VE-8-88
r ~
-
ZONING ADJUSTOR
SPOKANE C4UNTY, WASHINGTON
IN THE MATTER OF A FRONT YARD )
SETBACK VARIANCE. [VE-8-88] ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS
THOMAS A. DORSH ) AND DECISION
COMPANION FILES: NONE )
SUMMARY OF APPLICATION:
The applicant proposes to oonstruct an addition to the existing attached garage which wouid
place its street face eight (S) feet closer to the street than now exists, spedfically to within
fifty-two (52) feet of the centertine of the roadway right-of-way. Section 4.05.110 a. 1.
of the Spokane County Zoning Ordlnance requires a structure to be 55'-0" from the
centerline of the roadway right-of-way. Authority to consider and grant such a request
exists pursuant to Sections 4.03.020 64. and 4.25.030 b. of the Spokane County Zoning
Ordinance
LOCATION:
The property is generally located in the Spokane Vailey, south of and adjacent to Fairview
Avenue and east of Wilbur Road in the NE Y4 of Section 9, Township 25N, RanBe 44EWM.
The Assessor's parcel number is 09541-0625. The property is addressed as E. 11810
Fairview Avenue.
DECISION OF THE ZONING ADJUSTOR:
Based upon the evidence presented and circumstances associated with the project proposal,
the Zoning Adjustor APPROVES the intrusion of the remodeled, attached garage,
approximately three (3) feet into the front yard, thereby establishing a front yard setback
of approximately fifty-two (52) feet from the centerline of the roadway right-of•way.
PUBLIC HEARING:
After examining all available information on flte wlth the application and visiting the
subject property and surrounding area, the Zoning Adjustor oonducted a pubiic hearing on
April 27, 1988 and rendered a written decislon on May 9l 1988.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The proposal is generaity located in the Spokane Valley, south of and adjacent to
Fairview Avenue and east of Wllbur Road 1n the NE Y4 of Sectfon 9, Township 25N, Range
44EWM and is further described as Assessor's parcel number 09541-0625, being more
completely described in Zoning Adjustor file number VE-8-88.
2 The proposal oonsists of remodelmg the present attached garage so that its face is
e,ght (8) feet closer to Fairview Avenue then now exists. The construction would resuit in
the face of the garage being approximately fiftytwo (52) feet from the centeriine of the
roadway right-of-way or an approximately three (3) foot deviation of the fifty-five (55)
foot setback from the centeriine of the roadway right-of-way. Thls would result in a gebled
or hip roof being extended toward the street in order to maintain the necessary height for a
garage door. The applicant's present garage door is of the type which swings out at the
bottom from the face of the garage as it is moved into the open position, thus forctng cars
parked in the driveway to be parked several feet from the face of the present garage in order
to allow for the door swing. The proposed garage would have an overhead gerage door which
opens vertically and would have cars parked in the driveway position approximately as they
are now, not having to aooommodate a space for a door swing. In thts respect, the appearance
of the front yard, when cars are parked in the driveway, would be much the same as it is
presently. The garage would be oonstructed with the same sidmg as the house and a typical,
secUoned wooden garage door.
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, mcluding the Future Land Use Plan.
.
CASE NO VE-e-88, DORSH SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR PAGE 2
4. The site is zoned Agricultural Suburban which would allow the proposed use upon
approval of this application
5. The existing land uses in the area of the proposal include single family
residential units, all of which are compatible with the proposal.
6. The garage presently exists on the west side of the dwelling unit, approximately
twelve (12) feet from the west property line. The front face of the dwelling unit to the west
exists approximately four (4) feet closer to the street than the applicant's dweiting unit.
Thus, a shifting of the garage face eight (8) feet cioser to the street would place the
applicant's garage approximately four (4) feet in front of the dwelling unit to the west, the
dwelling unit most effecied by this proposed construction. It would be difficult for anyone in
the dwelling unit to the west to have any vlew obstruction as a resuit of the proposed
construction. The owner of the property to the west did receive notice of this hearing and
neither made appearance at the hearing, nor submitted written testimony in favor of or in
opposition of the proposal. The appijcant also claims to have contacted the property owner to
the west, discussed the project with that person and received no adverse oomments.
7. There is sufficient width on the west stde of the dwelling unit to allow for a
driveway extension to the back yard. However, the back yard oontains a septic tank and
drainfield and the applicant was able to show where the existing drainfield and the required
distances from any construction would not permit the construction of a double-wide,
detached garage.
