HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA-05-1110--F IRE HYDAANT NE CORNER 3RD. PI.. i'III Af'() TAYlOR AVE
i'III • 128 ' TO CLOSEST EDGE
OF PROPOSED au I LD I NG •
3RD . PLACE N .W .
FIRE HYDAANT NE CORNER 0_ 3RD. PI.. l'1li AND flARD IE AVE i'III • 99 ' TO CLOSEST EDGE
OF PROPOSED au I LD I NG .
'~
~.Ol ! I ~ I
'1.54" ~
W ~
W
Cl ~
S I r~ lfkAN <W-¢-E>
0-
PROPOSED ADD IT ION FOR: PAMELA SANFORD
SITE ADDRESS 3 17 HARD I EAVE NW
RENTON, WA . 98055
OWNER PAMELA SANFORD:
C/O TOM W ILL lAMS
17980 BR ITTANY DR. SW
SEATTLE, WA. 98166
SCOPE OF WORK :
CONSTRUCT 1 -( 2 STORY, 2 BEDROOM EACH)
DUPLEX WITH GARAGES UNDER ON EACH LOT .
CONSTRUCT ION SPEC I F I C IS INDEX
LEGAL DISC. EL8~ IIILE
LOTS 11 & 12 BLK • 47 HAYS & ROBERTS
SUB D IV IS ION OF N.H. LAT IMERS LAKE COVER SHEET
WASH. PLAT AS RECORDED VOL. 28 PG .
38 OF KING CO . WASH. LOT 11 PARCEL # SITE PLAN 318560-0055 , LOT 12 PARCEL #
318560-0056 . LANDSCAPE
BOTH LOTS 11 & 12 ARE ZONED RMF STORM DRA I NAGE
BU I LD I NG CODE -----I RC 2003 ED I T ION DEMO PLAN
PER CENT BOX IS FOUNDATION
LOT AREA ------4500 sq . ft. FLOOR JO 1ST NEW CONST .----1620 sq. ft.
LOT COVERAGE .36% FLOOR PLANS
NORTH ELV
I MPERV IOUS SURF ACES
LOT AREA ------4500 sq . ft. SOUTH ELV
NEW CONST . -----1620 sq . ft. E/W ELV . WALKS, DR IVES--598 sq. ft.
LOT COVERAGE 62 .5% ROOF PLAN
THRU SECT
DETAILS
GEN NOTES
STRUCTUAL
SHEET Ii. I:SEV IDI CODE
PAM6SLMF
1A PAM6SL 18
1B PAM6SL 18
1C PAM6DRAN
2 PAM6SH23
3 PAM6SH23
4 PAM6SH45
PAM6SH45
5 ABC PAM6SH5A
PR2FL5CF
6 PAM6SH67
7 PAM6SH67
8 PAM6SHT8
9 PAM6SHT9
10 A ,B PAM6SH10
11 PAM6DETA
12 PAM6NOTE
LAST PG. PAM6STRU
PAMSDUPL DATE 9/3/05
1" = 20 ' 0" SCALE------------
SIfIl,.,. APPROVED BY ________
CODE NAME COVER
PAM6g)Yf ___
~I 48.52 ~,
~ """ .010_ 1, '-' ~ ~l~ "-t iii ~. •
<I t "~~i ~ \ "',..~ " ~.
"I :t~~~h ~ \
I 6~1l~ ~ ~\ ~ ~" ~I ~ H!
:.. ~~ ~ ..... I i ~ 8 \\ ~
-"'S
!'~{;! ~ I~t~ ,~ i ~~"1 114.4l'!I
~ i:~. 1
I
.l~ ~~ l!il(! ~ ~ ~ ~ 67.5 -, ~ ~ -.. q~
I v~w~~!
'7J'~,i 1 ,~ Ii I "' .. -" I £1,,"1 . I hi ::tI ,'.,p I ~ 0 I:.iZ "l @--------",g :::: -~ -'" :~.: .. ;~ '. ~ ~·~l ".," . ~-:. ~\ . ~mq • I
~~~ ~ ~ b~~ 67.!i4 q~ ~1 _NR~ ~. ~
~ ~ .Jfl~~ ., '-' f4iilij . ~
I:~~ f; I~ t .....
. ~~~8 ~~ .. '-Ill.:. ...
. tJ"t:,,~ t
£&3 1 " fII " !E ~ 1 ~ ~ 't I ""':!t 55.87 t ~ '),~~.~ > • . ~i " , : ,,;1, P ~lll U I ~ .1" ~ l <. ~' I~&~ -1'--1'--' ' ~~ ~ 1"--: "-;)':. (') ~~ J l~"' :i' ~~ 1 -" "~.! ~ C\"" . ,
r ~ ~.~, ~ I ~ ~ / .. ,)\.~ S \1~
•
lJ'rI'.-rr._~
i
-'T
/ to'-I
/ I
\,. ... ~~y " i ..,. I\M"";~~'..4'* ! \5r"'~i'"'5"7
. \
\
I
\
\ /
I \J~4'1'/" \5T .... lr/OY>u
\
I \
I
t
I I I I I
I .. I I
I I / wCol:lt'5r~o"
.~/O~&. l'l I ~
:c l> ::0 o R1 I~ ~
I~I I~ :
I
-.l> < -!"1
I
~
~
~ ~
g
I
I
I , ,..-->7_ J$ ';If.z //.,.
1
1
I
I,
I
i I
i ! ~
I
I
\
I
I
0\ .'~ _IV
:Sr ..... ~ /% "
I .,-",~
I :l'7J'·:r/"Ii'!F"
g
;Z
~
. .,........,.------
c_
1 \~ / / <dJ rj-'-/ / / / 7// --L7/--7~7"-7 ¢:~_ / / / / 7 7 7 7 ;.., ,~ _ / / / / 7 7 7 7 <i 'P/ L",", , , , c
~
I ~~~"L ~ 1~;f~oo~mJ515JtJ=rfJI~ t I I IlL
.....
01 "-1 NI-rrJl ~I LIJ ro rn ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ +1 +\ +\ + + + + + + o 0 000 0 0 0 0
TOPOG PAMS DUPLEX IS
NOTEI 1 EX 1 ST 1 NG A NO FINAL
(LOTS 11 AND 12 BLOCK 47 HAYS AND ROBERTS SUB D I V I S ION
OF N . H . LAT I MERS LAKE WASH. PLAT AS RECORDED.) TOPOG
RUNS BAS I CLL Y LEVEL NORTH TO SOUTH. D I SPLAYED TOPOG
CUT FROM NORTH WEST CORNER OF LOT 12
AND RED I STR I BUTE I T SOUTH WESTERLY FOR
FINAL GRADE .
I S FOR 3RD . PLACE NW RUNN I NG AT A SUST A I NED GRADE OF
15 PERCENT FROM HARD I E AVE ON THE EAST, WEASTERL Y TO
THE WEST PROPERTY LINE OF LOT 12.
THE EX I ST I NG AND FINAL GRADE OF TH I S PROPOSAL WILL
FOLLOW THE EX I ST I NG GRADES OF BOTH 3RD PLACE NW AND
HARD IE NW. NO FILL WILL BE REQU I RED AND ONLY THE LOWER
LEVEL EXCAVAT ION WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE. APPRO-
X I MA TEL Y (450 CU . YDS .) • PR~ECT_ PAMSDIJfl
SCALE-.!L~:.2.:.'!.' ,
N'PROVED BY ___
COOC tI\l£ PMl6T0P2
-
DATE:
9/2 ~5 C---~ SHEET NO_ 1 .
3RD . PLACE N .W .
~ ~ :~ -~
~ .<1. ~
II' I
I vv Jv vvl vv I 'Iv! _ 'IV I VII ...l.. vv
-LANDSCAPE PLAN
SCALE 1/8" = 1-0"
$¢TI~ II' ,-* ¢ ¢ -/
Ii~ l-S: I W I LLJ Z a et:: + f-a U) LL.I
~ LLl > 0::: Z <C « 2 ~ LL.i
-~-,-........... --' ... -I 0::: U L.JJ Z W 0 W f-er::: m z
W <C u I 1\ L.JI:-:-:~~
LANDSCAPE NOTES
N LAWN AREAS W ITH AUTO:v~\T Ie 1 L SPR I NKLER IIEADS -
I PAMSDUPL
~-VE>
\j
-_._-.. _-
SCA1.[ 1/8" 1 '
axI tiAME L __ PAM6SL 18
-DATE:
8/28/05
SI£EHI1.
1AB
~~
--=
~EEEEEEH
I~
~ • rnm-
~
rrrrn
Ii -<t-"'SOUTH ELEV AT ION
~
111I111111 ~ ~ IIU]!] II
g
':j FF GARAGE 0+36" SL~PE 3" TO GAR DOOR
1" .... 11111111"""";,:
;P'
I
""E
" ......
FOOTING BOn,," 0+21" I =-_
STEPS AND
At{) RA IL
PERCOOE.
+-+-+-
II.
II II II II I
~bdbl!=!!
~
!=f .::---
;
IfTIl]]]
~
IIITml
~FFffU*R~
~
PAT 10-2 STEPS ON.
b NORTH ELEVAT 10
FF GARAGE 0+36" SLOPE 3" TO GAR DOOR
L-
STEPS AND
AIO RAIL
PERCOOE.
A
~t»
PAMSDUPL
_1/4"=1'0"
DATE:
8/23/05
p-6~ / ...... ~6SH67
::l, .. '-~
j lir Ilr~ ..
~~: '~~ rn ~ ")-,LJ I t-I-i
=I§R]~ ~I~~ ~;~ tl'~ -m~f ];:; t;;
fi7 I !~ 'r ~ I
= l:-~
= J-~ J-I-]-'---;-
I) L
1-1-
1-1--
~ II T1l~ i= I-
J-
l-I 1-l-I--
I-I-J-I-
It'~ r-J-r-J-I-1-~
l-I-f-, l-I-1-1--1.-
~ Il-H t--l---' r-d--rut III~ l--
t--'-1-}-r-tr-IIIIIII~ r-l-'t-I-'--'
r--J--'.-t-a3 {j I-~-tl--(j l-,... I--
1\\ ~ \ "' I ::r 0 .-.
I
NOTE: Krol Maps ar8 compiled from 0tficieI Racards
and F'1BId Surwya. They are produced for raferenceuse
only and no warranty is expreaed or implied.
~~ I -~ -, -:~~< +--
~~'J!2_
~ ---.. ~
~8 ~~
~i11r-
.8
~, ~
. ..---_-..-10--,_1. <1. -'
Oo)i
WILLIAMS VARIANCE
317 HARDIE AVE NW
~
7 ....... _.
/8
<:) <:)
'"
I
'I '" ,.
,~.
Jim Hanson
Hanson Consulting
17446 Mallard Cove Lane
Mt. Vernon, WA 98274
tel: 360-422-5056
eml: jchanson@verizon.net
(contact)
Updated: 12/20/05
PARTIES OF RECORD
WILLIAMS SIDE YARD VARIANCE
LUA05-111, V-A
Pamela Sanford
c/o Tom Williams
17980 Brittany Drive SW
Seattle, WA 98166
tel: 206-241-1640
(owner / applicant)
Eric R. Stahlfeld
Law Offices of Eric R. Stahlfeld
145 SW 155th Street ste: #101
Seattle, WA 98166
tel: 206-248-8016
(party of record)
(Page 1 of 1)
. --'t-
:~ 1 IU
I ~ I f----q t----t~_....__L
J ~,
1..----
J
-.....
'DO I Jt1D
I
I
I ,
59
r ~ iJal1 e!.I~
3RDs PL. ~ ,-ra
N
NOTE: Kroll Maps are compiled from 0tJicieJ Records
and FieidSurvays. They are produced for 1Vf8r8l1CeU88 onty and no warranty is expnlllBd or impIiad.
__ ~_ h
biJ z: = 7.
I
~! . -I +~(' ... 'I
-l---
...: ~
~~-
~ ---.I ~
~8 ~~
--~
:~
1 ]~ ,t,..---q I I"~ I
I r:::IlI .
-I ~; . ~---::I ~
I
.8
«J - _ --.. La" '---' L.I ~ L. L_ •• ..--. r-... rJ r---I
ND -.. [] rrr liJ Ii . I Ii
J ~ to<. &;
...£...... l 8. ~1---'7 ... L.§
WILLIAMS VARIANCE
317 HARDIE AVE NW
~
1 .~.-. 18
~ ~ '"
: I ,/
!II ... ~'/ ~::t '0 -f -. 'I ~'e. ~~
Q:
I
'I Il ,'1
REPORT
&
DECISION
DECISION DA TE
Project Name
Applicant/Contact:
File Number
Project Description/
Background
Project Location
Bldg. Area gsf
Site Area
City of Renton
Department of Planning / Building / Public Works
ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE
AND PARKING MODIFICA TION .
LAND USE ACTION
May 5,2006
Williams Setback Variance and Parking Modification
Tom Williams, 17980 Brittany Drive SW, Seattle, WA 98166
LUA-05-111, V-A Project Manager Keri Weaver
The applicant has requested an administrative variance from the 26-foot
side yard setback that is required in the RM-F (Residential Multi-Family)
zone when an RM-F zoned property greater than two stories abuts a
property in a single-family zone. The south side of the subject site abuts
property zoned Residential - 8 units per acre (R-8). The applicant
proposes a setback reduction to 10 feet due to the constraints of lot size
and other required setbacks. Additionally, the applicant has requested a
modification from the parking standards that would allow 2.0 parking
spaces per unit instead of 2.5 parking spaces per unit as required by code
when tandem garage parking is proposed for each unit.
317 Hardie Ave. NW
N/A
4,500 sq. ft. (0.10 ac.)
total lot area
Prop'osed Multi-Family Residence (Duplex) 1,620 sq ft
Total Building Area -1,620 sq ft Proposed
City of Renton PIBIPW Departe
WILLIAMS DUPLEX SETBACK VARIANCE AND PARKING MODIFICATION
Ad.rative Decision Staff Report
LUA-05-111, V-A
REPORT AND DECISION OF May 5, 2006 Page 20(9
A. Type of Land Use Action
Conditional Use Binding Site Plan
Site Plan Review Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
Special Permit for Grade & Fill Administrative Code Determination
X Administrative Variance X Parking Modification
B. Exhibits
The following exhibits were entered into the record:
Exhibit 1: Yellow file containing: application, proof of posting and
Exhibit 2:
Exhibit 3:
Exhibit 4:
Exhibit 5:
Exhibit 6:
Exhibit 7:
Exhibit 8:
publication, and other documentation pertinent to this
request.
Neighborhood Map
Site and Landscape Plan (dated 09/16/2005)
Elevations (dated 911612005)
Zoning Map, Sheet F3 West (dated 12104/2003)
Variance Denial (dated 10/13/2005)
Parking Modification Approval (dated 1212012005)
Hearing Examiner's Report and Decision (dated 3/16/2006)
C. Project Description / Background Contd:
The applicant proposes to build multi-family housing (a duplex) on the site. The lot size is
4,500 sq. ft. The site, which is currently vacant, is located at 317 Hardie Way NW and the
proposed development would have access from that road. This property is part of an overall
proposed development plan for two duplexes (4 residential units) to be on the subject
property and on the adjacent tax lot to the north.
The development standards of the RM-F zone as they pertain to this property require a front
yard setback of 20 feet, a side yard setback of 25 feet on the south side, a side yard setback
of 5 feet on the north side, and a rear yard setback of 15 feet. The parking regulations
require 2.5 parking spaces per unit when tandem parking is provided in a garage.
On October 13, 2005, the Development Services Division issued a denial of the applicant's
variance request, on the grounds that the applicant had created a hardship by choosing a
project design that could not fit within required setbacks, instead of developing an alternative
design that could fit. The applicant appealed the variance denial on October 27,2006.
On December 20, 2005, the Development Services Division issued a modification to the
parking standards with conditions to allow the parking to be reduced to 2 spaces per unit.
The modification was based upon the overall development proposal of two duplexes (four
residential units) on two adjoining lots. The conditions included the following:
Variance and parking mod #2 Williams 05-\\\\
City of Renton PIBIPW Deparle
WILLIAMS DUPLEX SETBACK VARIANCE AND PARKING MODIFICATION
REPORT AND DECISION OF May 5, 2006
Ad,etrative Decision Staff Reporl
LUA-05-111, V-A
Page 30(9
• No surface (non-garage) parking spaces shall be allowed for the proposed
development on either of the subject lots.
• If a variance is subsequently approved for the required 25-ft south side yard setback,
the setback shall not be reduced by more than 50% or 12 ft 6 in. A separate
reconsideration of the variance will be required.
• If the applicant requests a reconsideration of the variance denial, the applicant shall
submit a detailed landscape plan for review and approval by the Development
Services Division, which clearly indicates how screening and buffer requirements will
be implemented through landscaping in order to protect adjacent single-family
development. Types, sizes and locations of ground cover, trees, shrubs and other
plantings and materials shall be clearly indicated on the plan. Additionally, the
applicant shall provide a solid-wood 6-ft fence on the south property line, finished on
both sides, for further impact reduction.
The applicant appealed the parking modification on December 30, 2005.
A combined appeal hearing for the variance and parking modification was held by the City's
Hearing Examiner on February 21, 2006. In a decision dated March 16, 2006, the Hearing
Examiner reversed the Development Services Division's decisions for both the variance and
the parking modification, and remanded both matters to the Division for new decisions.
This report provides the revised staff analysis and the revised decision of the Development
Services Director.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION
Having reviewed the written record in the matter, the City now makes and enters the
following:
D. Findings
1) Request: The applicant has requested approval for an administrative variance from
the required 25-foot south side yard setback in the RM-F zone for the property
located at 317 Hardie Ave. N. A 10-foot south side yard setback is requested.
Additionally, the applicant has requested a parking modification to allow a reduction
of required parking spaces from 2.5 per unit to 2 per unit.
2) Administrative Variance and Parking Modification: The applicant's submittal
materials comply with the requirements necessary to process the applications for the
variance and parking modification. The applicant's site plan and other project
drawings are provided as Exhibits 3 and 4.
3) Existing Land Use: Land uses surrounding the subject site include: North: 3rd
Place NW and multi-family residential; South: single-family residential (R-8); East
Hardie Ave. NW and commercial (medical office); and West: single-family residential
(R-8).
4) Zoning: The site is located in the Residential Multi-Family (RM-F) zone. The
allowable density range in this zone is 10-20 du/acre. The applicant proposes a net
density of 19.04 du/acre. Within the RM-F zone, maximum lot coverage is 35%;
Variance and parking mod #2 Williams 05-111\
City of Renton PIBIPW Depa,Aat
WILLIAMS DUPLEX SETBACK VARIANCE AND PARKING MODIFICA nON
REPORT AND DECISION OF May 5, 2006
AdAtrative Decision Staff Report
LUA-05-111, V-A
Page 4 0'9
however, lot coverage of up to 45% may be approved at the discretion of the Hearing
Examiner. The applicant's proposal will result in approximately 36% lot coverage.
The development standards for this zone require a 20-foot front setback, 15-foot rear
setback, and 5-foot side yard setback. For RM-F zoned properties that abut single-
family residential properties, a 25-foot side yard setback is required. Based on these
zoning requirements, the subject site is required to have a 20-foot front setback, 15-
foot rear setback, 25-foot south side yard setback, and 5-foot north side yard setback.
The applicant proposes a 26-foot front setback, 22-foot rear setback, 10-foot south
yard side setback, and 5-foot setback north yard side setback.
The proposed duplex has tandem garage parking on the ground floor of the structure.
The site is located within the RM-F zone, which requires that 2.5 parking spaces be
provided for each attached dwelling unit if tandem parking will be utilized, and that
surface parking is permitted only in side and rear yard areas (driveways cannot count
toward required parking spaces). Any proposed surface parking must be provided on
the same lot as the building it serves. The proposed development plan provides only 2
tandem garage parking spaces for this duplex building. The overall development plan
for two duplexes on two lots shows two surface parking spaces provided on the lot
that would be occupied by the other (north) duplex building, but this location would not
meet the requirement that parking be on the same lot as the building it serves.
Additionally, the surface parking spaces are not readily accessible to the south
building, as they are proposed to be separated by privacy fences and private lawn
areas.
The proposed surface parking spaces for the north building are also located within the
required 15-foot rear yard setback area. Within the RM-F zone, the 15-foot rear yard
setback is required to be landscaped, with the intention of providing an aesthetically
pleasing buffer for adjacent single-family residential properties.
4) Topography: The topography of the site is generally flat with gradual sloping from
west to east.
5) Lot and Building Size: The total site area is approximately 4,500 sq. ft. and is
currently vacant. The proposed new duplex will have a footprint of approximately
1,620 sq. ft. and will total approximately 4,860 sq. ft. in overall size, including two
stories of living area over a parking garage.
6) Consistency with Variance Criteria: Section 4-9-250B.5.a. lists four criteria that the
Development Services Director is asked to consider, along with all other relevant
information, in making a decision on an Administrative Variance application. The
Development Services Director shall have authority to grant an administrative variance
upon making a determination, in writing, that the conditions specified below have been
found to exist.
a. That the applicant suffers undue 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:
Variance and parking mod #2 Williams 05-111\
City of Renton PIBIPW Depane
WILLIAMS DUPLEX SETBACK VARIANCE AND PARKING MODIFICATION
REPORT AND DECISION OF May 5, 2006
Adatrative Decision Staff Report
LUA-05-111, V-A
Page 50'9
The applicant contends that special circumstances apply to the subject site, which
impose limitations on the lot and create a hardship. Specifically, the applicant
indicates that given the small size of the lot (45 feet wide and 100 feet deep), the
required side yard setbacks would not allow a minimum building footprint necessary
for construction of a duplex.
The proposed duplex is part of a pending overall development proposal for two
duplexes on two adjoining lots. In this case, the applicant is creating a hardship by
proposing to construct a building that cannot fit within the required setbacks. The
applicant could redesign the proposal for consistency with the setback
requirements, e.g., by building smaller multi-family units, stacked flats instead of
side-by-side units, etc. If the applicant redesigned the proposal, setback
requirements could be met and the need for a variance would be eliminated.
However, given the size and setback constraints of the lot, Development Services
staff indicated at the appeal hearing on February 21, 2006, that the Division was
willing to issue a modified setback variance for the south side yard, not to exceed a
50% reduction of the required 25 ft setback (12 ft 6 in). Such a variance would be
consistent with the conditions of the parking modification issued on December 20,
2005.
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:
The proposed reduction of the south side yard setback to 10 feet would be a 61 %
reduction of the 25-foot setback, which is required to buffer neighboring single-
family uses from the impacts of the proposed development. This reduction must
also be considered in light of other variances which would be necessary for the
applicant's proposal. Development within the RM-F zone is intended to provide infill
development in established neighborhoods, in a manner compatible with existing
development. As previously discussed in Section D.4. "Zoning", the current site
plan also does not meet code requirements for the north side yard setback, the 15-
foot rear landscaped setback, and required parking spaces.
As discussed in subsection a. above, Development Services staff have previously
indicated that a modified variance for up to 50% of the required setback can be
issued. Staff believes that such a variance, with suitable conditions, would provide
sufficient additional buildable area for the applicant to develop a feasible
development proposal while still protecting adjacent single-family properties.
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:
The approval of a modified variance for up to a 50% reduced setback, with
conditions, would not be a grant of special privilege, as other property owners in the
vicinity would likely be allowed to reduce setback, parking and landscaping
requirements in a similar manner when proposing to develop an equally-
constrained site.
Variance and parking mod #2 Williams 05-111 \
City of Renton PIBIPW Depa,et
WILLIAMS DUPLEX SETBACK VARIANCE AND PARKING MODIFICATION
Adatrative Decision Staff Report
LUA-05-111, V-A
REPORT AND DECISION OF May 5, 2006 Page 60f9
d. That the approval as determined by the Development Services Director is a
minimum variance that will accomplish the desired purpose:
A modified variance for up to a 50o/~ reduced setback, with conditions, would
represent a minimum variance that would balance reasonable use of the applicant's
property with the need to buffer adjacent single-family properties from light, noise and
shadow impacts that could result from multi-story, multi-family development as
proposed.
7) Parking Standards Modification: The applicant has requested a parking
modification to allow a reduction from 2.5 parking spaces per unit to 2.0 parking
spaces per unit. The parking modification request applies to the overall development
proposal of two duplex buildings (four residential units) on two lots. RMC 4-2-11 OF
and 4-4-080 require 2.5 parking spaces per unit when tandem garage parking is
proposed. RMC 4-4-080F.10.d allows the Development Services Division to grant
modifications from the parking standards for individual cases provided that the
modification meets the following criteria (pursuant to RMC 4-9-2500.2):
a. Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental
protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon
sound engineering judgment; and
b. Will not be injurious to other property(s) in the vicinity; and
c. Conform to the intent and purpose of the Code; and
d. Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; and
e. Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity.
As previously noted, the proposal to locate 2 surface parking stalls on the north lot of
the overall development proposal, with the intention of providing required parking
spaces for both the north and south duplex buildings, would conflict with code
requirements for setbacks, landscape buffers, and location of parking spaces. With
the removal of the surface parking stalls, and in conjunction with the conditions of the
modified setback variance, the applicant should be able to modify the site plan to
reasonably accommodate the proposed development.
Analysis
a) Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental
protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound
engineering judgment.
The applicant contends that 8 garage parking spaces in addition to the available on-street
parking would provide sufficient parking for the proposed overall development of 4 duplex
units. Each duplex unit will have exclusive use of two tandem parking spaces (Le., located
one behind another) within a private garage. Staff has reviewed the applicant's proposal and
concurs that the reduction of required parking spaces from 2.5 to 2.0 per unit would not
result in a significant negative impact, as sufficient on-street parking is available on Hardie
Ave. NW and NW 3rd Place to serve the remaining needs of the proposed development. The
reduction in parking spaces would meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance,
Variance and parking mod #2 Williams 05-111\
City of Renton P/B/PW Depa,.
WILLIAMS DUPLEX SETBACK VARIANCE AND PARKING MODIFICATION
Adatrative Decision Staff Report
LUA-05-111, V-A
REPORT AND DECISION OF May 5, 2006 Page 70'9
environmental protection and maintainability intended by the code requirements, based upon
sound engineering judgment.
b) Will not be injurious to other property(s) in the vicinity.
Provided the applicant complies with the conditions of the variance and the parking
modification, the development proposal should not have negative impacts upon neighboring
properties.
c) Conforms to the intent and purpose of the Code.
See discussion under section a.
d) Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended.
The modification request indicates that due to the narrow size of each lot (45 feet) and the
required setbacks, each duplex unit cannot be more than 15 feet wide. This width would not
be sufficient to allow two cars to be parked side-by-side in a garage located either next to the
units or below them. Therefore, the applicant has proposed tandem parking in garages
below the units. However, this arrangement will accommodate only 8 vehicles for the four
units (2 per unit), which does not meet the code requirement for 2.5 parking spaces per unit
when tandem parking is proposed. Additional surface parking spaces would have to be
located within required setback and/or buffer areas on the side or rear of the units.
The proposed reduction to 2.0 parking spaces per unit represents a 20% reduction in the
number of onsite parking spaces that will be available to each unit and to the overall
development. However, as noted in section 1, is anticipated that parking needs that cannot
be met onsite can be adequately served by street parking. The requested reduction is the
minimum necessary to accommodate the proposed development. The applicant has
provided acceptable justification for the proposed modification based upon the dimensions of
the subject properties and required setbacks. Therefore, staff concurs that the parking
situation to be justified and adequate for the use intended.
e) Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity.
See discussion under section b.
E. Conclusions
1. The subject site is located at 317 Hardie Ave. NW, within the Residential Multi-family
(RM-F) zoning designation.
2. The RM-F zone requires a minimum 25-foot south side yard setback. The applicant
is requesting a reduction of setback to 10 feet.
3. For the proposed development, 2.5 parking spaces per unit are required by code.
The applicant is requesting a reduction to 2.0 parking spaces per unit.
4. The Development Services Division previously denied the applicant's variance
request for a 10ft south side yard setback, because of potential impacts to adjacent
single-family properties.
Variance and parking mod #2 Williams 05-111 \
City of Renton P/B/PW Departe
WILLIAMS DUPLEX SETBACK VARIANCE AND PARKING MODIFICATION
REPORT AND DECISION OF May 5, 2006
Adatrative Decision Staff Report
LUA-05-111, V-A
Page 80'9
5. At the combined appeal hearing for the variance and parking modification decisions,
held on February 21, 2006, the Division proposed a variance that would result in a
maximum 50% reduction of the 25-ft side yard setback, for a total of 12 ft 6 in. Staff
believes that this variance would be a reasonable compromise that would provide
sufficient additional buildable area for the applicant to develop a feasible
development proposal while still protecting adjacent single-family properties.
6. For the modified variance described in 5. above, the proposal has been analyzed
according to the four variance criteria described above in section 0.6. The modified
variance would satisfy the criteria for granting the variance, in that it meets the
hardship test, the public welfare test, the special privilege test, and the minimum
variance test.
F. Decision
1. The Administrative Setback Variance for the Williams South Duplex, File No.
LUA-05-111, V-A, is Approved With Conditions, as follows:
a. The variance is associated with the current development proposal for two
duplexes located on two adjacent lots. Revisions to the development proposal
may result in modification or revocation of the variance, as appropriate.
b. The south side yard setback for the lot located at 317 Hardie Way shall be a
minimum of 12 ft 6 inches from the adjacent single-family property.
c. No surface (non-garage) parking spaces shall be allowed.
d. The applicant shall submit a detailed landscaping plan to be reviewed and
approved by the Development Services Division prior to receiving building
permits. The landscaping plan shall clearly indicate how screening and buffer
requirements will be implemented through landscaping in order to protect
adjacent single-family development. Types, sizes and locations of ground
cover, trees, shrubs and other plantings and materials shall be clearly
indicated on the plan. Additionally, the applicant shall provide a solid-wood 6-
ft fence on the south property line, finished on both sides, for further impact
reduction.
2. The Parking Standards Modification associated with the development proposal for
the Williams Duplexes (2 duplexes on 2 lots), File No. LUA05-111, V-A, is Approved
subject to the conditions of the Administrative Setback Variance. Revisions to the
development proposal may result in modification or revocation of the
modification, as appropriate.
SIGNATURE:
Neil Watts, Development Services Director date
Variance and parking mod #2 Williams 05-111 \
City of Renton PIBIPW Depa.t
WILLIAMS DUPLEX SETBACK VARIANCE AND PARKING MODIFICA TlON
REPORT AND DECISION OF May 5, 2006
TRANSMITTED this 5th day of May, 2006 to the Contact:
Jim Hanson
Hanson Consulting
17446 Mallard Cove Lane
Mt. Vemon, WA 98274
TRANSMITTED this 5th day of May, 2006 to the Applicant:
Tom Williams
17980 Brittany Dr SW
Seattle, WA 98166
TRANSMITTED this 5th day of May, 2006 to the Owner:
Pamela Sanford
c/o Tom Williams
17980 Brittany Drive SW
Seattle, WA 98166
TRANSMITTED this 5th day of May, 2006 to the Party of Record:
Eric R. Stahlfield
Law Offices of Eric R. Stahlfield
145 SW 155th Street, Suite 101
Seattle, WA 98166
TRANSMITTED this 5th day of May, 2006 to the following:
Larry Meckling, Building Official
Stan Engler, Fire Marshal
Jennifer Henning, Principal Planner
Gregg Zimmerman, Planning/Building/Public Works, Administrator
South County Joumal
Land Use Action Appeals
A.istratiVe Decision Staff Report
LUA-05-111, V-A
Page 90(9
The administrative land use decision will become final if the decision is not appealed within 14 days ofthe date of
approval. An appeal of the decision must be filed within the 14 day appeal period (RCW 43.21.C.075(3); WAC
197-11-680). An appeal to the Hearing Examiner is govemed by Title IV, Section 4-8-11.B, which requires that
such appeals be filed directly with the Hearing Examiner via the City of Renton City Clerks Office. Appeals must
be made in writing on or before 5:00 PM on May 19,2006. Any appeal must be accompanied by a $75.00 fee
and other specific requirements.
THE APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS DOCTRINE provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications
may occur conceming 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.
Variance and parking mod #2 Williams 05-\\\\
8 NOTE: Kro8 Maps we compIed from otficiaI Records
and FieldSurYeya. They areproduoedfor'_8i1Ce use ~18W only end no warranty is expullsd or implied.
_---'I I I I \ L--._~---+-____ _
~--4-·4TH--·---·ST.-·-·-·--.-.~.-
I IIJ ~ «J iW ..: 6t;
I L:r ~
~ ~<~=-I
-,---
. --t-
I~ "1
I f---~~ l-----
ND
~
IiJ
'"
--
• on (IJ
----.f
JRlA
" on4
III •
WILLIAMS VARIANCE
317 HARDIE A VENW
7 .~.-.
18
. f
if ~ I
'I /I Ii"
'\
o /'--"'" " \ ~ ,)
;) -,
,: .. _ . .-"
"---/
3RD . PLACE N .W
...... -... ·,gr'\\ --' --l . . 'I r .. ......•. e'W " . . . . 1 1 ... . . . . . ~ .. .... ~, . . . . ~ .. " ~ , (. . . . , . . . f .. ; i , ... ~l~ : : : L : : .~( J4
1-5: il_t·r'kM~ I '~ 1S
0 0:::: Z + I-LLJ
:~
0 if)
I
~ L.LJ > W ~ z « c:> ~ -.J W 0 w :c ,~ u w 0 z w w f-a:::: m z w « u I \' I
I ••• I yy _ ~ ••• yyl _ yy I y~ ~ yy I .. _ yy .l. yy._ . I I\WIIt.~ I
LAWN IIfW~~AWAW~~4P'AW~==r-=r==rVU LAN-O-SCAPE NOTES,
(.
'LANDSCAPE PLAN
SCALE 1/8" = 1-0"
1". '~~::l A II 1-I---I-I.Amm
REMOVE
EXISTING
§
L' , I I 4" 4? rLO I SlIN I 2-3 '
l.ARGE TREE LAWN AREAS WITH AUTOM;~ TIC N 1 L SPR I NKLER IIEADS •
PAMSDUPL ~-Q-'~
\I ~ PAM6SL 18
' ..
D'ATE:
8/28/')5
SlUT /().
1AB
e'
·e
A /" f
...
e·
n '_1-
I ~l±H:U±IJJ • rtflll
mID
ltiilil±l±
I
IHluu
~ -ct-""SOUTH ELEVA TI ON
'if FF GARAGE 0+36" SL PE 3" TO GAR DOOR
L..
w.-._
FOOT ING BOnOM 0+21" ~=:
S£ i~
Ii tliih illiiillii H ri if iii
IH~ InU;;UHUllU;ii;il
111ffH3ffJ±
i « \I « « I
I '------oJ L...,.;....---II I i! I i ~ ~ ~ II n i!!!
Ull
Il1ll
t:j
!TITI1l
~
STEPSON.
I~I
STEPS AND Af'.DRAIL
PER COIlE. ~ ~ FF GARAGE 0+36" SLOPE 3" TO GAR DOOR
STEPSAf'.D Af'.DRAIL PER CODE.
A <!-r~
---
I PAMSOUPL I DATE'
_ 1/4"a 1'0" 8/23/05 1---6~· aM ~6SH67' /
.'
e
'<,:-","
1M
o I
----Renton 019 Umft,o F3 e & ZONING +~+ PIBfFW TJ!CBNICAL SER.V1C1S
It UIl8fOf 18 T23N R5E W 112 5318
REPORT
&
DECISION
DECISION DATE
Project Name
Owners:
Applicants/Contact:
File Number
City of Renton
Department of Planning / Building / Public Wolks
ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE
LAND USE ACTION
October 13, 2005
William Setback Variance
Pamela Sanford, c/o Tom Williams, 17980 Brittany Drive SW, Seattle,
WA 98166
Jim Hanson, Hanson Consulting, 17446 Mallard Cove Lane, Mt. Vernon,
WA 98274
LUA-05-111, V-A Project Manager Keri Weaver
Project Description The applicant is requesting an administrative variance from the 26-foot
side yard setback that is required in the RM-F (Residential Multi-Family)
zone when an RM-F zoned property greater than two stories abuts a
property in a single-family zone. The south side of the subject site abuts
property zoned Residential - 8 units per acre (R-8). The applicant
proposes a setback reduction to 10 feet due to the constraints of lot size
and other required setbacks.
Project Location 317 Hardie Ave. NW
Bldg. Area gsf
Site Area
. --l-
ft:g
1 I ,v---
4~ L
N/A
4,500 sq. ft. (0.10 ac.)
total lot area
Prop'osed Multi-Family
Residence (Duplex) 1,620 sq. ft.
Total Building Area -4,860 sq. ft. Proposed
l' NO~n-t
City of Renton P/BIPW Dep6nl>
WILLIAMS DUPLEX SETBA"'""'l!If VARIANCE
REPORT AND DECISION OF October 13. 2005
A. Type of Land Use Action
Conditional Use
Site Plan Review
Special Permit for Grade & Fill
X Administrative Variance
B. Exhibits
A_is .. ",~ve Variance Staff Report
LUA-05-111, V-A
Page 20(6
Binding Site Plan
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
Administrative Code Determination
The following exhibits were entered into the record:
Exhibit 1: Yellow file containing: application, proof of posting and
Exhibit 2:
Exhibit 3:
Exhibit 4:
Exhibit 5:
publication, and other documentation pertinent to this
request.
Neighborhood Map
Site and Landscape Plan (dated 09/1612005)
Elevations (dated 911612005)
Zoning Map, Sheet F3 West (dated 1210412003)
C. Project Description / Background:
The applicant is requesting approval of an administrative variance from the side yard
setback of 26 feet that is required when a property in the RM-F zone is greater than 2 stories
and abuts a property in a single-family residential zone. The applicant proposes to build
multi-family housing (duplex) on the site. The lot size is 4,500 sq. ft. The site, which is
currently vacant, is located at 317 Hardie Way NW and the proposed development would
have access from that road. This property is part of an overall proposed development plan
for two duplexes on the subject property and the adjacent property to the north.
The development standards of the RM-F zone as they pertain to this property require a front
yard setback of 20 feet, a side yard setback of 25 feet on the south side, a side yard setback
of 5 feet on the north side, and a rear yard setback of 15 feet. Additionally, because the
development proposal is for a three-story building, the side yard setbacks are each
increased by one foot, so that the resulting north side setback is 26 feet and the south side
setback is 6 feet.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION
Having reviewed the written record in the matter, the City now makes and enters the
following:
D. Findings
1) Request: The applicant has requested approval for an administrative variance from
the required 25-foot south side yard setback in the RM-F zone for the property
located at 317 Hardie Ave. N. A 10-foot south side yard setback is requested.
ADMV AR staffipt Williams Duplexes.doc\
City of Renton PIB/PW Dep&i1r··· .
WILLIAMS DUPLEX SETBA~ VARIANCE
A_is,,~ve Variance Staff Report
LUA-05-111, V-A
REPORT AND DECISION OF October 13, 2005 Page 3 of 6
2) Administrative Variance: The applicant's administrative variance submittal materials
comply with the requirements necessary to process a variance. The applicant's site
plan and other project drawings are provided as Exhibits 3 and 4.
3) Existing Land Use: Land uses surrounding the subject site include: North: 3rd
Place NW and multi-family residential; South: single-family residential (R-8); East
Hardie Ave. NW and commercial (medical office); and West: single-family residential
(R-8).
4) Zoning: The site is located in the Residential Multi-Family (RM-F) zone. The
allowable density range in this zone is 10-20 du/acre. The applicant proposes a net
density of 19.04 du/acre. Within the RM-F zone, maximum lot coverage is 35%;
however, lot coverage of up to 45% may be approved at the discretion of the Hearing
Examiner. The applicant's proposal will result in approximately 36% lot coverage.
The development standards for this zone require a 20-foot front setback, 15-foot rear
setback, and 5-foot side yard setback. For RM-F zoned properties that abut single-
family residential properties, a 25-foot side yard setback is required. If a development
proposal in the RM-F zone will be greater than two stories, the entire structure must
have additional one-foot side yard setbacks for each proposed story in excess of two.
Therefore, based on these zoning requirements, the subject site is required to have a
20-foot front setback, 15-foot rear setback, 26-foot south side yard setback, and 6-
foot north side yard setback. The applicant proposes a 26-foot front setback, 22-foot
rear setback, 10-foot south yard side setback, and 5-foot setback north yard side
setback.
The proposed duplex has tandem garage parking on the ground floor of the structure.
The site is located within the RM-F zone, which requires that 2.5 parking spaces be
provided for each attached dwelling unit if tandem parking will be utilized, and that
surface parking is permitted only in side and rear yard areas (driveways cannot count
toward required parking spaces). Any proposed surface parking must be provided on
the same lot as the building it serves. The proposed development plan provides only 2
tandem garage parking spaces for this duplex building. The overall development
shows two surface parking spaces provided on the lot that would be occupied by the
other (north) duplex building, but this siting does not meet the requirement that
parking be on the same lot as the building it serves. Additionally, the surface parking
spaces are not readily accessible to the south building, as they are proposed to be
separated by privacy fences and private lawn areas.
The proposed surface parking spaces for the north building are also located within the
required 15-foot rear yard setback area. Within the RM-F zone, the 15-foot rear yard
setback is required to be landscaped, with the intention of providing an aesthetically
pleasing buffer for adjacent single-family residential properties.
4) Topography: The topography of the site is generally flat with gradual sloping from
west to east.
5) Lot and Building Size: The total site area is apprOXimately 14,500 sq. ft. (0.34 acres)
and is currently vacant. The proposed new duplex will have a footprint of
approximately 1,620 sq. ft. and will total approximately 4,860 sq. ft. in overall size,
including two stories of living area over one story of garage area.
ADMV AR staffrpt Williams Duplexes.doc\
· ~ . City of Renton PIB/PW Dep m· ..
