HomeMy WebLinkAboutD_HEX_Updated_Asdourian_Decison_Reopen_2201041
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Shoreline and Administrative Variances - 1
CAO VARIANCE - 1
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
RE: Asdourian House Remodel
Shoreline and Administrative Variances
LUA21-000025, V-A, V-H
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
FINAL DECISION UPON RE-OPENED
HEARING
Summary
All five of the shoreline and administrative variance proposals requested by the Applicants are
approved with conditions.
This decision results from a re-opening of the hearing requested by the Applicants. A prior
final decision issued on November 2, 2021 only granted four of the Applicants’ five variance
requests. The November 2 decision denied a shoreline setback variance for third story living
space on the basis that with enough room for a 2,500 square foot home the Applicant didn’t
need the fifth variance for reasonable use. However, based upon new evidence presented by
the Applicants, it is concluded that approval of the shoreline setback variance is in fact
necessary for reasonable use. Without the variance the third story of the home would have the
odd configuration of an aircraft carrier, with a building area of about 300-400 square feet
surrounded by roughly 1,000 square feet of deck space. As testified by the Applicants’
architect, such a small amount of building space would not be worth the capital investment
necessary for the addition. Further, the aesthetic and environmental impacts of expanding the
allowed addition to that requested by the Applicant would be negligible. Importantly, staff
have now expressly considered the issue of whether the proposed third floor variance is
necessary and are still recommending approval. For these reasons, the third addition as
proposed by the Applicants is found to be marginally necessary for reasonable use and is
approved.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Shoreline and Administrative Variances - 2
CAO VARIANCE - 2
One important point of clarification is that the Applicants’ correction of house area from total
square feet to livable square feet did not make a difference in this final decision. One of the
two bases for the Applicant’s request to re-open the hearing was that it had not distinguished
between livable and gross floor area in its hearing exhibits. The “livable space” distinction had
already been accurately accounted for in the original November 2 decision. The conclusion of
that decision that the Applicants would be able to build a 2,500 square foot home if the
shoreline setback variance were to be denied largely remains the same. The more precise data
on livable space provided by the Applicants at the re-opened hearing suggested that the home
could be limited to 2,400 square feet instead of 2,500 square feet, but this difference is
negligible and debatable as discussed in the revised findings.
Changes in the Exhibits, Findings of Fact (FOF), and Conclusions of Law (COL) of the
original decision are identified in Track Change below.
Testimony
A computer-generated transcript of the reopened hearing has been prepared to provide an overview of
the hearing testimony. The transcript is provided for informational purposes only as Appendix A.
Exhibits
The October 19, 2021 staff report and Exhibits 1-13 identified at page 2 of the staff report itself were
admitted into the record during the hearing. The following exhibits were also admitted during the
hearing:
Exhibit 14: Staff PowerPoint
Exhibit 15: Google Maps
Exhibit 16: COR Maps
Exhibit 17 November 16, 2021 Request to Reopen Hearing
Exhibit 18 November 19, 2021 Site and Preliminary Plans
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
1. Applicants. Ryan and Ashley Asdourian, 3901 Lake Washington Blvd N, Renton, WA
98056.
2. Hearing. A hearing was held on the applications via the Zoom application on October 19,
2021. A reopened hearing was held on November 30, 2021.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Shoreline and Administrative Variances - 3
CAO VARIANCE - 3
3. Project Description. Ryan and Ashley Asdourian request two shoreline variances and three
administrative variances for the remodel and addition to an existing single-family residence located
within 100-feet of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of Lake Washington at 3901 Lake
Washington Blvd N, Renton, WA 98056.
The proposal involves the addition of a third story to an existing two-story residence and a 352 square
foot increase in the building footprint to 1,342 square feet, resulting in a new total living square
footage of 3,579 square feet. The upland area (landward of the OHWM) of the project site is only
2,275 square feet. The proposal would not increase existing on-site impervious surfaces and would
not exceed the maximum 24-foot wall plate height applicable in the R-6 district.
The two shoreline variances are as follows:
A. Building Coverage. The Applicants seek a shoreline variance to RMC 4-3090D.7a, which
limits lot coverage for buildings landward of the buffer and within 100-feet of the OHWM
to a maximum of 25 percent for the project site. The entire upland area of the existing lot
is located within 100 feet of the OHWM of Lake Washington. As shown on Exhibit 2, the
proposed addition/remodel would result in a 352 square foot increase to the 1,029 sq. ft.
building footprint resulting in a total of 1,342 square feet. The addition results in a
building coverage of 59 percent, which exceeds the 25% maximum building coverage.
