The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10-02-2006 ITEM II-B-1CITY OF ' y 77 WASHINGTON AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: Closed Record Public Hearing on Appeal of Hearing Date: Examiner's Decision to Deny Application No. VAR06-0004 September 26, 2006 Department: Planning, Attachments: Please refer to Exhibit Budget Impact„ NA Building and Community List Administrative Recommendation: The Hearing Examiner considered this request at a public hearing held on August 22, 2006 and subsequently issued a decision to deny the request on September 5, 2006. The Council may affirm, reject, modify, or remand the decision of the Examiner. Background Summary: OWNER/APPLICANT: Larry and Maxine Greidanus REQUEST: Variance request to reduce the required side yard setback frorn 5 feet to 3 feet to allow the construction of a patio cover. LOCATION: Single family residential lot located at 1909 N Ct. SE. EXISTING ZONING: R2 Single Family Residential EXISTING LAND USE: The site is developed with a detached single family home. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential SEPA STATUS: Variance actions are exempt from SEPA. HEARING EXAMINER DECISION: Deny L1002-3 A3.23.1, 03.10.1 VAR06-0004 Reviewed by Council & Committees: Reviewed by Departments & Divisions: ❑Arts Commission COUNCIL COMMITTEES: ® Building ❑ M&O ❑Airport El 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: Norman Staff: Osaki Meeting Date: October 2, 2006 1 Item Number: II.B.1 AUBURN* MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject Closed Record Hearing on Appeal of the Hearing Date: Examiner's Decision to Deny Application No. VAR06-0004 September 26 2006 EXHIBIT LIST Exhibit 1 Staff Report for VAR06-0004 Exhibit 2 Vicinity Map Exhibit 3 Variance Application form Exhibit 4 Notice of Public Hearing " Exhibit 5 Affidavit of Posting Exhibit 6 Affidavit of Mailing " Exhibit 7 Confirmation of Publication of Legal Notice " Exhibit 8 Aerial Photograph Exhibit 9 Public comments including: a. Letter from Julie Pederson dated 8/16/06 b. Letter from Jake and Joann Fonda received 8/21/06 c. Written comments from Cynthia Sage, Robert Sage, Larry Green, Joan Green, dated 8/14/06 d. Written comment from Merlin and Donna Schager, undated Exhibit 10 Plat Map, undated Exhibit 11 Site Photographs, undated Exhibit 12 Comment letter from Pedersons with photographs, undated Exhibit 13 Hearing Examiner decision dated 9/5/06 Exhibit 14 Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision filed by Larry Greidanus • Materials not included, but available for review in the official case file kept in the Planning Dept. offices. L1002-3 A3.23.1, 03.10.5 VAR06-0004 Page 2 of 2 CITY OF-.....�+� WASHINGTON AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subiect Public Hearing Application No. VAR06-0004 Date: 8/15/2006 Department: Planning, Attachments: Please refer to Exhibit Budget ImFa—ctN.K-- Building and Community List Administrative Recommendation: Hearing Examiner to approve the Variance as requested, based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions as outlined. Background Summarv: OWNER/APPLICANT: Larry and Maxine Greidanus REQUEST: Variance request to reduce the required side yard setback from 5 feet to 3 feet to allow the construction of a patio cover. LOCATION: Single family residential lot located at 1909 N Ct. SE. EXISTING ZONING: R2 Single Family Residential EXISTING LAND USE: The site is developed with a detached single family home. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential SEPA STATUS: Variance actions are exempt from SEPA. Reviewed by Council & Committees: Reviewed by Departments & Divisions: ❑Arts Commission COUNCIL COMMITTEES: N Building ❑ M&O ❑Airport EJ Finance ❑ Cemetery ❑ Mayor N Hearing Examiner ❑Municipal Serv. ❑ Finance ❑ Parks El Human Services ❑Planning & CD N Fire N Planning ❑ Park Board []Public Works ❑ Legal ❑ Police El Planning Comm. ❑Other N Public Works ❑ Human Resources Action: Committee Approval: ❑Yes NNo Council Approval: ❑Yes NNo Call for Public Hearing I Referred to _I Until /_/ Tabled Until / / Councilmember: Norman Staff: Pilcher Meeting Date: August 22, 2006 Item Number: EARIBIT AUBURN *MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject Public Hearing VAR06-0004 Date: 8/15/2006 The Comprehensive Plan designation, zoning designation and land uses of the surrounding properties are: Rogow Site Single Family R2'Single Family Single Famil!7Home Vicinity Map Residential Residential ,. Exhibit 4 North Single Family R2 Single Family Single Famil Affidavit of Mailing Residential Residential Exhibit 8 South Single Family R2 Single Family Single Family Home Residential Residential East Single Family R2 Single Family Single Family Home Residential Residential West Single Family R2 Single Family Single Family Home Residential I Residential EXHIBIT LIST Exhibit 1 Staff Report ,.Exhibit 2 Vicinity Map ,-Exhibit 3 Application ,. Exhibit 4 Notice of Public Hearing .-Exhibit 5 Affidavit of Posting Exhibit 6 Affidavit of Mailing Exhibit 7 Confirmation of Publication of Legal Notice Exhibit 8 Aerial Photograph FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The applicants are the owners of a single family home located at 1909 N Ct. SE. According to their application, they purchased the home in 1996 as the original owners. 2. The house is located on a cul-de-sac and is somewhat pie -shaped. The south and north property lines are considered the two side yards of the lot. 3. The house was situated on the lot with minimal side yard setbacks at its narrowest point near the front of the lot. According to the applicants, a patio was poured at the time of home construction along the southern side of the house. At the rear of the house, the structure appears to be set back a maximum of 13.25 feet from the south property line, narrowing down to 10 feet at the eastern end of the patio. 4. According to the applicant, the patio ranges from 10 feet wide by a sliding glass door to 15 feet neat the rear of the house. The patio was poured within 11 inches of the fence that separates the applicants' lot from the one to the south. 5. The applicants desire to cover the patio with a metal and Plexiglas patio cover. The cover ranges from 7 ft. 1 inch at its east end to 10 ft. 4 inches to the rear. It would be connected to the house underneath the rain gutter. The applicant proposes to install a drip rail to catch rainwater and direct it to a splash block at the west end of the patio. Once the cover is completed, the applicants intend to install a composite deck underneath, over the existing patio. 6. A six foot tall wood fence exists along the southern property line, separating this lot from the neighbor's. Page 2 of 5 Agenda Subiect Public Hearing VAR06-0004 Date: 8/15/2006 7. In response to a complaint, staff from the City of Auburn Building Division visited the site in late July, 2006. They discovered a patio cover was being erected by a contractor without required permits and also that the structure was being erected as close as 7.5 inches to the south property line at its eastern end, with a 3 foot setback on the western end. The property owner was advised to stop work, to apply for a permit, and was also told of the setback problem. 