WILLIAMS DUPLEX SETBAC VARIANCE
A.S ... dtive Variance Staff Report
LUA-05-111, V-A
REPORT AND DECISION OF October 13, 2005 Page 4 of 6
CONSISTENCY WITH VARIANCE CRITERIA
Section 4-9-2508.5.a. lists four criteria that the Zoning Administrator is asked to consider,
along with all other relevant information, in making a decision on an Administrative Variance
application. The Zoning Administrator shall have authority to grant an administrative
variance upon making a determination, in writing, that the conditions specified below have
been found to exist:
a. That the applicant suffers undue 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:
The applicant contends that special circumstances apply to the subject site, which
impose limitations on the lot and create a hardship. Specifically, the applicant
indicates that given the small size of the lot (45 feet wide and 100 feet deep), the
required side yard setbacks would not allow a minimum building footprint necessary
for construction of a duplex.
The proposed duplex is part of a pending overall development proposal for two
duplexes on two adjoining lots. In this case, the applicant is creating a hardship by
proposing to construct a two-duplex project on these lots instead of a smaller multi-
family project such as a townhome triplex. If the applicant redesigned the proposal,
setback requirements could be met and the need for a variance would be
eliminated.
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:
The proposed reduction of the north side yard setback to 10 feet would be a 61%
reduction of the 26-foot setback, which is required to buffer neighboring single-
family uses from the impacts of the proposed development. This reduction must
also be considered in light of other variances which would be necessary for the
applicant's proposal. Development within the RM-F zone is intended to provide infill
development in established neighborhoods, in a manner compatible with existing
development. As previously discussed in Section D.4. "Zoning", the current site
plan also does not meet code requirements for the north side yard setback, the 15-
foot rear landscaped setback, and required parking spaces. The cumulative effect
of the total number of required variances, in conjunction with the height and bulk of
the proposed 3-story building compared to adjacent homes, would result in reduced
quality of life for neighboring residents.
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:
The approval of the variance request would be a grant of special privilege, as other
property owners in the vicinity would not be allowed to reduce setback, parking and
ADMV AR staffrpt Williams Duplexes.doc\
City of Renton PIBIPW Dep:&l'Ir"
WILLIAMS DUPLEX SETBA"1!If VARIANCE
Aais .. diive Variance Staff Report
LUA-05-111, V-A
REPORT AND DECISION OF October 13, 2005 Page 5 of 6
landscaping requirements when the stated hardship is self-imposed by the size and
design of the project.
d. That the approval as determined by the Zoning Administrator is a minimum
variance that will accomplish the desired purpose:
The applicant contends that the request is a minimum variance needed in order to
construct a duplex on the south lot. The applicant's overall proposal for two
duplexes on two lots is at nearly the maximum allowable density (19.04 du/acre
within the allowable range of 10-20 du/acre) for the site, and a less intense multi-
family development such as a townhome triplex could be accommodated on the
site without the requested variance and other variances that would be necessary for
the applicant's current proposal.
E. Conclusions
1. The subject site is located at 317 Hardie Ave. NW, within the Residential Multi-family
(RM-F) zoning designation.
2. The RM-F zone requires a minimum 26-foot south side yard setback. The applicant
is proposing a reduction of setback to 10 feet.
3. The proposal has been analyzed according to the four variance criteria described
above. The variance request does not satisfy the criteria for granting the variance, in
that it does not meet the hardship test, the public welfare test, the special privilege
test, or the minimum variance test. The proposal's stated hardship is self-imposed
due to the size and location of the proposed development. Additionally, it is
anticipated that significant negative impacts to surrounding single-family properties
would result from the cumulative effects of the requested variance and the additional
variances for reduced setback, parking and landscaping requirements necessary to
accommodate the current overall development proposal. Such reductions would
constitute a grant of special privilege that would not be allowed for other property
owners in the vicinity. Other types and sizes of less-intense multi-family development
could be built on the site without the requested variance.
F. Decision
The Administrative Setback Variance for the Williams Variance, File No. LUA-05-111,
V-A, is Denied.
SIGNATURE:
Jennifer Henning, Zoning Administrator date
ADMV AR stampt WiII,iams Duplexes,doc\
City of Renton P/BIPW DepsA,k
WILLIAMS DUPLEX SETBA~ VARIANCE
REPORT AND DECISION OF October 13, 2005
TRANSMITTED this 1:f' day of October, 2005 to the Applicant/Contact:
Jim Hanson
Hanson Consulting
17446 Ma"ard Cove Lane
Mt. Vernon, WA 98274
TRANSMITTED this 13th day of October, 2005 to the Owner:
Pamela Sanford
c/o Tom Williams
17980 Brittany Drive SW
Seattle, WA 98166
TRANSMITTED this 13th day of October, 2005 to the following:
Larry Meckling, Building Official
Stan Engler, Fire Marshal
Neil Watts, PlanninglBuilding/Public Works, Director
Jennifer Henning, Principal Planner
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Gregg Zimmerman, PlanninglBuildinglPublic Works, Administrator
South County Journal
Land Use Action Appeals
A_iS •• alive Variance Staff Report
LUA-05-111, V-A
Page 60(6
The administrative land use decision wi" become final if the decision is not appealed within 14 days of the date of
approval. An appeal of the decision must be filed within the 14 day appeal period (RCW 43.21.C.075(3); WAC
197-11-680). An appeal to the Hearing Examiner is governed by Title IV, Section 4-8-11.B, which requires that
such appeals be filed directly with the Hearing Examiner via the City of Renton City Clerks Office. Appeals must
be made In writing on or before 5:00 PM on October 27, 2005. Any appeal must be accompanied by a
$75.00 fee and other specific requirements.
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 we". All communications after the decision/approval date must be made in writing
through the Hearing Examiner. All communications are public record and this permits a" 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 resuH in the invalidation of the appeal by the Court.
ADMV AR staffrpt WilJiams Duplexes.doc\
,.
.8
ND
ell
~ '"
---:
NOTE: Krol. 81~·~ frem 0IficiW RecOrds
and FieldSurwya. They are produced for ,efei ... teeUS8 crit and no warranty is expressed or implied.
e.
• on
[J)
---.1 ..
I ~------~--~-----
0
•
Ii
WILL~SVARLANCE
317 HARDIE AVENW
7 .~.-.
18
3RD . PLACE N .W .
... : : : : : : ; :f:QI;~ -~ ... : : : ; . . . ~ .~I r ""'"':;;" .... ,.","",, .. j I I I ~r ;; 'd-; i t .j ~ T: : : : 1: : :: \ >1 ...
II'
------1..\5 f+
'LANDSCAPE PLAN
SCALE 1/8" = 1-0"
I".:; <is,~
REMOVE
EXISTING
I-S w w z 0 er:: + f-LLJ 0 (J)
~ L.J..J > ex::: z <C ~ --.J W :r: 0:::: u W
0 Z W W f-0::::: m z w <C u I
LANDSCAPE NOTES
LARGE TREE ' LAWN AREAS WITH AUTOMAT Ie fL. SPR I NKLER IIEAOS •
'. ... -.
<Q V'S>
\I
PAMSOUPI. DATE: M_._ ..... _.
8/28/05 SCAI.r. V8'" l'
!KET~.
/:aIw.\[ PAM6SL 18 1A B
'----. ,,-, -,-
e
e
-= .. ~. ~.~-~~illl\l\lll\\lllll\.~<
~B±El±H I
l~lliE
III
STEPSNI> Nl>AAIL PERCOOE.
e
~ -<t-vSOUTH ELEV t T~~ 0+36" SUlPE 3" TO GAR DOOR
'1/-
FOOT ING BOTTOM 0+21"
" ..... -~
ifltitiihilnililLililli1
~
I II II II Ii ~
r i: II..Jb,.!!....II
STEPS AND Nl>AAIL
PERCOOE. ,....I
~
~ E3 __
~
~
!mm
J
I
PAT II)-2 STEPS ON
I~
IIII~
§
I·
NORTH ELEVAT 10
FF GARAGE 0+36" SLOPE 3" TO GAR DOOR
---+-
e
A "'-r~
'I PAMSDUPL 1 DATE'
__ V4"a "0" 8/23/05
6~7 -,,--
----f6M6SH67
C
1M 1M CA
M I 1M
G.3 .. 19 T2.3N RSE W 112 ~ ZONING uu -""'""-'6' ~ TBCllNlCAL 8BR.VICJIS
6 1::' w F3
18 T23N R5E W 1/2
5318
#,
ICllthy K~Ik~.Wheelec, Mayor,
CIT,.JF RENTON
'PlamiingIBuildinglPublic Warks Department
Gr~ ZimntermanP.E., Administrator,
December 20, 2005 '
,Jim Hansan
HansanConSUrtirig
17446 Mallard Cove ,Lane
Mt. vernon, WA 98274
RE: WilJiams SideYard Setback VarianCe; LUA05-111, V-A
Request for ModifICation -Parking Standard
Dear Mr. Hanson:
The City of Renton has reQEtlved your reqlJ~rfora parking modification regarding the
property locate'd althe intersection oftlatdieAve: NW and 31d Place NW. The foHpwing
summarizes your request, project background, arialysis and decision.
Summary of Request
On September 15, 2005, you applied far anadministraUve variance to reduce'the south
side yard setback for a proposed duplexdeveloPm~ritonthesubject site. The variance
request was qeniedby theeity Z9ning Admfn,~(on Octpber 13, 2005:; In. the City's
Report and"Dedsion fortlle'·varian<;e dehia1}lt 'Was,note:d',the,pr()po~ed deyeippment
plan'did riot rileetG9dfi!requjremen~ for$evei3J,1t~h1s,Jnpludin€J:th.e $JOO ~rd ~etbcick, '
mjmberand location of p'arkih~spaces,andlaridscapmg ~n,dbUfferr'equir~.me!ltS. , ' '.
Subsequently, on December 2, 2005~ you applied'for =a mOdification from the parking
s'tandardsthat wouJdaJlaw2.0 parkiflg spaces p,~"'unitinsteadof 2.5pBrkrng'spaces per
unit, ,a~, required by RMC 4-2-41Of=and, 4+080, when ,tandem 'gar:a.ge parking is
proposed. Sectiofl4~ .. {)80:F1 O~d alloWS theOevelopm~ntSerVices DiviSion to grant
modificatiOQs framine p~rf<ingstandards for' ioQiykfual cases provid~(I that, the
'modification:mee:fs the fOJloWing criteria (pursu$Jt tgRMC 4-9-250D.2)~ , '
, , ,
1. Wmmeet 'the objectives and safety. flomCtion, appe~ran®. environmental,
protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon,
sound engineering judgment; and
2. ,Will not be injurious to other property( s) in the vicinity; and
3. Conform to the intent and purpose of the Code; and '
4. Can be shown to be justified and requiredfbr the use and 'situation intended; and
5. Will not create adverse imp~cts to ()therptop~rty(ies) in the vicinity.
Background
The overall development proposal is for two duplexes on two adjacent lots located at the
intersection of Hardie Ave. NW and 3rd Place NW. The lots are zoned Resideritial -
Multi.;Family (RM-F), and are currently vacant. Each lot is approximately 4,500 sq ft'in
---'-~-:----, -1 0--5'-5--S~ou-th:-G-:-r-ad~y-W-a-y---R-en-to-n--,W-':a-s-hi-ngt-':""on-9,--8;.;..0-55------~
AHEAD OF THE CURVE
r'
. "' ..
. size. As preViously noted, theCity'S·PClrki.ngstandards r~qUire'2.5.partdhg,spaces:·per ' .
. '. unifwhen tandem garages are prOVided'iyjhich :WQufcf resuJflnl o parking $pa~ farthe.
proposed 4~untt overall' development. The. applicant J,lrQpoood to ;proyfde.ti. parkit'l9: .
':s~ces within the garages,.ahd 2'·sUrfaCeparkingstatJs~ttherear()fone biJndirig. :.' >
As' mdiCBtecf ·inthevarlaJiCed~i1iat.,ttleproPoS~lfor 2$u:rface parking, stalls would have ·.ccintiicted~lh coqe reguYremerits ;for'sett>ac1<s;lahds~pe buffl~rs. .. andloCation of
parking, sPaces ..• Wit,h the .removaI6t. ,the surface parking stalls,. theappUcant should be"
'abletortlddffy the sitepfan tQ' teas-oh~b1y accOmmodate the' proposed development.
". '.. .
. The isSues . '(if the 'p~'i"ktng. ,~ificatrori'arid:theprevio~yariance re,questcanhot be ..
'. separat~a from ~t"e overall dewefopmenfpropqsa), andthisrev.iew' .. anq::qecis.ion h$~:
.. ' beet1:madefrorn. a Comprehensive ' ' . 'tbatCbrisid~rSanof thepottmtialepde-. reqUirements:' Th~ ...... . ..' '. . .... 'be required'.asa COridition ¢f. .'
approv81 for ·the .' .
An~dysJs'
'". ".: .
.~~~='n' r·" il/.nl ... ~,lffil"'.a.,
(i;e.; ~o~fed:one' .... ""r .. n""lattotlimtl 'Within
.. ' ' .. app'~cane~prapQ!>aJ~nd . . the·~ftrel[fQ
" to' 2.{);~perui11rwOtif(f not .,.-e~;U1tI.J[l
p~tJ4Flf~j$:.ava~fe~n Hardfe·~ .• ·v 1:'!~N.\~;~;~r;:k: . of.· .. the.·proposed. ·d~veJ()prnent. f .
Objecttves· and 'safety, function, "c:ippe~ran:Ce~"
malntaihabjJity Intende'~ . by' the cqde·· requirements,
jud~ent:' '.-. .c,· --'... -, -. ,-.
-~.:), ····.·\11111 notb~iri'jp.rrous 16. 0therprOp~rty{sj'ffi tb~ viCinity.
t .-
il~~:~ct;nf;tg;b;:~/~::::~'1~~~~~f~al;(tt$ ........ .
"-",;>:' ·~:v~:=~~~~ft:itt{hf~~~~,~t:s··snan' .. be'··adowed':fQr,.-,th~.p'r~Osed:.·· -1.
2: . -If avamn'oetssUbsequently:appfuved tor the req'wred 25'-foolsooth side yard .
. ' .: ' ... setback, the setl:>ac~ shaif not· be redu~d by more. than 50% or 12 fe~f6 'inches. .'.
Aseparatereconsjd~;-ationof thfs variance requestwiH be r~uired: .' ..... ' .
; ...... .
3. ' ". .if ~:eapplicant j-~qLiestS· a reconsideration oflhe ~aric:mce clenicll,theapplicant
·ShaU ,~lJbmit a detaifeara'ridscape. . plan tqf reYI¢~ .andapt¥.{}v~f by>,th~
.(' ',.
", ",'
" ",
"', .
·"
'" .
Will~ms DLiplexes LUA 0.1
Parking'Modlfication ..,
, Decem6~20,2005
Page3'of4
'~.)
D.:eveIO~J)f$8!Yi~~Di'{i;sioTJ ,whiCh,ciearlYln9iqci~e~: how sCr~efljn9. 'a,nd~uff~·, "
requkenlE~nts,:wltf: be implementedthrougn land$C9pfng ifi oeder to protect,
adjacent, sin·g,le..:familY 'residential, properties" from' adv$rse hnpacts 'ofttle,'.
proposed developmellt. Types, sizes and" locations' of ground cover, tre.~s,
shrups, and oth,er' plantings and mate~ls shall be cl~atly indicated on the' plan.
AdditionaHy, the applieantshaJl prmiid,e a sQfid' w()od 6":foot, fenceori tbeso\.Jth
property line" finished' 011 both sides, for further iriipact reduction. '
ConfQtms to the 'ntent and purpose of t~'Co(fe.
See diSCUssion under section 1.
4.)' 'Can be shown to be JuSt1fi~~ 3!nJ!,!<!!,ldrer;t for the use and situation
, _l"t~nded., ,'-,-, '
The mOdification re(IUe~ttn~ltal~s __ ,.""'.,.' ... ,
the requifecJ " ,
, ; woW<1.not -be s~fficient
eithern~xLtp the,units
,'oreaen IOt{45 fe~t)and '
1'5 feet wide.. This Width 'irl ag~ragetocated "
, .prop~edtaii(1em'
, ~rnrrij)date oniy parkingm garag,es 'oelSW
',' '6vehic/es"for the Jour ,code ,f:eQu.irement tOr
'PfOl~f€t(J AddUionat'svIface, , "QUffer ateas;'on
'2.5 parking-sp~ceS
-. patkihgspa~s yy' UUIU"
'the 'side or rearqf the
, '.' . , .... ·!~=:: .. a$.uJn~~~~J
cannot -be met onsitecaribe parJdng; Th~crequest~d
". '" ..
reduction is the minimum -necessary , the propo~eddevelopmeht.rhe ,',
,applicant ,has provided acceptablejustificatiohfor the;proposed rnooifi~tipn bas~d.t,lPQn
the dimensions of ' the subject, properties • arid required setbaCks. ' 'Thet~fore;~taff.
,CQl1cursthat the parktng, situatloi'ato, be Justified and,' a~ql..iate fOrlh~ use ~ritended;
; '5.)WHlnot ~re~teadver,$e ifnPcmtstoother prC!lp~{ies)lnthe vicinity.
, '
'See·disCUs·sion unde~ Sectio'n2~ ,
Decision
, ,
" AccOrding to the City's·parking standards formulti~fanlily re.siQenti~d:unit~ with' tandem '
; .g~rages~the~eductionof fE~qu;reaparking. spacesfortne proposed d!3v.eJopin~ntfrom '
'2;5~<?~·2~O parkiJlg~p~~S p~r unit would rE~sUftina par~ifl9 shortageQf 2 sj)aces. "
However; base(foriirifqml'a1ionprbvjQ~dby the appucatitJstaff rec.ogfltZeS that the
.propQ$ed par~ing'situatipn fcir 'too' site rsadequ~taason~~treet parking, is abunqantly
~vaifable .. ,AdditIonally" theh~duCtion in parking spaces woufd allow the applicant to
" '
",' , Willia'~~,QupreXeSLUAO_
' ',Pi,ukmg Mo.dfflcati~n' , .: , , '
" Decembet20;'2005 Page 4 'of 4. '
e.'
modify the site pl~r{ toreasonabJya,ccOmrTiodat~the' proposed deveJopmeritof2'
duplexes,' anda1so provide setbacks .~i1d landsc.apiryg' that adequately butter,,'
neighboring , propertres." ,'Therefor~, the, parking modification, for the' , 'proposed
, develOpment of2 duplexes, ,is approved,for. a reqtiirememtof 2.0 parking spaCeS. per urnt., " " ' ,
" 'this JT1odiffualion is ", based oo'the cl!trellt,development p.tciJ5c)$~J, or" fourdupJe-)f units on, '
"two 'lotS.' Iftbede.vefppmerit: proPos~l·istevj$ed~oi if:~PJan~nceisiSsued with ~dineteut" ,," ,',
ci>t1ditfOhS :th~h tl1ijiedescrn,edaQ9veU1Secliori'2; tliis moo(fialtrdtf WiU' be reexamined',' ,,',
bytheDeverGPi'n~Jit se;yj~$ ;Oirea.~r and may be,aitered or ''{oided. ' "
.... :
This de.ciSloil,toapprove the propo~d parking mOdtficationis subject to a fourteen (1'4>" -
day,-appeal:~riod from t{le date (if this lelter~_ Any appealS ofthead'ministratlve debi~1On '
must' be filed with the City of Rent~~n{t~~r by 5:00 pm, January 3, 2{)Oa. 'If,
you have qtjestionsreg~rding:~C()(fEfSP?tJ~..(1~, d~'tconumt Ken Weaver,Seriior PI~nner,at(425)43Q-738~~/"',., _<~,',~\l.J",':J~ ,~ " ',' , "
CC:Ker].:Weaver, , proJeCt; File
.. ; . . ~!:
",: •. -l-~"
',~' 'l"" Ii
"'J;' .". !t ..
. "/ .;r,"'-'. ,i" __ c .. ~ ,'If! '
'. r ";. ,~)
~ ~-r.. : ! .. :!,". ~" ~" .. ' , "'f ~ ,,..-.. '9. ~t-(,~~~~:~~,;::::~J
. , . ,"
\ .. ....
REPORT AND DECISION
APPELLANT:
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF RENTON
Pamela Sanford
c/o Tom Williams
17980 Brittany Drive SW
Seattle, W A 98166
A TIORNEY FOR APPELLANT: Eric Stahlfeld
CITY OF RENTON,
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
ATIORNEY FOR CITY OF
RENTON
Law Offices of Eric R, Stahlfeld
145 SW 155th Street, Ste. 101
Burien, W A 98166
Keri Weaver, Sr. Planner
Development Services Division
City of Renton
Zanetta Fontes
Assistant City Attorney
City of Renton
Williams Setback Parking Appeal
LUA 05-111 V-A
March 16, 2006
PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Appellants' written requests for a hearing
and examining available information on file, the Examiner
conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows:
MINUTES
The foUowing minutes are a summary of the February 21, 2006 hearing.
The legal record is recorded on CD.
The hearing opened on Tuesday, February 21,2006, at 9:01a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor
ofthe Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner.
The following exhibits were entered into the record:
Exhibit No.1: Yellow file containing the original Exhibit No.2: Landscape Plan Sheet 1-AB
application, various reports, and correspondence file.
Exhibit 3: Garage view with truck
There were no preliminary matters to be discussed. It was clarified that this is a 2-story structure with parking
facilities beneath the building.
Eric Stahlfe1d stated that the City has agreed that the parking modification is appropriate. The question that the
Williams have is related to a specific condition the City imposed on that modification and that is the south lot,
Williams SetbacklParking Appee
March 16, 2006
Page 2
the City has proposed that the setback from the property immediately adjacent to the south should be 12.5 feet.
That should not have anything to do with whether there are 2.5 or 2 parking spaces per unit. The real matter is
how wide the building on the south lot should be, the evidence shows that the lot is 45 feet wide and 100 feet
deep. The issue facing this developer is how wide should the south lot building be, if the 5-foot side yard
setback is subtracted on the north side, that would leave a remaining 40 feet. The Williams have proposed a 10-
foot setback on the south side, leaving a building that would be 30-feet wide. The City, rather than a 10-foot
setback on the south have suggested 12'6", that would leave a 27'6" building width, and leave each unit in that
building a width of 13 '9".
The Williams believe that this will not work. The width of the parking underneath the units would not be
sufficient for average size vehicles. Trying to sell a condo that is 13'6" wide does not seem viable to the
Williams. Two and a half feet does make a difference in the types of rooms and the livability of the condos.
Richard Williams, 922 South 278th Place, Des Moines, W A 98198. Upon questioning by Mr. Stahlfeld, Mr.
Williams stated that his father is trying to develop this property and that his father has trouble hearing so for this
hearing Mr. Williams will be answering all questions. He has been involved in this project and does speak from
personal knowledge of the issues.
The Examiner inquired as to when the property was purchased and did they know about the limitations on the
property when it was purchased.
Mr. Williams stated that the property was purchased in the fall of 2004. At that time they received a copy of a
preliminary application, which did not mention more than a 10-foot setback. In early spring 2005 they became
aware of the fact that the City had changed the side yard setbacks to 25-feet. It appears that the Code change
was in November of 2004. The parcel is 45-feet by 1 OO-feet (east/west). Access is via Hardy Avenue to the
east. There is approximately at 15% grade from west to the east.
The Examiner asked if the variance and modification could be clarified.
The variance denial and the parking modification were issued by two separate people. Mr. Watts issued the
parking modification and Ms. Henning issued the variance denial.
Upon further questioning, Mr. Williams stated that with respect to the variance question, the proposal was for a
multi-family structure in the form of two townhouses, on the south lot. The setback on the north side of the
south lot is 5 feet and the setback on the south side of the south lot is 25-feet which leaves space for a 15-foot
wide townhouse. A 15-foot townhouse is impossible to build. He therefore, proposed a variance for the south
side setback to go from 25-feet to lO-feet, which leaves space for the building to be 30-feet wide for two
townhouses. A 15-foot townhouse is commercially viable.
The City suggested that the south setback be 12'6"that would leave a 13'9" building for each townhouse. A
building of that size would make parking two cars in the lower level of the townhouse almost impossible.
Fifteen feet would be the absolute minimum for a parking garage. A 13 '9" building would not leave enough
room for people to get out of their cars. The additional footage would allow easier access. Fifteen feet is the
absolute minimum for a garage.
With respect to the room above the garage level, the floor plan calls for certain specifics that are common to all
townhomes, they include a 3-foot wide passageway, whether it be stairway, hallway or just walking area and
that leaves 12 feet for a particular room. Smaller rooms can be created, but they are not always viable or
saleable. When building a townhome you have a 6" exterior wall, 4" party wall, and 5" hallway wall that leaves
13'9" of room space less 3-feet for minimum hallway with a [mal space of 10'9" for the size of an interior room.
Williams SetbacklParking Appea_
March 16, 2006
Page 3
If that were reduced to the City's proposal ofa 12'6" south side yard setback, that would bring the size of that
room down to 9' 6".
Ms. Fontes objected to the testimony.
The Examiner stated that basically the variance was denied and so that leaves a 25-foot setback, leaving a 15'
developable envelope in the north/south direction. The lot is fairly deep east to west and depending on the
setbacks, the building could be expanded that direction.
Mr. Williams stated that the criteria is "can you get your parking in", the code requires 2.5 parking spaces. They
had asked for a variance to 2, what drives the ability to build a multi-family unit on this property is the parking.
A single-family unit cannot be built, that is against the code and if you cannot get four parking stalls in the
configuration, basically a building cannot be built on that property. Four cars cannot fit into a tandem setting in
a 15-foot wide structure.
He further stated that an existing house was demolished on the property, but nothing has been done to the length
and width ofthe actual lot. There are other multi-family structures in the near vicinity. In order to have a
saleable duplex, it is necessary to have a minimum of IS-feet in width for the interior.
Upon questioning by Ms. Fontes, Mr. Williams stated that he had not done anything to change the size of the
lots.
Ms. Fontes asked if Mr. Williams had at any time tried to make Lots 11 and 12 one large parcel?
Mr. Stahlfeld objected to the line of testimony. This hearing is just with respect to this one particular lot, we are
not talking about the north lot at all today. The City cannot force a property owner to redefme his property, he
has a legal right to treat each lot separately.
Ms. Fontes stated that it was relevant because Mr. Stahlfeld opened the door with respect to changing the lot
sizes. As it relates to undue hardship, it has nothing to do with the City forcing him to do anything. It's a
question of whether or not there is any question of any undue hardship. Some steps could have been taken to
change the circumstances, Mr. Williams chose not to.
The Examiner stated that if Mr. Williams sold one lot separately, which he could do, Lot 11, the purchaser could
come in and ask for some zoning under the code and some development under the code. Therefore, we are
dealing with only the south lot, Lot 11. Obviously a lot line adjustment might give this lot another foot or two
that it would take away from the other lot and still leave both lots with developable property. He asked that this
hearing be kept to just the one lot today.
Ms. Fontes continued, when the proposal was first submitted, in the upper left hand comer of Exhibit 2, there
are two elongated, what she believed to be parking spaces.
Mr. Williams stated that that was correct.
When the project was first approached, was it the intention that the two parking spaces on the north lot would be
used as part of the required parking?
Mr. Williams stated that this did not just come out of the blue, there was a great deal of conversation
with Jennifer Henning regarding this proposal. It was their estimation that they would concur to being
able to provide the fifth parking stall on the north property for the south lot.
Williams SetbacklParking Appee
March 16, 2006
Page 4
Mr. Stahlfeld objected in that the parking spaces in the north lot were part of the original proposal and the fact
that the north lot is not part of the proposal.
The Examiner clarified that originally each parcel needed five parking stalls, either in a garage or on the surface.
That was not going to work on one lot or the other, so therefore it was proposed an additional parking space for
each unit be placed on the north lot. That was discarded due to the fact that the parking has to be on the lot that
it serves. The modification was granted and so the two parking stalls on the surface are no longer needed.
Ms. Fontes stated that the modification was granted with conditions. Those conditions have been appealed. The
modification therefore can only be granted when and if the conditions are met.
Mr. Stahlfeld stated that his understanding from the City is that the person that granted the parking modification
was the supervisor of the person who denied the variance.
The Examiner stated that the supervisor does not necessarily supervise the variance. It is still two separate
decisions by two separate people in the City. The variance was denied, meaning that a 25-foot setback is
required and then the modification was apprQved subject to a condition with at least a minimum ofa 12'6"
setback.
Upon further questioning by Ms. Fontes, Mr. Williams stated that Tom Williams, his father, drew Exhibit 2. He
is not an engineer and no architect was hired to draw plans for the proposed townhouses. He created many
different layouts, but these were the only ones submitted. All of the other layouts were side-by-side, one was
actually a 3-bedroom model, and all were two stories with a garage underneath. Each of the units are two-story
townhouses. None of the plans were ever for two single level living spaces, one on.top of the other, they were
all for two units, two stories each. No 3-bedroom units are being proposed for the south lot.
The two lots were purchased in the fall of 2004 and sometime between that purchase date and the date plans
were submitted and applications were sought from the City, the setbacks were changed on Lot 11. They had a
copy of a letter from the City advising what the setbacks would be from the pre-application meeting from the
previous owner and engineer. The letter may have been dated September 10, 2004. They talked with Jennifer
Henning at a meeting in the summer of 2005, at which time the setbacks were discussed and she agreed that the
setback were impractical and would make the lot unbuildable, as a result of that meeting the plans were prepared
that were submitted.
Mr. Williams stated that he did not believe that anyone looked into the mandatory width for a parking stall
within the City Code.
Ms. Fontes stated that the mandatory minimum width for a parking stall is 9-feet. The width of the parking area
in the garage view exhibit shows a width exceeding 9-feet. The minimum width for compact cars is 8'6".
Mr. Williams stated that it appeared to be 9'6".
The Examiner questioned if the two units could wrap around each other, so that upstairs could be a little wider
in the back for one unit's living space and a little wider in the front for the other unit's living space.
Mr. Williams stated that that would be possible. They can overlap into one another. There are plans that can be
built to any width. They are concerned about their reputation and the quality of product that they build. This is
what they feel is necessary for their product.
Ms. Fontes stated that on Exhibit 2, the way it is drawn, it proposes to have four parking stalls.
Williams SetbacklParking Appeae
March 16, 2006
PageS
Mr. Williams replied that with tandem parking there would only be access to two of the vehicles. There would
be a party wall separating one unit from the other. There were never any drawings without the party wall.
He did seek a parking modification for Lot 11 in order to reduce the number of stalls required.
Mr. Williams stated that he was unsure of how many extra feet there are in the setback on the west side of Lot
11.
The Examiner asked for the side yard measurements.
For this zone, the requirements are: 20' front yard setback (east) and 15' for the rear yard setback (west).
The footprint of the building on Lot 11, ifit were as wide as 30' as proposed in the variance request, two side-
by-side units running east/west will be built there. Both units will be two-story with two bedrooms and two and
a half baths each. He did not remember if any of Tom Williams' drawings were for two bedrooms and only one
bath.
A ten-minute recess was taken.
Ms. Fontes stated that there are two parcels ofland and two different administrative matters, one was the
modification and one was the variance. The parcels are zoned residential multi-family and that allows 10-20
units per acre. This parcel is approximately 4,500 square feet, which equals 19.04 dwelling units per acre for
Lot 11. The zoning for this parcel would permit the building of two residential units on the parcel and that is
what is proposed. They are proposing a duplex with two bedrooms each, however due to the design chosen and
the size of the units chosen, it cannot be built given the existing setback requirements. Those requirements are:
20 feet in the front yard (east), 25 feet in the side yard setback on the south side, 15 feet for the rear yard setback
(west), and 5 feet side yard setback on the north side.
The City concedes that some variance makes sense to the south of this lot. In an effort to resolve this issue, the
City was willing to go to twelve and a half feet. The decision was to deny the variance. However, they are
trying to make this sensible for the applicant, and are willing to move off of the 25-feet. The real issue is the
magnitude of the move.
There also has been an appeal of the decision with respect to the parking modification insofar as it has been
conditioned. The condition being ask for no more than a twelve and a half foot setback on the south parcel.
There is a nexus between the parking modification and the condition.
Upon questioning by Ms. Fontes, Keri Weaver stated that she is a senior planner with the Development Services
Division. She is the project manager for the variance request and the parking modification request. The setback
requirements were restated. The setbacks that have been proposed for the front and rear yards are: 26-feet for
the front and 22-feet for the rear. City Code requires for a compact car a minimum parking space of 8'6" and
for a non-compact vehicle the minimum parking space is 9 feet. These would apply to a private garage or
carport.
Zoning to the south and west of this parcel is R-8. The building proposed for Lot 11 is a two-story with a garage
below. The proposal proposes tandem parking for four cars on the south lot and City code requires 2.5 parking
stalls per unit. The parking modification addressed development proposal for both the north and south lots, it
was noted in the decision that the modification could not be separated out for only one lot. It stated that parking
could be reduced from 2.5 spaces per unit to 2 for the south lot and the north lot.
Williams SetbacklParking Appee
March 16, 2006
Page 6
Mr. Stahlfeld stated that he had written the parking modification request on December 2,2005. The request
specifically stated that the property requesting the modification was Lot II and the King County parcel number
was just for Lot 11.
Ms. Weaver stated that Lot II is zoned Residential Multi-Family, which allows a minimum of two units on that
particular lot. The zoning does not dictate the number of bedrooms or bathrooms in a particular unit. The
modification was to try and strike a fair balance between the interests of the applicant so that a reasonable multi-
use unit could be built on this property and to also protect the interests of the abutting neighbor to the south who
has a single family home. They were trying to create a 50/50 balance between the 25-foot setback required and
the 12-1/2 foot that was offered. The City did consider that the appellant could get some reasonable multi-
family use on the property.
There was discussion regarding the letters described above, one was from Mr. Watts to Mr. Hanson dated
December 20 and ~ second addressed to Pamela Sanford c/o Tom Williams dated December 28, 2005. The
Examiner stated that he did not have the second letter. The letters appear to be in substance much the same.
Upon questioning by Mr. Stahlfeld, Ms. Weaver stated that there is a fence approximately six feet south of the
property line but she was not sure of the exact location of that fence. In trying to strike a balance between the
neighbor to the south, she looked at the property and an aerial showing the footprints of the different buildings.
She did not look at the distance of the fence from the actual property line.
Upon questioning by Mr. Stahlfeld, Mr. Williams stated that the property was surveyed and there is a fence
running east/west somewhere between the Williams property and the property to the south. Further discussion
ensued at the end of which the Examiner stated that the location of the fence and why the fence is placed where
it is is not relevant.
Mr. Stahlfeld in closing stated that is appears that the City concedes that the original decision to deny the
variance entirely is unreasonable. The Williams appealed and the parking situation came up, the parking
modification was suggested. The City suggested 12'6" as an appropriate setback from the Williams property
line. The Williams looked at that and tried to determine if they could build a duplex on the remaining 27'6".
The primary issue is if appropriate side-by-side parking can fit. There is no indication that the City hired an
architect or did any analysis other than a generic feeling that 27'6"is acceptable. The purpose of a variance
procedure is when the City's rules create an undue hardship.
The Examiner stated that that means that every parking stall in the City could be subject to a variance request
because they have a wider car. The parking stall dimensions seem to be universal throughout the City and
compromised on 9' for the average car and 8.6' for a compact car.
Mr. Stahlfeld continued that in looking at the whole process the City is making the argument that as long as a
parking stall meets the minimum of what the Code requires, then you can have a structure, which is
economically viable and is the minimum necessary. To determine what is meant by the minimum necessary, the
City is arguing the minimum necessary means the minimum necessary for the width of a parking space. That is
an incorrect reading of the Code, in determining what the variance minimum necessary is required, every Code
is not to be looked at and determine the absolute minimum necessary.
The Examiner stated that what they were looking at is reasonable use ofthe subject site. Reasonable use would·
be an enclosure that provides 9' of parking. They may not fit a large pickup, or larger automobile. He needs to
decide if the applicant has reasonable use of the property, not that this applicant wants to design a certain style
or quality of home. Perhaps the units could be varied rather than being identical.
Williams SetbacklParking APpeae
March 16, 2006
Page 7
Much discussion ensued on what minimum necessary entails and what options can be used to make the property
viable and useable and still fit within the Code requirements.
Mr. Stahlfeld asked that the Examiner grant the variance with respect to the parking lot modification. The City
acknowledges that four parking spaces, two per dwelling unit, are appropriate. His client has looked at the
12'6'" modification and in their judgment that simply does not work.
The Examiner stated that he wanted to know why on a parking modification which deals with parking and not
parking in the side yard or even in the backyard comer, someone imposed a setback requirement. We are
dealing with two separate parties that dealt with two separate issues. The condition imposed on the modification
seems to have come out of nowhere, it doesn't deal with parking, it doesn't deal with anything, it is a site design
issue which seems more appropriate to be dealt with in the variance.
Ms. Fontes stated that she felt the City was at a disadvantage. She came in today arguing 12'6" because she felt
constraint to do so and to be intellectually honest. Based on what City decision makers were willing to agree to.
Had that not happened, she would have granted nothing. We are trying to reach some kind of resolution taking
this into account. The City would ask the Examiner to impose a 12'6" variance. The parking modification
would survive, the decision to deny the variance would be overturned.
A 12' 6" variance makes the most sense because the variance they request must be the minimum variance
needed. On a 15' footprint the applicant could build, which would be left with the 25' setback, and still have an
economically viable residence. It won't be the way he designed it initially, it won't be perhaps his ideal design.
According to the testimony of Mr. Williams, his father created numerous designs, some were even three-
bedroom, which they determined would not work on this lot and they cut it down to two bedrooms.
The City does not promise that if you get to build two units they will be to your best design, the applicant will
get to build two units, but they might be one bedroom or studio units. They have constrained themselves by
their design. By going to the 12'6", which gives the applicant a 27'6" wide footprint, they could build an
economically viable residential unit with a 15' footprint. She believes they can build an economically viable
unit with a 27'6" footprint. There are options.
Mr. Stahlfeld clarified that when Mr. Williams was talking about a 15' townhouse, the confusion is whether he
was talking about one unit or two units. Fifteen feet is not viable as the total width for two units, a 7'6"unit is
not reasonable. His clients have made a good faith effort, they have looked at the plan and are trying to make
improvements for themselves and the City of Renton.
The Examiner asked for the minimum lot size in this zone.
Ms. Weaver stated that in the RF zone there is no minimum lot size. A lot this size is anticipated to be for a
townhouse or row house development with completely common walls. Minimum lot width for this zone is 50'
and minimum lot depth is 65'.
The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and
no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 11:47 a.m.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION
Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following:
Williams SetbacklParking Appee
March 16, 2006
Page 8
FINDINGS:
1. The appellants, Pamela Sanford and Tom Williams, hereinafter appellants, filed an appeal of
administrative decisions affecting property they are developinR in the City of Renton. Those decisions
involved the denial of a variance for side yard setback and the imposition of a condition on the approval
of a parking modification.
2. The appellants first appealed the denial of the side yard setback variance in a timely fashion and a
hearing was initially scheduled on that matter. The City and appellants determined it was appropriate
for the City to consider the appellants' request for the parking modification, allow a decision on that
issue and to allow a joint appeal if the modification did not meet the appellants' needs. After the
parking modification was approved but subject to conditions, the appellants filed a combined appeal to
allow both matters to be heard at a consolidated hearing. The appeals were filed in a timely manner.
3. Richard Williams, Tom Williams' son presented most of the testimony in this matter after explaining
that his father, the complex's designer would have difficulty hearing questions.
4. The appellants own two lots located at the intersection of Hardie Avenue NW and 3rd Place NW. The
two lots are side-by-side. The property slopes at a 15 percent grade down toward the east.
5. The lots are both 45 feet wide by 100 feet deep and 4,500 square feet in area.
6. The parcels are zoned RM-F (Residential Multi-Family).
7. The abutting properties to the south and west are zoned R-8.
8. The appellants purchased the property sometime in the Fall of2004. The previous owner had a Pre-
application Meeting with staff at which time the setback in question was only 10 feet wide. The
appellants submitted their official application in the Spring/Summer of 2005. By that time the side yard
setback requirements had been changed and 25 feet at a minimum was required.
9. The Zoning Code was amended after the appellants purchased the property. Those amendments
required the larger south side yard adjacent to the single-family homes.
10. The plans were drafted by one of the appellants. That appellant is not an architect but has been a
building contractor his entire life and designed other buildings. The design was a townhouse or stacked
design. Each unit would take half of the building, with a garage as the first level, and two levels of
living space above that. No other floor plans were explored such as each unit taking an entire full-width
floor or units that might overlap a portion of the other unit.
II. The code required 2.5 parking stalls per unit or 5 stalls for each lot. At one point the appellants
proposed two tandem spaces per unit in an enclosed garage or four for the complex with one additional
outside stall to be located on an adjacent parcel also owned by the appellants. That proposal was
rejected since the proposed stall was not on the principle lot and violated setback and yard standards on
that abutting lot. The appellants, therefore, applied for a parking modification to reduce the required
parking to two stalls per unit or a total of four stalls suggesting that there was sufficient on-street
parking in the vicinity of the duplex. The modification, as noted above, was granted but contained a
condition requiring a minimum side yard of 12'6".
12. The appellants noted that the width of the garage was a significant limiting factor based on a Ford 150
truck as the model. The appellants submitted a diagram showing that truck is 6 feet6 inches wide. That
Williams SetbacklParking Appea
March 16, 2006
Page 9
would allow ten inches (10") on each side of the vehicle for entering and exiting the vehicle, more on
one side or the other ifparked off-center. They maintain that is insufficient room to enter or exit the
vehicle.
13. The RM-F District requires a 20 foot front yard, 15 foot rear yard and 5 foot side yards when abutting
similarly zoned property but 25 feet when abutting a single family zoned property. The setback when
abutting a single-family property also increases with building height but is not applicable in this
situation. Since there is a single family home immediately to the south, a 25' yard is required in this
case.
