Loading...
1986, 07-01 File: VN-70-86 Zoing AdjustorZONING ADJUSTOR SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON IN THE MATTER OF RELAXATION OF FLANKING ) STREET SETBACK REQUIREMENT. (VN -70-86); ) ROBERT COX ) 1 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION SUMMARY OF APPLICATION: The applicant proposes to place a dwelling unit on the lot, fronting on Greenacres Road and with 1st Avenue as the flanking street. The design of the house would place it approximately 6 to 7 feet into the flanking street setback associated with 1st Avenue. Section 4.04A.090 a.3. of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance requires a 20 foot flanking street setback from the property line in this instance (45 feet from centerline of 1st Avenue). 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 southwest corner of 1st Avenue and Greenacres Road, approximately 400 feet south of Sprague Avenue. The Assessors Parcel # is 19551-1603. DECISION OF THE ZONING ADJUSTOR: Based upon the evidence presented and circumstances associated with the project proposal, the Zoning Adjustor DENIES the application. PUBLIC HEARING: After examining all available information on file with the application and visiting the subj t property and surrounding area, the Zoning Adjustor conducted a publi hearing on June 25, 1986, and a written decision on , 19 G. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The proposal is generally located on the southwest corner of 1st Avenue and Greenacres Road, about 400 feet south of Sprague Avenue, in the northeast 1/4 of Section 19, Township 25, Range 45 and is further described as Assessors Parcel #19551-1603, being more completely described in Zoning Adjustor File VE -70-86. 2. The proposal consists of locating a "spec" proposed house and an attached garage, whose dimensions are approximately 62 feet by 26 feet (combined), on a corner lot. The applicant has chosen to use Greenacres Road as the front yard and 1st Avenue as the flanking street yard. The applicant's choice is to orient the 62 foot dimension on Greenacres, which is the narrowest dimension on the site. In order to accomodate a 5 foot side yard on the south and a 62 foot building length running thence to the north, the applicant's building protrudes approximately 6 to 7 feet into the north flank- ing street setback on 1st Avenue. The flanking street setback is 45 feet from the centerline of the road or 15 feet from the property line whichever is greatest; the 45 foot setback is the standard, and the established is a setback for the property line of 20 feet. The applicant's dwelling would come to approximately 13 or 14 feet from that property line. 3. The applicant testified that adequate care was not given by the designer to adhere to the measurement between the side yard setback to the south and the flanking street setback to the north, thus resulting in a build- ing which would not fit in this approximately 55 to 56 foot wide remaining building space. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION FILE VE -70-86 PAGE 2 4. The applicant obviously has a choice to rotate the house 90 degrees and have it front on 1st Avenue. In that case the setback would be 55 feet from the centerline of the road. The flanking street setback would then be on Greenacres Road and if the minimum setback was used would place the building 10 feet "in front of" the dwelling unit to the south (That is, closer to Greenacres Road). Assuming this to be undesirable, the applicant could shift the building 10 feet to the west, thus lining up its (east) garage side with the front of the dwelling on Lot 4 to the south. Upon inquiry, the applicant responded that this was undesirable because it would create only a 24 foot wide "back yard", between the house and the south fence line and that this is a "tough sell" to make. A house placed on a 55 foot setback from Greenacres Road and running 62 feet to the west would then end up with a 42 foot distance from the west end of the house to the property line on the west (the boundary line between Lot 2 and Lot 3 of Block 2). The applicants objection is that this would reduce the saleability of the house as a result of the narrow back yard. Exhibit "A", contained in the file indicates the various options available for placing the 62 foot by 26 foot house on the lot in question. The location for the house last described (fronting on 1st Avenue with a 55 foot setback from Greenacres Road) would allow the subject house to have a fenced back -side yard of approximately 3,712 square feet, the majority of it able to be enclosed with a 6' fence. 5. 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. 6. The site is zoned R-1 which would allow the proposed use upon approval of this application. 7. The existing land uses in the area of the proposal include single family residences and small acreage tracts, all of which are compatible with the proposal. 