Loading...
1995, 11-08 Setback Standard VarianceDEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND PLANNING • A DIVISION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT JAMES L. MANSON, C.B.O., DIRECTOR DENNIS M. SCOTT, P.E., DIRECTOR I T(LI TI (aLT-" IP(0.,LLk i JI i (ii,1TTI T ll n 1::,0 T'C4 IL's LT 17;x, 1 ? i�,L(i - _LI T(C4 ,1. Ti' i (0,117-.1711-ECCMHI (L-21:1 11 I T DATE: November 8, 1995 TIME: 9:00 a.m. or as soon thereafter as possible PLACE: Commissioners' Assembly Room Public Works Building 1026 W. Broadway Spokane, WA 99260 AGENDA ITEM #: 1 FILE NO.: VE -12-95 VARIANCE FROM FLANKING STREET SETBACK STANDARD LOCATION: Generally located in the Spokane Valley, on the south st corner of Buckeye Avenue and Wilbur Road, in the N 1/2 of Section 9, Township 25N, R 44EWM; 11710 E. Buckeye Avenue. PROPOSAL: Applicant requests permission to construct an attached 24' x 24' garage onto the east end of the existing residence at a distance of 39 feet from the centerline of Wilbur Road right- of-way; whereas, Section 14.616.325.B.3 of the Zoning Code of Spokane County requires a setback of 55 feet from the centerline of the right-of-way. EXISTING ZONING: Urban Residential 3.5 (UR -3.5) SITE SIZE: Approximately 12,420 square feet APPLICANT: Rick Koedding 8222 S. Jackson Mica, WA 99023 Physically Disabled Access: All meetings and hearings will be conducted in facilities which are accessible to disabled individuals. For more information, please contact the Spokane County Division of Building Planning at (509) 456-2205. NOTE: THE ZONING ADJUSTOR WII J ISSUE A WRITTEN DECISION TO APPROVE OR DENY THE ABOVE PROPOSAL. ONLY THE APPLICANT OR AN OPPONENT OF RECORD MAY APPEAL THE ZONING ADJUSTORS DECISION AND MUST DO SO WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE DECISION'S SIGNING. APPEAL MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A $215.00 FEE FILED AT THE DMSION OF BUILDING & PLANNING, PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING, 1026 W. BROADWAY, SPOKANE, WA 99260 (Section 14.412.042 of the Zoning Code of Spokane County). THE ABOVE REFERENCED FILE MAY BE EXAMINED AT THE DIVISION OF BUILDING & PLANNING. 1026 WEST BROADWAY AVENUE • SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260 BUILDING PHONE: (509) 456-3675 • FAX: (509) 456-4703 PLANNING PHONE: (509) 456-2205 • FAX: (509) 456-2243 TDD: (509) 324-3166 VE -12-95 al 0 1 .3'' �s�'sd aistioteic stale- ,/ 90' 1/ J 3rce/ J41,0 Q' (. 13 57 vesa : 11710 E. a eye t Ower: Pmt A'lvAtA4Aft HAll 'itrarosMi gesic‘eaee 24' ,&' z IS'ff,cy 0 NNW cXxye.. St. ---� -•S -9s Ac A,fi atedir-- e(elk-r-, Li- it eQ,v'frit.5rio �✓ 1 eftenv Se,vr\P n‘ Vr`ototA row 1 ,r AT4 A/A t / .s /0// ret A/oeic)/"L •) V"0 v VARAAA/ce._ 54 "cSc-- A c)el If' d A) f. 4s 1--ev e ?t- P'°Pe~fl o„y%) ii7ia E. 9,04, �e . Aevetc e/e4 P (e)._ As e ga0) L c A cflo •%) s e„,) o A tea Jo JK0V12-C. .4 born lf: y r . -11-`i7 SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS BEFORE THE ZONING ADJUSTOR 1<0.) „4i Agent: N 222 S. XAce._0,Q Name of Applicant: Street Address: S V City: At ICA Zip on Phone - Home: 7Z4s.gY07 State: 14P) Code: 7Tin--S Work: 922.-2-2. 00 Agent's No.: Name of Property Owner(s): ?Au 1 i> rilIVATAA/A foNa 4142,4 -- Street Address: E. 11 7i. 8 cx 6 City: Se6 Wititt State: 144 Zip Phone - Home: q2..z. a.7 SG. Work: 1 - 6/ SIED ACTION(S) (Circle appropriate action): Conditional Use Permit Expansion of a Nonconforming Use FOR STAFF USE ONLY Violation/ Section Township Rang Enforcement: .._- .CWWP sewer purveyor: 671 — .CWSP water purveyor:0/1:1 /1-144-172:: •CUP standards met Y •Existing zone: *Cite applicable section: /1-71.(32-5 8 (3) ',Comp. Plan designation- 1 JV1J •Arterial Road Plan designation: Critical Areas: Areas: Wetlands JI4• Habitat4- GeologicP Aquifer -and/or •Fire District: •Lot, legal & add'l ownership checked by: •Person doing preapp conf.• 'Other/previous Division of Planning actions involving this property: SEPA complete application date - •Certificate of Exemption No.: Application No.: •Hearing Date: 11/99-• •Variance site plan dimensions checked byL ABOUT THE PROPERTY (by a_pplicant) _ •Existing use of property: SIDE te4ra.c> Z51/126 z -e-- 'AWL •Describe propo4 use of the_property, noting change fro 'existing use': KA ,eastagivr/91-z •If a variance application, state the Code standard and describe the variance sought in comparable terms (i.e., 50 fegt from centerline versess.required 65 feet oae. = $''*i k" vb% Ai -e (- c Am..... ecioest ra 3 9 / tp. a .4 c -e Ad a A •If a conditional use permit application, does proposal meet all standards? Y N If not, has one or more variances been requested? Y N 1J A •If HOME INDUSTRY, has consultation occurred with Division of Buildings regarding construction of building for intended use? Y ,.I•1 theI (-ru/ weJt......4 •What is size of the subject property. /S V EE •Street address of property (if known): 11 ."