Loading...
VE-88-90 ~ : ~tsoEIVED ZONING ADJUSTOR DEC 1 91990 SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ; . . SPOKANE COUNTf ENGINEER . _ . IN THE MATTER OF VARIANCE FROM ) MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR A DUPLEX ) FINDINGS OF FACT, VE-88-90 MARK SODORFF BY ) CONCLUSIONS, BARBARA ALTMAIER ) AND DECISION COMPANION FILES: ST. MARY ADDITION ) ADDRESS: NONE ASSIGNED PARCEL NUMBER: 45232.0603 APPLICATION DESCRIPTION: The applicant purposes to locate a new duplex on a lot of 10,197 square feet; whereas, secnon 4 OS 050 of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance requues the minimum lot size for a duplex to be 11,000 square feeL Authonty to consider , such a request exists pursuant to secnon 4 25 030 b of the Spokane County Zomng Ordinance PROJECT LOCATION: Generally located in the east Spokane Valley, at the northeast corner of the interseceon of Fifth Avenue and Warren Road in the NE 1/4 of Secaon 23, Township 25N, Range 44 EWM OPPONENTS OF RECORD: Emory Wagner ' Charles J Murphy I PUBLIC HEARING AND DECISION: After consideracion of all avaulable ulfonnaaon on file, exhibits subnutted and testimony received dunrig the course of the pubhc heanng held yn December 5, 1990, and the Zonuig Adjustor rendered a wntten decision on December ,1990 to DENY the applicanon FINDINGS OF FACT 1 The appLcant's lot is contained wYthin a small subdivision named St Mary Addiaon The addit►on contauns 181ots, ranging in size from 10,500 square feet to 11,708 square feet The subject parcel is 10,069 square feet All of the lots in the subdhvision have single family dwelling uruts on them with the excepaon of one immediately to the west of the subject parcel (a duplex, corner lot and 11,580 square feet) and a lot to the south (vacant, owned by the apphcant, not a corner lot and 10,077 square feet) 2. The zoning is Agncultural Suburban, which zone allows a duplex outnght on a lot of 11,000 square feet or greater A duplex exists on one of the three qualif}nng lots (greater than 11,000 square feet) in this subdivision The subject parcel is actually the next to the smallest lot in the entire 18 lot subdivlsion The subject parcel is 931 feet (8 5%) smaller than the required standard of 11,000 square feet 3 There is no record of any duplex being approved within this subdivision or the vicinity on a parcel of land less than required by the Zoning Ordinance CASE NO VE-88-90 SPOKANE COUNTY Z0NING ADJUSTOR PAGE 2 4. Subject parcel is a corner lot, nearly flat and with no physical luutanons A single family dwelhng unit could easily be built upon the lot and would be consistent with the rest of the subchvision and much of the surnounding area. The applicant acknowledges this fact 5 Tesamony was presented by two opponents of record to the effect that grannng the vanance to estabLsh a duplex in theu stable single fanuly neighborhood would not be consistent with the single family hfe style which they now enjoy and may create adverse impacts to their property 6 The standards of the Agncultural Suburban Zone provide that a duplex cannot be bwlt on ttus pamcular size loL Most of the lots in the subdivision are less than 11,000 square feet and all contaui or will contain single family dwelling units unless this vanance request and another are granted. Of the three lots which could accommodate a duplex, only one has a duplex, whereas, the other two have single famfly dwelling units 7 Tesamony was presented in the form of a map of existing recent single fanuly homes, new multiple fanuly units under construction, existing apartment units and exisnng duplexes wtuch supported the opponents position that Fourth Avenue was a general boundary hne between single family housing and mulaple fa.mily