HomeMy WebLinkAboutITEM II-A-1CITY OF
WASHINGTON
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subiect: Appeal of VAR03-0013 (Closed record hearing) Date:
1/14/2004
Department: Attachments: Mr. Jeff Lindell's Budget Impact:
Planning Appeal (Submitted 1/2/04); HE's Dec.
24, 2003 decision; HE's Dec. 16,
2003 public hearing minutes; Photo
exhibit submitted by Mr. Lindell at
Dec. 16, 2003 public hearing; HE staff
report; Applicant's variance
application.
Administrative Recommendation:
City Council to affirm the Hearing Examiner's decision denying the variance application. However,
should the City Council move to grant the appeal and overturn the Hearing Examiner decision, staff
recommends that the variance be conditioned to require: a) The applicant to secure necessary permits;
and, b) That the patio be constructed in substantial conformance to the applicant's site plan.
Background Summary:
In November 2003, Mr. Jeff Lindell filed a variance application (Case File VAR03-0013) to allow a
covered, unenclosed patio roof addition to an existing single family dwelling to encroach into the required
rear yard setback. The property is zoned R2 ("Single Family Residential").
On December 16, 2003, the Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on the variance request. On
December 24, 2003, the Hearing Examiner issued her decision denying the applicant's variance request.
On January 2, 2004 Mr. Lindell filed an appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision. In accordance with
Auburn City Code, the City Council is to hold a closed record hearing on the variance appeal.
Analysis:
In denying the variance, the Hearing Examiner's decision noted that she did so "with some regret".
The "regret" is likely based on the finding within the decision that several of Mr. Lindell's neighbors
testified that they have no objection to the proposal and recommended that the variance be approved.
(Four neighbors also signed a petition supporting the applicant's request; there were no objections.)
Reviewed by Council & Committees: Reviewed by Departments & Divisions:
[] Arts Commission COUNCIL COMMITTEES: [] Building [] M&O
[] Airport [] Finance [] Cemetery [] Mayor
[] Hearing Examiner [] Municipal Serv. [] Finance [] Parks
[] Human Services [] Planning & CD [] Fire [] Planning
[] Park Board []Public Works [] Legal [] Police
[] Planning Comm. [] Other [] Public Works [] Human Resources
Action:
Committee Approval: []Yes []No
Council Approval: []Yes []No Call for Public Hearing / /__
Referred to Until / /
Tabled Until / /
Councilmember: Singer Staff: Krauss
Meeting Date: January 20, 2004 Item Number: II.A.1
AUBURN * THAN YOU IMAGINED
WASHINGTON
APPEAL OF
HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION
Appeal is filed with the City Clerk
Or Deputy City Clerk
THE FOLLOWING TO BE COMPLTED BY CITY OF AUBURN
Date of City Council Hearing;
Deadline For Filini; AI)oeal':
THE FOLLOWING TO BE COMPLy- i cD BY APPELLANT
Name of ApDella~;~):
Phone:
Agent:
E-mail:
Phone:
E-mail: ,,
Page 1 of 3
STATEME~NTOFAPPEAL
The applicant must identify clearly and specifically the following:
1. The ~rors which the Appellant believes were made in the action of decision which is
being appealed, or the procedural irregularities associated with that action or de~ision.
While I don't believe that the ci(v staff and heuring examiner made errors based on the
request put forth and the law as written, I think that they could have shown mare leniency
far what is allowed in comparison to what was requested (i.e. Deck versus a a~n~ered patio).
In this case where the patio cover is at gr_nd_e level it is verv comzn~able to
decks £ ' .
~hat wl~le off of the first floor, the first floor ~s the equivalent of a second floor (either
large foundations or daylight basements are under the decks).
2. Specific reasons why the City's action or decision should be reversed or modified.
We request that the action be reversed because:
a. In this setting there is little a~fference between a deck (which is allowed) and a
patio cover;
b. Thepatio cover does not look out of place andmatches the arCchitecture;
c. There were no complaints from the pub~c regara~ng the request:
ct Several neighbors came to the hearing in support of the patio cover;
e. The average rear setback is about twenty-nine feet;
f. The lot coverage is within limits and identicalty comparable to neighboring
lots and,.
g. Otherpatio covers with similar cirCUmsttmces do exist in Ixtlcel~
The harm which is expected to be suffered by the Appellant as a result ofthe action
or decision being appealed. If the Appellant is a group or organi:,a~ion, the harm to
any one or more members or the group or orgaaizafion must be stated.
The sole purpose of building the patio cover is to provide protection from the rc~,~n for a
whirlpool tub. My wife (Elena) has hadRheumatoid Arthritis for three year~ At 38 Years
almost every morning, parlicular!y in the winter when it is wet, she wakes up stlff and sore
from the Arthriti~ The whir~oool therapy will alleviate some ofthispain and stt~9~ess.
Ad~tional~, the financial ir, ws~ent of four thousand dollars plns labor will be a loss. The
project is substanfial~ finished, an errar that I whol~v admit was wrong. I have made a
serious mistake in forgoing the permit process for which I am very sorry.
4. The desired outcome of the appeal.
We would lilce the outCOme of the appeal to be allowed the privilege to keep and tn~mplete
our patio cover far the sole tntrpose of provia~ng some relief form my wife's Rhe&~natoid
.4rthritis. I fully adrnit that l was in the wrong in proceeding without a permit azat ifa
penal~y is a warranted solution; then ! can understand that.
We wouM like to invite any or all of the council to come and visit our house so that they may
see the circumstances of the patio cover compared to the decks on either side of us.
STATI=Mr:NT OF APPEAL
The Appellant must identify clearly and specifically the folloWing:
1. The errors which the Appellant believes were made in the action or decision
which is being appealed, or the procedural irregularities associated with that
action or decision.
Specific reasons why the City's action or decision should be rewersed or
modified. '
The harm which is expected to be suffered .by the Appellant as a result of
the action or decision being appealed. If the Appellant is a group or
organization, the harm to.any one or more members or the group or
organization must be stated.
4. The desired outcome of the appeal.
You may provide your responses here, or preferablyl attach a separate typed
Iresponse to each of the above.
Page 2 of 3
Signature of Appellant(a):
To me Known to De the individual(s) described ~n a~d who execUted the with~and
fore. going instrument, and acknowledged that }'~ signed the same as
/*/7-~ frae and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein
mentioned.
Given under my hand and official seal this
2, ~ 0/-/~.
_ ,,
~'~/ day of ~"~n. ~.44(~- ,
Notary Public in and for the State of/V'~'
Residing in ,',',','~,~'/4~
'Do Not Mar~ Belqw This Line
Appeal File Number Assigned by the City:
Date Scheduled for Hearing:.
Page 3 of 3
CITY OF
WASHINGTON
Peter B. Lewis, Mayor
25 Went Main Street * Auburn WA 98001-4998 * www.cl..aubum.wa.u~, 253-931-3000
December 24, 2003
Jeffand Elena Lindell'
5201 Nathan Loop SE
Auburn, WA 98092
RE: APPLICATION NO. VAR03-0013
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Lindell:
Attached is the Hearing Examiner's official decision regarding your request that was considered by the Hearing
Examiner on December 16, 2003.
If you have any questions regarding the attached, please give us a call.
Sincerely,
Paul Krauss, ^ICP
Director
PK:pz
Attachment
cc: Building Department
Public Works Department
City Clerk
AIIBI IR NI · MORE ]I-IAN YOU IMAGINED
WASHINGTON
FINDINGS AND DECISION
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF AUBURN
APPLICATION:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
APPLICATION FILED:
SEPA STATUS:
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING:
DECISION ISSUED:
DECISION:
STAFF REPRESENTATIVES:
PUBLIC TESTIMONY:
WRITTEN TESTIMONY:
VAR03 -0013
Jeff and Elena Lindell
Variance to the rear yard setback requirements
5201 Nathan Loop SE, Auburn, WA
November 5, 2003
N/A
December 16, 2003
December 24, 2003
Denied
David Osaki, Community Development Adminislrator
Terry Huet, Karl Heilbom, Dave Turner
Exhibit #1: Case file
INTRODUCTION
After due consideration oftha evidence presented by the applicant, all evidence elicited during the public
hearing, and as a result of the personal inspection of the subject property and surrounding area by the Hearing
Examiner, the following Findings of Fact and conclusions shall constitute the decision of the Hearing Examiner
on this application.
HE,DEC,VAR03-0013
Page 2
Findings and Decision
Application No. VAR03-0013
FINDINGS OF FACT
The applicant, Mr. Jeff Lindell, has submitted a variance request to reduce the required rear
yard setback for a single-family residence from 25 feet to 21 feet for property located at 5201
Nathan Loop. SE. (Lot 13, Lakeland Division No 7).
The subject property is zoned R2 (Single Family Residential) and is approximately 7,095
square feet in area (0.16 acres). The minimum lot size in the R2 zone is 6,000 square feet.
The lot is slightly irregularly shaped, with a 59-foot long front lot line; a 76 foot-long rear lot line
and 105 foot long side lot lines. The subject properly is fiat. The lot to the west, which shares
the common rear lot line with the subject properly, does slope sharply downward from the
subject property.
The applicant proposes to cover his rear yard patio area with an open, unenclosed roof
structure approximately 345 square feet in area. The patio cover is attached to the house
primarily along the house's rear portion with just a small portion attached to and extending
along the side of the house (south side). The roof structure covers a ground level patio area.
The purpose of the roof structure is to allow the construction/installation of a covered hot tub
area in order to assist the applicant's wife with her rheumatoid arthritis.
The applicant indicates the patio roof cover is pitched (in three directions) and is 15 feet tall at
its highest point. The structure is substantially complete as a stop work order was issued after
it was found that construction occurred without the necessary permits. The applic'ant has
since tiled for the required permit but it cannot be issued as proposed unless a variance is
granted. The applicant's reasons outline the difficulties he had with a contractor and explains
why the construction occurred without the required permits. The applicant is apologetic for
pursuing the work without the required permits.
Because the covered patio is attached to the main dwelling, it must meet the setbeck
requirements of the principal structure. There are no rear yard exemptions for covered patios.
