1987, 09-17 Zoning Adjustor FindingsZONING ADJUSTOR
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
IN THE MATTER OF FRONT YARD, REAR YARD AND ) .
MINIMUM LOT SIZE VARIANCES FOR A SINGLE ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS
PARCEL, (VE -73-87)0 , AND DECISION
MYRON INGEBO )
SUMMARY OF APPLICATION:
The applicant's parcel is of such a size and dimension that a 28 -foot -deep
dwelling unit would be approximately 43 feet from the center of the roadway
right-of-way and 18.73 feet from the rear property line`arid the parcel
contains 10,700 square feet. Sections 4.04.150 (a) (1), 4.04.150 (a) (4) and
4.04.040 of the Spokane County Zoning'0rdinance respectively require that a
dwelling unit be located 55 feet from the center of the roadway right-of-way
(not 43 feet), 25 feet (not 18.7 feet) from the rear yard property line arid
that the lot contain a minimum of 12,500 square feet.(not'10,700 square
feet): Authority to consider and grant -such requests eitists pursuant to
Sections 4.03.020 64. and 4;25.030 b. of;the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance.
LOCATION:
The property is located in the northerly portion of the Spokane Valley, north
of Longfellow Avenue, west of Progress Road and.east of.and adjacent to
Lucille Road in the NE 1/4 of Section 2, Township 25,,Range 44. The
Assessor'sparcel number is 02541-1809; The property is addressed as N. 4604
Lucille Road.
•
DECISION OF THE ZONING ADJUSTOR:
Based upon the evidence presented and circumstances associated with the
project proposal, the Zoning Adjustor APPROVES the requested variance as set
forth and conditoned below.
PUBLIC HEARING: -
After examining all available informatioh on file with the application and
visiting the subject property and surrounding area, the Zoning Adjustor
conducted a public hearing on September.9, 1987, rendered a verbal decision on
September 9, 1987, and a written decision•on September 17, 1987.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The proposal is generally located on the north side of the Spokane
Valley, north of Longfellow Avenue, west of Progress Road and east of and
adjacent to Lucille Road in the NE 1/4 of Section 2, Township 25, Range 44 and
is further described as Assessor's Parcel #02541-1809; being more completely
described in Zoning Adjustor File ?/VE -73-87, The property is addressed as N.
4604 Lucille Road.
2. The proposal consists of a parcel of land which 16 substandard in
size, thus creating a need for' a variance from the minimum lot size of 12,500
square feet, as well as a reduction of building setbacks to approximately 43
feet from the center of the right-of-way roadway in the front yard area and a
reduction of the rear yard to approximatley 18.73 feet. This would allow a
dwelling unit of 28 feet deep to locate it on the site; The Zoning Ordinance
requires 55 feet from the centerline of the roadway right-of-way to the '
setback line and 25 feet in the rear yard. The applicant's lot has 10,700
square feet, approximately 1,800 square feet short of the minimum lot coverage
for the zone. The applicant's parcel is separated from Lucille Road by a one
(1) -foot ownership which is in the hands of the County. The County Engineers
will not allow access to the property until their requirements for improving '
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION PAGE 2
VE-73787;,MYRON INGEBO
the'road.have'been'satisfied.' The owner/applicant'of-the'percel of land •
originally attempted Eo Short plat (SP=78=26) his 'entire'ownership of land
with'a.Lucille Road cul-de=sac ending on.the property:''The County Engineers
requested that'the`.-road continue through, to the'north sidd of the property on
the alignment of Lucille Road: This had the net'effect of creating a small
substaridard'Fparcel of. land to -the 'east of Lucille Road, the parcel in
questionIiithe infancy -stages of theshort'plat administration, the County
Planning-Depattment'did not pursue vatiences,for the lot at the time the short
plat was filed'so'that the parcel could`'become'a..fourth lot'Sn the three -lot
short plat.' Consequently, the applidanthas had a; small'substandaid parcel of
land which is not'part of the short plat,since the formation. of the' -short'
plat in 1979. The applicant reports that.he has thade'niumerous attempts to
purchase 15 to 75 feet from the parcel'to the east, with the objective of •
enlarging the lot'so it would no longet be substandard.' The owner of that
land, who lived there,for some time, but who;now'lives in the state of ' '.
Minnesota,'has not ever responded positively to''any.of the offers for land
made by.the applicant. Hence; the applicant's land is unuseable unless these
variances are granted. • The property is Air esently'used`•as a neighborhood
dumping area and is an eyesore, if not a•haiird;-to'the'neighborhood in '
general; certainly an attractive nuisance"to the children In the
neighborhood: Hence,"the applicant'proposea to,makethe lot a saleable lot;
for the purpose of constructing a'dwelling-uhitrby'applying'for these
variances from the minimum lot size;-the°front yard'and rear yard setbacks:
3. The'adopted Spokane -.'County Future Land'Use Plan designates the area
of the proposal''as Urban'and the propo9al''=1s'consistentwith the County's
entire Comprehensive.Plan, including the=FUture Land Use Planar
4. The site is zoned Agficiultural.which'would allow the proposed use
upon approval of this application. .Y
5. The existing land uses in the area of the proposal include
residential'subdivisions;:all of which are compatible with the Proposal. ,
6. The applicant's original desire to subdivide the entire parcel -of
land and provide"4 lots was set aside when'the'',,County 'recommended•inic
the short platting process that a provision be made for Lucille Road to extend
northerly -through the parcel owned by the applicant, thus leaving a
substandard remainder parcel: .•"t
7. There have been'variances granted in the area with regard to problems '
similarly related to those at this site;.,references have.been made previously
to files for the area. - .
8. The subdivisions to the north, 'as well as'subdiVisions to the south,
have parcels of land smaller than the 12,500-square=foot standard, and only
several hundred square feet larger than the applicant's'lot.
9. The County Engineers have made a point of asking that the road be
improved in front of the parcel of land;"or that assurances that it can be
improved through the provision of a bond for the work as an alternative to
actually doing the work. That was the result of an August 27, 1987 memorandum
and a September 15; 1987 telephone call to Bob McCann of the County
Engineering Department.
10. The applicant should have been given, at the time of application
submittal, a ULID Statement which should:have been signed prior to the public
.hearing: That step was inadvertently overlooked. However, such a form will
be transmitted to the applicant with this decision and one of the conditions
sof this decision will be that a copy of that ULID Statethent-•be filed in the
Auditor's Office and in the Planning -Department file'prior'to the Planning
Department's sign -off on any building'peitits.
•
11. 'The proposal is exempt from the provisions of Chapter 43.21C RCW
pursuant to WAC 197=11-800 (6) (b).
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
VE -73-87; MYRON INGEBO
12. The applicant has been
County/State agencies reviewing
with those recommendations:
PAGE 3
made aware of the recommendations of various
this project and has indicated he can comply
' 13. 'The parcel under consideration has been found:to'comply with state
and local subdivision regulations'(see File CE -222=87):;.:'
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. %t';=.;
From the Findings, the Zoning Adjustor comes to these: •
CONCLUSIONS'
1. A Certificate of Exemption can;be issued:,_
2. The variances will •not authorize a use otherwise prohibited in the
3. With the conditions of approvariset forth below; -the variances Willi
a) not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent}with limitations
on other•properties'in'the vicinity and1similar'zeiie;'b) ensure that the
intent and purpose of,the Zoning Ordinance -is achieved.',,with,regard to •
location,•site design, appearance,'and=landscaping;:'etc7and''c)'protect' the,..
environment,•public interest and general'welfate:-.Othervatiances in the area
have been granted along the lines of,theee.proposed by, the applicant.
4: There are special circumstances*e pplicable;.to.the.property which,;
when combined with the standards of-theening Ordinance,ecreate practical
difficulties for the use of the propertyand/or deprive the property of rights
and privileges common -to other properties'.in'.the vicinitykand similar zone .N - _,
classifications. The'special'i'circumstances''applidable to this property "• .
revolve -around the original Mort' plat&of-the'land=to the west: The applicant
had intended Co properly subdivide all of.the:land including this parcel of,
land, and was only kept' froth doing so• bylthearecommendation,of the County
Engineer and the'decieion of the PlanningrDepartment to:create a through road.
for Lucille Road as a connection to Lucille'Road to the north: The Planning
Department apparently erred'in not requiring'these variances to be applied for
and received at the time of the short''plat`4and thereby including the lot on;
the short plat.' Another•epecial circ:imstancejis.,the applicant's efforts to.
acquire property to the east- in' an effort ,to `siakethe lot ja'standard size lot
whereby the dimensions`would'provide-for`;'a•normal'dwelling'iunit without having
to gain'variances for setbacks'or for lotfsize." As`the lot now exists, -even a
singlewide manufactured' home could not be placed on ttie'parcel:
5. Granting the variances will be neither materially detrimental to the
public welfare nor injurious to property,or improvements in the vicinity and
zone. t .