14. There is no specific minimum lot area but there is a minimum lot width requirement of 50 feet and a lot
depth of 65 feet. The subject site is non-conforming in terms of lot width at 45 feet wide.
15. Code provides that a parking stall be nine feet (9') in width and compact stalls eight feet 6 inches (8'6").
16. The City's Zoning Administrator denied the variance request in a decision dated October 13,2005.
That decision found: "Other types and sizes ofless-intense multi-family development could be built on
the site without the requested variance."
17. The Development Services Division Director approved the modification in a letter dated December 20,
2005. Code requires 2.5 parking stalls per unit. The two units would have required five stalls. The
approval noted the availability of on-street parking. In discussing the potential injuries to adjacent
properties, Criteria 2 in the letter, itl\Vas determined that if the appellants could gain a variance, the
modification would be conditioned on a south side yard setback of 12 feet six inches which equates to
one-half of the required 25 foot setback. It further conditioned approval on submitting a landscape plan
to buffer and screen adjacent single-family property and required a 6-foot fence, fmished on both sides,
on the property line.
The decision continued:
"This modification is based on the current development proposal for four duplex
units on two lots. If the development proposal is revised, or if a variance is issued
with different conditions than those described above in Section 2, this modification
will be reexamined by the Development Services Director and may be altered or voided."
18. A reading of the modification decision appears to suggest that staff might consider a variance from the
side yard setback reasonable as long as the applicant provided a 12.5-foot side yard. At the hearing it
was somewhat obvious that staff would probably reconsider the blanket denial of the variance and
approve a variance in some measure.
19. The City appeared to urge this office to consider overturning the denial of the variance and issue one not
to exceed the 12.5 feet recommended in the modification condition.
20. The appellants indicated that a 15 foot wide footprint for a unit would allow a 3 foot passage way and
up to 12 feet for any room offthat passage way. Walls would be 4 inches for party wall, 6 inches for
exterior wall and 5 inches for the hall wall.
21. In the appellants current footprint design there is approximately 9 feet 6 inches for a vehicle, which is 6
inches wider than a normal stall. In a private garage one might want more room than demanded by code
but the stall width proposed exceeds the width for a standard stall.
Williams SetbacklParking Appe4t
March 16, 2006
Page 10
22. The appellants' diagram also shows that abiding by the 12.5 foot side yard required by the modification
would leave footprint of27' 6" for the two side-by-side units or 13' 9" for one unit. This would be the
result after including an 8" foundation wall, garage space, stairway wall, 36" stairway and a party wall.
Wall thickness may vary depending on whether it is the garage level or upper level.
23. The appellants suggest that providing a smaller 10' side yard rather than 25' and the required 5' side
yard provides 30' for building width and leaves a single unit footprint of 15' which they maintain would
be a viable unit economically. They argue that a smaller side-by-side footprint such as the 13 feet 9
inches suggested in the modification condition is insufficient to provide an economically viable project.
They also maintain that the duplex complex would not be any taller than a single family home.
24. Further, they argued that the condition on the modification is not appropriate when applied to the
underlying request to reduce the number of required parking stalls for the appellants' property. They
also indicated that the City thought the two lots would be developed together, possibly as a triplex unit.
They objected, noting these are two separate legal lots.
24. The City noted that the Zoning Code odictates setbacks, yard requirements and certain bulk standards
such as height but does not dictate the number of bedrooms or bathrooms. Those decisions are open and
the appellants could develop studio or one-bedroom units.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the decision ofthe City Official was either in error,
or was otherwise contrary to law or constitutional provisions, or was arbitrary and capricious (Section 4-
8-110(E)(7)(b). The appellant has demonstrated that the action of the City should be modified or
reversed. The decisions are reversed and the matters remanded to their respective decision makers.
2. Arbitrary and capricious action has been defmed as willful and unreasoning action in disregard of the
facts and circumstances. A decision, when exercised honestly and upon due consideration of the facts
and circumstances, is not arbitrary or capricious (Northern Pacific Transport Co. v Washington Utilities
and Transportation Commission, 69 Wn. 2d 472,478 (1966).
3.
4.
5.
An action is likewise clearly erroneouS when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing
body, on the entire evidence, is left with the defmite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
committed. (Ancheta v Daly, 77 Wn. 2d 255,259 (1969). An appellant body should not necessarily
substitute its judgment for the underlying agency with expertise in a matter unless appropriate.
There are two issues: the denial of the variance and the condition imposed on the modification requiring
a minimum south yard setback of 12.5 feet. It would appear reasonable to deal with the condition
imposed on the modification first. While the condition does not necessarily appear related to the request
to reduce the required complement of parking the Director determined that the modification would not
be appropriate without requiring a specified distance between the building on the appellants' property
and adjacent single family uses. The director deserves the right to revisit the decision ifhe truly
believes that the modification should not be granted if the complex would be located too close to the
adjacent single family home. To strike the condition outright and leave the modification otherwise
intact seems inappropriate. Therefore, the matter will be remanded to the Director for reconsideration
of the decision.
The denial of the variance is more complex. This office is certainly not in favor of allowing the width
of a vehicle to drive a variance decision. A hardship is intrinsic to the property and not the personal
possessions of the parties. There are too many variables and another appellant might have a wider
Williams SetbacklParking APpeae
March 16, 2006
Page 11
vehicle. The owner's vehicle width cannot be allowed to create a variance precedent. The City has
dimensional standards defining standard and compact stalls. Those would appear to set the boundaries
for reasonable expectations for parking. It would appear that the appellants might have a variety of
ways to create two housing units on the subject site. This office is not clearly in favor of trying to
decide based on the current record, which may be the most reasonable without allowing the agency with
expertise to further review the matter. The appellants could create unmatched units with one larger than
the other. Units might not necessarily be two stories but rather each could be on one floor. The
appellants do not have to wall off the stairwell or the stairwells could be back to back. Variances are
also not generally predicated on economic advantage or disadvantage.
6. There is some indication in the record that the City believed that the two adjacent lots should be
developed as a triplex unit straddling the lot line. Be that as it may, the appellants own two separate
legal, although non-conforming lots and are entitled to reasonable use of those two lots. What is
reasonable use is clearly an issue and reasonable persons may reach differing conclusions on this issue.
After all is said and done, if the appellants do not believe that their definition of "reasonable" has been
achieved it does not mean the result is unreasonable in terms of variance relief. But if the appellants do
not believe that they have reasonable use of the parcel as an independent lot after a lesser but potentially
reasonable measure of variance reliefhas been granted than they sought, they may develop the
properties together and possibly get a more reasonable use of the property as a triplex. A triplex is not
required, but it is possible.
7. The appellants argue in some measure that the bulk and scale of the proposed duplex is not any greater
than a similar single family home in terms to height and overall bulk. That may be true but the
multifamily nature of the parcel does increase the scale of development immediately abutting a single-
family home. There is the potential for twice as many vehicle trips per day and twice the residential
population on a lot not much larger than a single-family lot. Separation and buffering ofthe adjacent
single-family property from these more intense patterns is a reasonable objective.
8. Finally, there would appear to be a number of mathematical approaches to addressing this matter. The
lot is only five (5) feet narrower than code requires and therefore would reducing the side yard by only
those five feet be reasonable? The difference could also be based on a percentage of lot width and the
lot is 10 percent narrower than code and therefore, would it be appropriate to reduce the yard by 10
percent or 2.5 feet. The relief granted when a variance is approved is supposed to be the minimum
necessary to afford reasonable use of the subject site. That does not necessarily match what the
appellants desire in order to create the unit designs that they chose. As noted, there appear to be a
number of alternate scenarios that might appear reasonable to an outside observer including alternate
floor plans.
9. As noted above, it appears that staffhad second thoughts about the denial of the variance. The denial of
the variance would leave the appellants with a 45 foot wide lot that could accommodate a structure only
15 feet wide after providing a 5 foot side yard on the north and a 25 foot side yard on the south. At the
hearing staff appeared to acquiesce by admitting that the condition contained in the Modification aimed
at providing a 12.5 foot south side yard and that a variance allowing a side yard of that dimension might
be acceptable. Staff seems willing to consider some relief and provide a building footprint of more than
15 feet. If that is what staff believes appropriate then it would be best if staff dealt accordingly with the
matter. This office is reluctant to give its stamp of approval and substitute its judgment in this matter
when staff believes it made a mistake. The mistake is theirs to rectify. There is no reason to create a
precedent based on an appeal when staff appears to be willing to concede that they may have too strictly
reviewed the variance request. The Zoning Administrator has expertise in the matter. The administrator
may want to revisit the decision and that would avoid this office creating a more expansive precedent.
Therefore, this office would prefer remanding the decision to staff. While this creates additional delay,
Williams SetbacklParking Appe
March 16, 2006
Page 12
it provides a better resolution that does not involve this office creating or extending appellate precedent
and attempting to calculate what would be reasonable.
10. The appellants with stairs general concurrence have demonstrated that the decision or decisions should
be reversed. Therefore, the decisions will be reversed and the matters remanded to administrative staff
for new decisions.
DECISION:
The decision on the denial of the variance is reversed and the matter is remanded to the Zoning
Administrator for a new decision.
The decision on the modification is reversed and the matter is remanded to the Development Services
Director for a new decision.
ORDERED THIS 16th day of March 2006.
HEARING R .
TRANSMfITED TIllS 16th day of March 2006 to the parties of record:
Zanetta Fontes
Assistant City Attorney
City of Renton
Richard Williams
922 South 2781h Place
Des Moines, W A 98198
Keri Weaver
Development Services
City of Renton
Pamela Sanford
C/o Tom Williams
17980 Brittany Drive SW
Seattle, W A 98166
TRANSMITTED TIIIS 16th day of March 2006 to the following:
Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Larry Rude, Fire
Eric Stahlfeld
145 SW 155th Street, Ste. 101
Burien, W A 98166
Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer
Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison
Larry Warren, City Attorney
Larry Meckling, Building Official
Planning Commission
Transpiration Division
Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator
Alex Pietsch, Economic Development
Jennifer Henning, Development Services
Stacy Tucker, Development Services
All Parties of Record
Utilities Division
Neil Watts, Development Services
Janet Conklin, Development Services
King County Journal
Williams SetbacklParking Appee
March 16, 2006
Page 13
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100Gofthe City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in
writing on or before 5:00 p.m., March 30,2006. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the
Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the
discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written
request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This
request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may,
after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper.
An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal
be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements.
Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City
Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., March 30, 2006.
If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the
executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or fmal processing of the file. You
may contact this office for information on formatting covenants.
The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur
concetning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in
private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both
the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council.
All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all
interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the
evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court.
The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as
Appeals to the City Council.
• •
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING
STATE OF WASHINGTON)
) ss.
County of King )
Nancy Thompson being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states:
That on the 16th day of March 2006, affiant deposited via the United States Mail a sealed
enve1ope(s) containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to
the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition.
Signature:
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this Lkf6day of ~6. ,2006.
No ry ublic in and for the State of Washington
Riding at hrl br,a , therein.
)
Williams Setback Parking Appe<d
File No.: LUA 05-111, V-A
The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record.
• •
(~_H_E_ARI_N_G_E_XA_M_I_N_ER_'_S_RE_P_O_R_T __ J
,
REPORT AND DECISION
APPELLANT:
• •
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF RENTON
Pamela Sanford
c/o Tom Williams
17980 Brittany Drive SW
Seattle, WA 98166
ATIORNEY FOR APPELLANT: Eric Stahlfeld
CITY OF RENTON,
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
A TIORNEY FOR CITY OF
RENTON
Law Offices of Eric R, Stahlfeld
145 SW 155th Street, Ste. 101
Burien, WA 98166
Keri Weaver, Sr. Planner
Development Services Division
City of Renton
Zanetta Fontes
Assistant City Attorney
City of Renton
Williams Setback Parking Appeal
LUA 05-111 V-A
March 16, 2006
PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Appellants' written requests for a hearing
and examining available information on file, the Examiner
conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows:
MINUTES
Thefollowing minutes are a summary of the February 21,2006 hearing.
The legal record is recorded on CD.
The hearing opened on Tuesday, February 21,2006, at 9:01a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor
of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner.
The following exhibits were entered into the record:
Exhibit No.1: Yellow file containing the original Exhibit No.2: Landscape Plan Sheet 1-AB
application, various reports, and correspondence file.
Exhibit 3: Garage view with truck
There were no preliminary matters to be discussed. It was clarified that this is a 2-story structure with parking
facilities beneath the building.
Eric Stahlfeld stated that the City has agreed that the parking modification is appropriate. The question that the
Williams have is related to a specific condition the City imposed on that modification and that is the south lot,
I
Williams SetbacklParking APpett
March 16, 2006
Page 2
•
the City has proposed that the setback from the property immediately adjacent to the south should be 12.5 feet.
That should not have anything to do with whether there are 2.5 or 2 parking spaces per unit. The real matter is
how wide the building on the south lot should be, the evidence shows that the lot is 45 feet wide and 100 feet
deep. The issue facing this developer is how wide should the south lot building be, if the 5-foot side yard
setback is subtracted on the north side, that would leave a remaining 40 feet. The Williams have proposed a 10-
foot setback on the south side, leaving a building that would be 30-feet wide. The City, rather than a 10-foot
setback on the south have suggested 12'6", that would leave a 27'6" building width, and leave each unit in that
building a width of 13 '9".
The Williams believe that this will not work. The width of the parking underneath the units would not be
sufficient for average size vehicles. Trying to sell a condo that is 13'6" wide does not seem viable to the
Williams. Two and a half feet does make a difference in the types of rooms and the livability of the condos.
Richard Williams, 922 South 278th Place, Des Moines, W A 98198. Upon questioning by Mr. Stahlfeld, Mr.
Williams stated that his father is trying to develop this property and that his father has trouble hearing so for this
hearing Mr. Williams will be answering all questions. He has been involved in this project and does speak from
personal knowledge of the issues.
The Examiner inquired as to when the property was purchased and did they know about the limitations on the
property when it was purchased.
Mr. Williams stated that the property was purchased in the fall of 2004. At that time they received a copy of a
preliminary application, which did not mention more than a lO-foot setback. In early spring 2005 they became
aware of the fact that the City had changed the side yard setbacks to 25-feet. It appears that the Code change
was in November of 2004. The parcel is 45-feet by 100-feet (east/west). Access is via Hardy Avenue to the
east. There is approximately at 15% grade from west to the east.
The Examiner asked if the variance and modification could be clarified.
The variance denial and the parking modification were issued by two separate people. Mr. Watts issued the
parking modification and Ms. Henning issued the variance denial.
Upon further questioning, Mr. Williams stated that with respect to the variance question, the proposal was for a
multi-family structure in the form of two townhouses, on the south lot. The setback on the north side of the
south lot is 5 feet and the setback on the south side of the south lot is 25-feet which leaves space for a IS-foot
wide townhouse. A 15-foot townhouse is impossible to build. He therefore, proposed a variance for the south
side setback to go from 25-feet to 10-feet, which leaves space for the building to be 30-feet wide for two
townhouses. A 15-foot townhouse is commercially viable.
The City suggested that the south setback be 12'6"that would leave a 13 '9" building for each townhouse. A
building of that size would make parking two cars in the lower level of the townhouse almost impossible.
Fifteen feet would be the absolute minimum for a parking garage. A 13'9" building would not leave enough
room for people to get out of their cars. The additional footage would allow easier access. Fifteen feet is the
absolute minimum for a garage.
With respect to the room above the garage level, the floor plan calls for certain specifics that are common to all
townhomes, they include a 3-foot wide passageway, whether it be stairway, hallway or just walking area and
that leaves 12 feet for a particular room. Smaller rooms can be created, but they are not always viable or
saleable. When building a townhome you have a 6" exterior wall, 4" party wall, and 5" hallway wall that leaves
13 '9" of room space less 3-feet for minimum hallway with a final space of 10'9" for the size of an interior room.
,
Williams SetbacklParking APpea"
March 16, 2006
Page 3
•
If that were reduced to the City's proposal of a 12'6" south side yard setback, that would bring the size of that
room down to 9'6".
Ms. Fontes objected to the testimony.
The Examiner stated that basically the variance was denied and so that leaves a 25-foot setback, leaving a 15'
developable envelope in the north/south direction. The lot is fairly deep east to west and depending on the
setbacks, the building could be expanded that direction.
Mr. Williams stated that the criteria is "can you get your parking in", the code requires 2.5 parking spaces. They
had asked for a variance to 2, what drives the ability to build a multi-family unit on this property is the parking.
A single-family unit cannot be built, that is against the code and if you cannot get four parking stalls in the
configuration, basically a building cannot be built on that property. Four cars cannot fit into a tandem setting in
a IS-foot wide structure.
He further stated that an existing house was demolished on the property, but nothing has been done to the length
and width of the actual lot. There are other multi-family structures in the near vicinity. In order to have a
saleable duplex, it is necessary to have a minimum of IS-feet in width for the interior.
Upon questioning by Ms. Fontes, Mr. Williams stated that he had not done anything to change the size of the
lots.
Ms. Fontes asked if Mr. Williams had at any time tried to make Lots 11 and 12 one large parcel?
Mr. Stahlfeld objected to the line of testimony. This hearing is just with respect to this one particular lot, we are
not talking about the north lot at all today. The City cannot force a property owner to redefine his property, he
has a legal right to treat each lot separately.
Ms. Fontes stated that it was relevant because Mr. Stahlfeld opened the door with respect to changing the lot
sizes. As it relates to undue hardship, it has nothing to do with the City forcing him to do anything. It's a
question of whether or not there is any question of any undue hardship. Some steps could have been taken to
change the circumstances, Mr. Williams chose not to.
The Examiner stated that if Mr. Williams sold one lot separately, which he could do, Lot 11, the purchaser could
come in and ask for some zoning under the code and some development under the code. Therefore, we are
dealing with only the south lot, Lot 11. Obviously a lot line adjustment might give this lot another foot or two
that it would take away from the other lot and still leave both lots with developable property. He asked that this
hearing be kept to just the one lot today.
Ms. Fontes continued, when the proposal was first submitted, in the upper left hand comer of Exhibit 2, there
are two elongated, what she believed to be parking spaces.
Mr. Williams stated that that was correct.
When the project was first approached, was it the intention that the two parking spaces on the north lot would be
used as part of the required parking?
Mr. Williams stated that this did not just come out of the blue, there was a great deal of conversation
with Jennifer Henning regarding this proposal. It was their estimation that they would concur to being
able to provide the fifth parking stall on the north property for the south lot.
I
•
Williams SetbacklParking APpe.
March 16, 2006
Page 4
•
Mr. Stahlfeld objected in that the parking spaces in the north lot were part of the original proposal and the fact
that the north lot is not part of the proposal.
The Examiner clarified that originally each parcel needed five parking stalls, either in a garage or on the surface.
That was not going to work on one lot or the other, so therefore it was proposed an additional parking space for
each unit be placed on the north lot. That was discarded due to the fact that the parking has to be on the lot that
it serves. The modification was granted and so the two parking stalls on the surface are no longer needed.
Ms. Fontes stated that the modification was granted with conditions. Those conditions have been appealed. The
modification therefore can only be granted when and if the conditions are met.
Mr. Stahlfeld stated that his understanding from the City is that the person that granted the parking modification
was the supervisor of the person who denied the variance.
The Examiner stated that the supervisor does not necessarily supervise the variance. It is still two separate
decisions by two separate people in the City. The variance was denied, meaning that a 25-foot setback is
required and then the modification was approved subject to a condition with at least a minimum ofa 12'6"
setback.
Upon further questioning by Ms. Fontes, Mr. Williams stated that Tom Williams, his father, drew Exhibit 2. He
is not an engineer and no architect was hired to draw plans for the proposed townhouses. He created many
. different layouts, but these were the only ones submitted. All of the other layouts were side-by-side, one was
actually a 3-bedroom model, and all were two stories with a garage underneath. Each of the units are two-story
townhouses. None of the plans were ever for two single level liVing spaces, one on top of the other, they were
all for two units, two stories each. No 3-bedroom units are being proposed for the south lot.
The two lots were purchased in the fall of 2004 and sometime between that purchase date and the date plans
were submitted and applications were sought from the City, the setbacks were changed on Lot 11. They had a
copy of a letter from the City advising what the setbacks would be from the pre-application meeting from the
previous owner and engineer. The letter may have been dated September 10, 2004. They talked with Jennifer
Henning at a meeting in the summer of2005, at which time the setbacks were discussed and she agreed that the
setback were impractical and would make the,lot unbuildable, as a result of that meeting the plans were prepared
that were submitted.
Mr. Williams stated that he did not believe that anyone looked into the mandatory width for a parking stall
within the City Code.
Ms. Fontes stated that the mandatory minimum width for a parking stall is 9-feet. The width of the parking area
in the garage view exhibit shows a width exceeding 9-feet. The minimum width for compact cars is 8'6".
Mr. Williams stated that it appeared to be 9'6".
The Examiner questioned ifthe two units could wrap around each other, so that upstairs could be a little wider
in the back for one unit's living space and a little wider in the front for the other unit's living space.
Mr. Williams stated that that would be possible. They can overlap into one another. There are plans that can be
built to any width. They are concerned about their reputation and the quality of product that they build. This is
what they feel is necessary for their product.
Ms. Fontes stated that on Exhibit 2, the way it is drawn, it proposes to have four parking stalls .
"
Williams SetbacklParking APpeft
March 16, 2006
Page 5
•
Mr. Williams replied that with tandem parking there would only be access to two of the vehicles. There would
be a party wall separating one unit from the other. There were never any drawings without the party wall.
He did seek a parking modification for Lot 11 in order to reduce the number of stalls required.
Mr. Williams stated that he was unsure of how many extra feet there are in the setback on the west side of Lot
11.
The Examiner asked for the side yard measurements.
For this zone, the requirements are: 20' front yard setback (east) and 15' for the rear yard setback (west).
The footprint of the building on Lot 11, ifit were as wide as 30' as proposed in the variance request, two side-
by-side units running east/west will be built there. Both units will be two-story with two bedrooms and two and
a half baths each. He did not remember if any of Tom Williams' drawings were for two bedrooms and only one
bath.
A ten-minute recess was taken.
Ms. Fontes stated that there are two parcels ofland and two different administrative matters, one was the
modification and one was the variance. The parcels are zoned residential multi-family and that allows 10-20
units per acre. This parcel is approximately 4,500 square feet, which equals 19.04 dwelling units per acre for
Lot 11. The zoning for this parcel would permit the building of two residential units on the parcel and that is
what is proposed. They are proposing a duplex with two bedrooms each, however due to the design chosen and
the size of the units chosen, it cannot be built given the existing setback requirements. Those requirements are:
20 feet in the front yard (east), 25 feet in the side yard setback on the south side, 15 feet for the rear yard setback
(west), and 5 feet side yard setback on the north side.
The City concedes that some variance makes sense to the south of this lot. In an effort to resolve this issue, the
City was willing to go to twelve and a half feet. The decision was to deny the variance. However, they are
trying to make this sensible for the applicant, and are willing to move off of the 25-feet. The real issue is the
magnitude of the move.
There also has been an appeal of the decision with respect to the parking modification insofar as it has been
conditioned. The condition being ask for no more than a twelve and a half foot setback on the south parcel.
There is a nexus between the parking modification and the condition.
Upon questioning by Ms. Fontes, Keri Weaver stated that she is a senior planner with the Development Services
Division. She is the project manager for the variance request and the parking modification request. The setback
requirements were restated. The setbacks that have been proposed for the front and rear yards are: 26-feet for
the front and 22-feet for the rear. City Code requires for a compact car a minimum parking space of 8'6" and
for a non-compact vehicle the minimum parking space is 9 feet. These would apply to a private garage or
carport.
Zoning to the south and west of this parcel is R-8. The building proposed for Lot 11 is a two-story with a garage
below. The proposal proposes tandem parking for four cars on the south lot and City code requires 2.5 parking
stalls per unit. The parking modification addressed development proposal for both the north and south lots, it
was noted in the decision that the modification could not be separated out for only one lot. It stated that parking
could be reduced from 2.5 spaces per unit to 2 for the south lot and the north lot.
Williams SetbacklParking APpett
March 16, 2006
Page 6
•
Mr. Stahlfeld stated that he had written the parking modification request on December 2, 2005. The request
specifically stated that the property requesting the modification was Lot 11 and the King County parcel number
was just for Lot 11.
Ms. Weaver stated that Lot 11 is zoned Residential Multi-Family, which allows a minimum of two units on that
particular lot. The zoning does not dictate the number of bedrooms or bathrooms in a particular unit. The
modification was to try and strike a fair balance between the interests of the applicant so that a reasonable multi-
use unit could be built on this property and to also protect the interests of the abutting neighbor to the south who
has a single family home. They were trying to create a 50/50 balance between the 25-foot setback required and
the 12-112 foot that was offered. The City did consider that the appellant could get some reasonable multi-
family use on the property.
There was discussion regarding the letters described above, one was from Mr. Watts to Mr. Hanson dated
December 20 and a second addressed to Pamela Sanford c/o Tom Williams dated December 28,2005. The
Examiner stated that he did not have the second letter. The letters appear to be in substance much the same.
Upon questioning by Mr. Stahlfeld, Ms. Weaver stated that there is a fence approximately six feet south of the
property line but she was not sure of the exact location of that fence. In trying to strike a balance between the
neighbor to the south, she looked at the property and an aerial showing the footprints of the different buildings.
She did not look at the distance of the fence from the actual property line.
Upon questioning by Mr. Stahlfeld, Mr. Williams stated that the property was surveyed and there is a fence
running east/west somewhere between the Williams property and the property to the south. Further discussion
ensued at the end of which the Examiner stated that the location of the fence and why the fence is placed where
it is is not relevant.
Mr. Stahlfeld in closing stated that is appears that the City concedes that the original decision to deny the
variance entirely is unreasonable. The Williams appealed and the parking situation came up, the parking
modification was suggested. The City suggested 12'6" as an appropriate setback from the Williams property
line. The Williams looked at that and tried to determine if they could build a duplex on the remaining 27'6".
The primary issue is if appropriate side-by-side parking can fit. There is no indication that the City hired an
architect or did any analysis other than a generic feeling that 27' 6"is acceptable. The purpose of a variance
procedure is when the City's rules create an undue hardship.
The Examiner stated that that means that every parking stall in the City could be subject to a variance request
because they have a wider car. The parking stall dimensions seem to be universal throughout the City and
compromised on 9' for the average car and 8.6' for a compact car.
Mr. Stahlfeld continued that in looking at the whole process the City is making the argument that as long as a
parking stall meets the minimum of what the Code requires, then you can have a structure, which is
economically viable and is the minimum necessary. To determine what is meant by the minimum necessary, the
City is arguing the minimum necessary means the minimum necessary for the width of a parking space. That is
an incorrect reading of the Code, in determining what the variance minimum necessary is required, every Code
is not to be looked at and determine the absolute minimum necessary.
The Examiner stated that what they were looking at is reasonable use of the subject site. Reasonable use would
be an enclosure that provides 9' of parking. They may not fit a large pickup, or larger automobile. He needs to
decide if the applicant has reasonable use of the property, not that this applicant wants to design a certain style
or quality of home. Perhaps the units could be varied rather than being identi~al.
Williams SetbacklParking APpe_
March 16, 2006
Page 7
•
Much discussion ensued on what minimum necessary entails and what options can be used to make the property
viable and useable and still fit within the Code requirements.
Mr. Stahlfeld asked that the Examiner grant the variance with respect to the parking lot modification. The City
acknowledges that four parking spaces, two per dwelling unit, are appropriate. His client has looked at the
12'6'" modification and in their judgment that simply does not work.
The Examiner stated that he wanted to know why on a parking modification which deals with parking and not
parking in the side yard or even in the backyard comer, someone imposed a setback requirement. We are
dealing with two separate parties that dealt with two separate issues. The condition imposed on the modification
seems to have come out of nowhere, it doesn't deal with parking, it doesn't deal with anything, it is a site design
issue which seems more appropriate to be dealt with in the variance.
Ms. Fontes stated that she felt the City was at a disadvantage. She came in today arguing 12'6" because she felt
constraint to do so and to be intellectually honest. Based on what City decision makers were willing to agree to.
Had that not happened, she would have granted nothing. We are trying to reach some kind of resolution taking
this into account. The City would ask the Examiner to impose a 12'6" variance. The parking modification
would survive, the decision to deny the variance would be overturned.
A 12' 6" variance makes the most sense because the variance they request must be the minimum variance
needed. On a 15' footprint the applicant could build, which would be left with the 25' setback, and still have an
economically viable residence. It won't be the way he designed it initially, it won't be perhaps his ideal design.
According to the testimony of Mr. Williams, his father created numerous designs, some were even three-
bedroom, which they determined would not work on this lot and they cut it down to two bedrooms.
The City does not promise that if you get to build two units they will be to your best design, the applicant will
get to build two units, but they might be one bedroom or studio units. They have constrained themselves by
their design. By going to the 12'6", which gives the applicant a 27'6" wide footprint, they could build an
economically viable residential unit with a 15' footprint. She believes they can build an economically viable
unit with a 27'6" footprint. There are options.
Mr. Stahlfeld clarified that when Mr. Williams was talking about a 15' townhouse, the confusion is whether he
was talking about one unit or two units. Fifteen feet is not viable as the total width for two units, a 7'6"unit is
not reasonable. His clients have made a good faith effort, they have looked at the plan and are trying to make
improvements for themselves and the City of Renton.
The Examiner asked for the minimum lot size in this zone.
Ms. Weaver stated that in the RF zone there is no minimum lot size. A lot this size is anticipated to be for a
townhouse or row house development with completely common walls. Minimum lot width for this zone is 50'
and minimum lot depth is 65' .
The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and
no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 11:47 a.m.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION
Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following:
I
Williams SetbacklParking APpe.
March 16, 2006
Page 8
FINDINGS:
•
1. The appellants, Pamela Sanford and Tom Williams, hereinafter appellants, filed an appeal of
administrative decisions affecting property they are developinR in the City of Renton. Those decisions
involved the denial of a variance for side yard setback and the imposition of a condition on the approval
of a parking modification.
2. The appellants first appealed the denial of the side yard setback variance in a timely fashion and a
hearing was initially scheduled on that matter. The City and appellants determined it was appropriate
for the City to consider the appellants' request for the parking modification, allow a decision on that
issue and to allow a joint appeal if the modification did not meet the appellants' needs. After the
parking modification was approved but subject to conditions, the appellants filed a combined appeal to
allow both matters to be heard at a consolidated hearing. The appeals were filed in a timely manner.
3. Richard Williams, Tom Williams' son presented most of the testimony in this matter after explaining
that his father, the complex's designer would have difficulty hearing questions.
4. The appellants owri two lots located at the intersection of Hardie Avenue NW and 3rd Place NW. The
two lots are side-by-side. The property slopes at a 15 percent grade down toward the east.
5. The lots are both 45 feet wide by 100 feet deep and 4,500 square feet in area.
6. The parcels are zoned RM-F (Residential Multi-Family).
7. The abutting properties to the south and west are zoned R-S.
8. The appellants purchased the property sometime in the Fall of 2004. The previous owner had a Pre-
application Meeting with staff at which time the setback in question was only 10 feet wide. The
appellants submitted their official application in the Spring/Summer of 2005. By that time the side yard
setback requirements had been changed and 25 feet at a minimum was required.
9. The Zoning Code was amended after the appellants purchased the property. Those amendments
required the larger south side yard adjacent to the single-family homes.
10. The plans were drafted by one of the appellants. That appellant is not an architect but has been a
building contractor his entire life and designed other buildings. The design was a townhouse or stacked
design. Each unit would take half of the building, with a garage as the first level, and two levels of
living space above that. No other floor plans were explored such as each unit taking an entire full-width
floor or units that might overlap a portion of the other unit.
11. The code required 2.5 parking stalls per unit or 5 stalls for each lot. At one point the appellants
proposed two tandem spaces per unit in an enclosed garage or four for the complex with one additional
outside stall to be located on an adjacent parcel also owned by the appellants. That proposal was
rejected since the proposed stall was not on the principle lot and violated setback and yard standards on
that abutting lot. The appellants, therefore, applied for a parking modification to reduce the required
parking to two stalls per unit or a total of four stalls suggesting that there was sufficient on-street
parking in the vicinity of the duplex. The modification, as noted above, was granted but contained a
condition requiring a minimum side yard of 12'6".
12. The appellants noted that the width o(the garage was a significant limiting factor based on a Ford 150
truck as the model. The appellants submitted a diagram showing that truck is 6 feet 6 inches wide. That
.,
Williams SetbacklParking APpelt
March 16, 2006 •
Page 9
would allow ten inches (10") on each side of the vehicle for entering and exiting the vehicle, more on
one side or the other if parked off -center. They maintain that is insufficient room to enter or exit the
vehicle.
13. The RM-F District requires a 20 foot front yard, 15 foot rear yard and 5 foot side yards when abutting
similarly zoned property but 25 feet when abutting a single family zoned property. The setback when
abutting a single-family property also increases with building height but is not applicable in this
situation. Since there is a single family home immediately to the south, a 25' yard is required in this
case.
14. There is no specific minimum lot area but there is a minimum lot width requirement of 50 feet and a lot
depth of 65 feet. The subject site is non-conforming in terms of lot width at 45 feet wide.
15. Code provides that a parking stall be nine feet (9') in width and compact stalls eight feet 6 inches (8'6").
16. The City's Zoning Administrator denied the variance request in a decision dated October 13,2005.
That decision found: "Other types and sizes of less-intense multi-family development could be built on
the site without the requested variance."
17. The Development Services Division Director approved the modification in a letter dated December 20,
2005. Code requires 2.5 parking stalls per unit. The two units would have required five stalls. The
approval noted the availability of on-street parking. In discussing the potential injuries to adjacent
properties, Criteria 2 in the letter, itl\Vas determined that if the appellants could gain a variance, the
modification would be conditioned on a south side yard setback of 12 feet six inches which equates to
one-half of the required 25 foot setback. It further conditioned approval on submitting a landscape plan
to buffer and screen adjacent single-family property and required a 6-foot fence, finished on both sides,
on the property line.
The decision continued:
"This modification is based on the current development proposal for four duplex
uni ts on two lots. If the development proposal is revised, or if a variance is issued
with different conditions than those described above in Section 2, this modification
will be reexamined by the Development Services Director and may be altered or voided."
18. A reading of the modification decision appears to suggest that staff might consider a variance from the
side yard setback reasonable as long as the applicant provided a 12.5-foot side yard. At the hearing it
was somewhat obvious that staff would probably reconsider the blanket denial of the variance and
approve a variance in some measure.
19. The City appeared to urge this office to consider overturning the denial of the variance and issue one not
to exceed the 12.5 feet recommended in the modification condition.
20. The appellants indicated that a 15 foot wide footprint for a unit would allow a 3 foot passage way and
up to 12 feet for any room off that passage way. Walls would be 4 inches for party wall, 6 inches for
exterior wall and 5 inches for the hall wall.
21. In the appellants current footprint design there is approximately 9 feet 6 inches for a vehicle, which is 6
inches wider than a normal stall. In a private garage one might want more room than demanded by code
but the stall width proposed exceeds the width for a standard stall.
Williams SetbacklParking APpe.
March 16, 2006
Page 10
•
22. The appellants' diagram also shows that abiding by the 12.5 foot side yard required by the modification
would leave footprint of27' 6" for the two side-by-side units or 13' 9" for one unit. This would be the
result after including an 8" foundation wall, garage space, stairway wall, 36" stairway and a party wall.
Wall thickness may vary depending on whether it is the garage level or upper level.
23. The appellants suggest that providing a smaller 10' side yard rather than 25' and the required 5' side
yard provides 30' for building width and leaves a single unit footprint of 15' which they maintain would
be a viable unit economically. They argue that a smaller side-by-side footprint such as the 13 feet 9
inches suggested in the modification condition is insufficient to provide an economically viable project.
They also maintain that the duplex complex would not be any taller than a single family home.
24. Further, they argued that the condition on the modification is not appropriate when applied to the
underlying request to reduce the number of required parking stalls for the appellants' property. They
also indicated that the City thought the two lots would be developed together, possibly as a triplex unit.
They objected, noting these are two separate legal lots.
24. The City noted that the Zoning Code .dictates setbacks, yard requirements and certain bulk standards
such as height but does not dictate the number of bedrooms or bathrooms. Those decisions are open and
the appellants could develop studio or one-bedroom units.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the decision of the City Official was either in error,
or was otherwise contrary to law or constitutional provisions, or was arbitrary and capricious (Section 4-
8-110(E)(7)(b). The appellant has demonstrated that the action of the City should be modified or
reversed. The decisions are reversed and the matters remanded to their respective decision makers.
2. Arbitrary and capricious action has been defined as willful and unreasoning action in disregard of the
facts and circumstances. A decision, when exercised honestly and upon due consideration of the facts
and circumstances, is not arbitrary or capricious (Northern Pacific Transport Co. v Washington Utilities
and Transportation Commission, 69 Wn. 2d 472,478 (1966).
3. An action is likewise clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing
body, on the entire evidence, is left with the definite and finn conviction that a mistake has been
committed. (Ancheta v Daly, 77 Wn. 2d 255, 259 (1969). An appellant body should not necessarily
substitute its judgment for the underlying agency with expertise in a matter unless appropriate.
4. There are two issues: the denial of the variance and the condition imposed on the modification requiring
a minimum south yard setback of 12.5 feet. It would appear reasonable to deal with the condition
imposed on the modification first. While the condition does not necessarily appear related to the request
to reduce the required complement of parking the Director detennined that the modification would not
be appropriate without requiring a specified distance between the building on the appellants' property
and adjacent single family uses. The director deserves the right to revisit the decision if he truly
believes that the modification should not be granted if the complex would be located too close to the
adjacent single family home. To strike the condition outright and leave the modification otherwise
intact seems inappropriate. Therefore, the matter will be remanded to the Director for reconsideration
of the decision.
5. The denial of the variance is more complex. This office is certainly not in favor of allowing the width
of a vehicle to drive a variance decision. A hardship is intrinsic to the property and not the personal
possessions of the parties. There are too many variables and another appellant might have a wider
Williams SetbacklParking APpe_
March 16, 2006 •
Page 11
vehicle. The owner's vehicle width cannot be allowed to create a variance precedent. The City has
dimensional standards defining standard and compact stalls. Those would appear to set the boundaries
for reasonable expectations for parking. It would appear that the appellants might have a variety of
ways to create two housing units on the subject site. This office is not clearly in favor of trying to
decide based on the current record, which may be the most reasonable without allowing the agency with
expertise to further review the matter. The appellants could create unmatched units with one larger than
the other. Units might not necessarily be two stories but rather each could be on one floor. The
appellants do not have to wall off the stairwell or the stairwells could be back to back. Variances are
also not generally predicated on economic advantage or disadvantage.
6. There is some indication in the record that the City believed that the two adjacent lots should be
developed as a triplex unit straddling the lot line. Be that as it may, the appellants own two separate
legal, although non-conforming lots and are entitled to reasonable use of those two lots. What is
reasonable use is clearly an issue and reasonable persons may reach differing conclusions on this issue.
After all is said and done, ifthe appellants do not believe that their definition of "reasonable" has been
achieved it does not mean the result is unreasonable in terms of variance relief. But if the appellants do
not believe that they have reasonable use of the parcel as an independent lot after a lesser but potentially
reasonable measure of variance relief has been granted than they sought, they may develop the
properties together and possibly get a more reasonable use of the property as a triplex. A triplex is not
required, but it is possible.
7. The appellants argue in some measure that the bulk and scale of the proposed duplex is not any greater
than a similar single family home in terms to height and overall bulk. That may be true but the
multifamily nature of the parcel does increase the scale of development immediately abutting a single-
family home. There is the potential for twice as many vehicle trips per day and twice the residential
population on a lot not much larger than a single-family lot. Separation and buffering of the adjacent
single-family property from these more intense patterns is a reasonable objective.
8. Finally, there would appear to be a number of mathematical approaches to addressing this matter. The
lot is only five (5) feet narrower than code requires and therefore would reducing the side yard by only
those five feet be reasonable? The difference could also be based on a percentage of lot width and the
lot is 10 percent narrower than code and therefore, would it be appropriate to reduce the yard by 10
percent or 2.5 feet. The relief granted when a variance is approved is supposed to be the minimum
necessary to afford reasonable use of the subject site. That does not necessarily match what the
appellants desire in order to create the unit designs that they chose. As noted, there appear to be a
number of alternate scenarios that might appear reasonable to an outside observer including alternate
floor plans.
9. As noted above, it appears that staff had second thoughts about the denial of the variance. The denial of
the variance would leave the appellants with a 45 foot wide lot that could accommodate a structure only
15 feet wide after providing a 5 foot side yard on the north and a 25 foot side yard on the south. At the
hearing staff appeared to acquiesce by admitting that the condition contained in the Modification aimed
at providing a 12.5 foot south side yard and that a variance allowing a side yard of that dimension might
be acceptable. Staff seems willing to consider some relief and provide a building footprint of more than
15 feet. If that is what staff believes appropriate then it would be best if staff dealt accordingly with the
matter. This office is reluctant to give its stamp of approval and substitute its judgment in this matter
when staff believes it made a mistake. The mistake is theirs to rectify. There is no reason to create a
precedent based on an appeal when staff appears to be willing to concede that they may have too strictly
reviewed the variance request. The Zoning Administrator has expertise in the matter. The administrator
may want to revisit the decision and that would avoid this office creating a more expansive precedent.
Therefore, this office would prefer remanding the decision to staff. While this creates additional delay,
I
Williams SetbacklParking APpe.
March 16, 2006
Page 12
•
it provides a better resolution that does not involve this office creating or extending appellate precedent
and attempting to calculate what would be reasonable.
