Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJ_Justifications_Administrative_and_Shoreline_Variances_Amended_9-13-21J_ Justification_Administrative_and_Shoreline_Variances_Amended_9-13-21 1 J Justifications: Administrative and Shoreline Variances General Narrative: The Asdourian Property is unique in its restrictive shape and proximity to the water. Unlike most waterfront parcels, that have just one shoreline, the Asdourian Property is bound by water on two sides, the north and west. As a result, there is only a small space in the southeast corner that meets required setbacks (see 25’ OHWM setback). (See Figure J.1) Almost the entire existing home is a legal nonconforming use. Figure J.1 Existing Conditions with OHWM As if this double-sided-water feature was not enough, the Asdourian lot is one of just four lots in this plat for which King County never granted a right-of-way vacation from the old railroad corridor (the Asdourian home is marked “3901” at the top of the image in Figure J.2). Compared to their neighbors to the north and south, there is barely enough room on these four parcels to construct a tool shed, much less a home, while maintaining all required setbacks and having an off-street place to park a car. This is why, as can be seen in the picture below, several of the Asdourians’ neighbors to the south have structures within the J_ Justification_Administrative_and_Shoreline_Variances_Amended_9-13-21 2 right-of-way (which are old and have their own entitlements). The Asdourians propose to stay entirely within their legal boundary lines, but in this case, that does not allow any room for error. Figure J.2 Asdourian Nonconforming Lot As discussed above, the Asdourian lot depth is 25 feet less at the right-of-way than 85% of the other lawfully platted lots in this subdivision. The lot width is, at its widest, 51-feet in comparison with the 60-foot minimum for new lots. Consequently, the size, shape, and proximity to the water of the Asdourian lot are special circumstances applicable to this lot and not others. The Asdourian lot simply could not be created today and imposing modern requirements such as setbacks and lot coverage, designed and intended for more recent, larger, compliant parcels, would constitute a failure to recognize these special circumstances. The Asdourian proposal will have no detrimental effect to the ecological function of the shoreline. (See Exhibit RS Northwest Architectural Lake Study 2021.) Wherever practical, the proposal complies with current regulations. Wherever necessary, the proposal incorporates the minimum possible variance to achieve a measured balance between strict compliance and reasonable use of the property. Each variance is discussed in detail below. ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCES RMC 4-9-250 VARIANCES, WAIVERS, MODIFICATIONS, AND ALTERNATES B. VARIANCE PROCEDURES: The Administrator has the authority to approve, or approve with conditions, applications for variances from the development standards in RMC 4-9-250 unless otherwise prohibited, such as, an expanded single family residence on a pre-existing platted lot where there is not enough developable area J_ Justification_Administrative_and_Shoreline_Variances_Amended_9-13-21 3 elsewhere on the site to accommodate building pads and provide practical off-street parking, providing reasonable use of the property. (RMC 4-9-250B.1.b.v.a). However, when a proposal also requires a variance to the Shoreline Master Program, the Hearing Officer shall consider the requests in a combined public hearing. Description of administrative variances from RMC 4-2-110A, column R-6: 1. Setbacks. Front yard. Table RMC 4-2-110A requires a minimum front yard setback of 25 feet, which, because King County has not granted a right-of-way vacation, is basically the middle of the property’s land mass, and just a few feet from competing setbacks discussed below. The front (east) yard angles from northeast to southwest along the existing right-of-way. At the nearest point, the eastern façade of the existing dwelling is 6 feet 3 inches from the east property line. The Applicant proposes to construct a garage on the existing concrete driveway that, at the nearest point, will be 2 inches from the east property line. Side yard. Table RMC 4-2-110A requires a minimum side yard of a combined 15 feet with not less than 5 feet on either side. The existing dwelling does not meet these criteria. With a lot width of 51 feet, this would mean constructing a home within a 36-foot corridor. The existing dwelling is between 6 feet 10-7/8 inches (6’ 10-7/8”) and 7 feet 2-7/16 inches (7’ 2-7/16”) from the north property line. The existing dwelling is between 5 feet (5’ 0”) and 4 feet 10-7/8 inches (4’ 10-7/8”) from the south property line. Following the plane of the north facade, the proposal will add a garage wall on the north side that is 7 feet 3-3/8 inches (7’ 3-3/8”) from the north property line. The most southern structural point, at ground level, will be setback from the southern property line by approximately 4 feet 9 inches (4’ 9”). The proposal will only extend 1-7/8 inches beyond the existing nonconformance. * As discussed below in the shoreline variance section, due to the existence of shoreline on the north side yard, a more restrictive requirement essentially overrides that side yard requirement. Rear yard. Table RMC 4-2-110A requires a minimum rear yard of 25, feet, which, as above, is basically the middle of the property’s land mass, and just a few feet from competing setbacks discussed below. The current proposal will increase height but will not extend further waterward into the rear yard setback. 