VE-1-85
~ ~
~
~ •
• ZONING ADJUSTOR ~
SPUKANE COUNTY, WAShINGTON
.
IN TNE MATTEk OF RELAXATION UF FRONTAGE ) FINDINGS OF FACT,
RE(~U IkEMENT. ( VE-1-85 GORUON F IHCH y CUNCLUS IONS, UEC IS ION AND
) CONn IT IONS OF ANPROV~►L
THIS MATTER, 6ei ng the consi derati on by the Zoni ng Adjustor of Spokane
County, i n heari ng appl i cati on VE-1-85, herei nafter referred to as the
~Proposal and the Zoni ng Ad,j ustor of Spokane County havi ng hel d a publ i c
hearing on March 1, 1985 and having fully considered all testimo~y presented thereat, and further havi ng vi si ted the si te and vi ci ni ty i n questi on, and
having rendered a decision on the 14th day of March, 1985, APPROVING the
proposal, makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That the proposal i s general ly 1 ocated northeast of the i ntersecti on of Woodl awn Dri ve and Fancher Road i n Secti on 24, Townsh~~ 25,~.Ran9e 43 and i s
further descri bed as Assessors Parcel #~4532-22~4, bei ng more speci fi ca] ly
described i n zone change fi le ZE-130-84.
2, That the proposal consists of allowing an apartment complex with 3U
feet of publ i c road f rontage, whereas Secti on 4. U1. U60 of the Spokane County ~ Zoni ng Ordi nance requi res 9U feet of f rontage on a publ i c road.
3. That the adopted Spokane County Future Land Use P1 an desi gnates the
area of the proposal as UkBAN and the proposal is far more consistent with the
County's enti re Comprehensi ve Plan, i ncl udi ng the Future Land Use Plan, than
incvnsistent.
4. That the site has been rezoned from Agricultural to Multiple Fam~ly
Suburban as a resul t of the acti on of the Neari ng Exami ner Comni ttee rel at~ ng
to File ZE-130-84 on March 7, 1985; this variance is considered in light of
the Multiple Family Suburban zoning, but is necessarily contingent upon the
outcome of a~y appeal s f i 1 ed wi th regard to the zone change; that i t i s the
intention of the toning Adjustor that a variance as granted in this situation
be effecti ve only upon the permanent establ i shment of the Mul ti ple Fami ly
Suburban zoni ng as rel ated to zone change fi 1 e ZE-13U-~4 as approved by the Neari ng Exami ner Comni ttee or as i t ma~y be herei nafter ad,j usted through the
appeal process.
5. That the existing land uses in the area of the proposal include uses
typi cal to Mul ti pl e Fami ly Suburban zoni ng, that i s, moderately dense
condominium apartments to the north, east and south, while a strong
mi ddl e-to-upper i ncome si ngl e fami ly resi denti al area exi sts to the west.
. b. That the Nearing Examiner Committee dealt with the issue of
compatibility of the proposal with the surrounding area and rendered a~
decision to reduce the density, and to accept the proposal as being compatable
wi th the enti rety of the nei ghborhood, and that the Zoni ng Adjustor nei ther ~
agrees nor disagrees with that conclusion, but accepts the de~ision as ;
establ i shi ng the zoni ng for the proposed si te. ~
19 That the site at various times in the past had acceptable f rontage on
at least two county roads, but that through a series of unrelated vacation
actions over 25 years, the f rontage was reduced to a 3U foot strip of f rontage
on Fancher Road.
89 That the i ssue of 30 feet of f rontage, bU feet of f rontage, 9U feet
of frontage or 1 UU feet of frontage on Fancher Road i s a moot poi nt wi th .
regard to impact on the neighborhood to the west, specifically that ared served by Fancher Road and Woodl awn Dri ve, i nsofar as traffi c generated by the
apartment complex would use Fancher Road and/or Woodlawn Drive regardless of '
the amount of f rontage which the apartment complex might have.
~
,
, , w +
~
FINDINGS UF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, UECISION AND CONUITIUNS OF APPROVAL
~ILE YE-1-~5 PAGE 2 •
9. That, recogni zi ng the Mul ti pl e Fami ly Suburban zoni ng approved by the
hearing Examiner Committee, the site then is deprived of a privilege of
development commonly en,joyed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone
and the vari ance woul d remedy that def i ci ency by al l owi ng the property to be developed in a similar fashion to the land to the north, the south, and the
east.
lU. That the granting of this variance is not a special privilege
inconsistent with limitations on other properties in the vicinity.
11. that it is the unique circumstances of a series of vacations and lack of practi cal access i n any case to Fancher Road extended al i gnment on the
north due to terrain difficulties which have left the subject property without
the necessary f rontage to meet the strict application of the standards of the
Zoning Ordinance and hence the site is deprived of rights and privileges
enjoyed by other properties in the area under the Multiple Family Suburban
zo ni ng .
12, That various conditions of approval have been imposed through the
Nearing Examiner Committee to moderate the impacts on the ad,joining single
family neighborhood to the west and that, while these provide a measure of
mitigation, they are not able to completely abate all of the adverse impacts
which will occur to the sing]e family neighborhood; but that the Hearing
Examiner Committee has decided that this land use and this level of impacts on
the area are acceptable and the Zoning Adjustor recognizes that decision as being in the public interest and general welfare as having established the
zoni ng and 1 and use for the si te.
13. That the Zoni ng Adjustor notes that i t mi ght be possi bl e for the
residents of Woodlawn Avenue, particularly those on the easterly end, to abate
many i mpacts by vacati on of a porti on of the street and the formati on of a
cul-de-sac at the east end of Woodlawn Avenue, thereby forcing all traffic f rom the pr4 j ect ~n L~e Fancl~er R~3c~, Wl~~ ch nn o~ Fwr~rhAt~ q~Md
required to be paved and sidewalked as a prerequisite for development of the
apartment complex,
14. That such action to establish Woodlawn Avenue as a cul-de-sac would
requi re an acti on of property owners i nvol ved to peti ti on the County and the
County itself is not in a position to initiate such an action, but that the ~ Zoni ng Ad,j ustor recogni zes i t as one possi bl e, al though not assured, opti on to
reduce the impact on the Woodlawn Drive neighborhood. ~
15. That the provisions of the Washington State Environmental Policy Act
have been addressed by the responsible officials for the Planning Department
and a Determi nati on of Nonsi gni f i cance was i ssued.
. 16. That persons appeared and submitted communications both opposed to
and i n favor of the project i n general and such comments are consi dered by the
loning Adjustor to apply equally to the proposed variance as well as the
proposed change i n zoni ng. ~
17. That the proper legal requirements for advertising of the hearing
before the Zoning Adjustor of Spokane County have been met.
From the Fi ndi ngs of fact, the Zoni ng Adjustor comes to these:
CONCLUSIUNS
1, The deci si on of thqheari ng Exami ner Commi ttee i s the cruci al 1 and use
decision, said Committee having decided that the land use, as modified by
their conditions, is appropriate for the area and takes into account the impact on the surroundi ng nei ghborhood. .
Z, The lack of yU feet of f rontage on the county road is as a result of
a series of vacations of area streets in the past and terrain difficulties on Fancher Road extended al i gnment northwest whi ch have i nadvertently 1 eft the
proj ect wi thout the techni cal 90 foot standard road f rontage, but wi th as .
practical an access to a public road as would exist if there had been the 'full .
90 feet of frontage. '
, , ~ .
,
F IND INGS OF FH(;T, CONCLUS IUNS, UE(;IS ION ANU CUND ITIUNS OF APPRUYAL ~ILE VE-1-85 PAGE 3 • ~
3, The proposal i s not detri mental to, and i s~ compati bl e wi th the publ i c
heal th, safety and wel fare. ,
4. The subj ect property i s depri ved of pri vi 1 eges commonly e~j oyed by other properti es i n the same vi ci ni ty and zone and the granti ng of the
variance will remedy the difference in privileges.
5. The granting of the variance is not a grant of special privileges
inconsistent with privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and
zone. ~
b. The stri ct appl i cati on of the standards of the Spokane County Zoni ng
Ordinance deprives the subject property of rights and privileges of other
properties in the area and under identical zones.
1. The granting of the variance is not materially detrimental to the
publ i c wel fare or i~j uri ous to property or i mprvvements i n the vi ci ni ty or
zone i n which the subject property i s located.
DEC IS ION
From the foregoi ng Fi ndi ngs of Fact and Concl usi ons, the Zoni ng A~j ustor
~PPROVES the proposal, The following CONdITUNS UF APPROVAL are stipulated.
CON~ITIONS 0~ APPRUVAL
11 That the conditions of approval of zone change File zE-13U-~4 are herein
i ncorporated by reference as they apply to the vari ance f rom 9U feet of
required f rontage and the applicants proposal of 30 feet of f rontage.
2) In the event the acti on of the Neari ng Exami ner Commi ttee regardi ng
ZE-130-84 is appealed and denied, the variance as herein approved is voided and denied.
DATE~ THIS 14th DAY OF March , 1985.
i
T MAS G. MO E, AIGP,
ZUNING aUJUST , SPOKANE COUNTY,
WaS HINGT~N
~
FILED;
1) Applicant ~
2~ Parties of Record
3~ Spokane County Engi neers Office
4) Spokane County Dept, of Building & Safety
NOTE; ANY PARTY AGGRIEVED BY TNIS DECISION MUST FILE AN APPEAL WITHIN TEN
(10) CALENDAR DAYS OF THIS DATE.
U067z
3-8-85 ;