8. On July 27, 2006, the owner made application for a variance for the proposed patio cover. 9. The R2 zone requires a 5 foot side yard setback for both primary and accessory structures. Since the cover would be attached to the home, it would be considered to be part of the primary structure. 10. The International Residential Code (IRC), which the City of Auburn has adopted as its standard for review of residential building permits, requires any structure closer than 3 feet to a side property line to include a fire wall for protection, regardless of construction materials. 11. The applicant states that were the 5 foot setback to be observed, the covered portion of the patio would be insufficient for practical use. 12. Other lots located on the N Ct. cul-de-sac also appear to have minimal side yard setbacks. 13. Staff conducted a site visit to verify site and neighborhood conditions. Other patio covers were not observed, but if located at the rear of homes, would have been blocked from view from the street. 14. The case file (VAR06-0004) and its contents are hereby incorporated by reference CONCLUSIONS: Staff has concluded that the requested variance may be approved as requested, provided the applicant meets the burden of proof in demonstrating that it is consistent with all of the following criteria necessary to grant the variances as outlined in Auburn City Code Section 18.70.010(A) (1) through (10). An analysis of the application in regards to the variance criteria follows 1. 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. As is typical of most cul-de-sacs, those lots located on the "bulb" of the street tend to have narrow lot frontages and then widen as one moves further back from the street. The applicants' lot has only 22.7 ft. of frontage on the street, yet is 119 feet wide along the rear property line. At least three other kits on the bulb of the cul-de-sac appear to be similarly constricted (lots 10, 12 & 13). However, it does not appear that these homes have patios poured in their side yard areas. The location of the home on the lot and the existence of a patio along the south edge of the property does present a problem in complying with required 5 ft. side yard setback for a patio cover. 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 Page 3 of 5 Agenda Subject Public Hearing VAR06-0004 Date: 8/15/2006 such lot. Patio covers are not an atypical feature of a single family home, even though many homes do not feature them. The presence of a cover can improve the quality of outdoor living and also protect outdoor furniture from the elements. From the materials submitted with the application, it appears the applicants intend to construct a high quality cover. 3. 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- 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 proposed location of the patio cover is along a side yard area, with limited visibility from the street. That being the case, impacts to the wider neighborhood will be minimal; the adjacent property to the south will be the most affected. Maintaining a 3 foot setback should ensure that rainwater does not intrude onto the neighbor's property and provide a degree of privacy. 4. 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 home and associated patio were constructed by the original homebuilder within the neighborhood. S. 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. The applicant proposes to erect the patio cover in order to be able to enjoy use of the patio in all weather conditions and also to provide protection for items typically found on a patio (BBQ, patio furniture, etc.). 6. 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. The stated purpose of the regulations of the Zoning Code (ACC 18.02.010) are to "enhance and maintain the aesthetic character, to promote the public health, safety and general welfare, and to increase the effectiveness of visual communication within the City This chapter is also intended to avoid visual clutter that may adversely impact traffic and pedestrian safety, or be adverse to the property values, business opportunities and the City's appearance and to prevent and abate public nuisances." The intent of the R2 zone district is "to create a living environment of optimum standards for single-family dwellings. It is further intended to limit development to relatively low degrees of density. This district will provide for the development of single-family detached dwellings, not more than one such dwelling on each lot, and for such accessory uses as are related, incidental and not detrimental to the residential environment. Multiple family dwellings may be permitted as conditional uses only to the extent such uses conform to guidelines of the comprehensive plan." (ACC 18.14.010). The proposed variance will allow the applicants to enhance the use of their property as a single: family residence. 7. The variance will not allow an increase in the number of dwelling units permitted b,y the zoning district. Page 4 of 5 Agenda Subject Public Hearing VAR06-0004 Date: 8/15/2006 Not applicable. 8. The authorization of such variance will not adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan. Not applicable. 9. The variance shall not allow a land use that is not permitted under the zoning district in which the property is located. Not applicable. 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 to this site. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Examiner approve the variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit shall be required. 2. The patio cover shall be set back a minimum of 3 feet from the south property line, including the roof overhang and/or rain gutter. 3. All storm runoff from the patio cover shall be connected to the existing downspout drains for the residence or a separate an infiltration system shall be constructed to the criteria established in the "Handout for Residential Footing Drain Construction" (City of Auburn Public Works Department publication). Staff reserves the right to supplement the record of the case to respond to matters and information raised subsequent to the writing of this report 5 of 5 Print Map Page King CCoinI GIS_Center I News I Services I Comments I Search By visiting this and other King County web pages, you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site. The details. http://www5.metrokc.gov/parcelviewer/Print_Process.asp Page 1 of 1 oa+isR�. 