Loading...
1992, 06-23 VE-14-92 Zoning Adjustor FindingsI z qos uv -co • ZONING ADJUSTOR SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON IN THE MATTER OF A VARIANCE FROM ) MINIMUM FLANKING STREET YARD ) FINDINGS OF FACT, SETBACK STANDARDS ) CONCLUSIONS, FILE: VE -14-92 ) AND DECISION APPLICANT: JOHN CORNETT ) COMPANION FILE(S): VE -29-91 AND ) BUILDING PERMIT NUMBER 7448 ) PARCEL NUMBER: 45152.1901 ) PROJECT LOCATION: Build an attached garage, creating an approximate 34 foot flanking street yard setback from the centerline of Woodlawn right of way; whereas, section 14.616.325. A. 3. of the Zoning Code of Spokane County requires a minimum flanking yard setback of 55 feet from the centerline of the roadway right of way. Such a variance would place the garage at about 14 feet back from the curb of Woodlawn Road. APPLICATION DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes Spokane Valley, at the southeast corner of Sinto and Woodlawn, in the NW 1/4 of Section 15, Township 25N, Range 44 EWM; 12902 E. Sinto. Authority to consider such a request exists pursuant to section 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. OPPONENTS OF RECORD: NONE PUBLIC HEARING AND DECISION: After consideration of all available information on file, exhibits submitted and testimony received during the course of the public hearing held on May 27, 1992, the Zoning Adjustor rendered a written decision on June 3 , 1992 to DENY the application as set forth in the file documents and APPROVE a variance for a modified concept, described and conditioned below. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The proposal is described above and detailed in documents contained in the file. 2. In compliance with RCW 36.70.450, the Planning Department determined that this proposal is generally consistent, as conditioned, with the Urban category of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The site is zoned Urban Residential 3.5, which allows the proposed use upon approval of this application. 4. The existing land uses in the area of the proposal are generally single family residential. The following pertains to this specific location and general vicinity. a. This residential area is isolated by Mission Avenue on the north, undeveloped land on the south, McDonald Road on the east and medical center construction on the west. CASE NO. VE -14-92 SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR PAGE 2 b. The lot in questions is the westerly most lot of 5 lots in Prosser Addition. Each lot is approximately 85 feet by 180 feet. The remaining 5 block subdivision is Owen's Subdivision, approximately 25 years old. c. The two subdivisions contain two 4 way intersections, of which the subject lot is the southeasterly lot of one of the 4 way intersections. With the exception of the lot in question, all of the corner lots presently have garages built closer than the presently required setback. d. The lot immediately to the west was the subject of a recent variance, VE -29-91. A flanking street yard setback variance was granted to allow construction of a 2 car garage, plus a workshop area within the garage, at approxiifately 19 feet from the curb or approximately 39 feet from the centerline of the roadway right of way for Woodlawn Road. Approximately the same setback exists on the west side of Woodlawn Road for the lot immediately across the intersection, northwesterly, from the subject parcel. The setback on the lot immediately to the north of the subject property, is approximately 20 feet 10 inches from the curb or approximately 45 feet 10 inches from the centerline of Woodlawn Road right of way. e. To the southwest of this corner lot is another corner lot (the corner of Sharp Avenue and Woodlawn Road) which contain a 3 car garage plus a carport detached from the residence which fronts on Sharp Avenue. This building at 12821 Sharp Avenue would seem to set a favorable precedent for the applicant's case. However, examination of the building permit and attached site plan for this garage identifies a 24 foot by 42 foot detached garage shown to be 20 feet from the property line. In fact, the building was constructed approximately 19 feet from the curb line of Woodlawn Avenue, and just 14 feet from the property line, approximately 6 feet in violation of the approved setback. f. The 3 car garage described immediately above is the only 3 car garage in the two subdivisions. The other 4 parcels in have either no garage at all or 2 car garages. Throughout the Prosser Addition and the Owen's Subdivision, 2 car or 1 car garage plus a car port is the standard; except in some instances no garage exists. 5. 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). 6. The applicant's request is for a 3 car garage to be located between the existing residence and Woodlawn Road. The building is proposed to come to within 34 feet of the centerline of Woodlawn Road; whereas, 55 feet is required. This proposal would place the building 14 feet from the curb and approximately 9 feet from the property line. The garage is proposed to be 36 feet long (that is, the dimension along Woodlawn Road). This proposal for a 3 car garage is 5 feet closer to the roadway right of way (of Woodlawn Road) than the property directly to the west and nearly 7 feet closer to the right of way than the property immediately to the north, across Sinto. The required setback would not allow the construction of an attached single car garage on the west side of the existing house. RP -Decision VE -14-92: Cornett CASE NO. VE -14-92 SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR PAGE 3 7. The applicant stated that he began this process about two years ago when the flanking street setback was 45 feet from the centerline (this was confirmed by the staff). He could not continue with this process because of monetary circumstances. A 45 foot setback, along with a 1 foot deviation as an administrative exception would have allowed a 2 car garage to be built without any variance. A variance would have been needed even 2 years ago for the construction of a 3 car garage as proposed. 8. The applicant clarified, upon questioning by the Zoning Adjustor that the need for a 3 car garage is to accommodate a hydro -racing hobby/business. There is apparently a large trailer involved and the need to care for, maintain, and overhaul the boats and motors during the off season and sometimes during the season. 9. With a 2 car attached garage added onto the house, the applicant still has the privilege of establishing a detached structure for the purpose of accommodating his hydroplane racing hobby. Such a building could be constructed within the flanking street setback, between Woodlawn Road and the drainfield located on the southerly portion of the applicant's lot. The building could be entered from a driveway utilizing an entrance off of Woodlawn Road. 10. No adverse testimony or written comments were received regarding the proposal. 11. The applicant has been made aware of the recommendations of various County agencies reviewing this project and has indicated those recommendations are acceptable. 12. The proper legal requirements for advertising of the hearing before the Zoning Adjustor of Spokane County have been met. 13. The Zoning Adjustor may require such conditions of approval as necessary and appropriate to make the project most compatible with the public interest and general welfare. 14. Various performance standards and criteria are additionally needed to make the use compatible with other permitted activities in the same vicinity and zone and to ensure against imposing excessive demands upon public utilities, and these shall be addressed as conditions of approval. 15. With the modified proposal plus the conditions of approval set forth below, the variance will: a) not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with limitations on other properties in the vicinity and similar zone; b) ensure that the intent and purpose of the Zoning Code is achieved with regard to location, site design, appearance, landscaping, etc.; and c) protect the environment, public interest and general welfare. CONCLUSIONS 1. The requested variance is denied for a variety of reasons. 2. All too frequently the variance process is regarded as a general dispensing devise to relieve landowners of inconvenient zoning restrictions whenever neighbors fail to resist (Richard L. Settle, Washington land Use and Environmental Law and Practice, 1983, p. 49). RP -Decision VE -14-92; Cornett CASE NO. VE -14-92 SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR PAGE 4 3. A presumption of validity exists for a 55 foot setback from the centerline of the right of way. The burden of proof is on the applicant to show that a hardship or practical difficulty exists relative to the land itself which would similarly afflict any owner/occupant and that any relief given is still short of the granting a special privilege. 4. There is only one 3 car garage in the entire neighborhood, and it is constructed contrary to its site plan, which site plan indicated that a variance was not needed at the time that it was build in 1981. Granting a variance to the degree requested and for a 3 car garage based to any degree upon the proximity of a similar but nonconforming use could prove destructive to the County's zoning objectives. Ling v. Watcom Cy Dg. of Adj. 21 Wn. App. 497, 500, 585 P.2d 815 (1978). In actuality the nearby nonconforming garage has a 6 foot violation and should have been subject to the variance process, even under the rules in force at the time. The typical garage for the size of house and this vicinity and similar zone is 2 car garage. The applicant has asked permission to build a longer garage than necessary, which is not affected by the variance once a variance is granted. The variance granted in this case is a moderately liberal allowance for a 2 car width garage. The approved site plan indicates an interior dimension of approximately 21 feet 9 inches and an exterior dimension of approximately 23 feet. This dimension may be varied slightly by the Zoning Adjustor, upon request, and based upon a demonstration that there is not enough room for car door swings, storage on the side walls of the garage or that two normal single garage doors openings would require a wider building etc. 5. The applicant's reasoning that the 3 car, larger garage is necessary to accommodate his hydroplane racing hobby is not valid justification for a variance. This practical difficulty or is a self imposed; whereas, the hardship asserted must be one a typical owner would have. Most courts and zoning regulations deny variances where non land reasons are asserted as grounds for granting a variance. (Allison V. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 508 A. 2d 639 (Pa. commw. Ct. 1986); Fact: that owner had so many things in his garage that he needed more room to store his collection of classic cars not valid reason to permit expansion of garage.) Evidence of a difficulty that will support a variance must be related to the land itself and not to the owner -applicant. Martel v. Vancouver, 35 Wn. App. 250, 256, 666 P. 2d 916 (1983). 6. The variance requested is greater than the variance granted to the property to the west and greater than that for the property to the northwest and the immediate north. Thus the privilege being asked for is not a common privilege; but, a special privilege and contrary to RCW 36.70.810 (2). 7. The only special circumstance that appears to exist regarding the property is the logical location of an attached garage, as entered from Sinto Avenue, located on the west side of the residence. The space is too narrow for even a single car garage, let alone a double car garage. Therefore, certainly a variance of the flanking street setback to allow the construction of an attached 2 car garage, is common (privilege) to the area. The property is not otherwise deprived of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and the similar zone classification. 