Loading...
1992, 07-30 Investigation Re: EncroachmentINVESTIGATION WORKSHEET DATE -1 - o - C70_ ADDRESS • I' 1 FILE ri`4�-Q9—i PARCEL NO. Ili5otq. D3a-a-'' OCCUPANT 62./ tC - A •'`*" l'u ADDRESS • S = /' 4::::1'RJ-1a' „ NATURE QF INVESTIGATION A 'XBUILDING\•; Cite And DESCRIBE CRIBE `"011 ✓e-11 ZONE - ' PHONE ‘I'D* " 7063 - ❑ FIRE' _. • 5 _.1 -❑CODE COMPLIANCE STATUS RESOLVED/DATE t� 01�2DEAD/DATE PROSECUTOR DATE • .` _ �`• � � . •,AFFIDAVIT . _,_ ter _ Pee-C:2=14 J-1 ` '/ i .• . 1J Date Comments Inv stigator:4 p` Recheck Date: tot LJ LSL-1 `4W:toit.2'. 5a" i -30-t)- &r -up c1771- . 5/ /T� 1% l/6 l + 645E �e—ty _`_ C�%L+ / 1O+ f70 `e• S -t-1 • — e . 12—vZ 4 -A -a 1 cPi�a Ito d - mak -ti r fo 0, . , 11 I Cd vcu roL2 �- - +0. !2 - II w ort. k /trL p -6o -e L4 u_✓z-4- c ( (P rt-•cac.c L -Y ee Ly? • , " G -' ) (7‘C -7 -31-t. ' ' h r. 5 3 atyytinci Leyte iq as Inv stigator:4 p` Recheck Date: tot LJ LSL-1 `4W:toit.2'. 5a" NOTES: Date Comments t- -3'a • icz---t_ LIG-1_ LCLin. C_12_,. ' (40 - i --t :CIO- • Js e C �Pe, of --c [/.et 10-1-ta. poi I l i Da s ; �zd-f- r2� 7.- .A_-! -7 ,- L ' ' a • • I oli,kZ It; e5 �G� 25 g-U(,,J ..IZSpe 175/S, a_ t 'e-4 L hs - o bud1 s p /92-± a - rT i.}"1/Z. ,C ( 42? -31 l2- UN7ccCQIZ UCce_ •1C C) ' Sc. -t Ac.c 2 SOS Rcory C.ep..1Yl-:R,..a>vi y✓r ,cc, ss 6,b . '-e l DU.) N4'. 12 -L001c Al C Yui u:QEr1'1CNT \ QUYn. > i -p6 'Pct ?aorsr-f N .etAcc. -Corm rnoSCI- CP tv l• -•A -u1 -,`xuc„efl . s . W' cuiNCI.- 1-1, Os Pit c'i0CP 'tAA6L- 1'Ai Fo.. OLUtte-Z-00 . • ?kr1-0V1OE Saa 'j av- Agit Cc Q. ri--SC0>\;S 4 onef'Tion; 'Ct.> '0 aa At FC)T_ 5 -F c6 -r , 2-E(.McCiC 1 Wr> ic_cpc aJ • . .. , •t , 1 , . .• . • - .' _ .. t - .( • \ y . • .,. .. DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS JAMES L. MANSON, C.B.O., DIRECTOR • rR 9 a'p',X1'ina i °T1i.„ illi Li' ...n1t11tf1t�: "91Wr' TO: G -0N 1 t16 AD,1uSio& Planning Department FROM: Tom Davis, Code Compliance Coordinator DATE: NAG 281149. RE: File Number: VE -3D -9a A DIVISION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DENNIS M. SCOTT, P.E., DIRECTOR Address: Ilv QCA-2_L LX€ k Our comments regarding the above are reflected in the marked box(es) below: The applicant shall contact the Department of Buildings at the earliest possible stage of design/development in order to be ninformed of code requirements administered/enforced by the department; e.g., State Building Code Act regulations such as requirements for fire hydrant/flow, fire apparatus access roads. street address assignment, barrier -free regulations, energy code regulations. and general coordination with other aspects of project implementation. M. The issuance of a building permit by the Department of Buildings is required. Requirements of Fire District No. _ need to be satisfied during the building permit process. The applicant is advised that the private road shall be named and signed in accordance with the provisions of Spokane County Road Standards. This condition may be waived in the event that the Department of Buildings determines addressing on the private road is not acceptable. However, at such time the Department of Buildings feels the need for the road to become a private, named road, the applicant/owner shall participate and cooperate in this process. The required fire flow for any building or subdivision is determined by building size. type of construction and proximity of n exposures. Based on information presented to this office regarding this subdivision, the minimum fire flow established by code of 500 gallons per minute for 30 minutes is being required. Hydrant distribution will be as follows: Residential Development(s). Fire hydrants shall be located at roadway intersections n wherever possible and the maximum average distance between them shall be no furhter than 900 feet and these hydrants shall be placed so no portion of the structures are in excess of 450 feet from a hydrant. This department has not received verification that the required water plan has been submitted and approved. riBefore any building permits are issued, the water system shall be installed in accordance with the approved water plan. Certification that the installation complies with the requirements of the plan shall be submitted to the Department of Buildings. nWe have