HomeMy WebLinkAboutJ_Variance_Justification_180710_v1.pdfVariance Request Justification
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:
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;
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 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
The approval is the minimum variance that will accomplish the desired purpose
Justification is as follows:
We are requesting a variance because our community was permitted in unincorporated King County,
then transitioned into the City of Renton planning/zoning requirements after construction was
complete. The current R-4 zoning for detached structures requires a 25’ setback from the rear property
line, a standard which the vast majority of homes in our community do not currently comply with, and
can be readily seen on the City of Renton COR Maps website. In fact, the new developments across Nile
Ave from our community (albeit in unincorporated King County) also do not comply with this standard,
either. Our proposal to build an attached structure is intended to place the structure in a similar setback
to our next-door neighbor’s home as well as the majority of homes in the community. Specifically, we
are requesting an approved setback from the rear property line of 17 feet which allows us to achieve our
desired result of constructing a 28’7” x 18’ roof to cover a deck.
Our position is the enforcement of the code as it is written (forcing us to build a detached structure)
negatively impacts welfare of our next-door neighbor and neighborhood residents and increases
construction costs, whereas granting a variance allows the construction of a structure which blends in
with existing structures, costs less and preserves sight lines to the greenbelt for all residents.
We have also reviewed the plans for attached and detached structures with our next door neighbors,
whose view will be impacted by a detached structure. They have signed the HOA required Architectural
Compliance forms (included for reference) for the attached structure, and strongly prefer the attached
structure option.
RECEIVED
07/16/2018
amorganroth
PLANNING DIVISION