/ /0 £. ES'el&-k.e. ye •Legal description of property (include easement, if applicable: Ai IRAggilio WA...kJ+ I RI 'Parcel No(s).: 1116-o9 1, /337 •Source of legal: 11-1-1e_ -Total amount of adjoining land controlled by this owner, sponsor an •What int rest do you (Applicant) bold in tie p rty? C-Ileitr4 el -0 It.ro bc,,IdtrAct_ o agent: 430Ne— STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS COUNTY OF SPOKANE ) I SWEAR, UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, THAT: (1) L THE 0 RD 0 FOR THE PROPOSED SITE; (2) IF NOT THE OWNER, WRITTEN R A ONS ON HIS/HER BEHALF IS ATTACHED; AND (3) ALL OF 1 P0 r AND THOSE ON SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ARE MADE TRUTHFULLY AND TO THE BEST OF RD/LA APP (REV. 495) Signed: 9 -to --c?5 Notary Public in anci for the state of WashM on, residing at c • I N J„\ My appointrrient expires: page 1 of 2 A. BURDEN OF PROOF form(s) (by applicant) It is necessary for the applicant or his/her representative to establish the reasons why the REQUESTED ACTION should be approved and to literally put forth the basic argument in favor of approving the application. Accordingly, you should have been given a form for your requested action (variance, conditional use, etc.) designed to help you present your case in a way which addresses the criteria which the Zoning Adjustor must consider. Please fill the form out and return it with your application. B. SIGN -OFF BY COUNTY DEPARTMENTS AND OTHER AGENCIES (applicant must visit each agency whose no. is circled below) 1. SPOKANE COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT ! a Proposed method of water supply: 7tI6 /k- b) Proposed method of sewage disposal: ©v`- 3 41 A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The applicant has been informed of requirements and standards. We uest consultation with Division of Planning Y N (Signature) ' (l/atef (Sign -off Waived by Planning) SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF BUILDINGS 1~ R HOME INDUSTRY ONLY: A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The applicant has been informed of requirements and standards for the building, based upon the proposed use. (Signature) (Date) (Sign -off Waived by Planning) SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF ENGINEERING & ROADS preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The applicant has been informed of req s and t.. dards. We request consultation with Division of Planning. Y N (Signature) 43 te) (Sign -off Waived) POKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF UTILITIES (Division of Planning may waive if outside WWMA) preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The applicant has been informed of requirements and stagd rds. (Signat e ate) (Sign -off Waived by Planning) [ ] The applicant is required to discuss the proposal with to become informed of water system requirements and standards. (See #a below) [ ] The applicant is required to discuss the proposal with to become informed of sewage disposal requirements and standards. (See #b below) a . WATER PURVEYOR: 1) The proposal is/is not located within the boundary of our future service area. 2) The proposal is/is not located within the boundary of our current district. 3) We are/are not able to serve this site with adequate water. 4) Satisfactory arrangements have/have not been made to serve this proposal. (Signature) (Date) b . SEWERAGE PURVEYOR: 47t./ S/7'E p/...5, -75,4z. A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The applicant has been informed of r- a ments . i s .. • ards. (Signature) (Date) HEWA APP (REV. 4/95) page 2 of 2 VARIANCE BURDEN OF PROOF FORM Name: 2kT l<() t=PPiPti rr_? File Number: ! if'--.�Z—�� A "variance" is the means by which an adjustment is made in the application of the specific regulations of the zoning classification for a particular (the subject) piece of property. This property, because of special circumstances applicable to it, is deprived of privileges commonly enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in a similar zone classification. This adjustment remedies the difference in privileges. A variance shall not authorize a use otherwise prohibited in the zone classification in which the property is located. The following questions will help to determine the outcome of your request. Your request requires accurate and complete responses. First circle either the "yes" or the "no" answer(s) following the questions below as they apply to your situation and then explain as needed (in the space provided) to make your unique situation clear. Certain phrases from the Zoning Code of Spokane County section on variances are included in these questions and are underlined for convenience. A. Will this variance permit a usewhichis