6. Strict application of the Zoning standards does create an
unreasonable burden in light of the purpose to be served by the standards:
7. The case for the variances were het supported by substantial
reference to or.reliance upon legal or nonconforming precedent(s):
8. 'Granting the variances will not -adversely affect the overall zoning
design,, plan or concept for either the immediateai-ea or the entire County.
,•
9. The case for a variances was not based substantially upon a lack of
reasonable economic return nor a claim that the existing structure 1s too
small.
FINDINGS,"CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION:
',V03-87; MYRON INGEBO
PAGE 4
,'•10. Granting of the variances will -not be inconsistent with,the general
purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Pian. •
•
11: The granting of the Variances.will not result in defacto zone
reclassification.
.'12. The requested variances ard,not Substantially for" the purpose of
circumventing density regulations designed'to protect the,Spokarie
Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer. ' ' '
13. 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 addreasedhasiconditions of approval:
14. The proposal will Uphold the spirit'and intent of the Zoning
Ordinance and mitigate adverse effects upon the neighboring properties due to
reasonable restrictions,, conditions or.'safeguards applied through the..
conditions of approval:
•
15. -The proposal' will, hot be detrimental to'.the'Comprehensive Plan or the
surrounding properties. •-
16. Any finding hereinbefore stated which may be;deemed a conclusion
herein is adopted as sect
From the foregoing'Findings and Conclusion's, the'iZoning-Adjustor APPROVES
the proposal, including acting on•behalf of-the•Subdivisien Administrator to
approve the associated Certificate of_$Exemption(sThe following CONDITIONS
OF APPROVAL ARE STIPULATED.;:' ! ••
CONDITIONSOF_APPROVAL
I .""GENERAL
1. The following conditions shall apply%.to'the applicant, owner and
successors'id interest.-• '.
•
2. Failure to comply with any of the'cohditions of'appro'val contained iu this
decision, except as'may'be relieved.-by:the•Zoning Adjustor, shall .'
constitute a violation of the Zoniiig'Ordinance and be subject to such
enforcement actions as are appropriate:`:+'
3. The Building and Safety Departmenf'shall assist in coordination of this
decision by routing building permit•,application(s) to the various
departments which participate in•or:take actions to ensure that various
required written'documents have been executed and filed.
II. PLANNINd DEPARTMENT
1. The Planning Department will review any building permit application(s) as
being consistent with a front yard setback of no less than 43 feet from
the centerline of the roadway right=of-way of Lucille Road and no less
than 18.73 feet as a rear yard -setback. This means a dwelling footprint
of 28 feet deep should be the key dimension.
2. Since the ULID Statement was not filled by the applicant prior to the
public hearing, it.is-necessary for•.the'Pla[ihing•Department personnel to
verify, -before signing off on.a building permit'application, that the ULID
Statement has been filed in'the County Auditors Offide:. Ordinarily; a
copy of that file'documentshould be placed in the•Planning Department
files;' however, the:Planning Department personnel.may exercise discretion
in verification that'the document„bas'been signed and, filed with the
Auditor. .•
.` FINDLNGS;'CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
.''V6-73-87;:MYRON INGEBO
1LI.,1'DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING'S SAFETY
PAGE 5
The Building and Safety Department'=shall assist incoordination of this
decision by routing"building permit•application(e) to the various
deparhmenta'which participate ie;bi take actions to 'ensure that various
required written documents have .been ezecuted;and,filed.
r IV. ,UTILITIES DEPARTMENT .;,,»"
1. Pursuant -to the 8oard of County Commissioners Resolution No. 80-0418, the
use of on-site sewer disposal'syetems is herebyfautherized. Thie
authoriiation is conditioned on compliance'with a ll:rules'and•,regulations
of the Spokane County Health District and'is`further:iconditionedrand.';
Health
subject
Otoispo specific application'approval andaissuance of permits by..the
•
2. The owner or.succeesor(s) in in[ereat agree'to authorize the County to
place their names) on.a petition^'for'the formatlon.of a ULID by petition
method pursuant•to RCW 36:94; which'petition ineludessthe owner's'.,
property, and further'not to objectobg the'1signing:of-a protest' petition
against the'formatioh of a ULID by:resol'ution:methodi,ursuant to RCW.r
,Chapter 36.94 which,includes the owners.property:i:;"PROVIDED, this'
'condition shall'not prohibit the owner.or auecessor(s) from objection to er
any assessments) on the propertyias"e result°of improvements called for,
in conjunction with the.formation:ef•a'ULID,by;either"petition or
resolutionmethod under, RCW Chapter.36.94..
•
3. Any water serdice:for this projecttshall:be.'provided;ln accordance
•thepoordihated Water System:P1ah'Uor'Spokane;iCounts amended:
4. Each dwelling unit shall be double=plumbed'for"connection to future
area -wide collection systems:,_ ;,;y+,�` „• "'`'` ^
HEALTH;',DISTRLCT
1, Sewage disposal -shall be:'as authorlied'by the'Director,of Utilities
Spokane County. -
ki
2. Water service shall be coordinated:through the Director of Utilities,
Spokane County. =-
3, Water service shall be by an existing public water supply when approved by
the Regional Engineer(Spokane_); State.Department of'Social and Health'
Services. .,
4. Subject to specific application approVal':and issuance•of peimite by the
Health Officer, the use of:en individual on-site sewage system may be
authorized.
5. Use of private wells and water systems is prohibited:
VI.:„ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT :'
''
1. Prior to the release of building'permit(s) or use of the property as
proposed, the applicant shall improve Lucille•Road in a manner consistent
with Spokane County Typical Road Section #2, Access Street Standard.
' Alternatively, the County Engineering`Department may accept a bond for
said improvement. This improvement::will'•;require the addition of 10 feet ,
of pavement along the frontage of the'subject parcel and installation of
curbing. Road and drainage plans will:also be required,- The applicant,,
should contact•the County Engineering;Department regarding the required
improvements'.' • ^
Lt
2. The applicant is hereby advised that the County Engineering Department
will require the improvement of Lucille;.'Road as a condition for the
vacation'of the previously mentioned one`(1)-foot strip.•'
7 ' • •
J •"1 ‘777-7
' .
'
C 7 ' ...47
FINDINGS,'CONCLUSIONS'AND„DECISIONA' '7, -'-','. . '.
PAGE 6
VE -73-8? ; 'MYRON INGEBO 4 , A : : s.",;:,••4* -1 ,•.?: • .4 :1 :. ".5 9 t • i •
. . ? :4.4 7 ''. ' . • '
, . '..ji„ 'rtt1„1, 41:1 , • ' ' ' : 14% ! ', 'i . ' ..,
)1r. • :4•:. s -.. . NOTICE: ., :7PENDING COMPLETION OF ALL. CONDITIONS OF• APPROVAL WHICH NEED TO BE
'' COMPLETErpRIOR JO 'PERMIT ISSUANCE;VPERMITS CAN BE RELEASED PRIOR TO THE LAPSE
. .
PERIOD.:0-1HOWEVEKTHE4COUNIY:'HAS I NO 'LIABILITY FOR
:92;4 ' • ' 'EXPENSES';AND INCONVENIEHCE HiINCURREI(BYP:HE 'APPLICANI,'„.Ig THE' PROJECT APPROVAL , . v's/ • IS 'OVERTURNED OR ALTERED U,,,,;J PON APPEAL! 41ji.'I .C•i• it ::: ••••'•: : •
• . 4.
,. .
"J.W: ' . • . 5J - 4 • 5. 5. • • : It a , . ., . ..
. . • .
I •
• ,
• . DATED ....THIS -',1-5TH' DAY OF SEPTEMBER L''1A8:47,..$1.111*,,
t:•,,,-, • 'fc.i'•;";‘,35;-.3."..,:, ..3' - . -- , ,.,,,, , . •
7:3•5&,, '11,:!.....%,,, .,... .„ .:, c '
4;:i'V-44.$1'f."' '9 Thomas; Gt,,!iosh AICP 3.",. 7.. • ,G
.,.•,,
i .: ... . • , „., , , ••„ •
• -';';" 'N:' - ,' 4 Washington
Zoning Adjust(' Spokane- County' -
, • . • /-'7.; ' • '..- :7.1(i.'•'7-;- • • #
, •
. .
