Loading...
HE 2017-001 Determination Blasdel PASCO VARIANCE HEARING REQUEST FOR VARIANCE ) CASE 4 HE 2017-001 Lonnie & Kathy Blasdel ) This matter was heard on April 12'x', 2017, at Pasco City Hall in Pasco, Washington, at the request of Lonnie & Kathy Blasdel for a waiver of the minimum roof pitch requirement of PMC 25.70.085(D). Present were Dave McDonald and Darcy Bourcier on behalf of the City of Pasco, and Lonnie & Kathy Blasdel. The following evidence was considered: 1. City of Pasco Staff report together with all exhibits 2. Letter from Rivershore Estate Architectural Committee 3. Testimony given at the hearing Based on the testimony, the records and exhibits submitted at the hearing, the hearing examiner now enters his: FINDINGS OF FACT A. The real property is located on Shoreline Court in Rivershore Estates. B. The real property fronts on the Columbia River. C. The lot is zoned RS-20 (Suburban). D. The owner of this real property proposes the construction of a 7,000 square foot single family residence. E. The proposed design of the home utilizes a flat appearing roof. F. The proposed residence contains architectural design features creating visual appeal and interest. G. The proposed design of the home to be built on the real property does not have a 5/12 pitched roof as required by PMC 25.70.095(D). H. The same house built with a 5/12 pitched roof would extend 40 feet above grade. 1. The lower profile of the proposed design will allow neighboring properties a less obstructed view of the river. J, There was no formal input from any neighbors of the property who were given notice of the hearing. K. Other properties located nearby have roofs that do not meet the 5/12 pitch requirement of the City. L. No evidence was presented that granting a variance would adversely affect property values or be injurious to public welfare. Page 1 of 2 Blasdel Variance Hearing M. Approval of a variance to the Municipal Code requires that the following concerns be addressed in granting a variance. All must be have an affirmative finding. 1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, the strict application of the zoning ordinance would deprive the property of rights and privileges enjoyed by other similar properties in the vicinity; 2. That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated. 3. The special circumstances applicable to the subject property were not created through the actions(s) of the applicant or any predecessor in interest. CONCLUSIONS 1. The proposed home design does not have a roof with a 5/12 pitch. 2. This is a violation of PMC 25.70.085(D). 3. Strict application of the zoning ordinance would deprive the property of rights and privileges enjoyed by other similar properties in the vicinity; 4. Granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated. 5. The special circumstances applicable to the subject property were not created through the actions(s) of the applicant or any predecessor in interest. ORDER The request for a variance is granted. Dated this 7 day of April, 2017. c Benjamin J. Volmer— Hearing Examiner F:/Word/Docs/Pasco.13lasde1.variancehcaring.docx Page 2 of 2 Blasdel Variance Hearing