otherwise prohibited in this zone? Yes Explain: (,)_ N 0 I eVoli t b I tee_) —.PAL/a' Ne_e_r\( J /yt QYtit� ¶ I okM, B. Are there Special circumstances (lot size, shape, topography, location, access, surroundings, etc.) which apply to the subject property and which may not apply to other properties in the vicinity? Explain: C. Is the subject property deprived of privileges commonly enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity d in a similar zone classification? __ Explain: ke-c, mie e ti 4A1 e_e ilp-P_Jidte.)r- Ar -. D. Will this variance be harmful to the public welfare or to other properties in the vicinity and a similar zone classification? No Yes Explain: E. Are there other similar situ. a •ns in the vicinity in a similar zone classification? b No Are they permitted uses? , No Are they "nonconfo ing" use ?' No Explain: 0 1 a Z U N /n} reAre4 t f (42 d 5 vac ot#-. F. Could the subject property be put to a reasonable and permitted use by you or another person without the requested variance? Yes Explain: G. If this request is granted, will the subject property be more environmentally sensitive, energy conserving, or will it promote the use of an historic property? Yes Explain: Al 0 Ate. Page 1 of 2 H. If this variance is granted, will the broader public need or interest be served? Explain: Cif ee.-- 4 if M ry vet P Nti oket4voe) No I. Will this variance be inconsistent with the purpose of the zoning which applies to the subject property? Yes Explain: ill-Nly(ts /Ai 4 J. Will approval of this variance grant to the subject property the privileges of a different z e classification (in other words would thi be a "de facto" zonechange)? Yes 140 e(ci41, p V are_ vAtit.e, 41. y Explain: U4 V' f 6t K. Will this variance be inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan? Explain: w©uu gyp/ Yes L Is this variance required for a reasonable economic return from the subject property or is the existing structure t small? Yes (D Explain: 40 E... A,±ld No -'o v-eSldc?tilc,z M. Did the practical difficulty which caused you to apply for this variance exist before you owned tl subject property? Yes No S' rit,AC e_ 46t/Att.A./ 4;401 Q 7 2- e v✓Rs- ret) 1?71 Explain: V�?� ZQ& e N. If approved, would this variance affect land use density regulations which exist to protect the Rathdrum/Spokane Aquifer? Yes Explain: The following space is for f 4; 4.,Alfi ck.ar cep e explanation. Attach an additional page(s) if needed. 11 CC� l •. d pd 10.0 ri1 14A� 1,441 °t✓ l� C� �1 Ne tag) v, to /Dort . /tie /34 v' c d a fo 24M� c�t A-4 1. ,P � You are invited to present additional photographs, diagrams, maps, charts, etc. in support of this application. We have the equipment to display video tapes. No such additional material is required and in any case it must be BRIEF and descriptive of issues which need to be considered in relation to this requested variance. If you have questions about the procedure to be followed feel free to contact the Spokane County Division of Planning at 456-2205. HD -VARIANCE ; BURDEN OF PROOF FORM REV; 4/95 Page 2 of 2 ZONING ADJUSTOR SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON IN THE MATTER OF A CONDITIONAL ) FINDINGS OF FACT, USE PERMIT FOR FLANKING STREET ) CONCLUSIONS, SETBACK STANDARD AND DECISION APPLICANT: RICK KOEDDING FILE: VE -12-95 COMPANION FILE(S): None APPLICATION DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to construct an attached 24' x 24' garage onto the east end of the existing residence at a distance of 39 feet from the centerline of Wilbur Road right-of-way; whereas, Section 14.616.325.B.3 of the Zoning Code for Spokane County requires a setback of 55 feet from the centerline of the right-of-way. Authority to consider such a request exists pursuant to section 14.404.100 of the Zoning Code of Spokane County and Spokane County Board of County Commissioners resolution No. 89 0708, as may be amended. PROJECT LOCATION: -Generally located in the Spokane Valley, on the southwest corner of Bu9kye Avenue andWilbur Road, ritheorth 1/2 of Section 9, Township 25 North, Range 44 E ; 11710 East Buckeye Avenue.- Parce o.: 45091.1337. OPPONENT —RECORD: PUBLIC HEARING HEARING AND DECISION: After consideration of all available information on file, one or more site visits, exhibits submitted and testimony received during the course of the public hearing held on November 8, 1995, the Zoning Adjustor rendered a written decision on January 22, 1996 to APPROVE the application. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Testimony was taken under oath. 2. The proposal is described above and detailed in documents contained in the file. 3. The site is zoned Urban Residential -3.5 (UR -3.5), which allows the proposed use upon approval of this application. 