VE-228-84 . '
~ 7
1 ~
R~CEIVEp
ZONING ADJUSTOR
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASNINGTON FEB 2'~ 1985
SPOKANE COUNTY ENGIN EER
IN THE MATTE~ OF RELAXATION OF FRONT ~ FINDINGS OF FACT,
YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT; ONE UF TWO ) CONCLUSIONS, DECISION AND
YARIANCES. (VE-228-84~; LANDRETH ) CONDITIONS OF APPROYAL
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY )
ThIS MATtER, Bei ng the consi derati on by the Zoni ng Adjustor of Spokane
County, in hearing application YE-22~-84, hereinafter referred to as the
"Proposal", and the Zoning Adjustor of Spokane County having held a public
hear~ ng on ~ebruary ~ 3, 1 y~5 and hav~ ng ful ly consi dered al 1 testi a~ony
presented thereat, and further havi ng vi si ted the si te and vici ni ty i n
question, and haviny rendered a decision on the 25th day of February, 1985,
APPROVING the proposal, makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
l. That the proposal is generally located west and adjacent to Houk
Street, approximately 260 feet south of Mansfield Avenue in Section 10, Township 25, Range 44 and is further described as Assessors Parcels
#10543-0503 and 10543-0504, being more particularly described as Lots 3 and 4,
Block 2 of Meadows End, according to plat recorded in Yolume 14 of Plats, page
80, located in Section 10, Township 25N, Range 44 East, W,M., Spokane County,
Washington; together with that portion of vacated Shannon Avenue, being 30
feet i n wi dth, 1yi ng southerly of an adjoi ni ng sai d Lot 4.
2, That the proposa~ consists of a~~equ~~t ta al~ow a 30' setbac~c ~~Q~ the south, east and west property lines and a 28' setback f rom the north
property 1 i ne of a P1 anned Uni t Devel opment, whereas the appl i cati on of the
Zoni ng Ordi nan~e, Secti on 4, 20.100 a. and 4, U1.130 c.l . woul d requi re a 35'
setback at all yards.
3. That the adopted Spokane County Future Land Use Plan designates the
area of the proposal as Major Commercial and the proposal is consistent with the County's entire Comprehensive Plan, including the Future Land Use Plan, by
the Plats Hearing Examiner Committee on November 29, 1984, with written
decision issued on December 5, 1984.
4. That the site is zoned Multiple Family Suburban - Planned Unit
Development which would allow the proposed use upon approval of this
application.
5. That the existing land uses in the area of the proposal include
residential apartments to the north, east, and west and the Burlington
Northern Railroad to the south, most of which uses is compatible with the
proposal; and that the railroad to the south has been provided for in the plan
by a slightly larger setback and by construction requirements which will
require considerable extra sound insulation.
b. That the ~ro~osal has satisfied the reauirements of Chaoter 43.21C
r ~ ^ _ . • • RCW, the State Environmental Policy Act, during the SEPA review associated
with consideration of the preliminary plat for Neatherwood, a Planned Unit
Uevelopment, PE-1418-84, ZE-109-84 and PUDE-7-84.
1. That the applicant has been made aware of the recommendations of
vari ous County/State agenci es revi ewi ng thi s proj ect and has i ndi cated he can
comply with those recomendations.
80 That the proposed site plan contained within the file indicates the
1 ayout and posi ti oni ng of the structures.
9. That no one appeared to oppose the proposal nor were any wri tten
conments adverse to the proposal received.
i
i~ , I !
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, DECISIUN AND CONDITIONS OF APPROYAL FILE VE-228-84 PAGE 2
lU. That the proper legal requirements for advertising of the hearing
before the Zoni ng Adjustor of Spokane County have been met,
11. that the applicant has stated the current market demand which he is
trying to achieve is for "first-buyer" ownership opportunities, which
opportunities can only be achieved to utilization of the County Zoning
Ordinance's Plan Unit Development (PUD) section.
12. That the applicant has chosen to design single family attached
housing on very small lots for the purpose of sale, rather than as rental
units as generally assumed for apartments by language in the zoning ordinance; and that to accomplish this objective, a(PUD) was sought and approved by the
Nearing Examiner Committee for combination with the Multiple Family Subu rban
ff~FS) existing toning on the site.
