VE-166-85 4 r ~
#
~ y t
4
SA.. P 3 ~ 1984J
,M}~~ANI` NWwTy ENG1NEER
BEFORE THE SPOKANE COUNTY ZONINC7 AD►]USTOR
IN THE MATTER QF VARIANCE, ~ FINDINGS 0F FACT ANd,
VE--166-85 , TO ALLbW J~ ONE-FOOT ~ DEC I S ION
5IDE YARD 5~ETBACK ~
TNIS MATTER, Being a consideratior~ by the Zoni r,g Adaustor of Spakane
Gounty, hereinafter referred to as the "Zoni ng Adjustor'F of aVariance to
al1 aw a one-foot side yard setba+ck i n associati on rri th an appeal of a Spakdne
County Zoni ng Heari ng Exami ner Ccmmi ttee `s, hereinaf ter referred ta as the
"Commi ttee", deCi si on of J ul,y 2, 1986, wherei n the Cornmi t-tee deni ed the change
of condi ti ons (ZE-148B-80 and 2E-29A-84), for the ~urpose of deleti ng a
candi ti an requi ri ng 1andscapf ng al ang ttae narth property li ne , arrd thereby
al lowi ng the possibi 1ity of a vari ance ta a 11 ow coristructi on wi thin one-foot
of the side praperty 1 ine, hereinafter referred to as the F"Proposal", and the
5pakane Caunty Baard of Caunty Comissioners, hereinafter referred ta as the
"Board",and the 7oning Adjustor havi ng Jn9 ntiy held a publ ic heari ng on
August 12, 1986, and hav3 ng ful ly carasi dered a11 the testimony presented
thereat, and further having rrisited the site and vicinity in question, arrd the
Baard havi ng rendered a decisi an on the 2nd day of 5eptember, 1986, denyi ng
sai d appeal, thereby upholding the deci si an of the Cotrmittee, the Zmni ng
Adjustor does hereby make the fol l owi ng Findi ngs :
FINaING5 OF FAC7
1, The propasal is generall,y located east of Park Road and
appraximately 100 feet south of Braadway i r~ Section 18-25-44,
2. The propasal consists of a request for achange of,cand#tivns by
the appl icant for ttae purpvse of revi ewi ng a revised site p1 an which would
del ete la ndscaping requi rements a]ong the narth property line and ai low
canstructi on to occur wi thin vne-fvot of the premi se' s north si de yard
praper-ty 7 ine. '
3. Insafar as the landscaping requiremeF ~4.: remains in effect, there
can be no vari ance consi dered because the landscaping condition of the zane
recl a ssi ficati on reraders cvnsi derati vn of a vari ance a moat pai nt.
4. The adopted Spakane County Generalized Comprehensive Land fJse
Plan indicates future indus#.rial usag~~ ~f the area encompassed b,y the
proposal.
5. The proposal i sexempt from the provisions of the State
EnvironmentWl Pol1{~.,~f f1r4i LhapLer 43•21C ~'1C1'~t pUr~Jual~4 to 1'{1'C 19I'1k~`1IV
~
(6)(b).
6, The Comrnittee he'l da publ i c hearing concerni ng the pra,posal , an
July 2, 1986, subsequent ta which, by Findi ngs of Fact, Decisi on and Order
dated JuTy 2, 19861 it deni ed the proposal based on certai n fi ndi ngs of faCt.
7. 7he prop+er lega 1 requi rementsfor adverti si ng of the hearing
befvre the Zoni ng Adjustar have been met.
8. On the 2nd day of September, 1986, the Board at a regular
meeting di d deny the proposal subject to certai n fi ndi ngs of fact.
~
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION VE-166-85 #2
DECISION OF THE SPOKANE COUNTY ZONItJG ADJUSTOR
From the foregoing decision of the Board to deny the applicant's
requested change of conditions, the Zoning Adjustor finds the issue,of whether
or not to grant a variance is moot. The Board's decision leaves intact the
requirement to install landscaping, thus rendering it impossible for the
Zoning Adjustor to make a decision regarding a variance to allow a building to
wi thi n one foot of the si de yard property 1 i ne. No deci si on for or agai nst i s
hereby made, and no position of prejudice is established or enforced.
~
DATEO This uso day of September, 198q.
G. 14 ,
Spokane Cou ty Zoning Adjustor
FILED:
1) Applicant
2) Parties of Record
3) Spokane County Engineers Office
4) Spokane County Health District
5) Spokane County Utilities Dept.
6) 5pokane County Dept, of Building & Safety
7) Board of County Commissioners
8) Fi le ZE-148B-84, ZE-29A-84
NOTE: ANY PARTY AGGRIEVED BY THIS DECISION 14UST FILE AN APPEAL,WITHIN TEN
(10) CALENDAR DAYS OF TNIS DATE. ,
~
. ~ .