B. Building Setback. The Applicants seek a shoreline variance to RMC 4-3-090D.7.a, which
requires a 10-foot vegetation conservation buffer as well as a 15-foot building setback to
the vegetation buffer for a combined setback of 25 to Lake Washington. The proposed
third story addition would encroach into the required 25-foot shoreline setback as would a
portion of the proposed building footprint additions and a proposed squaring of the second
floor roofline. The proposed increase in building footprint would not.
The three administrative variance requests are as follows:
A. Building Height. The Applicants seek an administrative variance to RMC 4-2-110A,
which authorizes a maximum of two stories for single-family homes in the R-6 district.
The Applicant proposes the addition of a third story.
B. Front and Side Yards. The Applicants seek an administrative variance to RMC 4-2-110A,
which requires a minimum 25-foot front yard and five-foot side yard with combined
minimum side yards of 15 feet in the R-6 zone. The Applicants propose a 0-foot front
yard setback, a 4-foot 9-inch side yard setback and a combined side yard setback of 12
feet.
4. Characteristics of Surrounding Area. The project site is in a segment of beach homes that
stretches from Kennydale Beach Park to a promontory to the north accessed by N. 40th Place. This
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Shoreline and Administrative Variances - 4
CAO VARIANCE - 4
segment of beach serves as a natural and logical reference point for evaluating the land use character
of the surrounding community. Ex. 12 identifies that in this segment there are 25 homes with an
average livable area size of 2790 square feet. These 25 homes are composed of two one story homes,
18 two story homes and 5 three story homes.
5. Adverse Impacts. There are no significant adverse impacts associated with the project. The
project is exempt for State Environmental Policy Act review. Impacts are more specifically
addressed below.
A. Environmental Impacts. As proposed the proposal might impact shoreline ecological
function by increased shading from the third-floor addition. At least in the case of
overwater piers on Lake Washington, shading can have adverse ecological impacts in part
by providing hiding places for predator fish. See, e.g. Burnside v. Seattle, Shoreline
Hearings Board, p. 13. Shading impacts aren’t addressed in the record. However, as
approved it doesn’t appear that the more limited proposed third floor addition would make
any appreciable increase in shading of the adjoining lake1. As proposed, the shading
impacts may also be nominal, given the proposed setback from the deck and the amount
of shading already occurring from the existing use.
No other environmental impacts are manifest from the record. As noted in the staff report,
the footprint expansion is located on the east side of the property, away from the Lake
Washington shoreline. Further, the footprint addition would involve the replacement of
existing pavement, which is considered pollution-generating impervious surface, with
building footprint, which is considered non-pollution generating impervious surface.
B. View Impacts. No significant view impacts are anticipated.
The proposal is not found to significantly impact views because it complies with the
City’s maximum height standards. Table 4-3-090D7a, Shoreline Bulk Standards,
establishes a maximum height of 35 feet for buildings. Footnote 7 requires compliance
with the maximum height of the underlying zone if that height less. For the R-6, zone the
underlying height is less. RMC 4-2-110A, applicable to the R-6 zone, along with Note 18
allows wall plate height of up to 24 feet with an additional 6 feet for roofs with a pitch of
equal to or greater than 4:12 or greater. The project is conditioned to comply with the R-6
height limit. The City Council has also adopted some standards protecting view corridors.
As identified in the Applicant’s view impact analysis no such standards apply to the
project area.
The height and view corridor code provisions set what the City Council has determined
are acceptable heights and hence acceptable view impacts at the project area. As noted by
the Applicants, if they weren’t seeking a variance to building story standards, they would
be free to construct a two-story structure with raised ceilings that extend to the maximum
1 It is recognized that the large deck space proposed by the Applicant may also significantly reduce shading impacts.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Shoreline and Administrative Variances - 5
CAO VARIANCE - 5
30-foot height limit of the R-6 zone. Given that the City Council has deemed 30-foot
height to be acceptable in this location, the proposal is not found to create any significant
height impacts.
C. Compatibility. The proposal as approved is fully compatible with surrounding
development. As discussed in Finding of Fact No. 6 below, the proposal as approved will
be of similar size to surrounding development and is the same type of use, i.e. single-
family residential use.
6. Need for Variance I. The three administrative variances and shoreline lot coverage variances
are necessary for the addition of a garage and reasonably sized home. The shoreline setback variance
is not necessary for reasonable use because approval of the other three variances will result in a home
that is roughly 2,500-2,700 square feet in area, which is close to or at the average area of other homes
in the vicinity.
At the outset it should be recognized that the need for the variance is due both to the small size of the
subject lot and the fact that it abuts shoreline on two sides. The upland portion of the lot is only
2,275 square feet and of this small area only what appears to be roughly a third is outside the 25-foot
shoreline buffer. The result of this configuration makes most of the currently existing home
nonconforming and does not leave sufficient unrestricted space to add a garage.
The inability to add a garage necessitates the administrative setback variances. As recognized in the
DOE comments, Ex. 9, garages are identified as an appurtenance to single family residences in WAC
173- 27- 040(2)(g). This means they are necessarily connected to the use and enjoyment of a single-
family residence. The Applicants do not currently have a garage. They could theoretically convert
living space into a garage, but at 1,800 square feet the home is already significantly smaller than the
average 2,790 square foot size of other homes in the vicinity. Consequently, the proposed garage
addition is necessary for the reasonable use of the subject property. The proposed location of the
garage additions are the minimum necessary for reasonable use since there is nowhere else on the
project site that can accommodate the additions.
The small lot and shoreline setback necessitate the administrative height variance. Without the height
variance the home size would be limited to roughly 2,1002 square feet without any significant second
floor deck space. This is significantly less than the 2,790 square foot average of surrounding homes,
which . While this necessity may not rise to the level of depriving the Applicant of reasonable use
under the shoreline variance criteria, it does deprives the property owners of rights and privileges
enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity under the administrative variance criteria. Given the
high value of waterfront properties, the comparatively small size of the home can have a significant
impact on the Applicant’s property value.
2 The floor plan and site plans submitted by the Applicant, Ex. 2 and 5, do not have sufficient information to
precisely calculate the areas added to the project site by each of the requested variances. Areas referenced to as
“roughly” being of a certain size in this decision are based upon rough interpolations of some of the dimensions
shown in Ex. 2 and 5.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Shoreline and Administrative Variances - 6
CAO VARIANCE - 6
With approval of all three administrative variances and the shoreline lot coverage variance, the
Applicants have reasonable use of their property. The Applicant will have room on the third floor to
add at least 400 square feet of additional floor space for a roughly 2,500 square foot home, which
puts it within range of the average size of surrounding homes. Overall, it simply cannot be concluded
that the Applicant would be deprived of the reasonable use of their property if authorized to build a
2,500 square foot home.
7. Re-Opened Hearing. The hearing for the November 2, 2021 Final Decision was re-opened by
email order dated November 17, 2021 to give the Applicants a fair opportunity to address the basis of
the November 2 decision. The shoreline setback variance was denied in the November 2 decision
because it was determined that the Applicants had sufficient reasonable use of their property with
approval of four of the five requested variances. Whether or not the Applicants had reasonable use
with approval of four of the five variances was not an issue that was addressed during the h earing.
For that reason, the hearing was re-opened and republicized to give the Applicants and any other
interested parties an opportunity to discuss reasonable use rights under those conditions.
8. Livable Space. The livable space of the home without a third floor addition variance would
be approximately 2,500 square feet, the same figure derived in FOF No. 6 of the November 2, 2021
Final Decision.
A significant factual issue in the Applicants’ variance requests is how the home size requested by th e
Applicants compares to the surrounding homes. As identified in FOF No. 4, the average size of
surrounding homes is 2,790 square feet. As demonstrated by the Applicants’ attorney during the re-
opened hearing, this average is based upon King County Assessor records, which provides the
amount of “living space” for surrounding homes. As testified by Applicants’ counsel, the King
County Assessor’s webpage defines “living space” as “finished space,” which excludes garages. Ex.
2 of the Applicants’ floor plans identified the “Proposed livable Total” for the proposed project as
4,043 square feet. The staff report identified the size of the proposal as involving “a new total living
square footage of 3,579 square feet.” The staff report’s 3,579 square foot figure was adopted into
FOF No. 3 of the November 2 Final Decision.