8. The applicant's reason for wanting to extend the double-car attached garage
toward the street was to provide garage space adequate for the length of a normal vehicle.
The space provided m the garage wjll actually be two (2) feet shorter than the previous
garage which existed in approximately the same location. The garage has been shortened due
to interior construction/expansion of the house, in order to aocommodate additional Iiving
space. The applicant's present family is a family of 5, oomposed of himself, his wife, an
eiderly relatrve afflicted with Alzheimers Disease and two teenagers. In order to
accommodate separate sleeping quarters for this size of family, the existing recreation room
was incorporated into a bedroom situation. The applicant is attempting to regain a
recreatioNfamily activity space along with the 4 bedroom house configuratton. The
applicant added the maximum addition to the rear of the house (on its west side), as oould be
accommodated and stiil maintain their proper setback from the drainfield Iocated in the rear
yard. With the restriction of the tweive (12) foot addition to the rear, the interior
construction also absorbed nine (9) feet of the previously existing garage. The eight (8)
foot addition on the nonh side of the house wiil allow for a double-car garage, essentially
returning the mterior vehicle storage space to the same as it was prior to the interior
expansion If there had been a public sewer system and no drainfield in the rear yard, the
applicant would have happily, and preferably, extended a complete family activity area
addition to the dwelling unit on the rear or south side.
9 There are no front yard variances of record in the vicinity of the dwelling unit.
There is also no record any such variances bemg requested in the vicinity.
10. The proposal is exempt from the provisions of Chapter 43.21 C RCW pursuant to
WAC 197-11-800 (6) (b).
11 The applicant has been made aware of the reoommendatiOns of various
County/State agencies reviewing this project and has indicated he can oomply with those
recommendations.
12. No one appeared to oppose the proposal nor were any written comments adverse
to the proposal received.
13 The proper legal requirements for advertisfng of the hearing before the Zonmg
Adjustor of Spokane County have been met.
14. Any conclusion hereinafter stated which may be deemed a finding herein 1s
hereby adopted as such.
From the Findings, the Zoning Adjustor comes to these:
CONCLUSIONS
1. The variance will not authorize a use otherwise prohibited in the zone.
~
,
CASE NO VE-8-88, DORSH SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR PAGE 3
2. Wfth the oonditions of approval set forth below, the variance will: a) not
constitute a grant of special privileges inoonsistent with limitations on other properties in
the vicinity and similar zone; b) ensure that the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance
is achfeved with regard to location, site design, appearance, and landscaping, etc; and c)
protect the environment, public interest and general welfare. The establishment of a four
(4) bedroom house, with a family activity area and a minimum size, attached, two-car
garage is not a special privilege.
3. There are special circumstances applicable to the property which when oombined
with the standards of the Zoning Ordinance, create practical difficulties for the use of the
property and/or deprNe the property of rights and privileges common to other properties
in the vicinity and similar zone ciassifications. The restrictlon imposed by the back yard
drainfield disallows the option of constructing an attached garage at the rear of the dwelling
unit.
4. Granting the variance will be neither materially detrimental to the public
welfare nor injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and zone.
5. Stdct applicatjon of the zonmg standards does create an unreasonable burden in
Iight of the purpose to be served by the standards. A three (3) foot deviation of the fifty-
five (55) foot standard will be barely noticeable and w111 result in the face of the building
being only four (4) feet closer to the street than the face of the adjacent buiiding to the west
6. Granting the variance wili not adversely affect the overail zoning design, plan or
concept for either the immediate area or the entire County.
7. The case for a vanance was not based substantially upon a ladc of reasonable
economic return nor a claim that the exisiing structure is too small.
8. Granting the variance will not be inconsistent with the general purpose and
intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
9. The granting of the variance wiil not result in defacto zone reciassification.
10 in order to minimize the impact of the construction, the addition shail
rncorporate similar materials as the existing building wlth regard to the roof materials, the
siding and a vertical movement, sectioned, overhead garage door.
11 Any finding hereinbefore stated which may be deemed a conclusion herein is
adopted as such
DECISION
From the foregoing Findfngs and Conclusions, the Zoning Adjustor APPROVES the
proposal. The following CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ARE STIPULATED
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. GENERAL
1 The following oonditions shall apply to the applicant, owner and successors in
interest and shall run with the land
2. 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 enforcement actions as are appropriate.
3 The Zoning Adjustor may administratryely make minor adjustments to site plans
or the conditions of approval as may be judged to be within the context of the originai
decision.