ZONING ADJUSTOR
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
IN THE MATTER OF A VARIANCE FROM THE )
REQUIRED SIDE YAR SETBACK. (VE-88-86); ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS
EDWIN AND BETTY WEILIP ) AND DECISION
SUMMARY OF APPLICATION:
,
The applicant proposes to construct a single car garage on the south side of
his house to within 2 feet of the side yard property line. Section 4.04.150
a.2. of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance requires a 5 foot side yard
setback. Authority 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 Zoning
Ordinance.
LOCATION:
North 520 Ella Road, in the Spokane Valley. The Assessors Parcel # is
18543-0659.
DECISION OF THE ZONING ADJUSTOR:
Based upon the evidence presented and circumstances associated with the
project proposal, the Zoning Adjustor APPROYES the application conditioned and
stipulated as below.
.
PUBLIC HEARING:
After examining all available information on file with the application and
visiting the subject property and surrounding area, the Zoning Adjustor
conducted a public hearing on August 11, 1986, rendered a verbal decision on
August 11, 1986, and a written decision on August 18, 1986.
FINDINGS OF FACT
l. The proposal is located on the east side of Ella Road, south of
Broadway Avenue at N. 520 Ella Road and is further described as Assessors
Parcel #18543-0659, being more completely described in Zoning Adjustor File
VE-88-86.
2. The proposal consists of a request to deviate from the standard 5
foot side yard setback. The applicant wishes to construct a single-car garage
to within 2 feet of the side yard property line. The parcel in question is a
narrow lot, consisting of 65 feet in width. The contractor who constructed
the house located it 8 feet from the north property line instead of the
minimum 5 feet. Nearly the entire back yard of the small parcel is consumed
by the drainfield and septic tank, over which a garage cannot be placed. The
only location for a garage is at the south side of the dwelling unit. Due to
the 8 foot setback used by the builder on the north side of the property, only
10 feet remains on the south end of the house to construct a garage if the
normal setback is adhered to. This situation would create about 9'-7" of
interior space for a garage. The Zoning Adjustor determined by measuring the
span of two open car doors that a minimum of 11 to 12 1/2 feet of space is
required to open car doors on each side of a mid-sized vehicle. The
applicant's drawings show an idential roof pitch to the existing house and
similar exterior construction materials.
3. 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.
4. The site is zoned Agricultural which would allow the proposed use
upon approval of this application.
. ~
J , .
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION FILE VE-88-86 PAGE 2
5. A letter of July 5, 1986 was received from Faron Schultz, the
property owner immediately to the south, in which he states no objection to
the proposal and his assertion that it will not affect the use of his property
in any manner.
6. The existing larid uses in the area of the proposal include single
family residential, mobile home park and business/commercial, all of which are
compatible with the proposal.
7. The Zoning Adjustor toured the area and identified that most dwelling
units in this block and surrounding streets have garages; either one, two or
three car in size.
8. The public hearing for this item was inadvertenly scheduled at the
same time, place, date and hearing room as the regular meeting of the Spokane
County Boundary Review Board. Consequently, the meeting location was changed
to the Board of County Cornmissioners Assembly Room and appropriate signs were
posted at the advertized hearing roon space and in other locations in order to
direct persons interested in this case to the relocated hearing.
9. The proposal is exempt from the provisions of Chapter 43.21C RCW
pursuant to WAC 197-11-800 (6) (b).
10. 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 recomnendations.
11. No one appeared to oppose the proposal nor were any written comments
adverse to the proposal received.
12. The proper legal rdquirements for advertisiq of the hearing before
the Zoning Ad~justor of Spokane County have been met.
13. 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. The proposal is not detrimental to and is compatible with the public
health, safety and welfare.
2. The subject property is deprived of privileges commonly enjoyed by
other properties in the same vicinity and zone and the granting of the
variance will remedy the difference in privileges.
3. The granting of the variance is not a grant of special privi leges
inconsistent with privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and
zone. .
4. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property,
particularly relatively narrow width and the choice of the builder to locate
the house 8 feet from the north property line rather than the minimum the
allowed by the Zoning Ordinance of 5 feet, the strict application of the
standards of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance deprives the subject property
of rights and privileges of other properties in the area and under identical
zones.
5. The granting of the variance is neither materially detrimental to the
public welfare nor injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or
zone in which the subject property is located.
6. 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 addressed as conditions of approval.
7. The proposal wi11 not be detrimental to the Comprehensive Plan or the
surrounding properties.
r ~
v • .
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 APPROYAL 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
app 1 i cat i on to a 11 of the agenc i es and off i ces of county government be 1 ow
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 dnd Safety or possibly a w_ith-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
enforceinent actions as are appropriate.
