WVE-24-85
` .
ZONING ADJUSTOR
SPOKAtJE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
IN THE MATTER OF A WAIVER OF REAR YARD )
SETBACK YIOLATION. (WVE-24-85); POSTLEWAIT ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS
CONSTRUCTIOFi, INC. ) AND DECISION
SUMMARY OF APPLICATION
The applicant seeks a Waiver of Violation with regard to a railroad box car,
1 ocated, for the purpose of storage, 3' from the rear property 1 i ne; whereas
the Zoni ng Ordi nance requi res a 15' setback from the rear property 1 i ne.
LOCATION
East 11508 Montgomery Avenue, approximately 440' west of Wilbur Street,
between Montgomery Drive and the Union Pacific Railroad. The Assessor's
Parcel # is 09544-0514.
DECISION OF THE ZONING ADJUSTOR
Based upon the evidence presented and the Circumstances associated with the
project proposal, the Zoni ng Adjustor DENIES the request for a Waiver of
Violation.
PUBLIC NEARING
After examining all available information on file with the application and
vi si ti ng the subj ect property and surroundi ng area, the Zoni ng Adjustor con-
ducted a public hearing on January 22, 1986, rendered a verbal decision on
January 22, 1986, and a written decision on January :31 , 1986.
FINDINGS OF-FACT
1. The proposal is generally located at East 11508 Montgomery Avenue in
the Spokane Valley, generally west of Pines Road and north of I-90 and is
further described as Assessor's Parcel #09544-0514.
2. The proposal consists of the request fo r a Waiver of Yiolation regard-
ing a railroad box car erected for storage at a contractor's yard. The rail-
road box car is one of three sited in a"horse shoe" relationship with the
open end of the horse shoe facing to the north. The applicant has previously
poured a concrete slab as a work space between these three units. The appli-
cant apparently placed these units on the site at this location (accc-rding to
written documentation in the file), a couple of years ago and after a zone
change for the property. F rom the file documents, it appears the applicant
was waiting to comply with a number of conditions of approval of the zone
change and then intended to locate these units elsewhere on the site, but
never re-arranged the units as apparently contemplated. The southern most
uni t si ts wi thi n three (3) feet of the rear yard setback. The rai 1 road box
car units are without their under carriage, but do not appear, based upon a
field inspection, to be permanently affixed to the ground. None of the three
units have the required building permits.
3. The adopted Spokane County Future Land Use Plan designates the area
of the proposal as Urban.
4. The site is zoned Restricted Industrial which would allow the pro-
posed u se upon approval of this application.
5. The existing land uses in the area of the proposal include vacant
land to the west, railroad to the south, and comnercial park to the east.
6. The applicant is a'contractor who presumably is somewhat familiar
wi th constructi on acti vi ty a nd 1 ocal regul ati ons regardi ng 1 and u se and
building permlts.
FINDINGS, DECISION AND CONCLUSIONS FILE WYE-24-85 PAGE 2
7. The applicant did not apply for building permits for the box car
units, during which application process he would have encountered the need for
the bu i 1 di ngs to be 1 ocated consi stent wi th the Zoni ng Ordi na nce setbacks,
thu s most l i ke ly el imi nati ng the vi ol ati on si tuati on which has ari sen.
8. There appears to have been no error on the part of governmErt. The
applicant's property was also the subj ect of a zone change in the not to
distant past, during or at which zone change the requirements of various set-
backs could not have but surfaced in some discussions either with the staff or
at the public hearing before the Hearing Examiner Comnittee.
9. The applicant is seeking an 80% deviation of the 15 foot standard.
The property is conditioned to have a 6' high fence on its south boundary.
The Zoning Ordinance provides tht there should be at least 15' of space
between the rear property line (in the case a 6' high fence) and the nearest
structure. The location of the building as it is presently situated
eliminates that potential circulation space. If the waiver were granted, any
access to the rear of the property for the purposes of fire fighting or other
reasons would have to use the railroad right-of-way and may find that
situation complicated by the railroad, thus creating an unsafe situation,i
fnot one of trespass.
10. The proposal i s exempt from the provi si ons of Chapter 43.21C RCW
pursuant to WAC 191-11-800 (1) (c) (iii) and Spokane Enviroronental Ordinance
Section 11.10.070 (1) (c).