3. Number of Stories: Table RMC 4-2-110A sets a maximum of two stories. The existing dwelling is two stories. The applicant proposes to construct a third story within the City of Renton Residential Building Height Guidelines. Nearly every neighbor to the north and south of the Asdourian property has a three-story home. In the remodel narrative, PN_Asdourian House Remodel, the Applicant provides documentation to demonstrate this circumstance. The Applicant believes this variance is necessary to compensate for the restrictive size and shape of the parcel as discussed above. B6. Decision Criteria: Except for variances from critical areas regulations, a determination shall be made in writing that the conditions specified below have been found to exist: a. That the applicant suffers practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship and the variance is necessary because of special circumstances applicable to subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject property, and the strict application of the Zoning Code is found to deprive subject property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zone classification; RESPONSE J_ Justification_Administrative_and_Shoreline_Variances_Amended_9-13-21 4 General. Other properties within the historic Garden of Eden No 2 plat are zoned R-6 and are regulated by the Renton Shoreline Master Program. There are 27 single-family lots in the subdivision. Setbacks. The home is 50 years old and requires updating. Adding a partial third story to the existing home, while intruding into the setbacks, instead of tearing down and starting anew, will have a less detrimental effect on the environment because of the conservation of energy embedded in the existing building.1 The property Owner, Ryan Asdourian, has been diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis and, as the disease progresses, will suffer practical difficulties. As he ages and the disease progresses, he will require special accommodations, such as motorized-walk assistance, wheelchairs, and/or mobile horizontal confinement. Consequently, he desires to remodel his existing dwelling to accommodate his changing needs and growing family, potentially requiring permanent in-home assistants. The proposed variances are necessary to address these circumstances. As time goes on, Mr. Asdourian may not be able to utilize the second or third story, but he will need a greater proportion of the first story for himself, and normal or other uses on the first floor will be displaced, meaning his family will need the upper areas. As discussed above, the lawfully platted property, lot 0070, does not meet the current minimum yard width standards. The standard is 60 feet and the greatest lot width, at the east, is 51 feet. The lot depth is 25 feet shorter at the right-of-way than 85% of the other lawfully platted lots in this subdivision. Consequently, the size and shape of the subject lot are special circumstances applicable to this lot and not others. The subject lot has a 25-foot OHWM setback on the west and on the north (see Table 4-3-090D7a and note 3). The consequence of the double shoreline and the mandatory 25-foot setback is to limit development of this lawfully created property on two sides. No other lots within the vicinity and under the same Lake Washington Shoreline Environmental Designation (SED) have a shoreline on two sides of their lot. If the 25-foot front yard, rear yard, and north side yard requirements were applied, the Asdourian lot would be left with a small square in the southeast corner five feet north of the southern property line. As discussed in the Residential Comparison section of PN Asdourian House Remodel Narrative, Section 1.D, the City of Renton has issued building permits that allow single-family dwellings to substantially encroach on their respective side yards and the front yards. Therefore, strict application of the zoning code standards relating to front and side yard setbacks will deprive the Owner of the right to add a garage to the eastern end of the property, a right and privilege enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zone classifications. Building stories. The wall plate height of the existing two-story dwelling is 16 feet 3-1/2 inches. The Applicant proposes to increase the wall plate height to 24 feet per the Residential Building Height Guidelines. (See Figure J.3 Sheet A1.1, Building Elevation). The wall plate height will not require a variance but adding a partial third story will. The Applicant incorporates the discussion above. The practical difficulties, unnecessary hardship, and special circumstances, as well as the privileges enjoyed by other property owners, are discussed above. 1 Jackson, M. (2005). Embodied Energy and Historic Preservation: A Needed Reassessment. <i>APT Bulletin: The Journal of Preservation Technology,</i> <i>36</i>(4), 47-52. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40003163 J_ Justification_Administrative_and_Shoreline_Variances_Amended_9-13-21 5 Figure J.3 Sheet A1.1, Building Elevation As discussed in PN_Asdourian House Remodel, Residential Comparison section, the City of Renton has issued building permits which allow other single-family dwellings to substantially increase the height of existing or new single-family dwellings. As demonstrated in detail above, the existing dwelling cannot expand outward, there is simply nowhere to go but up. As shown in the Residential Comparison section, the majority of houses east of Lake Washington Blvd in the R-6 zone are substantially larger than the subject dwelling, and not only because of their larger lots, but in height and relation to the property boundaries too. Adding a garage on existing impervious surface area and increasing the building height will be in keeping with building activity within the immediate vicinity. The partial story increase will be consistent with other city-approved permits and the character of the surrounding homes. b. That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which subject property is situated; RESPONSE The historic Lake Washington Garden of Eden No 2 plat created lots that were 20 feet wide. Over time these narrow lots combined with adjacent lots to create a buildable area. These combinations are as J_ Justification_Administrative_and_Shoreline_Variances_Amended_9-13-21 6 small as two lots combined to five combined lots. The subject lot, # 0070, is a combination of two lots, #14 and #15 and is one of the narrowest lots east of Lake Washington Blvd. (By comparison, the adjacent lot to the north (#0011) is a combination of five lots and the adjacent lot to the south (#0080) is a combination of four ancient lots.) Despite having more area to work with, these lots have still been afforded the right to expand beyond the scope of the regulations considered in these variance requests. With regard to the setbacks and height, the granting of the requested variances is not anticipated to have any detrimental effect to the public welfare or neighboring properties. Multiple neighboring property owners have written in to support the Asdourians’ proposal. The Asdourians recognize that one property owner has written to express concern about their view of Lake Washington. (Note the view orientation of the house in question face North not East towards the Asdourian home. ) The Asdourians prepared a view analysis to submit with their proposal. (See RS Asdourian View Analysis Narrative 5-5-21 and RS Asdourian View Analysis Figures 5-5-21). The currently proposed partial story addition will have a drastically lower impact than what is evaluated in the view analysis, which already concluded the impact would be minor. The revised building design has a maximum wall plate height of 24 feet and a maximum roof peak of 30 feet. The flat roof has been replaced with a peak roof with two dormers. The net effect of the revised building design is to reduce the potential visual obstruction of Lake Washington as seen from upland properties. This is because of the significant elevation drop from more landward properties, the wide King County railroad and Lake Washington Blvd. right-of-way, and the presence of large shrubs and power lines between the private homes to the east and the Asdourian house. Whatever minimal visual impact the remodeled house might create, it is a far cry from being materially detrimental to the public welfare. The letters of support in the record show that adjacent neighbors do not believe the remodel will injury their property. c. That approval shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated; RESPONSE As shown in the Residential Comparison section, many of the houses east of Lake Washington Blvd in the R-6 zone substantially encroach into applicable setback areas. Because of the very narrow public access into the subdivision, a substantial majority of the dwellings in the immediate vicinity encroach into the front yard setback, if not beyond their boundaries of record. The same is true for the height of nearby homes, most of which are at least three stories, some including a basement level that is not available to this property because of the grade and proximity to the water on two sides. The Asdourians are not asking for a special privilege. Quite the opposite, the Asdourians are merely asking for the same setback and height privileges that other property owners in the vicinity and zone enjoy. d. That the approval is a minimum variance that will accomplish the desired purpose. RESPONSE As discussed above, there is virtually no reasonable use of the property without a variance. In an effort to minimize the required variances, the Asdourians have, in all possible cases, imposed upon themselves the minimum allowed building requirements. For instance, the garage they are requesting to add landward of the existing home will not be expansive, with room for storage or a children’s play area. The Asdourians are also not seeking high, luxurious ceilings in any of their stories. J_ Justification_Administrative_and_Shoreline_Variances_Amended_9-13-21 7 The proposed garage setbacks are dictated by a minimum necessary garage area. The requirement for all forms of accessibility, including wheelchair access from the rear and side of the vehicle, requires maximizing open-area garage space, which the conceptual design minimally achieves. Figure J.4 Sheet A2, #D Views The proposed two-thirds story on top of the landward end of the home is the minimum necessary variance to accommodate for the severely restrictive setbacks on all sides. The ceiling height in the first story is not altered. One foot is added to the second story ceiling height. The partial third story floor to ceiling height will vary from 5 feet at North and South wall lines to 10 feet at the interior ridge, depending on roof and floor structural system, i.e., the overall Max Roof Height will not exceed the required 30 feet. From the existing second story plate line at 16 feet 3-1/2inchs, the new wall plate height will be raised to 24 feet, an increase of 7 feet 8-1/2”, not exceeding the max 24-foot wall plate in the R-6 zone. The proposed height necessarily allows for flexibility at the time of actual structural member sizing, and it will achieve the minimum necessary variance. The view angle of the two-thirds story at the rear of the home likely will not overshadow the second story, which will protrude further waterward, and from the high angle of the hill behind, onlookers will not be deprived of views because of the upper story addition. This demonstrates that it is indeed the minimum necessary variance to accomplish the desired purpose, which is to have a modern livable home fit for a family, in a time when many of us work from home and require more space to do so, and where this home is surrounded by similar or larger structures. J_ Justification_Administrative_and_Shoreline_Variances_Amended_9-13-21 8 SHORELINE VARIANCE RMC 4-9-190.I 2.b. Variances: The Hearing Examiner shall have authority to grant conditional use permits and variances in the administration of the Renton Shoreline Master Program. 4. VARIANCES a. Purpose: The purpose of a variance permit is strictly limited to granting relief from specific bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the Shoreline Master Program where there are extraordinary circumstances relating to the physical character or configuration of property such that the strict implementation of the master program will impose unnecessary hardships on the applicant or thwart the policies set forth in RCW 90.58.020. Description of variances from Renton Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Table 4-3-090D7a: 1. Setbacks. The front, rear and side yard setbacks in the Shoreline Bulk Standards, Table 4-3-090D7a, are dictated by the underlying zoning discussed above in the administrative variance section. However, because the Asdourian lot is less than 100 feet in depth, and in accordance with Table 4-3-090D7a note 3, a minimum 25-foot setback from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) applies to the rear and north side yards. The 25-feet is calculated by adding the required 10-foot vegetative buffer and the 15-foot building setback from that buffer in note 3. The existing home is legally nonconforming as to every setback requirement, on all sides, because of the restrictive size and shape of the Asdourian lot. The Applicant is proposing to increase the building height within these setbacks, and add a garage landward of the existing home, within the side and front yard setbacks. However, the Applicant is not requesting to increase the building height above the maximum height allowed in the Renton SMP, which is 35 feet. The final height of all aspects of the finished building will be less than maximum 35- feet and consistent with the Renton Residential Building Height Guidelines. 2. Coverage Standards. Lot Coverage for Buildings. The descriptions of the narrow width of this lot, being less than the minimum, and proximity of water on both sides, demonstrate why this lot is also nonconforming as to lot coverage. The entire home is within 100 feet, but really more like 15 feet, of the OHWM. Under Table 4-3-090D7a, the maximum allowed lot coverage of buildings is 25%, measured as landward of the 10-foot vegetative buffer and within 100 feet of the OHWM. The only building coverage that is being added is the garage landward of the existing home. Impervious Surface Area. Under Table 4-3-090D7a, the maximum impervious surface is 50%, measured as landward of the buffer and within 100 feet of the OHWM. The existing site development exceeds this. However, the proposed construction will not result in an increase of impervious surface. The dwelling will rise from within the existing footprint and the garage will be constructed on an area already covered by concrete. Therefore, the Applicant is not applying for a new variance to the 50% maximum impervious surface requirement. This note is included to address the existing legal nonconforming aspect of the project. The shoreline variance approval criteria are discussed below in response to RMC 4-9-190 and WAC 173- 27-170. J_ Justification_Administrative_and_Shoreline_Variances_Amended_9-13-21 9 b. Decision Criteria: Variance permits should be