8/10/2006 rr.VALn'lw a al-� ern of _ :..s-'^* * EXHIBIT WASHINGTON planning, Building, and Community Department MASTER LAND USE APPLICATION- PLANNING APPLICATIONS Project Name G R r-, p R N (& S 'i" n RT C o Co u j,2 Date 0 0 6 Parcel No(s) R 9 3 20 0 0 9 0 Legal Description (attached separate sheet if necessary) A �-i-r� C h -e d Applicant .OD Name: L A 22 Y G f1 sFt D g fv U g Mailing Address: 14 o 9- N e i s r i+;A Rtft a a, L" Q&o 0 2 TeleplioneandFax: 253- t'rvc/- 6SGci/ter« 153-36f-O�/�p`F2s3-�59'- �sre Email: m e Dte G c H g2 ,# o -r O i l. corn Si ature: Owner (if more t n one attac-h another sheet) Name: Mailing Address: SA -M t: /} s E} a p V F Telephone and Fax: Email: Signature: Engineer/Architecture/Other Name: Mailing Address: Telephone and Fax: Email: Description of Proposed Action: .OF'c K HN v joS"T&LL_ltTr 0 C AFI T 10 __Ca U=a P)ci3rj, 1)erK Type of Application Required Check all that Apply) Administrative Appeal* Administrative Use Permit* Annexation Boundary Line Adjustment Comprehensive Plan Amendment;(Text or Map)* Conditional Use Permit* Critical Areas Variance* Development Agreement* Environmental Review (SEPA)* Final Plat Preliminary Plat* PUD Site Plan Approval Rezone sitespecific)* Short Plat -Special Exception* Special Home Occupation :Permit* Substantial Shoreline Development* Surface Mining permit* Temporary Use Permit Variance* *Please note that public notification is required. A separate cost is charged for the signs. City prepares signs but applicant responsible for sign posting. Page 1 of 2 AUBURN * M 0KE THAN YOU IMAGINED City of Auburn Planning Building and Community Department July 26, 2006 We, Larry and Maxine Greidanus purchased this home in June of 1996. So we are the initial owners. We are applying for a building department variance for the construction of a metal and Plexiglas patio cover over our patio and construction of a composite deck to cover the concrete patio under the patio cover As noted on the site plan, the lot is of an irregular shape, with limited space on either side of the house. On the south side of the house, which is the area in question, a. wood fence sits directly on the property line separating our property from the neighbors. When the house was built, an exposed aggregate concrete patio was poured. This concrete patio extends towards the fence for 10' by the sliding glass door and widens out to 15' on the west end of the property. There is an 11" gap between the patio and the fence filled with decorative white rock to help dissipate the rainwater run off The patio cover that we have purchased, also noted on the site plan, measures 28' across and 7'l " wide on one end and 10'4" wide on the other. It is to be connected to the house underneath the existing *gutter onto the reinforced fascia. By doing so the water runoff from the roof of the house will not be going onto the patio roof. On the open end of the patio cover, a drip rail will be installed to divert the rainwater to the far end of the patio, so as not to splash onto the wood fence. By having the patio built in this manner, it would give us ample room and be able to use the entire deck. Due to the rough surface of the exposed aggregate concrete, after the patio cover is installed, we plan to cover the concrete patio, only under the patio cover, with a composite decking material. If the 5'setbacks set forth by the City of Auburn are to be followed in this project; the narrow end of the deck/patio will only be 5'wide and the far end will be 8'4". This will not only leave us with a relatively small patio but will also leave us with an exposed wasted space between the deck and the fence. A railing would then have to be installed on that side to avoid accidental falls from the deck to the concrete patio. We realize the neighbor's concern of water run off onto the fence and their property, but that can be remedied by installation of the before mentioned drip rail or a gutter system. We feel that mandated setbacks are needed in the majority of cases, but due to the fact that the majority of the homes in our neighborhood have their patio on the rear of the house, which allows longer setbacks, instead of on the side like ours is, we feel that a variance be given to allow us to use 9w patio to its fullest extent. Respectfully submitted Larry and Maxine Greidanu d SUN'VIEW Patio Covers o 1 -- Custom Made. Sunview Patio Covers:,made to =� fit your needs exactly C �tr011ger Six to ten times stronger _ than average weight S plate glass. Safety, clear ._ vision and strength are r`n engineered in every � `` _ �T° _ � ;4 •, Sunview Patio Cover. �,.'•'-�,L � T t �_. y, �� t -.�� mit.. 1 � ; •.�{1'k•K4,��_' Polycarbonate Heat Guard Patio Covers t { r- Available c F x. Ca-adia Pa'en' c 252 C9� ante, Sr es Pa;eni Pend,ng. SUJVIEW SOLARIUMS N W Fax=3069341552 May 9 2006 12=54 P.02 C'u 8" 25" o f� 0 CL i z R CL N W Fax=3069341552 May 9 2006 12=54 P.02 C'u 8" 25" SUVUIEW M ARILM Fax:3069341552 N �rn A mr w =o m r May 9 2006 12=54 P.03 �0 JZ 4 m mr D v 13' 10' 20' 11" ti 00 / y 0 V V co V V AJ v 7 16' 0 bA cd P-4 0 0 00N 00 N u ow 49I 2 0 0 �Sd) I N N � � Y lift"mak, a wf Q f` � V 0 0 00N 00 N Ms. Julie Pederson 1917 N Court Southeast Auburn, WA 98002-6900 253-833-4660 August 16, 2006 Auburn Hearing Examiner c/o Auburn Planning Dept. 25 West Main Auburn, WA 98001 EXHisrr_7A RtcEJV4E 1pp6 �NING �tryk rMENt RE: Public Hearing Application No. VAR06-0004; Installation of Deck and Patio Cover Over Cement Pad; Parcel No. 8893200090. Dear Hearing Examiner: I object to VAR06-0004. The variance could negatively affect my property value, resale ability, and property line in the future. Sincerely, CASA Julie Pederson To Whom It May Concern: EXHIBIT REC -/VcD AUG 2 1 2006 PLANNING DEPAoTP.A We have absolutely no objections to Larry & Maxine Greindams installing an open patio CIV cover on their property. Frankly, my husband and I are appalled that the City would waste it's time and our taxpayer money on such an inconsequential matter when there are more pressing issues such as our roads. Jack & Joann Fonda 1210 - 20"' Ct S.E. Auburn Please be advised that the AUBURN HEARING EXAMINER on August 22, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. will conduct a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request: APPLICATION NO. VAR06-0004 A Request for a variance for a metal and plexiglas patio cover over an existing patio at 1909 N Court SE. The public hearing will be held in the Council Chambers, Auburn City Hall, located at 25 West Main Street. The public is invited to attend to express comments or opinions. Written comments may be submitted prior to the hearing to the Auburn Planning Department, 25 West Main, Auburn, WA. 98001. If you have further comments or questions, please call the Planning Department at (253) 931-3090. A staff report will be available approximately one week in advance of the hearing date and can be obtained by contacting the City of Auburn Planning and Community Development Department at (253) 931-3090. For citizens with speech, sight or hearing disabilities wishing to review documents pertaining to this hearing, should contact the City of Auburn within 10 calendar days prior to the meeting, as to the type of service or equipment needed. Each request will be considered individually according to the type of request, the availability of resources, and the financial ability of the City to provide the requested services or equipment. For the location of the property, refer to the lined area on the map below. POSTED/PUBLISHED: August 12, 2006 14�e�RN mss, CITY OF WASHING ON NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING raxoloi 70/ -; i-- I r _- Please be advised that the AUBURN HEARING EXAMINER on August 22, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. will conduct a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request: RECEWED APPLICATION NO. VAR06-0004 AUG 16 2006 A Request for a variance for a metal and plexiglas patio cover over an existing patio at 1909 N CourftNNING DEPARTMEN, The public hearing will be held in the Council Chambers, Auburn