10. The appellants with staffs general concurrence have demonstrated that the decision or decisions should
be reversed. Therefore, the decisions will be reversed and the matters remanded to administrative staff
for new decisions.
DECISION:
The decision on the denial of the variance is reversed and the matter is remanded to the Zoning
Administrator for a new decision.
The decision on the modification is reversed and the matter is remanded to the Development Services
Director for a new decision.
ORDERED THIS 16th day of March 2006.
HEARING INER
TRANSMITTED THIS 16th day of March 2006 to the parties of record:
Zanetta Fontes
Assistant City Attorney
City of Renton
Richard Williams
922 South 278th Place
Des Moines, WA 98198
Keri Weaver
Development Services
City of Renton
Pamela Sanford
C/o Tom Williams
17980 Brittany Drive SW
Seattle, W A 98166
TRANSMITTED THIS 16th day of March 2006 to the following:
Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Larry Rude, Fire
Eric Stahlfeld
145 SW 155th Street, Ste. 101
Burien, WA 98166
Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer
Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison
Larry Warren, City Attorney
Larry Meckling, Building Official
Planning Commission
Transpiration Division
Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator
Alex Pietsch, Economic Development
Jennifer Henning, Development Services
Stacy Tucker, Development Services
All Parties of Record
Utilities Division
Neil Watts, Development Services
Janet Conklin, Development Services
King County Journal
Williams SetbacklParking APpel'
March 16, 2006
Page 13
•
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100Gofthe City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in
writing on or before 5:00 p.m., March 30, 2006. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the
Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors oflaw or fact, error in judgment, or the
discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written
request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This
request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may,
after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper.
An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal
be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements.
Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City
Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., March 30, 2006.
If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the
executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You
may contact this office for information on formatting covenants.
The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur
concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in
private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both
the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council.
All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all
interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the
evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court.
The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as
Appeals to the City Council.
,-
....
f' -
r I I I 1"11 I ! ,
I l~
1(1\ !D I
-\ (0
~ t' !1' i i i()'
It -
(i' --
..
u () 0 12.. .::r A w\ I~
..,..~ ICK.IIJ~~S
!--r-a. ' ~. ~
I I
:-
STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING }
AFFIDA VIT OF PUBLICATION
PUBLIC NOTICE
Jody Barton, being first duly sworn on oath that she is the Legal Advertising
Representati ve of the
King County Journal
a daily newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general
circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date
of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language
continuously as a daily newspaper in King County, Washington. The King
County Journal has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the
Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County.
The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the
King County Journal (and not in supplement form) which was regularly
distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed
notice, a
Public Notice
was published on February 10, 2006.
The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum
of $92.40. ~~" __ -~~¥ BAtl.th •• , --I~ ........ &..t'I.", f ~'~'SSIOI\l·~' •• ~Q'" : •• ~ '..(--<>'.', \)d~arton i /8 \,\OTAJ?;.. ~\ ~
al Advertising Representative, King County Journal ~: -._ en: ~
I '-• f:J • '" SUb;:1Z a"d swom ~Febmm.Y, 2()()6. \~\, !lBUe /O~ j
. 11,,~···~9.'19.01 .... ~f.: ~.:
"",O~ WAS~\~':"''''--
Kathy D~l ~ .... """ "",,,,,,
Notary PublIc tor the State of Washmgton, Resldmg m Covmgton, Washmgton
PO Number:
NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING
RENTON HEARING EXAMINER
RENTON, WASHINGTON
A Public Hearing has been resched-
uled by the Renton Hearing Examiner
in the Council Chambers on the sev-
enth floor of Renton City Hall, 1055
South Grady Way, Renton, Washing-
ton, for February 21, 2006 at 9:00 AM
to consider the following petitions:
Appeal Williams Side Yard
Setback Variance
LUA05-11l, V-A
Location: 317 Hardie Avenue NW
Description: The applicant is re-
questing an appeal of the admin-
istrative determination denying an
administrative variance from the
26-foot side yard setback in RM-F
(Residential Multi-Family) zones
to lO-feet due to the constraints of
the lot size and other required
setbacks.
Legal descriptions of the files noted
above are on file in the Development
Services Division, Sixth Floor, City
Hall, Renton, WA. All interested per-
sons are invited to be present at the
Public Hearing to express their opin-
ions. Questions should be directed to
the Hearing Examiner at 425-430-
6515.
Publication Date: February 10,
2005
Published in the King County Journal
February 10, 2006. #848660
•
•
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
• CITY OF RENTON
DEC 302005
RECEIVED / :<lS-f"J'"
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE h-
BEFORE THE CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER
In re WILLIAMS SETBACK
VARIANCE, File Number LUA-OS-lll, V-A
NOTICE OF APPEAL OF
PARKING MODIFICATION
11 COMES NOW appellants Pamela Sanford and Tom Williams
12 ("Williams"), by and through their attorney Eric R. Stahlfeld and
13 appeals the CONDITIONS imposed in the letter authorizing a
14 reduction in the required parking spaces, from 2.5 per dwelling
15 unit to 2.0 per dwelling unit, a true and correct copy of which
16 is attached hereto and incorporated herein.
17 This appeal hereby incorporates the appeal of the variance
18 denial for this lot. Williams hereby requests that this appeal
19 be consolidated with the variance appeal.
20 In addition, these conditions do not mitigate any impact
21 caused by reducing the number of parking spaces. Williams
22 particularly objects to the condition that would impose a setback
23 of 12.5 feet, which clearly is unrelated to parking. This
24 condition would require Williams to completely redesign his
25 building, and would result in a duplex with units only thirteen
26 (13) feet and perhaps some inches wide.
NOTICE OF APPEAL -1
Notice of Appeal.wpd
ORIGINAL LAw OFFICES OF
ERIC R. STAHLFELD
145 S.W. 155m STREET, SUITE 101
SEATTLE, WA 98166
(206) 248-8016
1
2
"I .)
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
December 30,
NOTICE OF APPEAL -2
Notice of Appeal.wpd
•
2005.
•
LAW OFFICES OF ERIC R. STAHLFELD
Eric R. Stahlfeld, WSBA # 22002
LAW OFFICES OF
ERIC R. STAHLFELD
145 S.W. 155~ STREET, SUITE lOl
SEATfLE, WA 98166
(206) 248-8016
.. • CIT~F RENTON·
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor.
PlanningIBuildinglPublic Works Department
Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator
December 20, 2005
. Jim Hanson
Hanson Consulting.
17446 Mallard Cove Lane
Mt. Vernon, WA 98274
RE: Williams SideYard Setback Variance; LUA05-111, V-A
Request for Modification -Parking Standard
Dear Mr. Hanson:
The City of Renton has received your reque~t'fora parking modification regarding the
property locate'd at the intersection of Hardie Ave. NW and 3rd Place NW. The following
summarizes your request, project background, analysis and decision.
Summary of Reguest
On September 15, 2005, you applied for an administrative variance to reduce the south
side yard setback for a proposed duplex development on the subject site. The variance
request was penied by the City Zoning Administratoron October 13, 2005. In the City's
Report and Decision for the variance denial,itwas noted theprQPosed development
plan did riot meet Goderequjremen~s (o(several it$ms,including·the side yard setback,
number and location of parking spaces, and landscaping and buffer requirements.
Subsequently, on December 2, 2005, you applied fora modification from the parking
standards that would allow 2.0 parking spaces per unit instead of 2.5 parking spaces per
unit, a~ requiredbyRMC 4-2-110F arid 44-080 when tandem garage parking is
pro'posed. Section 4:4.,080F10.d allows the Development Services Division to grant
modifications froin the parking standards for individual cases provided that the
modification meets the follOWing criteria (pursuant to RMC 4-9-2500.2): .
1. Will meet the ObJectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental
protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon
sound engiheering judgment; and
2. Will not be injurious to other property(s) 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 andsituaiion intended; and
5. Will not create adverse impacts to otherproperty(ies) in the vicinity.
Background
The overall development proposal is for two duplexes on two adjacent lots located at the
intersection of Hardie Ave. NW and 3rd Place NW. The lots are zoned Residential -
Multi.;Family (RM-F) and are currently vacant. . Each lot is approximately 4,500 sq ft in
~~~~~~~~~~--~-~REN'TON'· . 1055 South Grady Way -Renton, Washington 98055
.~ This paper contains 50% recvcled material. 30% oost consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE
r
Williams Duplexes ~UA o.
parkirg Mq~ificatio.n
·December. 20,.2005
•
Page 2 of 4
size. As previously noted, the City's parki,ng standards require 2.5 parking spaces per
unit when tandem garages are provided,which Would resuJtiri1.0parking spaces for the
proposed 4-unit overall development. The applicant proposed to provide 8 parking
.spaceswithin the garages,. and 2slirface·parking·stalls attha rear of one building.
As indicated inthe variancedenial,the proposalfor 2 surface parking stalls would have
confiicted Wfth cocte requirements for setbacks;landsc~pe buffle'rs, and location of
parking spaces. . With theramoval of the surface parking stalls,. the applicant should be
able to modify the site plan to reasonably accommodate the proposed development.
The issues 'of thep~uking m9dificaticin"arid'the preVious variance request . cannot .be
separated from the overall development proposal, and thisreview§ingcjecision has,
been made from a comprehensive persp~ctiv~ that conSiders~fI of the potE3ritial code
requirements; The approval of th~pall<1n~rrrioai1i'eatjonwill be required as a condition of
approval fortheproposed bUil~it:lg~J{errTiit..' . ~'.;:, ' ..
. /fJ",~:··,"{:t, .,: ' . ..:,,"" .'
Analysis N
,"'! •
•. 1:;) .• ~Hl me~tth~e<ifj;~~~~~~'an~~1~fetY~~f~~,gJ.iOh{·~t~pe~a~ce;environmen~a' .• "
protectiorlandmamtan~abdlfYmtena. . . er~ode reC,Ju'r;~l11ents.Jbas:ed upon .. ' soundengine~rit1gju;pgm~ntt . ..... , ,.?l. f .
, ..... ':'.', "., •••••• ~ "~.':.~. " ,I :.f~.· : '. '_.
The' applIcant 'contendl that 8~ar' ".;~:~~fgJP P1!c~$ i~fadditi~hto' the available 011"
street parking would.pr&tide1uffi9i¢nf1~afi~iri~ thijpr~p'ost;dbverall'development of 4 . ".: "' ." . .. . -__ _ .. £:. '~" Co • ~ {. ," • • • • • J;. . 1. ,.t: duplexunits~ Eac:h dup .Mjltt'\~ilLhave excllisiveu.~~of two/fandemparkingspaces
(Le., located .onebehin "nottilt:!rLwithin a. private'garage.-,; Staff has reviewed the
applicant'!) proposalancjcon~!Jt~t!l~t the redpctionr;pf requlrdd parking spaces from2.5
'.' to. ~~pp~r uni~woufd not r~~IDt:,,!~'asignfi~t n~~~tiv~/jmpactia·sSuffiCie~t.on-street .
Rarklngls avatlable()n Har{jle AVe'~~Wl.}lndiNW~:i;l~la:c~ to serve the remaining nE~eds
of the proposed d~veloprhent ..the 'F~UCtlorf'"ln patkmg spaces wolrld'rheet,the
objectiVes and . safety , fLinction, appearan,ce ,'emvirOlimEmtal prOtection and .
maintainability. 'intendecf by the CQd~"requ.iremen.!s,· base~~LLJPon ,-sound_eng"ineeril1g. judgment""""" . ." ,. .. .
. . 2~)Will nofb~inJLJrrOus to other property(s) in the vicinity. -. . " . . . : . . . . -
T.()·. avoid iinPact$to n.~ighboring prqpertres fronT tile. 6\feraU.dev~loprn~nt .proposal, the.
· foUowingconditions will be applied to the apprbved:mddifiCatio'n~ . •.. .' . ,... , .... ..'.',
3.
.:"
No s'lJrface(noli-garage} parking' spaces' shan bealtowed' for ·theptoposed
deVelopment on either oUhe subject lots. . ,
If a variance is subsequeritlyapproved for the required 25-footsouthside yard
setback, the setback shall not be reduced by more.than 50% or 12 feet 6 inches.
A separate reconsideration of this variance requestwillbe required.
If the applicant requests a reconsideration of the ~ariance denial, ,the applicant
shaH subrnitadetailed landsCi3peplan for review and approval by the
Williams Duplexes LUA O.
Parking' Modification .
December 20,2005
Page 30f4
•
'. Deve'lopment$~ryicesDivision, which ciearly indicates how scre'eringandbuffer
requirememtswill be implemented through landscaping iri' order' to protect ..
adjacent sin-gle .. ,family residential properties from adverse impacts of .the
proposed development. Types, sizes and locations of ground cover, trees,
shrubs, and oth,er' plantings and materials shaH be clearly indicated on the plan.
AdditionaJly, the applicant shall provide a solid wood 6.;footfenceori the south
property line, finished' on both sides, for further impact reduction.
3.)ConfQrmS to the intent and purpose of the Code.
See discussion under section 1.
,~-~-.----------------_ .. _-.-.. ------.-~ .... --.. -.-,..--.------:---. ---" -~--... ---.-~--~.----~----:-.---:--.--.. --.. -...... ---:-.:----:----~.--.. --
4.) Can be shown to be justifiedan~ requirec;i for the uSEr and situation 'intended.' . ~.;< •. _:.-.. :: ... -."., .... ,: "'-"'r;>"::"., _,' '
,.
~i;-'-/' ,.~d,:~+ ~~::."' -"'''. > , <.::~. .' ." The modification requesti~~jca!.~s tfu'at ~_~~J9,the rarr9w s~e of each lot(45 feet) and
the required setbacks, eCi<P11Cl!p1exJJnifcannofbe i!1or~, ttiatl.t5feetwide. This width
would not be suffiCienl~t ~~ow,;~6 cars' to be parked~cfe;.tN£§Kiein agarageiocated'
either next to theunits.~l>r beI9'1·theQll;~,~:Ther~f,9f~dl:leCl~pHcam,has proposed tandem
parking in garag.es belgw the4oits. HQ~~yentol~is'f~llran~emenr~iII accommodate only'
8 vehicles for the four~un!:!i",,(2~per uniJ2-, ,': . "li' g,~:D()t meEtl th~code requirement for
2.5 parking' spaces p~r unit ~hen J~rr. . .. " ,:imi-GiS prop~se~ AddUional svrface
parking spaces woUld~Fve to ~e 10~'~<!5Y!.tt1. e~ifed~etback;~nd/or buffer areas -on
{he side or rear of the u@,it§.. " ,/; '. > ., -.~s' .'
. ';~I '-.';I"",ii-,'''·.; '.,/ ,-y" '.
The proposed red~ction~~.01~aF~ir:1Q>_~!:>~ces.,_.B,~r,,,.Unitrep~~~r'lts ~_ ~O% reduction in
thenurnberof onslteparklrf§:ispac~ that wl!tfJeav,,~lla,qfe t9,(:e(3ch -umt and to the overall
develoPment..· However, as ~Qt~(finsediotil1 ,is ~?rit!Qjp'ated that parkin£! rieedsthat
cannot be met onsite can be aaeq!J~tely,-se~e,st:)~)¥'street parking; The' request~d
reduction is the minimum necessary tciacc(5mm'6date the proposed development. The
,applicanthasprovided acceptable justification for the proposed modification baseQuPQn
the dimensions of the subject properties and required setbacks. Therefore, staff
concurs that the parking situation to be justified and" adequate for the useiritended. ' .
. 5.) Will not create adverse irnpacts to other property(ies)in the vicinity.
See.discussion under Sectio'n2;
Deci.sion
According to the City's parking standards for multi.;family resi.c:lential-uhits with tandem
garages, the reductiori of required parking spaces for the proposed development .from·
2.5~o,2~O parking spaces per unit would result in a parking shortage of 2 spaces.
However; based on information provic:ledby the. applicant, staff recognizes that the
. proposed park,ing'situation for the siteisadequctte as on-street parking is abundantly
available. Additionally, the reduction in parking spaces would allow the applicant to
WiIIi;ms Duplexes LUAO.
Parking Modification '
December 20, 2005
Page4of4
•
modify the site plan to reasonably accommodate the proposed development of 2
duplexes, 'and also provide setbacks and landscaping that adequately buffer
neighboring properties.' Therefore, the', parking modification for the proposed
development of2 duplexes, is approved, for a requirement of 2.0 parking spaces per
~~, " ,
This modification isbasedonthecutrentdeveloptnent proposaloffourduplex-units on
two lots. Ifthe development. proposal is revised, or if a Variance is issued with d ift'e rent
conditions, than those' described above in Section 2, this modificilUon will be reexamined'
.by the D'evelopment Services ,Director and may be aitered or,{oided.
, ,
This dE:!cisiontoapprove the proposed parking modification is subject to a fourteen (14) .
day appeal period from the date of this letter., Any appeals of the administrative decision
must be filed with the City of ReritQP'¥fearihg'Exafnin~r by 5:00 pm, January 3, 2003. If'
you have questions tegardingJl1it~orresponae.f1ce, pfe:as~ contact Keri Weaver, Senior
Planner,at(425) 43Q-7382.;.;:"v" .. '\ " ", ,"". ' '<'!", /[f'" .. ?/!:
Sincerely, } N·#tJ.+, .. ·· , "f;{,{, ' tlPlf/,'3J)\ . . . . .. ':t:', '"or
Neil Watts" mrector'~t '
Deve1qprt,ent Service$'~ivJsioh
, ~~. ':-;".~
Cc:KeriWeaver
Project File
. , ~ ,
t. • '" • CITY OF RENTON
City Clerk Division
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA98055
425-430~6510
o Cash ~heck No. / 7'-1 c o Copy Fee
IB'J{ppeal Fee
Descdptioft:
Address
City/Zip·
L UA, OS-c / / / -RIflPI'Ll..
• Receipt N:~4~7~~
Date I oll...a tJ US-·
o Notary Service
D ____ ~------_+~~~
-f..p. /1 e~ y ,. r1j . Ex~'11//2'c!! r
", .-." .. " ...
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
• • CITY OF RENTON
OCT 2 6 Z005 1:,5"""
RECEIVED IJ!:-
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
BEFORE THE CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER
In re WILLIAMS SETBACK
VARIANCE, File Number LUA-05-lll, V-A
NOTICE OF APPEAL
10 COMES NOW appellants Pamela Sanford and Tom Williams
11 ("Williams"), by and through their attorney Eric R. Stahlfeld and
12 appeals the Report and Decision of their Administrative Variance,
13 a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto and
14 incorporated herein.
15 The property is now in the RM-F zone. At the time Williams
16 purchased the property, the prope·:rty;.was zoned RM-I (residential
17 multi-family infill) for which the interior side yard setback was
18
19
20
five (5) feet. For siEies'''.abut·ting an.·R-8·zone, however, ten feet
" 4."':. ( . . ,. ;.-~ .... t,'-..
of landscaping with aSight-6hsc\iring" fence :was . I.
also required.
The property is forty-fiye (45) feet wide and one hundred
21 (100) feet deep, fronting on Ha~die,Ave.:.N'w to the east. The
22 property immediately to the south is zoned R-8, which required
23 ten-feet of landscaping> a:iO'n:g-~.,the :s'o'uui';: property :line.
24 The City subsequently changed the zoning and setback to
25 require a twenty-five foot setback from a R-8 zone, which here is
26 along the south property line. Because the property is only
NOTICE OF APPEAL - 1
Notice of Appeal.wpd
~e: C!.;+y M.J.o(""'~t
fJ e : ( Wa..f-b I l.)~ S V t:..S •
• •
1 forty-five feet wide (south to north), the width on which a
2 multi-family structure could be built would be only fifteen (15)
3 feet (the side yard setback on the north side is five (5) feet).
4 Among other problems, this would not allow side-by-side parking
5 in a basement garage.
6 The City errs in requiring Williams to treat two separate
7 lots as one, essentially requiring him to build a tri-plex across
8 the property line.
9 The decision incorrectly applies the variance criteria. In
10 the RM-F zone property owners not only are allowed, but are
11 required, to build a multi-family structure. Williams seeks only
12 to be allowed to do what'alr other property o~nersin this zone
13 are required to do. Unless the variance is granted, Williams
14 cannot building anything on the lot, which would be an undue
15 hardship.
16 Williams must build at least two dwelling units on a forty-
17 five foot wide lot. This size and shape of the property is a
18 special circumstance justifying a variance. The City created the
19 hardship when it zoned a forty-five foot wide lot to require a
20 multi-family structure. Williams has done nothing to create this
21 hardship. Without the variance, the property cannot be used for
22 the purpose the City itself zoned.
23 Nor is a multi-family structure materially detrimental to
24 the public welfare or injurious to the property in the vicinity
25 and zone in which the subject property is situated. The City
26 itself zoned the property multi-family, so constructing a multi-
NOTICE OF APPEAL - 2
Notice of Appeal.wpd
, '·L.;,WO~cEsOF
ERIc:R. STMlliFELD
145 S:Wd55"'S11<EET •. Surrn 101
SEAl'TLi!. W A 98166', '(206)'2~'8()16 '
• •
1 family structure is not detrimental to the public welfare. Nor
2 is constructing the duplex within ten feet of the south line
3 injurious to the property to the south -until a few months ago
4 the City allowed such construction. As a technical matter,
5 moreover, the property to the south is not "in the zoneu of the
6 Williams' property. Nor is the proposed structure any larger
7 than a typical single-family home, which could be constructed on
8 the property to the south only five (5) feet from the common
9 property line.
10 The City cannot argue that merely reducing the setback in
11 and of itself is detrimental -that would prevent any variance
12 from ever being approved. Nor would there be significant other
~. .
13 variances required; given that the City has,' for the first time,
14 raised the question of parking in, it~ de~isio~, Williams would
15 possibly need a variance only to reduc~ the numb~r .'of parking
16 spaces from five to four.l
17 The variance would not gran·t ,:a specl;al privilege to
18 Williams. Williams seeks to use his property only in the same
19 manner that others are ~'llowedc to 'use' theirs~' The variance
20 request is from a setback, which is an area, not use, variance.
21 The use is also the minimum necessary. The lot is
22 approximately 0.1 acres. The zoning requires ten to twenty
23 dwelling units per acre, or one to two units on this lot.
24
1 Williams will provide two parking spaces in the garage
25 for each unit; the code requires 2.5 spaces. If the City
combines the two units rather than rounding down, Williams would
26 have to provide five parking spaces.
NOTICE OF APPEAL - 3
Notice of Appeal.wpd
• •
1 Because the zoning is multi-family, Williams must construct two
2 units on his lot.
3 The decision is also factually incorrect in the following
4 aspects:
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1. The lowest level (a garage) is sufficiently below grade
that it is not a story under the code. Consequently,
the proposed structure is only two stories.
'; ", J~ ';.
2. This variance is solely for lot '11 , the area of which
is approximately 4,500 square feet. Even if this lot
.~ • 40
were (incorrect:;lY,)· combined with tne adj acent lot, the
total area would be only 9,000 square feet, not the
,
14,500 square feet cl'a~med as a fact in Finding #5.
3. The decision frequently confuses south with north.
Williams requests the Hearing Exam,iner, r,everse .tHe decision and ~ ~~. '. ~. ~' .-
grant the variance for a ten-foot side yard setback.
October 26, 2005.
NOTICE OF APPEAL - 4
Notice of Appeal.wpd
LAW OFFICES OF ERIC R. STAHLFELD
Eric R. Stahlfeld, WSBA # 22002
~~~\::~;~;,,:, .' '~::'~ '; '~~~~~Qr'"
'r;;,··!t:ERIC':"R.STAHLFELD
, ;145:S'iW, 155m STREET', SUITE 101
, ", SEAm..,. WA 98166
'(206) 248-8016
OCT-16-2005 SUN 12:33 PM P~NC. FAX NO'4IIJ6 246 7102 P. 02
REPORT
&
DECISION
DECISION DATE
Project Name
Owners:
Applicants/Contact:
File Number
City of Renton
Department of Planning / Building / Public Works
ADMIN/STRA TIVE VARIANCE
LAND USE ACTION
October 13, 2005
William Setback Variance
Pamela Sanford. clo Tom Williams. 17980 Brittany Drive SW. Seattle,
WA 98166
Jim Hanson, Hanson Consulting, 17446 Mallard Cove Lane, Mt. Vernon,
WA 98274
LUA-05-111. V-A Project Manager Keri Weaver
Project Description The applicant is requesting an administrative variance from the 26-foot
side yard setback that is required in""the RM-F (Residential Multi-Family)
zone when an RM-F zoned property greater than two stories abuts a
property in a single-family zone. The south side of the subject site abuts
property zoned Residential - 8 units per acre (R-B). The applicant
proposes a setback reduction ~o 10 feet due to the constraints of lot Size
and other required setbacks'. . ,
Project Location 317 Hardie Ave. NW
Bldg. Area gsf
Site Area
NJA
4,500 sq. ft. (0.10 ac.)
total lot area
Proposed Multi-Family 1.620 sq. ft. Residence (Duplex)
Total Building Area -4,860 sq. ft. Proposed
)
~
OCT.-16-2005 SUN 12:33 PM P~NC.
City of Renton PIBIPW Department
WILLIAMS DUPLEX SETBACK VARIANCE aW'T
REPORT AND DECISION OF October 13. 2005
A. Type of Land Use Action
Conditional Use
FAX NO. 411' 246 7102 P. 03
Administrative VBriance StBff Report
.. " LUA-D5-111.-V·A
Page 20'6
Binding Site Plan
Site Plan Review Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
Special Permit for Grade & Fill Administrative Code Determination
X Administrative Variance
B. Exhibits
The following exhibits were entered into the record:
Exhibit 1: Yellow file containing: application, proof of posting and
Exhibit.2:
Exhibit 3:
Exhibit 4:
Exhibit 5:
publication_ and other documentation pertinent to this
request.
Neighborhood Map .
Site and Landscape Plan (datecf 09/16/2005)
Elevations (dated 911612005)
Zoning Map, Sheet F3 West (dated 12/04/2003)
C. Project Description / Background:
The applicant is requesting approval of an administrative variance from the side yard
setback of 26 feet that is required when a property in the RM-F zone is greater than 2 stories
and abuts a property in a single-family residential zone. The applicant proposes to build
multi-family housing (duplex) on the site. The lot size is 4,500 sq. ft. The site, which is
currently vacant, is located at 317 Hardie Way NW and the proposed development would
have access from that road. This property is part of an overall proposed development plan
for two duplexes on the subject property and the adjacent property to the north.
The development standards of the RM-F zone as they pertain to this property require a front
yard setback of 20 feet, a side yard setback o( 2.5 feet on the south side. a side yard setback
of 5 feet on the north side, and a rear yard setback of 15 feet. Additionally, because the
development proposal is for a three-story building, the side yard setbacks are each
increased by one foot, so that the resulting north side setback is 26 feet and the south side
setback is 6 feet.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION
Having reviewed the written record in the matter, the City now makes and enters the
following:
D. Findings
1) Request: The applicant has requested approval for an administrative variance from
the required 25-foot south side yard setback in the RM-F zone for the property
located at 317 Hardie Ave. N. A 10-foot south side yard setback is requested.
APMVAR 51nffipl Williams Duplexes.doc\
OCJ-16-2005 SUN 12:33 PM P~INC,
City of Renton P/alPW Department
WILLIAMS QUPLEX SETlJACK VARIANCE
FAX NO,.6 246 7102
Administrative Variance Staff Report
LUA-05-111, V-A --e ____
REPORT AND DECISION OF October 13. 2005 Page J of (j
2) Administrative Variance: The applicant's administrative variance submittal materials
comply with the requirements necessary to process a variance. The applicant's site
plan and other project drawings are provided as Exhibits 3 and 4.
3) Existing Land Use: Land uses surrounding the subject site indude: North: ard
Place NW and multi-family residential; South: single-family residential (R-8); East
Hardie Ave. NW and commercial (medical office); and West: single-family residential
(R-B).
4) Zoning: The site is located in the Residential Multi-Family (RM-F) zone. The
allowable density range in this zone is 10-20 du/acre. The applicant proposes a net
density of 19.04 du/acre. Within the RM~F zone, maximum lot coverage is 35%;
however, lot coverage of up to 45% may be approved at the discretion of the Hearing
Examiner. The applicant's proposal will result in approximately 36% lot coverage.
The development standardS for this zone require a 20-foot front setback, 15-foot rear
setback. and 5-foot Side yard setback. For RM-F zoned properties that abut single-
family residential properties, a 25-foot side yard setback is required. If a development
proposal in the RM-F zone will be greater than two stories, the entire structure must
have additional one-foot side yard setbacks for eaCh prd'posed story in excess of two.
Therefore, based on these zoning requirements, the subject site is required to have a
20-foot front setback, 15-foot rear setback, 26-foot south side yard setback. and 6-
foot north side yard setback. The applicant proposes a 26-foot front setback, 22-foo1'
rear setback, 10-foot south yard side setback, and 5-foot setback north yard side
setback.
The proposed duplex has tandem garage parking 'on the ground floor of the structure.
The site is located within the RM-F zone. which requires that 2.5 parking spaces be
provided for each attached dwelling unit if tandem parking will be utilized, and that
surface parking is permitted only in Side and rear yard areas (driveways cannot count
toward required parking spaces). Any proposed surface parking must be provided on
the same lot as the building it serves. The proposed development plan provides only 2
tandem garage parking spaces for this duplex building. The overall development
shows two surface parking spaces provided on the lot that would be occupied by the
other (north) duplex building, but this siting does not meet the requirement that
parking be on the same lot as the building it serves. Additionally, the surface parking
spaces are not readily accessible to the south building. as they are proposed to be
separated by privacy fences and private lawn areas.
The proposed surface parking spaces for the north building are also located within the
required 15-foot rear yard setback area. Within the RM-F zone, the 15-foot rear yard
setback is required to be landscaped, with the intention of providing an aesthetically
pleasing buffer for adjacent single-family residential properties.
4) Topography: The topography of the site is generally flat with gradual sloping from
west to east.
5) Lot and Building Size; The total site area is approximately 14,500 sq. ft. (0.34 acres)
and is currently vacant. The proposed new duplex will have a footprint of
approximately 1,620 sq. ft. and will total approximately 4,860 sq. ft. in overall size,
including two stories of living area over one story of garage area.
ADMVAR Sl!Iffipl Williams Ouplcx~.doc\
p, 04
3
if
OCT-16-2005 SUN 12:33 PM P~NC.
City of Renton PIB.tPW Department
WILUAMS DUPLEX SETBACK VARIANCE
FAX NO. 4Iif 246 7102
Administrative Variance Staff Report
LUA-oS-111. V-A
REPORT AND DECISION OF OctDber 13. 2005 Pago 4 of 6
CONSISTENCY WITH VARIANCE CRITERIA s~cijoh 4-9-250B.5.a. lists four criteria that the Zoning Administrator is asked to consider,
along with all other relevant information, in making a decision on an Administrative Variance
application. The Zoning Administrator shall have authority to grant an administrative
variance upon making a determination, in writing, that the conditions specified below have
been found to exist:
a. That the applicant suffers undue 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:
The applicant contends that special circumstances apply to the subject site, which
impose limitations on the lot and create a hardship. Specifically, the applicant
indicates that given the small size of the lot (45 feet wide and 100 feet deep), the
required side yard setbacks would not allow a minimum building footprint necessary
for construction of a duplex.
The proposed duplex is part of a pending overall development proposal for two
duplexes on two adjoining lots. In this case, the applicant is creating a hardship by
proposing to construct a two-duplex project on these lots instead of a smaller multi-
family project such as a town home triplex. If the applicant redesigned the proposal,
. setback requirements could be met and the need for a variance would be
eliminated.
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:
The proposed reduction of the north side yard setback to 10 feet would be a 61 %
reduction ,of the 26-foot setback, which is required to buffer neighboring single-
family uses from the impacts of the proposed development. This reduction must
also be considered in light of other variances which would be necessary for the
applicant's proposal. Development within the RM~F zone is intended to provide infill
development in established neighborhoods, in a manner compatible with eXisting
development. As previously discussed in Section D.4. "Zoning", the current site
plan also does not meet code requirements for the north side yard setback, the 15-
foot rear landscaped setback. and required parking spaces. The cumulative effect
of the total number of required variances, in conjunction with the height and bulk of
the proposed 3-story building compared to adja~ent homes, would result in reduced
quality of life for neighboring residents.
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:
The approval of the variance request would be a grant of special privilege, as other
property owners in the vicinity would not be allowed to reduce setback. parking and
ADMVAR SllIffrpt Willi:llns Duplexcs.doc\
p, 05
OCT-16-2005 SUN 12:34 PM P~NC. FAX NO'4IIf 246 7102 P. 06
City of Renton P/BIPW Department Administrative variance Staff Report
WJLLIAMS DUPLEX SETBACK VARIANCE LUA-05-111. V-A t:rrr:::11'f rrQ T
RePORT AND DECISION OF Octobsr 13. 2005 Page 5 of 6
landscaping requirements when the stated hardship is sett-imposed by the size and
design of the project. ' .
d. That the approval as determined by the Zoning Administrator is a minimum
variance that will accomplish the desired purpose:
The applicant contends that the request is a minimum variance needed in order to
construct a duplex on the south lot. The applicant's overall proposal for two
duplexes on two lots is at ne~rlythE!m.axiI114m .. ~II()v,v.al;lle d~n~ity (19.04 du/acre
within the allowable range of 10-20 du/acre) for the site, and a less intense multi·
family development such as a townhome triplex could be accommodated on the
site without the requested variance and other variances that would be necessary for
the applicant's current proposal.
E. Conclusions
1. The subject site is located at 317 Hardie Ave. NW. within the Residential Multi-family
(RM-F) zoning designation.
2. The RM-F zone requires a minimum 26-foot south si<ffi yard setback. The applicant
is proposing a reduction of setback to 10 feet.
3. The proposal has been analyzed according to the four variance criteria described
above. The variance request does not satisfy the criteria for granting the variance, in
that it does not meet the hardship test, the public welfare test, the special privilege
test, or the minimum variance test. The proposal's stated hardship is self~imposed
due to the size and location of the proposed development. Additionally, it is
anticipated that significant negative impacts to surrounding single-family properties
would result from the cumulative effects of the requested variance and the additional
variances for reduced setback. parking and landscaping requirements necessary to
accommodate the current overall development proposal. Such reductions would
constitute a grant of special privilege that WDuld not be allowed for other property
owners in the vicinity. Other types and sizes of less-intense multi-family development
could be built on the site without the requested variance.
F. Decision
The Administrative Setback Variance for the Williams Variancel File No. LUA-05-111,
V-A, is Denied.
SIGNATURE:
Jennifer Henning, Zoning Administrator date
ADMVAR Slatfrpt Willioms Duplexes.doc\
.oCT-16-2005 SUN 12:34 PM _INC,
City of Renton P/BIPW Department
WILLIAMS DUPLEX SETBACK VARIANCE . or
REPORT AND DECISION OF October 13, 2005
FAX NO,.6 246 7102
Administrative Variance Staff Report
LUA-05-111. V-A
Page 60'6
TRANSMJ1TED this 1:Jh day of October, 2005 to the AppJJcantJContacl:
Jim Hanson
Hanson Consulting
17446 Mallard Cove Lane
Ml. Vernon, WA 98274
TRANSMJTTED this 13th day of October, 2005 to the Owner.
Pamela Sanford
c/o Tom Williams
17980 Brittany Drive SW
seattle, WA 98166
TRANSMITTED this 13th day of October, 2005 to the (oIJowing:
Larry Meckling. Building Official
Stan Engler, Fire Marshal
Nail Watts, PJanning/BuildinglPublic Works, Director
Jennifer Henning, Principal Planner
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Gregg Zimmennan, PlanningIBuildinglPublic Works, Administrator
South County Journal
Land Use AatJon Appeals
The administrative land use decision will become final if the decision is not appealed within 14 days of the date of
approval. An appeal of the decision must be filed within the 14 day appeal period (RCW 43.21.C.075(3); WAC
197-11-680). An appeal to the Heartng Examiner is govemed by Title N, Section 4-8--11.6. which requires that
such appeals be filed dlrecUy with the Hearing Examiner via the City of Renton City Clerks Office. Appeals must
be made in writing on or before 5;00 PM on Oe1ober 27, 2005. Any appeal must be accompanied by a
$75.00 fee and other specific requirements.
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 wrltlng
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.
ADMVAR staffrpt William.' Duplcxc:s.doc\
p, 07
•
CITY OF RENTON
City Clerk Division
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
425-430-6510
o <:;ash
I1?'Check No.,_ • ..:.../...:...1.."..3,-0 __ _
Description: 4(Jp<e-f +0
Funds Received From:
Name £y; G:.. K
Address
City/Zip
•
Receipt N~ 427
o Copy Fee o Notary Service o Appeal Fee 0 _________ _
I Amount $ 75 ~
City Staff Signature
-.... : .. :.;;.:. .....
•
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler. Mayor
CIT.OF RENTON
Office of the City Attorney
Lawrence J. Warren
VIA FACSIMILE AND FIRST CLASS MAIL
Senior Assistant City Attorneys
Mark Barber
Zanetta L. Fontes
Assistant City Attorneys
Ann S. Nielsen
Garmon Newsom II
Sasha P. Alessi
December 6, 2005
Eric R. Stahlfel~ Esq.
Law Offices of Eric R. Stahlfeld
145 S.W. 155th Street, Suite 101
Seattle, W A 98166
Re: In re Williams Setback Variance Hearing. LUA 05-111. V-A
Dear Eric:
I received your correspondences dated December 5,2005, consisting of a copy of the Parking
Modification request sent to Neil Watts and an inquiry regarding the code compliance issue. I
have forwarded the code compliance letter to Jennifer Henning, at PBPW. Again, to reiterate, I
do not have any documents the code violation matter or a copy of the Notice of Violation sent to
Mr. Williams. Since they were sent to Mr. Williams, you should be able to get this information
from your client directly. Nonetheless, I have forwardeq your letter to Ms. Henning.
At this juncture, I am still waiting to hear back from you regarding a continuation date. The
Hearing Examiner has stricken the December 13,2005 date but still needs to hear back from you
to reset the matter. Currently the best available open dates are: January 24, 2006 and January
31,2006.
Please let me know as soon as possible so that the Hearing Examiner'can schedule us for one of
these openings. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me.
Ann Nielsen .
Asst. City Attorney
cc: Fred Kaufinan, Hearing Examiner
Neil Watts
Jennifer Henning
Keri Weaver
LawrenceJ. Warren
-;:-. " .• -, >·'.~.I
I HEREBY DECLARE~u~illSfl-t~~A!.. TY OF PERJURY
PURSUANT TO THE LA'tIS OF THE STATE OF
WASHINGTON, THAT I WIltED A C~py OF THIS
DOCUMENT TO ALL ATTORNEYS OF RECORD AND AU.
PARTIES, iF ANY, NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNS-a . t -tJl;;!:, -c£ \ POSTAGE PREPAID.
v _
.~
'---P-os-t -O-ffi-lc-e B-o-x-6-2-6--R-e-n-to-n-, W.-as-hi-ngt-on-9-8-0-S7---(-42-S-) 2-S-S--8-6~78-/-F-'A-X-( 4-2-S-) 2-S-S--S-47-4---'--R E N TON
® This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% pOst consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE
•
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor
VIA FACSIMILE AND FIRST CLASS MAIL
December 1,2005
Eric R Stahlfeld, Esq.
Law Offices of Eric R Stahlfeld
145 S.W. 155th Street, Suite 101
Seattle, W A 98166
CIT_OF RENTON
Office ofthe City Attorney
Lawrence J. Warren
Senior Assistant City Attorneys
Mark Barber.
Zanetta L. Fontes
Assistant City Attorneys
Ann S. Nielsen
Garmon Newsom II
Sasba P. Alessi
Re: In re Williams Setback Variance Hearing, LUA 05-IlI, V-A
Dear Eric:
Per our telephone conversation today, I have notified the Hearing Examiner's Office that the
parties are seeking a continuance of the December 13,2005 hearing date. The reason for this
request is that our staff has not yet received your client's "parking modification" request, which
is related to the above-referenced matter. As previously discUssed, it would not make sense to
proceed with the scheduled variance hearing without resolving the parking issue.
The next available dates are: January 3, 2006, or JanlJarY 24, 2006. Once I hear back from you
regarding these dates, I will contact the Hearing Examiner's Office and request one of the dates.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me.
Ann Nielsen
Asst. City Attorney
cc: [fred KaufuiarclfIe~g Exain~
Nei~ .
Jennifer Henning
Keri Weaver
LawrenceJ. Warren
O~~ (::~.~. ?··~,T ::':'~,.'
I HE!;;: G·' CECLARE::j::i~;i~! \ Fi;~AL T'( OF PERJURY
PURSUANT TO THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF
WASHiNGTON, THAT I MAltED A COpy OF THIS
DOCUMENT TO All ATTOC1NEYS OF RECORD AND ALl
PARTiES, IF ANY,NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL
ON I d. -( -05 , POSTAGE PREPAID. clMU6m~a~
-P-o-st-O-ffi-lc-e-B-o-x-6-26---R-e-n-to-n,-W.-as-hi-ng-t-on-9-80-S-7---(4-2-S)-2-S-S--8-67-8-/-FAX--(4-2-S)-2-S-S--S-4-74-~
® This paper contains 50% recyded material, 30% postconsumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE
• CIT_OF RENTON
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor
VIA FACSIMILE AND FIRST CLASS MAIL
December 1, 200S
Eric R Stahlfeld, Esq.