Since the November 6, 2021 quoted the staff report finding that the home had 3,579 square feet of
livable space, the Applicant understandably assumed in its Request to Reopen Hearing, Ex. 17, that
the livable space calculations in the November 2, 2021 Final Decision were based upon this
inaccurate number. That is incorrect. The estimates of livable floor space for a two -story home in
FOF No. No. 6 were based upon eyeball estimates of the floor plans provided by the Applicants,
excluding garage space. As noted in Footnote No. 2 to the November 2, 2021 Final Decision, the
floor plans did not provide enough information to make precise assessments of actual floor area. As
noted in Page 5 of that Final Decision, the estimated floor space of the home without the shoreline
height variance was estimated to be 2,100 square feet. Ex. 18, submitted for the re-opened hearing,
identified the precise “living space” (without the garages) as 2,124 feet.
The November 2, Final Decision estimated that a third floor addition that complied with the shoreline
setback could range from 400-600 square feet. At hearing, the Applicant’s architect, Bruce Sinkey,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Shoreline and Administrative Variances - 7
CAO VARIANCE - 7
in response to Examiner questions, made an off-the-cuff “guess” that the addition could be 300
square feet. See Appendix A (transcript), p. 9. Mr. Sinkey’s on-the-spot estimate appears to be
somewhat conservative. The Ex. 2 floor plan shows a first floor addition totaling 252 square feet
landward of the setback variance. There appears to be well over 50 additional square feet that is
available for a reasonably shaped third square addition landward of the setback. Very likely, the third
floor area behind the setback could accommodate a 376 square foot addition, which would result in
2,500 square feet of livable space. The 2,500 figure is what was used in th e November 2, 2021 Final
Decision to compare the size of the home to other homes in the vicinity. See FOF No. 6, last
paragraph. However, given the testimony of Mr. Sinkey, the 2,500-2,700 range identified in former
FOF No. 6 is probably too high of an estimate. The potential range with a third story addition
landward of the shoreline setback is more likely 2,400-2,600.
9. Need for Shoreline Height Variance. The Applicants’ established at the re-opened hearing
that the requested shoreline setback variance is necessary for the reasonable use of their property.
As testified by Mr. Sinkey, Applicants’ architect, limiting the third story to a 300-400 square
foot addition would not be feasible because of the extensive work necessary for a third story.
Appendix A, p. 10. Limiting the third floor in this fashion would also create a strange aircraft carrier
configuration, with a room sized structure surrounded on at least two sides with roughly 1,000 square
feet of deck space. (Estimate based upon See Ex. 2 and 5). Mr. Sikes further testified that the full
third floor area proposed by the Applicants is necessary to accommodate a reasonable and safe
location of the stairs. Appendix A, p. 7-9.
Pertinent to the moderately compelling need of the variance is the lack of adverse impacts if
the variance is granted. As determined in FOF No. 5B, the proposed shoreline height variance is
fully consistent wit the City’s building height standards and for that reason alone the height is not
found to be significantly adverse. Beyond this, as testified by staff at the October 19, 2021 hearing,
the house is also below grade of adjoining right of way, which further reduces height impacts.
Finally, there is nothing in the record to suggest that approval of the shoreline height variance would
create significant shading impacts, since the addition will be setback 15.5 feet from the edge of the
third-floor deck. See Ex. 18, Sheet A2.3.
Overall, with approval of the shoreline height variance the livable space of the proposed home
would increase from a 2,500 square foot home to a 3,076 square foot home. This would make the
home 186 square feet larger than the 2,790 square average for surrounding homes as determined in
FOF No. 4. Given the moderately compelling need for the variance coupled with the absence of any
appreciable adverse impacts, the shoreline height variance requested by the Applicants can be
construed as reasonably necessary for construction of a reasonably sized home.
In addition to the shoreline height variance, the shoreline setback variance also includes a
variance to the height of the second floor roof and the encroachment of the garage additions. As
noted in the Applicants’ request to reopen the hearing, the staff report incorrectly identified that the
garage additions did not encroach into the shoreline setback, so this issue was not addressed in the
November 2, 2021 Final Decision. The Final Decision also failed to consider that approval of the
shoreline setback variance was necessary to square off the roofline of the second floor to
accommodate the third-floor deck .
The shoreline setback variance for the garage encroachment is found necessary for re asonable
use for the reasons identified in FOF No. 6. The shoreline setback variance for the second-floor
roofline is found necessary for reasonable use because the increase in height is negligible with no
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Shoreline and Administrative Variances - 8
CAO VARIANCE - 8
impacts while at the same time conferring substantial beneficial use to the property owner (i.e.
enabling the third floor deck space).