City Hall, located at 25 West Main Street. The public is invited to attend to express comments or opinions. Written comments may be submitted prior to tG hearing to the Auburn Planning Department, 25 West Main, Auburn, WA. 98001. If you have further comments uH�Di f questions, please call the Planning Department at (253) 931-3090. A staff report will be available approximately one week in advance of the hearing date and can be obtained by contacting the City of Auburn Planning and Community Development Department at (253) 931-3090. For citizens with speech, sight or hearing disabilities wishing to review documents pertaining to this hearing, should contact the City of Auburn within 10 calendar days prior to the meeting, as to the type of service or equipment needed. Each request will be considered individually according to the type of request, the availability of resources, and the financial ability of the City to provide the requested services or equipment. For the location of the property, refer to the lined area on the map below. POSTED/PUBLISHED:` , August 12006 ® � n i iw/A 8893200030 ,.,_.� �+�. SCHAGER MERLIN R+DONNA M _ v 1220 20TH CT SE F& AUBURN, WA 98002 NGTON O)E ONE 6to OB�Cr! Del S NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Please be advised that the AUBURN HEARING EXAMINER on August 22, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. will conduct a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request: APPLICATION NO. VAR06-0004 A Request for a variance for a metal and plexiglas patio cover over an existing patio at 1909 N Court SE. The public hearing will be held in the Council Chambers, Auburn City Hall, located at 25 West Main Street. The public is invited to attend to express comments or opinions. Written comments may be submitted prior to the hearing to the Auburn Planning Department, 25 West Main, Auburn, WA. 98001. If you have further comments or questions, please call the Planning Department at (253) 931-3090. A staff report will be available approximately one week in advance of the hearing date and can be obtained by contacting the City of Auburn Planning and Community Development Department at (253) 931-3090. For citizens with speech, sight or hearing disabilities wishing to review documents pertaining to this hearing, should contact the City of Auburn within 10 calendar days prior to the meeting, as to the type of service or equipment needed. Each request will be considered individually according to the type of request, the availability of resources, and the financial ability of the City to provide the requested services or equipment. For the location of the property, refer to the lined area on the map below. POSTEDJPUBLISHED: August 12, 2006 140eVRN wq, THE ATTACHED BLACK AND WHITE PHOTOGRAPHS (EXHIBIT 11) WERE SUBMITTED TO THE HEARING EXAMINER ON AUGUST 22, 2006. r' F . . ` t • t k , .� ,. � _...�- - -�-. ��. � � �. sG 4 �� .� P .1.'y. � '... <i ��A , P � � e ��•�. ,�/� - d I (Application No. VAR 06-0004 Hearing: 8-22-06; Excerpts are in italics) 1. Future — This variance is not about just one neighbor imposing their life style on an adjacent neighbor and that one neighbor objecting. This is a matter of one neighbors' choices affecting the harmonious living of all future property owners for the entire life of both houses. Potentially, each subsequent owner of our home will have to deal with more noise, fire hazard, waiver problems, less privacy, inadequate parking, reduced home value, and greater difficulty in selling. One person's rights end where another person's rights begin. 2. Precedence — An often used aspect of legal matters is to use decisions in previous cases to allow a similar conclusion in a current case. Thus, thisb qe variance decision could have far greater repercussions. .` Response to -- Master Land Use Application 3. Erroneous facts — A study of the neighbor's property has uncovered the following information that is contradictory to that presented in their Application letter. Please consider this additional information as special circumstances to deny the Variance request. 4. Misleading — Notice of Public Hearing requests a variance only for a patio cover. However, their application letter states, "...a composite deck and railings would be needed...." and "...be able to use the entire deck..." and "... to allow use of the patio to its fullest extent." Comment: To accomplish such complete use adding walls would be the next predictable step. (see #13 Agenda Bill Approval Form) 5. Height — No mention has been made that the height of the cover is approximately 29" above our 69" high fence making a very imposing structure over 8' high x 28' longi 6. Decking — "..., we plan to cover the concrete patio, only under the patio cover, with a composite decking material." Next paragraph states, "If 5'setbacks are observed" —and ..."exposed wasted space between deck and fence. A railing would then have to be installed on that side to avoid accidental falls from the deck to the concrete patio." Comment: ,The potential exists of falling from all three sides of the proposed built-up decking. The elevated decking, may facilitate looking over the fence into our bedroom window. By replacing the thick decking with a grade -level tile surface, the safety concerns might be eliminated and may allow the patio cover to be lower and less imposing. 7. Narrow Side Yard — "... majority of the homes in our neighborhood have theirpatio on the rear of the house which allows longer setbacks, ..." Comment: Their property has an very large yard on the north side of the house to compensate for the small front yard. They could have built a covered patio on the north side, which is adjacent to the living room, without violating the 5' setback. However, such an addition would now exceed the 35% lot coverage specified in the R-2 Code, 18.14.040.E. 8. Concrete Patio — When the house was built, an exposed aggregate patio was poured." Comment: Only 28' was poured originally; the western 15' of concrete was poured later, perhaps last year. That makes a continuous slab of concrete 43' long between their house and our fence. 9. Dissipate Rain Water — "There is an 11"gap between the patio and the fence filled with decorative white rock to help dissipate the rainwaterrun off." Comment: There are 2 layers of heavy plastic under the white rock and the newer 15 feet of concrete is about 4" from our fence. EM07 �"�` 2 10. Drip Rail — `will be installed to divert the rainwater to the far end of the patio so as not to splash onto the wood fence." Comment: Water will splash onto the uncovered concrete patio and probably drain down into the neighbor's yard to the west which is lower. Response to: -- Agenda Bill Approval Form 11. Findings of Fact #7 -- Error — "...patio cover being erected ... as close as 7.5 inches to the south property line at its eastern end, with 3 foot setback on the western end." Correction: Overhang of frame on western end is only 8.5" to the fence posts and 10.5 " to the fence boards. 12. Findings of Fact #10 — IRC — "any structure closer than 3 feet to a side property line to include a fire wall for protection ..." Comment: Confirms valid reason for minimum setbacks. 