HomeMy WebLinkAboutReport 1CITY OF RENTOrtt
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 7, 2014
To: City Clerk's Office
From: Sabrina Mirante
Subject: Land Use File Closeout
Please complete the following information to facilitate project closeout and indexing by the City
Clerk's Office
Project Name: 3802 Monterey Pl NE
LUA (file) Number: LUA-14-000546
Cross-References:
AKA's:
Project Manager: Angelea Wickstrom
Acceptance Date: April 24, 2014
Applicant: Timothy Lum
Owner:
Contact:
PID Number: 3345700183
ERC Determination: Date:
Anneal Period Ends:
Administrative Decision: Approved Date: May 6, 2014
Anneal Period Ends: Mav 20 2014
Public Hearing Date:
Date Appealed to HEX:
By Whom:
HEX Decision: Date:
Anneal Period Ends:
Date Appealed to Council:
By Whom:
Council Decision: Date:
Mylar Recording Number:
Project Description: Roof pitch modification for residential design standards.
Location: 3802 Monterey Pl NE
Comments:
ERC Determination Types: DNS -Determination of Non-Significance; DNS-M -Determination of
Non-Significance-Mitigated; DS -Determination of Significance.
'
DEPARTMENT OF CC. .... JIUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
MODIFICATION OF RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR
PROJECTS WITHIN THE R-4 AND R-8 ZONES
~ APPROVAL D DENIAL
EVALUATION FORM & DECISION
An "X" is shown in the applicable residential design requirement box. When an alternative is
employed that requires a modification, the staff evaluation is written on the lines below. The
decision to approve or deny the requested modification can be found at the conclusion of this
form.
PROJECT NAME: 3802 Monterey Pl NE Residential Design Modification
PROJECT NUMBER: LUA 14-000546, MOD
PROJECT MANAGER: Angelea Wickstrom, Planning Specialist
APPLICANT: Timothy Lum
4343 Roosevelt Way NE, Unit 606
Seattle, WA 98105
ZONING DESIGNATION: Residential -8 dwelling units per acre (R-8)
PROJECT LOCATION: 3802 Monterey Pl NE
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of a modification of the
Residential Design Standards (RMC 4-2-115) on a proposed 2,450
square foot single-family house. The proposed project site is 11,698
square feet located in the Residential -8 dwelling units per acre (R-
8) zone. The applicant is requesting approval of a lower roof pitch
than the minimum standard to provide a varied roof pitch lower
than 6:12. The proposed roof pitch is 4:12. The applicant asserts
that this roof pitch best matches the style of home to be
constructed and still meets the guidelines of the Roofs section in
the Residential Design Standards.
1. Roof
Choose one:
D Hip or gabled with at least 6:12 pitch; or
D Shed roof; or
~ Alternative that meets guidelines (Explain)
City of Renton Department of Co nity and Economic Development Administrath
3802 Monterey Pl NE Residential Design Modification
Report of May 6, 2014
d1fication Request Report & Decision
LUA 14-000546, MOD
Page 2 of 3
The applicant states and staff concurs that the proposed roof pitch of 4:12 will match the
design and character of the modern architectural style of the home (see house elevations in
Exhibit 1 and 2). The applicant notes in the request that the "proposed roof clearly
references the works of prominent local architecture firms such as Miller+Hu/1, Cutler
Anderson architects, Johnston Architects, and others." The applicant explains that these
architecture firms are influenced by Native or First-Nations architecture, as well as Asian and
Japanese influences. The applicant feels that the roof pitch of 4:12 blends and integrates
with the design of the home.
Within the municipal code, the guidelines for the "Roof" standard states: "roofs shall
represent a variety of forms and profiles that add character and relief to the landscape of
the neighborhood".
The applicant's request letter also states: "the roof adds relief both from the monotony of
generic asphalt shingle slopes, as well as actual relief at the user and pedestrian level by
providing real shelter from the elements." (Exhibit 3) Staff concurs that the contemporary
design of the home is suitable for a 4:12 roof pitch, therefore, the modification should be
approved.
RMC 4-9-2500.2 Criteria for Modification of the Standards.
The requested modification must also meet the following criteria:
1. Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and
maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering
judgment; and
2. Will not be injurious to other property(ies) in the vicinity; and
3. Conform to the intent and purpose of the Code; and
4. Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; and
5. Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity.
DECISION
The proposal satisfies 5 of the 5 criteria listed in RMC 4-9-250D2 for approval of modifications.
Therefore, the 3802 Monterey Pl NE Residential Design Modification of the residential design
standards to allow a 4:12 roof pitch for the proposed single-family residential structure, Project
Number LUA14-000465, MOD is approved.
•
City of Renton Department of Co nity and Economic Development
3802 Monterey Pl NE Residential Design Modification
Report of May 6, 2014
l I
V
C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator
Department of Community & Economic Development
Administrati' ,dification Request Report & Decision
LUA 14-000546, MOD
Page 3 of 3
Date ( .
The decision to approve the modification(s) will become final if not appealed in writing together
with the required fee to: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,
WA 98057 on or before 5:00 pm, on May 20, 2014. Additional information regarding the
appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's office, Renton City Hall -7'h Floor,
(425) 430-6510.
If you have any further questions regarding this decision, feel free to contact the project
manager, Angelea Wickstrom, at 425.430.7312 or awickstrom@rentonwa.gov.
Cc: City Clerk
EXHIBIT 1
w Ell w " 1 i i
' !
,
0 ;,;
~ • ~
•
)> ~ ,·~: o" LR-01 wm N " ;Ii$ 37XX MONTEREY PLACE NE
Q ' ""' RENTON, WA 98056 D 3~
Q D ~ .. TAX ID#: 3345700183
' w $
1 1 I
LR-01
37XX MONTEREY PLACE NE
RENTON, WA 98056
TAX ID#: 3345700183
EXHIBIT 2
t ~ • ~ ~ ~
i
' '
Timothy Lum, Permit B13005567
4343 Roosevelt Way NE, Unit 606
Seattle, WA 98105
2014.04.09
twhlum@gmail.com
206.293.1866
Re: Modification Review, Permit B13005567: Non-compliant roof slope
Per Modification of Residential Design or Open Space Standards
submittal requirements (M).
6. Justification for the modification request.
Please provide a written justification for the modification request. The
Burden of PrfX!f as to the appropriateness of the application lies with
the applicant. Whenever there are practical difficulties involved in
carrying out the provisions of this Title, the Department Administrator
may grant modifications for individual cases provided he/she shall first
find that a specific reason makes the strict letter of this Code
impractical, that the intent and purpose of the governing land use
designation of the Comprehensive Plan is met, and that the
modification is in conformity with the intent and purpose of this Code.
The written statement addressing and justifying how the modification
request complies with the relevant design guidelines of RMC 4-2-115
and with each of the following issues to be considered by the
Administrator:
A: Substantially implements the policy direction of the policies and
objectives of the Comprehensi,•e Plan Land Use Element and the
Community Design Element and the proposed modification is the
minimum adjustment necessary to implement these policies and
objectives;
Reference guidelines:
RMC 4-2-115.F.l: Residential Design and Open Space Standards, Roofs reads as follows:
EXHIBIT 3
Guideline: Roofs shall represent a variety of forms and profiles that add character and relief to the
landscape of the neighborhood. The use of bright colors, as well as roofing that is made of material like
gravel and/or a reflective material, is discouraged.
R-4 and R-8: One of the following is required for all development:
1) Hip or gabled with at least a six to twelve (6:12) pitch for the prominent form of the roof, or
2) Shed roof
Objectives to meet to meet code guideline "A":
Does the roof add variety to the neighborhood roof forms?
Ye s, the roof is a non-conforming sl o pe which differs from neighboring 6:12 conformity. It ex hibits
relatively large eave and ga ble overhangs, which contrast from the truncated extensions of conforming
structures.
Typi cal neighborh ood house:
Note uniform 12" eave ext ensions, lack of visible structure, and roof jags that precisely follow building outlines. Roof slopes have
no relation to site, pedestrian scale, structure, or climate.
Proposed, non-conforming house:
By contrast, the propos ed roof's deep overhangs create excellent depth of shadow as well as actual (rather than implied)
protection from local climate, fos terin g a sense of shelter. Exposed structure clearly expresses cons t ruction methodology, and
the roof form is a single, logica l, and inviolate geometry. Low slop es accentuate the linearity of the house and reinforce its
relation to similar ground slope angles. This roof is, truly, unlike other houses on the s treet and therefore adds variety.
Does the roof add character to the neighborhood?
Yes, there are no other nearby homes in which the roof and its associate structure stands as its own,
sculptural form. Adjacent buildings clearly ex hibit the dominance of the building plan, neatly extruded to
maximum height, then a roof which is procedurally mapped to th e building outline. Such generic
housin g is equally at home anywhere in the nation and, by ex ten sio n, lacks defining character.