11. The property owner to the west was represented by legal counsel who
stated obj ections to the location of the building closer to the fence than
woul d be requi red of hi s cl i ent i n a simi 1 ar si tuati on.
12. The proper legal requirements for advertising of the hearing before
the Zoning Adj ustor of Spokane County have been met.
13. Any concl u si on herei nafter stated which may be deemed a fi ndi ng
herei n i s hereby adopted as such.
From the Findings, the Zoning Adjustor comes to these:
CONCLUSIONS
1. The granting of the Waiver of Yiolation would be detrimental to and
i ncompti bl e wi th the publ i c heal th, safety and generl wel fare.
2. The proj ect was not erected in good faith and with every intent to
comply wi th the provi si ons of the Spokane County Zoni ng Ordi nance. The most
that can be inferred from the applicant's representative's statements is that
the applicant was ignorant of the regulations or forgot to move the box car.
The applicant is a contractor and should have some familiarity with local land
use regulations, fncluding building permits. The simple act of taking out
bu i 1 di ng permi ts woul d have tri ggered the process of assuri ng the proper
1 ocati on of the bui 1 di ng.
3. The proposal asks for an 80% deviation from the standard of the
Zoni ng Ordi nance. For thi s reason, and al so by so extensi vely 1 imi ti ng the
circulation between the structure and the rear property line (upon which a
fence is to be soon located), the proposal violates the spirit and intent of
the Zoning Ordinance.
4. To approve this Waiver of Violation would be to encourage other
persons to locate structures in violation of the setback laws and then seek
relief through this process, thus weakening the spirit and intent and general
scheme of the Zoning Ordinance.
5. Any finding hereinabove stated which may be deemed a conclusion
herei n i s adopted as such.
~
~tiY
•
'FINDINGS, DECISION AND CONCLUSIONS ,FILE WVE-24-85 PAGE 2
DECISION
'From the foregoi,ng Findings and_Conclusions, the Zoning Adjustor DENIES
the proposal.
DATED THIS DAY OF January, 1986.
,
, r
f
I _ ~ ' 1
Zoni ng Ad~ usto Spokane County
Wa'shi ngton
FILED:
1) Applicant
2) Parti es of R'ecor"d
3) Spokane County Engi,neer's Office
4) Spokane County Health District
5) Spoka ne Cou,nty Ut'i 1 i ti es Dept., 6) Spokane County Dept, of Building & Sa'fety
NOTE :Any party aggri eved by thi s,deci si on must fi 1 e an appealf wi thi n ten (10)
calendar days of this date.
0006z/1-86 ~
OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEER
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASNINGTON
Dote , 19 ,
Inter-office Communication
To
From _ ; . .
Subject
~ ' ; , ~ . ~ ~i-, ~ ~ ~ a// ,r•~~% `~~!l ~r•',i~, - _
; , .
Form 327-C R
, • .
. ' ' .
SPOKANE COl1NTY ZONINIG ADJUSTOR
.
` PUBLIC HEARING
AGEN DA: JANUARY 22, 1986 TELEPHONE NO.: (509) 456-2205
TIME: 1:15 p.m.
PLACE : Spokane County Pl anning Dept.
N. 721 Jefferson St., Broadway Centre Bldg.
2nd floor hearing room
Spokane, WA 99260
APPLICATTONS WILL BE HEARD IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER, EXCEPT THAT ITEMS CARRIED OVER
FROM PREYTOUS HEARINGS WILL BE HEARD FTRST, LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS AND PROJECT DETAILS
FOR THESE PROJECTS ARE AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FILES.
l. WVE-24-85 WAIVER OF YIOLATION FOR REAR YARD SETBACK
Located approximately 440` west*of Wilbur St.,
between Montgomery Drive and the Union Pacific
Railroad right-of-way in the SE 1/4 of
Section 9-25-44.
PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting a waiver of
violation (Section 4,25,030 f.'of the
Spokane County Zoning Ordinance) in
order to allow contractor's storage
. buTldTngs to be located 3' from the
rear property line, whereas Section
4,11.090 e.4, of the zoning ordinance
requires a 15' rear yard setback in the
Restricted Industrial zone.
SITE SIZE: 1.8 acres Capprox,)
APPLICANT: Postlewait Construction, Inc.
2, CUE-35,85 TEMPORARY RESIDENCE (MANUFACTURED HOME) FOR A
DEPENDENT RELATIYE Generally located adjacent to
and east of Kenney Road, approximately 112 mile
south of Wellesley Ave. in the NE 1/4 of Section
4-25,45.
PROPOSAL: To allow a manufactured home for a
dependent relative to be located on the
subject property. Section 4.04.170 jj
and 4.24,560 of the Spokane County I
Zoning Ordinance allows such a use in
~ Agricultural zone with the granting of
v a Condi ti onal Use Permi t.
00 SITE SIZE: 1.3 acres
APPLICANT: Joann Rainville
QF-C ~ . ~~k
c~ C
~vEo
OE ~
-1~
~
' ~ • ' ~ ~ • ~ 5 . i%
~ ~ .
' ~ • tD N fi. .1VEN,iE
` JIL • ~
1 ~
a~t`~✓ .
~ V
. I
~
.l ID
J A
~ . ~
' M► '
~
BucI(EvE _ ~ f • ~
~u V •
. • t `
MAR{ETT A ' AV E .
:KEY,E
,
W
~ ~AtKS
r • ~ w'O ZIRL1~ E Cf
r ~ oR
all. ' . d f-
. Mp*TGOME"Y ~
0~ EJlMMAr , r Z I
y 9 ~ v
,
4► '
,
EL 1969
IDNA7/Q,%•~,~ ' 9 65 S ~
• ~ • w ` . ~ -
sN~NNO~'+ " z ~EltY oA
7t ~ ' McM
. . , ~ 9G
•~r ~ .
` tl1 4'^85.
VE •
2
' ` ~ ~ • ~
Y • ~
~ • ~ 5614TO~w..
M wE LL ~ .
. ~
~ ~ .
w
o a,,..`• DES N
M~' Ow~Mi • ~ - u" p r ~
O w ~
~
S►+~ET
~ ~ ` ~ ~1' h • ~
~ t . . ~ • ~ : . . •
~ ~ ' :~?ine 1~^i°r; •
. a ~ ~ ~ ~ • 1 ~ ~ ~
r.---~-
p L. K
R , s'` • ~
; , • -
♦ ~ '
N
I
~
s 9
SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
APPLICATIONS BEFORE THE ZONING ADJUSTOR/BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Certi fi cate of Exemption Appl i cati on \NVL -7~l- ~3S
Name of Appl i cant: Poatlewait Construc tion , Inc.
Street Address: E. 11508 Montocomer,y Avenue
Ci ty: SiDokane State: wA Zi p Code: 99206 Phone No. : 9223207
Name of Property Owner(s): Levi Postlewait
REQUESTED ACT ION ( S)( Ci rcl e App rop ri ate Acti on
Vartance(s) Conditional Use Permit Non-Confommng Lot/Use
aiyer of Yiolation Te orary Use/Structure Other:
#*t~ttt*~*******~**t***#******** FOR STAFF USE ONLY *
t *
*
*Ci te 0 rdi n an ce Se ct i on :4-zs 0e0Cf1 01 d Co de : ~ New Co de : t
~ -
*Section °J Townshi p zS Range e44 Property Siie. *
• t
~
*Existing Zoning: ` V--4a.(Va3•80 ~ F.L.U.P. Designation: C~~~_ *
t , t
*PSSA: N UTA: ~ N ASA: Y~ N FIRE DIST.: ~l LEGAL CHECKED BY: *
* t
*
*Heari ng Date: Staff taki rig i n Apfl i cati on : it/
~tttt*t#~~~*~~~t#*#*~#*#~****~,*~t~* *
Existing Use of Property: Office and storage yard for contracto
Oescribe Intended Proposal: The a-Dalicant desire$ to retain three railroad
cars at the southwest corner of the ownershin to be used for storage.
One of the cars is within 3 feet of the rear property line ad3oining the
Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way.
St reet Address of P rope rty : E. 11508 Montgomery Avenue.