FILED:
1) ' Applicant
ir
•:; 2) ' 'Pariee of Record 47. :,',•",::;r,'# . • '.. *:''
iii.7. • • 3) :• Spokane*COuntiEnginering,.4Departinent7.
4) . Spokane CountY". Health Hilt tic c.
.•&).•s Spokane•CoUntY;Utilities DePt;'s. '.": ''' • (7. --$. 9.$:',.'.:-'..,
6).:;-" Spokane County. Dept:: of Building 'ElSafety. I,' ''...•
, ,...
'7 ) • Planning Dept.',75Cross ReferenduFile and/or -Electronic File. V- !''
• • ' 1; ''' ' ' 774" '7.;4s.•*,•7t4i.114‘.9y.4.-. • -.. .• -,9si?••••L•.7 ,
• . ii.:, ..,* • • < tin . . +diefrg,IThr91.1..f. LI. .1 '. 2 , ... '..' • 1 , ' c" ic:::,
1 >
TIJ
NOTE: ''' ONLY THE APPLICANT,:bR AN OiliONENT:4-.OF RECORD 'MAY' FILE AN APPEAL' WITHIN '.. ' ',' " - ''''F-'9
. .
TEN (10) CALENDAR' DAYS OF,. THE, ABOVE•IiiATE,' OF SIGNItsid:'t,' APPEAL MUST BE - -/- .-,
. -. .
- ACCOMPANIED BY K1$100.00 • EEE47',-4 APPEALS1'hiArBel ILED77AT, THE 'SPOKANE COUNTY
' PLANNING DEPARTMENT; BROADWAY 'CENfREYBUILDING;:N.“[72.1 'JEFFERSON ST., SPOKANE, • '
WA 9.9260: (Sections 4.25. 090 and2t4; 2,.100. of $. tha§jkokahe County Zoning
• ••41.
Ordinance)': • t- r 14:$34417/54:.• s'#• 4:! ;74- • ' I • - ;.• '• : 4 • •la-‘
0044z/9-87' '
14
•
444, ' •
43t/4 ",";•4
ar;ft,V. ": • • ,59.'
V4'44.P. .44'• • •• -• • • ••
d'r • .:,' '
"4"4,1",b#4•••"
relnly:•"j5". IA 44
H:je":r4•41: • . I 7/
, -
• f • it?' • A' •4••• i ,
, •-•,•:- •
2•147,./V.,!4i. 7:4,.,1 r, •
•
_ • -
• :
• 1 • •
s
, • 9 1:7
•
• ,4 .,9 -572 • '
i'tr J' 1.4...
•
'
,
•
' • • •
• „ , . .
. -.3 5 ' - 't
.
. .
•
••• . s 9.'s 0, ,-j.•-:", ,, .0',“) , I •
. . , . A
5 ' L: 5 '
. . Ai1'i GA
•
• . -
^ • J
'77 4
777 , ,
44-s •
• '',41;19t5 9. • :
•
I• .
97.
.s
• .‘„.
7.
, • , J.:4
" • ' •
, •
'47
v • ..
5 • 53a .5•1
•
9- #7999t. ..a,7' ,4! • •••Y9'.,.
9'; • 277c• • .7 "
.•
• , ;7# • 7.4: • ••
.74,44 41.44:,155it
September 9, 1987 Agenda
September 1, 1987
Page 2 of 3
VE -74-87 - EAST 14118 4TH AVENUE
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.
B. Project is located within Fire District No. 1.
C. Depending on the extent of existing water mains and
hydrant locations, fire hydrants which meet the minimum fire flow
requirements as enumerated in Chapter 6, Title 3 of the Spokane
County Code, may be required to be installed prior to any
construction.
D. Address for this property is East 14118 4th Avenue.
2. Building and Safety Code Requirements
A. The applicant shall provide verification from the Fire
District to the Department of Building and Safety that provisions
have been made for adequate fire protection prior to the release
of building permits.
VE -73-87 - NORTH 4604 LUCILLE ROAD
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.
B. Project is located within Fire District No. 1.
C. Address for this property is North 4604 Lucille Road.
11
gap y Ave
1
{
Vet
4.
a
1 910
5,.
M
5 4'
.25'-o"
¢Y-0..
n.73 -da
7
p yLo`(
1/{2-e
v
Rec0 gear Yah
5t+ ba is
ParcQl s la e=
Io&&
ovicd ze=