no requirements for this proposal - existing conditions. No additional comments. Specific comments are as follows: CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION WEST 1303 BROADWAY • SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260-0550 • (509) 456-3675 FAX (509) 456-4703 SPOKANE COUNTY COURT HOUSE 11bMX \ mil Jnr PLANNING DEPARTMENT BROADWAY CENTRE BUILDING N 721 JEFFERSON STREET PHONE 456-2205 SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260 NOTOCE Ofd SIP©UMIE COLYNTV MUM QDJMST©G3 PMDdDC 11Eanlifikqe DATE: September 30, 1992' TIME: 9:00 a. m. or as soon thereafter as possible PLACE: Spokane County Planning Department 2nd Floor Hearing Room, Broadway Centre Building 721 North Jefferson Street Spokane, WA 99260 AGENDA ITEM #: 1 File: VE -32-92 VARIANCE FROM MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK STANDARD: LOCATION: central Spokane County, west of and adjacent to Laura Road, approximately 153 feet north of Indiana Avenue in the SE 1/4 of Section 7, Township 25N, Range 44 EWM. 2017 N. Laura Road. PROPOSAL: Construct an attached garage with a 47 foot front yard setback from the centerline of the Laura Road right of way; whereas, section 14.616.325. B. 1 of the Zoning Code of Spokane County requires a minimum front yard setback of 55 feet from the centerline of the Laura Road right of way. EXISTING ZONING: Urban Residential 3.5 (UR 3.5) SITE SIZE: Approximately 11,016 square feet APPLICANT: William Dills 2017 N. Laura Road Spokane WA 99212 NOTE: THE ZONING ADJUSTOR WILL ISSUE A WRITTEN DECISION TO APPROVE OR DENY THE ABOVE PROPOSAL. ONLY THE APPLICANT OR AN OPPCNENT OF RECORD MAY APPEAL THE ZONING ADJUSTORS DECISION AND MUST DO SO WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE DECISIOf rS SIGNING. APPEAL MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A $120 FEE. APPEALS MAY BE FILED AT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, BROADWAY CENTRE BUILDING, NORTH 721 JEFFERSON STREET, SPOKANE, WA 99260 (Section 14.412.042 of the Zoning Code of Spokane County). THE ABOVE FILE MAY BE EXAMINED AT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. VE -3"2-92 :PreCOnle) =f reCtl Pt -4' 0 c).B1 4[' N°04 APPLICATIONS BEFORE THE ZONING ADJUSTOR Certificate of Exemption No.: ► TA Application No.: —3D -CID Name of Applicant: UJ ► 11►n. rn )6).-111s- Agent: YN Street Address: (90111 A) . 1.0, a0, -1 d �JJ SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT City: pc ' &lr. Agent's No.: Zip Phone - Home: 9;21r -9t 93 State: IA)), Code: 99)/ 2 Work: - 9�, 9 - Name of Property Owner(s):►��\a m `� • `.J X1\5 Street Address: ,--.)117 A). Ln tonr1. t�C;i Zip City: k ot• State: Code: RE•UESTED ACTION(S) (Circle appropriate action): Conditional Use Permit Other: Phone - Home:"r'7 9 -?19%P / a Work: 9c; -76 Expansion of a Nonconforming Use FOR STAFF USE ONLY Section Township •Lot and le al checked by: •CWSSA Water .urveyor) •Existing zone: Alt Range Li `I Violation/ Enforcement: N •Easement legal checked by: •ULID Agreement needed: Y N Cite Applicable Section; \L� - �p b 5-0 435,1C a/dee-07:f a rrr�� A •Arterial Road Plan designation: ••� ► . •Comp. Plan design 411) •Fire District: - , •Personnel doing preapp conf.: -Other/previous Planning Department actions involving this property: •Maint. agreement checked by: _1141A - •Hearing Date: ABOUT THE PROPERTY Existing use of property: RPS ket- .yn�h a 9- .Describe proposed use of the property: RPS`i.p retia 0 •If a variance application, state th C e -1 terms: Ili • b b �.F3 11 �`::. r lel (-roof 'L y� . ♦ Itne �� u r` -d yr d� Ii • PrP r • If not, has one or more variances been requested.� Wha�is the size of the original parcel if this propos If:Y'C(n i ommparable )< (1/ a �On� (17 t- nq lArp( <r: -I ck• ds? Y N. N. is a recent or proposed division? -Street address of property (if known): c() /r7 A). Laa rL •Le al description of property (include easement, if applicable): Wesi- tf (p y -tea 6lo c A Lo I- 8 •Parcel No(s).: Sn 'iy _ 0 3a a 'Source of legal: toe d p `rr •Total amount of adjoining land controlled by this owner, sponsor and/or agent: t -\A • •What interest do you (applicant) hold in the property? Lhc,ort STATE OF WASHINGTON ) S S COUNTY OF SPOKANE I SWEAR, UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, THAT: (1) I AM THE OWNER OF RECORD OR AUTHORIZFD AGENT FOR THE PROPOSED SITE; (2) IF NOT THE OWNER, WRITTEN PERMISSION PROM SAID OWNER AUTHORIZING MY ACTIONS ON HIS/HER BEHALF IS ATTACHED: AND (3) ALL OF THE ABOVE RESPONSES AND THOSE ON SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ARE MADE TRUTHFT..T.;..ti :\ND TO THE BEST 17 Tr.CTOWLEDGF. . Sign-••..