housing 8 The apphcant stated on the Burden of Proof form that the property could be put to a reasonable and permitted use without the vanance, but, that it was the desire of the owner ta build a duplex. On the same form the applicant stated that a vanance is requu-ed in order to ensure a reasonable econorruc return CONCLUSIONS 1 The vanance will. (a) consatute a grant of special pnvfleges in consistent wnth hrrutations on other propemes in the vicinity and zone (b) not ensure that the intent and purpose of the Zorung Ordinance is achieved wnth regard to locanon, site design, appearance, landscaping, etc , and (c) not protect the envuonment, public interest and general welfare 2 Only the interest of the property owner would be served by granang a vanance, insofar as tesamony by the apphcant/agent stated that the desue to build duplex was solely for the purposes of increased economic gain 3 There are no special cu-cumstances apphcable to the property which, when combined with the standards of the Zoning Ordznance, create pracncal difficulties for the use of the property and/or depnve the property of nghts and pnvileges common to other propernes in the vicinity and surnlar zone classif'icanons 4 Granting the vanance will be matenally detnmental to the public welfare and injunous to property or improvements in the vicinity and zone J 5 Stnct application of the zoning standards dces not create an unreasonable burden in light of the purpose to be served by the standards ' I CASE NO VE-88-90 SPUKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR PAGE 3 6 A broader, public need or interest will not be setved by granting versus denying the vanance 7. The case for a vanance is based substannally upon a lack of reasonable econorruc return 8 Granting the vanance may adversely affect the overall zocung design, plan or concept for either the immediate area or the entire county. 9 The apphcant's claim that the subject property Ls a corner lot and therefore consatutes a special cucumstance, it not supported by the fact that four out of the six corner lots ui this subdivision have single fanuly dwelling units on them The only lot which contains a duplex is of a lawful size for that use DECISION From the foregoing Fvnduigs and Conclusions, the Zoning Adjustor DENIES the proposal DATED this 1110vd'ay of December, 1990 THOMAS MOSHER, AICP Z~nin Ad~Zshin r Spokane nty, gton FII.ED 1) Apphcant (Certified/Return Receipt Mail) 2) Opponents of Record 3) Spokane County Engmeer's Office 4) Spokane County Health Ihstnct 5) Spokane County Ualiaes Department 6) Spokane County Department of Buildings 7) Spokane County Fue Protectaon Distnct No 1 8) Planrung Department Cross-reference File and/or Electronic File NOTE• 4NLY THE APPLICANT OR AN OPPONENT OF RECORD MAY FILE AN APPEAL WMIIIV TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE ABOVE DATE OF SIGNIIVG. APPEAL MUST BE ACCOMPANIFD BY A$100 00 FEE APPEALS MAY BE FII.ED AT THE SFOKANE COUNTY PLANNIIVG DEPARTMENT, BROADWAY CENTRE BUILDING, NORTH 721 JEFFERSON STREET, SPOKANE, WA 99260 (Sections 4 25 090 and 4 25 100 of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance) , E s 1 cJ q F' e r m i t F- e e No. F i 1 e N o. Fr o.j ect IVame d - Qa'(i , Addrea s 4f, 01, Y_ F'arce] wo. _ ~p,o ns~--r s Name Fhor1P # V- 0 ..2 nU ineer /Surveyor' /Architect's Name . Tea Pph>>ne # ► ~ r 1 15a2 F'lanning C:ontact Person I7ate Submitted Desc r ip t ion Tnzt ials , • , , - PLANNING DEPARTMENT ,j BROADWAY CENTRE BUILOING N. 721 JEFFERSON STREET PHONE 456-2205 P '%'ti<-•^ SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260 . . 