Law Offices of Eric R Stahlfeld
145 S.W. ISSth Street, Suite 101
Seattle, W A 98166
Office of the City Attorney
Lawrence J. Warren
Senior Assistant City Attorneys
Mark Barber
Zanetta L. Fontes
Assistant City Attorneys
Ann S. Nielsen
Garmon Newsom II
Sasha P. Alessi
Re: In re Williams Setback Variance Hearing, LUA 05-111, V-A
Dear Eric:
Per our telephone conversation today, I have notified the Hearing Examiner's Office that the
parties are seeking a continuance of the December 13, 200S hearing date. The reason for this
request is that our staff has not yet received your client's "parking modification" request, which
, is related to the above-referenced matter. As previously discussed, it would not make sense to
proceed with the scheduled variance hearing without resolving the parking issue.
The next available dates are: January 3, 2006, or Jan1,laT)' 24, 2006. Once I hear back from you
regarding these dates, I will contact the Hearing Examiner's Office and request one of the dates.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me.
Ann Nielsen
Asst. City Attorney
cc: Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner
Neil Watts
Jennifer Henning
Keri Weaver
LawrenceJ. Warren
----------~~----------~R' EN"T' 'ON Post Office Box 626 -Renton, Washington 98057 -(425) 255-8678/ FAX (425) 255-5474 * This paper contain~ 50% recyded material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE
I '
• CIT~F RENTON
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler. Mayor
VIA FACSIMILE AND FIRST CLASS MAIL
NDvember 21,2005
Eric R. Stahlfeld, Esq.
LawOffices DfEric R. Stahlfeld
145 S.W. 155th Street, Suite 101
Seattle, W A 98166
Office Dfthe City AttDrney
Lawrence J. Warren
Senior Assistant City Attorneys
Mark Barber
Zanetta L. Fontes
Assistant City Attorneys
Ann S. Nielsen
Garmon Newsom II
Sasha P. Alessi
Re: In re . Williams Setback Variance Hearing. LUA 05-111. V-A
Dear Eric:
Pursuant to. Dur telephDne conversatiDn earlier this week, I have contacted the Hearing
Examiner's Office and cDnveyed our stipulatiDntD cDntinue the hearing in the above referenced
matter, which is currently scheduled fDr NDvember 29, 2005. This hearing willnDw be held Dn
December 13, 2005 at 9:00 iLm.-
The basis fDt this continuance is to. allDw YDur clients to. pursue a "parking standards
mDdification" which is also at issue in this case. ' I have spoken with the City Staff regarding thIs
. and.they can alSo. accDmmDdate the schedule. HDwever, in Drder to. m~et this tight timeframe,
the City Staff is urging YDur clients to'· submit the modificatiDn request as SODn as possible.
Given the ThanksgivinghDliday schedule this week, they will need it early this week .
. Depending Dn the outcDme'Dfthat applicatiDn, YDU may have a basis to. appeal that dec;:isiDn
alDngwith,the currently scheduled variance hearing. If so., then both. appeals, as they WDuldbe
reiated, can.be heard tDgether Dn the new date Df December 13, 2005 .
. If you have any ~stiDns, please do nDt hesitate.tD contact me:
-.~ ';"'-:-." .: ... " .
Ann Nielsen
Asst. City Attorney
cc: Fred Kaitfinan. Hearing Examiner
Neil Watts
Jennifer Henning
KeriWeaver
Lawrence 1. Warren
-·'-p-o-st-O-ffj-lc-e-B-o-x-62-6---R-en-to-· n-, -W;-as:-h-in-gt-on-9-80-5-7--(-4-25-)-2-55---86-7-8-/ F-:AX~(-42-5-)-25-5--5-4-74-~
.® This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE
..... ,"J1 .... ,,·Wheeier, Mayor
November 29, 2005
Eric R. Stahlfeld
Attoniey at Law
•
145 SW 1551h Street, Ste.lOl
Seattle, W A 98166
CIT~F·RENTON
Hearing Examiner
.Fred J. Kaufman
Re: Appeal to Hearirig Examiner of Report and Decision of Adminis~ra~ive Variance
Dear Mr. Stahlfeldl:
Please be advised that the appeal hearing· in the .abovehlatter has been scheduled for Tuesday, .
November 29, 2005 at 9:00 a.m .. The hearing will take phicecin the Council Chambers on the
seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. The address is 1055 S Grady Way in Renton,
If, this office can provide anyJurtherassistance, please addressthose~omments in writing.
Sincerely,
Fred Kaufman.
Hearing Examiner
City of Renton
FKlnt···
cc: Larry Warren, City Attorney.
Neil Watts; Development Servic~s .
Jennifer Henning, Development Services
Jim Hanson
Pamela S~nf(j~d c/o Tom Williams
""-:. . . :: ~
·..,.-'-""----1 O-S-S-s-o-ut-h-G-ra-d-y-'-W-"-a-y-. R-e-n-to'-n-,W-as-h-'-in-g-to-n-'-9-'-SO-S--;S'---( 4-2-S-) 4-3-0'--6-:"5-1S-· -'--'----"--'-•.• ~ •. * This paper ';"ntains 50"10 nicycIed material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE
Jim Hanson
Hanson Consulting
17446 Mallard Cove Lane
Mt. Vernon, WA 98274
tel: 360-422-5056
eml: jchanson@verizon.net
(contact)
Updated: 10/05/05
Parties of Record
WILLIAMS SIDE YARD VARIANCE
LUA05-111, V-A
Pamela Sanford
c/o Tom Williams
17980 Brittany Drive SW
Seattle, WA 98166
tel: 206-241-1640
(owner / applicant)
(Page 1 of 1)
• CITY"F RENTON
Eric R. Stahlfeld
145 SW 155th Street, Ste. 101
Seattle, WA 98166
Re: Williams SetbacklParking Variance Appeal Hearing
LUA 05-111, V-A
Dear Mr. Stahlfeld:
Hearing Examiner
Fred J. Kaufman
Due to a scheduling conflict, the appeal hearing in the above matter has been rescheduled for
Tuesday, February 21 at 9:00 a.m. The hearing will take place in the Council Chambers on
the seventh floor of the Renton City ij:all. The address is 1055 S Grady Way in Renton.
If this office can provide any further assistance, please address those comments in writing.
Sincerely,
Fred Kaufman
Hearing Examiner
City of Renton
FKint
cc: Larry Warren, City Attorney
Ann Nielsen, Assistant City Attorney
Zanetta Fontes, Assistant City Attorney
Neil Watts, Development Services
Jennifer Henning, Development Services
Keri Weaver, Development Services
Jim Hanson, Hanson Consulting
----~--------~----~--~R·ENTON 1055 South Grady Way -Renton, Washington 98055 -(425) 430-6515
m" This ·paper oontains 50% recvcIed material. 30% DOSt consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE
• CITyeF RENTON
Eric R. Stahlfeld
145 SW 155th Street, Ste. 101
Seattle, WA 98166
Re: Williams SetbacklParking Variance Appeal Hearing
LUA 05-111, V-A
Dear ML Stahlfeld:
Hearing Examiner
Fred J. Kaufman
Please be advised that the appeal hearing in the above matter has been scheduled for Tuesday,
February 7 at 9:00 a.m. The hearing will take place in the Council Chambers on the seventh
floor of the Renton City Hall. The address is 1055 S Grady Way in Renton.
If this office can provide any further assistance, please address those comments in writing.
Sincerely,
-:;::j ;~f--
Fred Kaufman
Hearing Examiner
City of Renton
FKint
cc: Larry Warren, City Attorney
Ann Nielsen, Assistant City Attorney
Neil Watts, Development Services
Jennifer Henning, Development Services
Keri Weaver, Development Services
Jim Hanson, Hanson Consulting
----lO-S-S-S-ou-th-G-r-ad-y-W-a-y---R-en-t-on,-W-as-h-in-gt-o-n-9-g0-S-S---(4-2S-)-4-30--6-S-1-S ----~
® This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE
~~~'. 't ~.-:, , : •. :'".' ' .. ~. .: '::.~'. ,J.' _,r 1";. < ... ~t;~.J I,' ,./ ,'"'~., .:~ _ " ...... " .~.. . • ;-t~ ~ ,: ~:.;.,. , :."~'::o.:! .. :-,~~ .. " .-: .... , .... ~.~<.: ... ~(~, ":~ :--t,':, '-~;::: .. :::.; .'" ",~-'. .. ' . v ",,,}';','o,". ~'.'~"~:1':> :.'''''~/_,C\.'~.ai·:''~';: ':':'/>':;.:'~, ;'''i~ ."':.',:-:'<'/ <: ... ,< 'J. ;i~':,'£:';:F4~ ., .,':. '::::~;~ih.".i~",>·,. c~\.:.,;':?'>.:e 1'I7:)~F' .RENTo.N "',':,; ..•
:t' ~ ;".".,..;. '. ,· ... c ••.• ~, .. :, >. , .,>:"':. ;:,':':,~'.".~.~'. '.:' [f;'t~ , .: ,i;3;: \:)~j ?~c:·.~.·.·~.I.".~.w. ej .. :iZ,' ,~~. ·6 .• ~ .• ~,r\\/::'.:.""·:':'·'.'~'·'·:':':'~":'·
,.""';:; .'·,::·".·,.,Kathy.'Keolk~r-)Vbeel~r;·Mayor:' . __ .. ' '. .,.>,,>;'." .t, '. . .'<"~".,
"
'.,.' ,<~' '., ':: "TO: '. :.".,' "\:. .Fred· Kaufman, Heanng ·Exammer: . '~ . " . 1. ";'-,',,> ' . .' :: r. :, . " :,' .\ :." c:: ~ .:.:' ~ ,'. " .. ' ,., .:::; ;'>. ; ..
,'r • .." ~~ .. ~"...:.'" ~ .. ' ;:-" :. : •. ~\:' .L""M"'~" '-:.0' ... :. ~ •• .; .. ", •• ..,.,:'") .:. '. <O...t '.::' .. n. '.' :.';. ~<' ••• ""_~ .. :'" ~:":,".}." •• ~",~,,,~ ;' .... ' ,i?~' ,,,.,.t :\".~~ ; ~. ,,\ ':, :'" ::FROM::·· ."··" .. Aiin NlelSen;.ASslStant City Attorney· .'" ,', . ::. '~""!' ~.",' ",,-.\ .,' : '. ~ (. " " '. : ':; • :'. '< .:. '.'" " .<, -' ~~L: ,,' .. ",~',"' iiti ':":. :,'; . '. ":~I~ 're'William~t SetbackVaJi~nct·He~rilig'···r..U~:05' iil ''Y'':;\, ,,~ i .... ,· .:' ' .. >", ':', ,.;~. '., < ,\'! .... , '.~'.·I.::.·,;;",':;~'.~.:.'.! """':':'~<.'.~.; .. ~:'., ·.~ ... : ...•... · .. 1, D",~A.:;'ry~:; "'D~c~~~{,,:3!f;21o~: :/~,.:~ .. <' ';. 5, ,.~" ;,.,'-:: i,\ ':-:: ::;~::' , .,::~)'; :c';'. ,i\ ::,' ~.~.;::: ~ ,
. / .~,"".' . ,:. '. . /:;.: '.';" .. : ~:~~. ~)~,:~.')::'}":~: ~.\., 0;.; . .>: : . -. "/ :'".~.'.( , ~, '. ': '. ::.. ':.'. ;~. ;.::~::: .::.~; :::."~<>: ;·~'''.i .:.::, .:/ :,:.,/:', :~} ',;'-: .. <'; <}.:; :,):,',,:' ",,::,~: '~:'. :.: i-'.:~~:»:-~:.,.' ":":':i::;-,::~::,.t,:;,;;: r:~>-i.:: .': :: ~.:. ,~~>.~.;;~~~~c,,~;~\:. i~·: ..
,"':': ,': .'~'~.;:: . :,,;)~~~YO!I' ~at-!e.caI!~·,the ;aboye~t:~.~ere~c~4 h~anng. w~I~,:.re~c~t?dUl~d .. fr~W;N9YetHber;·f9;~2~5; ..... : '~~ .? <.',", ,~:.-. ';
: :.':' '.T ... ,: ," ·;:t~·'P~,?ep~r: 13;:209??·~en~r.e!.npvt:4 ~~.,~e .. He~&:J;:x~nt?t:~s'~cP.e~~).e,p.ep.~ing-,~~J.~;'::._':'.~ {'.'~:;'.,,. ?,_~': ~ ,: ::;"'~
:-.: : ....... ;. "". t' ::-addiJiona1'.'i>~l9#g 'modification i~~~e~~r: :App'e~nui~~.appliedJo:r:,a P8Jkirig'm'o{Jiqcation~:r:~quest,'.:., .: '",;~\,~'-<: ". -. '"
~!..o....... " . ' r • , f" ~ ~. "~ ... I • ,,( • ," • I ' . " , ".", " . I _ '.... ~ ~< t • • 4 4 ... , .., '~. ) ;'.;: : ~:~' , ~,' an~ 1f1:e' City,-~s~~~d its '4~ci~io,~.rysPP~ .~~ O~se~D¢~~~9. ?Q.Q~: r.11ie 4ea91!neJ6! ,@.s apl?ehlJ~$, .. '~, :·~~;,r:: ;' >, __ :.~; r;" ': ;\;Ui,,;i }an!0:~.i~~~~", i,{,·:~:",~/;,:;; g:-J\~.:;.;T::; ):~~:' } ·'.<::>r'·;~ ':: :X}i~:;,\t;]<>,:;
.' ,,"; :::: :' ... ,;':~." I ·spok-e:wit4,Enc. SJahlfeld;~a~om~y, f9r~Appell®t.,:~,d·he)nfo~~(rt;ne-topay. ~at his 'di~pl.-·' /. ':, :.)~' ..:: "-, (. :' . ~ .• j _ .,J~..~ '"1'': ' ~~' ....... ) -. • l-• ~1"' •• ,'J', J<, ';, • ,".' "" -< .... ~. /" '~.!, ~ .~ ,:t.. ,. ~ ... -< I, •••• .I ... , ~ ' ..
':.:. ~:~~,,:: 'i ~t~Q.ds on p~~g~t1!e ~~t.?~~~"~aiJ.~c~·~I?P;~'~.~~ong.~~:a·~~~v~f,.peal.,~f$e.patJci:Ii~r:~: .. :;:~ .~,..,\ :, \::~',: ;.-;'~,' ':-c
", '.j ~ ': ;mQ~~c~~pii.4~i~~~~ . .::,:(}iv,?n. too..t-tn,~J~~u!:?~-:~e,r~l~t~d .and·'~n;c~ri1 ~~,s~e prop¢rty ;"S~.f.~.15! i. '::~ .. : ',/ .' . <;.;-~'.;., .. ; ,~ .~:; ',; :. :.: :,::: ~_:~WI; ~e/~q~e~g"~~\:b.6!h:ap~~~_ ~~~eat(t~~~$9:ler'at~~n~.J~~~~:~: NfY: rin~~~~~¥~ ~~'t!i~(", <?~:;::i .'>'X·: :~',
~.';, ' ... , .. ·-;..::.';th~,App~U~t~~Jf?l~!h~rr.;~ppe~·b~Jh~'~eadlll?-e .. ~'.' :.~,'. ,.':' .. ! ;'~ <",::/; ... >" ,-',,~:' "";,,> ;,:.:'::~':.~ .. :.,,:,':.;':;. ~;/:'~'<':::''': ~ , ''-<'.': .. ,J':.; ':;' .. ,.-':.:, .. «:; ..... ,.:;:.,:.<:\.'";.'".:\_;,':.:,y:,~ .. j .. ::'; .. ' .-;·( .. ..;.~.-,.~</I~ .. '; ><:/·~./~ .. :~;J~~!::::i.~·.;'·:'-'. .. ~.:<~\:::.~<,':' ';
} .:-.. ". :,;;~ .: ,: :;' ,~: ;.!i3s~4 -o~ tii~se~~veIltS. ·pl~a;seies~tihl~·: ~att~i"~o~.tf!~ .ne~t·:avWl~ble~oaie .. , Jfyo~ 1~~xe ~y ". '.' :;.~. '. '.' :~~': ~"': :.:. .
,,: :. ~).~#k:;.;. ':'-
': · .. ·.<i t;·:c"~,i;{,,; •.• ·.,:,.:.,.,. ~.·i, .).,\,;' ;,' ":"':
"~ , :' ~" .., 'l" '." .t.? ".: "-,;.4" ¥.-... ~_/:~~(;};.~:;.t::;':}';~/,':;:' ':.:' : .. ~" ~,'r :<" ::V":
•... '.:: : ': .. >", .: _~e: .'. Ene Stahlfeld
",}:5:; '~ .. ;'," ,~. '~;: "/; :':~
,. ..
:.~ < .:;:("~ ';;:' :::,',;:~': ·.~~s~b~~~~~~~ 6~~ ~f~e~;~~~:~~~~~~i~~·.~~651·~: (4~~j i~~~~~;~ 7 ~.J:i~;~·f;~~-:~·~~~ ':'::~;' 'R'l~','i\r ·j\b 'N~::'~~'; /:;::"
.~::.:;;:' ·:),'.:~\~;\~:;~:,.:,~5{~:·~~· ~·~:··:::':-.;~:):F>:,,'.~·>:~;>:.:'~·.:~.G>,~#~:~~~~+~~:~5~~&~~~f.~~;~'~oi~~;.~~~~~~,: " ",) ... ',. :·1 :'\~~.t.~::~t./~t~:u~~~:,;(~:e:\·:';
, I • LAW OFFICES OF
ERIC R. STAHLFELD
145 S.W. 155m STREET, SUITE 101
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98166
(206) 248-8016
•
December 2, 2005
Mr. Neil Watts
Development Services Director
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, Washington 98055
Re: Williams Parking Modification
Dear Mr. Watts:
OE\lELOPMcNl SERVIces
CITY OF RENTON
DEC U:) 2081,
REC'EIVED
On behalf of my client Tom Williams, and at the direction of
Jennifer Henning, I hereby request a modification of the parking
requirements for a proposed duplex on a parcel generally located
at 317 Hardie Avenue NW, Renton, WA 98055, more specifically
described as Lot 11, 47 Hays & Roberts Subdivision of block 47,
N.H. Latimers Lake Wash. Plat as recorded in Vol. 28, page 38 of
K~n~ Couhty Washington, King County As~essor No. 318560-0055.
The lot is 45 feet wide fronting th~street, and,100 feet deep
(running east-west), with a total area of ~,500 square feet~
The request is to modify the parking requirements from 2.5
per unit to 2.0 per unit, so that only four (4) parking spaces be
provided rather than the five the City evidently requires.
The lot is zoned multi-family, so the City permits and
desires a multi-family structure on the site. The minimum multi-
family structure is a duplex.
The lot dimensions, p~edating the zoning, present practical
if not in3~p€rablc difficulties. Th.e code r~·quires a five-foot
setback on the north property line, and a twenty-five foot
setback along the south property line (for which a variance has
been requested, to reduce it to ten feet). Of the 45 foot lot
width, these setbacks allow the duplex footprint to vary from
fifteen feet to .. -if the variance is granted -thirty feet.
Each unit, then, will be between 7.5 feet and 15 feet wide.
Even at 15 feet wide, there will not be sufficient space to
park two vehicles side-by-side. Consequently, the parking must
be "tandem" parking, i.e., parking the vehicles one in front of
the other, in this case under the duplex. Even withth~ lot
depth of 100 feet, there is insufficient depth to provideroo~
Mr. Neil Watts
December 2, 2005
• •
Page 2
for three vehicles in tandem parking~ Nor would Renton's code be
furthered by increasing the size of the duplex to provide three-
deep tandem spaces.
This modification is the minimum necessary. It is reducing
the number of parking spaces by one, the smallest number
possible. The number of parking spaces per unit, two, is the
number that would be required were only a single unit built on
the site. The resulting number of parking spaces, four,
substantially implements the planning requirements to provide
parking. Were the City to conclude otherwise would be to
interpret the code to never allow a reduction in parking, which
-obviuusly is contrary to the code's provision to allow
modification.
The modification will meet the objectives and safety,
function, appearance, environmental protection and
maintainability intended by the code. The resulting duplex will
appear as a normal duplex. Parking three-deep would cause safety
issues related to moving vehicles in and out. The environment
will be protected because the duplex will be smaller than it
would have to be to allow three-deep parking.
Keeping the vehicles under the duplex will not harm other
properties in the vicinity.
The reduction of parking by one space conforms to the intent
and purpose of the code. The code allows modifications to reduce
the number of parking spaces; were this modification denied the
effect would be to prohibit any modification as contrary to the
intent and purpose of the code. Providing four spaces conforms
to the intent and purpose, to have parking provided on-site.
The modification is justified and required. It is required
because the multi-family zoning for a duplex was applied to a lot
,,9Oly 45 feet wide. It is justified becau,se this is the minim.um
necessary to allow a multi-family structure to be built on the
site.
This will not create adverse impacts to other properties in
the vicinity. Reducing the size of the duplex from that required
for three-deep tandem parking will presumably be less of an
impact, although there is an existing structure across the street
that is larger. To the extent that on some occasion a fifth
parking space is required between the two units, that space is
temporarily available either on the driveway or on the street,
just as every other property in the vicinity can park on the
street.
Thank you for considering this request to modify the parking
• r
•. t.
Mr. Neil Watts
December 2, 2005
• •
Page 3
requirements to reduce the number of spaces to four. If you have
any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (206) 248-
8016.
Very truly yours,
'. ~
Eric R. Stahlfeld
cc; Anii Nielser.
Client
-------~-----------------------------------------~
• CITye>F RENTON
PlanllinglBuildinglPublicWorks Department
Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrato'r
December 28, 2005
Pamela Sanford
c/o Tom Williams
17980 Brittany Drive SW
Seattle,WA 98166
Subject: Williams Side Yard Setback Variance; LUA05-111, V-A
Request for Modification -Parking Standard
Dear Ms. Sanford:
The City of Renton has received your request for a parking modification regarding the property
located at the intersection of Hardie Ave. NW and 3rd Place NW. The following surilrtlarizes
your request, project background, analysis and decision.
Summary of Request
On September 15, 2005, you applied for an adrriinistrative variance to reduce the south. side yard
setback for a proposed duplex development on the subject site. The variance reque~t was denied
by the City Zoning Administrator on October 13, 2005. In theCity'sReport and Decisionforthe
variance denial, it was noted the proposed develoPIllentplan did not meet code requirements for
several items, including the side yard setback, number and location of parking sp~ces, and .
landscaping and buffer requirements. ... -, .
Subsequently, on December 2, 2005, you applied for a modification from the parking standards
that would allow 2.0 parking spaces per unit instead of 2.5 parking spaces per unit, as required by
RMC 4-2-110Fand4-4-080 when tandem garage parking is proposed. Section 4-4-080FlO.d
allows'the Development Services Division to grant modifications from the parking standards for
individual cases provided that the modification meets the following criteria (pursuant to RMC 4-
9,-250D:2):,.· .
L Will meet the objectives and safety, funCtion, appeara~ce, environmental protection and
maintain~bility .intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering
judgment; and
2. Will not be injurious to other property(s) in the vicinity; and
3. Conform to the intent and purpose of the Code; and
4. Can be shown tobe justified and required for the use and situation intended; and
5. Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity.
Background
The overall development proposal is for two duplexes on two adjacent lots located at the
intersection of Hardie Ave. NW and3rd Place NW. The lots are zoned Residential ~ Multi-
-------------1-O-55--So-u-t-h~G-ra-d-y-W-a-y---R-e-nt-o-n,-W-a-s-hl-.n-g-to-n-9-8-0-55-------------~ . . -* This -paper cOntains 5O%'recydOO material; 30% posfoorisumef" _.AHEAD_O.E.THE .... CURV:E ..
;--I
. Williams Dup!exesLUA 05-11_
Parking Modification •
. December 28, 2005
Page 2 of 4
Family (RM-F) and are curtentlyvacant. Each lot is approximately 4,500sq ft in siz~. As.
previously noted; the City's parking standards require 2.5 parking spaces per unit when tandem
garages are provided, which wouldresult in 10 parking spaces for the proposed 4-unit overall
development. The applicant proposed to provide 8 parking spaces within the garages, and 2
surface parking stalls at the rear of one building.
As indicated in the variance denial, the proposal for 2 surface parking stalls would have·
conflicted with code requirements for setbacks, landscape buffers, and location of parking
spaces. With the removal of the surface parking staBs, the applicant should be able to modify the
site plan to reasonably accommodate the proposed development.
The issues of the parking modification and the previous variance request cannot be separated
from the overall development propqsaCand this review 'and decision has been made froni a
comprehensive perspective that considers all of the potential~0ge requirements. The appr()val of
.·the parking modification willbe requirecias'a cOllclitionof appr~v<llfor the proposed building
permit.'·
.. ;L~.
Analysis
.~, .
1.) <Will 'meet the ()bje~tiv~ ands~t~i~,;?i~~~g~~~--~ppeararif~, eAvironmen~lprotectiQn .
and mainuiinabilitYinteIl.~ed bYJhe::qq:tle\tequi~~IDents, .i)ased upon sOUlldengineering .' judgment.:: . . >-. .... .;. 'J,' '.' .-;(.. ....
The applicant contends that 8'gaf~ge parIdngspaces in,addit~ont6iihe available oIl-street parking
would provide sufficient parkingfo.i theproposedoveralldeyefopment of4 ,duplexunits~. Each
auplexullitwillhave exclusive use'()ftWd'tandeIhpar~ng,~pacesJi.e" located one behind .
all()ther) within a privategarage, Staffh~s"ig"iewea'the applicant's proposal aIidconctiisthat ,the
reduction oftequiredparkirig spaces from 2.5 to 2;0 per unit would not res.tilt iIUi significant
. negative impact, as. sufficient oIl-'streetparkingis av~lable OIl HardieAve.NW aildN:w3111 .
Plac:eto 'serve the remaining needs. of the proposed deve16pment. 'The reduction in parking
• spaces would meet tl1eobjectlves andsafety, function) appearance, environmentalp~()tettion _and
maintainability intenged by the code requirements, based upon sound ,engineering judgment.
2.) ,Wilhiotbe injuri~us to otherproperty(s).in the vicinity.
,. . . ., , .
To avoid impacts toneighboringproperties from the overall development proposal, the following
conditionf!i will be applied to the approved modification:
1. . No surfa:ce (non-garage) parking spaces shall be allowed for the proposed development
on eIther of the subject lots. ' . .
---.--.. ---~-.--. --------'-.---.-.~--..--.-=--"------_._-._---
Williams Duple~es LUA 05~11_
Parking Modification •
December 28.2005
Page 3 of 4
2.
3.
3.)
If a variance is subseguentlyapproved for the required 25·,[00t south side yard setback, 2
the s~back shall not be reduced bymore than 50% or 12 feet 6 jpcbes A separate •
reconsideration of this variance request will be required .
If the applicant requests a reconsideration of the variance denial, the applicant shall
submit a detailed landscape plan for review and approval by the Development Services
Division, which c1earlyindicates how screening and buffer requirements will be
implemented through landscaping in order to protect adjacent single-family residential
properties from adverse impacts ofthe proposed development. Types, sizes and locations
of ground cover, trees; shrubs, and other plantings and materials shall be clearly indicated
on the plan. Additionally, the applicant shall provide a solid wood 6-foot fence on the
south property line, finished on both sides, for further impact reduction.
Conforms to the intent aridpurp~se of the Code .. "
See discussion under secti()n I ..
'. The modification requcstlndj~atesth~h<;\1,lf1',t~~Sh~n~9w siz~of.~achlot(45 feet) and the .
required setbacks, each dqplei" unitca:nnp'ib~',m0~.eihan 15 feet ·wider. Thi~ width would not be
sufficient to allow two cars to be pWk~d'sidd;by-sid~.!I). a g~age located either next to the units
'. orbelowtheIll. Therefore~':t,he£l;pplidlIl(has ·propos~(ftan4¢1I1.pwkirigin garages below the units.
However, this arrangementwilIaccoIllmodate only .. 8vehide§fo~ thefour.units.(2·perUIut),
'. which qoes not meetthe code'Wqilireme~t for 25Parkings'pac¢:s;perunit when ~andelTIparking
'is pr9posed .. -Additional surface'p¥kingsp'aces wouldhave'to~belocatedwithin required setback
arid! or buffer areas on the s£de or rear' oOhe units. .J .',: ..
Tbeproposed reduction to 2.0'parbngspaces per unitrepresenis .~ 20% reduction in the number
. of on site parking spaces that will be availaple to each iini~a~citotheovefall development: .
However, as-not~djn.section l,isantiClpated that.parldngneeds that carmot be met onsite can be
, adequately served by sireetparking. Theiequestedl"ed~ction istliemi~imum neces'saryto .
. . · .. :accommodate theproposeddeveloj>ment The appliCant has provided~cceptabl.e justification for.
theproposedmodificatioI! bas~d upon the dimensions of the subjectproperties~md required' .'
setbacks .. Therefore; staff concurs that the parking situation to be justifiep and adequate for the
use intended. . -. .
5.) Will not create adverse impacts to otherproperty(ies) in the vicinity.
See discussion under Section 2 ..
-: "
J' •
Williams Dliplexes LUA 05-11'
Parking Modification
December 28,2005
Page 40f 4
Decision
•
According to the City's parking standards for multi-familyresidential units with tandem garages,
the reduction of required parking spaces for the proposed development from 2.5 to 2.0 parking
spaces per unit would result in a parking shortage of 2 spaces. However, based on information
provided by the applicant, staff recognizes that the proposed parking situation forthe site is
adequate as on-street parking is abundantly available. Additionally, the reduction in parking .
spaces would allow the applicant to 1TI0dify the site plan to reasonably accommodate the .
proposed development of 2 duplexes, and also provi.de setbacks ·and landscaping that adequatdy
buffer neighboring properties. Therefore,· the parking modification for thepropbsed development
of 2 duplexes, is approved, for a requirement of 2.0 parking spaces per unit.
1'his modification is based'on the currelltdevelopment"prop()sal of four duplex units on tw01ots.
·If the development proposal is J,"evised, or if a varianceisjsstied with different conditions than
. those described above in Section 2, tllismodification'wii~ bereex~ned by the Development'
Services Directorand may l?e altered' or voided.··· '. ' ..•..
,-:y. ',\,~,:~.' .... -.-.. -.. ;....... .:'-:',' ;.~~.
This decision to approve $.e proposedparkipg inod1fiGa~ionis subjectto 'a fourteen (14) day
appealperiod from the dateof:thil)lett~I";;i·A~)(.app~~$.ofthe~dIWpistrative deciSion must be '.
flIed with the City of RentonHearing·Ex.annn~r;by:5~:6b pm, jari1lliy3;2003,If you have. .
questionsregardingthis.cQiTespo"rtdence,'pl@j3.se cori(a~t Keri /Weaverj;Senior Plann~r, at(425)
430-7382.. ..... . . :~;.: .:< "\}. ':'.. xi' .' '. . ' .. '
Si~iJ;;)iiIi
NeilWatt~,riirector .'.
Development· Services· Di yision,
c~: Keri Weaver~
Project File
-------_.------,-----' --'--------------_ ..
~F·'.·
" .• _--__ ~ _ •• _. r~' ._ •. ___________ ,_:.,.. ••• _ ..... ____ ~. __ • ______ ._._. _____ ---=_____ _ .... ______ -'-__ . _. __ . ___ ...:. ____ . _________ .
STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING}
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
PUBLIC NOTICE
Tom Meagher, being first duly sworn on oath that he is the Legal Advertising
Representative of the
King County Journal
a daily newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general
circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date
of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language
continuously as a daily newspaper in King County, Washington. The King
County Journal has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the
Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County.
The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the
King County Journal (and not in supplement form) which was regularly
distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed
notice, a
Public Notice
was published on December 2, 2005.
The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum
of$74.00.
4~ ~\"uu"#I" \\ BAh I, ~" ~ \.. :-~J>.. #'",,~ ~~~O~ARJo' O.A~ :: 0 ~ .",. ~
Tom Meagher = ..., Xp :
Legal Advertising Representative, King County Journal;: 04~8/'2009 i Z :
J~~Barton
e this 6th day of December, 200; ~ • iPs ~ 7,X ••••• PUB1,,\~~" (S$ ~~~.... ........ ~
""/ OF WN ,,' .... ~ III#.~'''H''
Notary Public for the State of Washington, Residing in Auburn, Washington
PO Number:
Cost of publishing this notice includes an affidavit surcharge.
NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING
RENTON HEARING EXAMINER
RENTON, WASHINGTON
A Public Hearing has been
rescheduled by the Renton Hearing
Examiner in the Council Chambers on
the seventh floor of Renton City Hall,
1055 South Grady Way, Renton,
Washington, for December 13, 2005 at
9:00 AM to consider the following
petitions:
Appeal Williams Side Yard Setback
Variance
LUA05-111, V-A
Location: 317 Hardie Avenue NW
Description: The applicant is
requesting an appeal of the
administrative detennination
denying an administrative
variance from the 26-foot side yard
setback in RM-F (Residential
Multi-Family) zones to 10-feet due
to the constraints of the lot size
and other required setbacks.
Legal descriptions of the files noted
above are on file in the Development
Services Division, Sixth Floor, City
Hall, Renton, WA. All interested
persons are invited to be present at
the Public Hearing to express their
opinions. Questions should be directed
to the Hearing Examiner at 425-430-
6515.
Publication Date: December 2, 2005
Published in the King County Journal
December 2, 2005. #848137
-
,-
CIT~F RENTON
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler. Mayor
PlanillnglBuildinglPublic Works Department
Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator
December 28,2005
Pamela Sanford
clo Tom Williams
17980 Brittany Drive SW
Seattle, WA 98166
SUbject: Williams Side Yard Setback Variance; LUA05-111, V-A
Request for Modification...,... Parking Standard
Dear Ms. Sanford:
The City of Renton has received your request for a parking modification regarding the property
located at the intersection of Hardie Ave. NW and 3rd Place NW. The following summarizes
your request, project background, analysis and decision.
Summary of Request
On September 15, 2005, you applied for an adrriinistrative variance to reduce the south side yard
setback for a proposed duplex development on the su~jectsite. The variance request was denied
by the City Zoning Administrator on October 13, 2005: . In the City's Report and Decision for the
variance denial, it was noted the proposed developmtmLplan did not meet code requirements for
several items, including the side yard setback, number and location of parking spaces, and
landscaping and buffer requirements.
Subsequently, on December 2, 2005, you applied for a modification from the parking standards
that would allow 2.0 parking spaces per unit instead of 2.5 parking spaces per unit, as required by
RMC 4-2~110F and 4-4-080 when tandem garage parking is proposed. Section 4-4-080FlO.d
allows the Development Services Divisionto grant modifications from the parking standards for
individual cases provided that the modification meets Jhe following criteria (pursuant to RMC 4-
9'-250D.2): ; .
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(s) 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.
Background
The overall development proposal is for two duplexes on two adjacent lots located at the
Intersection of Hardie Ave. NWand3rd Place NW; The lots are zoned Residential -Multi-
-------1-05-5~S-o-ut-h-,G-r-ad-y-W:-a-y---R-e-nt-on-,-W:-a-sh-i-rig--'t-on-9-S0-5-5------~
<i'). This paper contains 50% recycled material, ~% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE
..... Wiliiams DupIexesLUA 05-1.
Parking ModifiCiltion . .
· Decembef28; 2005
Page2of4
Fainily'(RM-F) and are currentlyvacaij.t Each lot isapproximately'4,500.sq· [tin size. As .
'.' , ·previouslynoted; the City's.parking standards require 2.5 parkingspacesperuilitwhentandem,
gatagesare'provided, which would result in 10 parking spaces. for the proPosed 4-unit overall
deveiopment. The applicant proposed to provide 8 parking spaces within the garages; and 2
surface parking stalls at the rear of one building. .
As indicated iIi the variance denial; the proposal for 2 surface parking stalls Would have
· conflicted with code requirements for setbacks, landscape buffets;:aQdlocation of parking
.. spaces., With the'removal of the surface parking stalls, theappJlca~t shortldbe abletb modify the
siieplanto reasonably accoinmodate the proposed development.' .' .
The issues of the Iiarking modification ancl,;the"previQ!Js variance requesrc~Iinot be separated'
from the .overall development prop~~al~~and'tqts;reviewkIidl,9~cisio:nhas ·~e,en made·fronia "
comprepensive perspective that,consi&eli~ allotthe poteIl.tial~?Og:e requirements. 'Theapprovalqf
.' the patkingmorlificatioil wiU!~~ req!lireq,:;asa:'cohditionOf ap'pio%~~'fot the proposed: building ,
. ;,..' . . " " -'",.~. .' permit. " '~i'
j;;;> "')" .'~~
Analysis .. , . ·~t .
. . '. " .. ' ,C ...l·:ti;~>., ,;,'J;' ~~(;f,f1;);~; {./~!;.~ .:. . '. . .
· 1.), .·WiJrQ1eeHheobje¢tivesaildsaf~ty >:; c!i]iii;appearance;'¢9vir<Jnmentalprotection
, " .. '~wlmaintai~ability in~eIi~¢d by:the:~~~~Xfequi~i~erits, J)fsed,ueon,soU,lld .. ~ngineeriilg .
, Judgment. 'I) , . '. 'j£l
.' : . '.' . . ' .... , ....... 'i,,! ('';, .... ,~. ". .'. .... ~,'" :i! ' .. ':. . . '. '. > '
" .' 'Th~ applicant contends tQat.8:g~ag~parJril1g'space.siq additionJP'the ay~lable on-street parking'
·Wbuld.provide sufficiem· parking'fqr theproP9,s~d:' oYeraIl-'dex~d6p~eIl~ tif":4duplex units. Each<:.
duplexunitwillhaveej((:lusive uSe '6ftW,Q'tanahnpar~,ng'spaces:(i.~;;iotated one. behind' .: ..... :
· anpther) within a priyate,gat~ge. Staf{has:r~vi~wed)th~ applicant' (Pt9pgsaland .concursthat .the'
.' -reduction ofre.quired'parkingspacesfron;1 2.5 to2.0 per unit wouldnbt res,lilt in a significant '.
"negative impact, as,sufficient on-street parking is av~lableon Ha:rdie'~f\ vi;Nw andNW 3rd '
'. ~p:lil(~eto serve the relJlaininKneeds ofthe proposed development.r6eofeduction in parking. . .....
spaces would meettheobjectives and'safety, fUnction, appearance; environrrierttal protection and
. maintainability intenqecU>y:the' c.ode requirements; based upon &oUrid:,engin~~ring judgment..·
, . -. . , -. ' ... ". \'
. .
2.)', Willl10tbe injurious to other property(s) in the viCinity. . " .
To~avoid imp~cts td,l1ei~hbbringproperties from the overall developinentptpposal, the following
conditions willbeapplie<;itotheapproved modification: . . "" ' .. "
~ . ,. '. .'.~' ". --. ." -. , ' ..
1. No surface (non-'garage) parking spaces shall be anowedfof'~hepi6posed development' ..
ondther of the s~~ject lots. . . . . . . ..
r
Williams Duple~es LUi\. 05-11'
Parking Modification
December 28, 2005
Page 3 Of4
•
2. If a variance is subsequently approved for the required 25-foot south side yard setback,
the setback shall not be reduced by more than 50% or 12 feet 6 inches. A separate
reconsideration of this variance request will be required.
3. If the applicant requests' a reconsideration of the variance denial,. the applicant shall
submit a detailed landscape plan for review and approval by the Development Service's
Division, which clearly indicates how screening and buffer requirements will be .
implemented through landscaping in order to protect adjacent single-family residential
properties from adverse impacts of the proposed development. Types, sizes and locations
of ground cover, trees, shrubs, and other plantings and materials 'shall be clearly indicated
ontheplan~ Additionally, the applicant shall provide a solid wood 6-foot fence on the
south property line, finished on both sides, for further impact reduction.
-. . ,." .
3.) Conforms to the intent and ,purpose of the Code;,·
i",
See discussion under &eCtioni.
. .," <' "' -, , ') ~.
4.). Can be shown to· b~:justi,.ed and reqlli~¢J~r theu~e andsi~ation intended.
. ~ ,;~,,/~~, c: ~\. " ''')i'~;;' ~ :h' T. ", '
. The modificaJion requestindi~ates th~t,dl,l~;5~~~~~:;~j9~ size"of,~~cJpot(45feet) and the
required setbacks,each dqplexunitcannot ~'dfi0~e_than 15feet wide{' This,width would not be
sufficienttoallow two cats to be parkedsid~~by-sid~'in a garage located either next to the units
or below them. Therefore,"the appllcanttias iiroposed'iandeir{pWkingin garages below the units.
However, this arrangement'w;iiLiycommodate only 8 v~hiClesfor the four llnits (2 per unit),
which does notmeetthecode'recluirehtentfor 25parkil1g'spad~!),per unit when tandem parking
is proposed; Additional surfaceip~king sp~ces would have JP'be located within required setback
and/or buffer areas on the side orrear~of theuriits. . _""if"
..' . . >&S';<'--~,'i':;';~;T;" A;, ,;:,.'J'
Thepropose~'redu~tibn·to 2;0 Parking spaces per unit represents a 20%reductiol1 in the nUJ;llber
of on site, parking spaces that will be available to each unit andto theovefail development.
However, as'notedin section l,is anticipated that parking. needs that cannotbe:metonsite can be
adequately served by street parking. The requested reduc~ion is the minimum necessary to
,accommodate the proposed development. The applicant has provided acceptable justification for
the proposed,modification based upon the dimensions of the subject properties and required
setbacks. Therefore, staff concurs that the parking situation to be justified and adequate for the
use intended,
5.) Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity.
See discussion under Section 2.
Willia~DuplexesLUA Q5~ i.