13. Conclusion # 3 — "... will not ... be detrimental to surrounding properties ..." Comment: The patio cover will increase their property value but will decrease the value of this property. The closeness, height, and length of the patio cover will also affect the ease of selling this home. Other potential annoyances to current and future neighbors might be more noise, less privacy, overflow parking, and rain water run-off from such a large combined area of concrete and cover. (Variances - 18.70.010.A-6) 14. Conclusion # 4 = Actions of applicant — The neighbors knew at the time they purchased their lot that it didn't fit their lifestyle because they requested of the realtor to have the floor plan flipped. Unfortunately, that request did not reach the builder until after the foundation was started. Since then they have converted the garage in to a room, widened their driveway, and added 15' of concrete to the original patio. Also, they located their shed in prime use area instead of the far point as some owners of other pie shaped lots have done. They also had a choice to build a covered patio on the north side of their house without infringing into the setback area. However, a few weeks prior to the patio cover project, they landscaped the north side of their house with lawn, shrubs, and trees. Now, after living here for ten years, they say they have an unfair advantage due to lot shape. (Variances -18.70.010-A.4) 15. Conclusion #5 — "...to enjoy use of the patio in all weather conditions and also to provide protection for items typically found on a patio ( BBQ, patio furniture, etc.)." Comment: The future total enclosure of the covered patio is likely: Once a variance has been allowed, only a building permit would be needed to fully enclose the covered patio with walls of some type. 16. Conclusion #6 — "... maintain the aesthetic character, ... to promote ... safety ..." Comment: When the patio cover eventually gets old and dirty it will become unsightly and, depending on how close it is to the fence, cleaning the cover may be difficult. We will see the patio cover whenever we use our side walks on the west and the north sides of our house. The closeness and height of the patio cover will affect the view from our bedroom window. BBQ used under a Plexiglas roof is a possible fire hazard; IRC requires 3' minimum setback or fire wall for protection. 17. Inadequate parking — is inherent in a pie shaped lot. The need for a larger patio facilitates larger social gatherings. When they have had family gatherings, guests' cars have been parked two abreast over the sidewalk. One time a third car even parked out in the street, nose -in, behind the two cars on the sidewalk. Such parking irregularities affect access to adjacent neighbors' driveways and use of the sidewalk. Such a large covered patio increases the likelihood of attracting future owners who want to socialize. 18. Calculations — give equivalent room sizes of land gained if variance is allowed Patio with required 5' setback > averaging 5'+ 8' sides @ 6.5'x 28'= 182 sq. ft. (10'x 18' room) Desired use of extra > 5' x 28' = 140 sq. ft. (10 x 14 room) + 182sq. ft. = 322 sq. ft. (12' x 26' room) Variance 3' setback > 2'x 28'= 56 sq. ft. (7'x 8' room) + 182 sq. ft. = 238 sq .ft. (12' x'19.8' room) 3 19. Noise Impact - need for larger patio suggests desire for larger social gatherings and potential for more noise. The patio is adjacent to two of our bedrooms -- window of one bedroom faces the patio. 20. Conditions requested if variance is allowed - a) no side walls of any kind permitted in future; b) do not allow use of a BBQ under the patio cover to reduce the fire hazard ... how could this safety measure be monitored or future owners informed of the possible fire hazard'. c) create an appropriate drain system to handle rain water runoff from concrete slab and patio cover. d) lower cover height by one foot near the fence to soften the visual impact on adjacent neighbors and help mitigate negative effect on adjacent home value and sale -ability. e) eliminate proposed decking to reduce safety hazard and protect our privacy 4 Velvet Square, O e i v :IS 'IMF -"VOL, 'IMF ----------- CITY OF *.;. WASHINGTON September 7, 2006 Peter B. Lewis, Mayor 25 West Main Street * Auburn WA 98001-4998 * www-auburnwa.gov * 253-931-3000 Larry and Maxine Greidanus 1909 N Court SE Auburn, WA 98002 RE: Application No. VAR06-0004 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Greidanus : Attached is the Hearing Examiner's official decision regarding your request that was considered by the Hearing Examiner on August 22, 2006. Your land use posting board sign must be returned to the City after completion of the appeal period as stated in the 'notice of right to appeal' portion of this document. If the board is not returned or is not legible or damaged, then City Code requires you to pay a replacement fee.. The replacement fee must be paid prior to the issuance of any permit, license or any other approval required by the City of Auburn that is related to subject property. If you have any questions regarding the attached, please give us a call at 25'3- 931-3090. Sincerely, L� David Osaki Interim Director Planning, Building and Development Attachment cc: Building Department Public Works Department City Clerk EXHIBIT l3 AuBuR,N * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED 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 errors, omissions frorn 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 decision must be filed no later than September 18, 2006, by 5:00 p.m. with the City Clerk at the Auburn City Hall, 25 West Main, Auburn, 98001,4998. REQUEST FOR RECONS DER ATION 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 September 14, 2006. Reconsideration requests should be addressed to: Hearing Examiner, 25 West Main Street, Auburn, WA. 98041-4998. BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF AUBURN In the Matter of the Application of ) NO. VAR06-0004 LARRY AND MAXINE GREIDANUS ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION For Approval of a Variance. ) SUMMARY OF DECISION The request of Larry and Maxine Greidanus for a variance from lot setback requirements to allow a permanent structure within the lot setback is DENIED without prejudice. SUMMARY OF RECORD Request: Larry and Maxine Greidanus (Applicants) request a variance from Auburn City Code (ACC) 18.14.040(F)(2), which requires a five foot setbacks along interior side lot lines, in order to erect a permanent covered deck within eight inches of their side lot line. The subject property is located at 1909 N Court Southeast in Auburn, Washington. Hearin Date: The Hearing Examiner for the City of Auburn held an open record hearing on the request on August 22, 2006. Testimony: The following individuals provided sworn testimony at the hearing: 1. Steve Pilcher, Planner, City of Auburn 2. Larry Greidanus, Applicant 3. Roger Franklin 4. Julie Pederson 5. Mary Lynn Pederson Exhibits: The following exhibits were admitted into the record: 1. Staff Report dated August 15, 2006 2. King County Parcel Map and Data, undated 3. Application dated July 27, 2006 4. Notice of Public Hearing, undated 5. Affidavit of Posting dated August 9, 2006 6. Affidavit of Mailing, undated 7. Confirmation of Publication of Legal Notice dated