Loading...
1987, 03-31 Re: Variance from Public RoadSpokane County Department of Building & Safety TO : Tom Mosher, Zoning Adjustor Spokane County Planning Department JAMES L. MANSON, DIRECTOR FROMTom Davis, Code Compliance Coordinator Department of Building and Safety DATE: March 31, 1987 RE : VE -17-87 - North 3220 Bowman Road CODE JURISDICTION: The following codes are the sole jurisdictional responsibility of the Department of Building and Safety for administration, interpretation, and enforcement. a) Uniform Building Code - 1985 edition b) Uniform Fire Code - 1985 edition c) Spokane County Building Regulations - Title 3 of the Spokane County Code DEPARTMENT FINDINGS: 1. In accordance with Section 301 of the Uniform Building Code, all buildings and structures including mobile homes and fences over six feet in height requires the issuance of a building permit by the Department of Building and Safety. 2. Project is located within Fire District No. 1. The required fire flow is determined by the district. Fire hydrants are not indicated on the proposed plan. 4. Site contains existing buildings and structures which are subject to the UBC Code requirements relating to required yards. BUILDING AND SAFETY CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. The applicant shall provide written verification from the Fire District to the Department of Building and Safety that provisions have been made for adequate fire protection prior to the release of building permits. TLD:pjk IkTflOTT-lr 1 1 T CVVVI,CflAT • sPOK ANF WASHINGTON 992604'0050 TELEPHONE (509) 456-3675 a.. ZONING ADJUSTOR SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON IN THE MATTER OF A VARIANCE FROM PUBLIC ROAD) FRONTAGE STANDARDS (VE -17-87 (A -B);) RICHARD WYATT ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION 6cfaiwtot4 SUMMARY OF APPLICATION: The applicant proposes to divide a parcel of land with approximately 117 feet of frontage into two (2) approximately equal lots. Depending on exactly how the division occurs, there could be as little as 54 feet of frontage in one of the lots, Section 4.05.040 of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance requires 65 feet of continuous public street frontage. Authority to consider and grant such a request exists pursuant to Sections 4.03.020 54. & 4.25.030 b. of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance. LOCATION: The parcel of land is located east of the City of Spokane, east of and adjacent to Bowman Road and north of Euclid Road in the SE 1/4 of Section 1, Township 25, Range 43. The property is addressed as N. 3220 Bowman Road and the Assessor's parcel number is 01534-0173. DECISION OF THE ZONING ADJUSTOR: Based upon the evidence presented and circumstances associated with the project proposal, the Zoning Adjustor APPROVES the frontage variance which would establish one of the two proposed parcels as having as little as 54 feet of frontage on a public street. The proposal is subject to a future short -plat which may or may not be approved. The short -plat survey should be performed which would establish the dividing parcel line which recognizes legal setbacks for the two structures which exist on the lot, the northern one being a two-story building and the southern one being a one-story building. Both lots are granted variances to be created with frontages with less than 65 feet. Various conditions of approval are set forth below. PUBLIC HEARING: After examining all available information on file with the application and visiting the subject property and surrounding area, the Zoning Adjustor conducted public hearing on April 8, 1987, and a rendered a written decision on April , 1987. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The proposal is generally located east of the City of Spokane, east of and adjacent to Bowman Road, north of Euclid Road in the SE 1/4 of Section 1, Township 25, Range 43 and is further described as Assessor number 01534-0173, being more completely described in Zoning Adjustor File #VE -17-87 (A -B). 2. The proposal consists of a 17,800 square foot lot which contains two buildings. One building is on the northern portion and one building is on the southern portion, as shown in the site plan. The applicant proposes to divide the parcel with an east/west running property line so as to create a separate parcel for each building. Several problems exist with this proposal and are inherent to the existing circumstances. These will be addressed below in separate findings. 3. The 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. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION PAGE 2 VE -17-87; WYATT 4. The site is zoned Agricultural -Suburban which would allow the proposed use upon approval of this application. 5. The existing land uses in the area of the proposal include residential uses on lots ranging in size from 8,025 square feet to as much as 24,000 square feet, all of which are compatible with the proposal. The proposal would create, ideally, two equal parcels of 8,925 square feet each. 6. The single story dwelling unit on the south side of the lot has existed for quite some time, the applicant having owned the property from at least 1970 when he applied for a building permit to construct an addition to the residence in the form of a living room or a bedroom. On March 29, 1976, the applicant applied for and received a building permit to construct a detached garage and shop, which became the building on the north side of the property. The building was set toward the rear of the parcel in much the same fashion as a garage would be set. The building permit contained language which said there was to be no commercial use and that it was not for residential use. To allow such uses would violate the Zoning Ordinance by either establishing an accessory building with commercial uses or a second residence. The building inspector noted at the time of the framing inspection that the structure appeared more than a shop and a garage. In fact, in the Zoning Adjustor's opinion, the building resembles a 1 1/2 story single family dwelling unit with garage. 