Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJ_Modification_Justification_240904_v1Justification for Modification of RMC 4-4-080.1.3.b and RMC 4-4-080.1.2.b for: 4304 SE 3rd Street, Renton WA 98059 Summary of request: Please allow my driveway replacement to be as wide as our old one at the property line adjacent to the right-of-way, and to allow a 16’ curb cutout to make the replacement functional as previously. Please allow the replacement driveway remain 2’ setback from the property line, leaving a gravel filled surface for sufficient drainage. Per the modification requirements; a. Substantially implements the policy direction of the policies and objectives of Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and the Community Design Element and the proposed modification is the minimum adjustment necessary to implement these policies and objectives; According to RMC 4-4-080.1.3.b, the maximum width of single loaded garage driveway shall not exceed 9 feet (9’) at the property line. The fact is that all the houses in our neighborhood are designed and developed back in 1959 with single loaded garage, but most of them and my house included now have double car driveway with a 16’ curb cutout, to accommodate now day’s life needs. A modification from 9’ to a double-car driveway might’ve been made and approved in the past before my ownership, and my request is to simply allow me to replace the existing double-car parking driveway, inside and at the property line. Our work is in keeping with the design of many other driveways in the neighborhood. And I believe it meets the minimum adjustment necessary to implement the policies and objectives. The Code RMC 4-4-080.1.2.b states that the driveway shall not be closer than five feet (5’) to any property line. My old driveway was laid right next to the property line, unknown of whether conformed to the code back in the past. Our driveway replacement is designed to have 2’ gravel filled pervious surface from the property line, to provide sufficient drainage between my property and neighbor’s. This is a significant improvement that benefits both me and my neighbor. Setting it further back to 5’ from the property line would require removing a good portion of the driveway, especially when the drainage purpose is met, doesn’t sound fair and reasonable to me as the homeowner. b. Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by the code requirements, based upon sound engineering judgement; My old driveway was severely damaged by tree roots that intruded under the surface. The replacement is flat with a great maintainability, unobtrusive, safe and has an impressive street appeal. This improvement is a positive contribution not only to my house but also to our neighborhood’s overall value. Since it’s just a replacement, our lot impervious ratio remains unchanged and is much lower than code requirement for environmental protection. Keeping the replacement the same size as it was before will have less environmental impact than cutting it up for reducing the size. c. Will not create substantial adverse impacts to other properties in the vicinity; The driveway replacement will improve the drainage between our property and the neighbor’s. It will not create adverse impacts and in contrary, it will be a positive contribution to our neighborhood’s overall value. If anything, reducing the width of our driveway would force us to park the 2nd car on the street, adding traffic, causing noise and disturbing to other properties in the vicinity. d. Conform to the intent and purpose of the code; I understand that the intention and the purpose of the codes are to reduce unnecessary impervious area. My driveway replacement is adding no additional impervious area. Our lot impervious ratio is much less that the code limit. Our work poses no negative impact to the environment. So yes it conforms to the intent and purpose of the code. e. Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; My driveway is next to a lot that has densely landscaped area adjacent to my property, so there’s no safety concern to the neighbor. And in the driveway replacement we redesigned it by having a 24” setback from the property line, to maintain safety, to improve drainage and aesthetics. It’s not fully up to the new code but considering that my house along with all others in the neighborhood was designed/developed 65 years ago, I believe it was built up to the code back then. Almost all houses driveways here have no setback from the property lines. There’s no way for me to trace back how building code has changed over the years, but as a responsible home owner I did my best to make sur our work is closer to the new code requirement. And as I mentioned that all houses in our neighborhood have single loaded garage, but most of them and my house included now have double car driveway with a 16’ curb cutout, whether it was made up to the code I have no means to track it down. Enforcing of the new building code would require re- excavation, re-fill and re-planting, it would not only be a finical burden to me as homeowner, but also a huge waist of materials, time and resources. The modification of allowing me to keep a double-car parking driveway inside and at the property line with a 16’ curb cutout, and to have a smaller setback at the side property line, is to keep with the design of all other driveways, and to harmonize the consistency with other properties in our neighborhood. The requests will cause no harm, bring no inconveniences and pose no disturbances to our neighbors.