1:., . - , . SPOrIANE COUNTr COUR7 MOUSE IY~~II~IE ~IF SPOKAN1E ~GURITZY 7LONUNG AIIDJJUOTGIIB PU3ILIIC IHIIEAIIBIING DATE: December 5, 1990 TIME: 9:45 a.m. or as soon thereafter as possible PLACE: Spokane County Planning Department 2nd Floor Hearing Room, Broadway Cenme Building North 721 Jefferson Street Spokane, WA 99260 AGENDA TTEM 3 File: VE-88-90 VARIANCE FROM MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS FOR A DUPLEX: LOCATION: Located in east Spokane Valley, at the northeast corner of the intetsection of Fifth Avenue and. Warnen Road in the NE 1/4 of Secdon 23, Township 25N, Range 44 EWM. PROPOSAL: Locate a new duplex on a lot of 10,197 square feet; whereas, section 4.05.050 of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance requires the minimum lot size for a duplex to be 11,000 square feet. . EXISTING ZONING: Agricultural Suburban COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Urban SITE SIZE: Approximately 10,197 Square Feet APPLICANT: Mark Sodorff 10914 E. 23rd Spokane WA 99206 AGENT: Barbara Almia,ier ITEMS CARRIED OVER FROM PREVIOUS H[EARINGS MAY BE HEARD FIRST, POSSIBLY CAUSING DELAYS. LEGAL DESCRIP'I'IONS AND PROJECT DETAII.S FOR THF.,SE PROJECTS ARE AVAILABLE IN TBE PLANNIlVG DEPARTMENT FILES. APPEALS OF THE DECISION ON THE ABOVE LISTED CASE MAY ONLY BE FILED BY THE APPLICANT OR AN OPPONENT OF RECORD ACCOMPANIED BY A$100.00 FEE. (Sections 4.25.090 and 4.25.100 of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance.) . . . b...~~ SPOKANE COUNTY PLANrTING DEPARTNiENT . ; , APPi.ICATI4NS BEFORF THE ZOIVINC ADnJS'TOR/BOARD OF ADJUSTMMNT Certificate of Exemption No.: . Application No.:~ `$8 Name of Applicant ~c~.V.~.~ a~ L~nla'(fj::~Agent: o N Streat Address: &LL11 Zip PhonG = Homc: 6 City•~ 4J4 Statc:~d Codc: . Work• - Sf AgenRs - -Nfl. Name of Proparty Owncr(s): Strcct Address: ~ Zip / Phoae - Home: 1 City: State: W Code: Work:~ p4cp RE AC"fION(S) (Circle appropriate acdon): (V-ari-ance Conditiona] Usc Pcrmit Nonconforming Lot/Usc Waiver Temporary Use/Structure Other: . FOR STAFF USE ONLY CODE: ~ INANCE Citc Regulations Scction(s): CProperty ~Violation/ Saction: Township: Ranga: Z~ Sizo: / Enforcement: Y(~q Existing Zone: 4 ' Comp. Plan Des.: (J / fu~ Crossover3~s ~ LEGAL - PSSAZ'~")N UTA: ~ N ASA: FIRE DIST.; CHECKED BY: ~ . Hearing Date: /O- ','P6rsonnel Taking in Application: ,f Existing Usc of Propctty: ~ . D ribe Iatcndcd Proposal in Terms of REQUESTED A IONS above: ~ ' ~ ~ ~ • Strcct Address of Propcrty:_'~~ L nA Legal Description of Propor (include easement, if applicable): ~ - ~ L~ ~I - , Parccl No(s):-245~~. Sourcc of Lcgal: Total amount of adjoining land controlled by this owner/sponsor:~.~ . What intcrast do you bold in the propcrty? X' Please list previous Planning Department actions involving this property: STATE OF WASHING'PON i~ . _ •1: : . ~ ~ A , ~ , , T,,.,;,. ,s;~~ $ $ , 2, • t.. ; t . ' ~ . . - . COUNI'Y OF SP'OKANE ) . ~ . . . F:. ' I SWEAR, UNDER PEIVALTY OF PF.FWRY, THAT: `(1) I AM T'HE OWNER OF RECORD OR ALTI'fiORIZED AGENT POR THE PROPOSID SI'I'E; (2) YF NOrI' THE QWNER, WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM SAID OWNER AUTHORIZINQ MY ACTIONS ON HISAEER BEHALF IS ATTACHED: AND (3) ALL OF THE ABOVE RESPONSES AND THOSE ON SUPPORTING D(X,'UMENTS ARE MADE TRUTfFULLY AND TO THE BF.SI' OF MY KNOWI.FDGE E C, ed: 1~t~ d . 0 ~ - e 0.0 _ •Z D ~ NOTARY SEAI,: . s ington, , y 'ipES' M~~• d . . OjqRr •pU ppoi ment ptre . .i` - . . . . . . . . . _ . ' , . I ~ ~ , • ' ' ' . t n l~,`~ ^ , ~ {r ~ ' . ; }r 1`,/ ~ , A. IRUR.DEN OF PgOOF It is ncccssary 1 for the a~e o his/her representative to establish the rcasons why the REQiOT$D ~ul be apprpvod and to literally put forth the basie. caso. Accordiny,'.ou ~'av been given a form for your re uested action (variance, conditi ~ al e e' ed to hel ou resent o r ~ p y p y u casc in a way, which addresses the Zoning Adjustor must consider. Plcase fill the form out and ret _your application. If You did not 8et a form, ask the Planning Department personnel for advice on how to proceed. . 