ITEM TITLE:
Approval of Variance #19-02 for an Eight-foot (8’) Projection of a Proposed Deck into the Required Rear Yard Setback for Jesse Deaton at his Single-family Residence Located at 455 Resurrection Loop (Lot 20, Block 1, St Elias Subdivision)
SUBMITTED BY: Kate Huber, Senior Planner
FISCAL NOTES:
Expenditure Required: N/A
Unencumbered Balance: N/A
Funding Source: N/A
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve variance #19-02 for an eight-foot (8’) projection of a proposed deck into the required rear yard setback for Jesse Deaton at his single-family residence located 455 Resurrection Loop (Lot 20, Block 1, St. Elias Subdivision) or postpone if questions or concerns are raised during tonight’s public hearing that require further research by Planning staff.
SUMMARY STATEMENT:
On April 30, 2019, the Planning Department received an application from Jesse Deaton for a variance for the eight-foot (8’) projection of a proposed deck into the required rear setback for his lot at 455 Resurrection Loop. The proposed deck design does not extend into the 5’ utility easement at the rear of the lot. There is already an existing single-family residence on the lot, with a common wall shared with the unit on the neighboring parcel. The parcel is zoned multiple-family residential. The multiple-family residential zoning district, per Valdez Municipal Code (VMC) 17.18.070, requires structures to maintain a minimum fifteen foot (15’) setback from rear yard lot line.
Because the proposed deck extends nearly eight feet into the required rear yard setback, a variance is required before an approval can be given to the building permit application during a zoning review. If a variance is granted, a zoning review will be completed and the application will move forward to the building inspector for review before a permit is issued. As defined by VMC 17.06.050, “a variance grants an exception to a standard of a zoning district but not the use restriction of that zoning district, and then only when unusual physical characteristics of the land make application of the standard an undue hardship.” In the case of a variance the following provisions shall apply:
1. A variance or exception shall not be granted that will permit a land use in a district in which that use is prohibited.
Variance application #19-02 is for a deck to be attached to an already existing single-family residence. This residence is an allowed use in the multiple-family residential zoning district.(VMC 17.18.020)
2. A variance or exception shall not be granted because of conditions of financial hardship or convenience, or when caused by actions of the applicant seeking relief.
The applicant cites limitations due to the small size of the lot as the reason for needing a variance, not financial hardship.
3. There are exceptional physical characteristics or conditions pertaining to the property which may affect intended use or development which do not generally apply to other properties in the same zoning district.
The applicant cites the small size of the lot and states that his lot is smaller than other lots in the same zoning district.
4. The strict application of the provisions of this title would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship;
In the application the homeowner discuses that other neighbors in the same row of houses have similar decks. Staff is not able to provide an alternative location on the lot for a deck.
5. The granting of the variance will not result in material damage or prejudice to other properties in the vicinity nor be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare;
The application states that the other similar decks in that row of houses do not cause difficulties and the applicant does not believe that the project will cause harm, damage or prejudice to surrounding properties. Staff has received two comments for nearby neighbors in support of the project. Because this report is being prepared prior to the public hearing, the commissioners will need to consider any other comments made by neighbors during the hearing.
6. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the comprehensive plan.
Staff does not believe that the granting of this variance will be contrary to the objectives of the comprehensive plan. The applicant is making an improvement to an existing residence in Valdez which may be a positive contribution to the quality of life of the inhabitants.