Legal Description of Property ( Incl ude easement i f appl i cabl e) :
~ia c
- d-P L?1~- r 1-Ir N, ~
f~ - ' r_,e;n d0
~
2002d f
~
Parcel Omle ~ O ~ Svurce of Legal :
Total amount of adjoining land controlled by this owrier/sponsor: None
What interest do you hold in the property: Owner
Please list previous Planning Department actions involving this property:
Zone change for Restricted Industrial
I SWEAR, UNDER THE PENALTY OF PERJURY, THAT: (1) I AM THE OWNER OF RECORD OR AUTHORI-
ZED AGENT FOR THE PROPOSED SI?E; (2) IF NOT THE OWNER, WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM SAID
- OWNER AUTHORIZING MY ACTIONS ON HIS/HER BEHALF IS ATTACHED; AND (3) ALL OF TNE ABOVE
RESPONSES AND THOSE ON SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ARE MADE TRUTHFULLY AND TO THE BEST OF
MY KNOWLEDGE.
~
Si gned:
^ ~ - _ . • ~ . iddress : E . 11 0 Montgomerv Avenue
_ ~ _ . er.m.... u.. . - ~-i- - Nt .rw n ~
~ . .
v •
NAME61
.
+ FILE wVc- -24 -85
II. WAIVER OF VIOLATION (Section 4.25.030 f, of Zoning Ordinance)
A. Was project erected in good faith and with every intent to comply with the
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance? If so, explain how you exercised good
faith and intent and sti 11 ended up i n vi ol ation of the Zont ng Ordi nance?
The applicant is in the process of completing the many conditions
impoaed as a result of the zoning action. The railroad cars were 1,eCated on the southwest corner of the subiect lDroloertv
awai ting completion of the maAy condi tiona of approval. Unfor-
tunatel v, the rear pro,pertv li,r~,~ violation was not discovered
until a survey was made of the property. The applicant located
-thg cars, acknowledeing the location of other Dronerties and
fences in the area and believed that the location would suffice
until nermits could be obtained, The applicant has been wurking
to resolve this and other aspects of the property in order to
secure vroDer buildina Dermits.
B. While not complying with every detail of the provisions of the ordinance,
expl ai n how the project i s consi stent wi th the spiri t or intent of the
o rdi nan ce?
The nroperty adjoining the Union Pacific Railroad right-8f-way
has adequate access for fire protection. In addition, the
eenverted raf 1 read earg are ~ma11 (400 sa, ft. epch) and allow
a certain degree to confinement if a fire were to start. The
storage is drv (no water or hea.t) . Qther properties adjoining
the Union Pacific tracks have fences and stvrage facilities
un to the nronertv line,
J
♦
« ~ ~S ( l V l Cc~ l (
NE1ME : Po $ tl ewai t r Inc.
~ FILE p~~
t
I. VARIANCES The County Zoning Ordinance, Section 4.03.020 (64), cl ari fi es
that variance is an aajustment made to a"dimensional" regulation.
Websters New Collegiate Dictionary (1979) defines "dimension" as a
measure in one direction (and therefore includes "area").
A. State 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?
The applicant located three railroad cars for etorage purposes
near the southwest corner of the prooerty priQr to securing a survey
of the ownershin. After com-oletion of the survey, it was found
that one of the cars was within 3 feet of the rear property flne
ad.ioining the Union Pacific Railroad tracks (right-of-way). The
anulicant desired to obtain building perm'its to continue the use
of the storage facilities. Similar storage facilities have been
allowed to be constructed near the railroad tracks in the Montgomery
Gor_ri dor industrial area. In ad tion, vAriances have been granted
for many industrial properties reducing or waiving the rear yard
setback. The railroad riaht-of-wav effectively Drecludes the
construction of additional buildings to the south, therefore reducing
the need for a building setback which contributes to fire safe r.
Railroad operations are generally confined towaxds the center of
th,p rf ght_nf_wMv_ Thp rai lrnad ear_(a,q hui 1 di nga) are eri anted
for access from the north and can be accessed from the north for
fi re vrotecti en,
B. Because of speci al ci rcumstances appl i cable to subject property, inci 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 ai ci rcumstances exist?
Other properties in the vicini~ have used the rear yard setback
areas adjoining the Union Pacific R.R. for fenced stor e yards.
In addition, cQrner proDerties adjoining the Union PacificRailroad
have a zero setback line from the U.P.RR because it could be
construed as a side ,yard rather than a rear yard setback.
C. Wi11 granting of the variance be materially detrimental to public welfare OR
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the
subject property is located?
No. Granting of the setback would no t compromi se fire pro tec tion
or alter the aesthetics. I