1991, 09-16 Findings of Fact, Conclusions, DecisionZONING ADJUSTOR
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
IN THE MATTER OF A VARIANCE FROM)
MAXIMUM SIZE REQUIRED FOR AN )
ACCESSORY BUILDING )
[VE -21-91] CHARLES HERNER )
COMPANION FILES: NONE )
ADDRESS: 1120 E. GLASS /1
PARCELS NUMBER: 45063.3026
FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS,
AND DECISION
APPLICATION DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to construct a 2800 square foot
"accessory" building; whereas, Section 14.616.220.7. b. of the Zoning Code of Spokane
County allows an accessory detached structure up to 1500 square feet. Authority to consider
such a request exists pursuant to section 14.404.080 of the Zoning Code for Spokane County
and Spokane County Board of County Commissioners resolution No. 89 0708, as may be
amended.
PROJECT LOCATION: Located in Spokane County, a few hundred feet west of
Millwood, south of and adjacent to Glass Avenue and approximately 147 feet east of Dick
Road in the SW 1/4 of Section 6, Township 25 N, Range 44 EWM; 8120 E. Glass Avenue.
OPPONENTS OF RECORD: Dan Harper
PUBLIC HEARING All DECISION: After consideration of all available information
on file, exhibits submi d testimony received during the course of the public hearing held
on August 26, 199 , d the Zonin Adjustor rendered a written decision on
, 199 to DENY the plication as set forth in the file documents.
FINDINGS OF FACT'
1. The proposal is described above and detailed in documents contained in the file.
2. The site is zoned Urban Residential -3.5 (UR -3.5), which allows the proposed use
upon approval of this application. The Zoning Code allows a 1500 square foot building;
whereas, the applicant is requesting one of 2800 square feet, a deviation in excess of 86% of
the standard. The Board of County Commissioners recently amended (Resolution 91 0809)
the Zoning Code to allow larger accessory building in the UR -3.5 zone. The Code previously
restricted residential accessory structures to 50% of the size of the dwelling structure (only
being measured on the actual building footprint; not the total floor space of the building). The
amendment which reached the Board of County Commissioners proposed an absolute
limitation of 1000 square feet of accessory structure area within this zone. Testimony before
the Board of County Commissioners indicated this was still too restrictive for providing
adequate storage facilities. The Board of County Commissioners responded to that public
testimony and raised)the maximum size of the residential accessory structures total area per
instance 'to 1500 square feet. The Board of County Commissioners, as did the Planning
Commission, felt that this amendment provided adequately for larger residential structure
storages in the UR -3.5 zone. The County Commissioners were trying to strike a balance
between providing adequate storage for various accessories associated with the resident and
RP/GA-VE-21-91/1ERNER FNDGS-9/6/91
CASE NO. VE -21-91 SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR PAGE 2
limiting the size of the building in the Urban Residential -3.5 zone to the point where it would
be least likely to interfere with the normal residential character of the neighborhood.
3 . The existing land uses in the area of the proposal include predominantly single
family residential with several duplexes to the west and southwest. This lot, and several
nearby lots located in the middle of the block bounded by Dick, Glass, Liberty and Vista Roads
stands as somewhat of a rare exception to lot sizes throughout the area of the City of Millwood
to the east and the unincorporated County to the west. Most of the lots are substantially
smaller, on the order of 80 feet by 150 feet (9,000 to 10,000 square feet). The applicant's lot
is approximately 28,000 square feet and could be subdivided into two lots and still be
compatible with the lot sizes and land uses existing in the area.
4. The applicant attempted to demonstrate that there were other large accessory
buildings in the area, presenting numerous photographs, on the back of which were addresses.
A number of the examples were out of the vicinity (in some instances across the Spokane River
to the north and in other instances in the City of Spokane and the City of Millwood). Of the
addresses in the vicinity and similar zone of the proposal presented by the applicant, the
following addresses and their building permit accessory building sizes are as follows:
a. 3306 North Sargent -- 1250 square foot (building permit of record)
b . 3707 North Edgerton -- 432 square feet (building permit of record)
c. 3615 North Ely -- 360 square feet (building permit of record)
d. 8205 East Glass -- 704 square feet (building permit of record)
e. 8605 East Glass - (no permit of record)
The Zoning Adjustor, during a field trip and viewing of the area, identified three other
properties with accessory buildings in the vicinity of the project as follows:
f. 3325 North Vista - 864 square feet (building permit of record)
g. 3514 North Edgerton -- (No building permit of record)
h. South west comer Vista and Glass Roads - (No building permit of record)
5 . Adverse testimony was received regarding the proposal. Dan Harper identified
himself as the owner of the land immediately adjacent to the west, on the southeast corner of
Glass and Dick Roads. Presently the parcel is vacate, although it is authorized for duplex
construction. The applicant stated concerns that the large metal building would present a
negative image from the standpoint of developing his property for rental purposes. He stated
support for the Zoning Code which limited the size of accessory buildings.
6. In support of his application, the applicant both testified and submitted his case in
writing. The contents of the file and the tape are a matter of record. The essence of the case
presented by the applicant is several fold. The applicant began purchasing the property in 1990
when a building of this size would have been allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. Due to
circumstances beyond his control the actual closing of the property occurred in 1991. When a
building permit was sought, the applicant ran into the regulation restricting the building initially
to 50% of the foot print of the residence and ultimately to 1500 square feet (with the
amendment to the Zoning Code). In this case the applicant claims the hardship is one which
was beyond his control; however, the applicant admits that he never personally checked with
the Planning Department with respect to regulations. The Planning Department customarily,
RP/GA-VE-21-91/HERNER FNDGS-9/13/91
CASE NO. VE -21-91 SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR
PAGE 3
4
from July 1990 on, advised persons making such inquiries of both the Zoning Ordinance and
Zoning Code regulations that would affect property (however, there is no way to know that
this would have absolutely happened upon an inquiry by the applicant).
