Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdmin Report_SFR 1409 VA A. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT & DECISION  DECISION:  APPROVED (in part)  APPROVED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS  DENIED (in part)  REPORT DATE: December 8, 2016  Project Name: SFR 1409 Variance  Owner/Applicant: Earl Ingram, 1411 Shattuck Avenue S, Renton, WA 98055  File Number: LUA16-000835, V-A  Project Manager: Jill Ding, Senior Planner  Project Summary: The applicant is requesting an Administrative Variance from the maximum height and front yard setback requirements for the construction of a new 2,310 square foot single family residence with a 672 square foot attached garage. The project site is located within the Residential-6 (R-6) zone. The R-6 zone requires a minimum front yard setback of 25 feet and permits a maximum height of 2 stories with a wall plate height of 24 feet. Shed roofs are permitted to exceed the 24-foot maximum wall plate height provided the average height of the shed roof is 24 feet. The applicant is proposing a minimum front yard setback of 20 feet, and a shed roof with an average height of 29 feet in 3 stories. Access to the site is proposed via a shared driveway off of Shattuck Avenue S. No critical areas are mapped on the project site.  Project Location: 1409 Shattuck Avenue S  Site Area: 4,500 square feet (0.10 acres)   / B. EXHIBITS: Exhibit 1: Staff Report  Exhibit 2: Site Plan  Exhibit 3: Building Elevations  Exhibit 4: Floor Plans      C. GENERAL INFORMATION: Owner(s) of Record: Earl Ingram 1411 Shattuck Avenue S Renton, WA 98055  Zoning Classification: R-6  Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: Residential Medium Density (RMD)  Existing Site Use: Vacant  Critical Areas: None mapped  Neighborhood Characteristics:   North: Single family residential, R-6 zone  East: Single family residential, R-6 zone  South: Single family residential, R-6 zone  West: Single family residential, R-6 zone  Site Area: 0.10 acres  D. FINDINGS OF FACT (FOF): The Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the above master application for review on October 27, 2016 and determined the application complete on November 2, 2016. The project complies with the 120-day review period. The project site is located on a vacant lot addressed as 1409 Shattuck Avenue S. Access to the site would be provided via an existing shared driveway off of Shattuck Avenue S. The property is located within the RMD Comprehensive Plan land use designation. The site is located within the R-6 zoning classification. There are no trees on the project site. There are no critical areas mapped on the project site. No public or agency comments were received during the 14-day public comment period. Representatives from various city departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address issues raised by the proposed development. These comments are contained in the official file, and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report and the Departmental Recommendation at the end of this report. Variance Analysis: The applicant is requesting approval of three Administrative Variances, one from the maximum height, one from the maximum number of stories, and the other from front yard setback requirements for the construction of a new 2,310 square foot single family residence with a 672 square foot attached garage. The R-6 zone requires a minimum front yard setback of 25 feet and permits a maximum height of 2 stories with a wall plate height of 24 feet. Shed roofs are permitted to exceed the 24-foot maximum wall plate height provided the average height of the shed roof is 24 feet. The applicant is proposing a minimum front yard setback of 20 feet, and a shed roof with an average height of 29 feet in 3 stories. Compliance Variance Criteria and Analysis  ( 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. Staff Comment: The applicant contends that the variances are necessary due to zoning changes that occurred while he was recovering from spinal surgery. The project site was rezoned from R-8 to R-6. At the time the lot was created, R-8 zoned lots were permitted a minimum lot size of 4,500 square feet with a minimum width of 50 feet and a minimum depth of 80 feet. The minimum setbacks required were: 20 feet in front, 20 feet in the rear, and 5 feet on the sides. This results in a minimum building pad area of 40 feet by 40 feet or 1,600 square feet. In addition, the maximum building height was 30 feet as measured to the midpoint of the roof. Setback: The R-6 standards require a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet with a minimum width of 60 feet and a minimum depth of 90 feet. The minimum setback requirements are: a minimum front and rear yard of 25 feet and a combined minimum side yard of 15 feet, provided no less than 5 feet is provided on either side. The existing lot size is 4,500 square feet with a width of 60 feet and a depth of 75 and would be considered non-conforming. The width of the lot complies with the minimum 60-foot lot width requirement of the R-6 zone; therefore the applicant has been able to demonstrate compliance with the R-6 side yard setbacks. The 75-foot depth is 15 feet less than the minimum depth required in the R-6 zone. The minimum building pad area available on the project site would be 45 feet by 25 feet or 1,125 square feet. To accommodate the increased setback areas on the existing non-conforming lot, the applicant is requesting a 20-foot minimum front yard setback, which is 5 feet less than the minimum 25-foot setback required. Staff concurs that the applicant suffers practical difficulties due to the size of the existing lot and therefore, staff is supportive of the requested variance to reduce the 25-foot front setback to 20 feet.  ( Stories: The second variance requested is to the maximum number of 2 stories permitted in the R-6 zone. The applicant contends that the additional story is needed due to space requirements for an elevator, which is proposed to accommodate the applicant’s medical needs. After reviewing the proposed floor plans, the first floor is largely comprised of garage area, stair area and elevator area. The second and third stories are proposed to accommodate the living area. Therefore, staff concurs that the applicant suffers practical difficulties and that the requested 3rd story is needed due to the space requirements of the elevator.   ( Stories: The second variance requested is to the maximum number of 2 stories permitted in the R-6 zone. The applicant contends that the additional story is needed due to space requirements for an elevator, which is proposed to accommodate the applicant’s medical needs. After reviewing the proposed floor plans, the first floor is largely comprised of garage area, stair area and elevator area. The second and third stories are proposed to accommodate the living area. Therefore, staff concurs that the applicant suffers practical difficulties and that the requested 3rd story is needed due to the space requirements of the elevator.  Not compliant Wall Plate Height: The applicant is also requesting a variance to the maximum wall plate height requirement of 24 feet. The applicant is proposing a shed roof with an average wall plate height of approximately 29 feet. The applicant contends that the additional height is needed due to the space required for the elevator. After looking at other homes in the surrounding vicinity, staff does not concur that special circumstances exist, which mandate the need for the additional height above the maximum 24-foot average wall plate permitted for residences in this zoning designation. After reviewing the proposal, it appears that the additional 5-foot height variance requested may not be necessary due to design modifications that could be made to the proposed residence, as well as grading that could be done to lower the overall height of the proposed residence.  ( 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. Staff Comment: The applicant contends that the requested variances would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The applicant contends that there are other larger homes in the vicinity of the project site that were developed to the previous R-8 development standards and that therefore, the proposed residence would be compatible with the existing development pattern in the neighborhood. Furthermore, the applicant contends that many of the existing residences in the area have been condemned due to the proposed SR 167 to I-405 fly over ramp that is proposed. Setback: Staff concurs that the requested front yard setback variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding properties within the zone, due to the existing development patterns. The proposed residence would be located at the end of a shared driveway and the proposed setback would match the setback of the existing neighboring residence.  ( Stories: Staff also concurs that the requested third story would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding properties. Most of the first story would consist of garage, stairway, and elevator area with the living area on the second and third stories. The neighboring residence has 3 stories and therefore it does not appear that adding a 3rd story to the proposed residence would be a detriment to surrounding properties.  Not Compliant Height: Staff does not concur that the requested variance to the overall maximum wall plate height limits would not be materially detrimental. Review of the existing development pattern in the neighborhood suggests that most of the existing homes are shorter two story single family residences. As such, exceeding the maximum wall plate height of 24 feet would be injurious to the property and zone and would grant a special privilege inconsistent with limitation upon other properties, as the height would be out of character with the existing development pattern of the neighborhood. Therefore, staff is recommending that the overall height of the proposed residence be modified to comply with the maximum wall plate height of 24 feet, provided that for shed roof style homes, the maximum wall plate height may be exceeded if the average height of the wall plates is 24 feet.   Not Compliant Height: Staff does not concur that the requested variance to the overall maximum wall plate height limits would not be materially detrimental. Review of the existing development pattern in the neighborhood suggests that most of the existing homes are shorter two story single family residences. As such, exceeding the maximum wall plate height of 24 feet would be injurious to the property and zone and would grant a special privilege inconsistent with limitation upon other properties, as the height would be out of character with the existing development pattern of the neighborhood. Therefore, staff is recommending that the overall height of the proposed residence be modified to comply with the maximum wall plate height of 24 feet, provided that for shed roof style homes, the maximum wall plate height may be exceeded if the average height of the wall plates is 24 feet.  Partially Compliant 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. Staff Comment: See pervious discussion above under subsection b.  ( That the approval is a minimum variance that will accomplish the desired purpose. Staff Comment: The applicant contends that the variances requested are the minimum necessary to accommodate the construction of the proposed single family residence, which is specially designed to accommodate the applicant’s needs after spinal surgery. In addition, the applicant contends that this residence was designed in compliance with the regulations that were in effect at the time, but that the spinal surgery prevented him from submitting the house plans prior to the rezone of the property from R-8 to R-6 and the adoption of new height regulations. Setback: Staff concurs that the requested 20-foot front yard setback variance is the minimum necessary to allow for the construction of the proposed single family residence. The requested 20-foot front yard setback would be located on a lot at the end of a shared driveway and would be the same setback as what was applied to the neighboring property, therefore it is unlikely the granting of this variance would adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood. In addition, as previously discussed above under subsection “a” the 4,500 square foot lot was originally created under the previous R-8 zoning designation. The implementation of the newly adopted R-6 setbacks on a lot of this size limits the buildable area available for the construction of an adequately sized single family residence.  ( Stories: Staff concurs that the granting of the requested third story variance is the minimum necessary to accommodate the proposed elevator that the applicant needs as a result of the issues he is having with his back. As previously discussed a large amount of floor area is needed to accommodate the elevator and therefore most of the first story of the proposed residence would be comprised of garage, stairway, and elevator area with the actual living area to be located on the second and third stories.  Not Compliant Height: Staff does not concur that the requested variance to the 24-foot maximum wall plate height is the minimum necessary to accommodate the desired purpose. The height regulations adopted in the R-14 zone permit a maximum wall plate height of 24 feet with 3 stories. Therefore, staff has already determined that 3 stories may be constructed within a wall plate height of 24 feet. As previously discussed above, under subsection “a”, staff is recommending that the proposed residence be modified through grading and/or the design of the residence to accommodate the maximum wall plate height of 24 feet.   E. CONCLUSIONS: The subject site is located at 1409 Shattuck Avenue S. The site is within the Residential – 6 (R-6) Zone. The applicant’s proposal is to construct a 3-story single family residence. The proposed residence would have a shed roof with an average height of approximately 29 feet. The front of the residence would extend 5 feet into the 25-foot front yard setback. The analysis of the proposed single family residence was evaluated according to variance criteria and is found in the body of the Staff Report. During the course of the review, staff determined that the proposed 20-foot front yard setback met the four (4) criteria to be considered in making a decision on a variance request as specified in RMC 4-9-250B5.a. During the course of the review, staff determined that the requested 3rd story also met the four (4) criteria to be considered in making a decision on a variance request as specified in RMC 4-9-250B5.a. During the course of the review, staff determined that the requested 29-foot average wall plate height proposed for the shed roof did not meet the variance criteria as specified in RMC 4-9-250B5.a. F. DECISION: The 1409 SFR Variance, File No. LUA16-000835, as depicted in Exhibit 2, is approved in part for the requested front yard setback variance and the variance requested for the third story, and denied in part for the requested variance to the 24-foot maximum wall plate height. DATE OF DECISION ON LAND USE ACTION: SIGNATURE:   Jennifer Henning, Planning Director Date   TRANSMITTED this 8th day of December, 2016 to the Owner/Applicant/Contact: Owner/Applicant/Contact:    Earl Ingram 1411 Shattuck Avenue S Renton, WA 98055     TRANSMITTED this 8th day of December, 2016 to the Parties of Record: No Parties of Record    TRANSMITTED this 8th day of December, 2016 to the following: Chip Vincent, CED Administrator Brianne Bannwarth, Development Engineering Manager Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Fire Marshal G. LAND USE ACTION APPEALS, REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION, & EXPIRATION: The administrative land use decision will become final if the decision is not appealed within 14 days of the decision date. APPEAL: This administrative land use decision will become final if not appealed in writing to the Hearing Examiner on or before 5:00 PM on December 22, 2016. An appeal of the decision must be filed within the 14-day appeal period (RCW 43.21.C.075(3); WAC 197-11-680), together with the required fee to the Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. RMC 4-8-110.B governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner and additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk’s Office, (425) 430-6510. EXPIRATION: The Variance decision will expire two (2) years from the date of decision. A single one (1) year extension may be requested pursuant to RMC 4-9-250. RECONSIDERATION: Within 14 days of the decision date, any party may request that the decision be reopened by the approval body. The approval body may modify his decision if material evidence not readily discoverable prior to the original decision is found or if he finds there was misrepresentation of fact. After review of the reconsideration request, if the approval body finds sufficient evidence to amend the original decision, there will be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action must file a formal appeal within the 14-day appeal time frame. THE APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS DOCTRINE: provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning the land use decision. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial decision, but to Appeals to the Hearing Examiner as well. All communications after the decision/approval date must be made in writing through the Hearing Examiner. All communications are public record and this permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence in writing. Any violation of this doctrine could result in the invalidation of the appeal by the Court.