granted in circumstances where denial of the permit would result in a thwarting of the policy enumerated in RCW 90.58.020. In all instances the applicant must demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances shall be shown, and the public interest shall suffer no substantial detrimental effect. RESPONSE RCW 90.58.020 recognizes that unrestricted construction on the privately owned shorelines of the state is not in the best public interest and, at the same time, recognizes that protecting private property rights is consistent with the public interest. The state legislation requires planning for and fostering all “reasonable and appropriate uses.” The state policy is designed to ensure the development of shorelines in a manner that will promote and enhance the public interest. State policy contemplates protecting against adverse effects to the public health, the land, and its vegetation and wildlife. Single-family residential uses are a priority on the shoreline under the Renton Shoreline Master Program. The Renton SMP established a Single-Family Shoreline Environmental Designation (SED). (RMC 4-3- 090C.3) The Renton SMP allows single family residential use when the development is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code and when residential structures provide setbacks and buffers consistent with Table 4-3-090D7a – Shoreline Bulk Standards, or as modified by an approved variance. RMC 4-3-090D.9. By creating a single-family SED, the city of Renton has identified a reasonable and appropriate use within the Shoreline jurisdiction that both enhances the public interest and protects private property rights. Specific Asdourian Property Considerations. The Asdourian property is uniquely bounded on two sides by the proximity of the shoreline. The historic Lake Washington Garden of Eden No 2 plat created lots that were 20 feet wide. Over time these narrow lots combined with adjacent lots to create a buildable area. These combinations are as small as two lots combined to five combined lots. The subject lot, #0070, is a combination of two lots, #14 and #15 and is one of the narrowest lots east of Lake Washington Blvd., at its max only 51-feet wide, which is less than the 60-foot minimum for new lots in the R-6 zone. This is why applying bulk and dimensional standards designed for newer, larger lots demonstrates these are extraordinary circumstances. i. Variance permits for development and/or uses that will be located landward of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), as defined in RCW 90.58.030(2)(c), and/or landward of any wetland as defined in RCW 90.58.030(2)(h), may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: *These are the same five criteria enumerated under WAC 173-27-170(2) and will serve as the same answer. RESPONSE The proposed improvements are all landward from the OHWM. (a) That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master program precludes, or significantly interferes with, reasonable use of the property; RESPONSE As described in detail above, strict application of the bulk, dimensional and performance standards to the Asdourian property would leave a small developable space, 25 feet from the east, north, and west edges and five feet from the south. This would leave enough room for a shed, but not a home. The Asdourians submit that this would preclude reasonable use of the property. J_ Justification_Administrative_and_Shoreline_Variances_Amended_9-13-21 10 The Washington Supreme Court has held that reasonable use of a property depends, to some extent, on the expectations of the property owner at the time of purchase of the property, and that the size, location, and physical attributes of a piece of property are relevant when deciding what is a reasonable use of a particular parcel of land. Buechel v. State Dep't of Ecology, 125 Wn.2d 196, 209 (1994). The Shoreline Hearings Board has also previously held that what is a reasonable use is based on an objective standard, not the desires of a particular applicant. Butler v. Ferry County and Department of Ecology, SHB No. 07-029 (March 21, 2008). The applicant meets all of these standards, because the property was purchased for single family residential use, the size of the lot is restricted more than normal, the location (surrounded on two sides by water), and other physical attributes as discussed above, preclude any possible use of the property for a home if subjected to strict application of the applicable bulk, dimension, or performance standards. This cannot be denied and is entirely objective, not based on the desires of the applicant. The existing home on the property dates to the early 1970s and requires updating, particularly in light of Mr. Asdourian’s future ADA accommodation requirements (which are not unique to Mr. Asdourian, as millions of Americans suffer from physically debilitating disabilities). Argument that the Asdourians should be content with the existing home that has outlived its versatility, or at least, it will in the next several years, is short-sighted. This is why the Asdourians are seeking to remodel their home into a modern, livable space, that can accommodate their anticipated needs. It is not possible to make reasonable use of the Asdourian property while also complying with the requirements of the SMP. RCW 90.58.030 and WAC 173-27-030 do not define reasonable use in the context of shoreline regulations. In the Renton SMP, RMC 4-3-090D.2.c.iii(c) addresses the concept of “reasonable use” solely within the context of critical area regulations, “Within the shoreline jurisdiction, reasonable use is demonstrated through the shoreline variance.” RMC 4-11-180, Definition R, defines reasonable use as, “A legal concept that has been articulated by federal and state courts in regulatory takings issues.” The reasonable use of the property includes the right to use the property for single-family dwelling in the R-6 zone, and within the Single-Family Residential SED. Reasonable use can also be defined as the right to use the single-family lot to the same degree as other owners in the vicinity enjoy. The applicable bulk, dimensional or performance standards are provided in RMC Table 4-3-090D7a – Shoreline Bulk Standards. Within the Single-Family SED:  Setbacks are “Governed by underlying zoning in chapter 4-2 RMC except in cases where specific shoreline performance standards provide otherwise. A zoning variance from the front and side yard standards may be granted administratively if needed to meet the established shoreline buffer or setback from OHWM, as specified in this Section and if the variance criteria of RMC 4-9- 250 are met.”  Lot Coverage for Buildings Landward of the Buffer and within 100 ft. of OHWM – Maximum is 25%. Neither of these criteria can be met and maintain reasonable use of the property. There are simply too many setbacks, that are too large, and coming in from too many sides. As discussed in detail above, the home is aging and will need a remodel or a complete teardown within several years. It is not necessary to commission a study to prove that homes on the shoreline are subjected to more adverse weather conditions that those surrounded by trees and other development. Modern materials hold up longer than those from the 1970s, which many are loathe to disturb because they could contain asbestos. There are two choices, remodel this home, or tear it down and build a new home. The path this applicant has chosen is the least disruptive. Were they to tear down and start from scratch, the applicant believes the J_ Justification_Administrative_and_Shoreline_Variances_Amended_9-13-21 11 proposal they are making would be acceptable, especially after touring the neighborhood. In order to avoid impacts to the shoreline, or extend further waterward, the only option for the Asdourians is to go up. Their proposal adds only the minimum amount of height possible, a two-thirds story, while accommodating the specific limitations of their site. However, as stated above they will not exceed the 35-foot maximum height called for in the SMP. The only reason a variance is required for setbacks is because the home already does not comply, and the need to add a garage, which is discussed further below. For the most part, the Asdourians will stay within the existing footprint of their home and not extend further into the setbacks. The only place the Asdourians seek to extend their footprint is landward of the OHWM, and only to build a garage. The Asdourians currently do not have a garage. Under the WAC 173-27-040(2)(g): “’Single-family residence’ means a detached dwelling designed for and occupied by one family including those structures and developments within a contiguous ownership which are a normal appurtenance.” One example of an “appurtenance” is a garage. Id. This means garages are “necessarily connected to the use and enjoyment of a single-family residence” and this garage will be “located landward of the ordinary high water mark.” Thus, under ordinary circumstances, the addition of this garage would be exempt from a shoreline substantial development permit. This is evidence that, in seeking to have a garage, the Asdourians are not overreaching. The Asdourians home already exceeds the 25% lot coverage requirement. Solely due to the garage, the Asdourians are proposing to add two minor building extensions eastward, a 100 foot addition and a 262 foot addition landward of the OHWM. They believe this is reasonable to allow them a garage. (b) 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; RESPONSE The subject lot does not meet the minimum lot width in the R-6 zone. The eastern end of the property is 25 feet shorter than 85% of the residential lots west of Lake Washington Blvd. in the vicinity. No other lot within this region of the Garden of Eden No 2 plat has an OHWM along two sides of the property. The irregular lot shape and natural features are specifically related to the subject property and are not the result of the Applicant or Owner’s own actions. Application of the SMP to this lot results in substantial and unique hardships from unique, lot-specific conditions. (c) That the design of the project is compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the comprehensive plan and shoreline master program and will not cause adverse impacts to the shoreline environment; RESPONSE The area is zoned R-6, which provides for single-family dwellings. Houses west of Lake Washington Blvd in the vicinity