� . Adch est:; o r 7 21,741„., - Phone qc�Phone No l te -- rin 3 Date: Sy/ z z— otaarrubli9 in and for the state V.:A,•, li:, ton, residing 0 . My appointment expires: �0 NOTARY SEAL: page 1 of 2 A. ,.BURDEN'OF PROOF If is neeessary fot`the applicant or his/her representative to establish the reasons why the REQU STED ACTION should be approved and to literally put forth the basic argument in favor of appfoving the application. Accordingly, you should have been given a form for your requested a don (variance, conditional use, etc.) designed to help you present your case in a way which addresses thecriteria 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 SPOKANE COUNTY HEALTH DISTR T a Proposed method of water supply: b) Proposed method of sewage disposal: /JSe Qpm -est' A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The applicant has been informed of requir is and standar- i (Signature) (Date) (Sign -off Waived) SPOKANE COUNTY ENGIN ERI G DEPARTMENT as been h ld to i cuss the proposal. The applicant einents a d stand ds. (Sign ture) •--e_ [7 A4 7� A preli has been Le, (Date) ((Sign -off Waived) SPOKANE COUNTY UTILITIES DEPARTMENT (Planning Department may waive if outside WWMA) A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The applicant,has been informed of requir ts an stan ards.ptc-ob [) [] (Signa e) � '� (Date) (Sign -off Waived by Planning?) The applicant is required to discuss the proposal with to Iv_.,ome informed of water system requirements and standards. (See #4 below) • The applicant is required to discuss the proposal with to become informed of sewage disposal requirements and standards. (See #5 below) WATER PURVEYOR: a) The proposal is/is not located within the boundary of our future service area. b) The proposal is/is not located within the boundary of our current district. c) We are/are not able to serve this site with adequate water. d) Satisfactory arrangements have/have not been made to serve this proposal. (Signature) SEWERAGE. PURVEYOR: (Date) A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The applicant has been informed of requirements and standards. ZA, APP REV; 1/91 (Signature) (Date) page 2 of 2 VARIANCE BURDEN OF PROOF FORM Name: ‘,?,...:1\\ \C:t_rr‘ g-rciIIs File Number: -E O S 9 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. >CA. Will this variance permit a use which is otherwise prohibited in this zone? Yes No t (o,c /6-r) c\.n Explan:'S C4iFJ \ �� Ca Tii\,\(SC�\ 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? Yes Explain: �C. Is the subject property deer ved of pr vileges commonik'nioved by other properties in the vicinity and in a similar zone classification? p Explain: fLX i�ht Lot -Tie) tot, --.3- oe No Will this variance be harmful to the public welfare or to other properties in the vicinity and a similar zone classification? Yes Explain: >LE. Are there other similar situations in the Vicinity in a similar zone classification? Are they peiuiitted uses? No , Are they "nonconforming" uses? No No Explain: Could the subject property be put to a reasonable and permitted use by you or another person without the requested variance? Yes Explain: I'SL \ E.5_ L Oi c_Da. 114- \4ci Q i v. '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? Explain:p'ne ,>V e <«r(4?4Jv ,-\L9 Page 1 of 2 If this variance is granted, will the broader public need or interest be served? EYe& No Explain: --1‘..s t'� .1\ 1mAcc• J G. Tl`.sQ \‘..)C\ --\\k k C).rC� -.?/:.:12 u r, .