7. The applicant has established a cabinet making shop in the structure on the northern part of the lot. This is, in fact, contrary to the building permit issuance as it constitutes a commercial or manufacturing use in the separate assessory building. It cannot be considered a home occupation because it is not confined to the single family dwelling to the south. 8. The commercial or manufacturing use cannot continue in the existing structure without remaining a violation of the uses allowed in the Agricultural -Suburban zone. When short platting occurs to establish the individual parcels, it will be necessary to abate or cease the illegal activity on the site and the short plat should be conditioned for only those uses allowed in the zone. 9. If the variance is not granted, the property ultimately not subdivided and enforcement actions were to be taken, the northern most unit would have to be vacated, making it vulnerable to vandalism. If an attempt is made to establish it as a residence, it would not be allowed due to the fact that only one dwelling unit can exist on a single parcel of land. This puts us back to the situation of allowing the subdivision of land to go ahead in order to authorize two dwelling units where there is only one at the present time. 10. The proposal is exempt from the provisions of Chapter 43.21C RCW pursuant to WAC 197-11-800-(6)(b). 11. The applicant has been made aware of the recommendations of various County/State agencies reviewing this project and has indicated he can comply with those recommendations. The parcel is not exempt from the Subdivision laws and must be subject to a short plat before two parcels may actually be created. 12. No one appeared to oppose the proposal nor were any written comments adverse to the proposal received. 13. The proper legal requirements for advertising of the hearing before the Zoning Adjustor of Spokane County have been met. 14. 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: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION PAGE 3 VE -17-87; WYATT CONCLUSIONS 1. The variance will not authorize a use otherwise prohibited in the zone. Although, an authorized use presently exists at the site; it will not be created or necessarily perpetuated by granting a variance. 2. With the conditions of approval set forth below, the variance will: a) not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with limitations on other properties in the vicinity and similar zone; b) ensure that the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is achieved with regard to location, site design, appearance, and landscaping, etc; and c) protect the environment, public interest and general welfare. The two lots will be among the smaller ones in the area, but not the smallest in the area and therefore will not be granted a special privilege. 3. Granting variances will contribute to abating the illegal activity without leaving the northernmost structure abandoned and subject to vandalism. 4. There are special circumstances applicable to the property which when combined with the standards of the Zoning Ordinance, create practical difficulties for the use of the property and/or deprive the property of rights and privileges common to other properties in the vicinity and similar zone classifications. The presence of the second, more northerly structure is a special circumstance. 5. Granting the variance will be neither materially detrimental to the public welfare nor injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and zone. 6. Strict application of the zoning standards does create an unreasonable burden in light of the purpose to be served by the standards. 7. Strict application of the zoning standards does create an unreasonable burden in light of the purpose to be served by the standards. 8. Not granting the variances would prohibit the land from being short platted which in turn may require the more northerly building to be either abandoned or razed due to its containing either an unauthorized commercial use and not being able to be used as a second residence on a single parcel of land. 9. The case for the variance was not supported by substantial reference to or reliance upon legal or non -conforming precedences. 10. Granting the variance will not adversely affect the overall zoning design, plan or concept for either the immediate area or the entire County. 11. The case for a variance was not based substantially upon a lack of reasonable economic return nor a claim that the existing structure is too small. 12. Granting the variance will not be inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. 13. The granting of the variance will not result in defacto zone reclassification. 14. The requested variance is not substantially for the purpose of circumventing density regulations designed to protect the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer. 15. Various performance standards and criteria are additionally needed to make the use compatible with other permitted activities in the same vicinity and zone and to ensure against imposing excessive demands upon public utilities and these shall be addressed as conditions of approval. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION PAGE 4 VE -17-37; WYATT 15. The Zoning Adjustor may require such conditions of approval as necessary and appropriate to make the project most compatible with the public interest and general welfare. 