VE-70-85 ~
r
t
ZONING ADJUSTOR
' SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
IN TNE MATTER OF A FRONT YARD SETBACK ) FINDINGS OF FACT,
VARIANCE. ~YE-10-85); CROSBY ENTERPRISES, ~ CONCLUSIONS, DECISION AND
INCORPORATED ~ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
THIS MATTER, Bei ng the consi derati on by the Zoni ng Adj ustor of Spokane
County, in hearing application YE-70-85, hereinafter referred to as the
"Proposal", and the Zoning Ad~ustor of Spokane County having held a public
hearing on July 3, 1985, having fully considered all testimony presented
thereat and having rendered~a decision on the 3rd day of J uly, 1985, APPROYING the proposal in concept, makes the following:
~ ~ FINDINGS OF FACT
~ . .
1. That the proposal ~s generally located ad~acent to Rockwell Avenue,
approximately 90 feet west of Best Road in Section 2, Township 25, Range 44
and i s f urther descri bed as Assessors Parcel #02542-5011 ~ Lot 1 of 61 ock 2 of
Robert Lewis Subdivision), being more specifically described in Zoning Adj ustor Fi 1 e YE-10-85.
2. That the proposal consists of consideration regarding ~Lot 1 of Block
2 of Robert Lewi s Subdi vi si on a f ront yard setback of 21 feet i nstead of the
, requi red 35 foot setback f rom the f ront property 1 i ne for the Mul ti pl e Fami ly
Suburban ~zone or 30 foot setback for R-2 zone, as i t regards the 1 ocati on of a proposed resi denti al structure.
3. That the adopted Spokane County Future Land Use Plan designates the
area of the proposal as Ma,j or Commerci al and the proposal i s consi stent wi th
the County' s enti re Comprehensi ve p~ ~n, ~ n~1,:d~ ~y ~~e F~ ~~N~: ~.ai~~ u~~ r i an,
particul arly as i t forms transi ti on to Urban to the north.
4, That the site is zoned R-2, or Multiple Family Suburban if a zone ~ change is achieved, either of which would allow a proposed residenti aluse
upon approval of this application.
5. That the existing land uses in the a rea of the proposal include
si ngl e fami ly, smal 1 acreage tracts, resi denti al , smal l parcel subdi vi si ons to
the north, northeas~ and northwest al l of which are compati bl e wi th
resi denti al uses. '
6. That the Spokane Zoning Hearing Examiner Committee and the Spokane
County Zoni ng Adj ustor met i n~ oi nt sessi on; that the Heari ng Exami ner .
Committee heard and rejected a requested zone change to Multiple Family
Suburban f rom the exi sti ng R-2 zoni ng.
,
1. That the advertisement for the variance case allows the flexibility
to decide on the variance issue regardless of the outcome of the Nearing Examiner's land use decision.
8. That the parcel in question is disadvantaged by v~irtue of its size
` and shape when compared to the other f i ve 1 ots i n the subdi vi si on due to the
al ignment of Rockwell on its north side.
9. That no testimony was presented which would indicate that granting of
the vari ance woul d be materi al ly detri mental to the publ i c wel f are nor
i nj uri ous to property or improvements i n the vici ni ty and tone.
109 That it was established in the public hearihg that the alignment of
Rockwell in relation to this lot may be altered at some point in the future in
an effort to solve a"tie-in" alignment with the right-of-way of Rockwell west
of this lot, and that such alignment, or alternatively the formation a
cul-de-sac ending the road from Best Road westward to this lot, may change or
alter the location and shape of the f ront property lines of this parcel.
e ►
" ►
~ T
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSION, DECISION AND CONDITIONS OF APPROYAL
FILE VE-10-85 PAGE 4
3. Each dwelling unit shall be double plumbed for connection to future
area-wi de col i ecti on systems and as approved by the Uti 1 i ti es Department.
4, Any water servi ce for thi s project shal l be provi ded i n accordance wi th
the Coordinated Water System P1 an for Spokane County, as amended.
V, HEALTN D I STR I CT
1. Subject to speci fic appl icati on approval and i ssuance of permi ts by the
Health Officer, the use of an individual on-site sewage system may be
authori Zed.
2. Use of pri vate wel l s and water systems i s prohi bi ted.
3. Water service shal l be by an exi sti ng publ ic water supply when approved by
the Regional Engineer ~Spokane~, State Department of Social and Health
Servi ces.
4. Di sposal of sewage effl uent i s currently prohi bi ted beneath paved surfaces.
VI. ENGINEER'S OFFICE
1. Any si te devel opment pl an shal l be sub~ ect to any and al l condi ti ons as
may be deemed appropri ate by the Spokane County Engi neer and the Zoni ng
Ad~ ustor at the time of si~te devel opment pl an i s present and pri or to the rel ease of bui 1 di ng permi ts for the parcel .
DATED THIS 3rd DAY OF July, 1985.
~ ~ ~
~ o~ '~AbMAS G. MOS~R, A~,
.ZONING ADJUSTOR, SPOKANE COUNTY,
WASH INGTON
FILED:
1~ Applicant
2~ Parti es of Record
3) Spokane County Engineers Office
4~ Spokane County Dept, of Bui 1 di ng b Safety ~
. NOTE: ANY PARTY AG6RIEYED BY TNIS DECISION MUST FILE AN APPEAL WITNIN TEN
~10~ CALENDAR DAYS OF THIS DATE.
i °
00ZOZ/7-85
' ~ . • ~ ~ ' - ' . ~
` ~ .
: . . _r;:':~',s~:;:.:;:
. •-u • ~ ~ ,'r.{ •i I, t . " . : L"~" ~tiC:=:~' ~ 9p~~:~°;~'~~~ , : '~.I,E~_~ii; . r~=~ • t I~;'.f1' ''~~''.~f'I`iin 1}•.I~~u'~:~" ~ ~ i ' f.~,~ tl
. .ti,::,. ~ - ~ 9 ~ ~ ~~~r~ , - - . . . p~ ~t` ~ "-~f.'::~:_,. ;
-t' I -.=f~:°i!'".r'° : :~:5'. . . ~ ~ ; ~ sf'' :'er' ;.j-:e~ ''s. . ,i~ ' y~;lf~l ~ a~+ j .
:~4 ~ ~LANN1~1~ DEPART~I~NT ~
F i'I ~ ~ROA~WAY CENT~~ ~UI~~I~IG N, 7~1 J~FF'ERSON ~T'R~ET j ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~~r. . r r~ ~ p~"IUHE 4J~''L~V~
. , I ~ ' , ` ~ ~ ~
~ ~ S~OKAN~ WAS~ilNGTON ~9~fi4 ' ~.ki,y ~~V~~,.9, ~ ~ .r''i= r ~ r~'' ••r~~;r•q~- ' ~ ~ . ~~~'.~F.~ ~a}~, ~r~;:'~.~ .'4,'~'; ~i.~_J~ ~ ~ r . . •
SPOHqNE COUHZY GOURT MQUSE
AuguSt 19$~
~~s~ ey C. ~rosby, Presi de~t
Crasby ~nterpr~s~~, Inc.
~.0. Box 1371 ~
_ ~p~kane, l~A 9~213 _ .
~ ~ ~ ~UBJ ; ~ u~y ~ 1 ~85 ~ e~t~ regardi n~ V~-7~-85
_ .
.
~ w~ ~ 1 r~spond t~ eac~r of tl~~ ~hree ~ tem~ of y~ur i nqui ry.
iV, U~i 1 i 1~i e~ ~epart~ent #-1--- ULID ~tatem~r~t
~ Res_~~ons~: i~ i s~~anda~d proce~ure for u~ to ~mp~~e ~h~ s~ondi ti on
w~th regard ta even m~n~r variance~ when the owner of ~h~ ~
~r~per~ty ~ s ~~e ~ppl i ~ant. I~ yo~ ~hoo~e not to ~xerc~
any o~ ~h~ ter~~ v~ ~he ~rari anc~ an~ a~e slmply ap~ly~ ng
f~r a b~i 1 di n~ per~rr~ t wi th~ n~he ~orma~ re~ui r~~ ~~tb~ck~,
thi~ co~~it~or~ ~nd re~uirer~er~~ w~~~ not come ~nto p~ay ~s a
re~u3 t of th~ grant~ ~ng af th3 s var~ an~e. ~hat i s~ot ~o ~a,y that y~u may not run i rr~~ a~imi 1 ar requ~ rer~ent becau~~
of the m~re ~ct af ~~p~y~ n~ for a bu~ ~ d~ n~ p~rmi t.
~ I~, l~t~ 1~ t~ D~partmen~ #-~~~~~oub~ ~ P~ ~rnb~ ng
Re~san~e: ~t ~~andar~ proc~dure for u~ to i~pose ~h~ s~ond~t~on wi th re~~rd to e~r~n m1 nor v~ri ances wher~ th~ owner of th~
p rop~rty i s the app~ i~an~. yau ~hoa~e nat ~o ~xer~ i~~
any af ~h~ term~ af ~he vari anc~ ~~d are s~~p~y ~pply~ ng
~or a b~i 1 d~ p~rm~ t w~ ~hi ~ th~ r~or~~l requi r~~ setb~c~CS,
~h~ s con~i ~i ~n and requi ~e~~nt w~ 1~ not ~ome ~ nta p~ ~~r a~ a
re~u~t o~ the ~rantir~g o~ t~~~ var~ance. ~'hat nn~ ~a
~a,y tl~~t ~au ma,y not r~n i r~to a~ i m~ ~ a~ r~qu 1 re~en~ be~~u ~e
the me~e a~t of apply~r~~ for a bu~~dir~g pe~m~t,
, ~ , . . . _ .
~ ~
t ~
Wesley Crosby
August 2, 1985
Page 2
VI, Engineer's Office #•1---SUBJECT TO any and ALL conditions as may
deemed appropriate
Response: A more detailed reading of this condition shows that both
the Zon~ng Adjustor and the County Engineer would have to
approve "any and al 1 condi ti ons. " The Zoni ng Ad j ustor' s
approval was intended as a safeguard in order to keep in
perspective the kinds of things that can be required associated with a single lot variance, But, it would be
best for al l parti es i f I attempt to cl ari fy thi s.
As in the cases above, if the variance associated with the
f ront yard setback is never exercised, then this condition,
regardl ess of i ts i nterpretati on, never comes i nto pl ay.
Nowever, for the purpose of cl ari f icati on to you, the Engineer's and other interested parties it was not my
i ntenti on to condone unreasonabl e Engi neeri ng condi ti ons as
they may be rel ated to a f ront yard setback vari ance for a
single building. We're still talking about a matter of
judgement in this case, but I would say as a guideline the
conditions imposed would have to be related to the lot
containing the variance, or within a close geographic proximity to that parcel.
I trust the above adequately add~esses your c cerns.
i i
Thomas G. Moshe , AICP Zoni ng Ad~ ustor
~TGM/pm
cc: Bob McCann, Land Development Coordinator
Spokane County Engi neer' s Of f i ce
0042t