(Pal C� 0� Vel ?cope,. c o,�o s c fi� . Will this variance be inconsistent with the purpose of the zoning which applies to the subject property? Yes cN�% Explain: cJ. Will approval of this variance grant to the subject property the privileges of a different z e classification (in other words would this be a "de•facto" zone change)? Yes (NO Explain: Will this variance be inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan? Yes Explain: L. Is this variance required for a reasonable economic return from the subject property or is the existing structure too small? . (Ye) No Explain: ��� �XtSti r'.. Q.Ctic-poC CN7o.S ni� 1 �•. U l0_,-,c\`l n-0 �fl CiA • M. Did the oracticai difficulty which caused you tb apply for this variance exist before you owned the subject property? Explain: YesNo N. If approved, would this variance affect land use density regulations which exist to protect the Rathdrum/Spokane Aquifer? Yes c_N_p„) Explain: The following space is for further explanation. Attach an additional page(s) if needed. 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 Planning Department at 456-2205. • RP -VARIANCE; BURDEN OF PROOF FORM Page 2 of 2 REV; 5/92 N. 2011 L%QA Pd ZONING ADJUSTOR SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON IN THE MATTER OF A VARIANCE FROM MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK STANDARD FILE: VE -32-92 APPLICANT: WILLIAM DILLS COMPANION FILE(S): VE -7-74 & VE -135-82 PARCEL NUMBER(S): 45074.0322 csL avYi FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION APPLICATION DESCRIPTION: The applicant has begun construction of an attached one car garage with a 47 foot front yard setback from the centerline of the Laura Road right of way; whereas, section 14.616.325. B. 1 of the Zoning Code of Spokane County requires a minimum front yard setback of 55 feet from the centerline of the Laura Road right of way. Authority to consider such a request exists pursuant to section 14.404.080 of the Zoning Code of Spokane County and Spokane County Board of County Commissioners resolution No. 89 0708, as may be amended. PROJECT LOCATION: Central Spokane County, in the Spokane Valley west of and adjacent to Laura Road, approximately 153 feet north of Indiana Avenue in the SE 1/4 of Section 7, Township 25N, Range 44 EWM. 2017 N. Laura Road. OPPONENTS OF RECORD: Harry Lashbrook Mrs. W. Obirst John Clapper Lloyd & Cheryl Craig Dorothy Hayden Claudia Haushin Robert & Ann Higginson Gerald Cartridge Helen R. Purvis E. B. Kinnick Harold & Mary Williams PUBLIC HEARING AND DECISION: After consideration of all available information on file, exhibits submitted and testimony received during the course of the public hearing held on September 30, 1992 and two site visitations, the Zoning Adjustor rendered a written decision on October /5 , 1992 to DENY the application as set forth in the file documents. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Testimony was taken under oath. The proposal is described above and detailed in documents contained in the file. 2 .. 3. The Comprehensive Plan does not specifically address the variance proposal before the Zoning Adjustor. 4. The site is zoned Urban Residential -3.5, which allows the proposed use upon approval of this application. CASE NO. VE -32-92 SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR PAGE 2 5. The existing land uses in the area of the proposal include single family dwellings on 75 foot wide lots, generally with detached garages at the rear of the dwellings and served by driveways passing on one side of the dwelling, most of which is not compatible with the proposal to place on attached garage in the front yard. 6. 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). 7. Testimony in the hearing establishes the following sequence of events leading to a partial construction of a single car garage in the front yard. a. When the house was originally constructed, it was located closest to the south property line, with approximately 16 feet between the north side of the house and the north property line. This was typical of houses in the area which were constructed with enough space on one side or the other to allow driveway access to the back yard for placement of a detached garage. However, in this case the house is alleged to have been constructed with a carport in the southeast corner of the house, accessed by the present curb cut and driveway on the southside of the property. b. At some point during the occupancy by the former owner, a car pushed in the wall of the house at the west end of the carport. The (then) owner of the house, in the process of repair, enclosed the carport and made it livable