By contrast, the proposed roof clearly references the works of prominent local architectural firms such
as Miller+Hull, Cutl er Anderson architects, John ston Architects, and others. The local architectural firms
(and th e Pacific Northwest style in general, further information on which is available both within local
librari es and exh ibited by the libraries themselves -see the Maple Valley Library, below) are in turn
informed by hi storical reference s to Native or First-Nations architecture, as well as A sian and Japanese
influences from beyond the Pacific with whom we share close ties (s ee local history and migration of
Asian populations to the United States and Pacific Northwest). Reg ional and ethnic "styles", by furth er
extension, are actually optimized assemblages that re spond directly to the problems of site, exposure,
and climate imposed by th e specific location of the building (both in time and space).
In all, the question of appropriate character i s more critical than mere character (or as my art in structor
liked to jokingly say, "I f you can't do it well , do it big. If you can 't do it big, paint it red.") and in that
regard, the 4:12 roof slope references the site, weather, historical narrative, the building's
contemporary place (both spatially and temporally), the safety of owner maintenance, cl ass ical
principles of proportion, regional architectural history, structural and experiential concerns of building
occupants, roof drainage plane s, and the building itse lf better than the compliant 6:12 slope.
Maple Vall ey Library, by Cu tler Anderson Architects
Note exposed s truct ure, generous overhangs, and the gentle 4 :12 roof slope that maintains a reasonable scale from one edge of
the building to the other.
·i '
Pacific Northwest Coastal langhouse, Coast Salis h
Indigenous builders were able to address a ll salient aesthe tic and funct io nal requirements of coastal Northwes t archit ecture
ut ilizing roof slopes shallower than 6:12.
S'k/allam Culture Center, by Cu tler Anderson Architects, John ston Architects
Hause of cultural arts far the Part Gamble S'klallam tribe, roof pitch of 4:12. Indeed, even contemporary d escendants of local
tribes utilize roof slopes of Jess than 6:12, and many of their most important buildings ore, in fact, ade quately protected and
sheltered by shallower roofs .
Does the roof add relief to the neighborhood?
Ye s, the roof adds relief both from the monotony of generic asphalt shingle slopes, as w ell as actual
relief at the user and pedestrian l evel by providing real shelter from the elements. It may further b e
argued (though I regard the ques tion as being entirely subj ective), that steeper and more severe roof
slopes cre ate a sense of anxiety and hostility toward s th e obse rver. Further, given the manner in which
the code i s written, a 36' wide roof with its mid line at 30' above grade could produce the following
re su lts:
Code compliant roof of pitch steeper than 6:12, centerline of roof set to 30' above mean ground plan e. While code compliant,
very few human beings would likely fin d any sort of relief or co mfort in the severity of this roof expression.
' . ~
Proposed 4:12 roof P!tch . By co ntrast, the shallower roof pitch is quite inviting.
Per Modification of Residential Design or Open Space St andards
submittal requirements (M).
B: Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance,
environmental protection, and maintainability intended by th e code
requirements, based upon sound engineering and judgment
Objectives to meet t o meet code guideline "B":
Is the roof safe?
For purposes of maintenance, and having worked both as a roofer and gutter-cl ea ner, I have first-hand
ex peri ence that a 4:12 roof slope is, indeed, safer to walk upon than a 6:12 slope or steep er. Phy sic s will
confirm this asses sm ent, as th e lat eral force vectors generated on a st ee per roof pitch (and by
ex t ensio n, the propens ity of maintenance workers to be inadvertently ejected off sa id roof) can readily
be demonstrated to be greater relative to the roof pitch for an equivalent load .
mg= Weight of load (mass * gravity)
f = Frictional force
N = Normal force perpendicular to plane
Increas ing theta increases the frictio nal force required to maintain
a static condition.
From a structural perspective, the roof slope does little to affect relevant calc ulation s for shear and
bending. A given clear spa n will require a given depth of support, and that depth of support (b ei ng
related to the clear span) is independent of th e roof slope .
In terms of drain age, t h e roof slope makes no difference to th e amount of rainwater collected, though a
shallower roof does re duce the en ergy of roof shee t flow. In the unlikely event that the difference in
flow speed between a 6:12 and a 4:12 roof results in a life-safety is sue for occupants or pa sse r sby at
ground level, there are probably bigger probl ems to be concerned about than the 8 degree di screpancy.
Besides which, in suc h a situation, the propose d roof would still be safer than its alternative.
Is the roof function al?
Roof, noun, 1.The part of a building envelo pe, both the covering on the uppermost part of a building or
sh elter, which provid es protect ion from animals and weather, notably rain, but also heat, wind and
sunlight; and t h e framing or structure which supports the cover ing.
