HomeMy WebLinkAboutJ_Variance_Justification_250403_v5
Variance Request Justification - Jarzynka & Hirsh Residence
Please provide a written statement separately addressing and justifying each of the issues to be considered
by the City. The burden of proof as to the appropriateness of the application lies with the applicant. In order
to approve a variance request, the Reviewing Official must find ALL the following conditions exist:
• (A) The applicant suffers practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship and the variance is necessary
because of special circumstances applicable to subject property, including size, shape, topography, and
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.
For Condition #A, we (the Applicants) submit that strict adherence to the rear yard setback would deprive us of
privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity. For example, a significant number of nearby properties
on our street contain primary/secondary/tertiary structures that encroach into the rear yard setback area. Also, as
we look at our neighborhood zoning area in Kennydale, we have seen a number of recently built properties that
were built within the 25’ rear yard setback (See Exhibit 1).
For our street, you can see that the majority of the properties on our street have homes, structures and/or decks
that are within the 25’ rear yard setback. For N 36th St, being within the current 25’ rear yard setback is
commonplace. Without a variance being granted for our rear yard setback, we would be placed in a much different
position than other property owners in our vicinity and would suffer practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship
(See Exhibit 2).
• (B) 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;
For Condition #B, this variance request would 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 for the following reasons:
o As noted in the “project narrative”, there has been a deck on our property since we purchased the home
in 2015 that was installed by the Seller. We are replacing the “old” deck because there were health and
safety concerns as noted in the narrative. The new deck is expected to have the same/similar impact as
the old deck that has been in place since 2015; the old deck was not, and the new deck will not be
materially detrimental to the welfare or property to our vicinity or zone.
o The height of the new deck is not changing and does not impact our uphill or downhill neighbor’s
property.
o There will be no cover on the new deck so it will not impede any uphill neighbor’s view or downhill
neighbor’s light exposure.
o Our neighbor directly North, who shares our rear property line, has a large parcel. The portion of her
parcel that our rear property line touches does not have any structure(s) on this portion of her parcel
(See Exhibit 3).
o We see the new deck as giving us the privileges that are enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity.
The granting of the variance would allow our property to correspond to the existing neighborhood
pattern.
• (C) The 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; and...
For Condition #C, there are many homes on our street (N 36th Steet) with structures and decks within the 25’ set
back. We believe that approval of the variance would not be considered a special privilege due to the fact that
many structures on our street and in the vicinity encroach into the rear yard setbacks. This deck is a huge part of
our lives. It is a space that we are constantly using and has a value to us beyond the cost or potential resale value
it provides for our home. We contend that the proposed variance would allow us to use the value of our property
(similar to others in our neighborhood) while remaining within the similar range of setback encroachments for
homes in our surrounding neighborhood and zoning. Approving the variance request would allow us to use our
home in a way that means so much to our family that is like other homes in the vicinity (See Exhibit 4) while not
adversely impacting our neighbors. Accordingly, no special privilege would be granted.
• (D) The approval is the minimum variance that will accomplish the desired purpose.
For Condition #D, the deck’s width we are replacing was 2’ shorter (8’ vs 10’) than the new deck that we are
constructing. After living with the old deck for the last ~10 years, we gathered an understanding of the old deck’s
“useable space” limitations. The additional 2’ in width that the new deck provides is needed to allow the space to
have more function when spending time on the deck, having family over, etc. We have not requested to encroach
into the setback beyond the distance associated with the completion of our deck that will provide a more usable,
functional outdoor living space that is invaluable to our family’s enjoyment of our home and that which is common
for our neighborhood. The new deck does not encroach on the side yard setbacks and is not covered. Therefore,
only this minimum variance is requested. Our desired purpose is to provide an adequate, structurally sound, safe
and usable outdoor space that will create a lot of happiness for our family while not adversely impacting others.
The size of the proposed deck is the minimum required to meet the project goals.
For at least the above reasons, Applicants believe that the variance request is justified.
NOTE: While we understand that every situation is different, we believe that there are similarities between our
situation and LUA19-000132, LUA18-000504 and LUA15-000193. To the extent applicable, we rely on the decisions
associated with same for their precedential value.
Exhibit 1
3927 Park Ave N and 3921 Park Ave N
912 N 37th St and 1006 N 37th St
1005 N 37th St
Exhibit 2
Below we show some of the properties on the uphill part of our street with structures, decks, etc. within the 25’ rear
yard setback. The red outline is roughly 25’ from the rear property line.
Below is the rough ~20’ distance that are new deck would be from the rear property line.
Wider aerial shot of our street and neighboring N 37th St.
Exhibit 3
Aerial shot of our North Neighbor’s (Mrs. Robinson) portion of her lot that we share our rear property line with.
Exhibit 4
Aerial view of a portion of our neighborhood.
3602 Lake Washington Blvd, 904 N 36th St, and 910 N 36th St.
1100 N 36th St, 1108 N 36th St, 1110 N 36th St (subject property), and 1116 N 36th St