0.11 acres or 4,838 square feet in size. The parcel is approximately 47 feet wide (north to south) by approximately 103 feet deep. 10. An alley runs along the western edge of the subject site. The alley provides access to the rear of the lot where the parking is proposed. 11. The subject site contains a vacant single family home. If the variance were approved, it would be converted to a commercial use. The current proposal would be for office space but it could be used for any use permitted in the CA zone. 12. Potential uses in the CA zone are quite wide-ranging and could definitely have an impact on the residential quality of the adjacent property. The smaller size of the lot would limit the types of uses but not necessarily limit the hours of operation. 13. The driveway for the subject site is located immediately adjacent to the property line shared with the residential use along the south side of the property. The concrete driveway that serves the existing home/building is 10 feet wide. It is four feet from the home. That places the actual building only Linn Office Conversion Lan e Variance File No.: LUA-06-108, V-H October 23, 2006 Page 4 fourteen feet from the property line, one foot less than the required setback. Therefore, the applicants have requested a variance to allow a ZERO FOOT setback adjacent to the driveway. 14. Code requires a 15-foot, sight -obscuring landscape strip along the south property line. That landscaping strip would be located where the current driveway is located. The implication of the 15-foot landscape setback is to require a 15-foot setback between the commercial use and the residential property line and not just landscaping. 15. The subject site when converted to commercial use would require four (4) parking stalls. These would be provided in the rear yard of the property. 16. The home on the neighboring, southern residential property is located seven (7) feet from the common property line. 17. The City has recommended that the variance be approved subject to the applicant installing a decorative wood fence, trellis and climbing vegetation along the side yard area and provide 3 feet of landscaping in the parking area in the rear of the lot. Staff also recommended that traffic only be allowed to use the driveway for entrance to the site and exit the site via the alley. 18. Staff has written the following language in reviewing the impacts on the adjacent residential property: "Granting a variance to reduce the amount of sight -obscuring landscaping to zero could be materially detrimental to the neighboring residents to the south, although no comments were received from them. The intent of the 15 ft. landscape buffer is to shield the abutting residents from any impacts from the commercial use. An office has the potential to generate more activity than a single-family residence, with employees and customers entering and leaving the property" 19. The applicant testified that the commercial use of the adjacent parcel to its north has had a negative impact on the desirability of the existing home on the subject site. CONCLUSIONS: Variances may be granted when the property 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. The applicant's property is not suitable for the variance requested. Linn Office Conversion Lan je Variance File No.: LUA-06-108, V-H October 23, 2006 Page 5 2. The applicant does not suffer undue hardship. There might be a modicum of hardship if the applicant cannot use the existing driveway but there is reasonable access to the rear parking lot via an alley. Signs can direct patrons to the alley access. Approval of the variance would be materially harmful to the adjacent residential property. The variance would foist off on adjacent, residential property impacts associated with commercial development. It would particularly nullify a specific setback required between residential property and commercial property. The traffic from a commercial use, one that could have evening hours, would run immediately adjacent to a single-family home without little or no buffer. As the applicant admitted, the adjacent commercial use to its north has had a negative impact on the subject site's residential home. Approving the proposed variance could propagate the same negative impact on the neighboring residential parcel. The proposed ZERO setback, even bolstered by a fence and landscaping will not adequately cancel the sounds of commercial traffic entering the site and using the driveway. 3. The approval of the variance would create a precedent in the area of North Renton. As was noted at the hearing, there are a large number of commercially zoned nodes carved out of the corners of blocks in this area and immediately adjacent to those nodes are residentially zoned properties. As in this case, many of the parcels are modest or even small in size. Approving the variance for these applicants will create a precedent completely nullifying the required fifteen foot setback that code specifically requires to buffer residential uses, in some cases even single family uses, from commercial uses. It would create a special privilege unless it was offered to other similarly sized, small lots where new owners want to convert older homes to commercial uses. 4. The variance is not the minimum in any case. The driveway could be moved but even that would not negate the material detriment and harm that would be inflicted on the neighboring residential property. Again, it matters little if the current resident did or did not object, as the blight would be perpetuated into the future making a residentially zoned parcel less suitable for its intended residential purpose. In conclusion, a request for a variance must satisfy all of the criteria. None of the criteria require a compromise or partial fulfillment. The property to the south of the subject site is entitled to the full landscape screen. Providing a fence with some climbing vines is no substitute for fifteen feet of sight - obscuring landscaping. A ZERO setback of the driveway will create impacts on the adjacent property. Even if no comments were received, silence is not acceptance. Further, it is not only the current resident who is protected by the setback requirement. It is this resident and future residents. Degrading the residential value of the abutting property is not acceptable. Deterioration or blight might occur as future residents don't believe their residential values have been protected by the City. It is unfortunate that the applicant has acquired property that is limited but that was their purchasing decision. They have no right of expectation that the limitation their property suffers will be relieved by harming the adjacent property. It also does not matter if the current applicants are well-meaning or not. The subject site could be sold to less well-meaning owners. The intended use could also change with more deleterious consequences. In other words, this variance is simply inappropriate. DECISION: The Variance is denied. Linn Office Conversion Lan ae Variance File No.: LUA-06-108, V-H October 23, 2006 Page 6 ORDERED THIS 2P day of October 2006. FRED J. KA MAN HEARING E INER TRANSMITTED THIS 23`d day of October 2006 to the parties of record: Valerie Kinast 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Josephine Ganuelas 335 Park Ave N Renton, WA 98055 Alden & Tisha Linn 2907 Park Ave. N Renton, WA 98056 AIden & Tisha Linn PO Box 2288 Renton, WA 98056 TRANSMITTED THIS 23rd day of October 2006 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 King County Journal Nancy Terry 338 Pelly Avenue N Renton, WA 98057 Stan Engler, 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 100Gof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be fried in writing on or before 5:00 p.m.. November 6, 2006. 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., November 6, 2006. 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. Linn Office Conversion Lan, e Variance File No.: LUA-06-108, V-H October 23, 2006 Page 7 The Appearance of Fairness 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. P�qIEd Location. 337 Park Ave. N; southwest of Park Ave. N and N 0 St.