interior space, including a fireplace/stove chimney on the south side of the enclosed space. c. The former owner then constructed a carport in front of the old garage, straddling the driveway. The carport apparently was a roof held up by pole supports. This apparently existed for several years; with the applicant purchasing the house a couple of years ago. No building permit is of record and it was a front yard zoning violation. d. The applicant, during a major remodeling and overhaul of the house, decided to enclose the carport, including a hip roof coming toward the street, as a single car garage. e. The applicant apparently proceeded to the County Building Department and acquired a building permit for a carport replacement of a garage. The applicant was substantially through the construction phase including a poured monolithic floor, stud walls, plywood or particle board wall covering and a pitched roof partially integrated into the existing roof of the house, before being "red tagged" for stop construction by the Building Department for construction in the front yard. f. The applicant's approach, upon being stopped during the construction phase has been to seek a variance, through the Planning Department, from the zoning regulations which establish a front yard setback with no construction allowed in the front yard. 8. The applicant testified that the septic tank is at the rear of the house, more toward the northerly end of the house, and that the drainfield mostly angles in a southwesterly RP -VE -32-92 Dills Decision CASE NO. VE -32-92 SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR PAGE 3 direction across the back yard. This leaves a possible construction site for a detached or attached garage immediately to the west/northwest of the northwest corner of the house. There is a very large tree in the back yard. Its actual physical location and limb structure do not appear (by Zoning Adjustor observation after the hearing) to prevent a garage, even a two car garage, from being located in the back yard immediately off the northwest corner of the house. The applicant states that the tree's root system is near to the surface and would likely interfere with construction of a garage floor. The applicant stated that the estimated cost to remove the tree and its root system would be approximately $3,000.00. 9. There is no doubt that the applicant attempted to follow the rules and the Building Department acknowledges that it did issue a permit and that it did stop work after building inspector realized the front yard construction violated the setbacks. 10. The reasons for granting the variance, as setforth by the applicant, are as follows. a. The applicant did not create the problem; that is, the carport was already there, he only wish to enclose it. b. He applied in good faith for a permit and was granted a permit. c. It would be difficult to locate the garage elsewhere. He would have to make a new curb cut, install an new driveway, likely rip up the existing driveway, removed the tree and its root system at considerable expense and construct a garage to the west and northwest of the house, possibly interfering with the present electrical service. (NOTE: The present electrical service would not interfere substantially with the construction of a garage west and northwest of the dwelling unit, in the opinion of the Zoning Adjustor.) 11. 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]). In this situation, personal and economic hardship seems to be the strongest argument by the applicant for granting a variance. 12. The neighborhood character is well established for this area. On Laura, as well as the streets to the east and the west, the lots are predominantly 75 foot wide lots with houses of a small enough footprint that driveway passage to the rear yard exists in almost every case. In no instance is there evidence of front yard construction, garage or otherwise, evident. At the corner of Knox and Laura (to the north), variance VE -7-74 was granted for a garage to be located closer to Laura than flanking street yard would ordinarily allow. In that instance there was also an existing garage in place. The variance sought and granted was a 5 foot deviation from the standard. Also, another