VE-88-86
~ .
ZDNING AaJU5T4R
SP OKANE C OUNTY , WASHI NGTON
iN THE MA7TER OF A YARIANCE FROM THE }
REQUIRED SIDE YAR 5ETBACK. (VE-88-86); ~ FINDINGS, CONCLiJSIONS
EDWIN AND BETTY WEILIP ~ AND DECISIaN
,SUMMARY OF APPLICATION;
The applicant propvses -to canstruct a single car garage on the south side of
his house to w7th in 2 feet of the s i de ,yard prnpert,y i i ne. Secta vn 4.04,.1 50
a,2. of the Spokane Cuunty Zanirtg Ordinance requires a a foat side ,yard
setback. Autharit,y to consider and grant such a request exists pursuant to
Section(s) 4.030.020 64. and 4. 25,030 b. of the Spokane County Zoni ng
Ordinance. .
LOCATION:
hlorth 520 E11a~ Road, Tn the Spokane Yalley. The Assessars Parcel # is
14+543l0659r
DEGISI06V OF 7HE ZONFNG ADJUSTOR:
BaSed upon th@ e1f1de[ice p1"eSeflt2d dnd C1rCllmstanCes a5s4Cidted With th@
project proposal, the Zaning Adjustar APPROI(ES the application cataditione~ and
stipu]ated as below.
}
PUBLIC NEARING;
~ After examTning aTl availab]e informatian on file with the appZicativn and
vi siti ng the sub ject propert,y and surrvundi ng area, the ZvnT ng Adjustor
conducted a publ ic hearing on August 11, 1986, rendered ar verbal deci s7 on on
August 11, 1986, and a written decision vn August 78, 1986. ,
FINDINGS DF FACT
1. The proposal i s 1 o+cated an the east s ide of El1 a Road, south af
Brvadway Auenue at N. 520 E13a Road and is further described as Assessors
Parcel #18543-0659, be7ny mare cornpletely described in Zoning Adjustor Fi 1e
YE-'88-86.
2. The propasal consists of a request to deviate from the standard 5
fo0t S 1de ydt"d S£'tbaCk. The dpp Ti Cant W! Shes to COnatT"Uct 8 Si flgTe-Car gd1"8ge
to within 2 feet of the side yard propert,y line. The parcel in questivn is a
narrvw lvt, cansisttng of 65 f eet in width. The cantraetor who constructed
the house Zocated it 8 feet from the north property 1ine irastead of the
rninimum 5 feet. Nearly the ent ire b~ck ,yard of the srnall parcel is eonsumed
b,y the dra i nf feld artd sept ic tank, vver vrh ich a garage cannot be p] aced. The
on],y location for a garage is at the south sxde of the dwelTing unit. Due ta
the 8 foat setback used by the buiZder on the rrorth side of the property, only
10 feet remains on the south end of the house to corrstruct a garage Zf the
norrnaT setback is adhered tv. This situation wou1d create about 91_7" of
i ntera ar^ space far a garage. The Zoning Adjustor determined by measur f ng the
sparn of two open car doars that a minYmum of 11 to 12 1~2 feet of space is
required to apen car doors on each side of a mid-s7aed vehicle. The
app licant " s drawi ngs show an ident i a 1rvaf p i tch to the ex ist i ng house and
sirni Iar exterior cor~~tructTOrt rnaterials.
3. The adopted Spokane County Future Land Use Plan designates the area of
the proposaT as URSAN and the prnpasal is consister~t w7th the Cvunty's entire
Cornprehensive Plan* including the Future Land Use Plan.
4. The site is zoned Agricultural which wouZd ai law tine proposed use
upon appraval of th7s app]icatavn.
