Loading...
HE 2012-002 decision McGrail PASCO MUNICIPAL VARIANCE HEARING IN RE VARIANCE REQUEST ) CASE # HE2012-002 BY AARON MAGULA ) This matter was heard on March 14, 2012, at 3:30 p.m., at Pasco City Hall in Pasco, Washington, at the request of Aaron Magula for a variance to the 5/12 roof pitch standard. Alan B. Gunter acted as Hearing Examiner. Present were David McDonald and Shane O'Neill,on behalf of the Ci:y of Pasco,and Aaron Magula on behalf of the Applicant. Testimony was also received from Erica Lalaa. Based on the testimony and records submitted at the hearing,the hearing examiner now enters his: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: Lot 4, Sunset Acres Addition and that portion of Tract 32 lying between the Southerly projections of the East and West lines South of said Lot 4. General Location: 8120 Sunset Lane, Pasco, Washington Property Size: Approximately 1.2 acres 2. ACCESS: The site has access from Sunset Lane. 3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities are available to the site. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is zoned RS-20 (Suburban) and is currently vacant land. Surrounding properties are similarly zoned RS-20 and RS-12 and are developed with single family Dwellings. 5. The home proposed to be built on this lot will be a 6,767 square foot single family residence set back 260 feet from Sunset Blvd. 6. River front homes along the river are largely unique. 7. This lot has an unobstructed view of the Columbia River and is a waterfront property. 8. PMC 25.70.085 provides design standards for single family residential dwellings and requires that all residential dwellings have a 5/12 pitch roof. 1 ' �� ge 9. The Applicant's proposed home design has a roof design which is less than a 5/12 pitch. 10. A flat roof will provide a lower roof line which will obstruct less of the view of the properties to the North. 11. There are a number of homes in the general neighborhood that have roof pitches with less than the 5/12 requirements. 12. Existing homes which do not meet the 5/12 roof pitch requirement have not impaired property values of neighboring properties. 13. All notices of the hearing have been given. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The request for a variance was properly submitted to the office of the hearing examiner for the City of Pasco and all proper notices were given. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction and authority over the request for a variance. 2. Strict application of the 5/12 roof pitch requirement will not deprive the property of rights and privileges enjoyed by other similarly situated properties along the river. 3. The granting of a variance as requested by the Applicant will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated. 4. The special circumstances (a river front lot) applicable to the subject property were not created through the actions of the applicant or any predecessor in interest. ORDER Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,it is hereby ordered that a variance is denied. Done this C1741 of March, 2012. Alan B. Gunter, Hearing Examiner f.\Word docs\Pasco.Maguladecision.doc 211