flanking street variance (VE -135-82) was granted on the same block to allow a garage structure to be located somewhat closer to the flanking street than required by the flanking street setback. There are no midblock front yard variances of record and no comparable construction evident in the neighborhood. RP -VE -32-92 Dills Decision CASE NO. VE -32-92 SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR PAGE 4 13. If the application for variance were to be granted, the Zoning Adjustor or Board of Adjustment would have no basis for denying subsequent variance applications by other owners under similar circumstances. With no special circumstances at the site, this would amount to a defacto text amendment to the Code; an authority neither Hearing Body possesses. 14. Section 14.404.082 of the Zoning Code addresses the requirements for granting a variance. Subsection 1 of the above section is as follows: 1. Any variance from the terms of the Zoning Code shall be subject to such conditions as will (a) ensure that the adjustment shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and similar zone classification in which the property is situated, (b) ensure that the intent and purpose of the Zoning Code is maintained with regard to location, site design, appearance, landscaping and other features of the proposal, and (c) protect the environment, public interest and general welfare, and that the following circumstances are found to apply: a. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the Zoning Code creates practical difficulties and is found to deprive the property of rights and privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and similar zone classification; and b. That the granting of the variance will neither be materially detrimental to the public welfare nor injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zoneinwhich the property is located. (emphasis added) COMMENT: Both in comparison to the surrounding area and to existing, granted variances, approving the applicant's variance request would be a grant of special privilege. The intent and purpose of the Zoning Code is to establish front yards relatively free of visual obstruction. Granting the variance would undo this purpose and intent. Several people testified that the garage located in the front yard interferes with views up and down the street, contrary to the principal of Block Watch protection for the area; therefore, the public interest, safety and general welfare would not be well served by locating the garage in the front yard. Strict application of the Zoning Code creates a practical difficulty for the applicant under the circumstances which have evolved; however, no physical feature at the site prohibits the applicant from accomplishing the normal neighborhood pattern of a driveway on the side of the house and a garage in the rear yard. Septic tank and drainfield are laid out to allow for this and there is enough room on the side of the house. The tree in the back yard causes some practical difficulty. However, the tree is set far enough into the back yard that there would be no interference from limbs or trunk. A near surface root system could be overcome by a slightly raised slab -on -grade, monolithic floor. Some of the root system could likely also be removed near the surface, without damaging the entire tree. The numerous opponents of record establish that property or improvements in the vicinity would be injured, either by simple aesthetic appearance or the interference with the accepted block watch practice of maintaining vistas up and down the street. Subsection 4 of the above section defines several key terms, one of the most important of which is 14.404.082.4.e wherein 'practical difficulties' are established as one or more of any RP -VE -32-92 Dills Decision CASE NO. VE -32-92 SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR PAGE 5 number of differences and privileges characteristic of a property due to a combination of special circumstances and standards of the Code: provided, that a practical difficulty shall not solely be a parcel alleged to be too small for a given use if the subject property can be put to any number of similar or alternative uses conforming to the standard. 