maximize their footprint and many are three stories tall. The proposed remodel of the existing house is compatible with other authorized uses in the area. The proposal will not add any impervious surface area within the property because the garage will be built on existing concrete. Within the 25-foot OHWM setback, the remodeled dwelling will rely exclusively on the existing footprint. There J_ Justification_Administrative_and_Shoreline_Variances_Amended_9-13-21 12 will be no construction of new impervious surface waterward of the 25-foot setback. Therefore, the proposed remodel will not cause adverse impacts to the shoreline environment. (d) That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area; RESPONSE As demonstrated in the Residential Comparison section 1.D in file PN Asdourian House Remodel Project Narrative, many dwellings within the immediate area maximize lot coverage and have three story homes within applicable setbacks. The Asdourians are not requesting a grant of special privilege the City has withheld from other properties in the area. Some examples include: (e) That the variance requested is the minimum necessary to afford relief; RESPONSE Wherever practical, the proposal complies with current regulations. Wherever necessary, the proposal incorporates the minimum possible variance to achieve a measured balance between strict compliance and reasonable use of the property. For instance, the proposal will not exceed the maximum height allowed in the SMP, 35 feet. The addition of a two-third story within the setback does not explicitly increase the scope of the existing nonconformance, and it is necessary to afford relief from what is already a severely restricted building site and a severely restricted home size for the R-6 zone. As discussed above, the applicant is faced with completely tearing down the existing home or remodeling it within the next several years. While it may be argued that the existing home size is fine, has served its prior occupants well, and the property’s constraints do not justify an increase in size, this ignores several important factors, discussed below. 1. Families require more space than ever before. Just before the pandemic began, the Pew Research Center released a report that, for the first time in over 160 years, the average number of habitants in U.S. households was increasing.2 Many of us are familiar with the downward trend of individual couples having four or eight children, stemming from the decline of the American family farm. As generations of Americans migrated to the city, and cities became more expense and dense, it has become increasingly difficult for children to move out and start their own families. Critically, and as a direct result of the cost of new homes in markets like ours, a growing share of the population lives in multigenerational households. Id. The homes built in the 1970s may have accommodated an urban family, with one or two children, who graduate and move on to their own careers, which provide income for their own home purchases. The same is not true today, and to conclude that a home constructed in the 1970s is adequate for a modern American family is not practical. 2 https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/10/01/the-number-of-people-in-the-average-u-s-household-is- going-up-for-the-first-time-in-over-160-years/ J_ Justification_Administrative_and_Shoreline_Variances_Amended_9-13-21 13 Today, the center of American life is no longer balanced between the workplace and the home. The home is as much a workplace at the office used to be, and this includes children as well. Seven in ten workers who say their jobs can mostly be done from home say they are teleworking all or most of the time.3 We are witnessing an exodus from Downtown Seattle as commercial towers scramble to keep tenants and white-collar workers flee to ever-more remote environments. Most significantly, these are not pandemic-specific factors, as the news tells us workers are quitting their jobs rather than returning to the office and a majority who say their job can be done from home say they’d like to work remotely all or most of the time post-pandemic. Id. For obvious reasons, working from home requires more space in the home, unless everyone is bunched around the dining room table, which is problematic for anyone who has to speak while working or who may have privilege concerns. As further evidence that the 1970s home is simply too small, a staggering 52% of young adults are living with their parents, the highest rate since the Great Depression.4 This includes young adults attending college irrespective of the pandemic, either because campuses are closed or education costs are too high. So, not only are modern homes expected to accommodate home-offices for mom and dad, but children also often stay longer than they did before, meaning that modern homes simply must have more space inside. This is a trend that can be seen throughout the region and the United States, simply by driving down the road. Expecting modern families to live within the confines of 1970s “urban” homes, designed and built for one couple up to two children who will leave at age 18, is no longer practical. The applicant is not asking for a