VE-7-88
~
~ECFIVED
t l
~
~
~ ZONLNG ADJV~~~R APR 2 0 19BB
SPOKANE COUNTY, 11YASHINGTON
~pOW~ MliTy ENG1lI'EER
IN THE MATTER OF 14 V'14RIANCE FROAA THE ~
DENSITY STANC?ARD5 REGARafNG SITING } FINDINGS, ~ONCLUSIONS
OF ►4 DUPLEX. [VE-7-881 ) AND aECISION
GREG J~FFRIES
aVMIGIARY QF APRLi TI :
The applicant recently had apre9irninary subdivision approved (Jeffrey's Additionr PE-
i 553-881ZE-2-88) tinrhEch authorized two (2) duplex parcefs. The rr►ore northerly
prelirY3lnarf 2ppff)Ved parcel of land, which 9s ;~~^roxir~ale!y~ 9,57f~ squale feet, easily
exceeds the minimum 6,000 square foat Iot size far the UR-7 Zone, However, because of
two (2) dwelling units (a duplex) being Iocated on this parceE, the density computes to
4,835 square feet of land per dwelling unit. Seetion 6.18.305 0f the Spokane County Zaning
Cade requires a maximurn number of dweliing units per acre of seven (7); aminimum
density of 6,223 square feet of land per dwelling unit in the UR-7 Zane. Hence, the
applicant seeks a variance from the minimurn density standard for the rnare northerly
parcel of the approved preliminary subdivision. Authartty to consider and grant such a
request exists pufsuant t~ Sections 4.04.081 and 4.04.082 of the Spokane County Zaning
Code and "V'ariance" as defined in Chapter 3.0 DE FIiVITIONS of the Code.
L_~~~TM:
The propased parcel is generally located in eastern Spokane County, narth of and adjacen# to
Cawley Avenue and east of and adjacent to Corbin Road in the SW A of Section 18, Township
25N, Range 45EWM. The parcel is described as Lot A of preliminary subdivfsion Jefirey's
Addition of Spokane County. The Assessor's parcei nurr~ber is (a portion o~ 18553-0655.
The Department of Building and Safety has assigned an address of N. 220 CQrbin ~v+ a~to Lot
A
.
8ased upon #he evidence presen#ed and circumstances associaled with #he project praposal,
the Zoning Adjustor APPROVES the application, conditRoned as set farth belaw.
s
PUDLIC .
Afler examining all available information on fiCe with the application and visi#ing the
subject property a+nd surrounding area, the Zoning Adjustor Conducted a public hearing vn
Apri! 12, 1988 rendered a verbal decision on April 12, 1988, and a writ#en decision on
April 20, 1988.
Li NDIBaS_g F FA Qj
1. 1'he proposal is generaRly located in eastern Spvkane Cauntyr north of and
adjacen# to Cowley Auenue and eas# of and adjacent to Cvrbira Road in the SVII Y4 of 5ection 18,
Tawnshi~ 25N, Range 45EWN1, and is further described as (a ,partion af) Assessor's parcel
number 18553=0655, as avell aS as Lot ~pproved prerfmfnary subdlaisian khown as
Jeffrey's Addition (PE-1553-8B1ZE-2-88), being more complately descr;bold 4ra Zoriing
Adjustar File #VE-7-88.
2. The preJiminary subdfvision described above was approved by the Spokane
Caunty Hearing Examinerr Commi#tee on February 18, 1988. The Hearing Exanniner
Committee had befare thern an application to establish a much higher density deverapment of
tFwe site, but appFoved o~ly two (2) duplex Io#s with a finding thatT p...duplexes are
corrrpatible with the area and vicinaty and suppar# his (the applicant's) request." On the day
of the hearing befare the Hearing Examiner Cammittee it carne to light that, whereas the
parcels proposed to be crea#ed exceeded the minimum Iot size allflwed In the UR-7 Zone,
there was a confrict between the standard for maximum density in that zone and the
minimum lot size. The density estabfishes seven (7) dwelling units per acre as the
maxifnum density, which #ranslat,es to a minimum parcel Size of 6,223 square fee#
(43,560 sq. ft. divided by 7 dwelling units). The approved parcel is descrabed as
1
4 "
CASE No. VE-7-88; Greg Jeffries ZONfNG ADJUSTOR FINDlNGS PAGE 2
approximately 9,670 square feet, creating adensity of 4,835 square feet of land per
dwelling unit. 'The applicant wras advised by the Hearing Examiner Cornrnittee tv seek a
variance from that standard, along with a recornrnendation frorn the Hearing Examiner
Corr,mattee that the variance be granted.
3. The adopted Spokane Caunty Fu#ure Land Use Plan designates the area of the
propasal as Urhan and the proposal is Gonsistent.with the County's entire Cvmprehensive
Plar,, including the Futcrre Land Use Plan.
4. The exis#ing land uses in the area of the propasal include single family
residential develvprnent and some dupfex development. Irnmediately to the west is aschool
si#e and the properties to the north are somewhat deteriorated and heavily rnfluenced by
nearby cornmercial properties immadiateiy off of Sprague Avenue and have been assessed by
the Hearing Exarnfner Committee as being oompatible.
5. The applicant was asked in #he hearing if 'rt would have been poss,ble to divide the
parent parcel of Iand anto two (2) parcels which would meet both the density and the
rninirnum lat size. After oarrtputing what a precise equal division of the Iand wauld yield,
while taking into awoun# approximateiy 1,000 square feet of Iand which the Hearing
Examiner Cot'nmi##ee directed ta be dedicated -to dha rights-of-way o# Carbin Raad and Cowley
Avenue, the applicant repl€ed that it would not be possFble to divide the land in-to a situation
where the Zoning Code requirements couCd be rnet from bath the densi#y standpoint and a
rninimurn lot area standpaint.
fi. Ordinariiy wherr 2► fault is found in a zoning regulatian which would affect
nurnerous praperties regardless of the circurrMStances vf any particular site, a vacianca as
not the svlution to the problem. Rather, the solutian ta #he problern is to madify and correct
the zoning Eegulation. To this end, the Zoning Administrator has added #o his list of proposed
arnendrnents, with amoderately high priorityr tlle neBfj to fYlak@ ihls adjLJ5tf17eflt tO the
Spokane County Zoning Code. The Zoning Adjus#or shall, by le#ter tv the Assistant Planning
DRrectar, identity this as a problem with the Zoning CQde and advise its oorrectivn as soon as
possible.
7. The specific oonditions af appraval recornrnended and adopted by the Hearing
Exarniner Committee yupercede most of ±he jurr-sdici:on of 1he Zoning AdjunorF w;~h 'L'he clear exception of the authority to deal wi#h the deviation from the density starrdard of the
Zoning Cade.
8. The pcoposal was the subject of an unchallenged Deterrnination of Nvnsignificance
fssued by Douglas Adams vn Januar,r 28, 7988.
9. The appCicant has accepted tha recornmenda#ivns, forrnafized as conditions of
approval, rn the appro►red preFiminary sutxifvision and fhose conditions af approval are
hereby adopted by reference,
10. The proposed site plan indiCateS tha# se#backs, parking, height of the
structure(s) will c:onfarm ta the Spokarre Caunty Zoning Ordinance.
11 . No one appeared to oppose the praposal nor were any written cornments adverse
to the prvpasai received.
12. The proper Esgal requirerrwents for adver#ising vf the hearing before the Zoning
Adjustor of Spokane Coun#y haue been met, "
13. Any conclusion hereinafi#er ststed which may be deemed a #inding herein is
hereby adopted as such.
Frorn the Findings, the Zoning Adjustar comes to these:
CONCLUSIONS
1. T~e varaance will not authorize a use otherwise prahibited in the zone.
2. Wi#h the conditions af approval associa#ed with the apprvved prelirrrtinary plat
far Jeffrey"s Addilion, the variBnCe will: a) nat consti#ute a gran# of special privileges
inconsistent with lirrti#ations on oxher properties in the vicinity and similar aone, b} ensure
that the intent and purpose of #he Zoning Ordinance is achieved vuith regard ta locatiorr, site
1
.
CASE NO. VE-7-88; Greg Jeffries ZONING ADJUSTOR FINDINGS PAGE 3
design, appearance, and landscaping, etc; and c) protect the environment, public interest
and generai welfare.
3. Based on the Hearing Examiner Committee's recommendation that two (2)
duplexes located on this parcel of land is the preferred land use, there then are special
circumstances applicable to the property which when combined with the standards of the
Zoning Ordinance, create practical difficulties for the use of the property and/or deprive the
property of rights and privileges common to other properties in the vicinity and similar
zone classifications.
4. Granting the variance will be neither materially detrimental to ihe public
welfare nor injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and zone.
5. Strict application of the ioning standards does create an unreasonable burden in
light of the purpose to be served by the standards.
6. The case for the variance was not supported by substantial reference to or
reliance upon illegal or non-conforming precedent(s).
7. Granting the variance will not adversely affect the overall zoning design, plan or
concept for either the immediate area or the entire County.
8. The case for a variance was not based substantially upon a lack of reasonable
economic return nor a claim that the existing structure is too small.
9. Granting the variance will not be inconsistent with the general purpose and
intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
10. The practical difficulty which gives rise to the variance request did exist before
the present owner acquired the property.
1 1. The requested variance is not substantially for the purpose of circumventing
density regulations designed to protect the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer.
12. The proposal will neither be detrimental to the Comprehensive Plan nor the
surrounding properties.
13. 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.
gQNDITIQNS QF APPRQVAL
1. GENERAL
1. The project shall comply with the terms and conditions of PE-1553-88/ZE-2-
88, a preliminary plat and zone reclassification.
NOTICE: PENDING COMPLETION OF ALL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WHICH NEED TU 6E
G0~'iPL.ETED PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE, PERMITS CAN BE RELEASED PRIOR TO THE LAPSE
OF THE (10)-DAY APPEAL PERIOD. HOWEVER, THE COUNTY HAS NO LIABILITY FOR
EXPENSES AND INCONVENIENCE INCURRED BY THE APPUCANT IF THE PRQJECT APPROVAL
IS OVERTURNED OR ALTERED UPON APPEAL
. /7
DATED this 20th day of APRIL, 1988.
A
AAr
J
Thomas G. her, AICP
Zoning A justor
Spokane Couni Washington
Sy
T
Y-w
CASE NO. VE-7-88; Grag Jefifries ZONING ADJUSTOR FINDINGS PAGE 4
FILED:
1 } Applicant
2 } Parties af Record
3 } Spokane County En+gineering Department
4 ) Spokane Coun#y Health Dis#rict
5 Spakane Caunty Util'rties Departrnent
6~ Spakane Coun#y Department af Building & Safety
7) Planning Department Cross-reference File andlor ERectronic File
e ~ File #PE-1 553-89 and ZE-2-88.
NOTE: QNLY THE APPLICANF C)R AN OPPONENT OF RECORD MAY FILE AN APPEAL WITHIN
TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE ABOVE DATE OF SIGNING. APPEAL NILJST BE
~~~OMPAhtIED $Y A $100.00 FEE. APPF-ALS iViAY BE FILED AT THE SPOKANE CDUNTV
PLANNING QEPARTMEfVT, BRDADVYAYCENTRE BUILDINCC, NORTH 721 JEFFER~ON STREET,
SPOKRNE, WA 99260. {Sections 4.25.090 and 4.25.100 of the Spokane County Zaning
Ordirrance}
TGNI1jh