13. That the rear and side yard building setbacks for other Multiple
Family Suburban zones in the same zone and vicinity are twenty-five (25) feet
and it is only the anomaly of the PUD Section which would require the standard of thi rty-f i ve ( 35 } feet to be appl i ed to the rear and si de yards and f urther
that it is the applicant's efforts to respond to the perceived market demand
for si ngl e fami ly attached housi ng combi ned wi th the stri ct appl i cati on of the
zoni ng ordi nance whi ch has created the need to seek a vari ance f rom the
. di mensi onal standard of thi rty-f i ve t 35 ) feet to achi eve a pri vi 1 ege avai 1 abl e
to other parcels in the same vicinity and zone.
14. That the present f ront yard setback for Multiple Family Suburban,
Secti on 4. 01.130 c.l i s for a mi ni mum of si xty ( 60 ) feet setback f rom the
centerl i ne of the roadway ri ght-of -way or a thi rty ~ 30 ~ foot setback f rom the
existing property line, whichever provides the greater setback; which in this
case is the greater setback "sixty (60) foot" standard, thereby resulting in a
th~ rty-f i ve ~ 35 ~ foot bui 1 di ng setback requ~ ~emen ~ f ram the f ront property
1 i ne.
15, That historically this setback standard was established to assure
sufficient available reserve space adjaent to roads to allow acquisition of up
to fi ve ( 5? feet extra feet of each si de of a fi fty ~ 50) foot ri ght-of-way to
subsequently provide for a sixty (60) foot right of way for heavier volume of
traffic while still keeping the desired thirty (30) foot setback f rom the edge
of the ri ght-of-way to the fronti ng face of the structure.
16. That the Spokane County Engineer, by Design Deviation dated
November 29, 19~4, granted an approved thirty (3U~ foot setback, conditioned
upon the applicant's granting of a five ~5) foot easement as maybe needed in
the future upon which a sidewalk could then be constructed.
From the Fi ndi ngs of Fact, the Zoni ng Adj ustor comes to these :
CONCLUSIONS
1. ~ he subjec~ pr~per~y wou~ d be e~ti tied to twent~r-~i ve ( 25~ faot s~ de anr~ raar varrlc i f thi c wnra ci mnl v a Miil ti nl a Fami 1 v Ci~hi~rhan ~nni nn nrni art
%AIIM 1 vMl J NI %AV 1 1 Y111 V Vivl V v I lllr/ 1 J N I IM 1 YI r/ 1 V 1%4141l 1 J VMV~1 ~/M11 A6V111 !ly YI VJ .V v N I
and not Multiple Family Suburban zoning with a Planned Unit Development Uverl ay.
29 The requested setbacks of twenty -eight (28) feet to the north and
thirty OU) feet to the west and the south are greater than the minimum
requirements of the Multiple Family Suburban zoning common to the property in
the vi ci ni ty and zone.
3, Due to the fifty (50) foot wide right-of-way of Houk Street, the MFS
zoni ng cl assi fi cati on requi res a f ront yard setback of thi rty-fi ve (35) feet,
however, this is historically and philosophically for the purpose of providing
addi ti onal reserve ri ght-of-way i n the event of the road needs to be wi dened
or sidewalks established; and the County Engineer, by written Uesign Deviation
has wai ved the need for that addi ti onal reserve ri ght-of-way; and hence a
thi rty (N) setback meets the future needs of the County Engi neer.
\
+ a ,
~ ~
FINDINGS OF F~CT, CONCLUSIONS, DECISION AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FIL~ VE-228-84 PAGE 3
4. The proposal is not detrimental to and is compatible w7th the public
health, safety and welfare.
5. The subject property i s depri ved of pri vi leges commonly en,joyed by
othe r properties ~n the same v~c~n~ty and zone and the granting of the
variance will remedy the difference in privi]eges.
6, The granting of the variance is not a grant of special privileges
~ncons~stent w~th privileges en~oyed by other properties in the vicinity and
tone.
7, The strict application of the standards of the Spokane County Zoning
Ordi nance depr~ ves the sub~ ect property of r~ ghts and pri vi 1 eges of other
propert~ es ~ n the area and under ~ dent~ cal zones.
The granting of the variance is not materially detrimental to the publ i c wel f are or i nj uri ous to property or i mprovements i n the vi ci ni ty or
Zone i n whi ch the subj ect property i s 1 ocated.
DECISION
From the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions, the Zoning Adjustor
APPROVES the proposal. The following CONDITONS OF APPROVAL are stipulated.
CaNUITIONS OF APPROVAL
1) Al1 future buildings and structures require building permits as per
Sec tion 301 of the Uniform Bu~lding Cade.
2) Construction shall take place consistent with the site plan contained
within the Planning Department file VE-228-84, that is with the following
minimum setbacks: north = 28'; east = 30'; south = 30'; and west = 30'.
DATED THIS 26th DAY OF Februar~r, 1985,
. .
~ THOMA . MOSNER, A , ZONING ADJUSTOR, SPO ANE CUUNTY, WASHINGTON
F ILED :
1) Applicant
2) Parties of Record 3) Spokane County Eng~ neers Of f i ce
4~ Spokane Countv Dent. of Buildina & Safetv
4 RW I v ~
NOTE: ANY PARTY AGGRIEYED BY TNIS DECISION MUST FILE AN ApPEAL WITNIN TEN
(10) CALENDAR DAYS OF THIS UATE.
0052z
\
~
r
I~JN If~G~ ~iDJUSTOR
SPOKA~~ COUNTY, WASNINGTUN
IN TNE MATTEk aF RELAXAYION OF NUMBER ) FINDINGS OF FACT, OF DWELL ING U~! IT~S REQU IRMENT ~ ADVERT ISEp AS ~ CONi,LUS IDN~, DEC IS ION AND
RELAXATION UF LUt A~EA ~EQUIREh~ENT~; ONE OF ) GONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
TWO YARIANCES. (YE-228-84~; LANdRETN ~
GONSTRUCTION COh1PANY ~
1"hIS MATTEk, Being the consideration by the Zoning Adjustor of Spokane
County, in hearing application VE-228-84, hereinafter referred to as the
"Nroposal", and the toning Ad,justor of Spokane County having held a public
hearing on February 13, 1985 and having fully considered all testimony
presented thereat, and further having visited the site and vicinity in
question, and having rendered a decision on the 20th day of February,1985,
APPROVING the proposal, makes the following:
F IND INGS OF FI~CT
i. That the proposal is generally located west and adjacent to Nouk
Street, approxi mately 260 feet south of Mansf i el d~venue i n Secti on__ 1 U~ .T~w_nshi p 25, Range 44 and i s further descri bed as Assessors Parcel s
#10543-0503 and 10543-U504, being more particularly described as Lots 3 and 4,
Block 2, of Meadows End, according to plat recorded in Volume ~4 of Plats,
page ~0, located in Section lU, Township 25N, Range 44 East, W.M., Spokane
County, Washington; together with that portion of vacated Shannon Avenue,
being ~0 feet in width, lying southerly of an adjoining said lot 4.
2. That the proposal consists of a requested variance from the strict
application of the number of dwelling units standard specified in the Spokane
County Zoning Ordinance, Section 4.2U,10a d., the application of which
standard would allow approximately 27.88 dwelling units in the Planned Unit
Development, whereas the applicant proposes a total of 28 dwelling units.
3, That the adopted Spokane County Future Land Use Plan designates the area of the proposal as Major Commercial and the proposal was found to be
consistent with the County's entire Comprehensive Plan, including the Future
Land Use P1 an, by the P1 ats Heari ng Exami ner Comni ttee on November 29, 1984,
with written decision issued on December 5, 1984.
4, That the site is zoned Multiple Family Suburban - Planned Unit
Development which would allow the proposed use upon approval of this
application.
5, That the existing land uses in the area of the proposal include
residential apartments to the north, east, and west and the Burlington
Northern Railroad to the south, most of which uses is compatible with the
proposal; and that the railroad to the south has been provided for in the plan
by a slight~y larger setback and by construction requirements which will
require considerable extra sound insulation.