Conclusions of Law
1. Authority. RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies administrative variances as Type II applications and
shoreline variance as Type III applications. RMC 4-8-080(C)(2) requires consolidated permits to
each be processed under “the highest-number procedure”. The shoreline variance has the highest
numbered review procedure, so both shoreline permits must be processed as Type III applications.
As Type III applications, RMC 4-8-080(G) grants the Examiner with the authority to hold a hearing
and issue a final decision on them, subject to closed record appeal to the City Council.
2. Zoning/Shoreline Designation. The subject property is zoned Residential 6 (R-6). The
shoreline environmental designation is Single-Family Residential.
3. Comparable Nonconforming Uses. Other nonconforming homes can be used to assess the
reasonableness and necessity of the Applicants’ variance requests.
As shall be evident in the analysis below, the variances approved for the project are heavily
dependent upon recognition that nonconforming homes in the vicinity are of similar size to the
proposal as limited by this decision. Review of the COR maps of the area of comparison identified in
Finding of Fact No. 4 reveals that most, if not all, of the homes in the comparison area are
nonconforming. The homes appear to be nonconforming as to both shoreline regulations subject to
the Applicant’s request and many of the homes also don’t appear to comply with the setback
standards that are the subject of the Applicant’s administrative variance requests.
As identified by the Examiner at the hearing, as a general matter nonconforming uses may not be
used to support variance applications. See Ling v. Whatcom County Board of Adjustment, 21 Wn.
App. 497 (1978). The judicial reasoning for this conclusion is compelling – if a City amends its
zoning code to depart from current development patterns, that objective can be significantly
undermined if variance applicants are allowed to rely upon existing nonconforming development
patterns to perpetuate it.
The only case that goes in a different direction is Sherwood v. Grant County, 40 Wn. App. 496
(1985). Sherwood dealt with a variance application to place a mobile home in a zoning district that
prohibited mobile homes. The court found acceptable “special circumstances” because the project
site was located near numerous other mobile homes, some of them nonconforming within the same
zoning district. The court found Sherwood distinguishable from Ling because it found the project site
to be in a “unique” location, thus precluding the “domino effect” that was of concern in Ling. 40 Wn.
App. at 499.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Shoreline and Administrative Variances - 9
CAO VARIANCE - 9
Ling and Sherwood can be reconciled by a determination of whether a condition is indeed “special”
(or “unique” as referenced in Sherwood). If the circumstance is special, it by definition does not arise
very often and therefore on that basis will not set a precedent that will apply to numerous other
properties and thereby undermine the objectives of the development standard subject to the variance.
This interpretation is consistent with the general concept of variances, which is to provide an out for
“special” development circumstances that were not reasonably anticipated in the zoning code, while
leaving more generally applicable unanticipated situations to the legislative amendment process. As
to the administrative variances, the circumstances of the shoreline area likely are unique – the small
lots, large homes and associated high property values are likely all unique to the shoreline portion of
the R-6 zoning district that is the source of the regulations subject to the administrative variance
requests. Most of the land mass within the City’s R-6 zoning district is not composed of shoreline
lots, so the nonconformities of the homes along the Lake Washington shoreline can be considered a
unique R-6 area where the approval of the variances will not set a precent for undermining the R-6
setback and height limits in the rest of the R-6 district.
The shoreline vicinity of the project site is not as easy to classify as unique within the regulatory
reach of the shoreline regulations of the Applicants’ variance requests. The nonconforming homes
used as comparables in Ex. 12 are all nonconforming as to shoreline impervious surface and setback
regulations because the lots involved are small. This is not a condition that is unique to the vicinity
of the project area. As shown in the City’s COR maps, a large majority of all the Lake Washington
waterfront lots are small. As a result, it is likely that many, if not most, waterfront homes along Lake
Washington are nonconforming as to shoreline building coverage and setback requirements.
However, Lake Washington is not the only waterbody within shoreline jurisdiction in the City of
Renton. As identified at p. 81 of the City’s comprehensive plan, there are several rivers also subject
to shoreline jurisdiction. The City’s COR maps reveal that the lots along these rivers are not all
substandard as with the waterfront lots, although much of the rivers are separated from adjoining uses
by greenbelts. Overall, it can be concluded that the nonconforming lots in the vicinity of the project
area are a unique condition found along the Lake Washington portion of the City’s shoreline
jurisdiction. As such, it is appropriate to consider the surrounding nonconforming homes in assessing
the reasonableness of the Applicants’ shoreline variance requests.