~
r! FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION FILE xE`88-86 PAGE 2
5. A Tetter vf Juiy 5, 1956 was received frvm Faron Schuitz, #he
property owner imrnediately to the south, in whTCh he states na objection ta
the proposal and his assertion that it will nat affeet the use of h7s property
in any rnanner,
6. The existTng ialid uses in the area of the proposal include singTe
family resTdentiaT, moaile hvme park and business/comrnercial, a1l of which are
compat7b]e with the propasal. -
l, The Zoning Adjustar toured the area and identified that most dwelTing
units in this b]vck and surroundTng streets have garages; either Qne, two or
three car in size,
8. Tfie pub1ic hearing far this item was inadverten]y scheduled at the
same time, p]ace, date and hearing ro4m as the regular meeting of the Spokane
County Baundary Review Board. Consequentiy, the meeting lacation was changed
'to the Soard of Caunty Cvmmissioners Assembly Room and apprapriate signs were
posted at the advertized hearing roon space and in other Yoeations in order to
direct persons 1nterested in this case ta the reiocated hearing.
9. The proposal is exernpt fram the provfsians of Chapter 43,21C RCW
pursuant to wAC 197-11-800 {6} (b). .
10. The applicant has been made aware of the recofunendations vf var7ous
Countyl5tate agencies reviewing this praject and has indicated he can comply
with those recommendations.
11. No one appeared to vppose the proposal nor were any written comments
ddYerse to the proposal reCe7Ved.
12. The proper fiegal rdquirernents far advertisiq of the hearing hefore the 2onfng Ad~ustar of Spokane County have been met.
13. Any conclusian hereinafter stated which may be deemed a firtding
herein is hereby adopted as such.
From the FTndings, the Zoning Adjustor cornes to these:
CONCLUSIONS
1, The proposal is nat detrimental ta and is campatible with the pubTic
health, saf~ty and rreifare,
2. The subject propert,y is deprived af priviieges comrnanTy enjo,yed by
other properties in the same vicinity and zane and the granting of the uarTance wi ll r-ernedy the difference in priviieges.
3. The granting of the varlance is not agrant of speciaT privileges
incvnsistent with priviTeges enjoyed b,y other properties in the vicinit,y and
zorte. .
4. Because of spec ia Ici rcumstances app Iicable to the sub ject pro,perty,
particularl,y relat7vel,y riarrow width and the choice of the builder to locate
the hou5e 8 feet frarn the north property Iine rather than the mTnimurn the
a] lowed by the 2aning Drdlnance of 5 feet, the strict applicativn af the-
standards of the Spokane Couraty 2oning Drdinance deprives the subject propert,y
of rTghts and privf 1e~~s of vther prapertfes in the area and under identlcal
zvnes.
6. 7'he grarrtang of the varf ance is neither rnaterf a i I,y detrimenta i to the
pubT1c weifare nor injurious to propert,y vr improvernents in the v»inity or
zo ne in which the sub j ect p roperty is 1ocated.
~
6. Various performance startdards and criter~ia are additionally needed tv
inake the use compatible with ather permitted activities iro the same uicinity
and zane and ta ensure against irnposing excessive demands upon puhlic
uti1 ities and these sina11 be addressed as coflditions af approval.
l, The proposal wf1l anvt be detrimental to the Comprehensive P1an ar the
surroundzng properties.
w
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION FILE VE-88-86 PAGE 3
8. The Zoning Adjustor may require such conditions of approval as
necessary and appropriate to make the project most compatible with the public
interest and general welfare.
9. 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.
1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
I. GENERAL
l. The following conditions shall apply to the applicant, owner and
successors in interest.
2. The Department of Building and Safety shall route the building permit
application to all of the agencies and offices of county government below
which are indicated as needing to give their authorization prior to the
release of a building permit. Upon reviewing the various plans returned
to the Department of Building and Safety by the other departments, the
department will consult with the Planning Department if there are any
changes resulting from review by the other departments when compared to
i the plans as approved by the Planning Department. Such review may
necessarily result in a revision of the site plan for use by the
Department of Building And Safety or possibly a wJth-holding of the
building Permit until any conflicts are resolved.-.,
3. 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
enforcernent actions as are appropriate.
H. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
l. Application for a building permit shall reflect the various plans and
drawings on file in the Planning Department and the Planning Department
sign-off shall be consistent with substantial conformance to the approved
drawings.
III. DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING & SAFETY
1. The Department of Building and Safety shall route the building permit
application to all of the agencies and offices of county government below
which are indicated as needing to give their authorization prior to the
release of a building permit. Upon reviewing the various plans returned
to the Department of Building and Safety by the other departments, the
department will consult with the Planning Department if there are any
changes resulting from review by the other departments when compared to
the plans as approved by the Planning Department. Such review may
necessarily result in a revision of the site plan for use by the
Department of Building and Safety or possibly a with-holding of the
building permit until any conflicts are resolved.
2. Al1 buildings, structures and fences in excess of 6' in height require
bui lding permits as per Section 301 of the Uniform Bui lding Code.
3. Compliance with Section 504 of the Uniform Building Code, location on
property, shall be demonstrated prior to the issuance of a building
perrnit. The applicant shall contact the Department of Building and Safety
for further review regarding fire resistance of exterior wa11s.
IV. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
l. None is applicable.
.
"FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION FILE VE-88-86 PAGE 4
V. HEALTH DISTRICT
l. None is applicable.
VI. ENGINEER'S OFFICE
l. None is applicable.
DATED THIS 18th DAY OF August, 1986.
homas G. Mosher, AIGP
Zoning Adjustor, Spokane County
Washington
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 6Y THIS DECISION MUST FI.~.E AN APPEAL WITNIN TEN
(10 ) t CALENDAR DAYS OF TH I S DATE.
~
0099z/8-86
OFFICE OF COtJNTY ENGINEER
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
• DatP July 31 19 86
Inter-office Communicotion
To Spokane County Zoning Adjustor
From Spokane County Engineer
Subject Agenda Items Scheduled for Public Hearing August 11, 1986
1. WVE 18-86 DuPont - We have no comments concerning this application.
2. VE 87-86 Geittman - Parcel #2 is served by a private road easement which extends
from the existing private road over and across Parcel #l. Applicants must sign and
record Spokane County Notice to the Public #3 which acknowledges that the County is
not responsible for construction and maintenance of the private road. See attached
comments which pertain to the private road.
3. CUE-18-86 Macon Corporation - We have no comments concerning this application.
4. VE 88-86 Weilep - We have no comments to make concerning this application.
5. VS 89-86 Ritland - Subject parcel is served by a private road easement which ac-
cesses the Cheney-Spokane Road. See attached comments which pertain to that pri-
vate road easement.
BMc/lvb
SPOKAyE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR - PUBLIC HEARING
AGENOA: AUGUST 11, 1986 (Monday)
TIME: As set forth below
~ PLACE: Spokane County Planning De pt., N. 721 Jeffe rson St., 2nd floor hearing room
3. CUE-18-86 6 MONTN TEMPORARY USE PERMIT
(This item will be heard at Generally located south of and adjacent to 24th
2:15 p.m. or as soon thereafte r Avenue, between Skipworth Road and Bowdish Avenue
as possible) in the SW 1/4 of Section 28-25-44.
PROPOSAL: The applicant requests a 6-month
temporary use permit to allow for the
storage of contractors equipment/
materials on the subject property.
Section 4.05.030 e. of the Spokane Count;
Zoning Ordinance allows such a use in
the Agricultural Suburban zone with the
granti ng of a Temporary Use Permi t.
SITE SIZE: 12,000 sq. ft.
APPLICANT: Mocon Corporation
L4,,__VE-88-86'~ RELAXATION OF SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT
GThis iten will be beard at Located easterly of and adjacent to Ella Road,
2:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter approximately 70' south of Alki Avenue in the
as possiblel SW 1/4 of Section 18-25-44.
PROPOSAL: To allow an attached garage to be
located 2' from the side property line
- (south property 1 i ne )~pokane whe reas Secti on
4.04.150 a.2. of the County
Zoning Ordinance requires a 5' side
yard setback in the Agricultural Zone.
$ITE SIZE: 8,060 sq. ft.
APPLICANT: Edwin and Betty Weilep
5, VS-89-86 RELAXATION OF ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT
CThis item w111 be heard at Gene rally located west of Sherman Road and south of
3:OQ p,m, or as soon thereafter Cheney Spokane Road, in the SE 1/4 of the NW 1/4
as possihle) of Section 14-24-42.