August 9, 2006 Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Hearing Examiner for the City ofAuburn Greidanus Variance, #VAR06-0004 Page I of 7 8. Aerial Photograph, undated 9. Public comments including: a. Public comment letters from Julie Pederson dated August 16, 2006 b. Public comment letter from Jake and Joann Fonda received August 21, 2006 c. Written comments from Cynthia Sage, Robert Sage, Larry Green, Joan Green dated August 14, 2006 d. Written continent from Merlin and Donna Schager, undated 10. Plat Map, undated 11. Site Photographs, undated 12. Comment letter from Pederson with photographs, undated Upon consideration of the testimony and exhibits admitted at the open record hearing, the Hearing Examiner enters the following Findings and Conclusions: FINDINGS 1. Larry and Maxine Greidanus (Applicants) request a variance' from the setback requirements for their side yard bordering 1917 N Court Southeast. The subject property is located at 1909 N Court Southeast.2 The Applicants are the first residents of the house, which they purchased in June 1996. Exhibit 1, pages 1 and 2, Exhibit 3. 2. The Applicants' stated purpose in seeking the variance is to install a permanent structure over their already existing patio on the south side of the house. The Applicants propose installing both a deck and a roof. The frame structure for the roof is already in place and the roof itself may also have been installed. In addition, the Applicants propose to install a composite wood deck over the entirety of the concrete patio. The Applicants maintain that observing the five foot setback required by ACC 18.14.040(Fx2) would render the covered area of their patio insufficient for practical use. Exhibit 1, page 3; Exhibit 3. 3. The patio which the Applicants desire to cover measures 15 feet wide at the rear west end, extending east 43 feet and narrowing to a width of 10 feet at the east end. The patio extends to within I 1 inches of the fence separating the subject property from the southern adjacent property. If the entire length of the patio were covered in compliance with the required five foot setback, the Applicants would have a covered area 43 feet long, measuring 10 feet wide at the rear end and 5 feet wide at the front end. The Applicants have only proposed covering 28 feet of the patio, which would result in a covered area of ► The Applicants also marked the box for a "Special Exception" but the request does not meet the criteria established for special variances in ACC 18.70.020. The Special Exception procedure is for uses contrary to zoning; or in the calculation of housing structures for density considerations. 2 The site is referred to as King County Tax Parcel #8893200090. Exhibit 2. A legal description can be found on the sixth sequential page of Exhibit 3. 3 Since the Applicants intend on using transparent roofing material, it is difficult to determine from the photographs if the roof has already been installed. Exhibit 11; Exhibit 12. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Hearing Examiner for the City of Auburn Greidanus Variance, #VAR06--0004 Page 2 of 7 eight feet, three inches at the rear and five feet at the front. Exhibit 1, page 2; Exhibit 3; Exhibit 12. 4. The site is zoned R-2, Single Family Residential, and has a comprehensive plan designation of Single Family Residential. The purpose of the zone is to "create a living environment of optimum standards for single-family dwellings" and "will provide for the development of single-family detached dwellings ... and for such accessory lases as are related, incidental and not detrimental to the residential environment." Exhibit 1, page 2, ACC 18.14.010. 5. The surrounding properties are all zoned R-2 and developed with single family homes. Exhibit 1, page 2; Exhibit 8. 6. The R-2 zone requires yard setbacks of 20 feet for the front, 25 feet for the rear, 10 feet for street side yards, and five feet for interior side yards. The Applicant requests a variance from the required setback of five feet for interior side yards. ACC 1.3 14.040(F); Exhibit 1, page 3; Exhibit 3. 7. The Applicants state that the variance is necessary because unlike the majority of the homes in their neighborhood, the Applicants' patio is on the side of their house and not on the rear where the setback distance would not pose a problem. According to the Applicants, the patio was placed and installed at the time the house was built. The Applicants make no reference to physical conditions on site or any other reason for placing the patio in its present location. Exhibit 3. 8. The City notes that at least three other lots on the same cul-de-sac appear to have similar constrictions, but without side patios. Exhibit 1, page 3. 9. At the narrowest point, there is ten feet of space between the Applicants' home and the lot -line. A permanent structure may be erected over five feet of that space without requiring a variance. Temporary structures such as table umbrellas may be used over the entire area. Exhibit 3; Testimony of Larry Greidanus, ACC 18.14.040(F). 10. The Applicants' neighbors, Julie and Mary Lynn Pederson ("the Pederson'), testified that the proposed structure would be detrimental to their house and way of life. At least one bedroom window of the Pederson house faces the fence near the proposed patio cover. The patio cover is taller than the fence, which the Pederson testified results in visual blight and a feeling of enclosure. When the deck is built, the Pedersons fear a loss of privacy as people standing on the deck near the fence are likely to be able to, see into the Pedersen yard and bedrooms. At 69 inches, the fence between the two properties is just under the maximum height allowed under ACC 18.14.040(F)(2). Exhibit 9a; Exhibit 12. Testimony of Mary Lynn Pederson; Testimony of Julie Pederson. 11. City Staff and the Pederson noted that the Applicants' proposal may constitute; a fire hazard. The International Residential Code (IRC), which the City of Auburn has Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Hearing Examiner for the City ofAuburn Greidanus Variance, #VAR06-0004 Page 3 of 7 adopted, requires any structure closer than three feet to the side property line to include a fire wall for protection, regardless of construction materials. The IRC three -:foot requirement would apply to both the proposed patio cover and the composite wood deck. Exhibit 1, page 3; Exhibit 3; Exhibit 12. 12. Several neighbors who do not live next to the patio voiced no objection to Applicants building a patio cover. Exhibit 9b; Exhibit 9c; Exhibit 9d 13. This request does not require SEPA review. Exhibit 1, page 1. 14. The City provided proper notice of the open record hearing. At least ten days before the hearing, notice was posted at the site, mailed to nearby property owners, and published in the King County Journal. Mary Lynn Pederson pointed out at the hearing that the notice of the hearing did not mention that the request was for a variance from the side -yard setback requirements. Nevertheless, notice was sufficient as the posting and mailings properly described how to submit comments. In addition, the structure at issue is already partially erected, providing constructive notice to those negatively impacted. Exhibit 4, Exhibit S; Exhibit 6; Testimony of Mary Lynn Pederson, CONCLUSIONS Jurisdiction The Hearings Examiner is granted jurisdiction to hear and make a decision on a variance application pursuant to AMC Chapter 18.66 and AMC Section 18.70.010. Criteria for Review Auburn City Code 18.70.010 provides criteria for review for variance applications. A variance application shall only be approved if the Applicant can demonstrate that: 1. 