Parking Modificatioh '
December 28; 2005
Page4of4
Decision
According to the City' sparking standc:tidsJor multi-Iamilyresidential units with tandem garages;
the reduction of required parking ,spaces for the proposed development from 2_5 to 2.0 parking
spaces per uhit would result in a parking' shortage of 2 spaces, ' However, based on information
provide4 by th~ applicant, staffrecognizes that the proposed ,parking situation for the site is _. '
adequate as on '-street parking is abundillltly avaihiole. , Additionally, the reduction in parking-'
spaces WQuld;'allow the applicant to modify the site-plan toreasonably accomm()date the
proPQseddevelopment of 2 duplexes; an(falso provide' setba9ksand laIldscaping that' adeqmlteIy
'h'uffer neighbori,igpf{)peities. ' 'Therefore, ,the parking itiodific~tion for the proposed development
, of i duplexes, is approved, for a n~qlliremeI1t of i;Oparlang spaces per unit. '" -
, ' -_', ,,' -' ',',' ':';<ii'D;;;:'C/:i,'i:'i1iY_,>::;~!;:~.,_'~ , ' ",' , '.", .,', ;,: ..
Thi&p1odification is b,ased on the ~!;lftent;d.evelQpment irrbpJ~sal of four duplex units on tWQ lots~
Ifthedevelopment'proposal is:r:~vt~ed,'-ar if a~~~a.nc~js;Jssri~q;\Vith differeritconditionsthcm' '
"·those'describedaboveinSect~6n2',-tltis;rriodifi(5~tjoll,;,wi11 beJeek~ned by the Development' , i'
Services Director ahd may ?(altef(~d:of voided;.~" '. "';'<'" '.<;til'.;;,; ,'., _', '
." .. ,.".--'. _. .. ,j: '\~:%':':"'" .~. " ~."'.. ·~jt/:'::;'~~':'J:'i-~?,t"kt:.'>.",. ,\>,~ __ . ';. .. " ,'0:" >:~. '"
This decision to approve theproP9~ed,ijarki:Q:g~1Pi~~ifi$jtion:}~ sllbjecttpa fourteen (14) day ?! ,', "',.1 , ' 'J-t;':'<,'" ,'>J-;~~~:.~;-;~;."«'" ,~"'';'''' ';,."',,,. ," , , appeal period froIn, theda!~ q~~!hi§let~@Ef,ci~!f ' ' . .,;tLgfthe ~wmnisg-ativ~decision mu~tbe .-'
a,
, fiie9.wlth:th'eCity,qf Reritpn'HeiJIng,Ex~~ :,' {<,~'90_:pm, {aha~~,2003,,;If you have" ,
questiolls regarding this~ cqp:esponNen~;er:pl~~e 'Cd:~~~~> Keri,W eaver;;'SeniorPlanner, at {425} " ' "
430~7382;\;.' ' '" 1,;''1'' {~
': -
l ~, ~ ,~ '':\,:~ .
, 'Sin<:e"V,e,lY, " tJliJIr, ' " ' ," , 'Nil" ':', • ~ • 1
, :.: ... ',';., ",.,' ,"
_~ , J' , "
'"'.' -,.,:,:", .' -,
Neil Watts, Director
, Develbpillent Services Divisjop
Cc:Keri Weaver,
ProjeetFile
.:.-:
CITY. RENTON
PlamringIBuildinglPublic Works Department ..
Wheeler, Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.~ Administrator· '
December 20, 2005
Jim Hanson
Hanson Consulting
17446 Mallard· Cove Lane
Mt. Vernon, WA 98274
RE: Williams Side Yard Setback Varianc~; LUA05-111, V-A
Request for Modification -Parking Standard
Dear Mr. Hanson:
The City of Renton has received your reque~t for a parking modification regarding the
property located at the intersection of Hardie Ave. NW and 3rd Place NW. The following
summarizes your request, project background, analysis and decision.
Summary of Request
On September 15, 2005, you appliedfor an ,administrative variance to reduce~he south
,side yard setback for a proposed dUplex Qevelopment on thEisubject site. The variance
request was denied by'theCityZoning'Adh1ini,'~tr~tor'onOctbber 1'3, '2005. In the CiWs
Report and Decision for thev~iiance debial,'iJ was noted the proposed development
plan did not meet code requirements for several items, including the side yard setback,
number and location of parking spaces, and landscaping and buffer require.ments.
Subsequently, on December 2, 2005, you applied for a modification from the parking
standards that would allow 2.0 parking spaces per unit instead of 2.5 parking spaces per
unit, as required by RMC 4-2-110F and 44-:-080 when tandem garage parking is
Proposed. Sectiorn 4~~080F1 O.d allows the Development Services Division to grant
, modifications from thep~rking ,standards for individual cases provided that the
modification'meets thefbllowing criteria (pursuant to RMC 4.;9-2500.2): .
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(s) 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 andsituationintended; and
5. Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity.
Background
The overall development proposal is. for two duplexes on two adjacent lots located at the
intersection of Hardie Ave. NW and 3rd Place NW. The lots are zoned Residential -
, Multi';Family (RM-F) and are currently vacant. Each lot is approximately 4,500 sq ft in
'~ -~-----10-5-::-5-=S-ou-t-h-=G-ra-::d:-y-:::W::-a-y---R-en-to-n-, =W-a"""':"sh-:-in-:-g-..,.to-n-9::-:g:-:'O-=-55-------R E N T ON
® This paper contains 50% recycled matenal, 30~/o post consumer AHEAD .OF THE CURVE
' ..
.1',
Williams DuplexesLUA 05-111-
. Parking Modification '
December 20,2005
Page:2 of4
, size. As previously noted, the City's parking standards require 2.5 parking spaces per
" unitwhen tal1demgarages are provided, which would resultin 10 parking spaces for the
proposed 4-unit overall development. The" applicant proposed to provide 8 parking
spaces within the garages,and 2 surfCice parking stalls at the rearof one building.
As indicated in the variance denial, the proposal for 2 surface parking stalls would have
conflicted with code requirements for setbacks, landscape bufffers, and location of
parking spaces. With the removal of the surface parking stalls, the applicant should be
able to modify the site plan toreasonably accommodate the proposed development.
The issues of the parking modification, and "the previous variance request cannot be
separat~d from the overall development proposal, and this review and decision has
been made from a comprehensive persp~ctJye that consid~rsall of the potential code
requirements. The approval of th~parkingmodifiCatiolJwill be required,as a condition of
approval for the proposed buih:1ir'l\;fpermit' "., , ,
I,' ," ..
Analysis
'1.) "wii,1 meet the' 9bje~tives an,ds~afety'ifuI1~~ioM,~appearance, environmental
protection, ,andmain~inabmtY inten;~~;~~ b~0\fhe},Code requif'!!ments, based upon'
sound engine~rii1gju'c;1gmfi!nt ,', iT .;,:},~, " ' "
." . ~ y '~<V' '. :,._~~ :t.~;.>:: "~~~<~~J,;;s~;:~t~~~;~:, <
The applicant contends that 8 garag~park,i!lg;{sp~ces in additid.n to the available on-
street parking would provide~ufficient parking for thepropose.p Qverall development of 4
duplex units. Eayh duplexynit will have exclusive u~e of two tandem parking spaces
(Le., located ,one behind~"C3nother)Within a, private garage. r: Staff has reviewed the
applicant's proposal and con9urs toM the'redpCtion;,of required parking spaces from 2.5
to 2.0 per unit' would not resultjri a signfi~nt n~~ativ~impact, as sufficient on-street
" parkfngis available op Hardie Ave?;N.¥\!,,'~nd'NW~I08Iateto servethe remaining needs
"olthe proposed d~veloPrnent, The 'reauCtiorf'in, parking spaces wquld meet the
, ' ,opjectives , ' and, safety, function,' 'appearance, environmental 'protection, and
",,'maintainability'intended by the code requirements, basedLJpon sound engineering
'judgment ' ,
2:) Will n'otbeinjurious to other property(s)in the vicinity.
To avoid impacts to neighboring properties from the overall development proposal, the
following conditions wiU be applied to the approved modification:
,1. No surface (non-garage) parking spaces shall be allowed for the proposed
development on either of the subject lots.
2. If a variance is subsequently approved for the required 25-foot southside yard
setback, the setback shall not be reduced by more than 50% or 12 feet 6 inches.
A separate reconsideration of this variance request will be required.
3. If the applicant requests a reconsideration of the variance denial, the applicant
shall ,submit a·detCiiled landscape plan for review and approval by the
..
'.' Williams DliPlex~s LUA 05-11.
Parking Modification .
December 20,2005
Page 3 of4
Development Services Division, which clearly indicates how screening and buffer
requirements will be implemented through landscaping in order to protect
adjacent single-family residential properties from adverse impacts of .the .
proposed development. Types, sizes and locations of ground cover, trees,
shrubs, and other plantings and materials shall be clearly indicated on the' plan.
Additionally, the applicant shall provide a solid wood 6~foot fence on the south
property line, finished on both sides, for further impact reduction.
~.) ConfQrms to the intent and purpose of the Code .
. See discussion under section 1.
4.) Can be shown to be justified anC:i required for the" use and situation"
intended. ' ""<~,.,
"
The modification request in<;Ji6~~esthat due to.the narrow'i;i~e of each lot (45 feet) and
. the required setbacks, ea,ph duplex unit cannot be more, t!1a'h 15 feet wide. This width
wouldnotbEis~fficienqQ' a,1!9wtwb cars' to be parked side-,by'::side in a garage located
.' either hext'to the units;c)r belo¥! ~them~ Theref9i"~,:Jl;1eqppficarit has proposed tandem
parking.in· garages belpw the units. H6~~ver;',tljis:arrangemeht willaccommbdate only
8 vehicles for the four ,unit:;. (2'per unit),.wHic;t1~~()~~),ot me~tthe code requirementfbr
2.5 parking spaces p~r un'it ~hentifnaeM'/R~fkiAg:H5 proposed: Additional slJrface
parking spaces would nave to qe lo~t~d"withib;;reqyired ~etbackand/or buffer areas on
the side or rear of the units. ',,' ,. ····(/:··t~; ..' '.
-:\ " -,.' ~(>
The proposed reduction :to,.2.0parking spaces p~r {jnitrepr~csents a 20% reduction in
the number of onsite parkin§.~pac~~ that WiII,pejav'$lilable tq:eachunit and to the overall
development. However, as nQ!~a . in sf3ctior\,J, iS~$in'tI9jpated that parking' needs that
cannot be met onsite can be adeq!:gitely:serve,sCpy'street parking. The,' requested
reduction .is the miriimum necessary toaccOmmoqate the proposed 'development. The'
", " .. applicant has provided acceptable justification for the proposed modification based upon
,the dimensions of '·the subject properties· and required setbacks.' Therefore,staff
concurs thi:Jtthe parking situation to be justified and ad~quate for'the use intended.
5.) Will not create adverse impacts to ~ther property(ies)in the vicinity.
See discussion under Section 2.
-Decision
According to the City's parking standards for multi-family residential units with tandem .
garages, the reduction of required parking spaces for the proposed development from
'2.5 to. 2.0 parking spaces per unit would. result in a parking shortage of 2 spaces ..
However, based on information provided by the applicant, staff repognizes that the·
.'proposed parking situation for the site is, adequate as on-street parking is abundantly
available. Additionally, the reduction in parking spaces would allow the applicant to
".
Williams Duplexes LUA05,11 •
. Parking Modification
December 20., ,2005
Page 4 of4
modify the site plan to reasonably accommodate the proposed development of . 2
duplexes, and also provide setbacks and landscaping that adequately buffer
neighboring properties. Therefore, the., parking modification . for 'the proposed'
development of 2d,uplexes,is approved, fora requirement of 2.Q parking spaces per unit. . '. . , . '
-This modification is based on the,cl!rrentdevelopment proposal. of' four duplex units' on
, twolots.lfthedev~ldpment proposal ;is revised, or if ~vari~nce is issued with different
conditions than those describedabovefn Section 2, this modification will be reexamined
by the Development Services Director and may be altered or voided.
This decision to approve the proposed parking modification is.subject to a fourteen (14)
day appeal period from the date of this let~er:Any appeals of the administrative decision
must be filed with the City of Rentqn~Hearing'Exal'nifler by 5:00 pm, January 3, 2003. If .
you have qlJestionsregC:3rdingJMi~gorresponae,f1ce, plea~f3 contact KeriWeaver, Senior
Planner, at(42~j430-7382~0::r;;: . ....,'. ,,-"". ,"" .
Neil Watts, Director ,
Development Services 'aiv!si9n,
Cc: KeriWeaver
Project File
, >.~. \~"
STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING }
AFFIDA V1T OF PUBLICATION
PUBLIC NOTICE
Tom Meagher, being first duly sworn on oath that he is the Legal Advertising
Representative of the
King County Journal
a daily newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general
circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date
of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language
continuously as a daily newspaper in King County, Washington. The King
County Journal has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the
Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County.
The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the
King County Journal (and not in supplement form) which was regularly
distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed
notice,a
Public Notice
was published on November 18,2005.
The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum
of $70.00.
~ ~\\\UHU;"", ~,,,, ~ \... BA "-""'-~~.~ .. ..;... ~.,; ~ ~ 0"'" OTJ\R}-0 ~ Tom Meagher ~ ..: ~ "1,;. ~ .... " ".
Subscribed and sworn to me this IS" day of November, 2~~ 04/28/2009'\ Z i Legal Advertising Representative, King County Journal = EXP. :-~ ~~\ 9.)1';:
,
~ ' .. /llJBL~~C~ (:)~~ ~ 0 ......... ~
"" 'F W N: '-, .... , ""IIH"""'\ Jod . Barton '. ,
Notary Public for the State of Washington, Residing in Auburn, Washington
PO Number:
Cost of publishing this notice includes an affidavit surcharge.
NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING
RENTON HEARING EXAMINER
RENTON, WASHINGTON
A Public Hearing will be held by the
Renton Hearing Examiner in the
Council Chambers on the seventh
floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 South
Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on
November 29, 2005 at 9:00 AM to con-
sider the following petitions:
Appeal Williams Side Yard Setback
Variance
LUA05-111, V-A
Location: 317 Hardie Avenue NW
Description: The applicant is
requesting an appeal of the
administrative determination
denying an administrative vari-
ance from the 26-foot side yard
setback in RM-F (Residential
Multi-Family) zones to lO-feet due
to the constraints of the lot size
and other required setbacks.
Legal descriptions of the files noted
above are on file in the Development
Services Division, Sixth Floor, City
Hall, Renton, WA. All interested per-
sons are invited to be present at the
Public Hearing to express their opin-
ions. Questions should be directed to
the Hearing Examiner at 425-430-
6515.
Published in the King County Journal
November 18, 2005. #848004
e
e
• CITY~F RENTON
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor
VlA'FACSIMILE AND FIRST CLASS MAIL
November 2 I, 2005
Eric R. Stahlfeld, Esq.
LawOffices of Eric R. Stahlfeld
145 S.W. IS5th Street, SuitelOI
Seattle, W A 98 I 66
, Office of the City Attorney
Lawrence J. Warren
Senior Assistant City Attorneys
Mark Barber
Zanetta L. Fontes
Assistant City Attorneys
Ann S. Nielsen
Garmon Newsom II
Sasha P. Alessi
Re: In Fe Williams Setback Variance Hearing, LUA 05-111, V~A
Dear Eric:
Pursuatit to our telephone conversation eadierthis week, I bav~ contacted the Hearing
Examiner's Ofliee and coIiveyedour stipulation to continue the-hearing in the above referenced
matter, which is,currently scheduled for November 29, 2005. This'Jlearlngwill'nowbe held on
,'December 13, 2005 at 9:00 iLm. -
The basis for this continuance is to allow your clients to pursue a "parking standardS
modification" which is also at issueinthi$' case.' I ~vespoken with the City Staff regarding this
and they can also accommfXiatethe schedule. Howeyer, in 'Order to ineet this tight tuneframe,
the City Staff is urging your clients -to -sUbnrit the modification tequestas soon as possible. '
Given the Thanksgiving holiday schedule this week, tlley will need it early this week.
-Depending on the outcome ,of that application, yotImay have a basi~ to,appealthat decision
al()ngwiththe currently scheduled variance heann.g.1f so, then both ap~als,asthey woUld be
reiated, can be heard together onthe-n~w date ofI?ecemOOr 13,2005.
If you have any ~~ons, please dono! hesitate to coritactJlle~ :.;:;-< .: .... .f. . .. '. .
'~; , AnnNielsen
Asst. City Attorney
cc: Fred Kaufinan, Hearing Examiner
Neil Watts
Jennifer Henning
Keri Weaver
Lawrence J. Warren
-P-o-st-O-ffi-lc-e-B-ox-6-2-6-.-R-en-to-n-, w.-as-hin-· -gt-on-9S-0~S-7 -. (-4-2S-)-2S-S-.S-6-7S-'-F-:AX-(4-2-S-) 2-S-S.-S-47-4-~
'® This paper contains 50% recycled matariaI, 30"", post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
e
OEVELOPMENl SERVICES erN OF RENTON
OCl 272005
RECElVED
CITY OF RENTON
OCT 2 6 Z005
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
BEFORE THE CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER
In re WILLIAMS SETBACK
VARIANCE,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
-----------------------------)
File Number LUA-Os-lll, V-A
NOTICE OF APPEAL
10 COMES NOW appellants Pamela Sanford and Tom Williams
11 ("Williams"), by and through their attorney Eric R. Stahlfeld and
12 appeals the Report and Decision of their Administrative Variance,
13 a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto and
14 incorporated herein.
15 The property is now in the RM-F zone. At the time Williams
16 purchased the property, the property was zoned RM-I (residential
17 multi-family infill) for which the interior side yard setback was
18 five (5) feet. For sides abutting an R-8 zone, however, ten feet
19 of landscaping with a sight-obscuring fence was also required.
20 The property is forty-five (45) feet wide and one hundred
21 (100) feet deep, fronting on Hardie Ave. NW to the east. The
22 property immediately to the south is zoned R-8, which required
23 ten-feet of landscaping along the south property line.
24 The City subsequently changed the zoning and setback to
25 require a twenty-five foot setback from a R-8 zone, which here is
26 along the south property line. Because the property is only
NOTICE OF APPEAL - 1
Notice of Appeal.wpd
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
I 17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
forty-five feet wide (south to north), the width on .which a
multi-family structure could be built would be only fifteen (15)
feet (the side yard setback on the north side is five (5) feet).
Among other problems, this would not allow side-by-side parking
in a basement garage.
The City errs in requiring Williams to treat two separate
lots as one, essentially requiring him to build a tri-plex across
the property line.
The decision incorrectly applies the variance criteria. In
the RM-F zone property owners not only are allowed, but are
required, to build a multi-family structure. Williams seeks only
to be allowed to do what all other property owners in this zone
are required to do. Unless the variance is granted, Williams
cannot building anything on the lot, which would be an undue
hardship.
Williams must build at least two dwelling units on a forty-
five foot wide lot. This size and shape of the property is a
special circumstance justifying a variance. The City created the
hardship when it zoned a forty-five foot wide lot to require a
multi-family structure. Williams has done nothing to create this
hardship. Without the variance, the property cannot be used for
the purpose the City itself zoned.
Nor is a multi-family structure materially detrimental to
the public welfare or injurious to the property in the vicinity
and zone in which the subject property is situated. The City
itself zoned the property multi-family, so constructing a multi-
NOTICE OF APPEAL - 2
Notice of Appeal.wpd
r )
1 family structure is not detrimental to the public welfare. Nor
2 is constructing the duplex within ten feet of the south line
3 injurious to the property to the south -until a few months ago
4 the City allowed such construction. As a technical matter,
5 moreover, the property to the south is not "in the zone" of the
6 Williams' property. Nor is the proposed structure any larger
7 than a typical single-family home, which could be constructed on
8 the property to the south only five (5) feet from the common
9 property line.
10 The City cannot argue that merely reducing the setback in
11 and of itself is detrimental -that would prevent any variance
12 from ever being approved. Nor would there be significant other
13 variances required; given that the City has, for the first time,
14 raised the question of parking in its decision, Williams would
15 possibly need a variance only to reduce the number of parking
16 spaces from five to four.l
17 The variance would not grant a special privilege to
18 Williams. Williams seeks to use his property only in the same
19 manner that others are allowed to use theirs. The variance
20 request is from a setback, which is an area, not use, variance.
21 The use is also the minimum necessary. The lot is
22 approximately 0.1 acres. The zoning requires ten to twenty
23 dwelling units per acre, or one to two units on this lot.
24
Williams will provide two parking spaces in the garage
25 for each unit; the code requires 2.5 spaces. If the City
combines the two units rather than rounding down, Williams would
26 have to provide five parking spaces.
NOTICE OF APPEAL - 3
Notice of Appeal.wpd
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
I 17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Because the zoning is multi-family, Williams must construct two
units on his lot.
The decision is also factually incorrect in the following
aspects:
1. The lowest level (a garage) is sufficiently below grade
that it is not a story under the code. Consequently,
the proposed structure is only two stories.
2. This variance is solely for lot 11, the area of which
is approximately 4,500 square feet. Even if this lot
were (incorrectly) combined with the adjacent lot, the
total area would be only 9,000 square feet, not the
14,500 square feet claimed as a fact in Finding #5.
3. The decision frequently confuses south with north.
Williams requests the Hearing Examiner reverse the decision and
grant the variance for a ten-foot side yard setback.
October 26, 2005.
NOTICE OF APPEAL - 4
Notice of Appeal.wpd
LAW OFFICES OF ERIC R. STAHLFELD
Eric R. Stahlfeld, WSBA # 22002
~ .,
OCT~16-2005 SUN 12:33 PM PBC 4ii' p, 02
REPORT
&
DECISION
DECISION DA TE
Project Name
Owners:
Applicants/Contact:
File Number
City of Renton
Department of Planning / Building / Public Works
ADMINISTRA TIVE VARIANCE
LAND USE ACTION
October 13,2005
William Setback Variance
Pamela Sanford. clo Tom Williams, 17980 Brittany Drive SW, Seattle,
WA 98166
Jim Hanson. Hanson Consulting, 17446 Mallard Cove Lane, Mt. Vernon.
WA 98274
LUA-05-111. V-A Project Manager Keri Weaver
Project Description The applicant ;s requesting an administrative variance from the 26-foot
side yard setback that is required iltlhe RM-F (Residential Multi-Family)
zone when an RM-F zoned property greater than two stories abuts a
property in a single-famify zone. The south side of the subject site abuts
property zoned Residential - 8 units per acre (R-8). The applicant
proposes a setback reduction ~o 10 feet due to the constraints of lot size
and other required setbacks: . .
Project Location 317 Hardie Ave. NW
Bldg. Area gsf
Site Area
N/A
4,500 sq. ft. (0.10 ac.)
total lot area
Proposed Multi-Family 1.620 sq. ft. Residence (Duplex)
Total Building Area -4,860 sq. ft. Proposed
I
I
OCT-16-2005 SUN 12:33 PM PBC INC. -
City of Renton PIBIPW Department
WILLIAMS DUPLEX SETBACK VARIANCE dM'r
REPORT AND DECISION OF October 13. 2005
A. Type of Land Use Action
Conditional Use
FAX ~ 206 246 7102
.2
Administrative Variance Staff Report
LUA.05-111. V-A
Page 2016
Binding Site Plan
P. 03 '
Site Plan Review Shoreline SUbstantial Development Permit
Special Permit for Grade & Fill Administrative Code Detenn/nation
X Administrative Variance
B. Exhibits
The following eXhibits were entered into the record:
Exhibit 1: Yellow file containing: application, proof of posting and
publication, and other documentation pertinent to this
Exhibit.2:
exhibit 3:
exhibit 4:
exhibit 5:
request.
Neighborhood Map .
Site and Landscape Plan (dateCJ"'09/16/2005)
Elevations (dated 9/1612005)
Zoning Map, Sheet F3 West (dated 1210412003)
C. Project Description / Background:
The applicant is requesting approval of an administrative variance from the side yard
setback of 26 feet that is required when a property in the ~F zone is greater than 2 stories
and abuts a property in a single-family residential zone. The applicant proposes to build
multi-family housing (duplex) on the site. The lot size is 4.500 sq. ft. The site. which is
currently vacant. is located at 317 Hardie Way NW and the proposed development would
have access from that road. This property is part of an overall proposed development plan
for two duplexes on the subject property and the adjacent property to the north.
The development standards of the RM-F zone as they pertain to this property require a front
yard setback of 20 feet. a side yard setback of 25 feet on the ~th side. a side yard setback
of 5 feet on the north side, and a rear yard setback of 15 feet. Additionally, because the
development proposal is for a three-story building, the side yard setbacks are each
increased by one foot. so that the resulting north side setback is 26 feet and the south side
setback is 6 feet.
RNDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION
Having reviewed the written record in the matter, the City now makes and enters the
following:
D. Findings
1) Request: The applicant has requested approval for an administrative variance from
the required 25-foot south side yard setback in the RM-F zone for the property
located at 317 Hardie Ave. N. A 10-foot south side yard setback is requested.
ADMV AR 5tIIffipl Williams Duplexes.doc:\
"
(
OCT.-16-2005 SUN 12:33 PM PBC "
City 01 Renton Pm/PW Department
WILLIAMS PUPLEX SET~ACK VARIANCE
FAX NO, 2~246 7102
Administrative Variance Staff Report
LUA-05-111. V-A __ n.
REPORT AND DECISION OF October 13. 2005 Page J of (j
2) Administrative Variance: The applicant's administrative variance submittal materials
comply with the requirements necessary to process a variance. The applicant's site
plan and other project drawings are provided as Exhibits 3 and 4.
3) Existing Land Use: Land uses surrounding the subject site indude; North: 3rd
Place NW and multi-family residential; South: single-family residential (R-B); East
Hardie Ave. NW and commercial (medical office); and West: single-family residential
(R-B).
4) Zoning: The site is located in the Residential Multi-Family (RM-F) zone. The
allowable density range in this zone is 10-20 du/acre. The applicant proposes a net
density of 19.04 du/acre. Within the RM-F zone, maximum lot coverage is 35%;
however, lot coverage of up to 45% may be approved at the discretion of the Hearing
Examiner. The applicant's proposal will result in approXimately 36% Jot coverage.
The development standards for this zone require a 20-foot front setback. 15-foot rear
setback, and 5-foot side yard setback. For RM-F zoned properties that abut single-
family residential properties, a 25-foot side yard setback is required. If a development
proposal in the RM-F zone will be greater than two stories, the entire structure must
have additional one-foot side yard setbacks for each prb~posed story in excess of two.
Therefore, based on these zoning requirements. the subject site is required to have a
20-foot front setback, 15-foot rear setback, 26-foot south side yard setback, and 6-
foot north side yard setback. The applicant proposes a 26-foot front setback. 22-foot
rear setback. 10-foot south yard side setback, and 5-foot setback north yard side
setback.
The proposed dupJex has tandem garage parking 'on the ground floor of the structure.
The site is located within the RM-F zone, which requires that 2.5 parking spaces be
provided for each attached dwelling unit if tandem parking wilJ be utilized. and that
surface parking is pennitted only in side and rear yard areas (driveways cannot count
toward required parking spaces). Any proposed surface parking must be provided on
the same lot as the building it selVes. The proposed development plan provides only 2
tandem garage parking spaces for this duplex building. The overall development
shows two surface parking spaces provided on the lot that would be occupied by the
other {north} duplex building, but this siting does not meet the requirement that
parking be on the same lot as the building it selVes. Additionally. the surface parking
spaces are not readily acceSSible to the south building, as they are proposed to be
separated by privacy fences and private lawn areas.
The proposed surface parking spaces for the north building are also located within the
required 15-foot rear yard setback area. Within the RM-F zone, the 15-foot rear yard
setback is required to be landscaped, with the intention of providing an aesthetically
pleasing buffer for adjacent single-family residential properties.
4) Topography: The topography of the site is generally flat with gradual sloping from
west to east.
5) Lot and Building Size: The total site area is approximately 14.500 sq. ft. (0.34 acres)
and is currently vacant. The proposed new duplex will have a footprint of
approximately 1,620 sq. ft. and will total approximately 4,860 sq. ft in overall size.
including two stories of living area over one story of garage area.
ADMV AR sllIflfpl Williams DuplcXClI.doc\
p, 04
3
OCT-16-2005 SUN 12:33 PM PBC INC. --
City of Renton P/SIPW Department
WILUAMS DUPLEX SETBACK VARIANCE
FAX NO. 206 246 7102 e
Administrative Variance Staff Report
LUA-D5-111, V-A
REPORT AND DECISION OF October 13. 200S Paf}9 40/6
CONSISTENCY WrrH VARIANCE CRITERIA
P .. 05 ~
$e¢tlon 4-9-2508.5.a. fists four criteria that the Zoning Administrator is asked to consider,
along with all other relevant information, in making a decision on an Administrative Variance
application. The Zoning Administrator shall have authority to grant an administrative
variance upon making a determination, in writing, that the conditions specified below have
been found to exist:
a. That the applicant suffers undue 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 onder identical zone classification:
The applicant contends that special circumstances apply to the subject site, which
impose limitations on the lot and create a hardship_ Specifically, the applicant
indicates that given the small size of the lot (45 feet Wide and 100 feet deep), the
required side yard setbacks would not allow a minimum building footprint necessary
for construction of a duplex.
The proposed duplex is part of a pending overall development proposal for two
duplexes on two adjoining lots. In this case, the applicant is creating a hardship by
proposing to construct a two-duplex project on these lots instead of a smaller multi-
family project such as a townhome triplex. If the applicant redesigned the proposal •
. setback requirements could be met and the need for a variance would be
eliminated.
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:
The proposed reduction o(the north side yard setback to 10 feet would be a 61%
reduction ,of the 26-foot setback, which is required to buffer neighboring single-
family uses from the impacts of the proposed development This reduction must
also be considered in light of other variances which would be necessary for the
applicant·s proposal. Development within the RM~F zone is intended to provide infill
development in established neighborhoods, in a manner compatible with existing
development. As previously discussed in Section 0.4. "Zoning", the current site
plan also does not meet code requirements for the north side yard setback, the 15-
. foot rear landscaped setback. and required parking spaces. The cumulative effect
of the total number of required variances, in conjunction with the height and bulk of
the proposed 3-story building compared to adja~nt homes, would result in reduced
quality of life for neighboring residents.
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:
The approval of the variance request would be a grant of special privilege, as other
property owners in the Vicinity would not be allowed to reduce setback, parking and
ADMVAR smfti'pt Willi:uJIS Duplc:xcs.doc\
f
OC')\-16-2005 SUN 12:34 PM PBe " FAX NO, 2~246 7102
City of Renton P/BIPW Department
WILLIAMS DUPLEX SETBACK VARIANCE
Administrative Variance Staff Report
LUA-D5-111. V·A
brd"f T"
REPORT AND DECISION OF October 13. 2005 Page 5 of 6
landscaping requirements when the stated hardship is seft-imposed by the size and
design of the project.
d. That the approval as determined by the Zoning Administrator is a minimum
variance that will accomplish the desired purpose:
The applicant contends that the request is a minimum variance needed in order to
construct a duplex on the south lot. The applicant's overall proposal for two
duplexes on two lots is at nearly the maximum allowable density (19.04 du/acre
within the allowable range of 10-20 du/acre) for the site, and a less intense multi-
family development such as a townhome triplex could be accommodated on the
site without the requested variance and other variances that would be necessary for
the applicant's current proposal.
E. Conclusions
1. The subject site is located at 317 Hardie Ave. NW. within the Residential Multi-family
(R~F) zoning designation.
2. The RM-F zone requires a minimum 26-foot south side yard setback. The applicant
is proposing a reduction of setback to 10 feet.
3. The proposal has been analyzed according to the four variance criteria described
above. The variance request does not satisfy the criteria for granting the variance, in
that It does not meet the hardship test, the public weftare test, the special privilege
test, or the minimum variance test. The proposal's stated hardship is seft;.jmposed
due to the size and location of the proposed development Additionally, it is
anticipated that significant negative impacts to surrounding single-family properties
would resutt from the cumulative effects of the requested variance and the additional
variances for reduced setback, parking and landscaping requirements necessary to
accommodate the current overall development proposal. Such reductions would
constitute a grant of special privilege that would not be allowed for other property
owners in the vicinity. Other types and sizes of less-intense multi-family development
could be built on the site without the requested variance.
F. Decision
The Administrative Setback Variance for the Williams Variance, File No. LUA-05-111,
V-A, is Denied.
SIGNATURE:
Jennifer HfJnning, Zoning Administrator date
ADMV AR slaffipt WinillJ11S Duplexes.doc\
p, 06
OCT-16-2005 SUN 12:34 PM PBC INC. e
City of Renton PIBIPW Department
WILLIAMS DUPLEX SETBACK VARIANCE me ..
REPORT AND DECISION OF October 13, 2005
FAX I 206 246 7102
AdministratJve Variance staff Report
LUA-C5-111. V-A
P8f}e6of6
TRANSMITTED this 1:1' day of October. 2005 to the AppllcanVContacJ:
JjmHanson
Hanson Consulting
17446 Mallard Cove Lane
MI. Vernon, WA 98274
TRANSMITTED this 13th day of October, 2005 to the OWner.
Pamela Sanford
C/o Tom Williams
17980 Brittany Drive SW
Seattle. WA 98166
TRANSMITTED this 13th day of October; 2005 to the (ollowing:
Larry Meckling. Building Official
Stan Engler. Are Marshal
Nail Watts, PlannlngJBuildingJPublic Works, Director
Jennifer Henning, Principal Planner
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Gregg Zimmerman, PlanninglBuildlngJPublic Works. Administrator
South County Journal
Land Use Action Appeals
The administrative land use decision will become final if the decision is not appe8li:d Within 14 days of the dat& of
ii'lpproval. Art appeal of the decision must be filed within the 14 day appeal period (ROW 43.21.C.075(3); WAC
197-11~). An appeal to the Hearing Examiner is governed by Tide N. Section ~11.a. which requires that
such appeals be flied dlteetly with the Hearing Examiner via the aty of Renton City Clerks OffICe. Appeals must
be made in writing on or before 5;00 PM on October 27,2005. Any appeal must be accompanied by a
$75.00 fae and other speclffc requirements.
THE APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS DOCTRINE provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communlcatlons
may occur concerning the land use decision. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial decision, but to Appeals
to the Hearing Examirier as well. All communicafiol'ls after the decision/approva' date must be made in writing
through the Hearing Examiner. All communications are public record and this permits all Int9l8Sted parties to
know the contents of ~e communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evfdence in wrlUng. Any
violation of this docbine could result in the invalidation of the appeal by the Court.
APMVAR sUlfTrpt wrnillml Dllplcxl:S.doc\
P. 07'
,
CITY OF RENTON
City Clerk Division
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, W A 98055
425-430-6510
o <;ash
IIftheck Noo--,-I-,-7_3,--o __ _ o Copy Fee o Appeal Fee
Receipt N2 427
Date /(}b'/~
o Notary Service 0 _________ _
Description: 4pp<e-/ +tJ /f E LLtA -05-III
Funds Received From:
Name {;Ylc::.. K I Amount $ I
Address
CitylZip
City Staff Signature
.. ,
/
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
' . •
PLANNINGIBUILDINGI
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
October 23, 2005 t
Keri Weaver, Seniorpianner~ ,~~7\'
Tom Williams FAX: (206)242-:8778.
Williams Duplex Variance; LUA 05-111
BY FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION -
This is to follow up on our telephone conversation this morning, regarding your
application for a side yard setback variance for the above development proposal. The
variance was denied, with an appeal deadline date of October 27,2005.
On October 21,2005, we met and discussed various issues related toyour deVelopment
proposal. You expressed several concerns about the process, and the criteria that were
used when denying the variance. Staff have reviewed the iriformation you provided,. and
if you choose to appeal the variance denial, your concerns will be considered during
review of the appeal.
If you appeal the variance denial, it would be helpful for the City to have additional
information regarding the proposed entry and garage level of your building design. In
order for this level to be considered a "basement" and not a first story, the elevations and
explanatory notes should clearly indicate that this floor will meet code requirements of no
more than 50% of the perimeter being more than 6 feet above grade. The plans should
show the grade lines for the entire perimeter and the overall percentage that will be above
grade, and/or indicate how the current site slope will be graded to achieve the necessary
grade line.
If you have any questions, or need additional information, please call me at (425) 430-
7382 or einail me at kweavef@ci.renton.waus. -.
City of R. Department of Planning / Building / Public .5
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: P\an ~ ~ COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 19, 2005
APPLICATION NO: LUA05-111, V-A DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER 5, 2005
APPLICANT: Pamela Sanford PROJECT MANAGER: Keri Weaver
PROJECT TITLE: Williams Side Yard Setback Variance PLAN REVIEW: Mike Dotson
SITE AREA: 4,500 square feet BUILDING AREA (gross): N/A
LOCATION: 317 Hardie Avenue NW WORK ORDER NO: 77478
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting an administrative variance from the 25-foot side yard setback that is
required in the RM-I (Residential Multifamily -Infill) zone when an RM-I zoned property abuts a property in a single-family zone. The
south side of the subject site zoned RM-I abuts a property zoned Residential -8 units per acre (R-8). The setback reduction is
requested due to the constraints of lot size and additional required setbacks. The applicant proposes to develop a duplex on the
subject site as part of an overall development plan with the adjacent lot to the north.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS
Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information
Impacts Impacts Necessary
Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary
Earth Housing
Air Aesthetics
Water Light/Glare
Plants Recreation
Land/Shoreline Use Utilities
Animals Transportation
Environmental Health Public Services
Energy/ Historic/Cultural
Natural Resources Preservation
Airport Environment
10,000 Feet
14,000 Feet
B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS
C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS
We have reviewed' lication with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or
di anal info . a 'on is needed to properly assess this proposal.
/O-/f -05=
Date
• CITY OF RENTON
CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING
On the 13th day of October, 2005, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope
containing Administrative Variance Report & Decision documents. This information was sent to:
Name Representing
Jim Hanson Contact
Pamela Sanford -c/o Tom Williams Owner/Applicant
(Signature of Sender): ~ ~ I"L IA,.... _-,...., ..• _..... .... • •
./ )U -----F. KOKKOl
STATE OF WASHINGTON ~ NOTARY PUBLIC
) ss • STATE OF WASHINGTON f
COUNTY OF KING ) ~ COMMISSION EXPiRES .
MARCH 19,2008 r
" •. ;.>:~"t~mi-:.:.::;-~a~::.:.,
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy Tucker
signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and
p::::~s ~~2;;;; the instrument. ~ 7-1IJhc
; . Notary Public in and for the State of Washington
Notary (print):_-...-...:e~~_vW~_f'----.".;",t_! ~_1Ie> ______ _
My appointment expires: 'b( /q (f) t:.
Project Name:' Williams Setback Variance
Project Number: LUA05-111, V-A
REPORT
&
DECISION
DECISION DA TE
Project Name
Owners:
Applicants/Contact:
File Number
Project Description
Project Location
Bldg. Area gsf
Site Area
City of Renton
Department of Planning / Building / Public Works
ADMINISTRA TIVE VARIANCE
LAND USE ACTION
October 13, 2005
William Setback Variance
Pamela Sanford, c/o Tom Williams, 17980 Brittany Drive SW, Seattle,
WA 98166
Jim Hanson, Hanson Consulting, 17446 Mallard Cove Lane, Mt. Vernon,
WA 98274
LUA-05-111, V-A Project Manager Keri Weaver
The applicant is requesting an administrative variance from the 26-foot
side yard setback that is required in the RM-F (Residential Multi-Family)
zone when an RM-F zoned property greater than two stories abuts a
property in a single-family zone. The south side of the subject site abuts
property zoned Residential - 8 units per acre (R-8). The applicant
proposes a setback reduction to 10 feet due to the constraints of lot size
and other required setbacks.
317 Hardie Ave. NW
N/A
4,500 sq. ft. (0.10 ac.)
total lot area .
Proposed Multi-Family 1,620 sq. ft. Residence (Duplex)
Total Building Area -4,860 sq. ft. Proposed
3RD3 ,-ra
City of Renton PIBIPW Departme.
WILLIAMS DUPLEX SETBACK VARIANCE
REPORT AND DECISION OF October 13,2005
A. Type of Land Use Action
Conditional Use
Site Plan Review
Special Permit for Grade & Fill
X Administrative Variance
B. Exhibits
Admini.ive Variance Staff Report
LUA-OS-111, V-A
Page 20(6
Binding Site Plan
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
Administrative Code Determination
The following exhibits were entered into the record:
Exhibit 1: Yellow file containing: application, proof of posting and
Exhibit 2:
Exhibit 3:
Exhibit 4:
Exhibit 5:
publication, and other documentation pertinent to this
request.
Neighborhood Map
Site and Landscape Plan (dated 09/16/2005)
Elevations (dated 9/16/2005)
Zoning Map, Sheet F3 West (dated 12/04/2003)
C. Project Description / Background:
The applicant is requesting approval of an administrative variance from the side yard
setback of 26 feet that is required when a property in the RM-F zone is greater than 2 stories
and abuts a property in a single-family residential zone. The applicant proposes to build
multi-family housing (duplex) on the site. The lot size is 4,500 sq. ft. The site, which is
currently vacant, is located at 317 Hardie Way NW and the proposed development would
have access from that road. This property is part of an overall proposed development plan
for two duplexes on the subject property and the adjacent property to the north.
The development standards of the RM-F zone as they pertain to this property require a front
yard setback of 20 feet, a side yard setback of 25 feet on the south side, a side yard setback
of 5 feet on the north side, and a rear yard setback of 15 feet. Additionally, because the
development proposal is for a three-story building, the side yard setbacks are each
increased by one foot, so that the resulting north side setback is 26 feet and the south side
setback is 6 feet.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION
Having reviewed the written record in the matter, the City now makes and enters the
following:
D. Findings
1) Request: The applicant has requested approval for an administrative variance from
the required 25-foot south side yard setback in the RM-F zone for the property
located at 317 Hardie Ave. N. A 10-foot south side yard setback is requested.
ADMV AR staffrpt Williams Duplexes.doc\
City of Renton P/B/PW Departme_
WILLIAMS DUPLEX SETBACK VARIANCE
Admini.ive Variance Staff Report
LUA-05-111, V-A
REPORT AND DECISION OF October 13, 2005 Page 3 of 6
2) Administrative Variance: The applicant's administrative variance submittal materials
comply with the requirements necessary to process a variance. The applicant's site
plan and other project drawings are provided as Exhibits 3 and 4.
