1994, 03-17 Variance Findings, Conclusions ti
1 ZONING ADJUSTOR
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
IN THE MATTER OF A VARIANCE FROM )
MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK ) FINDINGS OF FACT,
REQUIREMENT ) CONCLUSIONS,
FILE: VE-02-94 ) AND DECISION
APPLICANT: HENRY HASSE )
COMPANION FILE(S): NONE )
APPLICATION DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to build a porch with a
setback of 46 feet from the center line of N. Vista Road right of way; whereas section
14.616.325.A.1. of the Zoning Code of Spokane County requires a minimum of 55 feet from
the center line of the roadway right of way. 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.
PROJECT LOCATION: Generally located in the Spokane Valley on the southwest corner
of Vist. ' ..r• . I• ..Avenu 'Ole NW 1/4 of Section 18,Township 25N, Range
44E • 7 N. Vista Road. Parcel umber: 45182.0904
OPPONE i -REe6RDF--NONE
PUBLIC HEARING AND DECISION: After consideration of all available information
on file,one or more site visits, exhibits submitted and testimony received during the course of
the public hearing held on March 9, 1994, the Zoning Adjustor rendered a written decision on
March 17, 1994 to APPROVE the application as set forth in the file documents and as
conditioned below.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
1. Testimony was taken under oath.
2. The proposal is described above and detailed in documents contained in the file. A
special consideration in this project has to do with the existing,constructed, older dwelling unit
located on the parcel. The dwelling unit was, and is still, in dire need of a new roof. The
contractor engaged to do the roof work,proceeded to do so by removing the entire porch on
the Vista Road side of the building. The roof was simply supported by several posts and
covered an entry 'stoop' to the front door, several steps leading up the 'stoop', and a small
concrete patio connecting the'stoop' to the driveway. Upon inquiring of the County about
rebuilding the porch, the contractor learned that the removal of the porch necessitated a new
building permit, which in turn would have the porch roof conform with the setback.
Complying with the present setback standard of 55 feet from the centerline of the road would
not allow the porch to be built as it previously existed. The applicant seeks relief from the
standard in order to rebuild the porch roof as it existed prior to its removal.
3. 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.
•
CASE NO. VE-02-94 SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR PAGE 2
4. The site is zoned Urban Residential 3.5 (UR-3.5), which allows the proposed use
upon approval of this application.
5. The existing land uses in the area of the proposal are residential, all of which are
compatible with the proposal. Many of the setbacks from Vista Road in the area appeared,
upon observation during a field trip, to be the same or similar to the setback requested by the
applicant.
6. 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).
7. The reasons for granting the variance, as set forth by the applicant, are as follows.
The applicant states that, except for the unauthorized removal of the porch roof by the
contractor, he would not be in this predicament. He also states that without the porch roof
overhanging the front'stoop' area by at least 1 112 to 2 feet,rain and melting snow drips onto
the porch. The water and ice then drain toward the dwelling unit and infiltrate the house;
resulting in water in the living room. Without the porch being added back on, his house will
suffer a substantial decline in usefulness, safety and value. His maintenance costs would
increase in order to keep recovering from water damage.
8. While not specifically relating to the land itself,the special circumstance does relate
to the property as it encompasses the building. There is no administrative process to handle the
oversight of the contractor in removing the porch roof and then not being able to rebuild it as it
was before, except to use the variance process.
9. No adverse testimony or written comments were received regarding the proposal.
10. The applicant is hereby advised that Vista Road is a collector arterial in the County's
Arterial Road Plan. As such,it is likely to be widened to as much as a 70 foot right of way.
Based on requiring an equal amount of right of way from each side of the street, that would
require an additional 15 feet of right of way to be acquired from the front yard of the subject
property. The Arterial Road Plan then calls for setbacks to be 25 feet from that. Such a 25
foot setback would intrude into the main portion of the house. The applicant is simply advised
of this future likelihood, the prospects of future land acquisition, and the requirements that
future setbacks may have on this property.
11. The applicant has been made aware of the recommendations of various County
agencies reviewing this project .
12. 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.
13. The proper legal requirements for advertising of the hearing before the Zoning
Adjustor of Spokane County have been met.
HD/VE-2-94 Decision
•
CASE NO. VE-02-94 SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR PAGE 3
DECISION
From the foregoing Findings and Conclusions, the Zoning Adjustor APPROVES
the proposal as generally set forth in the file documents, 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 as long as the present dwelling unit exists on the site. See
file for photographs.
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.
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. The variance is approved to a distance of approximately 46 feet from the center line
of right of way. This equates to 26 feet from the front property line. Lacking a definitive
measurement from either of these two reference points,the approved concept is to allow a roof
overhang of approximately 1 1/2 to 2 feet east of the east edge of the raised front porch'stoop,'
which is also approximately equivalent to the easterly edge of the wood screen erected on the
north side of the raised front porch 'stoop.' The roof may be supported by numerous posts
established 1 1/2 to 2 feet west of the edge of the intended roof.
III. DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS
1. The applicant shall contact the Department of Buildings at the earliest possible stage
of design/development in order to be informed of code requirements administered/enforced as
authorized by the State Building Code Act. Design/development concerns include: Fire
Apparatus Access Roads; Fire Hydrant/Flow; Approved Water Systems: Building
Accessibility; Construction Type; Occupancy Classification;Exiting;Exterior Wall Protection;
and Energy Code Regulations.
2. The construction plans shall be approved by the Zoning Adjustor.
HD/VE-2-94 Decision
CASE NO. VE-02-94 SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR PAGE 4
IV. DIVISION OF UTILITIES
None is needed.
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
RtLEASED 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.
DATED this 17th day of March, 1994.
•THOMAS . M!SHER, AICP
Zo ' : Adustor
Spokane Co• . i Washington
FILED:
1) Applicant(Certified/Return Receipt Mail)
2) Opponents of Record
3) Spokane Division of Engineering and Roads
4) Spokane County Health District
5) Spokane County Division of Utilities
6) Spokane County Department of Buildings
7) 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$200.00 FEE. APPEALS MAY BE FILED AT
THE SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT,PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING,
1026 W. BROADWAY, SPOKANE,WA 99260 (Section 14.412.042 of the Zoning Code for
Spokane County).
HD/VE-2-94 Decision