PROPOSAL: To aliow a single family residence to
be located on a parcel of land having
0' of county road frontage, whereas
Section 4.04.040 of the Spokane County
Zoning Ordinance requires 100' of
continuous public road frontage in the
Agricultural zone. Access is propose d
by means of a 60' wide easement road .
extending easterly to the site from
Cheney Spokane Road.
SITE SIZE: 6.39 acres
APt'LICANT: James Ritland, c/o Thorne Tibbetts, agent
:
-2-
SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMEPJT
APPLICATIONS BEFORE THE ZONIIqG ADJUSTOR/BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Certi fi cate of Exerrption Appl i cation
Name of Appi i cant: Edi,Tin 0. & Betty R. Vreileti
Street Address : No, 524 II.la Rd.
Home : 926_15986
City: Spokane- State: WA Zip Code: 99212 Phone:Work:
Name of Property Owner(s Edwi.n 0. & Betty R. Weilen
REQUES T ION (S) ( Ci rci e App rop ri ate Acti ori):
.
riarlce_(-s-) Coriditional Use Permit Non-Conforming Lot/Use
~aiver
. of Violatiori Temporary Use/Structure Other:
*
FOR STAFF USE UNLY *
. *
*
*
*Cite Ordinance Section: /0q,4, 6 ) M 4,912 Old Code: New Code:
*
*Secti ori
Towris hi p ~2 5 Ran ge L61 P rope rty Si ze :
*Existing Zoning: /'F.L.U.P. Designatiori:
* ~ ✓
, *
*PSSA: N UTA: N ASA: 6~) N FIRE DIST. LEGAL CHECKED BY :J-'-'
,
*Heari ng Uate:~,/,~ Staff taki rig i ri tippl i cati on •y~
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ~ * * * * * * * * * * x * x * * * * ~ * * * *
t/
Existing Use of Property: Single Family residence-
Describe Ir,tended Proposal.; lo build a carport or garage on the south
side of the ho1l,se.-
Street Address of Property; N• 520 Ella Rd.
Legal Descri ptior) of Property ( Iricl ude easement i f appl i cable) : The South 65
feet of the r:orth 130 feet of Lot 5, Block 13, Harrington ts
Addition to lIutchinsonj.. as per plat thereof recorded in Volume "Sn
of Plats, page 1; eituate in the coUnty of Spokane, State of Wash-:-
lug i.u11.. -
Parcel 185+3-.0659 Source of LeQal: TstIe Insurance
Total amount of ad,joirii rig 1 and control i ed by thi s- owner/sponsor:. A/ 14
Wh at 1 rlte 1^eSt do you hol d i ri the p rope rty : ovmer
,
Please list previous Plarining Department actions involving this property:.
Repl at ting
I SWEAR, UNDER THE PE(VALTY OF PERJURY, THAT: (1) I AM THE OWNER OF RECORD OR AUTHORI-
ZED AGENT FOR THE PROPOSED SITE; (2) IF NOT THE OWNER, WRITTEN PERMISSI0N FROM SAID
OWNER AUTHORIZ IPrG N1Y ACTIONS ON HIS/HER BEHALF IS ATTACHED ; AND (3) ALL OF THE ABOVE
RESPONSES AND THOSE ON SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ARE MADE TRUTHFULLY AND TO THE BEST OF
MY KNOWL E DGE .
- 1,1"1 .gried:
- address : 7~.ilv' /a •~S~'j~ r; l/
Phone No. : Date :
NOTARY SEAL: Notary-~ Date :
. .
(over) .
. ,
A. BURDEN OF PROOF
It i s necessary for the appl i carit or his/her representati ve to establ ish the
reasoris why the requested proposal shoul d be approved artid to l i teral ly put forth
the basi c case. Accordi rigly, you shoul d have been gi ven a form for your requested
acti on ( vari ance, condi tional use, etc. ) desi gried t'o hel p you preserit your case
in a way which addresses the criteria which the Zoning Ad,justor must corisider.
Please fi l l the form out and return it wi th your appl i cation. If you di dn't get a
form, ask the Pl anriing Department persoririel for advi ce on how to proceed.
CB) S IGN-OFF BY COUNTY DEPARTMENTS _
COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT
A p rel i mi na ry cons ul tati on has been hel d to di s cus s the p ropos al . The appl i-
c h been informed of requi rements a d standards.
~O ~
i gnatur~ (Date) (Si gn-off Wai ved)
COUNTY ENGINEER' S DEPARTMFNT
A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The appli-
carit has been i►iformed of requi remerits arid starioards.
• - ~ _ ~ ~ ` 3~ ~ ~
. Si nature(Date) (Sign-off Waived)
~17" COUtiTY UT IL IT I ES DEPARTMENT ( W ai ve i f outs i de WMAB )
A prelimiriary corisultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The
appl icant has beeri irifornied of requi rements arid staridards.
(lV,,~~ - o _ ~G
(Si gnature) Date) (Si gn-off lJai ved)
The aPP1 i cant i s requi red to di s cuss the p roposal wi th N/A
C ~
to become iriformed of requi rements and
standards.
(Distri ct Si grlature) . (D.ate) (Si gn-off Wai ved) ~
y
~ WATER PURVEYOR (Wai ve i f outsi de CWSSA) NAME:
a) The proposal ~is not located withiri the bouridary of our future_service area,
b) The proposa is is not located within the boundary of our currerit distri ct.
c) W re are not able to serve this site with adequate water.
d) atisfactory arrarigemen(< ave~. ave riot beeri made to serve this proposal.
~
~ ~
S riature) )(Si gn-off Wai ved)
APPLICANT'S FORM
NAME: Weileu,. E.0* & B.R.
FILE
I. VARIANCES The County Zoning Ordinarice, Section 4.03.020 (64), clarifies
that variarice is an adjustmerit made to a"dimensional" regulation.
Websters rrew Collegiate Dictionary (1979) defines "dimension" as a
measure in one direction (and therefore includes "area").
(!:DState Law .(_36. 70.020 (14) RCW).. . Is the subject property depri ved of
privileges commonly enjoyed by other properties in same vicinity and zone and
does the vari ance remedy the di fference in pri vi leges? If so, what pri vi 1 eges?
We would li.ke to be able to build a gara.ge or carport,
1Qgat1ly,: and keep a. car- out of the weather. Without a:
' variancer we coul:d not build a structure thC.t would be
. wide enough to drive intaand still get in and out of aF cc-ir.
~ B. ) Because of speci al ci rcumstances appl i cable to subject property, incl uding
size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, does strict application of
the dimensional regul ation depri ve the subject property of ri ghts/pri vi leges
enjoyed by other properties in vicinity under IDENTICAL zones? If yes, what
speci al ci rcumstances exist?
Due to the manner that the drain field is located in the back
yard, it would not be possible to. build a garage or a carp-ort
ii1 the back yardr if it is to be done Zegall:.y., The site
drawing shows, the problemy with the Iocation of the drain
fi'elds..
,(E:.:)Wi 11 granti ng of the vari an ce be materi al 1y detri merital to publ i c wel fare OR
injurious to prvperty or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the
subject property is located?
I do not believe that building a:garage or carport closer to:
the property line- than 5 feet will be detrimental to or
detract from the neighborhood in any manner: I do not
belleve that it will bother the neighborm; .
"11
~
1
r' ~ ~ gT r. ~ v`' 1
~ c .
• ~t:?. •
E y T
: . , RP ►
MhXIWWf"~~' y ,,,w.~„vc ~i ~Y1A
. Z T ;
o~
~ , , ,
'
s + ~ ' ~ c►t+`''` T
4 ~ :;;,~•Y~ A
AC-
L^?pLQO
~4 •`•'.~~9r?- ' - oN z.
• d
Y . ~ i a
• o ,r ~
s6
F... ~obl
• ~►16~ r ~ ~ 11~
_ ~ ( A 4 ~ Y+
~ Q.
41
~
NaRp N r%,fV
,0; . H~• HIN TON
~I f , . . •
4J
a ~ + 1
. MSCN ~yy 9
1 t, 6P
AI~ PogT ~'SqT. _ ~ _ • ~
_ aR °
,f ►.~,k;, t
J98•' ~ :
~
4 ~ •
Q d ec1~ ff 1 W
sor)aforrut" ~ ~ .
N C 1
.
. t
~
. ic
• -
. ;A~
►
,