6. That the proposal has satisfied the requirements of Chapter 43.21C
RCW, the State Environnental Policy Act, during the SEPA review associated
with consideration of the preliminary plat for Neatherwood, a Planned Unit
Development, PE-1478-84, ZE-lU9-84 and PUDE-1-84,
1. That the applicant has been made aware of the recomnendations of
vari ous t;ounty/State agenci es revi ewi ng thi s project and has i ndicated he can comply with those recommendations.
8. That the proposed site plan contained within the file indicates the
1 ayout and posi tioni ng of the structurPs,
9. That no one appeared to oppose the proposal nor were any written
comnents adverse to the proposal recei ved.
r o ,
t
FINDINGS U~ FACT, CONCLUSIONS, G'~CISIUN AND CONUITIONS OF APPROYAL
FILE YE-228-84 PaGE 2
lU, That the proper legal requirements for advertising of the hearing
before the Zoni ng Adjustor of ~pokane County have been met.
11. That the applicant has chosen to design single family attached
housing on very srnall lots for the purpose of sale, rather than as rental
units as generally assumed for apartments by language in the zoning ordinance;
and that to accomplish this objective, a Planned Unit Uevelopment (PUD) was sought and approved by the Nearing Examiner Committee and combined with the
Multiple Family Suburban (MFS} existing zoning on the site.
12. That the PUU zone requi res a deducti on of 20`~ of the gross area of
the si te for the purposes of determi ni ng the net si te area to be used i n the
calculation of the number of units allowable under the MFS standard of one
dwelling unit per 2,000 square feet of site area; that the calculation thus performed allows only 27.88 dwelling units as opposed to 34,8 dwelling units
if this ha~ been an MFS apartment complex simiiar to the zoning to the north,
east and west af this proposal; that the desire to market small, affordable
single family attached housing for the purpose of sale, as opposed to rental,
combined with the lack of a zoning and supportive subdivision regulations
allowing the creation and sale of lots as small as approximately b25 square
feet has deprived the applicant of the privilege of a number of dwelling units
potentially to be enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity and tone and therefore, the granting of a variance under these circumstances is judged
not to be a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on
other properties; that because of these special circumstances the strict
application of the zoning Ordinance does deprive the subject property of
rights and privileges enjoyed by other properties in the area under identical
zone; and therefore granting the variance will not be materially detrimental
to the publ i c wel fare nor i nj uri ous to property or i mprovements i n the vi ci ni ty and zone i n which the subj ect property i s l ocated.
From the Findings of Fact, the~Zoning Adjustor comes to these:
CONCLUSIONS
1, The subject property would be entitled to 34 apartment dwelling units
(based upon site area-units calculations, exclusive of "open-space"
requirements) if it were a straight Multiple Family Suburban apartment
proposal and the subject proposal is requesting the establishment of only 28
dwelling units as single family attached "for sale" dwelling units,
2. The subject property i s depri ved of pri vi 1 eges common~y enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone and the granting of the
variance will remedy the difference in privileges.
3. The granti ng of the vari ance i s not a grant of speci al pri vi 1 eges
i nconsi stent wi th pri vi 1 eges enj oyed by other properti es i n the vi ci ni ty and
zone. ~
4, The strict application of the standards of the Spokane County Zoning
Ordinance deprives the subject property of rights and privileges of other
properties in the area and under identical zones.
5. The granti ng of the vari ance i s not materi al ly detri mental to the
publ i c wel fare or i nj uri ous to property or i mprovements i n the vi ci ni ty or
zone i n which the subject property i s located.
DEG IS ION
From the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions, the Zoning Adjustor
APPRUYES the proposal. The following CONDITONS OF APPROVAL are stipulated.
~
♦
,
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, UECISION AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FILE VE•228-84 PAGE 3
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1~ All future buildings and structures requ~re building permits as per
Section 3U1 of the Uniform Building Code.
