Loading...
VE-36-84 RECEIVED JUL 19 1984 ~ SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER ' BEFORE TAE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF SYOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON IN THE MATTER OF REVIEWING THE ) ADPIINISTRATIVE ACTION OF THE SPOKANE ) COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR IN A DECISION ) FINDINGS AND ORDER TO DENY VARIANCE IIVE-36-84 ) THIS MATTER, Being the consideration by the Board of Adjustment-for Spokane County, is an appeal of an administrative action by the Spokane County Zoning Adjustor denying the Variance (VE-36-84), for the purpose of a one (1) foot setback from the side property line, hereinafter referred to as the "Proposal", and the Board of Adjustment of Spokane County having held a public hearing on June 20, 1984, and having fully considered all testimony presented thereat, and 'naving rendered a decision on the 18th day of July, 1984, upholding the Zoning Adjustor decision DENYING said proposal and adopting the Zoning Adjustor Findings and Order as their own, does hereby make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT . 1. That the proposal is generally located approximately 300 feet east of Park Road, approximately 450 feet west of Ella Road and approximately 130 feet south of Broadway Avenue in Section 13-25-44. 2. That the proposal consists of the establishment of a mini-storage facility within the Restricted Industrial Zone to be loca[ed one (1) foot from the side property line whereas the.Spokane County Zoning Ordinance requires a 10 foot setback for a two (2) story structure. The proposed structures are greater than 16 feet high thus qualify as a two (2) story.structure. 3. That the site lies within the Industrial Category of the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan and is closely bordered by the llrban Category. Goal 7.2 of the Plan and its Objectives and Decision Guidelines (particularly Decision Guideline 7.2.1, 7.2.3, 7.2,4 (a)) call for the development of buffer areas where industrial and residential uses will be located near one another. The granting of the requested variance would leave no adequate buffer area as urged in the Comprehensive Plan. 4, That the existing zoning of the proposal is Restricted Industrial. 5. That the Spokane County Zoning Adjustor held a public hearing on May l, 1984, concerning the proposal, and that on Piay 17,. 1984 the Spokane County Zoning Adjustor, by Conclusions of Law and Finding of Fact did render a decisioa to deny the proposal. 6. That on May 25, 1984, an appeal from the decision of the Zoning Adjustor of Spokane County was filed by Jim Olinger, the applicant. 7.' That the existing land uses in the area of proposal include single family residences to the immediate north, two houses to the west, and a manufactured home park to the east and south, Mining (Acme) is loca[ed to the southwest, with the south areas primarily vacant. 8. That the properties principally affected by the proposal lie to the north of the property. The properties are currently zoned Agricultural Suburban and are occupied by single family residences. Many of these residents appeared at the public hearing to object to the proposed variance. Their primary concerns were that the proposed structure located along the rear lot line would block sunlight to the rear yards, restrict air movement and diminsh the enjoyment of their property. 1 FINDINGS AND ORDER VE-36-84 9. That the Spokane County Hearing Examiner Committee approved the rezoning of the property (File ZE-29-84, decided May 14, 1984) subject to site development which would not hinder the light or air movement and other amenities of the northerly residential property. 10. Further, the Hearing Examiner Committee has established landscaping conditions along the northerly property line which requires the planting and maintenance of trees. The conditions alone strongly suggest that the minimum setbacfcs of the Restricted Industrial zone be observed. 11. That the applicant desires tlie proposed variance in order to benefit from an existing retaining wall and masonry fence which would become a portion of the structure's rear wall. 12, That the applicant indicated that the area is in transition from residential to more intensive uses. However, the northerly residential properties are well maintained and can be expected to remain for some time. The applicant has also established a mobile home park directly adjacent the proposed mini-storage facility indicating he too finds the area to have continued residential viability. 13. That the granting of the proposed variance would in essence be allowing the applicant a special privilege to the detriment of adjoining properties., The applicant in complying witii the zoning ordinance will still be able to use the property for the intended storage use. 14. That there has been construction in the form of an addition to the height of the existing decorative sight-obscuring fence that includes additional concrete blocks and additional reinforcing rods/irons. The fence addition is visible from the street and is in violation of the Findings and Order of the Spokane County Board of Adjustment, File I/CUE-115-72, dated November 3, 1976; specifically Condition I12. It provides that the decorative block fence not be used as a common wall to a proposed storage building without prior review and approval of the proposal by the Zoning Adjustor, 15. That the proper legal requirements for advertising of the hearing before the Board of Adjustment of Spokane County have been met. DECISION From the foregoing Findings, review of the Planning Department Staff Report, review of the Zoning Adjustor Findings and Ordec, and the staff presentation of File No. VE-36-84, the Board of Adjustment of Spokane County hereby in UPHOLDING the Zoning Adjustor decision DENYING the proposal does make the following: CONCLOSIONS ANU ORDER 1) The variance request is inconsistent with the Hearing Examiner Committee decision in approving the zone request due to light, air, and aesthetic impacts and the buffering requirements of the zone change. 2) The proposal is inconsistent with the development guidelines of the Spokane Cuunty Comprehensive Plan. 3) The proposed variance application does not meet the standards required by the zoning ordinance for approval of such variances. 4) Therefore, the Board of Adjustment does hereby DENY the proposal and requires the applicant to maintain the minimum setbacks as required by the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance for this use. 1 FINDINGS AND ORDER VE-36-84 5) That the additional construction above the permitted 6 foot high decorative fence sha11 be removed within 90 days from the date of the signing of these Findings and Order. MEMBERS PRESENT: VERNON LAUBACH MARTIN HIBBS, ACTING CHAIRMAN MILA BALL , LARRY KRAUSE BOARD VOTE: 4- 0 DENY THE VARIANCE REQUEST AND UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE ZONING ADJUSTOR, t llATED THIS DAY OF 1984. SPOKANE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF SPOK.4NE COUNLY WASHllVGT 'V eG(C AR HIBBS, ACTIIRMAN /~.Gcr.r>. VERNON LAUBACH LARRY KRAUSE i~~, ~ /,1.~ MILA BALI( 1