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 this title. 2. Because of such physical conditions, the development of the lot in strict conformity with the provisions of this title will not allow a reasonable and harmonious use of such lot. 3. 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-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. 4. The special circumstances and conditions associated with the variance are not a result of the actions of the Applicant or previous owners. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Hearing Examiner for the City ofAuburn Greidanus Variance, #VAR06-0004 Page 4of7 5. Literal interpretation of the provisions of this title would deprive the Applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district. 6. The approval of the variance will be consistent with the purpose of this title and the zoning district in which the property is located. 7. The variance will not allow an increase in the number of dwelling units permitted by the zoning district. 8. The authorization of such variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive plan. 9. The variance shall not allow a land use which is not permitted under the zoning district in which the property is located. 10. The variance shall not change any regulations or conditions established by surface mining permits, conditional use permits, or contracts rezones authorized by the city council. Conclusions Based on Findings The Hearing Examiner may approve a variance only if an Applicant satisfies all ten criteria set forth in ACC 18.70.010.4 The proposed variance would be satisfy four of the ten criteria, but would violate six criteria even with the reduced intrusion proposed by the City. Therefore, the variance as requested or as modified cannot be approved. Each of the criteria is discussed below with reference to this application: 1. There are no unique physical conditions creatingpractical difficulties or unnecessary hardship. Although the property at issue is of an unusual shape, the location of the patio is not an unnecessary hardship which arises out of the physical conditions, of the lot. The hardship justifying a variance must burden the land and not the owner personally. Courts throughout the country have generally held that a variance may not be based on an owner's personal needs. Ziegler §38.05[1] and [3] (1993). In Washington, the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of a variance for a second dwelling house the elderly sister of the applicant, finding that to be a personal hardship not related to the physical characteristics of the lot. St. Clair v Skagit County, 43 Wn. App. 122 (1986). In Martel v. Vancouver, 35 Wn. App. 250 (1983), the court held that in order to support a variance, evidence of hardship must relate to the land and not the owner. See also 3 R. Anderson 18.30. Here, the physical characteristics of the lot do not prevent the construction of it covered patio. A covered patio could be located in another part of the lot. Furthermore, the desire to cover a patio in order to create a play area for grandchildren is a personal hardship and not related to the physical condition of the lot. In a similar case in New York, the court held that personal inconvenience did not justify granting a request for a variance in the required setback where the owner wanted to enclose an open porch based on his desire to 4 See ACC 18.70.0 10 (A). Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Hearing Examiner for the City ofAuburn Greidanus Variance, #V4R06--0004 Page 5 of 7 conserve heat and prevent drafts that could cause his children to catch cold. Fuhst v. Foley, 57 A.D. 2d 956, 395 N.Y.S. 2d 74 (1977). While the intentions of the Applicants are laudable, and may be supported by common sense, the requirements for a variance in Auburn do not support the granting of a variance to provide children with a play area. Findings Nos. 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9. 2. There are no physical conditions preventing the reasonable and harmonious .use of the lot. The unusual shape of the lot does not prevent the reasonable and harmonious use of the lot. Findings Nos. 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9. 3. Approval of the application would not result in alteration of the character of the neighborhood but would be a detriment to surrounding properties. The granting of the variance would not alter the character of the neighborhood. However, if granted, the variance would be detrimental to the immediately adjacent property in that the quiet enjoyment of the adjacent lot would be reduced as a consequence of a reduced setback. Findings Nos. 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, and 12. 4. The special condition is a result of the Applicant's actions. The special circumstances asserted by the Applicant are the shape of the lot and the location of the patio. The shape of the lot is not a result of the Applicant's action; and the shape of the lot does not prevent the reasonable and harmonious use of the lot. Conclusion No. 3. The location of the patio, however, is the result of the Applicant's actions. Self-created hardships arising from the decisions of the original owner generally preclude the granting of a variance. Ziegler §38.06[1]. In Lewis v Medina, the court denied a variance to build a home, where the owner sold off portions of the property, resulting in a substandard lot. The court found that the owner's actions resulted in a self-created hardship. Similarly, the Applicants in this case chose to locate the patio on the narrow strip between the house and the fence, and now desire to cover that patio. A covered patio is not part of the `bundle of rights' that come with property ownership. The Applicants freely chose to place the patio where it now exists; the desire to cover that patio is an applicant action that results in a special condition that requires a variance. Therefore, the special circumstance in this case directly results from a design decision made by the original builder, and the desire of the Applicant to cover an existing patio, and as such do not justify a variance. Findings Nos. 1, 2, and 7. 5. The applicants are not deprived of rights commonly enjoyed by others. Adherence to the required five foot setback would not prevent the Applicants from having a partially covered patio, although it would be smaller than the space originally envisioned by the Applicants. Findings Nos. 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9. 