Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHamell letter to Gillia comments 03 17 2021 (02459157){21900/0001/02457228-1} Joseph A. Hamell ATTORNEY AT LAW jhamell@montgomerypurdue.com March 17, 2021 Brittany Gillia Department of Community & Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 bgillia@rentonwa.gov Re: PR21-000074 My Precious Home Variances / LUA21-000067 Dear Ms. Gillia: I represent Todd and Rebecca Campbell. The Campbells own the property directly south of the applicant’s property (parcel 3342700457) and an additional nearby property (parcel 3342700459). The Campbells request the City deny the applicants request for variances to increase top plate height; increase lot coverage; and to reduce front and rear yard setbacks. In addition to the comments below, the Campbells request the public comment period to be extended for another 60 days so that they can gather additional information to submit as part of their comments. An extension would be particularly appropriate here as the designated contact person for the City who could answer questions regarding the application was out of the office during a significant portion of the comment period. When requesting a variance, 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 of the following conditions exist. RMC 4-9-250(6). • That 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, 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; Montgomery Purdue PLLC March 17, 2021 Page 2 {21900/0001/02457228-1} • 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; • 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; • That the approval is a minimum variance that will accomplish the desired purpose. The applicant’s requests for variances related to increased top plate height; increased lot coverage and front and rear yard setbacks does not meet all of the criteria required to grant a variance. As a general matter, the size of the lot was known at the time the applicant purchased the lot. In light of the obvious knowledge that the lot was smaller and had building limitations, the applicant cannot complain that it is unfair to them that the code would provide for a smaller home than would be allowed to be built on a larger lot. There is nothing inherently unfair about enforcing the development code to the lot. The applicant will be able to build a home but not the same size home as could be built on a larger lot. As the development potential of the lot is known, the price of the lot reflects those limitations. Thus, the applicants’ investment expectations are fairly met by the application of the code as written. There is no indication that the residence the code would allow to be built would not be marketable. In fact, a smaller home would add to the housing diversity in the neighborhood. Request to increase maximum top plate height should be denied. The applicant will not suffer practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship by application of the development code. Application of the zoning code will not deprive the applicant of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners. The applicant argues that an increase in the top plate height will allow it to comply with RCC 4.2.115. However, RCC 4.2.115 requires 25% of the front façade to be doors or windows. There is no indication this standard could not be met by maintaining the top plate height. A nine foot ceiling is not required by the building code. Applicant would not be deprived of the reasonable use of their property if they designed their ceilings with an 8 foot height so that it could conform to the top plate height. While some buyers may prefer Montgomery Purdue PLLC March 17, 2021 Page 3 {21900/0001/02457228-1} 9 foot ceilings, there will be a robust market for a home with lower ceilings. The applicant will still be able build a marketable home. Applicant could also excavate the proposed basement deeper in order to meet the top plate height. It is unclear how a lower excavation would cause any additional damage to the trees which will remain on the property. Granting the variance will have a detrimental impact on the adjoining property owners. Increasing the height of the building will increase its bulk and reduce the existing view corridors. Request to decrease front and rear yard setbacks should be denied. The applicant will not suffer practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship. Application of the zoning code will not deprive the subject property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners. The size of the lot was known at the time the applicant purchased the lot. Knowing that the lot was smaller and had building limitations, the applicant cannot complain that it is unfair to them that the code would provide for a smaller home than would be allowed to be built on a larger lot. The applicant can still build a smaller home and there will be demand for that home in the current housing market. Applicant argues it’s request is similar to the variance granted in LUA18-000689. However, the rear yard setback in that matter was maintained at 20 feet. Here, the applicant asks for a ten foot reduction in rear yard setback in addition to a reduction in the front yard setback. No such cumulative setback was granted in the LUA18-000689. Thus, the denial of the setback variance will not subject the applicant to different treatment than other applicants. The reduction in the rear yard setback will place the building closer to the residence to the south. Given the request to increase the top plate height, this will increase the feeling of the proposed building's bulk compared to what would normally be allowed under the code. Further, the significant reduction of the rear setback will result in reduced privacy for both the applicant’s property and my clients’ property. Because of the proximity, it will be more difficult to maintain privacy to the interior of the homes. Any activity outside in the applicant’s rear yard will also have less privacy and will impact my clients’ property to a greater degree than it would if the set back in the code were maintained. Allowing the variance will have a detrimental impact on the neighboring properties and the applicant’s property. Montgomery Purdue PLLC March 17, 2021 Page 4 {21900/0001/02457228-1} The request to allowed increased lot coverage should be denied. The applicant asks for a variance to allow 68.2% of lot coverage versus 55%. This request should be denied. The application of the zoning code will not deprive the subject property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners nor will the applicant suffer practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship. The size of the lot was known at the time the applicant purchased the lot. Knowing that the lot was smaller and had building limitations, the applicant cannot complain that it is unfair to them that the code would provide for a smaller home than would be allowed to be built on a larger lot. The applicant can still build a smaller home and there will be demand for that home in the current housing market. While the applicant states the development will be similar in size to other homes in the area, those homes are on much larger lots so the proposed development will be much larger in proportion to the lot size. Application of the code will keep the development in proportion to the size of the lot and allow the applicant the same proportional use of the property as other property owners. The disproportionate size of the proposed development in relation to the size of the lot will increase the bulk of the building. Combined with the requested front and rear setback reduction and increased top plate height request; the increase bulk of the building will have substantial visual impacts on the neighboring property owners as their view corridors are more impaired than they would otherwise be if the requirements of the code were applied. The applicant wants to build a large house on a small lot in order to maximize the sale price of the house, but this is not the criteria required by the code. The applicant can build a house on the lot which would be smaller but not require a variance. A smaller house would still be marketable and would add price diversity to the mix of homes in the neighborhood. As the development limitations of the lot are reflected in its market price, it is fair to the applicant to apply those limitations rather than excusing them. The applicant’s variance requests should be denied. Sincerely, Joseph A. Hamell JAH:jah