15. Whether or not granting the variance will be injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and zone, is always a matter of conjecture and personal preference. Obviously, substantial number of persons living in the surrounding area feel the presence of a front yard garage is not in their best interest; as there were about 11 objectors of record who either signed a petition against the granting of the variance and/or testifyed against the granting of the variance. 16. The applicant has not presented a convincing case that a broader public or community need or interests would be served by granting the variance, as opposed to denying the application. 17. 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. As the Zoning Adjustor considered 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 denying the variance as being: (1) primarily to the benefit of the applicant; and (2) generally to the detriment of the local area and the community. It establishes a precedent which would destroy the purpose and intent set forward in the Zoning Code adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. Furthermore, substantial testimony advocated against the front yard structure as not being in the neighborhood's best interest with respect to aesthetics and safety. 18. 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 DENIES the proposal as generally set forth in the file documents. DA I ED this /51-4i day of October, 1992. RP -VE -32-92 Dills Decision CASE NO. VE -32-92 SPOKANE COUNTY ZONINN9fJUSTOR PAGE 6 . MOSHER, AICP Adjustor unty, Washington FILED. 1) Applicant (Certified/Return Receipt Mail) 2) Opponents of Record 3) Spokane Division of Engineering and Roads 4) Spokane County Health District 5) Spokane County Division of Utilities 6) Spokane County Department of Buildings 7) Spokane County Fire Protection District No. 1 8) 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 $120.00 FEE. APPEALS MAY BE FILED AT THE SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT, BROADWAY CENTRE BUILDING, NORTH 721 JEFFERSON STREET, SPOKANE, WA 99260 (Section 14.412.042 of the Zoning Code for Spokane County). RP -VE -32-92 Dills Decision Resolution -pi '^.:,,h-.. cil• r':.,��.t:.=•stir, �.g_ 1 w.''',J1'+ . � �. :. r BOARD,08./,OOnf,ITy';{COMmIssronns 07 8l/XAN9 e �nF✓j`'y<�:'y^i,':4i}'41'Yi.•ti': {c '3r.1. ... • .OnlAlit-. '"r%iP.C'.YY 14i•: 4P@Ria%iu: -4 , ). . .;' 1tYfi':it.+i;t,---:Nrr-r ttoip f":wi•-„''zrlv.",,p-: Cyt:,; ^ • 4. ,.. ":iC'.1=1'•t•i y7 <i S'�'t's�i�;; .:t,: y: tot'— e'.tit-n. ,i w:•t•.i<rX q7 Till'. i;it R'.S•i: • IN THE NATTER,s , ; '.: s..tr s_ 3'i -. : 'txs''• . " :, ti r.,...• n..>r 'x..u.�['o t =?i> kr, a ' i) eTv,•�?. :+;5 i..` i.t <-..: t,}; :».'+:, 0;�s;U{'...f h, • LAt28A ROAD N.a-q }r.4. „,,,,, .::aan.,.prtc..b:.i »-,r.„-...44.,:^i' f-.",:-tr :d n;:t, t •t co: COUNT/ SNGINEEBISy;ROAD:'8IT� 20081•' Resolution'zi :"'r,a- >::.,.,",- SPOKANE COUI6TY.<'EASFIIHGTQ9,.; ? ;p:y ) : r.it- ,.;:a .,: ,,,, ., ry 3 ... <,: .•?xiA ,v:::a£y inr 111(1C CI s. "U�C�J0 , Pik.r-to the ,L• e ti;; ,) _ ' ni':[?r x"'`;:.4"i:n:.��i>.:?::.^.. •=+ "ei• .;r•:r �. �t :.. .,f, ,; 4,nr:, •.r . . P. 4C.'S•E :.. I:•FC-. .. .. 1 This`bein�:Ythe d r aet;4or."th8:hearing'on•theECounty',Rdad`,SngineezIe•Report on.the eatabliehmentr,,of;Iiiuii'a:Roaii2•In,the plat of•hest;,YYLtQy:Addition-No.',2,_; petitioned' fox 4/11:,,E,:git& 1ttliji,karid!pthera,tandtliC'alipearingtott;:proof.duly.- madi that and tpoeted, in the. Cann-er and for .the time `re4airetesb iiti;•taad�;ther,t`oard'aftsr examthiAg'thk`ttportianti 'tilt .of the County Roagt'Engins¢r"9ii8;a11'i'pinime land paper • oii•=fi1 ad. after hearing all • ` the :evade e P P f. ; nC iiddac0g':at';thb'haaxloat4 oz :the, ,vpfi ;'. 1 ott:>. _ . _ rta r•r! . '• .•:. ;,•: ' •`a?%ir�it 4. _yie"j"s3xi •-•r:r`fw. 1",;' Yi f b� ^^s `tLscif;:arct net ;;r o.:,^* ie - •.2T 7UNTEER-APPEABI&0,;,t nt'Lmukitead,in:the plat;,.4:ltee4t:4Valley.Addition-;-• ' cr No. 2 has alrmadv',boen`de'dicated;to::the'Inblio.by the`- !ling of the' aforesaid plat and the' tenni nderrof:the night"of-ieiy from th north11inexof!Nest •Vali ey.'Add ition No; 2 north 'to Knox Avenue has been deeded -to `the Comity for the pis poses of a pnbiie:road, and that the said road is a! public necessity•and"the' Akio.ehould"be established and opened as repoitiO44 v the county road tinglneer01 ...,4, C!,.,, J. -- TBERF.PORE EE 2T RESOLVED By the, Bo• ard of County f ii¢®jbaers,of;ione'', County. Naehington that Laura Road as •reported by diet`„Coit r';,foad.