4. The Buiiding and Safety Department shall participate in this decision by seeing to
it that the structure is constructed as set forth in ill. 1. below.
, . .
CASE NO VE-8-88. DORSH SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADrIUSTOR PAGE 4
,
II. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
None are applicable.
III. DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING & SAFETY
~ 1. The Department shall see to it that the construction generaily incorporates the
following.
a A hip roof, extending northerly from the existing dwelling unit to oover the eight
(8) foot garage extension.
b. Roofing materials similar to that presentiy existing on the house roof.
c. Siding which is identical or similar to that of the existing dwelling unit.
d. A sectioned, vertical-rising overhesd garage door.
IV. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
None is applicable.
V. HEALTH DISTRICT
None is applicable.
VI. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
None is applicable.
NOTICE: PENDING COMPLETION OF ALL CONDRIONS OF APPROVAL WHICH NEED TO BE
COMPLETED PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE. PERMITS CAN BE RELEASED PRIOR TO THE LAPSE
OF THE TEN (10) DAY APPEAL PERIOD. HOWEVER, THE COUNTY HAS NO UABIUTY FOR
EXPENSES AND INCONVENIENCE INCURRED BY THE APPUCANT IF THE PRQIECT APPROVAL
IS OVERTURNED OR ALTERED UPON APPEAL
DATED this 9th day of May, 1988.
I
,
Thomas . Mosher, AICP
n ng Adjustor
Spokan unty, Washington
FILED:
1 ) Applicant
2) Parties of Record
3) Spokane County Engineering Departmeni
4) Spokane County Heelth District
5) Spokane County Utilities Department
6) Spokane County Department of Building & Safety
7) Pianning Department Cross-reference File and/or Electrontc File
NOTE: ONLY THE APPUCANT OR AN 4PPONENT OF RECARD MAY FlLE AN APPEAL WfTHIN
TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE ABOVE DATE OF SIGNING. APPEAL MUST BE
ACCOMPANIED BY A$100.00 FEE APPEALS MAY BE FILED AT THE SPOKANE COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT, BROADWAY CENTRE BUILDING, NORTH 721 JEFFERSON STREET,
SPOKANE. WA 99260. (Sec#ions 4.25.090 and 4.25.100 of the Spokane County Zoning
Ordinance)
TG M/jh
~
r
I
OFF I CE OF THE COUrITY ENG I NEER
SF'Of: ANE COUhITY q WASH I NGTON
~.~NF cniJNT Y Znr.l Tr.(G ADJtJSrOr~
"-ri~ ~M: FF OE ANE CDLJiuT Y EI`~~ IINEC:F' ~
al..lFsv v E -~'73 -13a
Ti-ip- Czs..tnty F_nyjneerang Deparkment (-ias r~vievaec tlie abo:3~ rerereric-E~
a,pp7 , t-al tonr The 4't;J 1c:,wa.ri~.~ c-umt(tent s arrs af~~~~ad €or Lnt:l.usion kif ► h":a
Firidins~~. and Order~ as, "CcancJa.-ion~ ~f Appraval." S-51-Ivc.tlrJ ~ tie r=qM--'s'_ 5~
ap 1.) 't:.° i.`> .
t WE HAVE FiEVJCIa1ED Ti-iE APOVF_' FiEFERF'NCFD F'F:OF`CS 1L AhJIJ HAtJE NQ ^OMN4Efi•dT..t'~
TO IlAi- E CCJhIt~~RNINc THE APF'L I GAT IO!`d .
OFFICE OF THE COUhITY ENGINEEF
SFOf:ANE COUNTY. WASHINGTON
C•far ci=';:a , 19cq-a
Ci;"''~J' ~'~;~Il= r'f_'3Ia1~T`' 7r~~i; t•lr l~i~J'_.l~;"f~? z
SF JF, A; JE CC71.~~lT'l ~'I~C~ J ~1EE:F' Ov-
rIt ~Fti„ v E -,=i -0 ;
Thre C_nun~ y Eny ~ r~~,erin~~ ~eparLment I;ais rev xe-wed th~ sbo.,ca reverenced
ap p a i. J.~i-i TMe f o3.1 owirit- t..rrr~inen ~.s -.Are of xei•ed ror Mci.a_~ slan a.n t h~~
F'a rac13ncr, :tnci Or ld-er as "CranJ x Ljons of Apprrav a1 " shOuld fi he rp-qLt~~sl" be
cxpjJ i` C'aVllLl4
1. HAVE Rr VrEWcD THE aBoVE REFERE'NCED PRQFasAL rriraD HAVE No CQMNiFNTS
TO 1''lAF' ECni`~ --ER!'! T!ti!G THE APF`I-I CAT TQNa
SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DFPARTMENT
APP T[`ATIONS BEFORF THE ZONIIVC AVn LS'_i'OMOAR OF ADJUSTNiENT
~ _ ^ r
Certificate of Exemptioa No.: Application No.:
i1ame of Applicant: Agent: Y 61
Street Address: 4F 11l''1e Zi Phone - Home:
City • . _ • L~S tate: Code: Work:~ ~s - ci cr"
~ Agents No.
Name of Property Owner(s)• i/yc~•• s ~ L
REQUESTED ACTION(S) (Circle appropnate action):
c--- V ariance Condiuonal Use Permit Nonconforming Lot/Use
ver o Violauon Tennporary Use/Structure Other:
FOR STAFF USE ONLY CODE: ORDINANCE
Cite Regulations Section(s): /j. CJ- 0
Property Violation/
.
Section:-~ Township: Range:-40 Size: Enforcement: Y
Existing Zoning: Comp. Plan Designation:
LEGAL
PSSA: `V) N UTA: ~ N ASA:~Y) N FIRE DIST.;,,t CHECKED BY:
:
Hearing Dat ' ~ Personnel Taking in Application: '
.
Existing Use of Property:
Describe Intended Proposal in Terms of REQ[TESTED ACTIONS above: /I%e',L'r'
-~„c:c~~✓U~-~ 70~•.cIWk•tl SY/'..t~
Street Address of Property:_-.,!zA;-
Legal Description of PropeRy (include easement, if applicable): 4 r"
~ 1!2 4,0c/57~l~ae, 'ee~ 41C/v iT"iGrsJ ~CX0 t C r '7
'4 !z
~
Parcel No(s): Source of Legal:
Total amouat of adjoining land conuolled by this owner/sponsor: ~~~at-~-
What interest do you hold in the property? e
Please list previous Planning Department aciions involving this property•
I SvVEAR. UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, THAT: (1) I AM THE OWNER OF RECORD OR
AUTHORIZED AGENT FOR THE PROPOSED STTE; (2) IF NOT'THE OWNER, VVRfTTEN
PERIVIISSION FROM SAID OVVNER AUTHORIZING MY ACTIONS ON HIS/HER BEHALF IS
ATTACHED: AND (3) ALL OF THE ABOVE RESFONS AND THOF4 TIN ~
DO ADE TR Y ANDTA4 QF
~4 ~tVY Lljlv~%~ Signed:~ ~
i ' F wa. sF~o l- .
Address:
~ :NP ~ ~o~ ~ Phone No.: Date:
. . .
ti ~
NOT Nota OL l
~O 9~.';'APR 1;:~'• 'I Date: ~
Jlpy PUBv,
Page 1 of 4 (Over) Revised 12-29-87
I
f ,
A. BLIRDEN OF PROOF
It is necessary for the applicant or his/her representative to establisb the reasons
why the REQUESTED ACI'ION should be approved and to literally put forth the basic
case. Accordingly, you should have been given a form for your requested action
(vanaace, conditional use, etc.) designed to help you present your case in a way
which addresses the critena whicb the Zoning Adjustor must consider. Please fill
the form out aad return it with your application. If you did not get a form, ask the
Planning Department personnel for advice on how to proceed.
B. SI =N-OFF BY COUNTY DEPARTMENTS AND OTHER AGENCIES
1. COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT
a) Proposed method of water supply: ~
b) Proposed method of sewage disposal•
A eliminary consultation bas been held to discuss the proposal. The appl~c nt
ha b en info re ts and st ards
IT-ge
(Sigaature) qui (Date (Sign-off Waived)
2, (`ni1NTY ENCINEERINC DEPARTMENT
A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The applicant
11aed re~ui ments and standards. /o
re) (D ate) (Sign-off Waived)
3. COUNTY i1TILITIES DEPARTMENT (Waive if outside WMAB)
A preliminary oasultation has been held to discuss the progosal. The
app ' ant has been i o ed of requirements and standards
e
(Signature) (Date) (Sign-off Waived)
~ The applicant is required to discuss the proposal with
to become informed of water system
requirements and standards.
The applicant is required to discuss the proposal with
to become informed of sewage disposal
requirements and standards.
