Variance Criteria Letter

This is a document submitted by the applicant that addresses how a requested variance application complies with the decision criteria in the land use code to grant the variance. The applicable decision criteria will depend upon the code section from which variance relief is requested by the applicant. This document only describes decision criteria applicable to a variance application and does not address any other code sections that may have variance requirements. A complete application for a variance will include applicant responses to each criteria to show how the request satisfies the decision criteria.

All variances from the land use code must address LUC 20.30G.140.A:

1. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and land use district of the subject property; and

2. The variance is necessary because of special circumstances relating to the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject property to provide it with use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and in the land use district of the subject property; and

3. The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to property or improvements in the immediate vicinity of the subject property; and

4. The variance is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan

In addition to criteria above, any variances requested to LUC 20.25H must meet LUC 20.30G.140.B as follows:

1. A variance to the requirements of Part 20.25H LUC may be granted only if the applicant demonstrates that a variance from other provisions of the LUC, where allowed under this part or Part 20.30H LUC, is not feasible. For purposes of this section, variances from the other provisions of the LUC shall be considered not feasible only when, considering the function to be served by the proposal, a variance to other provisions of the LUC, including non-critical area setbacks, will not realize the intended function of the proposal; and

2. Where the variance involves disturbance of a critical area or critical area buffer, the variance includes a mitigation plan meeting the requirements of LUC 20.25H.210

In addition to all the above criteria, any proposal to vary the requirements of the special flood hazard area in chapter IX of LUC 20.25H must meet criteria in LUC 20.30G.140.C as follows:

1. A variance shall only be issued upon a determination that the granting of a variance will not result in increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, nuisances, fraud on or victimization of the public, or conflict with existing laws or ordinances; and

2. For the repair, rehabilitation, or restoration of historic structures upon a determination that the proposed repair or rehabilitation will not preclude the structure’s continued designation as a historic structure and the variance is the minimum necessary to preserve the historic character and design of the structure; and

3. Upon a determination that the variance is the minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief; and

4. Upon a showing of good and sufficient cause; and

5. Upon a determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant; and

6. Variances shall not be issued within a designated floodway if any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge would result; and

7. The granting of the variance will not foreseeably result in material being swept onto other lands that could cause injury to life or property; and

8. No other alternative development locations for the proposed structure or facility are available on the site that are not subject to flooding or erosion damage or reduced flooding and erosion; and

9. Generally, variances may be issued for new construction and substantial improvements to be erected on a lot of one-half acre or less in size contiguous to and surrounded by lots with existing structures constructed below the BFE, provided the requirements of LUC 20.25H.175 through 20.25H.180 have been fully considered. As the lot size increases beyond one-half acre, the technical justification required for issuing the variance increases; and

10. In considering variance applications, the Director shall consider all technical evaluations, all relevant factors, all standards specified in LUC 20.25H.180, and:

a. The danger that materials may be swept onto other lands to the injury of others;

b. The danger to life and property due to flooding or erosion damage;

c. The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage and the effect of such damage on the individual owner;

d. The importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the community;

e. The necessity to the facility of a waterfront location, where applicable;

f. The availability of alternative locations for the proposed use, which are not subject to flooding or erosion damage;

g. The compatibility of the proposed use with existing and anticipated development;

h. The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan and floodplain management program for that area;

i. The safety of access to the property in time of flood for ordinary and emergency vehicles;

j. The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise, and sediment transport of the floodwaters expected at the site; and

k. The costs of providing governmental services during and after flood conditions, including maintenance and repair of public utilities and facilities, such as sewer, gas, electrical, water system, and streets and bridges.

Any shoreline variance request must address the criteria in LUC 20.25E.190.D only:

1. The City may approve or approve with modifications an application for a shoreline variance to the SMP if:

a. Denial of the variance would result in thwarting the policy of RCW 90.58.020;

b. The applicant has demonstrated extraordinary circumstances and the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect;

c. The strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards of the SMP precludes, or significantly interferes with, reasonable use of the property;

d. The hardship described in subsection D.1.c of this section is specifically related to the property, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size or natural features and the application of the SMP, and not, for example, deed restrictions or the applicant’s own actions;

e. The design of the project is compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the Bellevue Comprehensive Plan and SMP and will not cause adverse impacts to the shoreline environment;

f. The variance does not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and is the minimum necessary to afford relief; and

g. If the variance permits development and/or uses that will be located either waterward of the ordinary high water mark as defined in RCW 90.58.030(2)(c), or within any wetland as defined in RCW 90.58.030(2)(h), it may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate compliance with the following additional criteria that:

i. The strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards of the SMP precludes all reasonable use of the property, and

ii. The public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected by the granting of the variance.

2. Consideration of Cumulative Impacts. In the granting of all variance approvals, the City shall also consider the cumulative impacts of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example, if variance approvals were granted for other development and/or uses in the area where similar circumstances exist, the total of the variance approvals shall also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and shall not produce substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment.