VE-20-92
)
RE
4,4EVVED ;
ZONING ADJUSTOR AUG 12 1992
SPOKAâ–ºNE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ` 5~~~~ C-~ yN EN;iNEER
IN THE MATTER OF A VARIANCE FROM )
MAXIMUM FRONT YARD FENCE HEIGHT ) FINDINGS OF FACT,
STANDARD ) CONCLUSIONS,
FILE: VE-20-92 ) AND DECISION
APPLICANT: KIEMLE & HAGUOD )
COMPANION FILE(S): ZE-43-62 )
PARCEL NUMBER(S): 45083.0241 )
APPLICATION DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to build a 6 foot high block
and wood fence in the front yard of an existing apartment complex along 240 feet of
Montgomery Avenue, whereas, secuon 14 $10 020 of the Zorung Code of Spokane County
requues that no sight-obstructing fence more than 36 inches in height may be erected vvithin the
required front yard of any lot used for residential purposes. Authonty to consider such a
request exists pursuant to secnon 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 Valley, south of and adjacent to Montgomery
Avenue and approximately 300 feet east of Argonne Road, ui the SW 1/4 of Section 8,
Township 25N, Range 44 EWM; Village Square Apartments, 9200 E Montgomery Avenue
OPPONENTS OF RECORD:
Drever Partners
PUBLIC HEARING AND DECISION: After consideration of all available informanon
on file, exhibits subnutted and tesamony received duruig the course of the pubhc hearing held
on July 22, 1992, the Zomng Adjustor rendered a wntten decision on August Z.L,1992 to
APPROVE the apphcation as set forth m the file documents and as conditioned below
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
1 Tesamony was taicen under oath.
2 The proposal is descnbed above and detailed in documents contained in the file
3 In cornphance vvith RCW 36 70 450, the Planning Department deternuned that this
proposal is generally consistent, as conciitioned, vvith the Urban category of the
Comprehensive Plan. It is also consistent vnth Section 21, Transportation, of the
Comprehensive Plan, insofar as the Artenal Road Plan is being unplemented to generally
improve traffic flow and safety.
4 The site is zoned Urban Residential - 22 which allows the proposed use upon
approval of this apphcaaon Both the previous and existing zoiung call for a frontyard area on
Montgomery vvith fence height limited to 3 feet. The present fence conforms to the regulaaon
5. The existing land uses in the area of the proposal ulclude aparmaents, shopping
areas, offices and vacant parcels, all of wluch are compatible with the proposal. Many of the
s
CASE NO VE-20-92 SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADNSTOR PAGE 2
residents of the subject apartments cross (busy) Montgomery Avenue to use the Argonne
Village shopping area A flashuig hght-cross walk at the intersection allows only marguially
safe passage for pedestnans across the street
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 Spokane County's six year road improvement project schedule and the
Comprehensive Plan's Artenal Road Plan call for the upgrading of Montgomery Avenue to 4
lanes, a center tum lane, curbulg and sidewallc This improvement is from the intersecaon with
Argonne Road east to a poult several hundred feet east of the subject property. In addition to
the extra nght of way to be acqwred on the north side of the subject property, the intersecnon
of Montgomery Avenue and the exit of the Village Square Apartments will be improved to a
signaled intersecaon This vvill unprove traffic flow, not only from the Village Square
Apartments, but from the shopping area from the northwest The acquisinon of the add.itional
nght of way will remove the present curb, sidewalk, low spht rul fence and landscapmg
8 The revised fencing and landscape plan is presented in drawuigs prepared by JBS
landscaping, dated Apnl 14, 1992 One observation by the Zoning Adjustor that the
Landscaping notes No 10, should include reference to landscape fabnc beneath the 3/4 ulch
lava rocks m order to nummize weed growth
9 The Counry, which is payuig for the removal of the existing improvements and
installation of the approved landscapmg and the fencing, is desirous of havuig the fence in
order to reduce the possibility of accidents resulting from cluldren darnng into the street, which
street is now measurably closer to the play area of the Village Square Apartments. Additionally
the County is stnving to erect a sound buffer between the traffic using Montgomery Avenue
and the apartments.
10 The reasons for granting the vanance, as setforth by the apphcant, are as follows
a The dedicanon of additionai nght of way aad the subsequent loss of front yard
space for the Village Square Apartments constitutes a special circumstance
b The intent and purpose of the Zorung Code with respect to site design,
appearance and landscaping is achieved by the proposal.
c The environment, pubhc lnterest and general welfare will be enhanced by an
attractive landscaping and fence scheme while at the same time separating the
acnvities of the apartment complex from the traffic, uicluding a buffenng of
noise generated by the artenal traffic
d The propemes farther to the east will not have a reduction of ownership due to
roadway dechcation, and consequendy the situation of the Village Square
Apartments is uruque.
e. There is no evidence that granting the variance will be materially detnmental to
the public welfare or uljurious to property or improvements. To the connrrary,
RP-VE-20-92 Kiemle and Hagood Decision
CASE NO VE-20-92 SPOKANE COUNTY ZONIlVG ADNSTOR PAGE 3
the property, given the ability of the County to Acquire the land by
condemnanon, will benefit from the landscapmg and fencmg.
f The pracacal difficulty from which the apphcant seeks rehef is a result of a
government acaon to acquue the land, a lawful exercise of mumcipal authonty
Gra.nting the variance will help overcome the practical difficulty created by the
acquisition of property and the closer proxuiury of Montgomery Avenue to the
adjacent aparnnent builduig.
11 The apphcarit presents a convincing case that a broader public or commuruty need
or interests is served by granhng the vanance, as opposed to denyirig the application
12 Rohan, in ZomnLy 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 vanances. These
mclude. (1) whether stnct compliance with the terms of the ordinance will preclude a pernutted
use from being pursued, (2) whether the land will yield a reasonable return; (3) the degree to
wluch the apphcant seeks to vary from the ordinance, (4) the degree of harm which wnll be
imposed on the surrounduig area if the variance is gra.nted; (5) whether some other method can
be pursued to avoid the need for the vanance; (6) whether the difficulty is self unposed; and (7)
whether the mterest 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 commuruty, as expressed through the zoning document
13 As the Zonmg 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 approvuig the vanance as being pnmanly to the
benefit of both the applicant and its tenants and the County as the benefit accrues to the general
public
14 Adverse tesb.mony or written comments were received regarding the proposal The
single comment stated a desue to lalow more details. The pazty (from California) was
telephoned by the Planning Department. The California owner of the nearby shopping area
was explauned the proposal and invited to have a local representative look at the plan. None did
so
15 The apphcant has been made aware of the recommendations of vanous County
agencies reviewing this project.
16 Vanous performance standards and cnteria are add.itionally needed to make the use
compatible with other permitted acuvities m the same vrcinity and zone and to ensure against
imposing excessive demands upon public utilines, and these shall be addressed as conditions
of approva:
17 The proper legal requuements for advernsulg of the heanng before the Zonmg
Adjustor of Spokane County have been met.
RP-VE-20-92 Kiemle and Hagood Deciston
~ -s
CASE NO VE-20-92 SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR PAGE 4
DECISION
From the foregoing Find.ings and Conclusions, the Zorung Adjustor APPROVES
the proposal as generally set forth in the file documents, subject to comphance with the
following
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. GENERAL
1 The following cond.itions shall apply to the apphcarn, owner and successors in
interest and shall run with the land
2. Failure to comply with any of the condinons of approval contained in this decision,
except as may be reheved by the ZonYng Adjustor, shall constitute a violation of the Zoning
Code for Spokane County and be subject to such enforcement as is appropnate.
3. The Zonmg Adjustor may administiatively make nunor adjustments to site plans or
the condxaons of approval as may be judged by the Zoning Adjustor to be wnthin the context of
the onginal decision.
II. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1. The applicant shall develop the north property edge generally in accordance vvithin
the concept presented to the Heanng Body. Vanations, when approved by the Plannuig
Duector/designee, may be permitted, including, but not lunited to builduig location, landscape
plans and general allowable uses of the permitted zone. All vanauons must conform to
regulations set forth m the Zorung Code for Spokane County, and the onginal intent of the
development plans shall be maintauied. Parncularly, the lava rock area outside the fence shall
be lined with landscape/weed control fabric.
2 Failure to erect the fencing and landscaping project will consntute a zoning
enforcement.
M. DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS
1 The issuance of a building pernut by the Department of Buildings may be reqwred
Please consult with the Department.
IV. DIVISION OF UTILITIES
None is needed.
RP-VE-20-82 Kiemle end Hegood Decision
CASE NO VE-20-92 SPOK:ANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR PAGE 5
V. HEALTH DISTRICT
None is needed
VI. DIVISION OF ENGINEERING AND ROADS
1 The apphcant shall install the approved landscaping and fencing no later than 90
days after the final road unprovements are completed
NOTICE PENDING COMPLETION OF ALL CONDTTIONS OF APPROVAL WHICH
NEED TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO PERMIT IS SUANCE, PERNIITS MAY BE
RFi "EASED PRIOR TO TBE LAPSE OF TBE TEN (10)-DAY APPEAL PERIOD.
HOWEVER, TBE COUNTY HAS NO LIABII,TTY FOR F;XPENSES AND
INCONVENIENCE INCURRED BY TBE A.PPLICANT IF TI-E PROJECT APPROVAL IS
OVERTURNED OR ALTERED UPON APPEAL.
DATED this day of August,1992.
JV _
TH . MO R. AICP
iung AdjIu or
S ane Coun ashington
FILED
1) Apphcant (CemfiedlReturn Receipt M,ail)
2) Opponents of Record
3) Spokane Division of Engineeruig and Roads
4) Spokane County Health I?istrict
5) Spokane County Division of Utihnes
6) Spokane County Deparnnent of Buildings
7) Spokane County Fire Protection Distnct No 1
8) Planning Department Cross-reference File and/or Electronic Ffle
NOTE ONLY TBE APPLIC'ANT OR AN OPFONENT OF RECORD MAY FILE AN
APPEAL VVITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF TBE ABOVE DATE OF SIGNING
A.PPEAL MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A$120.00 FEE APPEALS MAY BE FILED AT
TBE SPOK:ANE COUNTY P G DEPART'IVENT, BROADWAY CENTRE
BUII..DING, NORTH 721 JEFFERSON STREET, SPOK:ANE, WA 99260 (Secaon
14 412.042 of the Zonuig Code for Spokane County).
RP-VE-20-92 Kiemle and Hagood Decision