Auburn City Code (ACC) 18.14.040 (F)(4) establishes a 25 foot rear yard setback requirement
in the R2 zone. The applicant's site plan shows that existing house is setback back: about 36
feet from the rear lot line. The site plan shows the covered patio setback approximately 21
feet from the rear lot line.
The case file (VAR03-0013) and its contents are hereby incorporated by reference.
At the time of the public hearing, many neighbors in the area appeared to testify that they have
no objection to the proposal and are recommending that the City of Auburn apprew~ the
variance.
HL~DEC\VAR03-0013
Page 3
Findings and Decision
Application No. VAR03-0013
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Although certain variance criteria appear to have been met, the StalTconcluded and recommended to the
undersigned that a variance should be denied as the applicant has not met the burden of proof in demonstrating
that it is consistent with all of the criteria necessary to grant a variance as outlined in Section 18.70.010 of the
Zoning Ordinance. An analysis of the application against the required variance criteria follows.
That there are unique physical conditions including narrowness or shallowness of lot si~.,e or shape,
or exceptional topographical or other physical conditions peculiar to and inherent in the particular
lot; and that, as a result of such unique physical conditions, practical difficulties or unnecessary
hardships arise in complying with provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
The applicant notes that the location of the house on the property allows for a larger rear yard area in
comparison to the other lots in the neighborhood. Because of this, even with the proposed roof patio cover,
there is still an average rear yard setback to the entire house of about 29 feet. Thc applicant also states that
the patio cover is on the ground floor. Adjacent homes have elevated uncovered decks that e:aand into the
rear yard. Because the applicant's patio cover is at grade, it does not look out of place in contrast to the
neighboring elevated decks.
Finally, the applicant states that the property to the west is down a sloped hillside and is not affected by the
covered patio addition to the home. The slope gives the appearance of greater distance between the two
homes.
While these are valid reasons to document why the character of the neighborhood will not be adversely
affected (see criteria 3 below), staff f'mds that they are not necessarily unique physical or topographical
conditions peculiar to or inherent in the lot as required by the criteria. In the absence of additiinnal
justification, this criteria has not been met.
The applicant was invited to submit additional justifications or argument on this point, but did not do so.
2. That, because of such physical conditions, the development of the lot in strict conformity with the
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance will not allow a reasonable and harmonious use of such lot.
The applicant notes that removing the four to five foot portion of the covered patio extending into the
required rear yard setback would result in the patio cover losing its aesthetic appeal and that the intended
use of the patio would be severely "muted".
As noted in the discussion on criteria tgi above, there is no apparent unique physical feature of the lot that
warrants the need for the variance. The fact that the patio would look "chopped" is a result of the patio
having already been conslmcted. The applicant could have cons~acted a well-designed aesthetically
pleasing covered patio in the rear yard extending 11 feet offofthe existing house without the need for a
variance.
That the variance, if granted, will not alter the character of the neighborhood, or be detrimental
to surrounding properties in which the lot is located. For nonconforming single-familly homes,
this finding is determined to be met if the features of the proposed variance are consistent with
other comparable features within 500 feet of the proposal.
HE~EC~VAR03-0013
Page 4
Findings and Decision
Application No. VAR03-0013
The applicant states that the patio cover matches the architecture oftbe existing house and neJighboring
homes. In addition, the applicant notes that even with the addition, the lot coverage does not exceed the
35% maximum allowed under the R2 zone.
Also, the applicant has submitted a petition signed by owners of the two lots immediately to the south and
the two lots immediately to the north of the subject properly, on the same side of the street. The petition
notes that these p~operty owners do not see any hindrance to the enjoyment of their respective lots resulting
fi.om the applicant's proposed patio cover placement. The petition also indicates that the patio cover fits the
architecture and looks aesthetically leasing.
Staffand the Hearing Examiner concur with the applicant's reasoning.
That the special circumstances and conditions associated with the variance are not a result of the
actions of the applicant or previous owners.
The applicant states that the existing house (not including the addition) has a large rear yard setback (36
feet). When the addition is considered, the applicant notes that there would still be an average setback of at
least 29 feet to the house. The patio cover itself would have a setback that is greater than the more elevated
attached decks on the adjacent properties.
However, the condition necessitating the variance is the applicant's construction of the patio ,cover without
fn'st pursuing necessary permits. Had the applicant pursued the permit process in advance of construction
then the applicant could have designed the structure in accordance with the required setback. The variance
is necessitated by the action of the owner's agent (or perhaps more appropriately the owner's initial
conltactor).
Although it is very unfortunate that the applicant's first con~'actor did not apply for a variance before he
started the construction, he failed to comply with the set back requirements.
Literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would deprive the applicant of rights
commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district.
Literal interpretation of the code would not deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by others. The applicant
does cite the presence of uncovered decks, above grade, on neighboring properties that extend into the
required rear yard setback. However, the applicant too could construct an uncovered deck feature on to his
home that extends into the required rear yard provided it is consistent with yard projections allowed by
ACC 18.48.070.
The approval of the variance will be consistent with the purpose of the Zoning Code and the zoning
district in which the property is located.
Granting of thc variance would not be consistent with the purpose oftbe zoning code. Thc zoning code
does provide for relief fi.om code standards provided that variance criteria can be demonstrated. In this
case the applicant is not been able to show that the criteria have been satisfied.
The variance will not allow an increase in the number of dwelling units permitted by the zoning
district.
HE~DEC~VAR03.0013
P~e5
Findings and Decision
Application No. VAR03 -0013
Not applicable.
8. The authorization of such variance will not adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan.
There is no indication that the Comprehensive Plan will be adversely affected.
9. The variance shall not allow a land use that is not permitted under the zoning district in which the
property is located.
The variance request relates to a single-family residential use. Single-family residences are a permitted use
in the R2 zone.
10. The variance shall not change any regulations or conditions established by surface mining permits,
conditional use permits or contract rezones authorized by the City Council.
There are no other regulations or conditions that apply.
HE, DEC,VAR03-0013
P~e6
Findings and Decision
Application No. VAR03-0013
DECISION
Based on thc applicant's submittal and on thc Facts and Findings and Conclusions of thc staffrcport, and thc
evidence from the public hearing, the Hearing Examiner must concur, with some regret, with the Staff
recommendation that the variance request to reduce the required rear yard setback be denied.
Dated this 242 day of December, 2003, pursuant to the authnritv eranted under Chapter 18.66, Zoning
Ordinance, City of Auburn.
Diane L. VunDerbeek, Hearing Examiner
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Any party of record who feels the decision of the Examiner is based on error of procedure, fact or judgment, or
the discovery of new evidence may file a written request for reconsideration with the Hearing Examiner no later
than seven days fi'om the date of mailing of the decision. Reconsideration requests should be addressed to:
Hearing Examiner, 25 West Main Slxeet, Auburn, WA. 98001-4998.
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The decision of the Hearing Examiner is final unless a written appeal to Council is filed by a party of record
within 10 calendar days from the date of mailing of the Examiner's report. The appeal must'be filed with the City
Clerk and state the basis of appeal which may be errors of fact, procedural errom, omissions from the record,
errors in interpretations of the Comprehensive Plan or new evidence. See Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.66 for
specific information. The appeal forms can be obtained from the City Clerk. Any appeal to this de, cision must be
filed no later than January 5, 2004, by 5:00 p.m. with the City Clerk at the Auburn City Hall, 25 West Main,
Auburn, 98001-4998.
HE,DEC,VAR03-0013
P~¢7
Findings and Decision
Application No. VAR03o0013
DECLARATION OF MAILING
CITY OF AUBURN )
)
COUNTY OF KING - )
On the 24th day of December, 2003, I deposited into the United States of America mail, postage
prepaid, copies of the foregoing addressed to the applicant and parties of record.
I declare under penalty of perjtuy of the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is tree and
Signed at Auburn this 24~ day of December, 2003.
Carolyn Brown
Department of Planning & Community Development
HE'DEC, VAR03-0013
Page 8
HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 16, 2003 PUBLIC HEARING.
The meeting of the Auburn Heating Examiner was held on December 16, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. in
the Council Chambers of the Auburn City Hall. Those in attendance were as follows:
HEARING EXAMINER: Diane L. VanDerbeek
STAFF: Community Development Administrator David Osaki, Planner II Sean Martin and
Carolyn Brown, Secretary
Ms. VanDerbeek called the meeting to order at explaining the order of procedures and swore in
staff and those in the audience intending on testifying.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
VAR03-0013 is a variance to allow an attached unenclosed patio roof addition to an
existing single family dwelling to encroach into the required rear yard setback. The
request is from Mr. Jeff Lindell for his property located at 5201 Nathan Loop SE.
Community Development Administrator Osaki presented the staff report. The property is
located in the R-2 (Single Family Residential) zone. A 25 foot rear yard setback is
required. The applicant's site plan shows the addition is proposed to set back 21 feet
from the rear lot line.
For the purpose of the staffpresentation, Community Development Administrator Osaki
said he would summarize the staff report focusing on two considerations related to the
specific variance criteria.
The first concept is whether granting the variance would have a negative impact on the
character of the neighborhood. The structure is 15 foot tall, aesthecially appealing and
attached to the house. Staff received a petition from neighbors indicating the addition
would not impact them. Based on these reasons, Staffconcurs that the variance would
not have an adverse impact on the character of the neighborhood. There is, however, a
second broad variance criteria concept relating to special circumstances applicable to the
property requiring the need for the variance. To grant a variance requires finding that all
of the criteria have been met. Staffis recommending denying the variance due to the
inability to make a positive finding for this specific variance criteria.
Hearing Examiner VanDerbeek asked if the patio cover is just a shelter. Conununity
Development Administrator Osaki answered yes, that it is just a roof cover fi)r the patio
area.
Hearing Examiner VanDerbeek asked for public comments and Jeff Lindell, the applicant
responded. He provided Hearing Examiner VanDerbeek pictures of the site taken from
a different angle (with blue tarp). The pictures also show a house two doors away that
has a projecting deck with the same impact and appearance.
PAGE 1
HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 16, 2003 PUBLIC HEARING.
Heating Examiner VanDerbeek stated that if she allows this will there be additional
applications from other homes that would need to be granted unless a special
circumstance can be found. She also asked if Mr. Lindell had the proper permits. Mr.
Lindell answered that he started to build before the permits were issued.
Heating Examiner VanDerbeek stated that she had no further questions.
Hearing Examiner VanDerbeek asked if there were additional comments.
Terry Huet at 5129 Nathan Loop said that he is Mr. Lindell's neighbor to the north.
When he sits on his deck he has no problem with the visual appearance into Mr. Lindell's
yard.
Karl Heilbum 5207 Nathan Loop SE is the neighbor to the south. He doesn't see a reason
to not grant the variance. His deck extends out about the same distance. It will be
uniform with the rest of the neighborhood.
Dave Turner 5304 Nathan Loop SE added that he is also in support of the deck. It
doesn't seem to hinder the architecture.
Hearing Examiner VanDerbeek asked if staff had any rebuttal.
Community Development Administrator Osaki commented that the testimony tonight
adds support to justifying the required finding that the addition would be consistent with
the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Lindell is trying to right an error. However, the
City has to have something unique or special about the property in order to recommend
granting the application. Should the heating examiner find that the testimony tonight
provides the information needed to support granting of the variance, then staff
recommends the following conditions 1: have the applicant secure the permits; and 2:
The covered patio structure should be consistent with the site plan.
Hearing Examiner VanDerbeek stated that her decision would be within 10 days,
PAGE 2
CITY OF AUBURN
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Aoenda Subiect: Public Hearing - Application No. VAR03-0013
Department: Planning Attachments: Application, Vicinity
Map and Site Plan.
Administrative Recommendation:
Date: December 5, 2003
Budoet Impact:
Hearing Examiner to deny the variance, based upon the Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Conditions as
outlined.
Background Summary;
REPORT OF FACTS:
OWNER/APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
Jeff and Elena Lindell
Variance to the rear yard setback requirements
5201 Nathan Loop SE
(Pamel Number 4136870130)
R2 "Single Family Residential"
Single Family Residence
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: "Single Family Residential"
SEPA STATUS: The variance is SEPA exempt.
ZONING AND LAND USE DATA IN THE VICINITY:
North
South
East
West
Existinq Zoninq
R2
R2
R2
R2
Existinq Land Use
City owned Pedestrian
Trail, then Single Family
Residence
Single Family Residence
Single Family Residence
(across Nathan Loop)
Single Family Residence
Comprehensive Land Use
Plan Desiqnation
"Single Family Residential"
"Single Family Residentiar'
"Single Family Residential"
"Single Family Residentiar'
Reviewed by Council Committees & Commissions:
Arts Commission Council Committees:
Hearing Examiner Finance
Human Resources Municipal Services
Librar-J Board Planning & CD
Park Board Public Works
Planning Commission,
Other
Approved: r Call for Hearing:
Committee Approval: Yes No
Reviewed by Departments & Divisions:
Airport x M&O
x Building Mayor
Cemetery Parks
Finance Personnel
x Fire x Planning
x Legal x Police
Library x Public Works
[ Referred to: Until:
Tabled Until:
ataff.
IMeeting Date:
December 16, 2003
Page: 1
CITY OF AUBURN
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Aaenda Subject: Public Hearing - Application No. VAR03-0013 Date: December 4, 2003
Background Summary
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The applicant, Mr. Jeff Lindell, has submitted a variance request to reduce the required rear yard
setback for a single-family residence from 25 feet to 21 feet for property located at 520'1 Nathan Loop
SE. (Lot 13, Lakeland Division No 7).
2. The subject property is zoned R2 (Single Family Residential) and is approximately 7,095 square feet
in area (0.16 acres). The minimum lot size in the R2 zone is 6,000 square feet. The lot is slightly
irregularly shaped, with a 59-foot long front lot line; a 76 foot-long rear lot line and 105 foot long side
lot lines. The subject property is flat. The lot to the west, which shares the common rear lot line with
the subject property, does slope sharply downward from the subject property.
The applicant proposes to cover his rear yard patio area with an open, unenclosed roof structure
approximately 345 square feet in area. The patio cover is attached to the house primarily along the
house's rear portion with just a small pgrtion attached to and extending along the side of the house
(south side). The roof structure covers a ground level patio area.
The applicant indicates the patio roof cover is pitched (in three directions) and is 15 feet tall at its
highest point. The structure is substantially complete as a stop work order was issued after it was
found that construction occurred without the necessary permits. The applicant has since filed for the
required permit but it cannot be issued as proposed unless a variance is granted. The applicant's
reasons outline the difficulties he had with a contractor and explains why the construction occurred
without the required permits. The applicant is apologetic for pursuing the work without the required
permits.
Because the covered patio is attached to the main dwelling, it must meet the setback requirements of
the principal structure. There are no rear yard exemptions for covered patios. Auburn City Code
(ACC) 18.14.040 (F)(4) establishes a 25 foot rear yard setback requirement in the R2 zDne. The
applicant's site plan shows that existing house is setback back about 36 feet from the rear lot line.
The site plan shows the covered patio setback approximately 21 feet from the rear lot line.
6. The case file (VAR03-0013) and its contents are hereby incorporated by reference.
CONCLUSIONS
Although certain variance criteria appear to have been met, staff has concluded that a variance should be
denied as the applicant has not met the burden of proof in demonstrating that it is consistent with a//of the
criteria necessary to grant a variance as outlined in Section 18.70.010 of the Zoning Ordinance. An
analysis of the application against the required variance criteria follows.
That there are unique physical conditions including narrowness or shallowness of lot size or
shape, or exceptional topographical or other physical conditions peculiar to and inherent in
the particular lot; and that, as a result of such unique physical conditions, practical
difficulties or unnecessary hardships arise in complying with provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Staff:
The applicant notes that the location of the house on the property allows for a larger rear yard area in
comparison to the other lots in the neighborhood. Because of this, even with the proposed roof patio
Meeting Date: December 16, 2003, Page: 2
2003
CITY OF AUBURN
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Aaenda Subject: Public Hearing - Application No. VAR03-0013 Date: Decembe~~ 4, 2003
Staff:
cover, there is still an average rear yard setback to the entire house of about 29 feet. The applicant
also states that the patio cover is on the ground floor. Adjacent homes have elevated uncovered
decks that extend into the rear yard. Because the applicant's patio cover is at grade, it does not look
out of place in contrast to the neighboring elevated decks.
Finally, the applicant states that the property to the west is down a sloped hillside and is not affected
by the covered patio addition to the home. The slope gives the appearance of greater distance
between the two homes.
While these are valid reasons to document why the character of the neighborhood will not be
adversely affected (see cdteria 3 below), staff finds that they are not necessarily unique physical or
topographical conditions peculiar to or inherent in the lot as required by the criteria. In the absence
of additional justification, this criteria has not been met.
That, because of such physical conditions, the development of the lot in strict conformity
with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance will not allow a reasonable and hanmonious use
of such lot.
The applicant notes that removing the four to five foot portion of the covered patio extending into the
required rear yard setback would result in the patio cover losing its aesthetic appeal and that the
intended use of the patio would be severely "muted".
As noted in the discussion on criteria #1 above, there is no apparent unique physical feature of the lot
that warrants the need for the variance. The fact that the patio would look "chopped" is a result of the
patio having already been constructed. The applicant could have constructed a well-designed
aesthetically pleasing covered patio in the rear yard extending 11 feet off of the existing house
without the need for a variance.
That the variance, if granted, will not alter the character of the neighborhood, or be
detrimental to surrounding properties in which the lot is located. For nonconfor.mlng single-
family homes, this finding is determined to be met if the features of the proposed variance are
consistent with other comparable features within 500 feet of the proposal.
The applicant states that the patio cover matches the architecture of the existing house and
neighboring homes. In addition, the applicant notes that even with the addition, the lot coverage does
not exceed the 35% maximum allowed under the R2 zone.
Also, the applicant has submitted a petition signed by owners of the two lots immediately to the south
and the two lots immediately to the north of the subject property, on the same side of the street. The
petition notes that these property owners do not see any hindrance to the enjoyment of ~Iheir
respective lots resulting from the applicant's proposed patio cover placement. The petition also
indicates that the patio cover fits the amhitecture and looks aesthetically leasing.
Staff concurs with the applicant's reasoning.
That the special circumstances and conditions associatad with the variance are not a result
of the actions of the applicant or previous owners.
The applicant states that the existing house (not including the addition) has a large react yard setback
(36 feet). When the addition is considered, the applicant notes that there would still be an average
Meeting Date: December 16, 2003, Page: 3
2003
CITY OF AUBURN
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Ac;enda Subiect: Public Hearing - Application No. VAR03-0013 Date: December 4, 2003
setback of at least 29 feet to the house. The patio cover itself would have a setback that is greater
than the more elevated attached decks on the adjacent properties.
However, the condition necessitating the variance is the applicant's construction of the patio cover
without first pursuing necessary permits. Had the applicant pursued the permit process in advance
of construction then the applicant could have designed the structure in accordance with the required
setback. The variance is necessitated by the action of the owner (or perhaps more appropriately the
owner's initial contractor).
5. Literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would deprive the applicant of
rights commonly enjoyed by other properties In the same zoning district.
Literal interpretation of the code would not deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by others. The
applicant does cite the presence of uncovered decks, above grade, on neighboring prDperties that
extend into the required rear yard setback. However, the applicant too could construct an uncovered
deck feature on to his home that extends into the required rear yard provided it is consistent with yard
projections allowed by ACC18.48.070.
6. The approval of the variance will be consistent with the purpose of the Zoning Cods and the
zoning district in which the property is located.
Granting of the variance would not be consistent with the purpose of the zoning code. The zoning
code does provide for relief from code standards provided that variance criteria can be
demonstrated. In this case the applicant is not been able to show that the criteria have been
satisfied.
7. The variance will not allow an increase in the number of dwelling units permitted by the
zoning district.
Not applicable.
8. The authorization of such variance will not adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan.
There is no indication that the Comprehensive Plan will be adversely affected.
