Loading...
WVE-4-81 . ' po • • BEFORE THE ZONING ADJUSTOR OF. SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON IN THE MATTER OF: - APPLICANT: K. C. JORDAN ) DECISION REQUEST: WAIVER OF VIOLATION ) CONCLUSIONS OF LA4J COUNTY CODE: 4.25.030 (f) and 4.05A.070 (bl) ) FINDINGS OF FACT FILE NUMBER: WVE-4-81 PARCEL 13531-1195 DATE OF HEARING: SEPT. 23, 1981 DATE OF W RITTEN DECISION: OCT. 7, 1981 REPRESENTED BY: FRANK CONKLIN, ATTORNEY DECISION The waiver of violation is hereby qranted. That the garage may remain at its present , location as long as said structure does not encroach upon the public right-of-way. INTRODUCTION This matter beinq the considerati-on by the Zoninq Adjustor for Spokane County and pursuant to Chapter 4.25, Section 4.25.010, the Zoning Adjustor has the authority to hear and decide such matters cominq before him. After conducting a public hearing to receive all public testimony and after review- ing the public record and examining available information, the Zoninq Adjustor in accordance with Chapter 36.70.810 Revised Code of Washinqton and Section 4.25.030 of the Zoning Ordinance hereby makes the following Findinqs of Fact and Conclusions of Law hereinbelow stated. The applicant, K.C. Jordan, filed an application with the Planning De- partment on August 31, 1981 requesting approval of a waiver of violation. The subject property is located North of Cataldo Avenue in Section 13, Township 25, Range 43. That on September 23, 1981 a public hearing was held before the Zoninq Adjustor. After receiving public testimony and a ccepting the file from the Planninq Department, the Zoning Adjustor qlaced this matter under advisement for review and decision. The date of October 7, 1981 was set by the Zoning Adjustor for the announcement of the decision. After due consideration of the evidence contained in the file as comniled by the Planning Deaartment, evidence presented by the applicant, all evidence - elicited during the public hearinq and from on-site review, the follotivinq Con- clusions of Law, Findinqs of Fact and Conclusions shall constitute the decision by the Zoning Adjustor on this application. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I. , That the Zoning Adjustor of Spokane County has jurisdiction over the issuance of the buildinq permit for the project to the applicant pursuant to the provisians of Chapter 36.70.810 RCW and Section 4.25.030 of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance. That the applicant submitted an application to the Planning Department requestinq a public hearinq before the Zoning Adjustor, and that pursuant to Chap-ter 36.70.840 and Section 4.25.040 of the Zoning Ordinance, notice for a public hearing was given throuph the United States mail to all property owners within a radius of 300 feet from the subject pro- perty. I F. That all citizens notified an public agencies having jurisdiction were afforded the opportunity to testify or submit written comments on the pro- posed project. , PAG E 2 WVE-4-81 That this action was taken after finding that the public health, safety, and general welfare will not be infrinqed upon. Furthermore, this action con- forms to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance in that the issuance of a waiver of violation is not violating the spirit and intent of the Ordinance. It was found that the applicant acted in qood faith and that there are no modifications that can be.reasonably imposed. The garaqe is not infringing upon any other properties nor the public right to safe travel along Cataldo Avenue. IV. That pursuant to the above cited provisions of law, Findings of Fact here- inbelow substantiates action taken regarding this application. Any Finding of Fact hereinafter stated which is deemed to be a Conclusion of Law is adopted as the same. FINDINGS OF FACT I. The applicant requested a waiver of violation in order to allow an exist- ing garage to remain at it's present location which is found to be approximately six feet from-the f ront property line. The Spokane County Zoning