-fSpoagineer4:on ;;, the 18th -day of September,• 1950, hereinafter described:toiteiti c; 2•i1 •• ' .t.;,z; ::.; r,..It'.. .- ;.r-,mtat,ot. $[:t.i--:_: rt,:li41.' � 9J.. ,• ,.3. '+nor � f •, .. p:^t iY"_.i�•l:P. . 2smra Road in the plat of Veat;Yalley Addition.±iti72Vb, miiac.the iii,••rt r-north.line.oY•Iadiana Avenue aad;raaning thenc& north'along;,e9YdtLaura^:::.. ;f Road in the' aforesaid, plat and 4 oontimning north' f it`►''ths`::Sth'iiine • Of ,the plat of West+Velley Addition No. 2 to &noa7Avean.g ffio.4735'` ` in ,theJN-1/,4`,of'the• SE: ijk: of;°'Section Township -,2511;6141C;' R' - 7r range . Er.-ZU.. -, ._ `., t ' '. :'. l",�,::• 'y ;''' iiun„rci'a,:d.cu'nrn rn rn::-.....a:.:�... aejehoon by-the'reoords and'maps•`on;-411e•-in'.tkezoffice of„ythe;Cmnty;Engineer; of. Spokane; Count/ betand .the . same 'hereby'19%-establishefl'ae a (Multi road,and -of a • width' of 50'feet •and -the -same. shall. ,be *own 'as Laur&'Road No. 2082. ,and:.t3 a.i sapervisor-of the;road district --in erhich''„the,,said road.;+M46eatedIIerhereby°directed to; open and, maintain, the. Oame• for;pnblitruI. oe and travel;'. :'-tcnrt•,n: Rtsh?i!,;; at i}eita4e. r' PASSED A ADOPTED by the Doardiof•County.Cormisaionere of -Spokane County. Vaskiiigten`•thio-13th day of October,:°1950. •, - win, 0? COUNTY.00HFi2SSIONERS , 08 SPOKANE CO3A'74i:' WASHINGTON /o/ • Lok Loi -1 Lol-�j Sl I 1 (1 01/54_. F /9 / //C f -0//cy *2—it'd 2 Lam/ 1/,G Nwrit MAP L._o(' 5 ,�.iac-gra %c 1C P..oer—r 7._.ec. _-1 25' WEST VALLEY ADDITION No. 2 ivarriman. 77.10' 5' • 75' ro 30' • ; 't• 0.00' 1 Dbl . 150.00 • r - co c� ••',4 ' "• • r 75! * kittilfifet" ,•• SCALE:A.,= • ..• • . • .•.„ 150.00' Dbl. 0' 0 3 N WOLFLAND (2) .1 ,. €13' I 0 7 394 1 5 . 0 99.86 774.9 \> - r1 0 u.l if .1 Z 4 25' PO '0• 4 PI. Z+10.0 A 7o Zo RT 7. 34 4 T 50.0 L t9.a6 R 780.2 4 "o co o N �-Ia ADDITION s 6 38' 1° 59'W 2.50' 251 25' -0 0 11 7 11 10 11 14 ••• Th 9 147 CP: 7 /46:9 '2 /46.881 /46.81 rent ir Concrete 1 CONCRETE IRRIGATION FL*ME FINAL WEST VALLEY SECTION 7 T. SEC. 7 1125N• R.44 E.W M. o.' ! a. SCALE: ! ` : 400 9 4 F- 0) V 1' MIL.LWOGD 1_!B'cRTY AVE. 1 (I14.... Da I ton -4d 4 I _J 4 LQ I AVEr lc A z a 0 41 Io5 Gb 7.i/1111: , e7! • 24/ F IRVI O242 • 239 NQ 01-'345' BUCKEYE Ave No. 1402-4o /0 /8/ / 80,x' C��12LSL6 RAS 7+48.8 TR. ENUE :..'� baa all NORA AVE BRI Y 4. Now.oMcv rti ] ROWS -11.1.1* NR Corner 104,+0 ""`• v0/,' /9// 4 q 4 4 3 4 1 2 9r`rn ply mrpm-fete I haat /Rd/o + A. 4 NW 2.ta. Iron pipe in etnrrete 4ai th'snn tr.n F:tiff !,'ntr' 4iiilkaa2` fan t4g ics'23tt. PF.Grvre¢ /Sae 2300 N F. ,tlefrjenre J4oints j&cfr graph in/cc-mental 14x3t zpplpcj/i concrete 4efaia A:4 ace •. Air Ze4war /9/0 moa'-. o. /fer c Y "e 9 to ENUE :..'� baa all NORA AVE BRI Y 4. Now.oMcv rti ] ROWS -11.1.1* NR Corner tioton ""`• v0/,' /9// Desrrfr �<lTG ,(,prRoo[t t ATa'' -Hf. nor IRdra 2 549 N 2 9r`rn ply mrpm-fete I haat /Rd/o + A. 2550 NW 2.ta. Iron pipe in etnrrete 4ai th'snn tr.n F:tiff !,'ntr' 4iiilkaa2` fan t4g ics'23tt. PF.Grvre¢ /Sae 2300 N F. ,tlefrjenre J4oints j&cfr graph in/cc-mental 14x3t zpplpcj/i concrete 4efaia A:4 ace •. Air Ze4war /9/0 moa'-. o. /fer 444 E4 Lepper 44'/rr keHti 703 54- t• bear So 0i bp S �� 4 „ b le/ r mice 6 a Torr tam . lOz2�B• rtf.kti t on, /t�fcr'e 4/ldt%& F e Q ug1-Gr ci�pnc , re fel r e.pol.a'. 138 S. W -r 34 ' . . , as,'' i s : i iks. -� P011,6 B +An tog forty£are ea.. ' --1 in' 1 `' 11Yo r 486 req ,Ftc. 0,- Crgjrttr 4-44Gal rrrv .. ,;.t.-4f,j.7o..da 3363' T314 "(Iv *fmt .f'/1'' ' ,„ .. - ,t /v r /✓o /' / . er. sand / no f : n, Ai73. r..d0 a Al 4,./ e.t r, ,} o- b= `." /f` tjyrter ,,. .�I . b L%4'# 4d -' 4a o- 30 b4- ,6'ear.eld i-� st/'fer eed�sy`rrr'T i�+�.�¢� ,.o " /'+�•l`�r ---,�" !'� ,. a t3p''e3(, 'r ac, e` OW - t✓' 75 C 6 N %44. isc0j'adYi zte t/ 4te feywoe i/rreofs44�e4 � f'4 _ 3347 3 Cy:Ire/=J%C 4 /e#.lo'r�fAFs ZIPc 44t l/i'. C.^ 4N. 6R: r- ., nett, , 4941 3.342 L-%cn'N"fia 41/�i%ee,fore4C. hit /3"440o!gine ?arm /s'n 4car eane4t/id/e,2Q4mf;.e3tw6e _. _ ... ,. ,..., n �. .G. Roy- e,45,' �..