4. The proposal is exempt from the provisions of the Washington State Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 43.21C RCW pursuant to WAC 197-11-800(6)(b). 5. The following circumstances were observed in the neighborhood, after consultation with various official maps of the area, including the official County Division of Engineering and Roads right-of-way maps and the official file documents for the subdivision planned immediately south of the property and accessed by Wilbur Street. a. Most homes in the neighborhood have a two -car garage, in some instances a one - car garage, and in rare instances no garage (as is the present situation at the applicant's property). CASE NO. VE -12-95 SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR PAGE 2 b. The property immediately across the street to the north is an exact duplicate of the situation proposed by the applicant. Even the dwelling unit is the exact design and has a garage identical to the one proposed by the applicant added to it. It also has an approximately 14 -foot setback from the property line; the same as proposed by the applicant. The property to the immediate east has a nearly similar setback to the one proposed by the applicant. Several other properties north on Wilbur Street have similar setbacks. c. The applicant's house has a septic tank and drainfield in the back yard which somewhat complicates additional improvements in the rear yard area. The applicant's house (which he did not construct) could have been located slightly farther to the west, which would have allowed a little more room for an attached garage. d. Imposition of a full 55 -foot setback from the centerline of the Wilbur Street right- of-way would be restrictive enough to not allow the construction of even a single -car attached garage. e. The addition of an attached garage, as opposed to a detached garage with access from Wilbur Street, utilizes the existing driveway configuration and would therefore maintain the existing neighborhood traffic pattern. A detached garage structure in the rear yard would necessitate access from Wilbur Street, which would present ingress and egress which would intervene with traffic heading south on Wilbur Street to the newly approved subdivision existing to the south of this and other properties. This situation should be avoided if possible. f. The applicant proposes an integrated design nearly identical to the one across the street to the north and using T-111 siding and compatible trim and shingles. 6. The facts in support of granting the variance are as follows. a. Application of the required 55 -foot setback from the centerline of the road right- of-way creates a practical difficulty insofar as adding a two -car garage is not unreasonable but complying with the setback would force the applicant to a detached garage in the rear yard. This would possibly be complicated by the drain field location and would also create another curb cut with an ingress -egress point on a road leading to an approved subdivision to the south. b. The use of a double -car attached garage is not a prohibited use or activity. c. Having a two -car attached garage does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Other properties in the area, although approved under different zoning regulations, have a similar setback in many instances. The placement of the two -car garage as proposed will neither interfere with sight distances nor complicate any existing or future traffic situation. In fact, the same driveway access point will be used which has also been used since the construction of the dwelling unit. d. The relatively narrow width of the lot, combined with the relatively large setback on the flanking street (not anticipated when the subdivision was actually laid out), the placement of the dwelling unit farther from the west property line than the minimum requirement, the presence in the rear yard of a septic tank and drain field, the existence of the CASE NO. VE -12-95 SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR PAGE 3 present, established driveway and curb cut all contribute to special circumstances applicable to the property which, when combined with the strict application of the Zoning Code, present some practical difficulties and deprive the property of rights and privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and similar/same zone classification. 7. Where the problem complained of is common to land in the area or throughout the community, the proper solution is legislative rezoning, rather than piecemeal administrative exemption. The alleged problem or hardship must relate to the land. Community needs or personal hardships do not qualify as legitimate grounds for issuing a variance (Zoning and Land Use Controls, Rohan, § 43.02 [4] [b] [i]). 