Ordinance in this instances requires a 25 foot setback f rom Cataldo Avenue. II. The Spokane County Zoninq Ordinance, Section 4.25.030 (f) provides that a waiver of violation may be granted when found by the Zoning Adjustor that the aaplicant acted in good faith with every intent to comply with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Such action by the Zoning Adjustor must be made in ful1 consideration of the public health, safety, convenience and general welfare. III. The applicant, through his attorney, testified that'the qarage was construct- ed in 1977. That a building permit application tivas made on February 7, 1977. On the application, the garage is shown to be set back 10 feet from Cataldo Avenue. That on February 8, 1977 a building permit (No. L6856) was issued by the Building Code Department. The permit did note as standard comments the minimum setback requirements. It was further stated that because of the lot configuration and the fact that Cataldo was not paved at that time, the front property line Ufas assumed to be at the edge of the unpaved road. It is also noted that the sub- ject property abuts I-90 Freeway at the north property line. IV. The lot size is 13,860 square feet hc~ving a lot depth of 120 feet at the . east propert_y line and 38.3 feet of depth at the west property line as shotirn by survey con tained in the file. There are 126 feet of frontaqe on . Cataldo. The violating structure is located at the west end of the lot and would appear to be located approximately 5 feet from the west line. The requir- ed side yard setback in this instance is 5 feet (reference Section 4.05A.040). V. From on-site review, it is found that the garage is not near any other resi.dences or structures. The adjacent property to the west Urhich is the va- cated portion of Cirard Road contains an area approximately 1200 square feet i,n size and i.s vacant, It was noted that the qarage i's completl,y finished and i;s 1 a.ndscaped. A chai.n 1 i nk fence i s 1 ocated ..a.l onq Catal do. Al so the garage i.s oriented in a manner that the doors are located on the east side of the bui,ldi,nq thus there is no ba,ckinq of vehicles directly onto Cataldo Avenue. There is one point of ingress and egress at the approximate middle of the lot. The Zoninq Adjustor did notice other structures within the near vicinity which appear to be not in compliance with the setback provisions of the zoninq ordinance. The mobile home located directly across Cataldo from the sub,ject property appears to be located less than 10 feet from the property line along Cataldo. . r ' . Ppr E 3 WVE-4-81 VI. Comments submitted by County Departments reviewing this file are as follows: DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY: In a memo dated September 16, 1981, it- tivas stated that this application was a result of a complaint lodq2d with the Zoning Investigator on August 7, 1981. Further, it,was found that the appli- cant had obtained the necessary building permit for the garage in 1977 (refer to Finding III), however, no inspections were -called-for. On site inspections by various members of the Depa rtment have indicated no appa rent hazard. Also it was noted that further information is available f rom the Spokane County Engineer's Office. COUNTY ENGINEER'S OFFICE: The Engineers Office in a memo dated September 23, 1981 responded that they had no comments concerning this request. VII. The opportunity was afforded at the hearing to any interested parties to testify in opposition to this request. Testimony was received from E. M. Sanstrom, a neighboring property owner. Mr. Sanstrom expressed the following concerns: (1) Public right-of-way encroachment; (2) Property devaluation; and (3) Property owne•rships. The Zoning Adjustor in review of these concerns writes the following re- sponses: 1) Enc roachment - As evident by law, the Zoning Adjustor does not have the jurisdiction to grant the right for any building or structure to encroach onto adjoining properties regardless of whether it is owned by the public or by an in dividual property owner. The file informa- tion presented to the Zoning Adjustor at the public hearing did not confirm that the violating structure is on public property. As re- ported in Finding No. VI, the Engineer's Office had no coranent. Furthermore, claims aqainst encroachment are considered a civil matter and not under the jurisdiction of the Zoning Adjustor. The decision in this matter is to grant the waiver of violation pro- vided that the garage does not encroach upon public right-of-way. Mr. Sanstrom further argued that such encroachment presents a traffi c hazard. The Zoning Adjustor finds that the location does not impair sight visability nor impede the safe and orderly flow of traffic. The location of the garage on the north side of Cataldo is opposite of the clear view triangle of the intersecting point of Cataldo and Girard Road. Further, vehicular access to the garage is on the east side of the structure and on the applicant's property. Thereby there is no backing or parking of vehicles within the public riqht-of-way. 2) Property Devaluation - The adjacent parcel of land most directly affected is a triangular shape parcel cnntaining approxi.mately 1200 Iquare feet i n a rea . Thi s pa rcel i s a vacated porti on of Gi ra rd Road. nterstate 90 7s adaacent to the northerlv property line. The size of this portion would preclude any development. Perhaps a small garaqe may be located provided relief f rom the setback requirements are ob- tained. Mr. Sanstrom';s residence and accessor,y structures are located on lots frontinq on Girard. Therefore it can be concluded that the present location of the violatinq garage which is 5 feet from the pro- perty line is not an encroachment onto the required side yard setback area. Further, this ad,jacent portion beinq a vacated road would not contribute to property devaluation. Eventhough the sub,ject property is located adjacent to an interstate highway, the applicant's use of that pronerty for residential purposes and well landscaped can only enhance property values in the vicinity. 3) Propert,y Ownership - Eventhouqh there was testimony presented regard- i*ng ownership, the Zoning Adjustor does not have authority to rule on ownership. This action can only be valid provided that the structure is located within the applicant's property o-wnership tivhether owned, or leased. . • ' • QAG E 4 W1/E-4-81 The Zoning Adjustor does note, however, that the file records, specifically the legal descriptions as shoum on the assessors records, indicate that the vacated portion of Girard Road is owned by M r. Sanstrom. In reference to the survey nrepared by,Clarence E. Sinmson Engineers and submitted by Mr. Sanstrom, itwould appear that the Interstate boundary does cross the northwest corner of the subject property makinq the west line 38.3 feet in lenqth. However, the depth of the lot at the west side of the qarage, considei-inq that it is set back 5 feet from the west property line, is scaled on the survey to be approximately 42 feet. VIII. Any Finding of Fact stated hereinabove which is deemed a Conclusion here- inafter shall be-adopted as the same. IX. That based on the Findings of Fact stated hereinabove, the Zoninq Ad,justor writes the following Conclusions to substantiate his decision that the waiver of violati'on should be granted. . CONCLUSIONS - I. As supported by Findings Nos. III, V, VI, and VII, it is the Zoning Adjust- ors conclusion"that the applicant did act in qood faith with every intent to comply arith the provi'si,ons of the Zoning Ordinance. That further, the appli- cant's acti'on does not infringe upon any neighboring properties nor cause a hazard to the public health, safety, convenience, and qeneral welfare. II. This action cannot be construed to be a perrnit for encorachment onto ad-- joininq properties including nublic riqht-of-way not owned or leased by the applicant. There was no substanti'al information or verification that the qarage is extendinq beyond the applicant's property boundary. The County Enq- . ineer's Offi,ce in review of this anplication and reported in Finding No. VI had no comment. III. The Zoning Ad,justor's ,jurisdiction is this matter can only be the issue regarding locati.on of the qaraqe regarding the front yard setback distance. The applicat.ion was made Sections 4.25.030 (f) and 4.05A.070 (bl) and duly advertis- ed throuqh public notification. All other issues regarding use, locations, and ownershi'p are not under the jurisdiction of the Zoning Adjustor to review and deci'de as a part of this application. IV. It is the Zoninq Adjustor's conclusion that since the violatinq structure was built in 1977 and the violation was not detected until Auqust 1981, it would be an unreasonable burden and use of zoning.law to require compliance. V. The requirement for the issuance of a waiver of violation depends upon find- ing that the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance is not beinq violated. From the file information and on-site review, it is noted that there are special ci'rcumstances that limits building sites and usage. The shape of the applicant's lot and the location next to an interstate highway would deprive the subject nro- perty from rights and privileaes enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. That relief in setback requirements can be ,justified without being materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property and improvements in the vicinity. . , . ~ PAGE 5 WVE-4-81 VI. - The Zoning Adjustor found that the applicant's plot olan submitted with . this application containing dimensions could not be verified to be true and accurate. That it does appear to the Zoninq Ad,justor that the garaqe is not loca ted 10 feet from the front property line. Therefore, as a means to uphold the spirit 'and intent of County Codes and to protect the public from encroach- ment, the Zoning Adjustor is issuinq the fo1lowinq Order. ORDER The applicant is hereby qiven approval to allow the violatina structure (garage) to remain at its present location. If it is determined that any portion of said structure extends beyond the applicant's ownership, the appli- cant shall either relocate the qarage or acquire by purchase or lease the necessary additional land in order to comply with this action. ENTERED THIS DAY OF VC4~...~.,4 , 1981. . , lz~ THOMA~ L. U IS ZONING aDJUSTOR FOR SPOKANE COUNTY , WASH INGTON ATTEST BY: . , PARTIES OF RECORD: Frank Conklin 17606 E. Montgomer,y Cireenacres, WA 99016 E.M. Sanstrom N. 915 Girard Rd. . Spokane, WA 99206 PURSUANT TO SECTION 4.25.090 OF THE SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE, THIS ORDER CONSTITUTE THE FINAL OECISION OF THE ZONI(VG ADJUSTOR, APPEALABLE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF SPOKANE COUNTY WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE UIRITTEiU DECISION BY THE ZONING ADJUSTOR AND SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE AT THE END OF THE APPEAL PERIOD. c . D - 1 : e - ' i C:.;- , ~~~~i~~• , •1 ; i` ' J' ` ! + } ' , ~ r`- ~ ~ ` . 1 . F ~ I ; \ I ~ I \ I ~'•~S~ ~ \ l . . ( t • 1 . ♦ r , ♦ • 'fi..~ t `i . ;PLANNING DEPARTMENT ~ • II I; ~ I ~ 'r 1 1+ BROADWAY CEN7RE BUILDING N. 721 JEFFERSON STREET PHONE 456-2205 • u :._.,.t;~;;-,-,,, SPOKANE, VJASHINGTON 99260 . . .r'd~t: . . .,i-i : u -'^~.._,:r:,. • . . SPOKANE COUNTY GOURT HOUSE MEMORANDUM T0: Mark Holman, Buildinq Codes Bob McCann, Ennineer's Office FROM: Doug Adams, Zoning Adjustor DATE: March 17, 1983 SUBJ : GJVE-4-81 The attached letters have been received by our office and-I have advised Mr. Ryan to contact you if further zoning enforcement is appropri ate or requi red. pm ~ 'RECEIVED c ' gpoXAHf 0l",NT1 061MC ; MARI 71983 ~ , ~ . t \ ' ' . •J _ - • I.. .j . -!`•'}:~F~ . ~]P` "a&\1 \7 • ~fe . . . ' V5d' 1'] I 4 ,1r • ~ ' PLANNING DEPARTMENT . 'BROADWAY CENTRE F3UILDING N. 721 JEFFERSON STREET •p,~,, d~b+;~~~;~,1:. ' • PHONE 456-2205 r • ,,,_.:~t.,...,.~~r~,,'-- ',7,i -:f-Tar.. SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260 . .