71;. B. SIGN-OFF BY COUNTY DEPARTMFNTS AND OTHER A*EN .IVS . - , cl_,MUNTY H .A .TH DISTRICT r _/r a) Proposed method of water supply: r7 ~il'-s%TG b) Proposed method of sewage disposal: G A prelim'nary consultat'on has been held to discuss the proposal. The applicant has bc info ed ttuirements and standards. (Signature) Dato) (Sign-off Waived) I 6t 2. . A prcliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The applicant has b n inforaned ofequirements and standards. v Q ~ O Signa re (Date) (Sign•off Waivcd) ~OUNTY UTILITI .S D.PARTM .NT (Waivo if outsida WMAB) [!'y A preliminary, consultation bas been held to discuss , the proposal. The appli ~ t has bee info med of requirements and standards. (Signature) d - , " ' (Date) (Sign-off Waived) Thc a licant is re ,ired to discuss the roo 1 wi PP 9~ p p sa th to bccome informed of water system requirements aad standards. Thc applicant is rcquircd to discuss the proposal with ~ to becomc informed of sewage disposal rcquircmcnts and standards. 4. • (Waive if outcide CWSSAI a) The proposal is/i locatcd within thc boundary of our future - scrvice area. b) The proposal isAn=net locatcd within thc boundary of our currZnt district. • c) We able to serva this site with adequate water. d) Satisfactory arrangements 4MIhave not been made to serve this roposal. ~ ~ 67 (Signatura (Datc) (Sign-off Waivcd) cz%-SEWERAGE PURVEYOR: ' , (If other than Spokane County) A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The applicant has been informed of requirements standards. (Signature) (Date) (Sign ff Waived) ~ . , . - . - Page 4 of 4 . • , i, . . . . _ _ • • ' I . • • r/ VA►RIANCE BURDEN of PROOF Form `.'NAME: L- FuZ rTVMBEt -Vff' Introducdon to this fonm: A"variancc" is the mawa by which au adjusunent ia m~de ~in the a plication of th~ spccific r+~gulaa cular (tbe'subjectfpiace of property. This 'ons of the zoning classi.fication for a arti pwpGrty, bccause of spacial circumstaaces app 'cable to it, is doprivod of privilgSis s comnnonly ' vicini and in a similar zone classification. adjustmcnt en}oyed by other propcrttes in the ty . r~uodies the difference w privileges. A vanancx shall not authoriu a usa otherwise prohibitcd in the zmu classificaaon in whicb tha propGrty is located. 1he following questions will belp to daternnina the outcome of ~rour requast. Your request rcquires accurace and vonplett rasponses. F'ust circla eitber the yes" ar the "no" answer(s) followiag the qucsaons below as they apply to your situation and then oxplain as neoded (in the provided) to make your unique awation clear. Catain phrases from the S kano County . Zoo~~ng Code section oa variancea are included in diese questions. Thoy are, und If your rcqucst is a ROAD FRONTAGB VA►RiANCE ploase aaswer only quasdonsA,B,C,D, und E. ~ ~;i:: A. Will this vanance pcrmii a use whicb is oftrwisc pruhibitod in this zona?:' Yes No , . Explain: . . . - . •'a.. _ t .hh . . . • ~ ,l \ l , Q/ . . . f:~ . . F.~ l~r. . w~ . . . . . . . ! 1::~ ~ 1'•'7 , ' . . ( . . Arc thc,re (lot siu. s~iapc;' .LuPoSraPhY;l.oca~Qu+ . surrvundings, ctc.) whicb apply tD the aubjocc~ P~P~Y and which aaay not- ,i,~ _ nat aPP1Y to othar P~' ' cs in the 'y~Y? . ' y~s r No ~ . . . , , . ExpWn • ~ . . . , .R. . „ . . . , -.ra! ......~r..V. , ~j 1 s • ' ` • . . , .f.. {•(LJ J`iis{t . i.s• . " C. Is the subjcct pmpGCty of vrivie,gescorrmoWy,~nio,X,v o her . _ - ' i.n the Y'~,and u~ a sumlar zoae classifi= on?- _ . . ~ • Yes No . . . . . . . , . . f..~ r • an . ..-i... . . '.c . • . . . . . . . . . ; r ..p.. • . . . • ; 1-~;... . F . •r ..-J •t: . ' 7. . .'r: Y. ♦..kjr~t . i , . • ~ s :i . , D. VVi11 this vari,anea be hXrmful~to the publi+c wclfare oar tQ othGr~: PIVW' cs in the ~yLinity and ailar e classificadoe 7 . Yes No . ~ . .........,r•--•- • •L „J_.;,,,: ~ ' ` . . J+,''• ' 'r Explaui.• . _ . . , . . . . ~ . . . ..y.. _ . . PA , ;b,'~-~-~ . . , . . . . . . ► , E. Are thcre othcr s' ' siwadoas ia the y~~ a~1~* z~ne clu~fication? Yr.s .No Arc thcy penniaod u.ses ? Yes No Are they "noncoaforming". uses? Yes No , Explain: LLIO ~ : F. Cou1d the subjcct propGrty be put to a xasonable aAd parmitted use by you or anothcr person without the roquestcd variance? Y No ~ Explain: _ . . : _ . ' z^ , - . . . , . '.J, , - > : . I_ . . , G. If this request is granud, wil1 the subject property be noord anvironmentally sens' ' encrgy conserving, or will it promota the usa of an historic property? Yes No Explain ~ _ ` l ; ~ . Oyer please, ' ' r . . . . L . ' Rev: 5nZ/90 Paga 1 , . . , . ~ . ~ H. If this variancc is grantcd, will the broader publiC nccd or-iAtc.t's.st be servcd? Ycs ~N-p. _ . .x'~ ' . • _ ; 'i~ _ `s. . , - Explain: ` . ,011 1. WiU this variance be inconsistent with the purpose of the zoning which applies to the subject progerty? Yes , No . ' Llp- > > ~Jexlzd OL Explain: ~ `~1]1 c ' D ~ ~Ia ~ f -il J. Will approval of this variance grant to the subject pmperty the privilcgcs of a different zone classificaaon (in other words would this be a"de facto" zone changc)? Ycs No . . 4 ~ ~ fI Explain` `tS (L ~ C Ct. r _ - ' ~~C~~k~ Q • - K. Will this variance be inconsistent.with the general purpost and intent of the Coruprehensive Plan? Yes No Explain ' J ~ ~ . T L. Is this variance required for a reasonable economic return from the subject pmp or is the cxisting structurt too small? Ycs No -~n . . H,~~:-,. - Explain: 1' r 4 -\JZ Li v- n r) m Of ~Q,~44A r M Did the Qractical difficultv which caused you to apply for this variance exist before you owned the subject property? - Ycs Na Expla.in: W"*=f) i..~ c . N. If approvcd, would this variance affect land use donsity regulations which exist to protect the RathdrunVSpokane Aquifcr? Yes No Explain: a -6 Us LeZ.a- ( I J 1(- 1( ~ 41 The following space is for furthts explanadon. Your application will get better consideradon if what, how, and why you propose your applicadon is clear. Attach an add.itional page(s) if necdcd. _ . , . , , ' . .~r . . . _ ~ • z -•ri. You are invited to present additional p6otographs, diagrams, meps, charts, etc. in support of this appiication (we have the equipment to display video tapes). No such additional material is required and in any case it must be BRIEF and descriptive of issues which need to be considered in relation to this requested variance. If you have questions about the procedure to be followed feel free to contact the Spokane County Ptanning Department (456•2205). Paga 2 _ , - . . . :n. • . . ~ . / SPOKANE COUNTY PLANIVING DEPARTMENT APPLICATIONS BEFORE THE ZOIVING ADJUSTOR/BOARD nF ADJUSTMENT ~ Certificate of Exemption No.: Application No.: A Name of Applicant4~~h~~'a~ Agent: Y N Street Address: --rc-1 LL~1~.a~ elk . . ~ v Zip Phone - Home: city~.,~ c_ State: PP code: Work: ~ Agents No. Name of Property Owner(s): el Street Address: 1~1 sed k14- . 6 tll/ Zip / Phone - Home:-~?.,- City: State: lv Code: 17.,~, ~ RE TED ACTION(S) (Circle appropriate action): Variance CO-ID Conditional Use Permit i.oc/Us;; Waiver of Violation Temporary Use/Structure Other: FOR STAFF USE ONLY CODE: ORDINANCE Cite Regulations Section(s): Property Violation/ Section: Township: Range: Size: Enforcement: Y N Existing Zone: Comp. Plan Des.: Crossover , LEGAL PSSA: Y N UTA: Y N ASA: Y N FIRE DIST.: CHECKED BY: Hearing Date: Personnel Taking in Application: Existing Use of Property: A 'R + I 11t De ribe Intended Proposal in Terms of REQUESTED A IONS above: 4-i , G ! r I (t I I o p t e rc-,7` J 7 ~ Street Address of Property:-~ 0a 11E'-~ Legal Description of Proper y(include easement if applicable): Parcel No(s): 4.5~_~ ~-C) i~~ (71~2) Source of Legal: Tibf. e~'/u-pdll1 Total amount of adjoining land controlled by this owner/sponsor: ~'o What interest do you hold in the property? C, -6 a, ~ ~ Please list previous Planning Department actions involving this property: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) S S COUNI'Y OF SPOKANE ) I SWEAR, UNDER PENALTY OF PERNRY, THAT: (1) I AM'IHE OWNER OF RECORD OR AUTHORIZED AGENT FOR 'I'I-E PROPOSED SITE; (2) IF NOT THE OWNER, WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM SAID OWNER AUTHORIZING MY ACTIONS ON HIS/HER BEHALF IS ATTACHED: AND (3) ALL OF THE ABOVE RESPONSES AND THOSE ON SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ARE MADE TRUTHF[JLLY AND TO Tf-E BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. Signed: Address: Phone No.: Date: NOTARY SEAL: Notary Public in and for the state of Washington, residing at . My appointment expires: . , A. BURDEN OF PROOF It is necessary for the applicant or his/her represcntative to establish the reasons - why the -REQUESTED AC'fION should be approved and to literally put forth the basic case. Accordingly, you should have been given a form for your requested action (variance, conditional use, etc.) designed to help you present your case in a way which addresses the criteria which the Zoning Adjustor must consider. Please fill the form out and return it with your application. If you did not get a form, ask the • PIanning Department personnel for advice on how to proceed. B. $ICN-OFF BY COUNTY DEPARTMENTS 'AND QTHER AGENCItS ~1. _0~1NTY HEALTH DISTRICT r;::. . . a) Proposed method of water supply: b) Proposed method of sewage disposal: A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The applicant has been informed of requirements and standards. (Signature) (Datc) (Sign-off Waived) 2. A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The applicant has b en informed of eqtkirements and standards. o^ ._qo aSignay6ref (Date) (Sign-off Waived) 3. (Waive if outside WMAB) A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. Thc applicant has been informed of requirements and standards. (Signature) (Date) (Sign-off Waived) The applicant is required to discuss the proposal with to become informcd of water system requirements and standards. The applicant is required to discuss the proposal with to become informed of sewage disposal requirements and standards. C4.WATER PLIRVEYOR: (Waive if outside CWSSA) a) The proposal is/is'not located within the boundary of our future scrvice area. b) The proposal is/is not located within the boundary of our current district. c) We are/are not able to serve this site with adequate water. d) Satisfactory arrangements have/have not been made to serve this proposal. (Signature) (Date) (Sign-off Waived) <z,,-%-SFWF,RA(:F, PURVEYOR: (If other than Spokane County) A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The applicant has been informed of requirements and standards. (Signature) (Date) (Sign-off Waived) Page 4 of 4 ; . 1 ' ~ . , OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ENGINEER SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON December 4, 1990 T0: SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT (Current Planning Administrator) I FROM: SPOKANE COUNTY ENGIIvEE"t~ SUBJ: VE 88-90 / Sodorff re: Variances The County Engineering Department has reviewed the above referenced application. The following comments are offered for inclusion in the Findings and Order as "Conditions of Approval" should the request be approved. E19 The word "applicant shall include the owner or owners of the property, his heirs, assigns and successors. E66 THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE ADVISED THAT AN APPROACH PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE COUNTY ENGINEER PRIOR TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF ANY NEW DRIVEWAY APPROACHES. THIS MUST BE DONE PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF A BUILDING PERMIT E67 PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF A BUILDING PERMIT OR ISSUANCE OF AN APPROACH PERMIT, THE APPLICANT MUST SUBMIT ROAD AND DRAINAGE PLANS TO THE COUNTY ENGINEER FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. ROAD AND DRAINAGE PLANS MUST BE PREPARED IN COMPLIAIVCE WITH SPOKANE COUNTY ROAD AND DRAINAGE STANDARDS, THIS CONDITION MAY BE WAIVED BY TNE COUNTY ENGINEER. E69 THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE ADVISED TO CONTACT THE LOCAL FIRE DISTRICT TO ASSURE THAT FIRE DISTRICT ACCESS STANDARDS AND THE PROVISIONS OF THE FIRE CODE ARE BEING MET. E60 Applicant shall sign and record Spokane County Notice to the Public No. 6 which specifies the following: The owner(s) or successor(s) in interest agree to authorize the County to place their name(s) on a petition for the formation of a Road Improvement District (RID) by the petition method pursuant to Chapter 36.88 RCW, which petition includes the owner(s) property. If a RID is formed by either the petition or resolution method, as provided for in Chapter i • I . . . , pagr 2 36.88 RCW, the owner(s) or successor(s) further agree: (1) that the improvement or construction contemplated within the proposed RID is feasible, (2) that the benefits to be derived from the formation of the RID by the property included therein, together with the amount of any County participation, exceeds the cost and expense of formation of the RID. and (3) that the property within the proposed RID is sufficiently developed. Provided, further, the owner(s) or successor(s) shall retain the right, as authorized under RCW 36.88.090, to object to any assessment on the property as a result of the improvements called for in conjunction with the formation of the RID by either petition or resolution method under Chapter 36.88 RCW. This requirement applies to Warren Street frorn which the sub7ect parcel takes access. Special Conditions: The driveway as shown on the submitted site plan reflects 70 feet of driveway. The total width of all driveways on a street for any one ownership shall not exceed 50 % of the frontage of the ownership along the street. The applicant shall be advised that 2 approach permits shall be required if the driveway is not a common approach. . - ~ =88=90 v - i W w sw ac C04 ~ , ~ IN ~ r r ~ R i / < r _r- Z w.ve ~ f L! ~ ' 1 a ~y~ . . . , . • ~ , N' 23i2 ; 0 • , ~ - v t ~ Ft 'rAd - ~ • ~ ~ . - - - - ~ Av E*2 « . s s* ~ . ~ 4• 3c~.e~1 ~ AvE. ~ T ~ ~ ~ n. 7N fM ~fw~ ~ 46 . ~ 40 s4 7TIo4 7 TM ac v E ~ ~ V ~ 4 161f: Av E . . . 1M S ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ s •TM . ~ O Am a • I I , .o~.. , 1o•« 0 t J7 rAV E 12 TH T WELFT rt r: . . o ~ ivE i3r ap . THI r•- - V TN ~ T NTH + z ba ~ T ...'S• V W = ~ t ~ ~ • ~ > ~ ~ w:i'~.. t 1br~ ~ M Av E ; 1 x fm& . . ~ ci - I T o~ 1T T ~ - ~ ,`,t Z '~'w , c'~. Q~ m• ~ o m 20TH - rcr ✓ ♦ . r h ~v. 21 . t . q ~ o~ 12 t. a _ I W f • Av g ~ ~ - : . v ~ = 3 ~y ; 23 ~e 24TH r Z N TWfNT'I•fOURT Av L • • . . - ~ IL ~ ~ L IL ~ J ~ ~7 `~J : ~ ~ e ~ ~ - X X aX X--X.X~ I T4 ~ Y ~ x 2 ~ ~ ~ ~~u ~`r ~ ~ ~!-j~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~9 d " ~r •"U „ ~ ~ ~ W .t Q ~ ~V.. ~ i / ~LEC'K; . Q }C , ~ 66-3 7 ~ 1 \O ~ ~ ,1 / ~ I 50 :1: "A v- / 1r1 IT\~ r~..~. L} ob .