9. The variance shall not allow a land uss that is not permitted under the zoning district in which
the property is located.
The variance request relates to a single-family residential use. Single-family residences are a
permitted use in the R2 zone.
t0. The variance shall not change any regulations or conditions established by surface mining
permits, conditional use permits or contract rezones authorized by the City Council.
There are no other regulations or conditions that apply.
Staff:
Meeting Date:
2003
December 16, 2003,
Page; 4
CITY OF AUBURN
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Aaenda Subiect: Public Hearing - Application No. VAR03-0013 Date: December 4, 2003
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the applicant's submittal and on the Facts and Findings and Conclusions of the staff report, staff
recommends that the variance request to reduce the required rear yard setback be denied.
In reviewing the application, the applicant needs to better document conformance with variance criteria 1,
2, 4, and 5. Should the applicant be able to demonstrate that the variance criteria have been met and that
the variance request be granted, then staff recommends that the Hearing Examiner condition the approval
as follows:
1. The applicant shall secure the necessary permits for the construction of the covered structure.
2. The covered patio shall be built in substantial conformance to the applicant's site plan.
HE~APP\STRV03-13
Staff:
IMeeting Date:
2003
December 16, 2003,
Page: 5
VARIANCE APPLICATION
0 [? (/ APPLICANT'S NAME
APPLICATION NUMBER
Sec. Twp. Rng.:
Area Code:
Date of Hearing Examiner Public:
Rearing:
Staff Project Coordinator:
Zone Existing:
Variance for:
Date Received:
Do Not Write Above This Line
APPLICANT: COMPLETE THIS FORM WITH ALL ENTRIES BEING TypED (except
signatures) OR NEATLY PRINTED IN INK. IF ADDED SPACE IS NEEDED, ,ADD THE
ADDITIONAL REQUIRED PAGES TO THIS APPLICATION.
What unique physical conditions, including narrowness or shallowness of lot size or
shape, or exceptional topographical or other physical conditions, are associated with
your property?
In comparison to neighboring lots, the house size and placement allowed for a larger backyard
(36'3"x76'6"). While the patio cover portion of the home will have a 21 '3" setback the remainder of
the home (larger portion) will have a 36' 3" setback. The average setback using a 50' x 50'original foot
print will be approximately 29.8 feet. The highest point of the patio cover is fifteen feet, with an
immediate slope of a 5/12 pitch in three directions (hip). With the lower elevation of otu: house the patio
cover does not look out of place in comparison to the neighboring homes with decks.
The house was built on a short foundation to allow for a patio versus the homes on either' side which
have an eight foot foundation and decks at an eight foot height that extend the same distance or further
into the setback as the patio cover on our lot. Our first floor is at grade whereas the first floor is at eight
feet for neighbors on either side and most homes beyond on the West side of Nathan Loop.
The lot behind us slopes off approximately 25' at a 2:1 ratio. With this slope our patio cover does not
affect the lot behind, but does give a sense of a greater distance between lots.
What physical conditions are present that will not allow a reasonable and
harmonious use of your property?
If we were to remove 4 to 5 feet to be within the setback requirement the patio cover would lose its
aesthetic look (chopped) and the intended use of the patio would be severally muted.
3. How will the variance not alter the character of the neighborhood, or be.detrimental
to surrounding properties in which your property is located?
The patio cover matches the architecture of the existing and neighboring homes. The remaining distance
to the property line (approximately 21 '3") is more than that of the lots on either side with uncovered
decks. The lot coverage will increase by 344 square feet from 1,958 to 2,302 square feet or 32% of the
7,095 lot size (within the 35% limitation for R2). We will not put any further structures on the property.
By con~:ast there are several patio covers in Lakeland that are lean-to in nature that don't match the
existing architecture, the materials do not match, and they extend much further into the twenty five foot
backyard setback than our patio cover.
4. Are the special circumata~es mad ~ a~ociatefl with the variance a result of
the actions of the applicant or previous owner?
The patio cover is substantially complete and permits which have been applied for are pending a
favorable response for a variance.
Due to the larger setback at the time of original construction the average setback of the .site after adding
the patio cover will be 29.8 feet. The setback of the patio cover is 21 '3", which is slightly more than the
eight foot high decks of the neighbors on either side.
5. Please give a general description of your request and, if you wish, provide other
information which you feel supports the variance.
We request a variance of approximately four feet from the rear yard setback for R2 zoning from twenty
five feet to approximately 21 feet. After substantial completion of a patio cover in our haakyard we
have applied for a permit which is pending a favorable response to this variance request.
The patio cover was originally to be built by a third party who was responsible for obtaining all permits
and permissions. Thirty days after the materials were paid for and delivered I was notified of a three
month additional delay due to surgery (we had already delayed two months). At that p¢,int I attempted
to take on the project myself. Rather than delay the project further, after finding out pe~uaits had not
been requested, I foolishly attempted this without going through the permit process.
The sole purpose of our patio cover is to allow for the comfortable use of our backyard i.n our wet
climate. While we in no way intentionally went beyond the setback provisions, we have; done so and
respectfully request this variance. While the blue tarp covering the structure does not do it justice, I
have enclosed pictures attempting to show both the structure and the neighboring homes with decks.
Also, there is a picture of the front which is trying to depict the elevation of our home being lower than
our neighbors. Additionally, I have attached signatures from neighbors whom support this variance.
ALL PROPERTY OWNERS INCLUDED IN THIS APPLICATION MUST BE LISTED
BELOW OPPOSITE A "PARCEL NUMBER" WltICH IS ALSO SHOWN ON TltE
LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND INDICATES THE PROPERTY OWNED BY EACH
APPLICANT. YOUR SIGNATURE ALSO INDICATES YOU ttAVE READ .4uND
UNDERSTOOD THE CONTENTS OF TItlS APPLICATION AND ITS
ATTACItMENTS
PARCEL NAME, ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER
NUMBER (Please Print)
SIGNATLFRE
DESIGNATED CONTACT PERSON:
Name:
Address:
CiW~hone:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION O1' PROPERTY
Lakeland Division Number 7, Lot 13
Parcel number 4136870130
FEE PAYMENT: $200.00 for residential; $500.00 for other
T.R. #:
Cashier's Initials: Date Received:
LE15A~ON HOI~
RAY ~ARKLE¥-
PHO~
Double check all lot line dimensions and pin placemeat~ be£ore
staking house out in hole. Cross chec~ all dimen.~ions on the
of any
Plot Plan and Foundation Blueprint. Notify Kay
discrepencies before starting foundation .....
\1
PLOT PIAN 1" =
Neighbors attestation.
Lot 12, Lakeland division no. 7 - Owners statement
We do not see any hindrance to the enjoyment of our lot by placement of the patio cover on lot 13.
Additionally, the patio cover fits the existing architecture and looks aestheticall[y pleasing to the eye.
.... r.j , ~,~.:;: -,,_ /
Terry~ra~ia Mary Lou
Lot 14, Lakeland division no. 7 - Owners statement
We do not see any hindrance to the enjoyment of our lot by placement of the patio cover on lot 13.
Additionally, the patio cover fits the existing architecture and looks aesthetically pleasing to the eye.
Karl and Caroline Heilborn
Lot 11, Lakeland division no. 7 - Owners statement
We do not see any hindrance to the enjoyment of our lot by placement of the patio cover on lot 13.
Additionally, the patio cover fits the existing architecture and looks aestheticallLy pleasing to the eye.
Rick anatam Nguyen
Lot 15, Lakeland division no. 7 - Owners statement
We do not see any hindrance to the enjoyment of our lot by placement of the patio cover on lot 13.
Additionally, the patio cpver.,fi[s the existing architecture and looks aesthetically pleasing to the eye.
· !
Agenda Subiect
Closed Record Hearing- VAR03-0013
Date:
1/14/2004
In addition, the Hearing Examiner's decision also acknowledged that the covered, unenclosed patio
addition would not alter the character of the neighborhood and would not be detrimental to the
surrounding properties. Making such a finding is necessary to satisfy one of the variance approval
criteria.
However, what kept the variance from being granted is that City Code requires that afl criteria for the
granting of a variance must be met. The principal variance criteria that was not demonstrated relates to
the presence of unique physical conditions peculiar to or inherent in the lot that creates a hardship to
comply with the provisions of the zoning ordinance. This criteria ensures that a unique and specific
physical characteristic to the property justifies a variance from code requirements, and avoids opening up
granting similar variance requests to any property in the City. If this specific criteria can be
demonstrated, then other variance criteria that might pose a conflict with granting the variance could be
rationalized as well.
What the applicant has cited in his application and appeal as the unique physical condition is a difference
in construction between his and adjoining homes. Because Mr. Lindell's single family home was built on
a short foundation, any rear yard addition to his house (such as the proposed patio cover) would need to
be at ground level. In contrast, the neighboring homes have larger foundations and/or daylight
basements, and have first floor rear yard uncovered deck projections that are slightly elevated. The
zoning code allows first floor decks to project into required rear year setbacks a limited distance, while a
covered patio may not.
The applicant notes that the appearance and character between the neighboring uncovered decks and
his covered unenclosed patio are similar. Because the code allows first floor rear yard deck projections
into required setbacks but not projections of attached patio roofs, the applicant notes that relief for the
patio roof cover should be granted to him through the variance process.
Staff is somewhat constrained by the variance criteria since the criteria focus on physical conditions
specific to the lot requesting the variance. Typically, physical features such as wetlands, streams,
topography, irregularly shaped lots etc. form the basis for satisfying this criteria. In this case, the applicant
is citing how his house was constructed with a shorter foundation versus certain neighboring homes with
larger foundations/daylight basements.
Should the City Council find the reasoning advanced by the applicant is sufficient to satisfy the variance
criteria related to special circumstances affecting the property, then there would be basis to overturn the
Hearing Examiner's decision and grant the appeal (thereby granting the variance).
Staff concurs with the Hearing Examiner finding that the proposal would not be detrimental to surrounding
properties -- if the required permits are obtained. In the event the City Council does grant the appeal, the
applicant should be required to obtain the required permits for the structure and construct it in
conformance with the submitted site plan.
Page 2 of 2 Item II.A.1