4. Review Criteria. RMC 4-9-190(I)(4)(b) sets the criteria for shoreline variances and RMC 4-
9-250B6 sets the criteria for administrative variances. The applicable regulations and policies are
quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law:
Administrative Variances
RMC 4-9-250B6a: 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;
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Shoreline and Administrative Variances - 10
CAO VARIANCE - 10
5. Criterion Met. The criterion is met for all three administrative variances for the reasons
identified in Finding of Fact No. 6.
RMC 4-9-250B6b: 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;
6. Criterion Met. The criterion is met for all three administrative variances for the reasons
identified in Finding of Fact No. 5.
RMC 4-9-250B6c: 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;
7. Criterion Met. The criterion is met for all three administrative variances. The setback
variances merely give the Applicants the ability to have a garage while at the same time having a
reasonably sized home as detailed in Finding of Fact No. 6, which is a right/privilege shared by most
single-family homeowners. The height variance enables the Applicants to have a home of comparable
size to surrounding homes as identified in Finding of Fact No. 6.
RMC 4-9-250B6d: That the approval is a minimum variance that will accomplish the desired
purpose.
8. Criterion Met. The criterion is met for all three administrative variances. As detailed in
Finding of Fact No. 6, the Applicant is only able to have both a garage and a home of comparable size
to others in the vicinity if all three administrative variances are granted. In this regard, the variances
are the minimum that will accomplish reasonable use of the property.
Shoreline Variances
RMC 4-9-190I4b: 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.
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:
(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;
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Shoreline and Administrative Variances - 11
CAO VARIANCE - 11
9. Criterion Only Met for Building Coverage. The criterion is met for both shoreline variances.
the shoreline building coverage variance. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 6, a two-car garage
qualifies as minimum reasonable use for a lot developed with a single-family lot. As further
determined in Finding of Fact No. 6, the shoreline building coverage requirement precludes the
Applicants from adding a garage without having to reduce the size of their home to an unreasonably
small size. Approval of the shoreline setback variance is necessary for the reasons identified in FOF
No. 9.
As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 6, the shoreline setback variance does not meet the criterion. With
approval of the four other variance requests, the Applicants can have both a two-car garage and a
reasonably sized home. Consequently, approval of the variance is not necessary for reasonable use of
the property.
9.
RMC 4-9-190I4bib: 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;
10. Criterion Met. The criterion is met for both shoreline variance requests. As outlined in
Finding of Fact No. 6, the need for the variance arises from the small size of the subject property and
the unusual circumstance that the property fronts Lake Washington on two sides.
RMC 4-9-190I4bic: 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;
11. Criterion Met for Building Coverage Variance. The criterion is met for both shoreline
variances the shoreline building coverage variance for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5
and 9. Under the same finding, it’s not entirely clear if the shoreline setback variance will not cause
adverse impacts to the environment due to the increase in shading impacts that would result from
building closer to the shoreline.
RMC 4-9-190I4bid: That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by
the other properties in the area;
12. Criterion Only Met for Building Coverage Variance. The criterion is met for both the
shoreline building coverage variances. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 6 and 9, the shoreline
building coverage variances are is necessary for the Applicants to accommodate a two-car garage
while at the same time also accommodating a reasonably sized home of comparable size to the other
homes in their vicinity. As determined in FOF No. 9, the shoreline setback variance is reasonably
necessary to increase the size of the home to that comparable with surrounding homes. As such,
approval of the variances cannot be construed as a special privilege since approval would confer
rights it is a right enjoyed by most other homeowners in the area.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Shoreline and Administrative Variances - 12
CAO VARIANCE - 12
RMC 4-9-190I4bie: That the variance requested is the minimum necessary to afford relief; and
13. Criterion Only Met for Building Coverage Variance. For the reasons identified in Finding of
Fact No. 6 and 9, the criterion is met for both the building coverage variances. The shoreline
building coverage variances uses all of the space available and necessary to accommodate both a two-
car garage and a reasonably sized home in conjunction with the approval of the administrative
variances. The criterion is not met for the shoreline setback variance because the Applicants will
have a reasonably sized home along with a two-car garage upon approval of the other four variances.
There is no remaining legitimate “relief” to be sought under such circumstances.
RMC 4-9-190I4bif: That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
14. Criterion Met for Building Coverage Variance. The criterion is met for both the shoreline
building coverage variances because they it enables reasonable use of property without creating
significant adverse impacts as determined in Findings of Fact No. 5, 6 and 96. The criterion may not
be met for the shoreline setback variance because of potential shading impacts at an individual
project level or cumulatively.
DECISION
The shoreline and administrative variance applications are all approved as they meet all the
applicable regulations and policies addressed in this decision, provided they comply with the
following conditions:
1. A building height survey prepared by a qualified professional shall be completed and
submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to
the approval of the building permit’s framing inspection. The height survey shall
clearly confirm the proposed addition complies with the maximum wall plate height
of 24 feet with a total maximum height of 30 feet to the top of the pitched roof.
2. The east building elevation shall be revised to provide one of the following:
1. The front porch projects in front of the garage a minimum of five feet (5’),
and is a minimum of twelve feet (12’) wide, or
2. The roof extends at least five feet (5') (not including eaves) beyond the
front of the garage for at least the width of the garage plus the porch/stoop
area, or
3. The garage doors contain a minimum of thirty percent (30%) glazing,
architectural detailing (e.g. trim and hardware), and are recessed from the front
façade a minimum of five feet (5’), and from the front porch a minimum of
seven feet (7’).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Shoreline and Administrative Variances - 13
CAO VARIANCE - 13
The revised elevations shall be provided to the Current Planning Project
Manager for review and approval at the time of Building Permit review. If
none of the options above are feasible, the applicant shall demonstrate that the
proposal would comply with the applicable design guidelines for this standard
as approved by the Current Planning Project Manager.
3. The primary building entrance does not include a porch or stoop. The entry shall be
reviewed to provided either a porch or stoop with a minimum depth of five fee and
the minimum height of twelve inches above grade, or the applicant shall demonstrate
that the porch or stoop cannot be provided due to accessibility (ADA) requirements.
If the applicant is unable to demonstrate compliance with this standard, the applicant
shall demonstrate that the proposal would comply with the applicable design
guidelines for this standard as approved by the Current Planning Project Manager.
4. Revised elevations shall be submitted with the Building Permit application
demonstrating that twenty-five percent (25%) of the façade facing the private access
easement would be comprised of windows and/or doors.
5. Building elevations shall be provided at the time of Building Permit review that
provide:
1. Eaves projecting from the roof of the entire building at least twelve inches
(12") with horizontal fascia or fascia gutter at least five inches (5") deep on the
face of all eaves, and
2. Rakes on gable ends must extend a minimum of two inches (2") from the
surface of exterior siding materials.
6. Revised elevations shall be submitted at the time of Building Permit review that
provide the required:
1. Three and one half inch (3 1/2") minimum trim surrounds all windows and
details all doors, or
2. A combination of shutters and three and one half inches (3 1/2") minimum
trim details all windows, and three and one half inches (3 1/2") minimum trim
details all doors.
DATED this 14th of December, 2021.
________________________________
Phil A. Olbrechts
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
RMC 4-8-080(G) provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to
the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) requires appeals of the hearing examiner’s decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Shoreline and Administrative Variances - 14
CAO VARIANCE - 14
to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner’s decision. A
request for reconsideration to the hearing e examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal
period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(8) and RMC 4-8-100(G)(4). A new fourteen (14) day
appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information
regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk’s Office, Renton City Hall – 7th
floor, (425) 430-6510.
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
CITY OF RENTON
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
EXHIBITS
Project Name:
Asdourian House Remodel
Project Number:
LUA21-000025, SME, V-A, V-H
Date of Report
October 19, 2021
Staff Contact
Jill Ding
Senior Planner
Project Contact/Applicant
Eric Eisemann
E2 Land Use Planning, LLC
2554 NE 48th Ave
Portland, OR 97213
Project Location
3901 Lake Washington
Blvd N. Renton, WA 98056
The following exhibits are included with the Hearing Examiner Decision:
Exhibits 1-13: As shown in the Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner
Exhibit 14: Staff PowerPoint
Exhibit 15: COR Maps, http://rp.rentonwa.gov/Html5Public/Index.html?viewer=CORMaps
Exhibit 16: Google Earth, https://www.google.com/earth/
Exhibit 17: Request to Reopen Hearing (dated November 16, 2021)
Exhibit 18: November 19, 2021 Site and Preliminary Plans