In no definition or encyclo p edi a entry with which I am familiar wa s th e functionality of a roof tethered
to a 6:12 slope or steeper. Th at being sai d, yes, the 4:12 propose d roof slope does still mana ge to
provide protection from animals, plants, rain, h eat, wind, and sunlight. By all definitions available to m e,
the roof will remain functional at th e propose d slope.
Does the roof meet appearance objectives?
Yes. But for th e sake of argument, one may assume that a sufficiently finicky viewer from the street says
otherwi se on the basis that a steeper roof slope would show more roof and thus b e more pl eas ing t o
their particular sensib ilities.
It so happens that given the view corridors involved and the visibility of the house, a person on the
street ca n't actually te ll the difference: the roof will always appear to th em as an edge. Fu rther, th ere
aren't actually any sidewa lks and such a pede strian would b e forced to walk in the drainage culvert.
It is impossible for a human observer to make the determination of the roof slope from this angle, which is really the only angle
from which anybody who is neither a resid ent nor guest will have a vested in terest.
.. ~ -
\
Nor will the gable ends be visible from the stree t due to propose d retention of existing tree cover.
The proposed roof s lop e as seen from approximately thirty feet downhill along Monterey Place NE with the proposed house
superimposed.
In a worst case sc enario in which the ob scuring foliage w ere somehow lo st , then the eaves would be
vi sible and a p erson co uld make a determination of th e roof slope.
A n on -com pliant 4:12 roof s lope.
At this point, the o nly argument for a st ee per roof i s upon the grounds that mo re roof showing is an
improv em ent t o the stree t -v isibl e proportions (never mind th at such grounds would be subjective and
built around highl y sus pect premi ses ). Fo r purp os es of entertaining this prosp ect, h ere is a code-
compli ant 6 :12 hip roof.
By arc angle, the compliant roof appe ars eve n smaller. r-,
Becau se humans ob se rve the world in perspective and not in orthographic elevation projections, it turns
out that a 6: 12 hip roof actually looks "worse" (in terms of relative size of the roof to the house below)
than a 4 :12 gable. If a particularly pugnacious judge then vacillates to say that less roof massing is
suddenly "better", then the 4:12 gable would b e "better" than a 6:12 gable. In either case, the non -
compliant proposed roof slope is both too shallow and too steep compared to possible code compliant
solutions, which makes the question of its meeting appearance goals non -sensical. The question itself is
poorly structured in this case and without qualifiers of what constitutes a "good" appearanc e, and thu s
imposs ible to objectively answer.
It can, and hopefully has, been shown, however, that the code requirement is insufficient grounds upon
which to restri ct non -c ompliance based upon the quality of the roof appearance.
Does the roof meet environmental protection guidelines?
The proposed 4 :12 ro of slope has identical behavior to a 6:12 from a water-runoff perspective. Reduced
complexity of construction for the proposed 4:12 roof slope will al so reduce required flashing, mastic
sealants, and propen sity for leakage, simplify roof insulation, and reduce construction waste. The
propose d roof i s, in this regard, more environmentally responsible due to its complimentary design than
a compliant 6 :12 slope for which the project wa s not designed.
Is the roof maintainable?
For rea sons already detailed and r elated to the safety of accessing a 4:12 roof slope, yes, the shallower
roof pitch exhibits enhanc ed maintainability compared to a compliant 6:12 roof.
Per Modification of Residential Design or Open Space Standards
submittal requirements (M).
C: Will not be injurious to other properties in the vicinity.
F: Will not create adverse impacts to other properties in the vicinity.
ls the roof slope injurious to properties in the vicinity?
I can imagine no possible scenarios in which the proposed roof slope might result in injury to nearby
properties. Should such a scenario exist, I would be happy to address it in a future addendum.
Will the roof slope create adverse impacts to other properties in the vicinity?
No, the proposed 4:12 roof slope does not produce adverse impacts compared with a compliant 6:12
slope. With the ridge beam lower by approximately 3 feet from a comparable 6:12 roof slope, it is in fact
the case that view corridors of uphill homes will be better preserved under the proposed design.
Per Modification of Residential Design or Open Space Standards
submittal requirements (M).
D: Conforms to the intent and purpose of the Code;
Does the 4:12 roof slope conform to the intent and purpose of the Code?
Yes, as previously demonstrated in the fulfillment of the code guidelines, the proposed roof conforms to
the intent and purpose of the code.
Per Modification of Residential Design or Open Space Standards
submittal requirements (M).