6. The proposed variance would not be consistent with zoning code and district. The approval of the variance would not be consistent with the purpose of the ACC Title 18 or R-2 zoning, because the desired use may be detrimental to the residential environment of adjacent properties. A primary reason for setback requirements is to allow adequate light and air between adjacent properties. The setback serves as a `buffer' between neighbors, Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Hearing Examiner for the City of Auburn Greidanus Variance, #V4R06--0004 Page 6 of 7 and helps preserve privacy and a sense of space. If the five foot setback is reduced, these values would be lost. Findings Nos. 4, S, 6, 10, and IL 7. The variance would not result in an increase in dwelling units. The variance would not allow an increase in the number of dwelling units. Findings Nos. I and 2. 8. The variance would have no adverse affect on comprehensive plan. The authorization of the variance would not adversely affect the comprehensive plan. Findings Nos. 4 and S. 9. The variance would not result in a prohibited land use. The requested variance would not authorize a land use prohibited in the R-2 zone. Findings Nos. 1 and 2. 10. The variance would not require a change in regulations or conditions of surf ace mining permits, conditional use permits, or contract rezones. The variance does not involve surface mining permits, conditional use permits, or contracts rezones. Findings Nos. I and 2. DECISION Based upon the preceding Findings and Conclusions, the Applicants have failed to demonstrate that the request satisfies all criteria that must be satisfied in order to a variance from -the City's development regulations. The request for a variance from the interior side setback distance as set forth in ACC 18.14.040(F)(2) is DENIED. DECIDED this v day of September 2006. THEODO PAUL HUNTER Hearing Examiner for City of Auburn Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Hearing Examiner for the City ofAuburn Greidanus Variance, #V4R06-0004 Page 7 of 7 00 SEP 14 2006 aHIBir *.KS 0S HEARING ECF CITY OF T APPEAL OF EXAMINER'S DECISION WASHINGTON Appeal is filed with the City Clerk Or Deputy City Clerk THE FOLLOWING TO BE COMPLTED BY CITY OF AUBURN Application No.: Date Filed: Date of City Council Hearing: :if -2--a �0 Deadline For Filing Appeal: THE FOLLOWING TO BE COMPLETED BY APPELLANT Name of Appellant(s): .zi9i't-/1 t &,/ "S Appellant Address: /009 - iJ C7" Sj!c: /Am l ti n `✓ Gc/O';4 gSC}er 2 - Phone: Phone: 2S3 -S-09— 619 -6 11E -mail: &7/A44 �r2C� Agent: Agent Address: Phone: E-mail: Page 1 of 3 STATEMENT 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. 2. Specific reasons why the City's action or decision should be reversed or modified. 3. 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 preferably, attach a separate typed response to each of the above. --e- /"� igq -e 1-e z Page 2 of 3 Signa Dated State of V )ss County of King On this da y personally appeared before me �� to me known to be the individualiq described in and Wocuted the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that signed the same as moi, free and voluntary act and deed for the u es and purposes therein mentioned. Given under my hand and official seal this _�� day of 2QO%. _ Notary Public 'n and fo the State of LOA-- Residing in �f)A jo 1 z/ty/eee�9 Do Not Mark Below This Line Appeal File Number Assigned by the City: 1JU-46-a0ael Date Scheduled for Hearing: /d -Z --dr& Page 3 of 3 September 13, 2006 This appeal is to the Hearing Examiner's decision of Sept 5, 2006 denying a variance for a patio cover over our existing concrete patio. As noted in the application for Variance dated July 27th of this year, all we want to do is put a cover over our concrete patio. With all due respect to the Hearing examiner, there were discrepancies in his report. 1. In the Hearing examiner's statement it says we chose to locate the patio on the narrow or south side of the house instead of the north side. When the house was built in 1996, a concrete patio was poured on the south side, as was a sliding glass patio door installed off the kitchen out to the patio. This to me would be the most obvious place to have the patio. If we were to put a patio on the north side of the house, we would have to install a. sliding glass door in our Living room or master bedroom wall to access the patio, or walk all the way around the house to access the patio. When the house was built, the lawn and landscaping was installed on the north side, which was upgraded this past Spring so all the landscaping and lawn would have to be torn out and replaced with a patio of some sort. This to me is a "physical condition preventing the reasonable and harmonious use of the lot. "The harm which is expected to be suffered" from the action from this decision would be the financial burden that would be placed on us if these changes were to be made. 2. Contrary to testimony against the variance about us flipping the floor plan of the house around during construction, we had no input as to the configuration or layout of the house. We had some input to the inside, carpet, color paint etc:. but the house itself was built to the builder's specifications as can be attested to by the builder. This is unlike the house next door that was flipped around, as i:> evident by the two driveway cuts in the sidewalk in front of their home. As stated in the Decision document by the Hearings Examiner, the "primary reason for a set back is to allow adequate air and light between adjacent properties'. The proposed patio cover will be open on all sides with the leading edge supported by five posts, with transparent, yet tinted, Plexiglas roof panels allowing air and light to pass through. There isn't now or ever has been any intent of totally enclosing the patio. And even if we did, it would require another variance request and subsequent hearing. The patio cover is riot an inexpensive, cheap quality unit; its metal posts and rafters are made of a high-grade anodized aluminum and anchored to the concrete patio. Able to withstand wind and snow loads. These specifications are available for review. 3. By requesting a variance we were not expecting to build as close to the property line as hoped but was hoping to split the difference between the five-foot set back and property line. These statements were part of the hearing. A three-foot set back was asked for on the Variance Application. This set back ruling would also fall under the International Residential code (IRC), adopted by the City of Auburn "which requires any structure closer than three feet to the side property line to include a fire wall for protection regardless of construction materials The IRC three foot set back requirement would apply to both the proposed patio cover and deck." This is also stated in the Hearing Examiners Report. During the hearing both. the Planning Department's report and myself mentioned the :fact that a three foot setback would be a reasonable settlement to this scenario, but in the Hearing Examiners report, no mention was made about the proposed three foot set back only the statement that it was eight inches from the property line. 4. Our desired outcome of this Appeal is to have the City of Auburn's permission for us to have this patio cover built over our existing patio with the aforementioned three foot set back from the side property line. Thank you for your time this evening and allowing me to explain our point of view on this matter Respectfully Submitted, Larry and Maxine Greidanus