2~ Construction shall take place consistent with the site plan contained
wi thi n the P1 anni ng f~epartment f i i e YE•228-84,
~
DATED ThIS ~ DAY 0~ ~ 19 5 . ~
~
TNOMAS G, MOS , AICP,
ZONING ADJUSTOR, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
F ILED;
1) Applicant
2) Parties of Record ~
3) Spokane County Engineers Office
4) Spokane County Dept. of Building & Safety
NOTE: ANY PARTY AGGRIEVEU BY TNIS DECIS~ON MUST FILE AN APPEAL WITNIN TEN
(lU) CALENDAR DAYS OF THIS DATE,
UU4~t
2/15/85
I
.
, '
SPO KANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTO R- PUBLIC NEARING
AGENDA: FEBRUARY 13, 1985 ,
TIME: 1:15 P.M. '
PLACE: Spokane County Pl anning Dept. , N. 721 Jeffersor~ St. , 2nd floor hearing room
B. EXPANSION OF NON-CONFORMING USE (Continued}
2. SPN~60-84 ( conti nued~ County Zoni ng Ordinance al 1 ows such
a use wi th the granti ng of an
expansion of a non-conforming use
permit. ~See Section 4.25.030 (g~
and 4.18.030 of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance~.
SITE SIZE: Approxi mately 23 acres
APPL I CANT : Robe rt B. McKa~ , McKa~y Ente rp ri ses ,
Ir~ c.
C. UARIANCES
3. VE-228-84 RELAXAT ION OF LOT AREA REQU I REMENT AND RELAXATION OF FRONT YARD SETBACK RE~UIREMENT
~enerally located west and a~jacent Houk Street,
approximately 2b0' south of Mansfiel d Avenue
in Section 10-25-44.
PROPOSAL : 1~ To al l ow a vari an ce f rom the
stri ct appl i cati on of the net devel op ment area standards of the Spokane
County Zoning Ordinance, Section
4.20,100 ( d) , whi ch woul d only al 1 ow
approxi mately 2 7. 88 uni ts i n the
Pl anned Uni~ t Devel opment ( PUD)
whe reas the appl i can t p roposes a
total of Z8 units. 2) To allow a 30' setback from the
south, east, and west property 1 ines
and a 28' setback from the north
pr~operty line of a Planned Unit
Development, whereas the stri ct
appl i cation of the Spokane County
Zoning Ordinance Section 4.20.100 ~ a) and 4. 07,130 ( cl ) woul d requi re
a 35' setback to al 1 p rope rty 1 i nes .
S~TE SIZE: 1, 6 acres
APPLICANT: Landreth Construction
-2- co~~tinued
I A
' i h
~ , 1
~
• / ~ ~ • ~ ` ' • ' 1 _ fi. T . ~t. .
~ ~ ' ' • , , C ~ r ' 1 J QQ . , .'^1 ' . • ' ' '
• ~ t A► r,' ' •f~ ~ ; ' ' . . . i • ; ~ , I r• ~ ~ ~
~ : . E ~ c ~ ► o Av E ~ i . i • ~~l.'~ F • ~ w , ~ ' • _ . _
~ - ~ `
- L ' ~ ~ ~v~ ~ I ~
m - I
a • I
7 ' , i , . . . _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
6! ~ . ►
~ ~ A 1 Q ~li ~ , ~ ~ i /~~~lC7f' ~
Q a ~ ~ . `
~ M Ai~ I E i T A A V r ~ 1~ ~ , 7' ~l
~ ~ t, ; ` ~ . , h r Jr W ~ ~ ~
LiSlf vr ~ ~Q `
► • ~ ~ ~ f ~ ` 1 , ,
iR M M~YI.- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ^
~ - - - ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J'' j ~ . ►
I ~ ~ 'i ~ ~1 ~ , ~ MaN ~E ~o ~ ~q +v1 ~ _
. ' ti. , ~ x ,
o' I
- f~ l9 6'~ ~ SNANNON ~1 ~ ~ ~ . I ` ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ..1 r ~ ~ • f~ ~ ~
i.+•~' .~J:~.WIr~ .A♦ , ~ ' ' /I \
~~!t1~!~~ '~j , ~~a ` ~ J ,~,~'f wY NTGOMERIr I~i. ' I L ~ t~* 1_
. 't "r _ ~
~ fRE~vt,Ay , _
o yi ~ ~
~ N,i4/. r'\ . <<, j . ; . ~ , o ~
. C ~ «~~.p i ~1 I 5 S N '
, ~ EL ~ o
, . . . . . . - ~ ~ . ~ ~ , • 1
,:xH' VE Y ; ; . . . ~ ~ ~ , p,
~G , S~NT~ { T ' Z .7 1NTA- , ~
• - • ~ 1 ~s i.__ ~ _ . . ~ ` , ~
O i ~ 5~ W _ Y
3 ~
~ ~oGN t . .;r . , ~ ~ ~ ~
L. . . < < DE Sr~E T r~~ • ~ _ ~ w ? ~:~0~~ ~ ~
: _ t ► DESMET A.vc ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 r _ - r_ . ~J ~~TA~.. C1 CAjAI I
_ ~ ~ , ~ i. sr ~ ~ ~ ~ 1s,L' , ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ` ~---t ~ ~:.~<<..~;. . t ~ : ~ ~'t'T'~' D I a k t ~
' O ~ T ~ ~ ~ R tn.