The applicant also testified that he has several vehicular possessions and a need to have a
workshop to remodel a former Greyhound bus into a recreational vehicle. The applicant lists
as his vehicular possessions a bus, a 20 foot trailer for towing a car, three automobiles, a
pickup truck and a tractor. Upon assigning reasonable sizes to the storage space needed for
these buildings, the Zoning Adjustor came up with about 1276 square feet of actual storage
space needed and this, figure was not contested by the applicant. The applicant did point out
that he needed maneuverability space and a large amount of space to remove a diesel engine
from his bus and to rebuild that engine in a covered space.
The applicant did not claim that the property had been used in the past for agricultural
purposes or the keeping of animals and thus does not qualify for a possible opening for a
variance created under the definition of accessory (Section 14.30.10 of the Zoning Code)
wherein it says "...unless the building is used in conjunction with permitted farming or animal
raising."
The applicant claims that being allowed to place all of his structures inside of a building
will keep the neighborhood looking cleaner, less cluttered and reduce the chance of attractive
nuisance and vandalism associated with the children of the neighborhood. The applicant and
the Zoning Adjustor discussed the possibility of a 1500 square foot detached accessory
building for the remodeling of the bus storage of some of the vehicles and shop space while
considering adding to the residence an attached garage for his street vehicles, thus
accomplishing 2800 square feet of storage space. The applicant indicated that was not his
preference.
7. There was testimony in support of the application. Lonnie Stevens, a building
contractor who constructs accessory buildings, indicated support of the application, stating that
his understanding of the restrictions was to avoid situations in which illegal businesses would
be established, in large accessory buildings, and to avoid accessory buildings that would dwarf
nearby houses or shade such things as swimming pools. He points that the applicant has set
the building far from the street and some distance both from the east and west property lines.
He also points out that where zoning to match the size of this lot happens to be, he believed that
the structure would be allowed (NOTE: in actuality the SR -1/2 zone would allow a storage
structure of 2000 square feet, still falling short of the applicant's desire of 2800 square feet).
8. Keith Jones responded as a favorable character witness for the applicant. He
commented that as a pastor of a nearby church, he had no objection to the building.
9. A visual inspection of the property revealed no special circumstances applicable to
the property such as size, shape, typography, location or surroundings which would create
practical difficulties in using the site for allowed uses in this zone. In fact, the parcel has been
used as a single family residential lot for a substantial period of time.
10. Many, if not most owners of the property, would be able to use the property within
such restrictions as the UR -3.5 zone indicates, including a single family residential lot with a
RP/GA-VE-21-91/HERNER FNDGS-9/13/91
CASE NO. VE -21-91 SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR • PAGE 4
1500 square foot accessory building. Alternatively the parcel may even be subdivided into two
lots and still comply with the underlying standards of the zone.
11. The applicant's case basically boiled down to the fact that he has a number of
possessions which he believes needs to be fully confined within a building and that the
building necessary to confine and provide for his possessions and needs exceeds the size
limitation of 1500 square feet set forth in the Zoning Code as a (reasonable) size accessory
building.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Granting the variance to allow the construction of a 2800 square foot building, or
for any size in excess of 1500 square feet under the circumstances in this vicinity and similar
zone classification, would constitute a grant of a special privilege not common to the area. The
evidence presented and discovered indicates that lawful accessory buildings present in this
vicinity and similar zone are substantially less than the maximum 1500 square feet allowed
outright in the zone, averaging about 1000 square feet.
2. Granting the variance would establish a precedence without support from the
traditional criteria for granting a variance, which, if duplicated repeatedly, would contribute to a
breakdown in the spirit and intent of the zone and the recent amendment by the Board of
County Commissioners to stabilize the maximum size of an accessory building at 1500 square
feet.in the UR -3.5 zone.
3 . There are no special circumstances applicable to the property which would support
granting a variance. The primary argument in supporting the variance as presented by the
applicant, is what could best be described as a self-created hardship or practical difficulty on
the part of the applicant having to do with a large number of personal possessions. Failure on
the part of the applicant to become aware of the change to the Zoning Code with its more
restrictive language is also a self-created practical difficulty or hardship.
4. The construction of a 2800 square foot accessory building is reported to be
detrimental to at least one adjacent property owner, notably the one possibly most affected by
the presence of the proposed building.
5. The lot and the present residence are not overly or unreasonably burdened by the
restriction of the Zoning Code to a 1500 square foot accessory building. Numerous uses of the
property as presently existing and as might be enhanced by a two lot subdivision are a matter of
fact.
DECISION
From the foregoing Findings and Conclusions, the Zoning Adjustor DENIES the
proposal as set forth in the file documents.
RP/GA-VE-21-91/IIERNER FNDGS-9113/91
CASE NO. VE -21-91 SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR " PAGE 5
DATED this
day of September, 1991.
AS . MOSHER, AICP
nin: Adjustor
Spokane • ty, Washington
FILED -
1) Applicant (Certified/Return Receipt Mail)
2) Opponents of Record
3) Spokane County Division of Engineering and Roads
4) Spokane County Health District
5) Spokane County Division of Utilities
6) Spokane County Division of Buildings
7) Spokane County Fire Protection District No. 1
8) Bill Moser/Scott Engelhard
9) 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,721 NORTH JEFFERSON STREET, SPOKANE, WA 99260 (Section
14.412.042 of the Zoning Code for Spokane County).
RP/GA-VE-21-91/HERNER FNDGS-9/13/91