4. WATER PURVEYOR! (Waive if outside CWSSA)
a) The proposal (1~fis ocated within the boundary of our future
service area.
b) The proposal ' located within the boundary of our current
district.
c) We able to serve is site with adequate water.
d) Satis actory arrangements been made to serve this
1071!. Qsal. 1 (Signature) (Date) (Sign-off Waived)
5. SEWERAGE PURVEYOR:
(If other than Spokane County)
A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal.
Tbe applicant has been informed of requirements standards.
(Signature) (Date) (Si off Waived)
Page 2 of 4 Revised 12-29-87
e ~
APPLICANT'S FORM
NAME :
FILE:
1. VARIANCES
A. Will the variance authorize a use otherwise prohibited in this zone?
Yes ; No Comnent: ~~etx.e~
B. Will special circumstances a licable to the pro ert (such as size,
shaPe, topography, surround ngs when comfilned whe standards of
the Zoni ng Ordi nance, create practi cal di f fi cul ti es for u se of the
property and/or deprive the property of rights and privileges common
to o1!.2 roperti es i n the vici ni ty and simil i ar zone classi ficati on?
Yes No ; Cortment: ~ 7`~. y~
/,-yirvw-t 1 ~=<.r~-~ ~rro 17` /Za'~~e
A'Ae'eC6c~ Q' C7~~
~
C. Wi l l the granti ng of the vari ance be materi al ly detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the
vi ci ni ty and zone? Yes ; No _X; Conments :,--3
s~,c~e~ i s ~Zr11
~~.Z ' .5~ ~4'~~ ~'~~-~r C•~~t/S~~'~*' lr~
D. Does strict application of the zoning standard create an unreasonable
burden in light of purpose to be served by the standard? Yes
No ; Conunent:
.
~ 's,~ ~ ~.~7'Yi c`~c~Pd'
E. Would relaxation of the zoning standard make a more envirornnentally
sensitive or energy-conserving proj ect or encourage continued or new
use of an histaric property? Yes ; No Comment:
F. Wi11 a broader, public need or interest be served by granting verse
denyi ng the vari ance? Yes ; No _A ; Comment:
G. I s the case for a vari ance supported by other 1 i ke or simi 1 ar
si tuati ons i n the vi ci ni ty and i n simi 1 ar zones? Yes No ;
Comment:
~
'eIv e -PZ0
~
(continued on reverse side)
~
H. Will granting the variance adversely affect the overall zoning design,
plan or concept for either the immediate area or the entire County?
Yes ; No Comment: &ZC7_t._ _
I. Is the case for a variance substantially based upon a lack of
reasonable economic return or a claim that the existing structure is
too small? yes No ; Comnent:
/.'a~&I 02~,6' ➢4ekif i~J A?uJ /s 71t .
,
J. Will granting the variance be inconsistent with the g7zi., purpose
and intent of the Comprehensive Plan? Yes ; No Comment:
K. Did the practical difficulty which gives rise to the variance request
exist before the property was acquired by the present owner? Yes
No ; Comment: `
L. Will the granting of the variance result in defacto zone reclassifica-
tion; that is, the establishing of nearly all the privileges conmon to
a different zone classification? Yes ; No Comment:
M. Does the requested variance result in the circumvention of density
regulations designed to protect the Aquifer? Yes ; No _A~;
Conment:
0046z/Arch. 0002i 2
<
i
/
_
~ ~T • E 5'9f-7
K
u
M , ~ q o4 ~ ~1
• 3 2 ~K ~
y . 41 ~
~ 3 ~ ~
0 ~ ~ ba A'~'~
13
~ 17 • , ~ c~ , ~ ~
Al
l7~ q
-
. ~ z .
, ' WJ _ ~B
/7
3 ~
p~•~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .
s
-
' / ~ M ~ a V ~ • 1
ot C)
• _
_ ~
-
~
aeP
r N y,,,, , s
:
1 ~
~ ~ ~ • ~ . r, - ~t,r,~d
- ` ~t~ ~"s~,~ ' " • sy--
'i
~x F~ ~ ~r •
o ` Mt ~.'~,r
. i 4 ~ +}r•~,, r_ ~ ~ r I~ ~
' 1 ♦
+r .~~r
.
~ar1°1
,
~ ~ ~
•r
0.0
{.IL` , ~n ti'~ $EP T tt' ,
to ~
~ _ ~ Cvh
c~'' { V
. t i
~
~y
v ~
2 ~
~l- ~ ~ ►
~ ~ ~ ~
t... 9o
'
.