variance ‘just because’ or to suit the applicant’s individual needs. The applicant is requesting a variance because this property is unique, is surrounded by other homes that are allowed to have the same features requested here, and because the current home is simply not capable of housing a modern American family. The proposed ceiling height is the minimum within the conceptual design proposed. The ceiling height of the first story is not altered. A foot is added to the second story ceiling height creating nine foot height, depending on structural requirements. The third story floor to ceiling height will vary from 5 feet at North and South wall lines to 10 feet at the interior ridge, depending of roof and floor structural system, i.e. the overall Max Roof Height will not exceed the required 30 foot. This is not a complete story addition, it is equivalent to an improved attic, with corners that require the occupant to crouch down at its edges. Many modern homes have square edges and rooftops, maximizing the interior square footage as, at least in the urban environments, interior space becomes more important and valuable than exterior space, as discussed above. From the existing second story plate line at 16 feet 3-1/2inchs, the new wall plate height will be raised to 24 feet, an increase of 7 feet 8-1/2”, not exceeding the max 24-foot wall plate in the R-6 zone. The proposed height necessarily allows for flexibility at the time of actual structural member sizing, and it will achieve the minimum necessary variance, consistent with the Renton Residential Building Height Guideline. Garages are a specifically allowed appurtenance to single family uses, and the existing home does not have one. The proposed garage setbacks are dictated by a minimum reasonable garage area. Additionally, the requirement for all forms of accessibility, including wheelchair access from the rear and 3 https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/12/09/how-the-coronavirus-outbreak-has-and-hasnt- changed-the-way-americans-work/ 4 https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/09/04/a-majority-of-young-adults-in-the-u-s-live-with-their- parents-for-the-first-time-since-the-great-depression/ J_ Justification_Administrative_and_Shoreline_Variances_Amended_9-13-21 14 side of the vehicle, requires maximizing the garage open space, which the conceptual design minimally achieves. (f) That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. RESPONSE The proposed use is an allowed use in the Single-Family SED. Remodeling the dwelling for continued single family use is consistent with the public interest in the SED. The remodeled structure will not encroach waterward of the existing footprint. No soil disturbance is proposed within the 25-foot OHWM setback. The additional height will not exceed the 35-foot SMP height limitation. The building will be no taller than the adjacent dwellings to the north and south. There are no houses between the subject property and the eastern right-of-way of Lake Washington Blvd. Houses east of the Boulevard are situated on elevated ground. As demonstrated in the View Analysis, the proposed building height will not materially obstruct views from dwellings east of Lake Washington Blvd, and with the modifications since the view analysis was conducted, any impact will be drastically reduced. Therefore, the public interest will not suffer a substantial detrimental effect for granting the requested variances. ii. Variance permits for development and/or uses that will be located waterward of the OHWM, as defined in RCW 90.58.030(2)(c), or within any wetland as defined in RCW 90.58.030(2)(h), may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: RESPONSE The proposed improvements are all upland from the OHWM. WAC 173-27-170(4): In the granting of all variance permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example if variances were granted to other developments and/or uses in the area where similar circumstances exist the total of the variances shall also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and shall not cause substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment. As discussed in detail above, and in the Residential Comparison, many other homes already maximize or exceed their footprint and have three stories. No cumulative impact from these other homes has materialized, in particular because of the large King County railroad/Lake Washington Blvd. right of way between this row of homes and the nearest upland/eastward homes, which have a significant elevation difference. There will be no adverse effect to the shoreline environment, let alone a substantial one. The use proposed by the Asdourians and those of their neighbors do not interfere with the rights of the public in the navigable water, and strikes the right balance between public and private interests. If every home on the same street were allowed to develop the same, it would still be consistent with, and uphold the meaning and intent, of the policies of RCW 90.58.020. CONCLUSION The applicant has demonstrated compliance with the applicable administrative and shoreline variance approval criteria, and the Asdourians respectfully request that the variances are granted.