•r - - • . . SPOKqNE COUNTY COURT NOUSE March 17, 1983 Mr. Theodore M. Ryan Attorney at Law E. 9015 Euclid P.O. Box 11033 Spokane, WA 99211 RE: WVE-4-81 Dear Mr, Ryan : We are in receipt of your letters dated March 14th and March 15th and have referred them to the Spokane County Engineerirg Department and the County Zoning Investigator for any action that may be necessary. The Spokane County Zoning Investigator is Mark Holman and he may be contacted at 456-2675. Pn erely, ~V . ~ Douglas . Adams Zoni ng Adj ustor D SA/ pm cc: Mark Holman, Zoninq Investigator . Bob McCann, Engineer's Office . file ~ THEODORE M. RYAN Attorney at Law EAST 901 v~5 EUCLID ' SPOKANE. WASHINGTON TEI.EPHONE (509) 926•3585 MAILING ADDRESS J ( E P. O. BOX 11033 r9arch 15th,1983 t~ s1 - % SPOKANE. WA 99211 MAR 16 1983 SPOKANE COUNTY LANNING DEPARTMEN Zoning Adjuster Planna.ng Commission Spokane County Courthouse Spokane, Wa. 99201 Re: Your £ile # WVE-4-81 Parcel # 13531-1195 Dear Sir: In my letter to you dated Nlarch 14th,1983, I was 100% incorrect on my facts and stand corrected. Eric Sanstrom advises that the storage building is one foot out in the street, the street is dedicatec3 ior a 60 ft. width and according to the survey in the County Engineer's Office the building does encroach into the street for one ft. If this correct, then the building should be relocated. Ve tr -y yours, ~ Ted'Ryan Attorney or.Eric Sanstrom TR/mr ~ v~ . . . L; THEODORE M. RYAN Maa 15 1~~~ Attorney at Law EAST 9015 EUCLID SPOKANE. 1N~ASHINGTON S~~ t1 A'~~ C C 0 lJ N TY - LAWViJG AEPryRTMEN -1 TELEPHotvE (509) 926-3585 March 14 ,19 83 MAILING ADDRESS P. O. BOX 11033 SPOKANE, WA 99211 Zoning Adjustor P]_annir.g Commission . Spokane County Courthouse Spokane, Washington Re: Your file # WVE-4-81 Parcel # 13531-1195 Dear Sir: -On Qctober 7th,1981, you issued a decisior.-al].owing the violating $,tructure to remain at its present location providing the sai.d garage did not extend beyond the applicant's ownership. Eric Sanstrom, owner of the'real property adjacent to the above property on the west side, has contacted me severa_l times concerning this decision. He contends that the structure does encrcaach on his real property*on the west side of the building, He wants the garage relocated, he will not consider selling any portion of the property to the owner of the land on the above parcel nor leasing it to him. Cou1d you check into the above and advise as to what can be done or what you will need for further orders in this matter. Thank you. zy tuly yours, Ted Ryan ~ TR/mr <o , . . , t _ _ . - "7► aefore -the Zoniiiq Adjustor County of Spoka.e I N THE NiATTER O F: HEAR I NG DATE Appl i cant: K. C. Jordan )WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1981 1: i 5 p. m. E. 7315 Cataldo ) Spokane, WA 99206 ) N. 721 Jefferson, Broadway Centre Bldq. ) Hearinq Rooni, 2nd floor } File Number: WUE-4-81 ) ) Request: Waiver of Violation ) Any interested person may appear before ~ the Zoning Adjustor ) ) ) lone Classification: Residential Mobile) ' Home ) County Code: 4.25.030 (f) ) 4. 05A: 070 (bl ) ' PROJECT DESCRIPTIOU 1 r ~ The applicant*is requesting a waiver of violation for a'.detached qaraqe. The . Spokane County Zoning Ordinance under Section 4.05A.070 (bl) requires a minimum ~ of 55 foot setback from the centerline of all roadway right of way or 25 foot setback from the existing property line, whichever provides the qreater setback from the centerl i'ne of the roadway ri ght of way, for a front yard setback. The applicant has a 10 f oot front yard setback. ~ , . ADDITIONAL TNFORMATION Please contact: Sookane County olanning Depzirtment Telephone illo: 456-2205 VICINITY MAP LEGAL LiESCRIf'TIOid . Secti on 13 Tot•rnshi p 25 ;?a~ic~e 43 z . . ° Parcel 13531-1195 ~rt . Q VE-4-8 ' Site Size: 13,860 sq. ft. apnrox. o►~E E All ptn of Lots 28, 29, and 30 B1ock 6, First °C ; „4c. r Addi ti on to East Spokane Addi ti on . i-.-rs ~ 93 .......1 ' POES~,IET Y E ^ ~1'*:1000 2 GP~P~ • Q~ °L MARl 71983 - ~ . ~ • ~ ~ _ . I i _ . . a~l d r ' - • ' : • Yy.. - ~1^°'~ T r Ly ~ , r ~ i • 7 . ~ , e . . WMW