W ~ ~
> B ~ 'v ' ( - - '
, , 'n ~ ~ . . r ~ ` , ' , . , i~
, ;'w e ~ • ♦ ~ ~ l
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~r~: ~ ~ . SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT .
~ APPLICATIONS BEFORE TME ZONING ADJUSTOR/BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT v~ ~ ~ . . . . , .
, , , ~
Ce rti f i cate of Exempti on No. : A 1 i cati on No. : ~ • ~ . Pp ~
; ~ ..Ndme Of AppllCdnt: ~ • ~ , ~
~ ~ , ~ ~ ~Street Address: t1 ~
, , . _ v ni~~
~ ~ ` ~ C1t : S oKane Stdte: ' y p • Z~p Code: Tele. No.:
Name of Prope rty Owner~s Patrick Seale and Garv ~ a~~ell x~ ,
~ ~s~ ~ .
Requested Acti on (s Ci rcl e Approp ri ate Acti on
Variance~s } Conditional Use Permi t Adm~nis '
trat~ve Appeal :
~ Temporary Permit Waiver of Uiolation Other;
Zero Lot Li ne Non-Confo rmi ng Lot/Use ~
~ FOR STAFF USE ONLY ~ ~ ~ . ~ .
~ Ci te Ordi nance Secti on . ~ ~
~ - - • - - a : . ~ .,~~a~/~'►: *
~ Section Townshi Ran e,-~~- Pro ert Size: ~ ~ p , 9 , , p Y
~
~ Existinq Zoning i, Comprehensi ve P] an Desi nation; ~ ~ g
~ Le al Checked b : Hearin • ' • ~
~ 9 y g D ate . ~ Re ce i pt
Exi sti ng Use of P rope rty : Vacant
Proposed Use of Property: Attached sin~le ~amily tocrm~ouses
Street Address of Property: ~l/A
Leqal Des cri pti on of P rope rty ( i ncl ude easement i f appl i cabl e~ see attached
Parcel 10543--0503 ~ OSU4 Sou rce of Lega~ :~1dar~s & i,l~r?;, lr~ T
Total ,amount of a~joining land control led by this owner~ponsor: r~
~
What i nte res t do you hol d i n the p rope rty : Purchaser
Please list previous Planning Department actions involv~ng this property:
"~eadows En~ Preliminai•v & Final ~lat anproval, t~eatrEer t~'ood Prelininar~ Plat anproval &
Final P.U.D, approval. ~
I SWEAR THAT I AM THE OWNER OF REC4RD OR AUTNORIZED AGENT FOR THE PROPOSED SITE.
IF NOT THE OWNER, WRITTEN PERMISSI4N FROM SAID OWNER AUTNORIZING MY ACTIONS ON HIS/
- - r HER BEHALF IS ATTACHED. - ~
P
Si gned : Date : -7 ~
Address:
, Phone No. : -S$5 ~
C . ♦
~ • r • ,s-• ~ j
NOTARY SEAL : NOTARY :
~ r ~ . D AT E: -7- 6 rt. .
. ~ . ,
. .
- - -
~ . i 'WiO1lMR M'SY'v-"~Af~ii.c':.. i.. ~ 9._t °,J'WII~
1 ~ • • ^ r ~ 1
• ~ ~
~ ~ ms Ben ~f i~n ~-Clarx, ln c~ ~ ~#c~a , .
Civi! En inee~s/LBnd Surveyors/Land P~anners/Landscape Architects ~ 9
I 1 , -
October 4, 1984 ~
HEATI~ER Sti'OOD P.U,D,
Lots 3 and 4, Block 2, of Meadows End according to plat recorded in
~ Volume 14 of Plats, Page 80, located in Section 10, Township 25 North, ~
RBnge 44 East, W.11~. , Spokane County, Washington; TOGETHER WITH
that:. portion of vacated Shannon Avenue , being 30 feet ir. width , lying
. southerly of and adjoining said Lot 4.
: • • ~ti. y r, ,l ~ T ,
~ . ~ v ~t, /J 1 , I• ~ i ~ ; •
~ ~'..w•;' ~i ~I ~ ► • , y 1•, • `•~i I•f~ ~ Y ' j 1• W
. ~ ~ ~ ~ j - ~ sl ~ % • - .e~ ~ l ~ f~ ~ i `
: ~ ~ „ . ~ t ,~T • . • ~i , i . i r ~ ,,n ~ , / ~ : ~ i r~ ; : ~ ~ ~ ~
r : t l, Ir ~ ~ f ' !L/v`~ _ ~ { 'r -i ~ n t ! . C~~ I ~i "J' % !1 j
~ ~ ( Iw~~~ I~ ~1'~. ~ ~ }I 1 „r~ `i ~1 iv s F ~ 1 " ~ ~l ~ ~
• ~ Daniel 8 . Clark L. S 12904 ` s'• ~ ~V ` ~ , ~ ••V ~ ~ ,1 ' ~ ~ G 1 ~~i~/ ~~17C`~.1v'~ ~V~ e
V nf i ~~t► ~ r ~~~~1~ fi ~ F,~ r~ / ,J , ~
W, 1803 Maxwell Ave., Spokane, WA 99101 ~5091328-5853
, r ~ s a ,
. , ' ~ ~ ~
Meadow s End was final platte~ in 1~79 for multi-family development .
Since then marketing and financial factors have changed and require
new app~oaches to this type of development. The financing program for the partial replat of Meadows End to be known as Heather Wood (see
legal description } requires land parceling, Thus , the need to replat
exists, The Preliminary Plat and Final P.U,D, Plan was approved by
the Hearing Examiner Committee on November 29 , 1984 .
If the property were to be developed as is and according to the
e~sting M. F. S, zoning, no variances would be required. However, the
replat under the M,F,S. Zone and P.U.D. Ordinance standards necessitate
two variances. The first variance proposal is to relax the total site
area requirement. The second variance proposal is to relax the front yard setback which will subsequently affect the other perimeter yard
setbacks of the P. U.D.
The site is about 47 square feet short of the required 70 , 000 s, f, for 28 units per the P.U.D. Ordinance. This represents .0007 or 0,07~ of
the total site size. Multi-family development on the lots to the north,
west, and east were developed at similar and greater densities than
Heather Wood. Thus, land use compatibility will be maintained,
The second variance requested concerns a proposed relaxation of the
front yard setback. The zoning ordinance (MFS Zone for multi-family
structures) requires fi0 feet from the centerline of road or 30 feet from
~he front property line, which ever is greater. The MFS Zone for
single faarily structures uses a 55 foot and 25 foot setback. The ~ ,
~ structures as proposed will be single family in ownership , in this case , ~ the frontage road (Houk Street) contains 50 feet of right of way.
Thus, it can be interpreted using the multi-family structure setback
since the units are attached that a 60 foot setback from centerline ,
r which is the same as 35 feet from the front property line, is required.
~ This relaxation then would allow a 30 foot perimeter setback for all ~
sides of the P. U. D. We are asking for this variance to eliminate the
possibility of un~avorable ordinance interp retation at the critical , - j building permit phase. ~
The existing plat of Meadov~~s End with NTulti-family Suburban zoning ~
would allow side yard and rear yard setbacks of 25 feet for this project ~ . and have been utilized by adjacent and nearby 1~~. F. S, developments.
~ It would be unfair, in this case, to require that all yard areas meet a
ma~mum requirement equal to the front yard of 35 feet just because the
property is being replatted. The submitted site plan illustrates the 30
foot front yard and perimeter yard setbacks ~~vill allow the project to
contain the necessary internal site circulation (sidewalks) as ~vell as
adequate Iandscaping and structural separation. The site also does not have adequate extra depth for the excessive 35 foot setback,
It should be noted, again, that the Hearing Examiner Committee
approved the final development plan for the Heather ti~Vood P, U. D, with the setbacks as shown, Again, we are requesting this variance to
eliminate any possibility of the strictest possible interpretation of the
zoning ordinance which would require a 35 foot front yard setback and
would also effect other perimeter yard areas.
I feel that the public health, safety and welfare in no way will be
endangered by the granting of either variance, If approved, the
proposal could be developed in a similar if not higher quality f~shion to
adjacent properties,
«~t :,~1~'~ . rwruw+ , ~..,~_..r..~... . . . . -
1 1
~ i ~ ~ a. _ ~ • •
A dams Ft Clarl G~ lnc.
Civil Engineers/land Survc>yors/Land Planners/Landscape Aichitects ~
ZZ 1985 JAN2219~5 January ,
SPOKA~E COUNTY
PLANNIH~ DEPAR;~AEN~ Pat Frankovic
Spokane County Zoning Dept .
Broadway Center Building
Spokane, v~ashington 99201
Dear Mr . Frankovic :
In compliance with your request yesterday , I am submitting this letter
for clari~ication and revision of variances requested for Landreth
Construction, Inc. in the Heather Wood P. U. D,(VN-228-84) ,
As we discussed yesterday, the ~ire places and storage cabinets on the
two units on the north side of the project will require 18 to 24 inches
of extra space into the yard area. Thus, a 28-faot setback is required on the north yard area. Thirty foot setbacks are required on the east
and west yard areas as well as the south yard. The side yard setback
of 30 feet along the south yard is required to allow for suf ficient
separation between the existing water main.
This request is still in compliance with the approved preliminary plat
and final P. U, D, plan by the Hearing Examiner Committee , The justification reasons remain the same. In addition, multiple family
dwellings are allowed to be built in the Multiple Family Suburban Zone
with side and rear yard setbacks of 25 feet for this type o~ structure, .
Our proposal would be in compliance with the zoning requirements as
typically used without the P. U. D, Ordinance requirement that perimeter
yards must equal the front yard setback. In this case, the project is
being unduly restricted because the frontage street has only 50 feet of Mght of way and requires a fi0-foot front yard setback from the
centerline. During the platting of Meadows End multiple family
structures (apartments) were a healthy part of the housing market,
Private ownership far dwellings of this nature are now in demand. The
size and shape of the property are slightly unders~zed for feasible
development of the site with 35 -foot perimeter setbacks .
The County Engineer's Department has approved a design deviation to
allow the construction of a sidewalk on the west side of Houk Street
within an easement. Thus, extra right of way is not necessary for
Houk Street for improvements and the deeper setback of 60 feet from
centerline is not valid in this case as the street will not need to be
widened in the future,
ROBERT S. ADAMS / DANIEL B, CLARK / STUART A, DEYSENROTH / LESLIE D. KII.~INGSWORTI~ RlCHARD S. ADAMS l w tf3~? Ma~velJ Ave.. Sookane, WA 99201 (509) 328-5853
* ~ . w~ ~ r >
Page 2 ~ .
Pat Frankovich ~
January 22 , 1985
The variance request from the "Net Development Area" requirement
remains the same as earlier proposed.
Please cantact me should you have any questions.
Sincerely ,
ADAMS & CLARK , INC .
`
~ , ~r
tu eys roth ~
SD : ew
, ; q~t:
~ IY ijj~ r~ wl 11
~ a