8. There are no uniquely similar situations in this vicinity and similar zone classification. In each instance described above, the variance requested by the applicant RP -Decision VE -14-92; Cornett CASE NO. VE -14-92 SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR PAGE 5 exceeds either existing conditions, non conforming or otherwise, or variances of record granted in the area. 9. The property, with the approved 2 car garage, makes this property subject to a reasonable use and circumstances when compared to others in the area. When compared directly to the houses to the immediate east which have no garage at all, this parcel with a 2 car garage, becomes far more common to the area with respect to other construction throughout the Owen's Subdivision to the north and west. 10. If the variance were granted for a 3 car garage to be located within 14 feet of the curb, (9 feet of the property line), a precedent would be set; the result of which would be dismantling the Zoning Code's setback regulations. The promiscuous, unprincipled granting of variances is assigned much of the blame for the dismal performance of functional zoning. (Richard L. Settle, Washington Land Use and Environmental Law and Practice, 1983, p. 49.) This is an authority and power not granted to the Zoning Adjustor or Board of Adjustment. 11. Although not implicitly stated in the law, it is a common precept of variance law that the variance granted should be the least one necessary to overcome the disadvantage to the property when viewed from the perspective of any owner of the property. A special privilege is not to be extended to a person or persons who have special personal needs; as this results in the establishment of a special privilege in recognition of a self-created practical difficulty or hardship. 12. Although not germane to this permit, it is appropriate to point out that the present regulations prohibit the erection of anything other than a 3 foot solid or 4 foot see-through fence in the flanking street yard area. Any fence taller than any of the ones mentioned above would have to be constructed at the structure setback (55 feet from the centerline of the Woodlawn right of way). DECISION From the foregoing Findings and Conclusions, the Zoning Adjustor DENIES the proposal as generally set forth in the file documents and APPROVES a variance sufficient to accommodate a 2 car attached garage attached to the west side of the residence, subject to compliance with the following CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL I. GENERAL 1. The following conditions 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 Code for Spokane County and be subject to such enforcement as is appropriate. RP -Decision VE -14-92; Cornett CASE NO. VE -14-92 SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR PAGE 6 3. The Zoning Adjustor may administratively make minor adjustments to site plans or the conditions of approval as may be judged by the Zoning Adjustor to be within the context of the original decision. II. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1. This parcel shall not be further subdivided unless consistent with RCW 58.17, the various county subdivision regulations and the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan for the area. 2. The applicant shall develop subject property generally in accordance within the concept approved by the Hearing Body. Variations, when approved by the Planning Director/designee, may be permitted, including, but not limited to building location, landscape plans and general allowable uses of the permitted zone. All variations must conform to regulations set forth in the Zoning Code for Spokane County, and the original intent of the development plans shall be maintained. The file contains a site plan with a blue outline of the approved garage. (Copy attached). III. DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS 1. The issuance of a building permit by the Department of Buildings is required. 2. Requirements of Fire District No. 1 need to be satisfied during the building or occupancy permit process. None is needed. IV. DIVISION OF UTILITIES V. HEALTH DISTRICT None is needed. VI. DIVISION OF ENGINEERING AND ROADS None is needed. NOTICE: PENDING COMPLETION OF ALL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WHICH NEED TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE, PERMITS MAY BE RELEASED PRIOR TO THE LAPSE OF THE TEN (10) -DAY APPEAL PERIOD. HOWEVER, THE COUNTY HAS NO LIABILITY FOR EXPENSES AND INCONVENIENCE INCURRED BY THE APPLICANT IF THE PROJECT APPROVAL IS OVERTURNED OR ALTERED UPON APPEAL. RP -Decision VE -14-92; Cornett CASE NO. VE -14-92 SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR PAGE 7 DATED this <9,3 (1day of June, 1992. FILED: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) THO . MOSHER, AICP g Adjustor nty, Washington Spo Applicant (Certified/Return Receipt Mail) Opponents of Record Spokane Division of Engineering and Roads Spokane County Health District Spokane County Division of Utilities Spokane County Department of Buildings Spokane County Fire Protection District No. 1 Planning Department Cross-reference File and/or Electronic File NOTE: ONLY THE APPLICANT OR AN OPPONENT OF RECORD MAY FILE AN APPEAL WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE ABOVE DATE OF SIGNING. APPEAL MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A $120.00 FEE. APPEALS MAY BE FILED AT THE SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT, BROADWAY CENTRE BUILDING, NORTH 721 JEFFERSON STREET, SPOKANE, WA 99260 (Section 14.412.042 of the Zoning Code for Spokane County). RP -Decision VE -14-92; cornett —roPo[,ePr-PH SL ri-G2r'D`L To S aTrf 6 A55 N„ -i'r;AAj;1\ a'r:V (X11 +lel' 5/2 20 EJL 0 iL / cLiftiocal- 1151Yaipti)t) T4 0 0'2,211"