Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJ_Variance_Request_Justification_Hopkins_210219_v1Variance Request Justification Project Name: Hopkins Shed Variance Owners / Applicants: Susan Hopkins and Marjorie Lynn Project Location: 15005 132nd Ave., SE, Renton, WA 98058 Reference: CODE20-000601 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 R eviewing Official must find ALL the following conditions exist: 1) 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; 2) 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; 3) The approval shall not constitute a gran t 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 4) The approval is the minimum variance that will accomplish the desired purpose. With respect to Condition 1) we, the Applicants, submit that strict adherence to the setback requirements regarding placement of the shed on the lot (i.e., not granting a variance) would deprive us of privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity. The shape of the lot, with the location of the primary residence, septic tank and drainfield, eliminates the possibility of placing the shed in the rear yard. The subject property is a pie -sliced shaped lot with a 970 square foot, one story rambler built in 1966. The septic tank is located behind the house, with the drain field lying partially beneath a concrete pad and extending beyond it in a northwestern direction abutting the western boundary. The house is less than ten feet from the southern boundary, and all el ectrical and water utilities are located on that side. Most of the property is open space. It was suggested that the shed could be relocated at the western perimeter of the property. This move would present multiple difficulties: a) Location of the septic drainfield. b) Tree removal and risk of damage. Removal of several mature trees would be required at the fence line: Cotinus, Stewartia and 3 Arborvitae. Impact on morning sunlight and tree detritus add to conflicts with this placement. Each of our two neighbors has a mature Prunus at their fence lines, deciduous trees which are well recognized for susceptibility to disease and insects. Prunus typically begins to decline after 10 to 15 years, and these trees were here when we purchased the property 18 years ago. Weak branches, limbs and leaves drop on our side of the fence every year, putting the shed at risk for damage. c) The structural integrity of the building is at risk for this type of move. d) Our neighbors’ enjoyment of their view, morning sunlight for their mature plantings, as well as privacy for all parties would be affected. e) Relocation would make the entry door and windows on the west side of the shed unusable and impossible to maintain. Its use as an art workspace requires maximum natural light. The shed is situated in its current location to optimize natural lighting while being mindful of setback areas and distance from the house. Given that relocating the shed is impractical for these reasons, and that the lot is fronted by two str eets, we contend it is necessary in this case for placement of the shed to be in its current location, the side yard between the house and street. Since the configuration of neighboring lots typically includes a usable rear yard, those property owners have more freedom as they can easily make use of their large back yards for additional structures, whether for storage, entertaining or other uses. They can have outbuildings and expanded garages that include workspaces, along with an expectation of privacy, a nd we have a right to it as well. We are asking for a small portion of our side yard to be considered the equivalent of a rear yard for this purpose and contend that strict application of the code would deprives us of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity. With respect to Condition 2), we believe that granting 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 the subject property is located. The presence of the shed offers no threat to t he safety of the applicants, to other structures on the property, to our neighbors or to their properties. The shed does not intrude into clear vision areas. It is clear of the septic drainfield. It is situated on the lot as far from the front and side streets as possible, while maintaining enough distance from the back property line so as not to impact the neighbors’ view and enjoyment of their properties. It has been painted to attractively match our house. We expect that this improvement will increase p roperty values, from ours to our neighbors to the City’s. We have obtained a statement, attached, from our neighbor, David James, who has the least obstructed view of the shed. David would not have provided the statement if he believed that the value of his property would be harmed by granting of a variance. Although not included in the statement, we’ve had informal conversations as to how the outbuilding might be beneficial to property values. See “Appendix - Statement from David James.” With respect to Condition 3), we believe that approval of the variance would not be considered a special privilege since there are multiple properties in our immediate neighborhood with accessory structures between the primary residence and street. We’ve identified and hav e included photographs of six (6) of them as examples, per the attached “Appendix - Neighborhood Examples.” We contend that the proposed variance will allow us to maximize the value and usage of our property while remaining within required setbacks for the R-4 zone. Accordingly, no special privilege would be granted. With respect to Condition 4) The requested variance is to allow for the shed to remain in the side yard between the house and street for the reasons stated above. As it does not encroach into front, side or rear yard setbacks, and exceeds the required distance from the house, only the minimum variance is requested. For at least the above reasons, Applicants believe that the variance request is justified.