HomeMy WebLinkAboutHE Determination HE 2022-005 Walkley Garage Variance BEFORE THE CITY OF PASCO HEARINGS EXAMINER
IN THE MATTER OF )
FINDINGS OF FACT,
HE 2022-005 ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
WALKLEY GARAGE ) AND DECISION
THIS MATTER,having come on before the City of Pasco Hearing Examiner on March 8,2023,the
Hearing Examiner having taken evidence hereby submits the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of
Law, and Decision as follows:
I. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Applicant is requesting a variance from the development standards within the R-S-1 zoning
district. The Applicant is requesting to allow an 18.5 foot front yard setback from the garage to
allow for a 6 foot extension of the garage for wheelchair access. Per PMC 25.40.050 the
minimum front yard setback in an R-S-I zone is 20 feet.
2. The Applicant is Katelynn Perry of Pratt Construction, P.O. Box 6539,Kennewick WA 99336
3. The legal description is DESERT PLATEAU 1 LOT 3,BLK 7.
4. The general location of the subject property is 4500 Desert Place(Parcel 4 117241557).
5. The subject property size is approximately 0.23 Acres (10,057 Square Feet).
6. The subject property has access from Desert Place.
7. Municipal water and sewer service are available from Desert Place.
8. The site is zoned R-S-1 (Suburban District)and is developed with one single family dwelling.
Surrounding properties are also zoned R-S-1 (Suburban District)and are developed with single
family dwelling units.
9. The Applicant, Katelynn Perry of Pratt Construction, is requesting a variance from the
development standards within the R-S-I zoning district. The Applicant is requesting to allow an
18.5 foot front yard setback from the garage to allow for a 6 foot extension of the garage for
wheelchair access. Per PMC 25.40.050 the minimum front yard setback in an R-S-I zone is 20
feet.
10. As per Pasco Municipal Code(PMC)25.195.020(1)Land Use Decision Authority.
10.1 Variances.Applications for variances from the terms of this title;provided,that any
variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment
thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the
limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zoning in which the subject property
is situated, and that the following circumstances are found to apply:
Findings of Fact/Conclusions of Law/Decision/
HE 2022-005
Page 1 of 4
10.1.1 Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including
size, shape,topography, location of surroundings,the strict application of the
zoning ordinance is found to deprive subject property of rights and privileges
enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification.
10.1.2 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.
10.1.3 The special circumstances applicable to the subject property were not created
through the action(s)of the applicant or any predecessor in interest.
10.2 According to PMC 25.195.020, all three of the above criteria need to be met in order for
the Hearing Examiner to grant a variance.
11. HISTORY:
11.1 Nanette Walkley is the homeowner of 4500 Desert Place. Ms. Walkley is wheelchair
bound and needs a greater amount of space in her garage to move around her vehicle.
12. VARIANCE REQUEST:Allow a 1.5 foot variance on the 20 foot set-back requirement for
homes in a R-S-1 zone.
13. Applicant submitted two examples in the neighborhood of houses they claim have set back
shorter than 20 feet:
13.1 4107 Desert Drive: 13.58 feet
13.2 4000 Mojave Drive: 18.11 feet
14. Notice of the public hearing was sent to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property
and the newspaper on February 13,2023.
15. The Applicant is requesting a variance from the development standards within the R-S-1 zoning
district.
16. The Applicant is requesting to allow development of a garage extension 1.5 feet into the required
front yard set back
17. The Applicant claims the current garage set back is 24.5 feet.
18. The Applicant is requesting a 6 foot garage addition.
19. The current garage set back according to City GIS records is 20 feet.
20. A 6 foot addition would put the setback at 14 feet not 18.5.
21. There is not room for any addition with the setback already at 20 feet.
22. Per PMC 25.40.050 the minimum front yard setback in an R-S-1 zone is 20 feet.
23. The Applicant claims 4107 Desert Drive has a setback of 13.58 feet.
24. The Applicant claims 4000 Mojave Drive has a setback of 18.11 feet.
25. According to GIS records, 4000 Mojave Drive has a setback of 21 feet.
26. Variances are to be evaluated per the requirements of PMC 25.195.020(1):
26.1 Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size,
shape,topography, location of surroundings,the strict application of the zoning ordinance
is found to deprive subject property of rights and privileges enjoyed by other properties in
the vicinity and under identical zone classification.
Findings of Fact/Conclusions of Law/Decision/
HE 2022-005
Page 2 of 4
26.1.1 Hearing Examiner Finding: Per PMC. 25.40.050(4) (a),minimum front yard
setback is 20 feet from the property line. The current front yard setback of the
property in question is at 20 feet from the property line(see Exhibit A).
Applicant has represented two properties as having front yard setbacks of less
than 20 feet,as follows: 4107 Desert Drive(13.58 feet)and 4000 Mojave Drive
(18.11 feet; see attached submittal for reference). Based on the PMC
requirements for the R-S-1 zoning district, any permits allowing front setbacks
less than 20 feet would have been issued in error. City staff took measurements
using GIS software to evaluate the two given examples. According to our
measurements 4107 Desert Drive has a setback of 20 feet(see Exhibit B), and
4000 Mojave Drive has a setback of 21 feet.The lot is a standard size for R-S-1
zoning and has no special circumstances depriving the property owner of the
privileges enjoyed by surrounding property owners.
26.2 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.
26.2.1 Hearing Examiner Finding: City code is designed to protect the public welfare,
by following City code. Allowing the variance would allow for special
circumstances given to the applicant that are not allowed within City code.
26.3 The special circumstances applicable to the subject property were not created through the
action(s) of the applicant or any predecessor in interest.
26.3.1 Hearing Examiner Finding: The Applicant bought a home that met standards for
R-S-1 zoning but does not have room for any addition the front of the garage
due to setbacks.
27. An open record public hearing was held on March 8,2023.
28. The Applicant and the property owner did not appear at the hearing. They were notified of the
date, place, and time of the hearing.
29. No member of the public testified at the hearing.
30. The City of Pasco Hearing Examiner considered all evidence within the record in rendering this
decision.
31. Any Conclusion of Law that is more correctly a Finding of Fact is incorporated herein as such by
this reference.
II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Hearing Examiner has been granted authority to render this Decision.
2. The Applicant has failed to satisfy its burden of proof to show that the variance complies with
PMC 25.195.020(1).
3. The requested variance is not consistent with the Pasco Municipal Code.
4. Any Finding of Fact that is more correctly a Conclusion of Law is hereby incorporated as such by
this reference.
Findings of Fact/Conclusions of Law/Decision/
HE 2022-005
Page 3 of 4
III. DECISION
Based upon the above noted Findings and Fact and Conclusions of Law, request for variance,HE 2022-
005, is hereby DENIED.
Dated this 6ay-ofMareh, 2023.
CTY O PSHEARING EXAMINER
COKew mp
Absent a timely appeal,this Decision is final'
' See Ch. 36.700 RCW(establishing a 21 day appeal period to superior court,and setting forth necessary review
contents,along with filing and service requirements).
Findings of Fact/Conclusions of Law/Decision/
HE 2022-005
Page 4 of 4