3) Existing Land Use: Land uses surrounding the subject site include: North: 3rd
Place NW and multi-family residential; South: single-family residential (R-8); East
Hardie Ave. NW and commercial (medical office); and West: single-family residential
(R-8).
4) Zoning: The site is located in the Residential Multi-Family (RM-F) zone. The
allowable density range in this zone is 10-20 du/acre. The applicant proposes a net
density of 19.04 du/acre. Within the RM-F zone, maximum lot coverage is 35%;
however, lot coverage of up to 45% may be approved at the discretion of the Hearing
Examiner. The applicant's proposal will result in approximately 36% lot coverage.
The development standards for this zone require a 20-foot front setback, 15-foot rear
setback, and 5-foot side yard setback. For RM-F zoned properties that abut single-
family residential properties, a 25-foot side yard setback is required. If a development
proposal in the RM-F zone will be greater than two stories, the entire structure must
have additional one-foot side yard setbacks for each proposed story in excess of two.
Therefore, based on these zoning requirements, the subject site is required to have a
20-foot front setback, 15-foot rear setback, 26-foot south side yard setback, and 6-
foot north side yard setback. The applicant proposes a 26-foot front setback, 22-foot
rear setback, 10-foot south yard side setback, and 5-foot setback north yard side
setback.
The proposed duplex has tandem garage parking on the ground floor of the structure.
The site is located within the RM-F zone, which requires that 2.5 parking spaces be
provided for each attached dwelling unit if tandem parking will be utilized, and that
surface parking is permitted only in side and rear yard areas (driveways cannot count
toward required parking spaces). Any proposed surface parking must be provided on
the same lot as the building it serves. The proposed development plan provides only 2
tandem garage parking spaces for this duplex building. The overall development
shows two surface parking spaces provided on the lot that would be occupied by the
other (north) duplex building, but this siting does not meet the requirement that
parking be on the same lot as the building it serves. Additionally, the surface parking
spaces are not readily accessible to the south building, as they are proposed to be
separated by privacy fences and private lawn areas.
The proposed surface parking spaces for the north building are also located within the
required 15-foot rear yard setback area. Within the RM-F zone, the 15-foot rear yard
setback is required to be landscaped, with the intention of providing an aesthetically
pleasing buffer for adjacent single-family residential properties.
4) Topography: The topography of the site is generally flat with gradual sloping from
west to east.
5) Lot and Building Size: The total site area is approximately 14,500 sq. ft. (0.34 acres)
and is currently vacant. The proposed new duplex will have a footprint of
approximately 1,620 sq. ft. and will total approximately 4,860 sq. ft. in overall size,
including two stories of living area over one story of garage area.
ADMV AR staffrpt Williams Duplexes.doc\
City of Renton P/B/PW Departme'
WILLIAMS DUPLEX SETBACK VARIANCE
REPORT AND DECISION OF October 13,2005
CONSISTENCY WITH VARIANCE CRITERIA
Admini.ive Variance Staff Report
LUA-05-111, V-A
Page 4 0(6
Section 4-9-250B.5.a. lists four criteria that the Zoning Administrator is asked to consider,
along with all other relevant information, in making a decision on an Administrative Variance
application. The Zoning Administrator shall have authority to grant an administrative
variance upon making a determination, in writing, that the conditions specified below have
been found to exist:
a. That the applicant suffers undue 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:
The applicant contends that special circumstances apply to the subject site, which
impose limitations on the lot and create a hardship. Specifically, the applicant
indicates that given the small size of the lot (45 feet wide and 100 feet deep), the
required side yard setbacks would not allow a minimum building footprint necessary
for construction of a duplex.
The proposed duplex is part of a pending overall development proposal for two
duplexes on two adjoining lots. In this case, the applicant is creating a hardship by
proposing to construct a two-duplex project on these lots instead of a smaller multi-
family project such as a townhome triplex. If the applicant redesigned the proposal,
setback requirements could be met and the need for a variance would be
eliminated.
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:
The proposed reduction of the north side yard setback to 10 feet would be a 61 %
reduction of the 26-foot setback, which is required to buffer neighboring single-
family uses from the impacts of the proposed development. This reduction must
also be considered in light of other variances which would be necessary for the
applicant's proposal. Development within the RM-F zone is intended to provide infill
development in established neighborhoods, in a manner compatible with existing
development. As previously discussed in Section D.4. "Zoning", the current site
plan also does not meet code requirements for the north side yard setback, the 15-
foot rear landscaped setback, and required parking spaces. The cumulative effect
of the total number of required variances, in conjunction with the height and bulk of
the proposed 3-story building compared to adjacent homes, would result in reduced
quality of life for neighboring residents.
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:
The approval of the variance request would be a grant of special privilege, as other
property owners in the vicinity would not be allowed to reduce setback, parking and
ADMV AR staffrpt Williams Duplexes.doc\
City of Renton PIB/PW Departme.
WILLIAMS DUPLEX SETBACK VARIANCE
Admini.ive Variance Staff Report
LUA-05-111, V-A
REPORT AND DECISION OF October 13, 2005 Page 5 of 6
landscaping requirements when the stated hardship is self-imposed by the size and
design of the project.
d. That the approval as determined by the Zoning Administrator is a minimum
variance that will accomplish the desired purpose:
The applicant contends that the request is a minimum variance needed in order to
construct a duplex on the south lot. The applicant's overall proposal for two
duplexes on two lots is at nearly the maximum allowable density (19.04 du/acre
within the allowable range of 10-20 du/acre) for the site, and a less intense multi-
family development such as a town home triplex could be accommodated on the
site without the requested variance and other variances that would be necessary for
the applicant's current proposal.
E. Conclusions
1. The subject site is located at 317 Hardie Ave. NW, within the Residential Multi-family
(RM-F) zoning designation.
2. The RM-F zone requires a minimum 26-foot south side yard setback. The applicant
is proposing a reduction of setback to 10 feet.
3. The proposal has been analyzed according to the four variance criteria described
above. The variance request does not satisfy the criteria for granting the variance, in
that it does not meet the hardship test, the public welfare test, the special privilege
test, or the minimum variance test. The proposal's stated hardship is self-imposed
due to the size and location of the proposed development. Additionally, it is
anticipated that significant negative impacts to surrounding single-family properties
would result from the cumulative effects of the requested variance and the additional
variances for reduced setback, parking and landscaping requirements necessary to
accommodate the current overall development proposal. Such reductions would
constitute a grant of special privilege that would not be allowed for other property
owners in the vicinity. Other types and sizes of less-intense multi-family development
could be built on the site without the requested variance.
F. Decision
The Administrative Setback Variance for the Williams Variance, File No. LUA-05-111,
V-A, is Denied.
SIGNATURE:
,ofr~,I 0,-
Jennifer Henning, Zoning Administrator date
ADMV AR staffrpt Williams Duplexes.doc\
City of Renton PIB/PW Departme.
WILLIAMS DUPLEX SETBACK VARIANCE
REPORT AND DECISION OF October 13, 2005
TRANSMITTED this 1 jh day of October, 2005 to the Applicant/Contact:
Jim Hanson
Hanson Consulting
17446 Mallard Cove Lane
Mt. Vernon, WA 98274
TRANSMITTED this 13th day of October, 2005 to the Owner:
Pamela Sanford
c/o Tom Williams
17980 Brittany Drive SW
Seattle, WA 98166
TRANSMITTED this 13th day of October, 2005 to the following:
Larry Meckling, Building Official
Stan Engler, Fire Marshal
Neil Watts, Planning/Building/Public Works, Director
Jennifer Henning, Principal Planner
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Gregg Zimmerman, Planning/Building/Public Works, Administrator
South County Journal
Land Use Action Appeals
Admini.ive Variance Staff Report
LUA-OS-111, V-A
Page 60(6
The administrative land use decision will become final if the decision is not appealed within 14 days of the date of
approval. An appeal of the decision must be filed within the 14 day appeal period (RCW 43.21.C.075(3); WAC
197-11-680). An appeal to the Hearing Examiner is governed by Title IV, Section 4-8-11.B, which requires that
such appeals be filed directly with the Hearing Examiner via the City of Renton City Clerks Office. Appeals must
be made in writing on or before 5:00 PM on October 27, 2005. Any appeal must be accompanied by a
$75.00 fee and other specific requirements.
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.
ADM V AR staffrpt Williams Duplexes.doc\
.8
ND
e
NOTE: Krol Maps are compiled from Official Records and FIeidSurYeya. They are prOduced for ._et a use
only and no wanw1ty is expressed or implied.
'--__ ~I \ L-______ ~~~-----
--
7 .... _.
18
___ k.:-.-.7 . -.I...-~-!-~~=-:";'-.-.lI""'----~~..e!II,-~_;;;,,}ijj_"""';:~~...i':S...l::t-
WILLIAMS VARIANCE
317 HARDIE AVENW
3RD _ PLACE N .W .
/i
~ I ~_;ijJII~ ~ ~ ~ _
:'" ~: :::,c LtJ > .. . . 0:: Z <C
«
2 ---.J W
I 0::
U W 0 Z W
W f-0:::::
m ~ <C
I I _ It a;ci~A ~ U I -I I 1'--'1 I I )< I i .. I yy I yJ ~ yy I ... yy j yy ••. I "'
0\ I I r I LAWN 1I~~;~~~Ai?'ArAW~~~ LANDSCAPE NOTES
----------LlS f+
'LANDSCAPE PLAN
SCALE 1/8" = 1-0"
I II = 1s \e.e±-
"1\". : __ :-]Al<>':/ -.-. . --~~-.. :::. ~ ... •
REMOVE
EXISTING
ALL BEDS TO BE IRRAGATLDWITil
UNDER GROUND DR IP SYSTEM.
lARGE TREE LAWN AREAS WITH AUTOM;\T Ie N t L SPR I NKLER HEADS.
..
f'AMSOlJPL DATE: ----. -_._-
SrAl.F. 1/8'" 1 • 8/28/M
51£[[ Ill.
.-
~-Q-~
\j L~_~A~6SL181AB
'-:::t. .~ ...... -.-
Ii k
IIIII'~ Jl-Jl-J1--~ H 1--1--; I-;-,U_ f-.J-!
IE
~~
f-~ f-i:~
II V,g f-~ t;;
I--:=
'" ~t=. fj§
r-f-
~ l-
I-i-I-l-e-' l-
I--I--rI-"t-
II l-f-!-I-f-
IE
f-I-
ffi[J
IIII I--
II I II ~J-l~
~.\ ~ \\\ ::r g
~t[±tltf±tjI
I~
~
Jlllll ~
mrm
'-E::::
I,,,,,,, "''''',,'' " 1
~ ~illlllHnillllill I~'" ..
I-; t <>SOUTH ELEVAT ION 361ISL~PE31ITOGARDOOR ~ -C?-FF GARAGE 0+ VI
FOOT ING SODOM 0+21"
I II i ~ II 11111111
lll: ttt
I Ii Ii " " j
i IL---IL..-..-I ~ ~6d6d1d1 ~ H i! 1IIIIIIIIIIIiIIIIIl ij
STEPS AND
AN) RAIL
PERCOOE. ~
~
~ --
~
I.ll ~
ITITll
-
=--
IffiEffiE~
~
PAT 10-2 STEPS ON.
b NORTH ELEVAT 10
FF GARAGE 0+36" SLOPE 3" TO GAR DOOR
STEPS AND
AN) RAIL
PERCOOE
A ~-r~
PAMSDUPL
leU---V4-II::::t " 0.1
----
111(101[ --fAM6SH67
e
e
DATE:
8/23/05
6~7
CA
1M 1M
G3 -19 T23N RSE W V2 e .. ZONING +~+ P/BIPW TBCHNICAL SBllViCBS
If 12IZ8I04
----Renton Ci~ Llmitoo h 200 #f0 F3
1:4800
18 T23N R5E W 1/2
5318
I
RESIDENTIAL
~ Resource CODservation
§ Residential 1 dulac
~ Residential" dulac
I R-8 I Residential 8 dulac
I RMH I Residential Manufactured Homes
I R-10 I Residential 10 dulac
I R-14 I Residential 14 dulac
I RH-r) Residential Multi-Family
IRH-T I Residential Multi-Family Traditional
I RH-U) Residential Multi-Family Urban Center-
MlXE!! USE CE!!TElI INDUSTRIAL
6 Center Village ~ Industrial -Heavy
{UC-NII Urban Center -North ~ Industrial -Medium
IUC-NZI Urban Center -Nortb 2 0 Industrial -Ugbt
~ Center Downtown·
~ Commercial/Oftice/Residential <P> Publicly owned
COMMERCIAL
____ Renton City Limits
@] Commercial Arterial·
~ Commercial Office·
__ Adjacent City Limits
_ Book Pages Boundary
~ Commercial Neighborhood
• May include Overlay Districts. See Appendix maps. For additional regulations in Overlay
Districts. please see RYe 4-3.
Printed by Print & Mail Svcs. City of Renton
KROLL PAGE
PAGE# INDEX
SECTtrOWI'IJRAHGE
City of R.n Department of Planning / Building / Public .kS
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: C~~CNM COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 19, 2005
APPLICATION NO: LUA05-111, V-A DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER 5, 2005
APPLICANT: Pamela Sanford PROJECT MANAGER: Keri Weaver
PROJECT TITLE: Williams Side Yard Setback Variance PLAN REVIEW: Mike Dotson
SITE AREA: 4,500 square feet BUILDING AREA (gross): N/A
LOCATION: 317 Hardie Avenue NW WORK ORDER NO: 77478
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting an administrative variance from the 25-foot side yard setback that is
required in the RM-I (Residential Multifamily -Infill) zone when an RM-I zoned property abuts a property in a single-family zone. The
south side of the subject site zoned RM-I abuts a property zoned Residential - 8 units per acre (R-8). The setback reduction is
requested due to the constraints of lot size and additional required setbacks. The applicant proposes to develop a duplex on the
subject site as part of an overall development plan with the adjacent lot to the north.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS
Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More
Environment Minor Major Information
Impacts Impacts Necessary
Environment Minor Major Information
Impacts Impacts Necessary
Earth Housing
Air Aesthetics
Water Light/Glare
Plants Recreation
Land/Shoreline Use Utilities
Animals Transportation
Environmental Health Public Services
Energy/ Historic/Cultural
Natural Resources Preservation
Airport Environment
10,000 Feet
14,000 Feet
B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS
;Va JVC5.
C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS
We have reviewed this application with particular aNention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or
areas w e additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal.
Date
City of R.n Department of Planning / Building / Public .S
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICA r-LON REVIEW SHEET ro .. -
n\~ ;I\I~'~,' '«-,
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: O( ~to' C1I L\':tJa· 1·15iY' i.S II" "" ..... i
APPLICATION NO: LUA05-111, V-A DATE CIRCULATED: ( ~ ~ER.5~2005 I
APPLICANT: Pamela Sanford PROJECT MANAGER: RerY VeaYeV' -, m -u..;
PROJECT TITLE: Williams Side Yard Setback Variance PLAN REVIEW: Mike [ otson f', --~'" v· ,\r:1'I I' 'll
SITE AREA: 4,500 square feet BUILDING AREA (gros~~ r... . . c :,' "";,'r
-.~" ... '.'~.-.. --
LOCATION: 317 Hardie Avenue NW WORK ORDER NO: 77478
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting an administrative variance from the 25-foot side yard setback that is
required in the RM-I (Residential Multifamily -Infill) zone when an RM-I zoned property abuts a property in a single-family zone. The
south side of the subject site zoned RM-I abuts a property zoned Residential - 8 units per acre (R-8). The setback reduction is
requested due to the constraints of lot size and additional required setbacks. The applicant proposes to develop a duplex on the
subject site as part of an overall development plan with the adjacent lot to the north.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS
Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More
Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information
Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary
Earth Housing
Air Aesthetics
Water Light/Glare
Plants Recreation
Land/Shoreline Use Utilities
Animals Transportation
Environmental Health Public Services
Energy/
Natural Resources
Historic/Cultural
Preservation
Airport Environment
10,000 Feet
14,000 Feet
B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS
C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS
IJeJ
I, '1") \ A-n.' ,
were posted
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
A Master Application has been flied and accepted with the Development Services Division of the City of Renton.
The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals.
PROJECT NAMEINUMBER: Williams Side Yard Setback Variance I LUA05-' 11, V-A
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applk:anl is requesting an administrative variance from the 25·1001 side yard
setback that is required in the RM·I (Residential Multifamily -Infill) zone when an AM-I zoned property abuts a property in
a single-family zona. The south side of the subject sHe zoned RM-I abuts a property zoned Residential· 8 units per acre
(A-S). The setback reduction Is requested due to the constraints of lot size and additional required setbacks. The
applicant proposes to develop a duplex on the subject site as part of an overall development plan with the adjacent lot to
the north.
PROJECT LOCATION: 317 Hardie Avenue NW
PUBLIC APPROVALS: Administrative Variance approval
APPLICANTIPROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Jim Hanson, Hanson Consulting; Tel: (360) 422·5056
Comments on the above application must be submitted In writing to Kerl Weaver, Senior Planner, Development
Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on October 19, 2005. II you have
questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact the
Project Manager at (425) 430-7382. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record
and will be notified of any decision on this project.
PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION
DATE OF APPLICATION:
NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPUCATlON:
DATE OF NOTICE OF APPUCATlON:
September 16, 2005
October 5, 2005
October 5, 2005
If you would like to be made a party of record to recetve further information on this proposed project, complete this form
and return to: City of Renton, Development Planning, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055.
File Name I No.: Williams Side Yard Setback Variance I LUA05-111, V-A
NAME: ____________________________________________________________ __
MAILING ADORESS: ________________________________ _
TELEPHONE NO.: ____________ _
CERTIFICATION
hereby certify that '3 copies of the above documenl---"""\\
onspicuous places or nearby the described property o~~~~.~·.~~.~\",
. ,:' ~~ ••• ~\ON ~L. ••• ~O ., ~/')/\~ ~ "'~.~ 1'.<)·~i SIGNED: 11/ ~$~. OTARy~\1J~ DATE: /0 10 ~ IrK
I.. _0-en. I 'I : • ,
ATIEST: Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington residing in " . PUBUC • : '\.p.. :~,;
SM1tlR vVlA" ,on the _LP __ day of cf)c/tJb?rf)oo)' /) .. ,. /J ~ .. ,J~19-(}~ .. ··~(5, ~. lA.CVu.~~ ~' ... ~.;;.J.,.~~C'}..:'
~----------------------------~~~~, VV~~'NOTARY PUBLIC SIGNATURE:·\",", ....... ,_~~~-
CITY OF RENTON
CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING
On the 5th day of October, 2005, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope
containing Acceptance Ltr. & NOA documents. This information was sent to:
Pamela Sanford c/o Tom Williams -Accpt. Ltr
Jim Hanson -Accpt. Ltr
Surrounding Property Owners -NOA only
(Signature of Sen
STATE OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF KING
SS
Owner
Contact
See Attached
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy Tucker
signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and
purposes mentioned in the instrument.
Dated: folb/of --------
Notary (Print):
My appointment expires:
Notary Public in and for the State of I . ~-i:;.. <::>'t, ::~ '0 •• ~'I A--1 ~ A· -f:" <::(":0 ~OTARy ~".:O' /TV ... Vl.~ K--tbKa.f"\..c=-?-r;o ---~: ~
'0 -l~ ,-t>.b S, ". PUBLIC ':-'I~· : ,
I, ~;;'·.<?~19-0~."" o~ ~ '\ . <:-n_ ...... 4,C::;' .
\ 'Jf-WAS""'\\ _ ..
Williams Side Yard Setback Variance
LUA05-111, V-A
318560001006
ABRAMS JEFF
PO BOX 1315
RENTON WA 98057
420440021509
BARRON BRENT
310 HARDIE AV NW
RENTON WA 98055
420440010007
BUCHANBROTHERSINVPROPS
2630 116TH AV NE #100
BELLEVUE WA 98004
318560004000
GADI MARIA
PO BOX 273
RAVENSDALE WA 98051
420440020808 Mkmt*J V\d"
JONES TROY ~ 10\14lct;
307 TAYLOR AV NW
SEADLE WA 98055
420440020105
LOCKWOOD DANIEL
321 TAYLOR AV NW
RENTON WA 98055
318560002004
MURAWSKI TOMASZ
312 TAYLOR AV NW
RENTON WA 98055
420440026508"'-R'e:turn-rz, ~
RANDLES M J & MARIAN L .A4\eM(>tcd
RANDLES PEGGY L ~ ~n
271 HARDIE AV NW il/qlos-
RENTON WA 98055
420440013506
SKY LANAI LLC
11000 NE 33RD PL STE 215
BELLEVUE WA 98004
420440028306
SUPASATIT II LLC
10308 SE 196TH DT
RENTON WA 98055
e
318560003507
AVILA MANOLO V+JOVELITA V
305 HARDIE AV NW
RENTON WA 98055
420440021004
BECKMAN CLAUDIA
17355 SE 134TH ST
RENTON WA 98059
318560000503
CARNEY E MARION
POBOX 149
RENTON WA 98057
318560004505
GADI PIETRO
30509 CUMBERLAND KANASKAT RD
PALMER WA 98051
420440026102
KRANZ BRENT J + ROBIN A
271 RAINIER AV N
RENTON WA 98055
946000005003
LORTON JOY A
365 TAYLOR AV NW
RENTON WA 98055
420440011500 rJo ~ oYd.9..v
NGUYEN HI EN T + FOGARTY MADHEW
J 9fIlhl,c:, lo/lCil0J5
100 NW 3RD PL
RENTON WA 98055
318560005502
SANFORD PAMELA
317 HARDIE AV NW
RENTON WA 98055
420440015006
STEVENS ELIZABETH A
353 TAYLOR AV NW
RENTON WA 98055
946000004006
TANNER JESSE H+ JANICE R
361 TAYLOR AV NW
RENTON WA 98055
e
420440022507
BARRON AUTO SALES
313 RAINIER AV N
RENTON WA 98055
420440020204
BOWEN WILBUR E+ TERRI
315 TAYLOR AV NW
RENTON WA 98055
420440012508
CHMIELOWSKI WLADYSLAW
2320 92ND AV NE
BELLEVUE WA 98004
420440012003
HOLM JOHN R
355 RAINIER AV N
RENTON WA 98055
420440020402
LEE HAO Q
330 MAPLE AV NW
RENTON WA 98055
809360001501
MALESIS ALEX E+CYNTHIA A
13831 SE 77TH PL
NEWCASTLE WA 98059
318560005007
NYBLOD-FORBES JENNIFER R
313 HARDIE AV NW
RENTON WA 98055
318560003002
SHOGREN LESTER
308 TAYLOR AV NW
RENTON WA 98055
420440027704
STOCKMYER EVA V
264 TAYLOR AV NW
RENTON WA 98055
420440015501
WARNER PINKEY L
350 MAPLE AV NW
RENTON WA 98055
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Development Services Division of the City of Renton.
The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals.
PROJECT NAME/NUMBER: Williams Side Yard Setback Variance / LUA05·111, V-A
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting an administrative variance from the 25-foot side yard
setback that is required in the RM-I (Residential Multifamily -Infill) zone when an RM-I zoned property abuts a property in
a single-family zone. The south side of the subject site zoned RM-I abuts a property zoned Residential - 8 units per acre
(R-8). The setback reduction is requested due to the constraints of lot size and additional required setbacks. The
applicant proposes to develop a duplex on the subject site as part of an overall development plan with the adjacent lot to
the north.
PROJECT LOCATION: 317 Hardie Avenue NW
PUBLIC APPROVALS: Administrative Variance approval
APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Jim Hanson, Hanson Consulting; Tel: (360) 422-5056
Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Keri Weaver, Senior Planner, Development
Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on October 19, 2005. If you have
questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact the
Project Manager at (425) 430-7382. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record
and will be notified of any decision on this project.
PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION
DATE OF APPLICATION:
NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION:
DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION:
September 16, 2005
October 5, 2005
October 5, 2005
r ~ Ij
3RD4
la4iM ~
PL. ~
If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form
and return to: City o/Renton, Development Planning, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055.
File Name / No.: Williams Side Yard Setback Variance / LUA05-111, V-A
NAME: __________________________________________________________________ ___
MAILING ADDRESS: __________________________________________________ _
TELEPHONE NO.: ______________ __
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor
CITY eF RENTON
PlanningIBuildinglPublic WorkS Department
Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator
October 5, 2005
Jim Hanson
Hanson Consl!lting
17446 Mal.lard Cove Lane
Mt. Vernon, W A 98274
Subject: Williams Side Yard Setback Variance
LUA05-111, V-A
Dear Mr. Hanson:
The Development Planning Section of the City of Renton has determined that the·
subject application is, complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is
accepted for review. .
You will be notified ifanyadditiomil iriformationisrequired to c6ntinue·procesSing your
application. . ..
Pleasecohtact me at (425) 430~7382if y6.d have.any questions.
Sincerely,
Keri Weaver
. Senior Planner
cc: Pamela Sanford / Owner
--'------}-0-5.,..5 -So~u-th-G-r-a-dy-W-aY---R"":e-n-to-n,-W-a~s-hi-n-gt-on-. -9-80""5-5-, ------~ * This paper contains 50% recycled material, wOl. post consumer AHEAD OF THE CU'RVE
PROPERTY OWNEH(S)
NAME:
PAM[;LA S4TJ FDRb
ADDRESS: C/o ',OaA W I t-~/1J4 ",:-S
i79g() "BKITfIHJ'/ -Vg-SiXJ
CITY: :5GATTL-G tU A-ZIP: 9~/hb
TELEPHONE NUMBER: 20 ~ " ~LJ / -16c.;. 0
APPLICANT (if other than owner)
NAME:
COMPANY (if applicable): .
ADDRESS:
CITY: ZIP:
TELEPHONE NUMBER
CONTACT PERSON
NAME: JII'J1 ;i-ANSDA.J
COMPANY (if applicable): !lAIi./S oAJ C(pI(JSaf-.T/~6
ADDRESS: J7tfLj(p /7lA-LL-M 1D COL-'£ J...A)
CITY: {\I\.{ rJ~fU1JD ;(J a'A-ZIP: 9?;}-7'i
TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS:
3(:) (p -, tf2-2--.5' O~-£
JGIIA.u~t..)..u e Ifl3:12-/2oAJ p AlGI
Q: web/pwl devserv If onnslp lann in glmastera pp ,doc
PROJECT INFORMATION
PROJECT OR DEVEl-0PMENT NA~$-c..{U
W IdiA-/lAS' ~~A-wrAt.{,C6
PROJECT/ADDRESS{S)ILOCATION AND ZIP CODE:
3/7 IJAROIE 4vc NW
9c.?OS.s
KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S):
3/ 'f? Sbo -0(:>5'5
EXISTING LAND USE(S): S /AJ6G.-£ F ~tA.A. 11-(...(
(jV "BIG" J'{ell"':Oc}5't) ) ,
PROPOSED LAND USE(S): Oe..t P?e ~
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION:
Pes; 'De-a..J/J A>P~,.Mf./tTIF A 1M. l,l-'1
PROPOSEDGOMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION
(if applicable):
EXISTING ZONING: l< ;(~ -:t::
PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): N A-
SITE AREA (in square feet): LjS 00
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE
DEDICATED: 0
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS:
'. "';Y/+
P:ROP~SEd ~ESID~~!IA ... ~i.DENSITY IN UNIT~ PER NET ~CRE(lf appIJeable): :: t4:A-?o AA/ a.aNZ--
., .
NUMBER OF'NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable):
L-
07129/05
I
.' ,
.OJECT INFORMATION (COnIUed) r---~----------~~------------------~
NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable):
/
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL
BUILDINGS (if applicable): 110-;).0
SQUARE FOOT AGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL
BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): NA
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL
BUILDINGS (if applicable): IV A
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL
BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): NA-
NET FLOOR AREA OF NON-RESIDENTIAL HU,LD·,NGS (if
applicable): Nil-
NUMBEROF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BYTHE
NEW PROJECT (if applicable): 1'/1} -
PROJECT VALUE: NA
IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF
ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE
SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable):
o AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE
o AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA TWO
o FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. ft.
o GEOLOGIC HAZARD sq. ft.
o HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft.
o SHORELINE STREAMS AND LAKES . sq. ft.
o WETLANDS· sq. ft.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
·.(Attach legal. description on separate sheet w.ith the following information includ~)
SITUATEIN THE AlW QUARTEHOF SECTION lK, TOWNSHIPa3, RANGEs"",INTHE CITY
OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. -
TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES
List all land use applications being applied for: -.
1. S£:Tfl ACk.. 1/ ProRJ A-AJC'..-6' IOOt).9-3.
2. 4.
Staff will calc~late applicable fees and postage: $ 160.60
AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP
I, (print Name/s) J (J...rQ.e.s G I-iAill 0 N. ,tlectare that I am (please check one) _ the current owner of .the property·
involved in this application or ~ the authorized representative to act fora corporation (please af:tach proof of authOrization) and that the foregoing
statements and ans~ers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my jn<>wledge and belief.
(Signature of Owner/Repre~entative)
Q:web/pw/devserv/fonnslplanning/masterapp.doc
I certify that I know or have satisfactory. evklence that _....::.fiV:..:--=--___ -,-_-,-~
signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be hislherltheirfree and volUntary aettor the
uses and plirposes mentioned in the instrument
2 07129105
September 2, 2005
City of Renton
Development Services Division
1055 South Grady Way
Renton Wa. 98055
Subject: Williams Variance application, Authorization as agent
Dear Development Services Staff:
This letter authorizes Jim Hanson to apply for a setback variance on my Hardie Ave
property on my behalf. I am the owner of the property and the applicant, but Jim should
be the contact person and serve as my agent on this matter.
I appreciate the city's review and approval of this application for a 10 foot setback rather
than the 25 foot setback required. If you have any questions please contact Jim Hanson,
17446 Mallard Cove Lane, Mt. Vernon Wa. 98274 phone 360-422-5056.
Sincerely,
Pamela Sanford P rvwia ~A~
NOTARY
ATTESTED: S sworn before me, a NotaI}' Public, in and fofhe State of Washington, ~-¥~~~~0W~L:L--.---ontl&~ dayof s, ~f= ,200S'
(Notary Public)
e:VELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION e
WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS
This requirement may be waived by:
1. Property Services Section PROJECT NAME: 3r7 j\J/IJ H~( !?V{Jo/,
DATE: _<6.~/_I(-+-f_tl--)_' __ _ 2. Public Works Plan Review Section
3. Building Section
4. Development Planning Section
Q:\WEB\Pw\OEVSERv\Forms\Planning\waiver.xls 07/29/2005
•
/-// . e DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISI.
WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIliEMENTS
FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS
Wireless:
Applicant Agreement Statement 2 AND 3
Inventory of Existing Sites 2 AND 3
Lease Agreement, Draft 2 AND 3
Map of Existing Site Conditions 2 AND 3
Map of View Area 2 AND 3
Photosimulations 2 AND 3
This requirement may be waived by:
1. Property Services Section
2. Public Works Plan Review Section
3. Building Section
4. Development Planning Section
PROJECT NAME:
DATE:
3/ -; j{~~~ Paj/(~-()
fh1() II{ 141')-IJ IJ1UIhttt
Q:\WE8\Pw\DEVSERv\Forrns\Planning\waiver.xls 07/29/2005
HANSON CONSULTING
360-422-5056
September 15,2005
City of Renton
Development Services Division
1055 South Grady Way
Renton W A. 98055
Subject: Williams Variance application, 317 Hardie Ave NW. Renton W A.
Dear Development Services Staff:
This letter outlines the application for the Williams setback variance at 317 Hardie Ave
NW. Renton W A. The request is to modify the required 25 foot side yard abutting single
family zoning to 10 foot.
The current zoning ofthe site is RM-I. The property to the south is zoned R-8. The
property to the north and east is zoned multifamily residential and commercial. The
current use of the site is for one single family residence which will be removed.
The existing lot is 4500 square foot in size. A duplex building will be constructed with a
10 foot setback on the south side abutting the single family residential zone. A six foot
high sight obscuring fence and landscaping will be provided along the south property line
to enhance the buffer between the duplex and the single family zone to the south.
An eight inch water line is within Hardie Ave NW. A fire hydrant is located just east of
the property in Hardie Ave NW. An 8 inch sewer main is also located in Hardie Ave NW.
We appreciate the city's review and approval ofthis application for a setback variance.If
you have any questions please contact me at 360-422-5056.
Sin erely,
~?I!~~
HANSON CONSULTING
September 15, 2005
City of Renton
Development Services Division
1055 South Grady Way
Renton WA. 98055
360-422-5056
Subject: Williams Variance Justification, 317 Hardie Ave NW. Renton WA.
Dear Development Services Staff:
This letter outlines the justification for the Williams setback variance at 317 Hardie Ave
NW. Renton W A. The request is to modify the required 25 foot side yard abutting single
family zoning to 10 foot:
• The applicant suffers undue hardship and the setback variance is necessary
because of special circumstances due to the size and shape of the existing lot. The
lot is only 45 foot wide and 100 foot deep. Requiring a 25 foot side setback on
one side and a 5 foot setback on the other only allows a 15 foot wide duplex to be
constructed.
• Granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed duplex is
no larger than a single family home could be including size and height. A 10 foot
setback is proposed on the south side which is twice as wide as required if a single
family residence were to be constructed on the lot. A 6 foot high sight obscuring
fence will be provided in addition to substantial landscaping along the south side
of the building.
• No special privilege would be granted as a result of approving of this variance.
Most other lots zoned for multiple family are of such size that the required 25 foot
setback can be met without such a great impact.
• The setback variance requested of 10 feet is the minimum needed to construct a
duplex on the lot. As proposed the building would be 30 foot wide. Each unit will
be ground related and 15 foot wide. Each unit will have a garage for parking on
ground level.
We appreciate the city's review and approval of this application for a setback variance. If
you have any questions please contact me at 360-422-5056.
· . e e
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
ISSUED BY
DEvELOPMENT
CITY OF AE~~~N/NG
SEP 162005
RECEIVED
STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, A Texas Corporation, herein called the Company,
for a valuable consideration, hereby commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as
identified in Schedule A, in favor of the proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or
mortgagee of the estate or interest covered hereby in the land described or referred to in Schedule
A, upon payment of the premiums and charges therefore; all subject to the provisions of
Schedules A and B and to the Conditions and Stipulations hereof.
This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the proposed Insured and the
amount of the policy or policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A hereof by the
Company, either at the time of the issuance of this Commitment or by subsequent endorsement.
This Commitment is preliminary to the issuance of such policy or policies of title insurance and
all liability and obligations hereunder shall cease and terminate six months after the effective date
hereof or when the policy or policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs, provided
that the failure to issue such policy or policies is not the fault of the Company.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Stewart Title Guaranty Company has caused its corporate name and
seal to be hereunto affixed by its duly authorized officers on the date shown on Schedule A.
L~~!!"l
Authorized Signatory
STEWART TITLE
Company
SEATAC, WASHINGTON
City, State
CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS
1. The term mortgage, when used herein, shall include deed of trust, trust deed, or other
security instrument.
2. If the proposed Insured has or acquires actual knowledge of any defect, lien,
encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter affecting the estate or interest or mortgage
thereon covered by this Commitment other than those shown in Schedule B hereof, and
shall fail to disclose such knowledge to the Company in writing, the Company shall be
relieved from liability for any loss or damage resulting from any act of reliance hereon to
the extent the Company is prejudiced by failure to so disclose such knowledge. If the
proposed Insured shall disclose such knowledge to the Company, or if the Company
otherwise acquires actual knowledge of any such defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim
or other matter, the Company at its option may amend Schedule B of this Commitment
accordingly, but such amendment shall not relieve the Company from liability previously
incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions and Stipulations.
3. Liability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named proposed
Insured and such parties included under the definition of Insured in the form of policy or
policies committed for any only for actual loss incurred in reliance hereon in undertaking in
good faith (a) to comply with the requirements hereof, or (b) to eliminate exceptions shown
in Schedule B, or (c) to acquire or create the estate or interest or mortgage thereon
covered by this Commitment. In no event shall such liability exceed the amount stated in
Schedule A for the policy or policies committed for and such liability is subject to the
insuring provisions, the Conditions and Stipulations, and the Exclusions from Coverage of
the form of policy or policies committed for in favor of the proposed Insured which are
hereby incorporated by reference and are made a part of this Commitment except as
expressly modified herein.
4. Any action or actions or rights of action that the proposed Insured may have or may bring
against the Company arising out of the status of the title to the estate or interest or the
status of the mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment must be based on and are
subject to the provisions of this Commitment.
All notices required to be given the Company and any statement in writing required to be furnished
the Company shall be addressed to it at P.O. Box 2029, Houston, Texas 77252.
Order Number: 205119443
EXHIBIT "A"
LOTS 11 AND 12, HAYES & ROBERT'S SUBDIVISION OF BLOCK 47, N. H. LATIMER'S
LAKE WASHINGTON PLAT, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN
VOLUME 26 OF PLATS, PAGE(S) 38, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
e
stewart ;>f; I':: ~o ,<'-~title -builder/developer division N
Title Officer: Don Peters
Title Officer: Robert B. Jackson
Reference: SANFORD
e 18000 International Blvd. South, Suite 510
SeaTac, VVA 98188
206-770-8700 • 888-896-1443
E-Fax Number: 206-770-6579
Phone: (206) 770-8858 E-mail: dpeters@stewart.com
Fax: (206) 770-8801
Phone: (206) 770-8860 E-mail: rjackson@stewart.com
Fax: (206) 770-8801
Order Number: 205119443
SCHEDULE A
1. Effective Date: August 31,2005 at 8:00 a.m.
2. Policy Or Policies To Be Issued:
(X) ALTA OWNER'S POLICY, (10/17/92)
( X ) STANDARD ( ) EXTENDED
Proposed Insured: TO BE DETERMINED
( ) ALTA LOAN POLICY
NO LENDER
Amount: TO BE DETERMINED
Premium:
Tax:
Total: $ 0.00
Amount:
Premium:
Tax:
Total: $ 0.00
3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and
covered herein is:
FEE SIMPLE ESTATE
4. Title to said estate or interest in said land is at the effective date hereof vested in:
PAMELA SANFORD, AS A SEPARATE ESTATE
5. The land referred to in this commitment is described in Exhibit "A".
Page 1 Order Number: 205119443
SCHEDULE B -SECTION 1
THE FOLLOWING ARE THE REQUIREMENTS TO BE COMPLIED WITH:
ITEM (A) PAYMENT TO OR FOR THE ACCOUNT OF THE GRANTORS OR MORTGAGORS
OF THE FULL CONSIDERATION FOR THE ESTATE OR INTEREST TO BE
INSURED.
ITEM (B) PROPER INSTRUMENT(S) CREATING THE ESTATE OR INTEREST TO BE
INSURED MUST BE EXECUTED AND DULY FILED FOR RECORD
NOTE: EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1,1997, AND PURSUANT TO AMENDMENT OF
WASHINGTON STATE STATUTES RELATING TO STANDARDIZATION OF
RECORDED DOCUMENTS, THE FOLLOWING FORMAT AND CONTENT
REQUIREMENTS MUST BE MET. FAILURE TO COMPLY MAY RESULT IN
REJECTION OF THE DOCUMENT BY THE RECORDER.
FORMAT:
MARGINS TO BE 3" ON TOP OF FIRST PAGE, 1" ON SIDES AND BOTIOM, 1" ON
TOP, SIDES AND BOTIOM OF EACH SUCCEEDING PAGE.
FONT SIZE OF 8 POINTS OR LARGER AND PAPER SIZE OF NO MORE THAN 8 %" BY
14".
NO ATIACHMENTS ON PAGES SUCH AS STAPLED OR TAPED NOTARY SEALS,
PRESSURE SEALS MUST BE SMUDGED.
INFORMATION WHICH MUST APPEAR ON THE FIRST PAGE:
Page 2
TITLE OR TITLES OF DOCUMENT. IF ASSIGNMENT OR RECONVEYANCE
REFERENCE TO AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBER OR SUBJECT DEED OF TRUST.
NAMES OF GRANTOR(S) AND GRANTEE(S) WITH REFERENCE TO ADDITIONAL
NAMES ON FOLLOWING PAGE(S), IF ANY.
ABBREVIATED LEGAL DESCRIPTION (LOT, BLOCK, PLAT NAME OR SECTION,
TOWNSHIP, RANGE AND QUARTER QUARTER SECTION FOR UNPLATIED).
ASSESSOR'S TAX PARCEL NUMBER(S)
RETURN ADDRESS WHICH MAY APPEAR IN THE UPPER LEFT HAND 3" TOP
MARGIN
Order Number: 205119443
SCHEDULE B -SECTION 2
GENERAL EXCEPTIONS
THE POLICY OR POLICIES TO BE ISSUED WILL CONTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE
FOLLOWING UNLESS THE SAME ARE DISPOSED OF TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE
COMPANY.
A. TAXES OR ASSESSMENTS WHICH ARE NOT SHOWN AS EXISTING LIENS BY THE
RECORDS OF ANY TAXING AUTHORITY THAT LEVIES TAXES OR ASSESSMENTS
ON REAL PROPERTY OR BY THE PUBLIC RECORDS.
B. ANY FACTS, RIGHTS, INTEREST, OR CLAIMS WHICH ARE NOT SHOWN BY THE
PUBLIC RECORDS BUT WHICH COULD BE ASCERTAINED BY AN INSPECTION OF
SAID LAND OR BY MAKING INQUIRY OF PERSONS IN POSSESSION THEREOF.
C. EASEMENTS, CLAIMS OF EASEMENT OR ENCUMBRANCES WHICH ARE NOT
SHOWN BY THE PUBLIC RECORDS.