17. 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 APPROVES the proposal. The following CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ARE STIPULATED. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL I. GENERAL 1. The following conditions shall apply to the applicant, owner and successors in interest. 2. Failure to comply with any of the conditions of approval contained in this decision, except as may be relieved by the Zoning Adjustor, shall constitute a violation of the Zoning Ordinance and be subject to such enforcement actions as are appropriate. II. PLANNING DEPARTMENT . This action by the Zoning Adjustor authorizes the parcel in question to be subdivided through the shortplat process of Spokane County into two lots either one of which may have as small a frontage as 54 feet. The lot lines should be established by a survey and should recognize the required setbacks from the established buildings located on the site, noting that the more northerly building is approximately 20 feet tall and is considered one -and -one-half (1 1/2) stories. 2. The Subdivision Administrator shall see to it that the short plat process includes all of the conditions of approval listed hereinafter. 3. A title notice shall be filed in the Auditors Office indicating that this property can only be divided subject to the Spokane County Short Plat Ordinance or its successor regulation. III. DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING & SAFETY The applicant shall provide written verification from the Fire District to the Department of Building and Safety that provisions have been made for adequate fire protection prior to the release of building permits. IV. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT . Pursuant to the Board of County Commissioners Resolution No. 80-0418, the use of on-site sewer disposal systems is hereby authorized. This authorization is conditioned upon compliance with all rules and regulations of the Spokane County Health District and is further conditioned and subject to specific application, approval, and issuance of permits by the Health Officer. 2. The owner(s) or successor(s) in Interest agree to authorize the County to place their name(s) on a petition for the formation of a ULID by petition method pursuant to RCW 36.94 which the petition includes the Owner(s) property and further not to object by the signing of a protest petition against the formation of a ULID by resolution method pursuant to RCW Chapter 36.94 which includes the Owner(s) property. PROVIDED, this condition shall not prohibit the Owner(s) or Successor(s) from objection to any assessment(s) on the property as a result of improvements called for in conjunction with the formation of a ULID by either petition or resolution method under RCW Chapter 36.94. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION PAGE 5 VE -17-87; WYATT 3. Any water service for this project shall be provided in accordance with the Coordinated Water System Plan for Spokane County, as amended. 4. Each new dwelling unit shall be double plumbed for connection to future area -wide collection systems V. HEALTH DISTRICT 1. A combined surface water and sewage disposal detail plan shall be approved by the Spokane County Engineer and the Spokane County Health District prior to the issuance of any building permits for this project. This condition maybe waived, based on mutual concurance with both effected departments. 2. Sewage disposal shall be as authorized by the Director of Utilities, Spokane County. . Water service shall be coordinated through the Director of Utilities, Spokane County. . Water service shall be by an existing public water supply when approved by the Regional Engineer (Spokane), State Department of Social and Health Services. 5. Subject to specific application approval and issuance of permits by the Health Officer, the use of an individual on-site sewage system may be authorized. NOTE: At the time of division of the proprety into two parcels of land, the sponsor shall provide satisfactory evidence that the sewage system serving the residence lies totally within its own tract. Use of private wells and water systems is prohibited. VI. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT None is applicable. NOTICE: PENDING COMPLETION AF ALL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WHICH NEED TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE, PERMITS CAN BE RELEASED PRIOR TO THE LAPSE OF THE (10) DAY APPEAL PERIOD. HOWEVER, THE COUNTY HAS Ns LIABILITY FOR EXPENSES AND INCONVENIENCE INCURRED BY THE APPLICANT IF E PROJECT APPROVAL IS OVERTURNED OR ALTERED UPON APPEAL. DATED THIS AIA DAY OF APRIL, 1987. FILED: Thomas G. osh AICP Zoning Adjusto Spokane County Washington 1) Applicant 2) Parties of Record 3) Spokane County Engineering Department 4) Spokane County Health District 5) Spokane County Utilities Dept. 6) Spokane County Dept. of Building & Safety 7) Planning Dept. Cross Reference File and/or Electronic File. NOTE: ONLY THE APPLICANT OR AN OPPONENT OF RECORD MAY FILE AN APPEAL WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE ABOVE DATE OF SIGNING. APPEAL MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A $100.00 FEE. APPEALS MAY BE FILED AT THE SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT, BROADWAY CENTRE BUILDING, N. 721 JEFFERSON ST., SPOKANE, WA 99260. (Sections 4.25.090 and 4.25.100 of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance). 0004z/5-87 K'I N4 bv6.0 ± 3 1.1.322o \v r1 A N FS D. NOT€: Z5 variant¢ is aP- Prt�vfnc,,r;• pla.+ is ne kci. 5urvay rxus+ ycl,,, 56ba.. -4-0‘e EX 1571 NG STP. hor,r¢siclei sial use will ntosi-litaly no4 be afprtov¢sal -1-hrou.34� 5 tiorf Play Fro ce-39.. -t 3- ti ->'T