E: Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation
intended;
Is the 4:12 roof slope justified and necessary?
I believe the justification for said roof has been established to the bests of my abilities and the
satisfaction of all concerned external parties. Its use in this project is necessary to the resident for a host
of personal reasons, including life safety and reduced ecological impact. These reasons are as follows:
Life safety: As the occupant will also be maintaining the roof and cleaning the gutters (due to the
shaded nature of the site and surrounding foliage), a shallower roof slope enhances the safety of these
processes. Additionally, a gentler roof slope reduces the acceleration and probability of detached
snowpack.
Ecological impact: Via reduced material use and complexity of the roof plane. The reduced roof slope
will also reduce solar heat gains during the summer and reduce the stack effect during the winter, both
leading towards reduced energy consumption for heating and cooling. Additionally, the lower roof pitch
reduces the north and south wall areas, which reduces the glazing and wall area required to enclose the
building. This improves the ratio of floor area to surface area (leading to higher efficiency), as well as
reduces the amount of material needed for construction.
Architectural: Principles of classical proportions pioneered by the Greeks and refined during the
Renaissance determined that a shallower slope of nearer to 15 degrees (6:12 is about 30 degrees) was
more pleasing to the eye at the heights in question. Additionally, sight-lines out the second floor
windows would be uncomfortably obscured should the outrigger beams and eaves extend much lower
than they are designed for.
Constructabillty: Due to the framing system involved, the availability of 4x4 and 6x6 columns becomes
limited at the lengths necessary to reach the ridge beam in a 6:12 roof pitch.
Experiential: From within the building, the spring point of the ceiling becomes too low or the ridge of
the ceiling too high with a 6:12 slope. It evokes alternately either a sense of being cramped or in a
cavern, neither of which are desirable to an occupant.
Site response: Slopes on the site generally match the slope of the proposed roof plane. A 6:12 roof slope
is incongruous with the land and its surroundings.
Historical: Local building types (see native longhouses) have historically utilized roofing slopes closer to
4:12. The applicant seeks to acknowledge and respect this tradition in an effort to preserve the cultural
heritage of which he is part.
Drainage: Should a 6:12 roof slope be utilized, it will result in a valley condition between the shed roof
section of roof and the gable section of roof. Such conditions are more difficult to waterproof over the
life of the building than a single, flat plane.
Structural: Similarly to the drainage concerns, a joint in the roof would require additional structural
reinforcement to transfer the loads from the shed roof section to the gable roof section (or vice versus).
Unifying the two into a single shear plane will allow them to work as a cohesive unit in resisting seismic
and wind loads through the roof shear diaphragm.
Meteorological: Based upon hydrologic studies of rainfall and wind patterns (data sourced from the
Renton Municipal airport weather station), the proposed 4:12 roof slope provides greater protection to
the building structure than its 6:12 alternative.
</Justification for the Modification Request>
DEPARTMENT OF CO, /IUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
MODIFICATION OF RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR
PROJECTS WITHIN THE R-4 AND R-8 ZONES
~ APPROVAL D DENIAL
EVALUATION FORM & DECISION
An "X" is shown in the applicable residential design requirement box. When an alternative is
employed that requires a modification, the staff evaluation is written on the lines below. The
decision to approve or deny the requested modification can be found at the conclusion of this
form.
PROJECT NAME: 3802 Monterey Pl NE Residential Design Modification
PROJECT NUMBER: LUA 14-000546, MOD
PROJECT MANAGER: Angelea Wickstrom, Planning Specialist
APPLICANT: Timothy Lum
4343 Roosevelt Way NE, Unit 606
Seattle, WA 98105
ZONING DESIGNATION: Residential -8 dwelling units per acre (R-8)
PROJECT LOCATION: 3802 Monterey Pl NE
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of a modification of the
Residential Design Standards (RMC 4-2-115) on a proposed 2,450
square foot single-family house. The proposed project site is 11,698
square feet located in the Residential -8 dwelling units per acre (R-
8) zone. The applicant is requesting approval of a lower roof pitch
than the minimum standard to provide a varied roof pitch lower
than 6:12. The proposed roof pitch is 4:12. The applicant asserts
that this roof pitch best matches the style of home to be
constructed and still meets the guidelines of the Roofs section in
the Residential Design Standards.
1. Roof
Choose one:
D Hip or gabled with at least 6:12 pitch; or
D Shed roof; or
L2] Alternative that meets guidelines (Explain)
CONCURRENCE
DATE 5-(q:Ht
NAME
( (,\", "'
' ~~l..::.::I.~"'"'\-_..."'/