D. DISCREPANCIES, CONFLICTS IN BOUNDARY LINES, SHORTAGE IN AREA,
ENCROACHMENTS, OR ANY OTHER FACTS WHICH A CORRECT SURVEY WOULD
DISCLOSE, AND WHICH ARE NOT SHOWN BY PUBLIC RECORDS.
E. (A) UNPATENTED MINING CLAIMS, (B) RESERVATIONS OR EXCEPTIONS IN
PATENTS OR IN ACTS AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE THEREOF; (C) WATER
RIGHTS, CLAIMS OR TITLE TO WATER; WHETHER OR NOT THE MATTERS
EXCEPTED UNDER (A), (B) OR (C) ARE SHOWN BY THE PUBLIC RECORDS, (D)
INDIAN TRIBAL CODES OR REGULATIONS, INDIAN TREATY OR ABORIGINAL
RIGHTS, INCLUDING EASEMENTS OR EQUITABLE SERVITUDES.
F. ANY LIEN, OR RIGHT TO A LIEN, FOR SERVICES, LABOR OR MATERIAL
THERETOFORE OR HEREAFTER FURNISHED, IMPOSED BY LAW AND NOT
SHOWN BY THE PUBLIC RECORDS.
G. ANY SERVICE, INSTALLATION, CONNECTION, MAINTENANCE, CONSTRUCTION,
TAP OR REIMBURSEMENT CHARGES/COSTS FOR SEWER, WATER, GARBAGE
OR ELECTRICITY.
H. DEFECTS, LIENS, ENCUMBRANCES, ADVERSE CLAIMS OR OTHER MATTERS, IF
ANY, CREATED, FIRST APPEARING IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OR ATTACHING
SUBSEQUENT TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF BUT PRIOR TO THE DATE THE
PROPOSED INSURED ACQUIRES OF RECORD FOR VALUE THE ESTATE OR
INTEREST OR MORTGAGES THEREON COVERED BY THIS COMMITMENT.
END OF GENERAL EXCEPTIONS
Page 3 Order Number: 205119443
SCHEDULE B -SECTION 2
CONTINUED
SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS
1. RIGHT OF THE PUBLIC TO MAKE NECESSARY SLOPES FOR CUTS OR FILLS
UPON SAID PREMISES IN THE ORIGINAL REASONABLE GRADING OF STREETS,
AVENUES, ALLEYS AND ROADS, AS DEDICATION IN THE PLAT.
2. LIEN OF THE REAL ESTATE EXCISE SALES TAX AND SURCHARGE UPON ANY
SALE OF SAID PREMISES, IF UNPAID. AS OF THE DATE HEREIN, THE EXCISE
TAX RATE FOR CITY OF RENTON IS 1.78%.
3. GENERAL TAXES. THE FIRST HALF BECOMES DELINQUENT AFTER APRIL 30TH.
THE SECOND HALF BECOMES DELINQUENT AFTER OCTOBER 31 sT.
YEAR: 2005
AMOUNT BILLED: $920.24
AMOUNT PAID: $-0-
AMOUNT DUE: $920.24, PLUS INTEREST AND PENALTY,
IF DELINQUENT
LEVY CODE:
TAX ACCOUNT NO.:
ASSESSED VALUATION:
LAND:
IMPROVEMENTS:
2100
318560-0055-02
$28,000.00
$49,000.00
NOTE: KING COUNTY TREASURER, 500 4TH AVENUE, 6TH FLOOR ADMIN. BLDG.,
SEATTLE, WA 98104 (206) 296-7300
WEB ADDRESS: http://webapp.metrokc.gov/KCTaxinfol.
4. IF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY CONSISTS OF THE DWELLING IN WHICH
THE OWNER RESIDES, SUCH PREMISES CANNOT BE CONVEYED OR
ENCUMBERED UNLESS THE INSTRUMENT IS EXECUTED AND ACKNOWLEDGED
BY BOTH SPOUSES, IF SAID OWNER IS A MARRIED PERSON, PURSUANT TO
RCW6.13.
IF THE OWNER IS UNMARRIED THE FORTHCOMING INSTRUMENT SHOULD SO
RECITE.
5. ACCORDING TO THE APPLICATION FOR TITLE INSURANCE, TITLE IS TO VEST IN
PERSONS NOT YET REVEALED AND WHEN SO VESTED WILL THEN BE SUBJECT
TO MATTERS DISCLOSED BY A SEARCH OF THE RECORDS AGAINST THEIR
NAMES.
Page 4 Order Number: 205119443
NOTES:
NOTE A: IN ORDER TO ASSURE TIMELY RECORDING ALL RECORDING PACKAGES
SHOULD BE SENT TO:
STEWART TITLE
18000 INTERNATIONAL BLVD., SUITE 510
SEATAC, WASHINGTON 98188
ATTN: ROBERT JACKSON
NOTE B: THE DESCRIPTION CAN BE ABBREVIATED AS SUGGESTED BELOW IF
NECESSARY TO MEET STANDARDIZATION REQUIREMENTS. THE FULL TEXT OF THE
DESCRIPTION MUST APPEAR IN THE DOCUMENT(S) TO BE INSURED.
LTS. 11 & 12, HAYES & ROBERT'S SUBD. OF BLK. 47, N. H. LATIMER'S LK. WA. PLAT,
VOL. 26, PG. 38
MCE
END OF SCHEDULE B
PageS Order Number: 205119443
Copies to:
PBC, INC./SEA TTLE
19904 DES MOINES MEMORIAL DRIVE
SEATTLE, VVA 98148
ATTENTION: RICK VVILLIAMS
Page 6 Order Number: 205119443
NNtIRDPL ---
N.W. IfIID IT
(JUDSON -ST .J
... "
ORDER NO:. 205119443
N
This sketch is provided without charge for information. It is not intended to show all matters related to the property including, but not
limited to area, dimensions, encroachments or locations of boundaries. It's not a part of, nor does it modify, the commitment or policy
to which it is attached. The company assumes NO LIABILITY for any matter related to this sketch. Reference should be made to an
4lCCurate survey for further information.
Printed: 09-16-2005
~ITY OF RENTON
.1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Land Use Actions
RECEIPT
Permit#: LUA05-111
Payment Made: 09/16/2005 01 :36 PM Receipt Number:
Total Payment: 100.00 Payee: PBC INC
Current Payment Made to the Following Items:
Trans Account Code Description Amount
5022 000.345.81.00.0019 Variance Fees 100.00
Payments made for this receipt
Trans Method Description Amount
Payment Check #4963 100.00
Account Balances
Trans Account Code Description Balance Due
3021 303.000.00.345.85
5006 000.345.81.00.0002
5007 000.345.81.00.0003
5008 000.345.81.00.0004
5009 000.345.81.00.0006
5010 000.345.81.00.0007
5011 000.345.81.00.0008
5012 000.345.81.00.0009
5013 000.345.81.00.0010
Park Mitigation Fee
Annexation Fees
Appeals/Waivers
Binding Site/Short Plat
Conditional Use Fees
Environmental Review
Prelim/Tentative Plat
Final Plat
PUD
5014 000.345.81.00.0011 Grading & Filling Fees
5015 000.345.81.00.0012 Lot Line Adjustment
5016 000.345.81.00.0013 Mobile Home Parks
5017 000.345.81.00.0014 Rezone
5018 000.345.81.00.0015 Routine vegetation Mgmt
5019 000.345.81.00.0016 Shoreline Subst Dev
5020 000.345.81.00.0017 Site Plan Approval
5021 000.345.81.00.0018 Temp Use or Fence Review
5022 000.345.81.00.0019 Variance Fees
5024 000.345.81.00.0024 Conditional Approval Fee
5036 000.345.81.00.0005 Comprehensive Plan Amend
5909 000.341.60.00.0024 Booklets/ErS/Copies
5941 000.341.50.00.0000 Maps (Taxable)
5954 604.237.00.00.0000 Special Deposits
5955 000.05.519.90.42.1 Postage
5998 000.231.70.00.0000 Tax
Remaining Balance Due: $0.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
R0505080
BII 6010-6
R.R. SPIKE 1.0'
UP IN WEST FACE
P.P. ElEV. 46.58
HSf: f269
CB
TOP 46.99
12" ClIP 44.09 NE
-'-·;"~.;--'I -.-
o 10 20 1
GRAPHIC SCALE
1" = 20'
60
HSE #271
8"
1IL1~
ES AND Bl!uSlt
Ui~. \\~DfUhtr
.... ",K. "'flU LivE h.
c;)
I
I
I
I
I
30'
-. "
FOUND liON IN
--CASE. TAYlOR AVE NW
OJ '" ~ '"
I
1
~
"'I I VARIES 0:
;00 ~I
~ 1
~ 1
ill 1
Z I
1
GRASS I;
I
I BUILDING
HSf: #305
MI
LL -iJ--__ _
ASPHAlT
DRIVE
I
I
5EC170N //3 J TOWNSHIP 23 J RANGe 5"
HA YES & ROBERTS SUBDIVISION
PROPERTY UNES ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY
HSE 1311 HSE 1317
HSf: 1313
BUILDING I
r----1 BUILDING MlOIlRET L BUILDING I
HSE fJ09 ---,
ROCKERY
__ ' J B"FlR CB
-~r--.../----~~i:~-=:-~~~~-~~~~t~-TOP 67.28 MI ,~~~~tt-roN~~-~~·Fm-~~~=J-__ L~~:). __ I~EB"~.~ CONC tft.~~ D ! DRIVE 9" PINE HOllY :.:
PIP
is
PK NAILS SET AT 5O'll+0;:;:0~-8"'SAir-----ifL~=--
INTERVAlS
AVE.
SCALE 1" = 20'
I
I
T
CB
TOP 66.29
IE 62-69
ASPHAlTRDAD
I'i:;
EXTRUDED
CURB
62.61 SW
IE 12" ClIP 63.61 N
IE 12" CONe 61.51 E
I
1
I~
1"= I~
I S I
i I
:t: I
I I
-W
I
I
I
I
I
30'
~
~
io OJ z
I
CURB AND
SAN
CB
TOP 70.93
IE 12" CONe 68.28 E
IE 8" ClIP 68.38 W
----
~f~~,t!3~==~ 0 12" CONe.
tI!<.l_IU IIH
30'
69.38
IE 12" 65.~ W
IE 12" CONC 65.38 N
IE 12" CONe 65.43 S
NW 4TH ST.
FROM KNOWN DATA
,------------
/LEGEND
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
M
.Q.
IB
m
o
o
WATER VAlVE
FIRE HYDRANT
WATER METER
GAS VAlVE
SANITARY IIANHOLE
STORIoI IIANHOlE
CATCH BASIN
STORIoI DRAIN CULVERT
SANITARY SEWER ClEAN OUT
IIAiL BOX
POWER VAUlT
SHRUB
80.---~---------------.----------------~~r-'-------------------~-----~~-----------.-----------'~1~----.--------------------~~-----------------.--------------------.---------------~~~----~1~~80 1
I
SIGN
CONIFER TREE
60~--4_--------------_+---------------~~~ .. --~' J
SrA, 6.,.58. 7' RT
--
--------------------
----
--------+--------------New B H .oIl'" c,1... 1{;2.
PROFILE
SCALES: HORZ. 1" -
- - ------f--
8"
1
1
I
-<>-
E-
o
ill
-----s-----
-----s,----
-----0---
---wr--------w-----
---G---
-----G-----n n
--00---0 ----<0
U J(
B 0--_
iii??????????,??
DECIDUOUS TREE
YARD UGHT
UlIUTY POlE
POlE ANCHOR
TELEPHONE RISER
lRE?HONE VAULT
ANGlE POINT
IIONUIIENT
SANITARY SEWER UNE
SANITARY SIDE SEWER
STORIoI SEWER UNE
WATER UNE
WAlER SERVICE
"AS UNE
GAS SERVICE
GUARD RAIL
CHAIN UNK FENCE
WIRE FENCE
6 1/ veizr. ~"6S J';<"'-Ix.!'z.
Z. eA~ ,/3L../N.o-t "t-..-4IN'.fl"i5
a~' pt..7/G w/~ Z.,.. ,o~I2HAlIIlflVT
C;V 0.1. 5(.11'"
VERT. 1" = 10' A~~~------------~--------------+--------------+----------------+--------------~----~~~--·~--------------~----------~~~~~~~~-JlL::~::J40
WOOD FENCE
RETAINING WAll.
DITCH
CREEK
RIGHT OF WAY
PROPERTY UNE
EDGE OF PAVEMENT
GRAVEl SHOULDER DA1V,M~ ~---------------+_----------------1_----------------~----------------~----------------_+----------------~------------------~----~~~~~~~~~~--~----~l_------~ p~G'5SVRe 7?5T 35.00
.oeT-4/L r~)
4r. AfifR
PEr-4lt.. (;4FTE12)
NOTES:
9+00
THIS TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY DRAWING ACCURATElY PRESENTS SURFACE
FEATURES LOCATED DURING THE COURSE OF THis SURVEY. ANY UNDERGROUND
UlIUlIES SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED SDI.El Y UPON INFORIIA liON PROVIDED
BY OTHERS AND TARGET SURVEYORS. INC. DOES NOT ACCEPT RESPONSIBIUTY
OR ASSUME UABILITY FOR THBR ACCURACY OR COIIPlETENESS.
THIS SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A lITlE REPORT
AND THEREFORE DOES NOT PURPORT TO SHOW All. EASEIIENTS OF
RECORD.
All. IIONUMENTS INDICATED AS FOUND WERE RECOVERED DURING THE COURSE
OF THIS SURVEY AT THE DATE SHOWN IN THE SURVEYORS CERlIFiCATE.
UNlESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
A 2" GEDDlIIETER 400 SERIES INSlRUMENT WAS UlIUZED TO PERFORII
ANGUlAR AND lINEAR IlEASUREMENTS. UNlESS OTHERWISE NOTED. TRAVERSE
ClOSURES WERE BETTER THAN 1:10,000.
New 8" .DIP
IIERlDIAN: KCAS ACCORDING TO RUTHERFORD SURVEY MAP OF FEB. 11, 1952 /:;;'~:7E.I'II':~"""'"
DATUII: CITY OF RENTON BII #6010-6 FROM RENTON CARD ~.!c ~H$J' (.F~ ~H'/)
BII6010-6E FROM RENTON CARD , 1186
RECORDING SURVEY: SEE ADDIlIONAl DATA OR SURVEY TO BE RECORDED
.oerAI.L (;.IT.S.)
-
8" T6!r 0,(.1) 12+00
\.. 725II.P'4e4.E'Y CONNE.::::!T/ON
&~eMc!W
• ,
EXPIRES If .~" 'f~--'
,PINAL
13+00
rlNAL CONNECTIoN
(,APTEJ;!. )
TARGET SURVEYORS, INC
1595 N.W.:Gilman Boulevard Suite 6 . .
Issaquah, 'Washington 98027
(206) 392-8533 FAX (206) 557-0470
"",-.
-----<EP-----
BUILDING
CURB AND GUTTER
SIDEWAlK
CJ:TV Cnr-RENTON
DEPARTMENT £III" PUBLIC VDRICS
STEEL WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT
FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
...
,
DEVELOPMENT F"L ANNING
, .. XfY Ot"I-iI::NTCN
SEP 1 S 20iJ5
RECEIVED
•
l
I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I
3RD 0 PLACE N oW 0
cr==C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+-__ ~_M ~
-::0::: -<C --(.) -:r-:
~ : :0::: _ -« --a..: _
-+-o
::0::: -« --0 -:--: 12: -« -.a.. _
VATEAREA
I X 9 I
1
~"-:9'+-! 18 I 6.57"--+----'&.
IT)
0::::
~
U
W
C')
o
W
~:~~~=====~==~:~~~ OC
PRIVATE
LAWN
APT 2 ~~---H~~--'-+---'---+----+-I~~~ W ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:==~~m~~~~
LAWN
IVATE APT 3
IVATE APT 4
LAWN
LAWN p
E EX 1ST NG WOOD
:1 HIGH 0 I N I NG
LANDSCAPE PLAN
SCALE 1/8 11 1-0"
REMOVE
EXISTING
LARGE TREE
o
N
/ I / /
/ I / I
/ ~ I / W I
I W o cr:::
+ f--o (J)
~ W
0:::: Z
<C
:2 ~
I cr::: U W :z W
W f--
IT) :z
W
U
S:
Z
W > <r:
w
LANDSCAPE NOTES
W
N
(/)
(/)
WI-02
o:~ (/) 0...
42 FULL SUN 2-3
20 FULL SUN
C---CARNATION 4" 36 FULL SUN
V---VINICA 4'1 56 FULL SUN
G---GERANIUMS 60 FULL SUN
M---MARY GOLDS
P---PANSEY 72 FULL SUN
S---SALVIA 411 20 FULL SUN
J---JUNIPER 42 FULL SUN 2-3 I
ALL BEDS TO BE I RRA GAT ED WITH
UNDER GROUND DR I P SYSTEM _
LAWN AREAS WITH AUTOMAT Ie
SPR I NKLER HEADS _
PAMSDUPL
SCALE 1/8"= 1 I
DATE:
8/28/05
SHEET NO.
-
~ tw[ PAM6SL 18 1AB
-----~--~--~----
0--FIRE HYDRANT NE CORNER
3RD. PL i~ AND TAYLOR AIlE
NW • 128 1 TO CL OSEST EDGE
OF PROPOSED BU I LD I NG •
FIRE HYDRAf\ff NE CORNER
0-_ 3RD. PL NW AND HARD IE AVE
NW • 99 I TO CLOSEST EDGE
OF PROPOSED BUILDING. CONSTRUCT ION SPEC I Fie IS INDEX
...!
3RD PLACE N W -- -~
'I , .. ' ..... ~ ~
j-' - - - - - - --. _. _. ---\ l] -
" .. .11 I!!:
, S E ~ I' F= -- -
/ v/ v V L '/ l/ V ~ -! -/
t i-I -v t:1 v V-~ V; ~ V ~ V ~ I"'"
~ !-~ ~( a
[j '" v "" w -~ V V "-""1( V (!)
V V V Cl
V V W
lAIH / a:::
IfU / / w
l .. !(iI I:: 5
f-~ 0
I r
.. I~D ~ " " -v ~ v vV V t{ lAIH ~ V V [/'1 I 1 ,.
V v· V V ~ I"~ V I»' /~ rl"-E= / VI--V / / ~ E= ~ 1ff4 ,
v F::
~ J I I I
/ I
,I tJ , W
o a::: + l-o I/)
.o~ w ~ :
:J:: 0.::: U w :z: w
M:l 1z w u
V V/ VI,L v-v/ '/ / v.: I' -1 /
['~ .... .... .... tl 0 I:) 0 o 0
•
~~ I~ 0 o 0 u u u '" v ...
................... -i' -' ~
~ ~~~sr tfr;m:! ~~ T 1-
PAIISIlfL
sau ,.,,»'
~1IIf PAIIISIF
S TE PLAN
SCALE 1" = 20 I
PROPOSED ADD IT ION FOR: PAMELA SANFORD
S -I TE ADDRESS 3 17 HARD I EAVE NW
R~NTON , WA . 98055
OWt~ER PAMELA SANFORD:
C/O TOM W ILL lAMS
17980 BR ITT ANY DR . SW
SEATTLE, WA. 98 166
SCOPE OF WORK :
B\~ ~
SllDID.
COVER
CONSTRUCT 1 - ( 2 STORY , 2 BEDROOM EACH)
DUPLEX WITH GARAGES UNDER ON EACH LOT.
LEGAL DISC. PLAN TITLE
LOTS 11 & 12 BLK • 47 HAYS & ROBERTS
SUB D IV IS ION or:-N.H. LAT IMERS LAKE COVER SHEET
WASH. PLA T AS RECORDED VOL. 28 PG .
38 OF KING CO . WASH. LOT 11 PARCEL # S ITE PLAN 318560-0055 , LOT 12 PARCEL #
LANDSCAPE 318560-0056.
BOTH LOTS 11 & 12 ARE ZONED RMF STORM DRA I NAGE
BU ILD ING CODE -----IRC 2003 ED IT ION DEMO PLAN
PER CENT BOX IS
LOT AREA ------4500 sq . ft .
NEW CONST .----1620 sq . ft .
LOT COVERAGE 36%
"
I MPERV IOUS SURF ACES
LOT AREA ------4500 sq . ft.
NEW CONST .-----1620 sq. ft.
WALKS, DR IVES--598 sq . ft .
LOT COVERAGE 62.5%
FOUNDATION
FLOOR JO 1ST
FLOOR PLANS
NORTH ELV
SOUTH ELV
E/W ELV .
ROOF PLAN
THRU SECT
DETAILS
GEN NOTES
STRUCTUAL
,
SHEET Ii REV lEW CODE
PAM6SLMF
1A PAM6SL 18
18 PA.M6SL 18
1C PAM6DRAN
2 PAM6SH23
3 PAM6SH23
4 PAM6SH45
PAM6SH45
5 ABC PAM6SH5A
PR2FL5CF
6 PAM6SH67
7 PAM6SH67
8 PAM6SHT8
9 PAM6SHT9
10 A,B PAM6SH10
11 PAM6DETA
12 PAM6NOTE
LAST PG. PAM6STRLJ
PAMSDUPL DATE 9/3/05
1"=20'011
SCALE------------
SHEET NO.
APPROVED BY _________
CODE NAME COVER
PAM6COVF -----------
I~
~
IA
s z:
w > «
l...LJ
o ex::: « I
9
0
+ 0
~
+ 0
~-20 ' 0 .OO"---~I
...-.--+--29 ' 0.00"------...;1
N n ~ L.() CO
+ + + + 0 0 0
0 ~ N n ~ L.() en ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
+ + + + + + + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOPOG PAMS DUPLEX
NOTE 11
EX I ST I NG A NO FINAL
(LOTS 11 AND 12 BLOCK 4 7 HAYS AND ROBERTS SUB D I V I S ION
OF N. H. LAT IMERS LAKE WASH. PLAT AS RECORDED.) TOPOG
RUNS BAS I CLL Y LEVEL NORTH TO SOUTH. D I SPLAYED TOPOG
I S FOR 3RD . PLACE NW RUNN I NG AT A SUSTA I NED GRADE OF
15 PERCENT FROM HARD I E AVE ON THE EAST, WEASTERL Y TO
THE WEST PROPERTY LINE OF LOT 12.
THE EX I ST I NG AND FINAL GRADE OF TH I S PROPOSAL WILL
FOLLOW THE EX I ST I NG GRADES OF BOTH 3RD PLACE NW AND
HARD IE NW. NO FILL WILL BE REQU I RED AND ONLY THE LOWER
LEVEL EXCAVAT ION W ILL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE. APPRO-
X I MA TEL Y (450 CU • YDS .) .
CUT FROM NORTH WEST CORNER OF LOT 12
AND RED ISTR IBUTE IT SOUTH WESTERLY FOR
FINAL GRADE.
PROJECT PAMSDUPL DATE:
1/8" = l' 0" 9/2 '05
SCALE------------
APPROVED BY SHEET NO.
1 CODE NAME PAM6TOP2
--------
fACIA
I lLL I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I , I I I liLI
!
II
L
N €>SOUTH ELEVA T ION
•. 1"'-
IL
I
I
FF GARAGE 0+36' f SL(~PE 311 TO GAR DOOR
FOOT I NG BOTTOM 0+2111
"'~u
II
I I I I I I I 1 1 1
~
1--------1-1: ;::
IL
II
II
, " 1 I' , I I " I , I 1 , 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 I' I I I I I 1 1 I 1 I I I I' I , I I I I I I I I I I I
II II
I
-'1"'""""""'" ,...., ... (\1 ,.,AC 1:f\1I II LI'IV L..L.v ....... _. ~. .~_
-.II
JI r "I
'I 1 1 1 I
STEPS AND
AND RAIL
PER CODE.
------
A
N
PAMSDUPL
SCALE--1/4" = 11011
N'fIV® BY __
_.:....:.PA..!!!.M6SH67
,
--~-+---
DATE:
8/23/05
i --
ISHEET NO.
r----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~.,
I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I It' I
0'6.00" I I I Ir-----~r--r__r__I
~~Iy r~~~~~ ~~~
I 1 I
I I I
............ r 2 • LL... 'EL
/~ , 'I 1 , I I I I I , I'CICI'tIX III:=xIJ:I]F¥II~'pl¥J~~I¥RIF=rltl!II:rJI __
I I I 1--+----1 I I--t---I t--t--t----i 1---+----1 I I I .....,1rL-Lr.....,...~..,.a--,r'-i ~-r-,rY
I I I F::=!=:::::::f F=:::::::!:=====l F::=!==l I I 1 I I f--'-r-'-T--1-"-I
~1~1~1 ~~~ I I
I I J1:=;,==;:,=C:;:,=::;::. =:;=lh.,==;:,:iJ~ ~~............. I 'I I I I
I ,I I ,IlL' , I ,Y./// I ~) I I I , I I~ IL II II
~ -~"F F 1RST _ FL.
• II
r--r--~DDDD~ [J]~E ~~ §DDDD~
§OODD§ DD§ DO EDDDD§;
~DDDD~r-E ~DDDDE
I----§DDDD§ t. § Ur=='j'~§DDDD~
?-: ---------------------'''-', -30 '-0.00"--+-1--------------------------41 , , ,
~
...--'---"'---~~ -.---I .---I .----I' ----t----~ .----.... w~~ ~u
II I I I I I I I I I 1 , 1 I I I I I I I I 'I I , IIIIII U-
o 6.00" I I I II I I I I I J I II I I I I I I I
II I I I I
I I I .~ I I I L I I I II I I I I I I I I I , , , , I , 1 , ,
--""""'F F 2ND _ LEVEL
~ I I I I I , I I I I I I 11 I I I I , , I I I I I ~f ~~, I I I I I I I ,,/ I I I I I I I I
~..;~;; !j
J I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I , I I J I I I
I I I I I I I I I , , I , , I , , , , I I I I -"'-F F 1 RST LEVa ---
CODE NAME PAMSDUPL I DATE 8/28/05
APPROVED BY SHEET NO_
8 1/4" = 1 I 01 ' SCALE
,J
CODE NAME PAM6SHT8
'( ..
"
r
u
-'
U
•
1 5 '9 .OC II
1.
• II rtt\ \jJ;1
"
II II II II II ~ II ~ II ~
II II II
~ ~
/ ...
V "-'
I---
\ \ u ~
\
~ ...
. ,
JO I ST 2ND FLOO R , LAY OUT FRO~ WEST TO EAST ,2: 10@16 1I OC. ===..\~.\ ====111
NOTE: SOUTH UN rr SHOWN / NORT H UN IT MIRROR COF IY OF SOUTH UN I T .~I,\\~\\ ====11
2 ' 0.00"
I fiR I .. , 1",'l » ~
-r -<
/0
0
0
~
-0 ~ o
L I V I NG ROOM :t;"~1 ~
. .... . ... .. . ......... .
: I : :
~
~ -
Z
-' W > Ld
-'
•
-' LL
•
PARK 1 CAR COMPAC-'-Sj I =G):: · : · , · ,
~
(J)
,
-
" ,... .... (W
nn.
1~·
-r I!Q
" a:I -< !! 1--' J~ !I! ::u II: g
0 t.
" 0 r-~ (1}J ~ r
KITCHEN ,
L.~ -<::A-
\ t J ~ ''+ ...... ;ea" ,
" rt"" t1""u
I§J~.f. LOQ l\f+1i 248"
1IJ3JO~ W3J3O IlASS DIXII FIOII'S DIXII FlIIII!S
,'f'" t I t"'i , II·" '-rr
............................... ""!r, I , \.'t' 4' ,
• !
• I · : ~ I
• I : I • J
DINE I NG AREA L I V I NG ROOM ~ I=P";:::!i;:::!, :::;., R~:::; , II~ I;
§Iil
; I I " ... w ! (Th "'1"1 i.. {} .. " . "
I I I } ......
1--)
I Il I 'W ... · I I , ,
\ I :
11 ,FtlL V' ------
A --'"
II = (11\
" 11/ 11
.. 2 ' 0 .IlO'"
~---Tl'Oj)Q"'---~
~-------22"'.48"---------i 1-------------32"1.48"---------------4
38'0.98"---------------; 1-----------------4"2.99"'------------------i ,. , ... ~,
~ ~ --U
~
:::t:t:::
~ -
Z
=:J
-' W > W
-' •
-' LL
•
~ (J)
~
<
1----------+-___________ 52'Oj)Q" __________ 'to--.t ____ ----=t4.~ ___ ~
~-, ----14' 0.68"------:..,",
:: =-=====
DOOR SCHEDULE 1--24" X 80'1 4X 10 HEADER
--·30" X 80 '1 4X 10 HEADER
---32" X 80" 4X 10 HEADER 1--36" X 80" 4X10 HEADER
E --96" X 84 " 4X 10 HEADER
--48" X 83" SL IDER ~--60" X 83 '1 SL IDER rnJ
H --72" X 83" SL IDER
I -GARAGE DOOR
WINDOW SCHEDULE
-NET WINDOW 29'')(6011
-NET W INDOW 32"X40"
-NET W INDOW 36'')(60''
-NET WINDOW 43'')(60''
-NET WINDOW 48' ')(60"
-NET WINDOW 51'')(60''
-NET WINDOW 72'')(60''
-NET WINDOW 78'')(60''
-BOW WINDOW 72" X 60"
L BEDROOM W I I'VOWS
MEET EGRESS REQU I REMENTS
SH= SINGLE HUNG SASH
NOTE:
SAFTEY GLAZ I NG REQU I RMENTS
PER FOLLOW I NG WILL BE MEET •
1-24" EITHER S IDE OF DOORS.
2-SHOWER DOORS AND ENQOSLRES •
3-SURFACES I N EXCESS OF 9 SQ • FT •
4-WITH IN 18" OF FLOORS AND 36" OF
WAlKING ~FACES.
5-WITHIN 5 FT OF LANDINGS OR
WALKING SLRFACES TO STA IRWAY.
6-ALL I DENT IF I CAT ION TO BE
PERMA.NENTL Y MA.RKED •
;=1. r
I I L-I[)l
I, i' H L!LJ "f-v-+-+-+--+-I--t-ft4 ' 6 .or " +tHt--+-----,rv /1 I" J~ I I /
I I
IWUIo\IL~" -311" I i
-r
1 I , I IWIW.IL 34" -38"
.. L.J ,-tt-I I I \ \.1I) , ,
I I k/-+-+-+-+-I--t-4 6.0(" +-HtI--+---""7I'/ / I I /1[51
I I
I f l.b'.J ;;;; =: __________ . __ c;;;...J C
STAIR DETAIL
PROJECT PAM6DUPL DATE: ~
9/4 105 I 1/4" = l' 0'1 SCALE------------
APPROVED BY ________ _
CODE NAME PAM6SH5A
SHEET NO.
SA
,
co
o · II " II II II II II II ,
---, -"" ( I' L J nHE ~ \~ I 0::::
0 $,~ 0
IT] .-l
LL rtl) \ I I )f ~ , I -r--(J) ,I
15 ' 0.00" 0:::: -
l~ ~ LL ~610.0 ~
16I 1::
I I ! I
/ 14 6 .oc " / I
I
.I B I K ~ IWIIl'IL 34" -311" I , i ,.
0"
SI\IIS EXTBII TO TCP (E DOI.8:E PLAn:
twlalL 34" -311" , i ~"h L. ,
I , r-+V
/ ~ 6 Q{ "
I ~D ~ / I I .-
ill] I-J9L J' I K I [ffi / V) -
I 0
15 ' 0.00" J
0::::
, 0
0
.-l
LL
~ , (J)
-1-42' -(~ r I 0:::: \t..L
I' , -
• Q!; LL 1-1 ... 11---------------------52 '0 .00"------------~5r'-'~3-:H.O-!T-51.,.' ...... I---... .....-I-I---
1\ •
42" LJ I
4X'II~ .-l
'" /' r K /1 $$ m
w >
.~.t-\ W
: II CD .-l "LV ~~ •
\J..J et::: , « I
F ~ APt.( 1 r 1\.8 PI DI/ 1 0/~ (.9
:/' \I \ , '-'I ~ V" \1 \ 1 \A :>I ~610. ,-.. 1\',..,. ..... I I
.... ,/
.~. )\LU 9 I XLO I [8J~ ""!LSJ""1.: ~4 / '6 .O( " 1b /~ ~ lit-)
/ , . I • 1ft-, (Il \# 1.Jl) "·4) \1 ~
15' 0.00'1
00"
rth (th (jj) ®f i
I ! \·lY \-IJ.I "
" I' " D IL n4 '6 .0( II ~ /
0 llil [8] , r;:"?I "
...
riA rlI/ ...., (\Ar'I DADI/ 1 0AD KKI\J\ I l~ If'\ I I~ ,I \[ \ I \.If 0 9 I X2( D I 9 I X20 I
I GAR. LEVEL IT] I
15 10.00"
I
V "'"
, /
"'"
, / II
.~ ltt-, -42"-I.lJj oC(1)/£AD£R " • (JQ) v
I~ • .--------------------52 '0 .00"------------~5r',;_3_:\:;.O~5'~'·._tI---··--+I-_
DATE: PROJECT PAMDUPLX
1/411 = 11011 8/14/05
SCALE------------
APPROVED BY _________ SHEET NO.
CODE NAME 4
I
I
I I I
I
PAM6SH45 ------------
DOOR SCHEDULE 1_-24 11 X 80 11 4X 10 HEADER
--3011 X 80 11 4X 10 HEADER
--3211 X 80 11 4X10 HEADER
~--3611 X 80'1 4X10 HEADER
E --96" X 84" 4X 10 HEADER
--48 11 X 83 11 SL IDER
[Q]---60 11 X 83 11 SL IDER
[8t--36 11 X 80 11 SELF CLOSE
1 HR F IRE DOOR
0]--GARAGE DOOR 96 11 X 84"
WINDOW SCHEDULE
1'J--NET WINDOW 29 1 X60" ~J--NET W INDOW 321')(40" ~ET WINDOW 361 X60"
O<J--NET W INDOW 48'')(6011
<'CJ--NET WINDOW 51"X60"
9<J-NET W INDOW 72'IX60" (r~NET WINDOW 78"X60" F W IIfX111 72" X 60" NET W INDOW 401')(4011
ALl. BEDROOM WINDOWS
MEET EGRESS REQU I REMENTS
SH= SINGLE HUNG SASH
NOTE:
SAFTEY GLAZ I NG REQU I RMENTS
PER FOLLOW I NG WILL BE MEET •
1-2411 EITHER S IDE OF DOORS.
2-SHOWER DOORS AND ENCLOSURES.
3-SURFACES IN EXCESS OF 9 SQ. FT •
4-WITH IN 18" OF FLOORS At-I) 36 11 OF
WALK I NG SURFACES.
5-WITHIN 5 FT. OF LANDINGS OR
WALK ING SURFACES TO STA IRWAY •
6-ALL I DENT IF I CAT ION TO BE
PERMANENTLY MARKED •
DATE:
I
I I I
I
PROJECT PAMDUPLX
1/41 I = 1 I 0 I I i 8/18/05
SCALE------------
APPROVED BY _________ SHEET NO.
5 f---.
CODE NAME PAM6SH5 ------------
,
FIRE HYDRANT NE CORNER 0--FIRE HYDRANT NE CORNER
3RD. PL NW AND TA(LOR AVE
NW. 128 I TO CLOSEST EDGE
OF PROPOSED BU I LD I NG •
0 ___ 3RD. PL t-m AND HARD I EAVE
NW • 99 I TO CLOSEST EDGE
OF PROPOSED BUILDING. CONSTRUCT ION SPEC IF IC IS
3RD . PLACE N .W .
~ ;
I I i - --/ I / tJ
I W ! g -~ -
I ~ -1IIII---+-+--.,.£--..-.hf--I I -I -co 0 a::
n::: 6 ~ a.o~ w w ~ z '" -o -l
I
w :::c a::
a::: <.,) W W Z l..U 5 ~ ~ o ~
1 __ lIn I 1.54" ~
S TE PLAN
SCALE 111 = 20 1
~
w
o n:::
:f
s ' v
PROPOSED ADD IT ION FOR: PAMELA SANF~R~'
S ~I TE ADDRESS 3 17 HARD I EAVE NW
R~NTON , WA . 98055
OWNER PAMELA SANFORD:
C/O TOM W ILL lAMS
17980 BR ITTANY DR . SW
SEATTLE, WA. 98 166
SCOPE OF WORK :
CONSTRUCT 1 -( 2 STORY, 2 BEDROOM EACH)
DUPLEX WITH GARAGES UNDER ON EACH LOT.
LEGAL DISC.
LOTS 11 & 12 BLK • 47 HAYS & ROBERTS
SUB D I V I S ION OF N .H • LA TIMERS LAKE
WASH • PLAT AS RECORDED VOL. 28 PG •
38 OF KING CO . WASH. LOT 11 PARCEL #
318560-0055 , LOT 12 PARCEL #
318560-0056.
BOTH LOTS 11 & 12 ARE ZONED RMF
BU I LD I NG CODE -----I RC 2003 ED I T ION
PER CENT BOX IS
LOT AREA ------4500 sq . ft.
NEW CONST .----1620 sq . ft .
LOT COVERAGE ,36%
I MPERV I OUS SURFACES
LOT AREA ------4500 sq . ft.
N~W CONST .-----1620 sq . ft .
WALKS ~ DR IVES--598 sq . ft .
LOT COVERAGE 62 .5%
INDEX
PLAN TITLE
COVER SHEET
SITE PLAN
LANDSCAPE
STORM DRA I NAGE
DEMO PLAN
FOUNDATION
FLOOR JO 1ST
FLOOR PLANS
NORTH ELV
SOUTH ELV
E/W ELV .
ROOF PLAN
THRU SECT
DETAILS
GEN NOTES
STRUCTUAL
SHEET # REV I E\N CODE
PAM6SLMF
1A PAM6SL 18
1B PAM6SL 18
1C PAM6DRAN
2
3
4
5 ABC
6
7
8
9
10 A ~B
11
PAM6SH23
PAM6SH23
PAM6SH45
PAM6SH45
PAM6SH5A
PR2FL5CF
PAM6SH67
PAM6SH67
PAM6SHT8
PAM6SHT9
PAM6SH10
PAM6DETA
12 PAM6NOTE
LAST PG. PAM6STRU
PAMSDUPL DATE 9/3/05
111 = 20 1 01 t SCALE------------
SHEEr NO. APPROVED BY _________ O£-~
,
CODE NAME COVER '}~1~J)£~
PAM6COVF s, ! tvro;::tvl.'VG
~~~~--~-~--~--~--=-~~~B~
ItQI:/J
I
-. :a:: : -< . -0 . :,-:
~ .
::0:: : . « . • 0..: •
+ o
-
:0::::: -< . -0 -:.-: y. ,
:a::: : .« . .0... • OJ
0:::: ==>
U
W o o
W
PRIVATE
LAWN
APT 2
~:+~~=4==:=::::4===4=~~~ 0::::
~:+~~=4~==~~==~:~~~ W ~~~~~~~~~~~~~li~==~~~~~
LAWN
IVATE APT 3
IVATE APT 4
LAWN
EX 1ST NG WOOD
, HIGH 0 I N I NG
-LANDSCAPE PLAN
SCALE 1/8 11 = 1-0"
REMOVE
EXISTING
LARGE TREE
N
o + o
~ w
W
0::::
f-
V)
~ W
0:::: Z « :2 --.J
I 0:::: U W :z: w
W f-m z w u
~ z
w
> <{
w
LANDSCAPE NOTES
W
N
(J)
411 42 FULL SUN
20 FULL SUN
C---CARNATION 36 FULL SUN
V---VINICA 56 FULL SUN
G---GERANIUMS 60 FULL SUN
M---MARY 60
P---PANSEY 72 FULL SUN
S---SALVIA 20 FULL SUN
J---JUNIPER 42 FULL SUN
ALL BEDS TO BE I RRAGATED WITH
UNDER GROUND DR I P SYSTEM.
LAWN AREAS WITH AUTOMAT Ie
SPR I NKLER HEADS.
PAMSDUPL DATE:
SCALE 1/8"= 1 I 8/28/05
SHEEr NO. ~ NAME PAM6SL 18 1AB
!s\
:s :z
w > «
w
o
0::: « I
~rY
fI 0
+ 0
~
+ 0
~-+--29 ' 0 .00"-----.-11
N n ~ LO c..o
+ + + + 0 0 0 0
0 ~ N n ~ L()
CO ()) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
+ + + + + + + + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOPOG PAMS DUPLEX IS
NOTE 11
EX I ST I NG AND FINAL
(LOTS 11 AND 12 BLOCK 4 7 HAYS AND ROBERTS SUB D I V I S ION
OF N _ H _ lAT I MERS LAKE WASH _ PLAT AS RECORDED _) TOPOG
RUNS BAS I eLL Y LEVEL NORTH TO SOUTH _ D I SPLAYED TOPOG
I S FOR 3RD _ PLACE NW RUNN I NG AT A SUST A I NED GRADE OF
15 PERCENT FROM HARD I E AVE ON THE EAST, WEASTERL Y TO
THE WEST PROPERTY LINE OF LOT 12_
THE EX I ST I NG AND FINAL GRADE OF TH I S PROPOSAL WILL
FOLLOW THE EX I ST I NG GRADES OF BOTH 3RD PLACE NW AND
HARD IE NW. NO FILL WILL BE REQU I RED AND ONLY THE LOWER
LEVEL EXCA VA T ION WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE _ APPRO-
X I MA TEL Y (450 CU _ YDS .) .
CUT FROM NORTH WEST CORNER OF LOT 12
AND RED I STR I BUTE I T SOUTH WESTERLY FOR
FINAL GRADE.
PROJECT PAMSDUPL DATE:
1/8" = 1 ' 0" 9/2 '05
SCALE------------
APPROVED BY SHEET NO.
1 CODE NAME PAM6TOP2