8. The dwelling unit placement proposed by the applicant would located driveway access on Greenacres Road as an alternative to location of the drive- way on 1st Avenue if the dwelling unit fronted on 1st Avenue. The existing dwelling unit on the opposite corner is oriented toward 1st Avenue, including its driveway. It is a generally acknowledged concept that where a corner lot exists on a thru street and a cul-de-sac street the driveway access should preferrably be on the cul-de-sac street. This creates less traffic congestion on the through street and the coincident of lesser opportunity for pedestrian or vehicular accidents associated with ingress and egress from the property. Also, since there are no sidewalks in the area, the driveway and the street frequently become the locations for playing children and these children would be eminently safer playing on a driveway and a street without sidewalks if they were doing so on a deadend street away from the through traffic. 9. There is also a sense of comradery and neighborliness that is always hoped to exist on a cul-de-sac street. If a house is oriented so that its back or side is to the cul-de-sac (as is proposed) this opportunity for community and neigborliness is lessened by virtue of the orientation of the house. 10. When the preliminary and final plat was established, this lot must be assumed to have been approved in the public interest and to not have been disadvantaged. The applicant chose to purchase the lot as it was platted. The applicant's own actions resulted in a house design which does not fit the site. The Zoning Adjustor is aware that the applicant has gone through the laborious process of receiving FHA financing approval for the design in question. However, there was no testimony that FHA would not approve the financing of the house if it were oriented to 1st Avenue as oppposed to Greenacres Road or placed on another lot. 11. There are at least seven other corner lots, five of which are on dead-end streets nearly identical to the subject property and two of which are on through streets. These are shown on the Assessors map contained within the file. Of those lots on dead-end streets, three front, including their driveways, on the dead-end streets. The other two front on the through street, but the units, one of which is a duplex, are located in such as manner as to apparently not need a variance. Therefore, the precedent in the area is to either orient toward the cul-de-sac street or if not orienting toward the cul-de-sac street to design a dwelling unit within the established setbacks. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION FILE VE -70-86 PAGE 3 12. The proposal is exempt from the provisions of Chapter 43.21C RCW pursuant to WAC 197-11-800 (6) (b). 13. 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. 14. No one appeared to oppose the proposal nor were any written comments adverse to the proposal received. 15. The proper legal requirements for advertising of the hearing before the Zoning Adjustor of Spokane County have been met. 16. 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. To grant the variance would in effect be to recognize a zoning exception, and not a variance as set forth by law; and hence be detrimental to and not compatible with the public health, safety and welfare. 2. To grant the variance would be in essence to grant relief to and acknowledged designer error when there is a viable alternative for a reasonable use of the site. The land is not disadvantaged; therefore to grant a variance would set a precedent which would be detrimental to and not compatible with the public health, safety and welfare. 3. The subject property is not deprived of privileges commonly enjoyed by others in the same vicinity and zone and the granting of this variance would serve no purpose toward remedying an ailedged difference in privileges. Numerous other parcels in the area, some with similar dimensional character- istics and others without similar dimensional characteristics have con- struction which did not need variances. 4. The granting of the variance as requested by the applicant would be the grant of a special privilege inconsistent with those privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and zone. 5. There appear to be no special circumstances applicable to the subject property which when the standards of the zoning ordinance are applied render the subject property without a reasonable use and/or deprive the property of rights and privileges enjoyed by others in the area and under identical zones. The granting of the variance would be materially detrimental to the public welfare because the principal of granting a variance without adequate justification could be repeated throughout the County, thus destroying the integrity of the entire zoning ordinance with regard to setbacks. 6. Any finding hereinbefore stated which may be deemed a conclusion herein is adopted as such. DATED THIS 1541• DAY OF July, 1986. omas , os e Zoning Adjustor Washington A pokane County FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION FILE VE -70-86 PAGE 4 FILED: 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 Building & Safety NOTE: ANY PARTY AGGRIEVED BY THIS DECISION MUST FILE AN APPEAL WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF THIS DATE. 0061z/6-86