Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutC_UsseryResponsetoPublicComments_v1Phillip & Heather Ussery 1024 N 36th ST Renton, WA 98056 March 8, 2023 City of Renton Community & Economic Development – Planning Division 1055 S Grady Way – 6th Floor Renton, WA 98057 To Whom It May Concern: This letter is in response to the public comments submitted on our project. Ms. Segur suggested that allowing this size of a dwelling will drastically deteriorate the view for neighboring and uphill properties.  We have not requested any adjustments for the maximum height requirement for our property.  On the last page of this document you will find a photo that I took from the street in front of Ms. Segur's property for reference. Given that Ms. Segur's property is located two houses uphill from our property and we have not requested a height variance, the height of our new home will not be much if any taller than the home that is between our home and Ms. Segur's home. Additionally, when you look at the front and rear setbacks for Ms. Segur's home, they are also less than the 25-foot requirement that is now in effect. With that in mind, our new will have little to no impact on Ms. Segur's view.  The property that will be impacted the most by our new home will be our next-door neighbors (1030 N 36th ST) who are immediately uphill from our property. We met with the homeowner before the comment period started and walked them through our plans. During this meeting they were interested to learn what we are planning, however they express no concerns during our discussion. Additionally, they did not submit any feedback on our project during the comment period.  We also met with our neighbors across the street (1013 N 36 th ST) and walked them through our plans. During our discussion, she expressed no concerns about our new home project and said she thought it would be good for the neighborhood/property values. She also did not send any feedback during the comment period.  We have also offered to meet with Ms. Segur to discuss our project to discuss her concerns as well as walk her through the details of our project. Ms. Segur has been unresponsive for our offer. The other concern that was expressed by both Ms. Segur & Daoguang Yu was the impact on drainage for the hillside related to the requested impervious surface and building footprint.  Obviously, drainage is an important factor for any construction project in a wet climate like Washington. That said, the engineering work being done for our new home will account for this and will likely be better than what is currently in place on a home that was built in 1949.  The environmental factors with our property are substantially similar to properties located across the street. While those homes are located within the R-8 zone, the home my wife and I are trying to build will be less than what the city has deemed to be safe per the building code that is allowed within an R-8 zone. At the end of the day, the concerns expressed by Joyce Segur and Daoguang Yu ultimately come down to resisting change for the sake of resisting change. While it is important to consider the impact that the proposed variances will have on our neighbors, the criteria for determining variances is clearly defined. Criteria: A. 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.  Our property is a 5,400 square foot lot located within the R-6 zone requires a minimum lot size of 7,000 sq ft and minimum lot width of 60 feet and minimum lot depth of 90 feet. Our property is substantially smaller than all these minimums. Following the zoning rules that are intended for much larger properties does pose significant paratactical difficulties and unnecessary hardship on our family as we build our new home in a way that meets our needs and is consistent with nearly all the new construction that is being built in our neighborhood. Furthermore, when we agreed to purchase our property, it was zoned as R-8 and later changed to R-6. 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 impact of the variances that we have requested will not be materially different vs. building a home that follows the R-6 setbacks. 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.  Given that our property was rezoned, our property is now considered to be a non-conforming given that it is substantially smaller than the minimum lot requirements within the R-6 zone. The change occurred through no fault of our own. Allowing us to build a home that is similar in size and shape as other homes in the area will not grant any special privilege. Not allowing this variance will however be materially detrimental for our ability to enjoy the same rights and privileges that are enjoyed by our neighbors.  Recently I spoke with Marci Palmer who was on the City Council at the time our property was rezoned. Marci assured me that the decision to rezone was made with the expectation that variances would be necessary to address the needs of developing properties, such as ours, that were negatively impacted by rezoning the area and causing our property to become nonconforming. D. That the approval is a minimum variance that will accomplish the desired purpose.  The purpose of our project is to build a home that has a well-designed layout and is similar in size and shape to other new home being built in our neighborhood. What we have requested is the minimum variance that will accomplish this purpose. As you review the bullet points I have outlined above addressing each of the points listed in the criteria, my hope is that you will agree that our project meets all the criteria. I firmly believe that what we have requested meets the letter of the criteria that has been outlined. I also believe that the home we are trying to build is consistent with other homes on our street that have been built with similar dimensions on similar sized lots. These variances are also consistent with the two variances that were recently approved on 37 th with similar sized lots (parcel #8899600060 and parcel #3628600007). Finally, as my wife and I have talked with other Kennydale residents about our project, many have expressed excitement for what we are doing and the positive impact it will have on the curb appeal of our neighborhood. Some even chose to go so far as submit a positive comment on our behalf. We love being a part of the Kennydale community and want to be good neighbors. Respectfully, we ask that you approve the variances so that our family can build a home that will have a lasting benefit to the overall appeal of our neighborhood and allow our family to stay in Kennydale for years to come. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best, Phillip & Heather Ussery Photo Referenced Above: