Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVE-81-85 r • . RFCEIVED ZONING ADJUSTOR AUG 2 7 1985 SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON SPOKAN' rour,.iTy Ef'GINEER IN THE MATTER OF RELAXATION OF LOT AREA AND) REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR A OUPLEX ) FINDINGS, COIaCLUSIONS (YE-81-85); HITCHCOCK/DELLWO ) AND DECISION SUM1dARY OF APPLICATIDN: 7he request for variances was two-fold: (1) to be permitted to construct a duplex in the Agricultural Suburban zone on a 10,829 square foot lot whereas the Zoning Ordinance requires an 11,000 square foot lot; and (2) to allow a deck to be located 15'4" from the rear property line whereas the Zoning Ordinance requires a 25 foot rear yard setback. - LOCATION: The southwest corner of Skipworth Road and 30th Avenue in Section 28, Township 25, Range 44; Assessors Parcel #28543-5030. DECISION OF THE ZONING ADJUSTOR: Based upon the evidence presented, the Zoning Adjustor DENIES the requested variances which would have allowed the construction of a duplex on the lot in question and would further have allowed construction of an attached deck to within 15'4" of the rear property line (that is the west property line). PUBLIC HEARING: After examing all available information on file with the application and visit- ing the subject property and surrounding area, the Zoning Adjustor conducted a public hearing on August 14, 1985, rendered a written decision on August 14 , i985. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The proposal is located on the southwest corner of Skipworth Road and 30th Avenue and is further described as Assessnrs Parcel #28543-5030, being more completely described in Zoning Adjustor Flle YE-81-85. 2. 7he original file was nurnbered YN-81-85, should properly have been identified as file VE-81-85 and is herein officially changed to be VE-81-85. 3. The proposal consists of allowing the construction of a duplex on a 10,829 square foot lot as opposed to an 11,000 square foot lot as required in the Agricultural Suburban Zone. The applicant's selected placement of the dwelling structure requires that Skipworth Road be the front yard and 30th Avenue be the flanking yard street. This makes the south property line a "side yard" and the west property line a"rear yard". The proposal also involved locating a 10' x 22' deck for one of the duplex units to within 15'4" of the rear property line (the west property boundary). The deck would be on the above ground floor of a split entry structure, thus making it approximately a to 5 feet above grade at its locatlon on the rear ot the duplex. 4. 7he adopted Spokane County Future Land Use Plan designates the area of the proposal as URBAN and the proposal is consistent with the County's entire Comprehensive Plan, including the Future Land Use Plan. 5. The site is zoned Agricultural Suburban which would allow the proposed use upon approval of this application. 6. The existing land uses in the area of the proposal include both single and duplex structures. However, the neighborhood is substantially single family in nature, although the Agricultural Suburban zone does allow duplexes on lots equal to or greater than 11,000 square feet. There are three . ` s. . , . FINOINGS, CONCLUSIOtIS AND DECISION FILE VE-81-85 PAGE 2 duplexes within the general area; one is located on the southeast corner of Skipworth and 29th; one is located on the southeast corner of Skipworth and 31st and one is located on the northwest corner of Skipworth and 32nd (however 32nd Avenue is an arterial). All of these were apparently built without variances as the lots exceed 11,000 square feet and have required frontages in excess of 90 feet. 7. The applicants were instrumental in successfully opposing three similar variances on mid-block lots on 31st Avenue just west of Skipworth in 1973. The Zoning Adjustor decisions to deny were substantiated by the fact that those properties had no special circumstances that deprived it of rights and privileges enjoyed by other properties and that the requests for lot area variances are out of character with the potential development of surrounding properties. Currently, the applicants stated that they.Dpposed the duplexes at that time because, as developers of the area, they •.rere tryin9 to maintain the single family nature af the area. Since there now have been several duplexes located in the area, they no longer felt that it could or should be maintained as a strictly single family neighborhood. 8. Approximately 1/2 block east of Skipworth on 30th Avenue there are four lots of appropriate size and frontage to allow the construction of duplexes as provided by the Agricultural Suburban zone. 9. Testimony was brought out which indicated that if the duplex were to be allowed on the substandard size lot, the offending rear deck could, alternatively, be eliminated or shifted to the south side of the structure. If it were eliminated there would be no need for a rear yard variance and if it were located on the north side of the structure it could be located to within 10' of the side property line, if possibly not to within 5' under an interpretation by the Zoning Administrator. 10. Yerbal testimony and written testimony in the form of a petition was received from residents of the area who stated their oppositior to increasing the number of duplexes in the substantially single family area. They indicated the project would be detrimental and injurious to their properties and lifestyle. 11. The applicants did not describe any special circumstances, which when combined with the standards of the Zoning Ordinance, would indicate that the property was deprived of any rights and privileges enjoyed by others in the area and under the same zone. 12. The lot to the west would appear to have its rear yard privacy invaded by a deck with a floor 4 to 5 feet above grade located within approximately 15 feet of the comnon property line where only a maximum of a 6' high fence is permitted. 13. Approval of the lot area variance, based on the circumstances of the applicants' situation would make it difficult to deny subsequent applications of a similar nature, thus compromising the purpose, intent and integrity of the Zoning Ordinance. 14. The opportunity for testimony by 14r. R. C. Leonard, who lives irrmediately to the west, was provided through 4 p.m. on Tuesday. August 20th. Mr. Leonard responded in writing within the allotted time. He stated that the relaxation of the rear yard setback would adversely affect his residence and its various outside amenities, which he states do conform with the County Zoning Ordinance. Ne indicates that the the presence of the deck and the duplex will severely compromise the privacy of his back yard. The Zonin9 Adjustor notes that any two story residence would likly accomplish a limited invasion of privacy and that must be accepted. However the Zoning Adjustor does note that the presence of a deck approximately 4 to 5 feet high located within 15 feet of a 6 foot high fence would invade that privacy more than a deck which was set back the required 25 feet. tdr. Leonard also objected to the placement of a duplex on a substandard lot stating that other dwellings in the surrounding area were located only as they are in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance. . • FINDINGS, COIdCLUSIONS AND DECISION FILE VE-81-85 PAGE 3 15. As was announced in the public hearing, the applicants were to be given an opportunity to respond in writing after Mr. Leonard's comments had been submitted in writing. The applicants so responded by letter on August 21, 1985. The applicants state that the requested lot area variance is only 166.67 square feet. They state that the reason for the slight shortages in square feet arise from the width of street right-of-ways, pointing out that the right-of-way is 70 feet wide on 30th Avenue and 60 feet wide on Skipworth Avenue. The Zoning Adjustor notes, however, that these right of way widths are common to at least three other corner lots, all of which are occupied by single family dwelling units at this intersection and further notes all of the dwelling units up and down Skipworth and 30th. This factor then is not unique to the lot but is a factor common to many lots in the area, none of which have been granted variances. Hence, this is not a hardship suffered solely by this lot. The lot can very easily accorrmodate a sin,11e family dwelling unit. The applicants also suggest in their last paragraph Lhat thE corner lots are more appropriate for a duplex than non-corner lots because non-corner lots have two 5 foot side lot clearances and affect two neighbors. The Zoning Adjustor points out that even a corner lot affects two neighboring lots. It is true that a corner lot only has one 5 foot yard and one 25 foot yard against adjacent properties, but the same is true regardless of whether a single family structure is built or a duplex structure is built. 16. The proposal is exempt from the provisions of Chapter 43.21C RCW pursuant to WAC 197-11-800 (6) (b). 17. The applicants have been made aware of the recomnendations of various County/State agencies reviewing this project and have indicated they can comply with those recomnendations. 18. The proper legal requirements for advertising of the hearing before the Zoning Adjustor of Spokane County have been met. 19. Any conclusion hereinafter stated which may be deemed a finding herein is hereby adopted as such. From the Findings, the Zoning Adjustor comes to these: CONCLUSIONS 1. The proposal is detrimental to and is not compatible with the public health, safety and welfare. To approve the lot area variance is to act to set a precedent for approval of duplexes on other similar size lots and would not be compatible with the general welfare assurances normally provided by the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The sub,j ect property i s not depri ved of pri v;1 eges cortmonly enjoyeG by other properties in the same vicinity and zone. The lot is identical in size to numerous lots in the neighborhood which contain single family dwelling units (an allowed use). The other duplex structures in the neighborhood are constructed on lots 9reater than 11,000 square feet. The wide street right- of-ways are comnon to many lots in the area, including the other three at the intersection. 3. That the granting of the variance would be a grant of special privileges inconsistent with those privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and zone. 4. There are no special circumstances applicable to the subject property which when the strict application of the standards of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance are applied would deprive the property of rights and privileges affordeA to other properties in the area and under identical zone classifications. The only real claim is that the lot is too small for the use to which the applicant's propose to use it. v . , ~ . FINDINGS. CONCLUSIONS AND DECISIJN FILE YE-81-85 PAGE 4 5. The granting of the variances would be materially detrimental to the public welfare and injurious to property and improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located. To approve the lot area variance would set a precedent for allowance of more duplexes in the area than might otherwise occur. The property to the west would be disadvantaged by qranting of the variance to allow the deck to within 15'4" of the common property line at the height which it would necessarily need to be constructed. 6. The neighborhood is without a doubt, predominantly a single family neighborhood with only a limited number of duplexes on lots of adequate size. 7. There are at least four lots whose size and frontage dimensions would permit the construction of duplexes in the area. Such limited demand as there may be for duplexes may be met by construction on the~e lots, regardless of whether that construction is by the applicant or other ~arties. 8. Any finding hereinbefore stated which may be deemed a conclusion herein is adopted as such. DECISION From the foregoing Findings and Conclusions, the Zoning Adjustor DEtIIES the proposal. ~ DATED TNIS 0 o DAY OF omdS . OSh , ! Zoning Adjustor, po;ane County Washington FILEO: 1) Applicant 2) Parties of Record 3) Spokane County Engineers Office 4) Spokane County Health District 5) Spokane County Utilities Dept. 6) Spokane County Dept. of Buildin9 b Safety NOTE: ANY PARTY AGGRIEYED BY THIS OECISION MUST FILE AN APPEAL WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF THIS DATE. 0065z/8-85 OFFICE OF qOUNTY ENGINEER SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON D&- Auqust 1 19__85 Inter-office Communication Tr. Spokane County Zoning Adjustor From Spokane County Engineer Subject___A.gPnria itPms S hP(111lPd for_ Nearing - Auaust 14_ 19A5 1. VE 73-85 Godfrey - See Attached Comments 2. VW-82-85 (A+B) - Great Western Federal Savin_s - The County Engineer would like the access easement which extends from 32nd ~venue northward to serve parcels 3A, 36 and 4 designated as a'Tract X' future public right-of-way. The Tract X shall extend from 32nd Avenue to the south property line of parcel 3A. An additional 'Tract X' easement 60 feet in width shall be provided along the easterly 60 feet of parcels 3A + 3B. It is anticipated that these Tract X easements will eventually be connected through Parcel 2. This connection would provide for public road access from 32nd Avenue to the Ridgemont area which lies to the north and west of this proposal. This alignment has been desired for some time by the County as it will provide an alternate means of access to an area having only one access route (24th Avenue). The County Engineer has gone on record and required the development of the connection in association with proposed plats (see Clover Meadows PE 1396-80. This plat was denied by the Board of County Commissioners. Also see Ridgemont 3nd Addition PE 1437). The Tract X along the east side of 3A and 3B need not be improved. See attached comments 5pecifying required "Notice to the Public". Also see attached map. 3. VN 81-85 Hichcock & Dellwo - Now comments concerning this application. 4. CUW 15-85 DELATTE - See Attached Comments 5. VN 79-85 - The proposed sign will not cause sight distance problems at intersection of Hoerner and SR 395 (Division Street). On-site traffic circulation will not be hampered. SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR - PUBLIC HEARING AGENOA: AUGUST 14, 1985 TIME: 1:15 P.M. PLACE: Spokane Gounty Planniiig Department, N. 721 Jefferson St. 2nd floor hearing room 2. VW-82-85 A& B(continued) public road f rontage in the Agricultural Zone. Access is t proposed by means of a 40 foot ~ wide easement road extending northerly to the sites. f SITE SIZE: Parcel "A" - 12.84 acres ~ Pa rcel "B" - 12.15 acres ' APPLICANT: Great Weste rnFe deral Savings 3. YN-81-85 REL~%1?~ OF LOT AREARE UIRE N7 AND RELAXATION OF ItRD SE76PCK R QU Vol EGenerally located on tlie u~hwest corner of Skipworth and 30th Avenue in Section 28-25-44. , PROPOSAL: To allow a duplex to be located on R a parcel of land having a lat area of 10,829 sq. ft., whe reas Section 4.05.050 of the Spokane County Zoniftig Ordinance regui res 11 ,000 sq. ft. of lot area for a duplex in the Agricultural Suburban Zone. Also, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow a deck to be -located 15'4" from the rear property line, whe reas Section 4.05.110 (3) of the Zoning Ordinance requi res a 25 foot rear yard setback in the Agricultural 5uburban Zane. SITE SIZE: 10,$29 sq.- ft. APPLICANI': The ron Hltchcack b Robert Dellwo * 4. CUW-15-85 CONDITIONAL USf PERMIT FOR AN AUTO WRECKING YARD Generally located south of Coulee-Hite Road in the NE 1/4 of Section 24-26-40. PROPOSAL: To allow an auto w recking yard (beginning with a 1 acre stite and expanding to a 15 acre site within 4 years) to be located in the Agricultural Zone. Section 4.04.170 e. and 4.24.060 of the Spokane Cflunty Zoning 4rdinance allows such a use with the granting of a Conditlonal Use Permit. SITE SIZE: 56 acres (approx.) Wrecking Yard site: 1 acre APPLICANT: Mdrew DeLatte -2- • ' ` - ~ kL „ rndr n' GeMefe~y~ l 4 ~.Y! ~ ~ , . • - - ~•Y`t". . . 'n 1 / ~ 91 EL.~2 7 T r ; ~ P%nes Cemetery H ~rd Add . 4 TH p , . •.~a. 19 ' pr • J♦ ~ Q~ .........ti ~ t V G.1 40 NJit ~irtC« ~ t a o ~ ~ ~ z No z I ~ . ) L7Q i •'r:~: ; ] yl Z 1-~~GH;.. 7 2 Al1^ T .r., _ . - - ~ 28 ~ r~ TH I 0~... _ . Tn ~ ' ~ ; ` T = 1 ~ ~ d ~ 1~~~~ N \ S \ ~ F ~ _..1 F~..~. ~ 77 M 1 \ > n - _ _ _N.p b . ' - : : : • ~ • , -oo 101 102 1~7 107 ~oe' ,C 1 1~4 ,5-..116~r~ 7 1'ti:~ 11'~1To: .1z1 ~ t ~ • . . W . \ ` „Rp t e~~o i 317M 1 •4 + T C vy \ . t - yu ~ A! 7 r~ S ~ f ~ • • \ ~ ~ i T ~ t.~ cr•~ ~ ~sr L+• Q ~ - ~ ~ ~ Jirtir ~'e 4 v " ~ • V~ y . t IJ7TM AVI • ' / ~..r.. c~ 38T Cl ~ . _ 33 f \ ~ t , " . • - ~ - • ~ .V: ` ^ . ` ' . • SPOlCANE CGl1NTY PLANWING DEpARTMENT APPLICATIONS BEFORE THE 20NINGADJUSTOR/BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Ce rti fi cate of Exempti on /V~~ Appl i cati on V_A& S1'~5 Name of Appl i cant: ~jLr-'R41Z ~'TC f-,- 4,r4k' oIZrr-t T~~,.= L.C t,J c7 Street Address : f / 3 114 ~ 0 c City: ;~PorcA-441= State: (JA Zip Code: qQ2 ! 6 Phone No.:gA14- 3327' N ame o f P rope rty Owne r( s):7-H,E ~ r-c Hc o~,,- j- w c~ REQUESTED ACTION(S) (Circle Apprapriate Action): (Variance(.~ Conditional Use Permit Non-Conforming Lot/Use Other: * * * * * * * * * * *****CU'Gau t~D ~ FOR STAFF USE ONLY * *Cite Ordinance Sectionfl-P-A 0 =Old Code: V New Code: * *Section e?Township ~ Range 4/4/ Property Si ze: a' * - / ~ ~ " v ~ *Existing Zoning: /y~g F.L.U.P. Designation: ~s-~ * • * *PSSA: ~ N UTA: Q N ASA: Y N FIRE DIST.:LEGAL CHECKED BY: * * *Hearing Oate: 44 fe cetprt-#:'~. * * * * * * * * * * ~ ~ ~ * * * * * * * * * ~ * ~ ~ * * * * * * Existing Use of Property: /1.4 ry a &!T ~.G'T Describe Intended Proposal : 0oA/s7:12c,,g~,. ~q L&~7K Street Address of Property: S W CaR,Y,tEZ 3o~~,ilL ~.5~,'~~✓ert-rrc. Legal Description of ProRgrty (Include easement if applicable): o To c~~►/s~`T~ L/~t. f' 3 3% 1` T oF L o r v 8 L o crr S~o Parcel 28.~'q 3-~ ~ao 3 a~ Source of Legal s Fsso~e. Total amount of ac~joining land controlled by this owrier/sponsor: A10 What iriterest do you hold in the property: D Wi✓c rP_ ~ Please list previous Planning Department actions involving this property: C Ff A-A/Gk- o?- !a P 4 4 T PG A I,/ I SWEAR, UNDER THE PENALTY OF PERJURY, THAT: (1) I AM THE OWNER OF RECORD OR AUTHORI- ZED AGENT FOR THE PROPOSED SITE; (2) IF NOT THE OWNER, WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM SAID OWNER AUTHORIZING MY ACTIONS ON HIS/HER BEHALF IS ATTACHED; AND (3) ALL OF THE ABOVE RESPONSES AND THOSE ON SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ARE MADE TRUTHFULLY AND TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. x f D S i gn e d:~. ~-r IQM f~, ~J+ Address: MOTARY ~ Phone No. Uate: t,y . NOTARY SEAL: P(MIC Jotary: B 8 ~19~ ~'ts Date : of wpsa~~ 1. ` AO. VARIANCES . • 1. In view ai the above info rmation, what special circumstances (beyond your control o* action) :deprive you of the same general rights and privileges of other pro e,rty. owners within the same zone and vicinity? ~ '7_. b'~ ~.Q ~i ,~~i_~ .G' ~C_a N ~'J ~ ~ ~ ~ f J f v /~j,,/ y.:57~'• I(J • 1 ' ~ ~ ~ ~ l ~ / ~J .~ip ,/r ~ T , ,e J . ;7/ r-!~1_/rr~ i.•.. . ~ ~r .'~J~ . ~u~.. ~1 /i~`F ~ J-Ga.~ - 2~: If t~e var~ce we4 gr.ante~d, how vrould it~affect neighboring properties,or lrrproVemen1.5? ~~~1't/JT J~'I.~.r7~/G~ '2.~r.r~..~ ~r•~ ~ ~./.~"Ll L D A ' ~ • GU.~d-! ( /Yl~ L4 4, 11.f1/ ( r i,, B. COIV~ITIONAL-~~US'ES, Z~~Q~LIIVt, NON-C6N~`O~MING~SE, MP(~~RY PERMITS, ETC. l. Please give a concise explanation of the pmposal including size, hours of operation, expected traffic and other features, etc. C. WAIVER OF VIOLATI.ON 1. How or why was the structure established outside the provisions of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinarice7 D. SIGN-OFF BY COUNTY DEPARTMENTS ~ COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT - A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The appli- ca t as been informed of requirements and st ndards. ~ ~ i atu (Date) k5ign-off Waivea) ; 02 COUNTY ENGINcER'S DEPARTMENT . A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The appli- c nt has been ' formed of requi rements and standards. ~ ~ A i g(D4te) ` ' (Si gn-off Wai ved) ~3DCOUNTY UTILITIES,DEPARTMENT A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The appli- ant has been i rmed of requi rements and standards. . ~-0~ ignature Date) tSign-off Waived) 04 WATER PURVEYOR (if applicable) Name: X2"ri'j a The proposal ~is/ ~is not located within the boundary of our service area. b~ We are/are not able to serve this site with adequate water. c) Satisfactoan ements have/have not been made to serve this proposal. f/atef i na ure rya (Si9n-off Waived) P4119-1V ~ . g 3, 3 ~ - , i U ; d ~ _ ~jn~ -jbaa ~ 1 f , o , i 1SZ , ' v ~ S W ' Q7vh lT+o2~~ ~ (1J K rr ~ ~ 1 N ~ r Z ~ i , ! - - _ i ~o-L I, Js' KO ICOI-Id-TpWa Sl4r 5 Sca~~ l ~~-Z01 P6 rce-28!~ 43- so~ o o-r- s 1 z c- iti~ l~ p u s,~ 11 7P-0 s Q Fr 17Z=CKs 14 4o SQ F7- 1' W_ f: