1988, 05-09 Zoning AdjustorZONING ADJUSTOR
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
IN THE MATTER OF A FRONT YARD )
SETBACK VARIANCE. [VE -8-88] ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS
THOMAS A. DORSH ) AND DECISION
COMPANION FILES: NONE )
SUMMARY OF APPLICATION:
The applicant proposes to construct an addition to the existing attached garage which would
place its street face eight (8) feet closer to the street than now exists, specifically to within
fifty-two (52) feet of the centerline of the roadway right-of-way. Section 4.05.110 a. 1.
of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance requires a structure to be 55'-0" from the
centerline of the roadway right-of-way. Authority to consider and grant such a request
exists pursuant to Sections 4.03.020 64. and 4.25.030 b. of the Spokane County Zoning
Ordinance.
LOCATION:
The property is generally located in the Spokane Valley, south of and adjacent to Fairview
Avenue and east of Wilbur Road in the NE Y4 of Section 9, Township 25N, Range 44EWM.
The Assessor's parcel number is 09541-0625. The property is addressed as E. 11810
Fairview Avenue.
DECISION OF THE ZONING ADJUSTOR:
Based upon the evidence presented and circumstances associated with the project proposal,
the Zoning Adjustor APPROVES the intrusion of the remodeled, attached garage,
approximately three (3) feet into the front yard, thereby establishing a front yard setback
of approximately fifty-two (52) feet from the centerline of the roadway right-of-way.
PUBLIC HEARING:
After examining all available information on file with the application and visiting the
subject property and surrounding area, the Zoning Adjustor conducted a public hearing on
April 27, 1988 and rendered a written decision on May 9, 1988.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The proposal is generally located in the Spokane Valley, south of and adjacent to
Fairview Avenue and east of Wilbur Road in the NE Y4 of Section 9, Township 25N, Range
44EWM and is further described as Assessor's parcel number 09541-0625, being more
completely described in Zoning Adjustor file number VE -8-88.
2. The proposal consists of remodeling the present attached garage so that its face is
eight (8) feet closer to Fairview Avenue then now exists. The construction would result in
the face of the garage being approximately fifty-two (52) feet from the centerline of the
roadway right-of-way or an approximately three (3) foot deviation of the fifty-five (55)
foot setback from the centerline of the roadway right-of-way. This would result in a gabled
or hip roof being extended toward the street in order to maintain the necessary height for a
garage door. The applicant's present garage door is of the type which swings out at the
bottom from the face of the garage as it is moved into the open position, thus forcing cars
parked in the driveway to be parked several feet from the face of the present garage in order
to allow for the door swing. The proposed garage would have an overhead garage door which
opens vertically and would have cars parked in the driveway position approximately as they
are now, not having to accommodate a space for a door swing. In this respect, the appearance
of the front yard, when cars are parked in the driveway, would be much the same as it is
presently. The garage would be constructed with the same siding as the house and a typical,
sectioned wooden garage door.
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.
ft
CASE NO. VE -8-88; DORSH SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR PAGE 2
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 single family
residential units, all of which are compatible with the proposal.
6. The garage presently exists on the west side of the dwelling unit, approximately
twelve (12) feet from the west property line. The front face of the dwelling unit to the west
exists approximately four (4) feet closer to the street than the applicant's dwelling unit.
Thus, a shifting of the garage face eight (8) feet closer to the street would place the
applicant's garage approximately four (4) feet in front of the dwelling unit to the west, the
dwelling unit most effected by this proposed construction. It would be difficult for anyone in
the dwelling unit to the west to have any view obstruction as a result of the proposed
construction. The owner of the property to the west did receive notice of this hearing and
neither made appearance at the hearing, nor submitted written testimony in favor of or in
opposition of the proposal. The applicant also claims to have contacted the property owner to
the west, discussed the project with that person and received no adverse comments.
7. There is sufficient width on the west side of the dwelling unit to allow for a
driveway extension to the back yard. However, the back yard contains a septic tank and
drainfield and the applicant was able to show where the existing drainfield and the required
distances from any construction would not permit the construction of a double -wide,
detached garage.
8. The applicant's reason for wanting to extend the double -car attached garage
toward the street was to provide garage space adequate for the length of a normal vehicle.
The space provided in the garage will actually be two (2) feet shorter than the previous
garage which existed in approximately the same location. The garage has been shortened due
to interior construction/expansion of the house, in order to accommodate additional living
space. The applicant's present family is a family of 5, composed of himself, his wife, an
elderly relative afflicted with Alzheimers Disease and two teenagers. In order to
accommodate separate sleeping quarters for this size of family, the existing recreation room
was incorporated into a bedroom situation. The applicant is attempting to regain a
recreation/family activity space along with the 4 bedroom house configuration. The
applicant added the maximum addition to the rear of the house (on its west side), as could be
accommodated and still maintain their proper setback from the drainfield located in the rear
yard. With the restriction of the twelve (12) foot addition to the rear, the interior
construction also absorbed nine (9) feet of the previously existing garage. The eight (8)
foot addition on the north side of the house will allow for a double -car garage, essentially
returning the interior vehicle storage space to the same as it was prior to the interior
expansion. If there had been a public sewer system and no drainfield in the rear yard, the
applicant would have happily, and preferably, extended a complete family activity area
addition to the dwelling unit on the rear or south side.
9. There are no front yard variances of record in the vicinity of the dwelling unit.
There is also no record any such variances being requested in the vicinity.
1 0. The proposal is exempt from the provisions of Chapter 43.21C RCW pursuant to
WAC 197-11-800 (6) (b).
1 1. 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.
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.
1 4. 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 variance will not authorize a use otherwise prohibited in the zone.
CASE NO. VE -8-88; DORSH SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR PAGE 3
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 establishment of a four
(4) bedroom house, with a family activity area and a minimum size, attached, two -car
garage is not a special privilege.
3. 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 restriction imposed by the back yard
drainfield disallows the option of constructing an attached garage at the rear of the dwelling
unit.
4. Granting the variance will be neither materially detrimental to the public
welfare nor injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and zone.
5. Strict application of the zoning standards does create an unreasonable burden in
Tight of the purpose to be served by the standards. A three (3) foot deviation of the fifty-
five (55) foot standard will be barely noticeable and will result in the face of the building
being only four (4) feet closer to the street than the face of the adjacent building to the west.
6. Granting the variance will not adversely affect the overall zoning design, plan or
concept for either the immediate area or the entire County.
7. 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.
8. Granting the variance will not be inconsistent with the general purpose and
intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
9. The granting of the variance will not result in defacto zone reclassification.
1 0. In order to minimize the impact of the construction, the addition shall
incorporate similar materials as the existing building with regard to the roof materials, the
siding and a vertical movement, sectioned, overhead garage door.
1 1 . 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 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 Ordinance and be subject to such enforcement actions as are appropriate.
3. The Zoning Adjustor may administratively make minor adjustments to site plans
or the conditions of approval as may be judged to be within the context of the original
decision.
4. The Building and Safety Department shall participate in this decision by seeing to
it that the structure is constructed as set forth in III. 1. below.
CASE NO. VE -8-88; DORSH SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR PAGE 4
II. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
None are applicable.
III. DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING & SAFETY
1 . The Department shall see to it that the construction generally incorporates the
following.
a. A hip roof, extending northerly from the existing dwelling unit to cover the eight
(8) foot garage extension.
b. Roofing materials similar to that presently existing on the house roof.
c. Siding which is identical or similar to that of the existing dwelling unit.
d. A sectioned, vertical -rising overhead garage door.
None is applicable.
None is applicable.
None is applicable.
IV. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
V. HEALTH DISTRICT
VI. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
NOTICE: PENDING COMPLETION OF ALL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WHICH NEED TO BE
COMPLETED PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE, PERMITS CAN 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 9th day of May, 1988.
FILED:
Thomas
Z
Spokan
. Mosher, AICP
ng Adjustor
ounty, Washington
1 ) Applicant
2) Parties of Record
3) Spokane County Engineering Department
4) Spokane County Health District
5) Spokane County Utilities Department
6) Spokane County Department of Building & Safety
7) Planning Department 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, NORTH 721 JEFFERSON STREET,
SPOKANE, WA 99260. (Sections 4.25.090 and 4.25.100 of the Spokane County Zoning
Ordinance)
TGM/jh
April 12, 1988 Agenda
March 29, 1988
Page 2
3. Department Recommendations
A. It is recommended that private roads be named in order
that addresses may be assigned to each lot to assist emergency
personnel in responding to nay emergency.
VE -7-88 - NORTH 220 CORBIN
1. Department Findings
A. 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.
CUN-1-88 - WEST 3205 WOOLARD
1. Department Findings
A. 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.
VE -8-88 - EAST 11810 FAIRVIEW
No comments.
WVS-2-88 - SOUTH 6307 MORAN DRIVE
1. Department Findings
A. The Department of Building and Safety issued a stop work
order on February 24, 1988 due to the setback encroachment.
TLD:pjk
SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
APPLICATIONS BEFORE THE ZONING ADJUSTOR/BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Certificate of Exemption No.: Application No.: C U - - 5r k
i4ame of Applicant. .//-7/‹.,,,,:.-' c., .4 c�', Ls,/ Agent: Y Nom'
Street Address: 5 7/ 2,-/e" /-{,,% L'• r "J
ZiPhone - Home: y"} V- e' ' 7C
City: K, ' 41-c- - State: Gcirfs // Code: %% - 0‘ Work: S Ys- `/- 4,--'‘F.
Agents No.
6.E',C/4— T L�c ,s./
Name of Property Owner(s):7 C» S
REQUESTED ACTION(S) (Circle appropriate action):
C _ Variance( Conditional Use Permit
Temporary Use/Structure
atver Violation
Nonconforming Lot/Use
Other:
FOR STAFF USE ONLY CODE: ORDINANCE
Cite Regulations Section(s):'-j. CJ' / / 0
Section:
9
Property Violation/
Township: rRange: e4 Size: Enforcement: Y
Existing Zoning: Comp. Plan Designation: %L', A-7�
_ LEGAL
PSSA: Y) N UTA: , N ASA:CY) N FIRE DIST.; CHECKED BY:
Hearing Date
/Gl Personnel Taking in Application:
Existing Use of Property: ZS- f <" /'ez-i'
Describe Intended Proposal in Terms
of REQUESTED ACTIONS above: //7,,c
'4
,A 'Q 'd'7 / L�.•V�!/�G� ST/fie /f
Street Address of Property: E / /7/O
%idC) 4.//e?4.49
Legal Description of Property (include easement,
�.-44=[_G /C•3't'c-/pi /47/7.,7,7.0,t) •
f'r y „.5 1?,s r /=
if applicable): /47 ' ce e//
Zc — 7
Parcel No(s): t5 3 9/ U (., Source of Legal:
Total amount of adjoining land controlled by this owner/sponsor:
What interest do you hold in the property? c,--'/t_•�c=
Please list previous Planning Department actions involving this property:
I SWEAR, UNDER. PENALTY OF PERJURY, THAT: (1) I AM THE OWNER OF RECORD OR
AUTHORIZED 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 RESPONS AND THOSEJ) SykTIN
DOCUMENTS WV1ADE TRUTHFULLY AND TO l I�NO
,f �. j \V Li/1/0,5 a el -/G
of �; of WAsy/..•.P dal Address:
/.:' �' la
0 !).-T:: /
NOTY• Notar}
:
•
�L 0,•.S;'APR. 1,.�C, i Date: %
PUB."
Page 1 of 4 V►i►
Phone No.: X z 76 Date: 2 ` / r ` `z'
(Over)
Revised 12-29-87
A. BURDEN OF PROOF
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
case. 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. If you did not get a form, ask the
Planning Department personnel for advice on how to proceed.
B. $IGN-OFF BY COUNTY DEPARTMENTS AND OTHER AGENCIES
1. COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT
a) Proposed method of water supply:
b) Proposed method of sewage disposal: CM 4eCk
reliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The
quirents and st. . ards.
�J •
en info
(Date
2. COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
A preliminary consultation
rmed o re
(Sign -off Waived)
has been held to discuss the proposal.
ui ments and standards.
applic nt
The applicant
//
(Date) (Sign -off Waived)
3. COUNTY UTILITIES DEPARTMENT (Waive if outside WMAB)
[II" A preliminary onsultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The
app ant has been 4 o ed of requirements and standards.
(Signature)
The applicant is required
(Date)
(Sign -off Waived)
to discuss the proposal with
requirements and
to become informed of water
standards.
system
The applicant is required to discuss the proposal with
to become informed of sewage disposal
requirements and standards.
4. WATER PURVEYOR:
(Waive if outside CWSSA)
a) The proposal (4/is not located within the boundary of our future
service area.
b) The proposal i located within the boundary of our current
district.
c) We able to serve is site with adequate water.
d) Satis actory arrangements ,
ave not been made to serve this
4
pxoppsal. r
.
(Signature)
5. ,SEWERAGE PURVEYOR:
(Date) (Sign -off Waived)
(If other than Spokane County)
A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal.
The applicant has been informed of requirements Edi standards.
(Signature)
Page 2 of 4
(Date)
(Sig off Waived)
Revised 12-29-87
APPLICANT'S FORM
NAME: 11,<,
FILE:
I. VARIANCES
A. Will the variance authorize a use otherwise prohibited in this zone?
Yes ; No x ; Comment:
B. Will special circumstances applicable to the property (such as size,
shape, topography, surroundings) when combined with the standards of
the Zoning Ordinance, create practical difficulties for use of the
property and/or deprive the property of rights and privileges common
to of er properties in the vicinity and similiar zone classification?
Yes _ _; No ; Comment: l� i,w c -C a�a/i t6-
// /jr ozfn-t 1 6;Ccyr sue, / /gave --.e/e.- )
C. Will the granting of the variance be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in ,the
vicinity and zone? Yes ; No x; Comments: ,= �eL
(" -7LG �� ,c.ze
c --Yr' C'�•c c'fc
er, /�max/
D. Does strict application of the zoning standard create an unreasonable
burden in light of purpose to be served by the standard? Yes X ;
No ; Comment: ---7;/_3- j.5- i,L,4 •77 /y w'_7' .—
C < �- e <,, 7Lcls/ f<-Gr,r4i .
E. Would relaxation of the zoning standard make a more environmentally
sensitive or energy -conserving project or encourage continued or new
use of an historic property? Yes ; No ; Comment:
F. Will a broader, public need or interest be served by granting verse
denying the variance? Yes ; No X ; Comment:
G. Is the case for a variance supported by other like or similar
situations in the vicinity and in similar zones? Yes X ; No ;
Comment: GG/c- (7e,te/cl' <ric>//'
i� < <.- � ,� �; leu �,.� x . -
C' . J7T'lc- 74,..vC /l
/fes
(continued on reverse side)
H. Will granting the variance adversely affect the overall zoning design,
plan or concept for either the immediate area or the entire County?
Yes ; No X ; Comment:
I. Is the case for a variance substantially based upon a lack of
reasonable economic return or a claim that the existing structure is
too small? yes >i No ; Comment: marter, /��
— /'� c 'U G' if .�r'i� 'Ai 4,4)c=6.247 ./s-!� L- z/.
ri i�1 f s
�r:'%'�` / e-,) v //a,/, ''/� L,) / ice`! Gls /f/t�C'�
/ /
J. Will granting the variance be inconsistent with the ge ral purpose
and intent of the Comprehensive Plan? Yes ; No ; Comment: _
K. Did the practical difficulty which gives rise to the variance request
exist before the property was acquired by the present owner? Yes
No ; Comment:
L. Will the granting of the variance result in defacto zone reclassifica-
tion; that is, the establishing of nearly all the privileges common to
a different zone classification? Yes ; No X ; Comment:
M. Does the requested variance result in the circumvention of density
regulations designed to protect the Aquifer? Yes ; No
Comment:
0046z/Arch. 0002z 2
fi:
R`4
f
t
N
A
k
Garn�e♦-
4-12
i�
juice rittiaoi:4,1
A i t sl t 1'_ L). i\de,
55'
PaP
rit /114
EX1s t lNG
qU
5 , r 1C,
i
keir 7 Qlk
IY1 ;1d e,4L kN,
1L Required •fvbvvt-
ya,vd SGA -back
�1
0
p RA) pen -r y
Lt ;ti
/Fog ref V1IA44)
7�1P24../
A
1/