II. 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
l. 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 Departrnent of Building and Safety by the other departments, the
department will consult with the Planning Department if there are any
changes resulting f rom 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 Bui lding and Safety or possibly a with-holding of the '
building permit until any conflicts are resolved.
2. All buildings, structures and fences in excess of 6' in height require
building permits as per Section 301 of the Uniform Building 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 walls.
IV. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
1. None is applicable.
~ •g .
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION FILE VE-88-86 PAGE 4
V. NEALTH DISTRICT
l. None is applicable.
VI. ENGINEER'S OFFICE
1. None is applicable.
DATED THIS 18th DAY OF August, 1986.
, -
homas G. Mosher, AICP
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 Bu i 1 d i ng & Saf ety
NOTE: ANY PARTY AGGRIEVED BY THIS DECISION MUST FI.kE AN APPEAL WITNIN TEN
(10 ),CALENDAR DAYS OF TH I S DATE. w,
0099z/8-86
R~~~~~EiD
SEP 3 0 1986
'SPQKO"r Mt1NTY FNGINEER
BEFORE THE SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR
IN 7HE MAT7ER OF VARIANCE, ) FINDINGS OF FACT AND,
VE-166-859 70 ALLOW A ONE-FOOT } DECISION
SIDE YARD SETBACK )
THIS MATTER, Being a consideration by the Zoning Adjustor of Spokane
County, hereinafter referred to as the "Zoning Adjustor" of a Variance to
allow a one-foot side yard setback in association with an appeal of a Spokane
County Zoning Hearing Examiner Committee`s, hereinafter referred to as the
"Committee", decision of July 2, 1986, wherein the Comnittee denied the change
of conditions (ZE-148B-80 and ZE-29A-84), for the purpose of deleting a
condition requiring landscaping along the north property line, and thereby
allowing the possibility of a variance to allow construction within one-foot
of the side property line, hereinafter referred to as the "Proposal", and the
Spokane County Board of County Commissioners, hereinafter referred to as the
"Board", and the Zoning Adjustor having jointly held a public hearing on
August 12, 1986, and having fully considered all the testimony presented
thereat, and further having visited the site and vicinity in question, and the
Board having rendered a decision on the 2nd day of September, 1986, denying
said appeal, thereby upholding the decision of the Committee, the Zoning
Adjustor does hereby make the following Findings:
FINDINGS OF FACT 1, The proposal is generally located east of Park Road and
approximately 100 feet south of Broadway in Section 18-25-44.
2. The proposal consists of a request for a change of conditions by
the applicant for the purpose of reviewing a revised site plan which would
delete landscaping requirements along the north property line and allow
construction to occur within one-foot of the premise's north side yard
property 1 i ne. '
3. Insofar as the landscaping requirement remai*ns in effect, there
can be no variance considered because the landscaping condition of the zone
reclassification renders consideration of a variance a moot point.
4. The adopted Spokane County Generalized Comprehensive Land Use
Plan indicates future industrial usages of the area encompassed by the
proposal.
5. The proposal is exempt from the provisions of the State
Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 43.21C RCW, pursuant to WAC 197-10-170
(6)(b).
6. The Committee held a public hearing concerning the proposal, on
July 2, 1986, subsequent to which, by Findings of Fact, Decision and Order
dated July 2, 1986, it denied the proposal based on certain findings of fact.
7. The p roper legal requirements for advertising of the hearing
before the Zoning Adjustor have been met.
8. On the 2nd day of September, 1986, the Board at a regular
meeting did deny the proposal subject to certain findings of fact.
r
, ~ •
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION VE-166-85 #2
DECISION OF THE SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR
From the foregoing decision of the Board to deny the applicant's
requested change of condi ti ons, the Zoni ng Adjustor fi nds the i ssue .of whether
or not to grant a variance is moot. The Board's decision leaves intact the
requirement to install landscaping, thus rendering it impossible for the
Zoning Adjustor to make a decision regarding a variance to allow a building to
within one foot of the side yard property line. No decision for or against is
hereby made, and no position of prejudice is established or enforced.
DATED Thi s ~oix day of September, 1981.
T . MO.SHVI,
Spokane Cou CY Zoning Adjustor
FILED:
1) Appl i cant
2) Parties of Record
3) Spokane County Engineers Office
4} Spokane County Healtb District
5) Spokane County Uti 1 ities Dept.
6) Spokane County Dept. of Building & Safety
7) Board of County Commissioners
8) Fi le ZE-148B-80, ZE-24A-84
NOTE: ANY PARTY AGGRIEVED BY THIS DECISION 14UST FI,LE AN APPEAL WITHIN TEN
(10) CALENDAR DAYS OF THIS DATE.
c
,