8. Rohan, in Zoning and Land Use Controls, §43.02[5], states that over the years a number of factors have been considered by courts with respect to granting variances. These include: (1) whether strict compliance with the terms of the ordinance will preclude a permitted use from being pursued; (2) whether the land will yield a reasonable return; (3) the degree to which the applicant seeks to vary from the ordinance; (4) the degree of harm which will be imposed on the surrounding area if the variance is granted; (5) whether some other method can be pursued to avoid the need for the variance; (6) whether the difficulty is self imposed; and (7) whether the interest of justice and the general welfare will be served. Rohan continues that no factor alone controls and all must be considered. It is a balancing act of the competing interest between the landowner and the community, as expressed through the zoning document. After consideration of all the facts, testimony, relevant case law and instructive usefulness of Rohan's Zoning and Land Use Controls, it is concluded that the balancing test of competing interest lies with approving the variance. 9. No adverse testimony or written comments were received regarding the proposal. 10. The applicant has been made aware of the recommendations of various county agencies reviewing this project. 11. 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. 12. The proper legal requirements for advertising of the hearing before the Zoning Adjustor of Spokane County have been met. DECISION From the foregoing Findings and Conclusions, the Zoning Adjustor APPROVES the proposal as generally set forth in the file documents, subject to compliance with the following CASE NO. VE -12-95 SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR PAGE 4 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL I. GENERAL 1. The following conditions shall apply to the applicant, owner and successors in interest and shall run with the land. 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 Code for Spokane County and be subject to such enforcement as is appropriate. 3. The Zoning Adjustor may administratively make minor adjustments to site plans or the conditions of approval as may be judged by the Zoning Adjustor to be within the context of the original decision. II. DIVISION OF BUILDING & PLANNING 1. The applicant shall contact the Building Section of the Division of Building and Planning at the earliest possible stage of design/development in order to be informed of code requirements administered/enforced as authorized by the State Building Code Act. Design/development concerns include: FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS; FIRE HYDRANT/FLOW; APPROVED WATER SYSTEMS: BUILDING ACCESSIBILITY; CONSTRUCTION TYPE; OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION; EXITING; EX l'ERIOR WALL PROTECTION; AND ENERGY CODE REGULATIONS. 2. The applicant shall develop subject property generally in accordance within the concept presented to the Hearing Body. Variations, when approved by the Building & Planning Director/designee, may be permitted, including, but not limited to building location, landscape plans and general allowable uses of the permitted zone. All variations must conform to regulations set forth in the Zoning Code for Spokane County, and the original intent of the development plans shall be maintained. III. DIVISION OF UTILITIES None is needed. IV. HEALTH DISTRICT None is needed. V. DIVISION OF ENGINEERING AND ROADS None is needed CASE NO. VE -12-95 SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR PAGE 5 NOTICE: PENDING COMPLETION OF ALL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WHICH NEED TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE, PERMITS MAY BE RELEASED PRIOR TO THE LAPSE OF THE TEN (10) -DAY APPEAL PERIOD. HOWEVER, THE COUNTY HAS NO LIABILITY FOR EXPENSES AND INCONVENIENCE INCURRED BY THE APPLICANT IF THE PROJECT APPROVAL IS OVERTURNED OR ALTERED UPON APPEAL. DATED this 22nd day of January, 1996. FILED: 1) Applicant (Certified/Return Receipt Mail): Rick Koedding, 8222 South Jackson, Mica, WA 99023 2) Opponents of Record: None 3) Spokane County Division of Engineering and Roads 4) Spokane County Health District 5) Spokane County Division o 6) Spokane County Divis' . of Building & Planning, Permit Coordinator 7) Spokane County Fire ' ote ' • • `' ct No. 1 8) Division of Planning Cro eference File and/or Electronic File !Ilk.' Olt T'O'FAS MO R, ' CP Zo ng Adjustor Spokane 1 • unty, Washington 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 $225.00 FEE. APPEALS MAY BE FILED AT THE SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF BUILDING & PLANNING, PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING, 1026 W. BROADWAY, SPOKANE, WA 99260 (Section 14.412.042 of the Zoning Code for Spokane County). DEADLINE FOR APPEAL IS 4:00 PM ON FEBRUARY 2, 1996. FCU-ZA VAR DEC