_ r
~
ti
s
~ ~ I ~7 > ~rµ , s
~ n t~ _ Gt l ..t
~ yti. A~ i I 1 ' S
t ~ k y 7
• ~ ~ ~ i t n }JS' » ,
i ~ ~ ~ ~ ' J t7 i 1 f y 1K 1 i}'''~~h.~ s..ti .I ~ ` y t ~ l~q = ~ f~ _~y?,~.(~~t~ f ~ + V o
~ ~t 1 ~ t _ ~t ( _;tytysF .y ~7 9y
1 ,wtk C ~ q
4
'~L A~\ ~ x\ l... f }'L; 7 A F ^ 2~ J' !ji' , I
~
1it i
1 ~ i 7 ^F 1~ ~ I I
Y{ ! ~ ~ ~ S
It 1 iL
' a~ 1 il• ` 4 f~o„~ 4~ 111 ~ ; ~ a4 tS
)°i I I
. - r i+ . ~ r ~ a $1 ( ~ ? s+r
~ } /'ILtIR e~i y! Y
5 S $
~
~ r n w ~
'3
{ -1l ^ 4 ` L } s_1F~ ,'lY~
1 Lr
~ r
t ou
. ~ G G••~-s
v
r~~ S~
1 4~ ~
~
~
Y
s
. _
t
rr ~
: t
rF~ ~lT ~IL
i _
7 ti
}
i
~ -
~
, Ll f
~ tt ~ F y ;4
~ - 1 1t
I
I
~ ~ -
_ _ - - 1~ - •
~ra 2 1 1`
> {
~
3 ti ~ l L r
1 1 • { n, a ! 1- d
- c ~ a t t i i
yt ~ r t~ ' ~ rt Z y S?A f~r {
~ r F p~> 4 s S
* ° ~v
1 i T}' r e Y i r 7 ' 4c 1~
7 ~ f~ I l 1
J
7
I y~ A~ i ai~!
~
1 ~
v
. ,
t ~
JS ~4~
.f r l ~ `t
^ ' a u
~
I ~
4 ,
~
~
~ i
~ i , _
~
~ 0 li d ~
a
/xx
! 1 r,
p e,
N -
w , • ~ .
A ~ ~1
.
~
/{l
-
•1 ~
r~~• ~,r 7 ~ ~
f ' ~ r1
~
!
rt SPOKANE COUNTY ZONIIVG ADNSTOR - PUBLIC HEARING - Apnl 12, 1988
AGENDA April 12, 1988
'I'I14tE As set forth betow
PLACE. Spokane County Planning Dept., N. 721 Jefferson Street
2nd floor hearing room.
4) VE-8-99 VARiANCE FROM FRONT YARD
(This item will be heard SETBACK REOt1IRFMENT
at 10:15 a m. or as sooa Generally located in the Spokane
thereafter as possible.) Valley, south of and adlacent to
Fairview Avenue and east of Wilbur
Road m the NE 1/4 of Secuon 9,
Township 25N, Range 44EWM.
PROPOSAL: Tbe applicant requests a variance to allow a remodeled attached
garage to be tocated approximately 52 feet from the centerline of the roadway
right-of-way, whereas Section 4.05.110 a. l, of the Spokane County Zoning
Ordinance requires SS feet from the centeriine of the raadway right-of-way.
The remodeling will place an 8'-0" addition on the front of the house, t6ree (3)
feet of which is closer to the street than the setback standard allows.
EXISTING ZONIN Agriculiural Suburban
SITE SIZE; Approximately 10,795 sq. ft.
APPLICANT; Thomas A. Dorsh
E. 11810 Fairview
Spokane, WA 99206
4 nt~ .
' pra
. ~ r7~ ~
. ,
v ~
..it
CA ,
i
. 1
S O 4. V.t)`~ O
► 4P si 4
' J J
• ~`~p.+
~
` ♦ N.w
R~yIER
1
, ~ ~ ► ~ . BAlOGE
AVE , n f ptpn t~~,, R
~ 6- Ce r''r'e e ~
.
~
• ~!I►'~ ~ .
~ ! i
~ . .
.
,
~ 4
•~~N
~ • ~ q,*' ~
.
Ot •
~ w
.
J +
i
t s ,
eucKEYt S. ~4~ T~ p pvE -
- MpFt~E ~ I
mt-
~ • _
,,,,LKS - '
WtL1SLE Or A
~EiD
g q M~N Y
s ' ~ s v
~
r °
i96 5
Et _
.
1NTs ANATlONAt R
z ~t
t ~