Loading...
HE 2017-02 Determination Richards Shop PASCO VARIANCE HEARING REQUEST FOR VARIANCE ) CASE# HE 2017-002 John Richard ) This matter was heard on May 24, 2017, at Pasco City Hall in Pasco, Washington, at the request of John Richard for an appeal of an administrative determination to deny a building permit for a shop with afoot-print larger than the applicant's house. Present were: 1. Dave McDonald on behalf of the City of Pasco 2. John and Khristina Richard(applicant and his wife) 3. Kevin Lenkersdorfer(builder of the proposed shop) 4. Steven Schlegel (neighbor of the subject property) 5. Connie Par(neighbor of the subject property) The following evidence was considered: 1. City of Pasco Staff report together with all exhibits 2. Site Plan provided by Kevin Lenkersdorfer 3. Written Arguments for accessory building provided by Kevin Lenkersdorfer 4. 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 lot in question is located on Road 94. B. The lot was platted in 1954 as part of the Replat of Merrick Addition. C. The lot is zoned RS-20 (Suburban). D. The property was annexed to the City in 2015. E. The applicant proposes to construct a 2,000 square foot shop adjacent to his house that occupies 1,611 of lot area. F. Shops and detached garages are listed in PMC 25.70.030 and the RS-20 regulations (PMC 25.22.030) as permitted accessory uses. G. The proposed shop would occupy more lot area than the house and more square feet than permitted in the RS-20 regulations. Page 1 of 3 Richard Variance Hearing H. City Staff would not approve a permit for a shop that occupied more land area than the applicant's house. I. The applicant disagrees with a staff determination that shops and garages cannot contain a larger foot print (occupy more lot area)than the house on the same lot. J. The applicant's house contains two stories with total square footage of 2,433. That square footage also includes the existing attached two car garage. K. There was input from 2 neighbors (Steven Schlegel and Connie Par) who attended the hearing and were in support of the variance request to build the proposed shop. There were no neighbors in attendance who opposed the variance request. L. 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 shop does not meet the RS-20 accessory use restrictions (PMC 25.22.030(1)) and the use regulations found in PMC 25.70.030. 2. The RS-20 zoning regulations and the general use regulations of PMC 25.70 dealing with shops and garages apply equally to all properties within the neighborhood. There is nothing unique or special about the property in question that would warrant deviating from these zoning regulations. 3. Granting the variance request would be materially detrimental to the community and neighborhood because it would create an exception to the applicable zoning regulations for accessory uses on the grounds that neighboring properties have nonconforming shops/garages built prior to annexation. This would grant permission to applicants living in recently annexed neighborhoods in RS-20 districts to construct nonconforming accessory uses in contravention of the zoning regulations. 4. There are no special circumstances dealing with the applicant's lot that would cause it to be treated any differently than other lots in the neighborhood. The code applies equally to all properties in the RS-20 district. An accessory structure on the applicant's lot needs to meet the RS-20 regulations and other applicable use regulations. Page 2 of 3 Richard Variance Hearing ORDER The request for a variance is denied. Dated this_k—day of June, 2017. Benjamin J. Volmer—Hearing Examiner F:/Word/Docs/Pasco.Richard.variancehearing.docx Page 3 of 3 Richard Variance Hearing