Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJ_Variance_Justification_190612_v11 Variance 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: A. 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; B. 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; C. 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 D. The approval is the minimum variance that will accomplish the desired purpose. Justification is as follows: With respect to Condition A, we (the Applicants) submit that strict adherence to the rear yard setback, building coverage maximum, and impervious surface maximum requirements (i.e., not granting a variance) would deprive us of privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity. For example, a significant number of nearby properties (all or nearly all properties in the Parklane Court development) contain primary structures that encroach into the side yard setback area. Furthermore, all or nearly all properties in the vicinity (the Parklane Court development) have a covered patio area in their backyard, so as to provide privacy, shelter from the rain and/or shelter from the sun. We submit that, without a covered patio, our backyard is practically unusable due to privacy issues, rain during most of the year and/or extreme sun during the summer months (due to our backyard being south facing). Thus, without a variance being granted, we would be placed in a much different position than other property owners in our vicinity, and would suffer practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship. Even further, it is believed that the covered patios of all properties in the vicinity (the Parklane Court development) extend along the side yard in a manner such that the covered patios follow along the side of the house. That is, the side of the covered patio and the side of the house are aligned with one another. Requiring something different would deprive us of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity. 2 For at least the above reasons, we maintain that strict adherence to current development standards would not allow expansion of our home in a manner similar to neighboring property owners. We are requesting a variance due to special circumstances applicable to our property. Specifically, our property is classified as R-4. However, based upon its width and its size, our property would more properly be classified as an R-6 property. Accordingly, we believe that it would be more appropriate to apply R-6 standards. Specifically, according to RMC 4-2-110A, the minimum lot size for an R-4 property is 9,000 sqft and the minimum lot width for an R-4 property is 70 feet. Our property is 8,131 sqft in size and 60 feet in width, both of which clearly fall well under the R-4 minimums. Accordingly, our property fails to meet the minimums for an R-4 property on multiple counts and, therefore, should not be judged solely according to the standards associated with same. On the other hand, an R-6 property has a minimum lot size of 7,000 sqft and a minimum lot width of 60 feet. Based on its size and width, our property barely meets (at least, with respect to its width) the minimum standards of an R-6 property. Accordingly, if our property was judged in accordance with R-6 standards, the proposed project would meet the side yard setback, building coverage and impervious surface requirements. In addition, on information and belief, Applicants submit that other residential property owners in the vicinity (Parklane Court development) have homes that encroach on their side yard setbacks and include building and impervious surface coverages greater than what is allowed by current code. Again, if the variance was not granted, we would be deprived of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity. With respect to Condition B, 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 property is situated, due to the nature of the surrounding development pattern. There is a Native Growth Protection Easement for a Sensitive Area identified as 666450TR-A, which is located east of the project location. However, such area is offsite from the project and is separated from the proposed addition by the residence located at 5513 NE 1st Place. The distance from the nearest area of work is approximately 65 feet to Tract A. Accordingly, we believe that granting of the variance will not be detrimental to such Sensitive Area. As mentioned above, all or nearly all of the homes in the vicinity (Parklane Court development) encroach into the side yard setback, including the existing home on the property. Therefore, adding a covered patio that is in alignment with the side of existing home would be expected. Requiring something different would be unusual and would not conform to the surrounding development pattern. 3 Furthermore, many of the homes in the vicinity (Parklane Court development) are believed to be nonconforming with respect to impervious surface and building coverages. So, again, granting of a variance would not have a negative visual impact on the surrounding property owners, as granting the variance would allow our property to correspond to the existing development pattern. We have obtained a statement (which is included with the Variance Application) from our next- door neighbors whose property is immediately adjacent to the proposed covered patio, namely, Mike and Elisabeth Tran. Their property would be most directly impacted by the addition of the covered patio. Mike and Elisabeth understand that the covered patio will be about 5 feet from their property line and have indicated that they have absolutely no objection to the installation of the proposed covered patio. As shown in the pictures, they have a very good idea of the size and shape of the covered patio. Mike and Elisabeth, who are successful professionals and owners of a luxury home, would not have provided the attached statement if they believed that the value of their property would be harmed by granting of a variance. Although not set forth in their statement, we have had informal conversations as to how our covered patio might be beneficial to property values. It should be noted that we did not request statements from any of our other neighbors, as they would not be impacted as greatly as Mike and Elisabeth. For example, the proposed covered patio easily meets the rear yard setback requirement, so we did not obtain a statement from the neighbors immediately to the south of our home. With respect to Condition C, we believe that approval of the variance would not be considered a special privilege due to the fact that many structures in the vicinity (Parklane Court development) encroach into the side yard setbacks, in addition to having impervious surface and building coverages greater than levels allowed by code. We contend that the proposed variance would allow us to maximize the value of our property while remaining within the range of sizes and setback encroachments for homes in the surrounding neighborhood and R-4 zone. Granting of the variance would allow us to expand our home in a manner similar to other homes in the vicinity. Accordingly, no special privilege would be granted. With respect to Condition D, the variance request is only to allow for an approximately 2 ½ foot encroachment into the side yard setback, which is the minimum variance for a covered patio consistent with development patterns in the neighborhood. Again, the side of the covered patio would align with the side of the existing home, which is what we see with the other homes in our neighborhood. We have not asked to encroach into the setback beyond the distance associated with the existing home. Hence, only the minimum variance is requested. Furthermore, the proposed covered patio does not encroach into the rear yard setback. In fact, the rearmost portion of the covered patio would be about 5 feet away from the rear yard setback. This is important when considering the size of the proposed addition. 4 Specifically, we believe the size of the proposed addition is the minimum required to meet the project goals. Our desired purpose is to provide an outdoor recreational space with adequate weather protection and to provide privacy while outside and in our living room. Because our backyard is south facing, during the summer months, we experience extreme exposure from the sun. Thus, the covered patio must extend a significant-enough distance southwardly to provide adequate protection from the sun. During the rainy months, because the prevailing winds are from the south, rain blows against the back of our house. Again, the covered patio must extend a significant-enough distance southwardly to provide adequate protection from blowing rain. Thus, with respect to the impervious surface and building coverages, the size of the proposed addition is the minimum required to meet the project goals. For at least the above reasons, Applicants believe that the variance request is justified. Note: While we recognize that every situation is different, we believe that there are similarities between our situation and LUA18-000620, LUA 18-000504 and 15-000193. To the extent applicable, we rely on the decisions associated with same for their precedential value.